Has Kal Korff the famous Bigfoot, Roswell & Meier debunker flipped his lid?

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 1A—
Paul Kimball’s Comment & My Response[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

as he used the word "witness" in the context of a trial, it is my opinion (backed up by any legal dictionary you care to look at) that he was making, as Stan Friedman would say, a "false claim".

I hadn't noticed where you used the phrase "context of a trial."

Making it even worse is the FACT (as Kal would say) [neat thrust--RK] that only a court of law, after a voir dire, can qualify a person as an "expert witness".

I worry that, in informal usage, the definition has been stretched to include persons who merely CAN testify as experts, and that Kal can find such instances. (For instance, the Random House Dictionary seemingly includes expert witnesses under definition #2, and makes no requirement that they be qualified by a judge.) An instance of this informal usage is found in the mere existence of "Directories of Expert Witnesses." These are people who are merely prepared to testify--who "can" testify--but who have not yet passed any qualification to do so. Hence I didn't use that tight definition in my post, but argued that it wouldn't matter.

In order to confirm this, I went to Google and typed "definition (expert witness)". I then went to one of the top items, which gathers definitions from the web, and copied and pasted them here (below), for future reference, in case they're needed.. The link to the page I took them from is:
define:EXPERT WITNESS - Google Search

I've boldfaced portions of two entries that fail to mention a requirement for the expert witness to be qualified by a judge. This is in accordance with informal usage, which Kal could quote to show that there is such a thing as a free-floating expert-witness. So there's enough looseness in the definition for Kal to say that "(free-floating) expert witness" = "consultant". Rather than butt heads endlessly with him on this disputable technical point, and tear my hair out while he parades a passel of lawyers on YouTube proclaiming that a loose definition of "expert witness" is perfectly OK, I decided that a better strategy would be to concede the point, to avoid giving him access to a diversionary dodge.

===========
Related phrases: expert witness testimony

Definitions of EXPERT WITNESS on the Web:

* Wiggens & Dana Bearings and stress analysis
www.rapid-response-consulting.com/rstvvvv.html

* a witness who has been shown to the Court to be qualified by their special knowledge skill or experience (scientific, technical, or other) and who can testify as an expert in a specific field. Expert witnesses can give opinions based on their special knowledge or skill.
courts.delaware.gov/How%20To/court%20proceedings/

* This is a person whom the court considers to have sufficient expertise in their field that she/he can testify about more than what she/he has seen or heard. She/he can tell the court what conclusions she/he reaches as a result of certain facts and she/he can give her/his opinions about the facts. Only expert witnesses can testify about their opinions. ...
www.owjn.org/info/glossar3.htm

* A witness with specialized knowledge of a particular subject who is called to testify about an event even though they were not present when the event occurred.
www.sphinxlegal.com/sphinx/content/freeresources/glossaryresult.asp

* A person who is a specialist in a subject, often technical, who may present his or her expert opinion without having been a witness to any occurrence relating to the lawsuit. Expertise may be challenged, and the trial judge has discretion based on court examination of the expert's background to qualify the witness or rule he or she is not an expert, or is an expert on limited subjects. ...
www.cancermesothelioma.com/html/glossary.html

* An individual who possesses specialized knowledge through skill, education, training, or experience beyond that of the ordinary person or juror, and whose knowledge will aid the trier of fact (jury, judge, arbitrator) in reaching a proper decision. Often, a health care provider who examines and evaluates a patient in anticipation of litigation.
www.adlergiersch.com/legal.cfm

* someone who by their experience can offer an opinion on a matter before the court. He or she should be able to present highly technical matters in language which can be easily understood by non experts. The expert must be able to justify his or her professional opinion under cross examination.
www.it-expert-witness.co.uk/glossary.htm

* A person who has training, education or experience on a particular subject and who is formally found to be qualified as an expert by a judge. The expert witness may give opinions in court on matters in which his or her expertise is relevant. Nonexpert witnesses normally cannot give opinions in response to questions in court, but must speak only to facts.
caag.state.ca.us/publications/victimshandbk/cvhglos.htm

* Person who has special training, knowledge, skill, or experience in an area relevant to resolution of the legal dispute and who is allowed to offer an opinion as testimony in court.
www5.aaos.org/oko/vb/online_pubs/professional_liability/glossary.cfm

