JFK Forum: Rules of Behaviour and other points

[Michael Schweitzer]

John, I applaud your rules. And I am compelled to report a deplorable violation of Rule iv by LEN COLBY.

A few days ago, Colby suddenly posted a demand that I explain why I quit practicing law. I replied I have no obligation to answer him. Then he escalated his demand in two further posts equivalent to an FBI interrogation about my career. When I declined to answer both, Colby posted a false statement that my law license expired years ago, then a second statement that charged me with criminal behavior. Colby stated I am illegally practicing law without a license. His claim is false. I remain a member of the State Bar of California. I switched to inactive status when I retired and no longer practice law.

Colby appears driven to destroy my reputation. Maybe he dislikes my position on certain issues. But his attack reveals a vindictive nature and a possibly disruptive purpose. I have experience detecting infiltrators. Interrogating others about themselves is an infiltrator tactic I’ve seen before. I have also noticed posts by other members complaining Colby seems to turn every discussion into a “Colby discussion.” Hijacking a discussion and misleading it into non-productive territory is another infiltrator tactic I’ve seen before. No forum that discusses the JFK assassination is infiltrator-free. I’ve seen derailment tactics by certain individuals on Facebook, too. Proceed as you wish. But a mole seems to be at work here. And if he victimizes me, he can turn and fire at anyone.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that my description of Colby's posts against me is true and correct.

Best regards.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer

[Michael Schweitzer]

Removed two of the posts on the Q&A thread. Please do not bring up personal information on or make threats to other posters. I know this has happened before, but it should not be so. We all know we are not supposed to do this, so why do it?

This forum is a place to post research and exchange ideas. Try to keep that in mind moving forward.

If you don't like it, you are free to go somewhere else.

Kathy I realize that it’s not easy being a moderator but the expiry date of Schweitzer’s law license is a matter of public record, just as are the basic details regarding the licenses of all other past and present members of the California Bar and most, if not all, licensed professionals in the US. Additionally this information was already disclosed by Tom a few posts upstream in the same thread. So I kindly request that you either make my post visible or make Tom’s invisible. I think the validity of his law license is relevant for two reasons 1) he uses his law background as a reason for taking his claims seriously 2) he has made contradictory claims as to when he retired and the expiration date of the license suggests both were wrong, this goes to credibility.

Another Colby falsehood. My continuing membership in the State Bar of California is public record. My State Bar No. is 107208 and my status is inactive, not expired, because I have retired and no longer practice law. I can resume my practice at any time by simply contacting the State Bar and paying the difference between my inactive dues and active dues.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer

[Len Colby]

OK I stand corrected not "expired" but "inactive" and "not eligible to practice law" since well before you claim to have retired.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Len Colby

[Michael Schweitzer]

OK I stand corrected not "expired" but "inactive" and "not eligible to practice law" since well before you claim to have retired.

"Not eligible to practice law" lasted for one month, while my dues payment was processed. The record then states "suspension lifted." You omit that part, just as you omit "Disciplinary history: None." Excerpting two lines of my record out of context is misleading. My ethical record with the State Bar is unblemished. Your ethical record here is not.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Michael Schweitzer, I disapproved your thread and it is temporarily invisible. Please do not start another thread for the purpose of criticizing another member or protesting about another member. We "get" it. When you are reduced to threatening another member in a thread you began to confront that member, you've made his day.

You were baited and you reacted so as to encourage the same process to be initiated and played out over and over. Read the threads, note the repetitive process. The bait is put out almost constantly. Do not take the bait.

Each time someone takes the bait and moderators are thus steered to moderate the baitee instead of the baiter, more encouragement for the next set up also feeds the process. It is old, it is boring, but it continues.

There is an "ignore" option you could select instead, and there is a "report" button you can use to report to moderators the posted statements of another that have set you off.

[Michael Schweitzer]

Tom, you're the one who started the problem by recklessly posting excerpts from my State Bar history. You ended with the statement "Not Eligible To Practice Law." You didn’t bother to include the explanation I was "not eligible" only during a suspension for a fee nonpayment. Your negligence set bait for others to seize and compelled me to defend myself. If you don't want me posting in my defense, don't post misleading half-truths about me. Your post was gratuitous and irresponsible and you have only yourself to blame for all that followed.

[Len Colby]

OK I stand corrected not "expired" but "inactive" and "not eligible to practice law" since well before you claim to have retired.

"Not eligible to practice law" lasted for one month, while my dues payment was processed. The record then states "suspension lifted." You omit that part, just as you omit "Disciplinary history: None." Excerpting two lines of my record out of context is misleading. My ethical record with the State Bar is unblemished. Your ethical record here is not.

There is no reason for parallel debates on two threads there is no indication on your State Bar webpage that you suspension was lifted. See my reply here:

http://educationforu...50

Edited November 3, 2012 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Tom, you're the one who started the problem by recklessly posting excerpts from my State Bar history. You ended with the statement "Not Eligible To Practice Law." You didn’t bother to include the explanation I was "not eligible" only during a suspension for a fee nonpayment. Your negligence set bait for others to seize and compelled me to defend myself. If you don't want me posting in my defense, don't post misleading half-truths about me. Your post was gratuitous and irresponsible and you have only yourself to blame for all that followed.

In case anyone missed it Tom and I are not exactly friends but in this case I'll come to his defense, his post accurately reflected Schweitzer's status as indicated on the webpage.

[Michael Schweitzer]

Tom, you're the one who started the problem by recklessly posting excerpts from my State Bar history. You ended with the statement "Not Eligible To Practice Law." You didn’t bother to include the explanation I was "not eligible" only during a suspension for a fee nonpayment. Your negligence set bait for others to seize and compelled me to defend myself. If you don't want me posting in my defense, don't post misleading half-truths about me. Your post was gratuitous and irresponsible and you have only yourself to blame for all that followed.

In case anyone missed it Tom and I are not exactly friends but in this case I'll come to his defense, his post accurately reflected Schweitzer's status as indicated on the webpage.

Another Colby falsehood.

[Michael Schweitzer]

OK I stand corrected not "expired" but "inactive" and "not eligible to practice law" since well before you claim to have retired.

"Not eligible to practice law" lasted for one month, while my dues payment was processed. The record then states "suspension lifted." You omit that part, just as you omit "Disciplinary history: None." Excerpting two lines of my record out of context is misleading. My ethical record with the State Bar is unblemished. Your ethical record here is not.

There is no reason for parallel debates on two threads there is no indication on your State Bar webpage that you suspension was lifted. See my reply here:

http://educationforu...50

Another Colby falsehood. Look at the dates. There is a date of suspension, and a date of return to active status.

[Michael Schweitzer]

TOM AND KATHY:

DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO MY STATE BAR MEMBERSHIP FROM THE COMMENTS TO MY ESSAY. They do not belong there and are highly misleading. I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar. No one seeing a posted excerpt from my record would know those facts and may attribute a negative significance to the status change. I need only point to the ceaseless attacks by Len Colby as an example of malicious use of the excerpt. I expect these deletions will occur without delay.

[Guest Tom Scully]

TOM AND KATHY:

DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO MY STATE BAR MEMBERSHIP FROM THE COMMENTS TO MY ESSAY. They do not belong there and are highly misleading. I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar. No one seeing a posted excerpt from my record would know those facts and may attribute a negative significance to the status change. I need only point to the ceaseless attacks by Len Colby as an example of malicious use of the excerpt. I expect these deletions will occur without delay.

Publicly available information regarding your California Bar Assoc. status was first posted in an effort to discourage Len from baiting you. You are the only one who has posted non-publicly available information related to your status. Your chances of persuading us to comply with demands to delete publicly available information initially posted with intent favorable to you are slim.

How many posts and threads will you devote to this? Do not post threats or demands. Drop this. You are responsible for the details in your own posts. You have no reasonable grievance to justify imploring moderators of this forum to meet you demands or your deadline. Len Colby will continue to bait you as long as you continue to take the bait. Please stop posting about these issues. Report posts you believe violate forum rules using the report button below the post. Stop disrupting the forum. Use the ignore option instead of reading posts you know will bait you.

[Len Colby]

OK I stand corrected not "expired" but "inactive" and "not eligible to practice law" since well before you claim to have retired.

"Not eligible to practice law" lasted for one month, while my dues payment was processed. The record then states "suspension lifted." You omit that part, just as you omit "Disciplinary history: None." Excerpting two lines of my record out of context is misleading. My ethical record with the State Bar is unblemished. Your ethical record here is not.

There is no reason for parallel debates on two threads there is no indication on your State Bar webpage that you suspension was lifted. See my reply here:

http://educationforu...50

Another Colby falsehood. Look at the dates. There is a date of suspension, and a date of return to active status.

Replied to here:

\http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18521&st=150#entry262383

[Michael Schweitzer]

TOM AND KATHY:

DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO MY STATE BAR MEMBERSHIP FROM THE COMMENTS TO MY ESSAY. They do not belong there and are highly misleading. I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar. No one seeing a posted excerpt from my record would know those facts and may attribute a negative significance to the status change. I need only point to the ceaseless attacks by Len Colby as an example of malicious use of the excerpt. I expect these deletions will occur without delay.

Publicly available information regarding your California Bar Assoc. status was first posted in an effort to discourage Len from baiting you. You are the only one who has posted non-publicly available information related to your status. Your chances of persuading us to comply with demands to delete publicly available information initially posted with intent favorable to you are slim.

How many posts and threads will you devote to this? Do not post threats or demands. Drop this. You are responsible for the details in your own posts. You have no reasonable grievance to justify imploring moderators of this forum to meet you demands or your deadline. Len Colby will continue to bait you as long as you continue to take the bait. Please stop posting about these issues. Report posts you believe violate forum rules using the report button below the post. Stop disrupting the forum. Use the ignore option instead of reading posts you know will bait you.

You put it up. Take it down. It is deceitfully out of context and misleading. And if you posted it to try to stop Colby, that's like saying you tried to put out a brush fire with gasoline. You don't dissemble well, so don't try.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer

[Len Colby]

TOM AND KATHY:

DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO MY STATE BAR MEMBERSHIP FROM THE COMMENTS TO MY ESSAY. They do not belong there and are highly misleading. I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar. No one seeing a posted excerpt from my record would know those facts and may attribute a negative significance to the status change. I need only point to the ceaseless attacks by Len Colby as an example of malicious use of the excerpt. I expect these deletions will occur without delay.

LOL you just directly contradicted earlier claims:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18521entry262402

Also let me know if you finally managed to locate the link to my bio. I want to return it to normal type.