* This is a witness who usually has special knowledge in a particular field and may provide opinions or evidence to support or refute a claim. Expert witnesses include doctors, engineers, economists and accident reconstructionists. Experts are usually paid for their time at a professional rate, while lay witnesses are not.
www.sharrardlaw.com/dictionary.html

* One acknowledged to have special training and knowledge of a particular and testifying on that subject.
www.massrelaw.org/glossary/e.htm

* a witness who has knowledge not normally possessed by the average person concerning the topic that he is to testify about
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, or profession, or experience, is believed to have special knowledge of his subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely his opinion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

 

[jritzmann]

Is he a stand-up, straight talking, 'just-the-facts' watchdog of the UFO community? No, he's an opinionated amatuer like the most of the egos in field. He put time and research into uncovering the work of obvious frauds, and discovered they were [gasp] obvious frauds.

Maybe if the moronic UFO/paranormal public would have more then a 30 second memory Royce wouldnt have to do what he does. Unfortunately we're in a situation where new people come to the study every day, and dont always know the facts of certain charlatans. Royce provides a serious service to those with short term memories or those who just arent familiar with the players.

 

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 1B—
PS to Kal’s YouTube “I WAS a Witness” Claim[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

(Note: I should have included this material in my “Part 1” post (#240), but I forgot. So I’m labeling this as a subset of that post. Therefore I went back and stuck a subset-title on my response-to-Kimball post (#241) above, for the sake of continuity. I made no other changes to that post.)
===========

Kal defended his “I was a witness” claim in a YouTube post of August 2, 2007, 9:38 minutes in length, titled “Paul Kimball GETS EXPOSED for Making FALSE CLAIMS.” It can be accessed at:

8CX_W1gTwYw

It contains no new arguments. But I need to address it for the sake of completeness.

He made the following statements:

Every attorney I have spoken to agrees with Jiri Adamcik [Kal’s lawyer] that Paul Kimball is wrong. You can certainly be a witness, and an expert witness, and it does not depend if you actually appear before a judge. What matters is if you’re used or your skills are used as a resource in a trial. Not all expert witnesses, or witnesses, appear before the court. It’s not necessary, OK?

So can you [Jiri Adamcik, pronounced Jirzi Adamcheck] explain about witnesses and is it possible for a person to be a witness but not appear before a judge and testify?

Yes, … a witness could be defined as a person who has the quality to help the part of [probable intended meaning: “a party in”] the trial to prove its claims. It is not necessary [probable intended meaning: “necessarily”] the person who appears before the court. It is a person who the party intends to use for helping to prove their claims before the court. … A witness is a person who has anything to say before the court, it’s not a person who said anything before the court.

This corresponds to the dictionary definitions 1 and 2 of “witness” that I quoted in Part 1 (post #240). I.e., a witness “to” or “on” something who “can” testify about it, but doesn’t necessarily do so. It has no relevance to the question at issue here: whether a witness “in” something, such as a trial, needn’t have testified. Let’s see Korff pose such a question about that to his lawyer:

“So can you explain about witnesses in a lawsuit, and is it possible for a person to be a witness in a lawsuit but not appear before a judge and testify?”

========

He [Kimball] then researches me, finds I didn’t appear before the judge as a witness—but I never claimed I did. I just said I was involved as a witness to talk to the prosecution [sic] lawyers, and I explained how to take apart the testimony of Robert Groden ….

No, he did NOT say that—not until it was forced out of him. That’s what he wishes he’d said. What he actually said was that he “was a key, expert witness in the O.J. Simpson murder trial civil lawsuit.”
===========

I just happened to recount something that had happened last millennium.

No he didn’t “just happen to recount” it. It wasn’t an off-the-cuff, informal remark. It was part of his online biography.
=============

So he [Kimball] says, “Trust me, as a lawyer,” you weren’t a witness.” Well, Paul, you’re wrong and you’re lying, OK, because I WAS, alright? I absolutely did brief the lawyers on how to take apart the testimony of Robert Groden.

Say, here’s an interesting question for Kal: Did the plaintiff’s lawyers pay you an expert-witness fee? After all, it’s normal when expert witnesses are employed, as they say, for them to be paid a fee. Anybody with some expertise can call up an attorney and offer him a few tips on how to handle his case. That doesn’t make him an expert witness—not in the sense that it’s used 99% of the time. It just makes him a kibitzer.

I’m going out on a limb here, and handed Kal an opportunity to make a crushingly sarcastic retort, because it’s very likely that he’d have been hired in a heartbeat. In such an important case there’d have been money spent freely to obtain every edge possible.

But it’s worth asking the question anyway, on the off-chance that Kal has puffed up his role a bit. He’s done it before. (E.g., in claiming to be on some sort of official advisor’s panel for the Cambridge dictionary, when (apparently) he only sent in a few suggestions for new entries. If he was on such a panel, it was probably only a pat on the head that every successful tip-suggester received.)

 

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 2[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

A. Kal’s Near-“Equivalence-ing” of Being an Uncalled-Witness with Being a Testifying Witness:

Because we were able to take him apart I didn’t need to go there. ... I was not called before the court because it wasn’t necessary—it didn’t go on as many days as needed … so I wasn’t called. That happens. That’s reality. I’m glad I didn’t have to go down there. So he’s wrong again.

Because he [Robert Groden] caved in early, it was not necessary for me to fly down to LA to appear before the judge because I was not needed any more at that point.

I was one of the star witnesses …. I was the expert witness who sank the testimony of Robert Groden…. We were able to show … that Mr. Groden’s testimony was not credible. And I was the guy that sank it ….

He’s claiming above that he as good as testified and that his mere physical absence hardly mattered. Let’s look at this through the analogy of our Super-Bowl “player.” One of his sins was his implication that his being a play-caller was virtually the same as being the quarterback, suggesting that therefore there was no real harm in letting his audience infer that he had played that role.

It could, of course, be justly said that, objectively speaking, strategy is as important as execution in winning a football game. (The great importance of strategy in American football is what makes it superior to soccer, IMO.) So a good play-calling strategist could be justly characterized as a more important being than a quarterback, especially if the latter is a bonehead who couldn’t cross a street without a map. Sportswriters and fans therefore give football coaches a lot of credit (and blame) for their teams’ performance.

A parallel situation exists in other areas. In physics, for example, the theoreticians are more important than the experimentalists. Likewise, in other fields, “armchair researchers” can make a greater contribution than “case investigators.” Nero Wolfe, Rex Stout’s stay-at-home detective, was the most familiar example. Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock’s smarter elder brother, was another.

Nevertheless, “the man in the arena” is the person the gals, and others, really twitter over. Hence, because the public and the media over-rate his importance, it is self-aggrandizing (and therefore improper) for a person to imply that he had been a gladiator.

After all, the quarterback has “faced the music”: he’s taken the risk of making a public fool of himself by getting up on stage; he’s handled the hits, hung onto the ball, kept his cool, captained his team, etc. That’s not mere “execution”—it partakes of the heroic; and no one is entitled to a hero’s laurels who has not done a hero’s deed.

If you want to say that you’re a football wizard because, although you sat on the bench throughout the game, the coach later privately called you the real star of the Super Bowl, go right ahead. I’m prepared to be impressed and give due weight to your opinions on that subject. Just don’t fudge the facts and say you were “in” the Super Bowl when you weren’t. That’s a No-No.

*****

Similarly, it’s more impressive to the public to actually have taken the witness stand than to have been an off-scene consigliere, because a witness has to make a credible impression and then “face the music” by withstanding cross-examination. So there’s a self-serving motive for claiming witness-status: status in the public eye.

There’s a strong temptation to “make out like we’re somthin’”—but it must be resisted even more strongly or soon we’ll be up to our neck in the ooze. We’re waist-deep in it already. Fudging facts on ones own behalf, even slightly, sets a bad precedent. Others will feel entitled to follow in your footsteps—and some of them will touch up their accomplishments a bit more. At the end of the day no one will be able to object to even the most abominable whoppers, because the guilty parties will respond by pointing to the accuser’s precedent-setting prevarications.

Therefore, although it may seem harsh, critics are justified in taking a strong line against anyone who shades the truth. All such gray lies must be nipped in the bud, else we’ll step onto a slippery-slope and wind up in the soup. (Metaphor mixed by Waring™.)

That’s one good reason to avoid “gilding the lily.” Another reason for being scrupulous is that honesty is the best policy. A prevaricator’s listeners will apply a ton-of-salt discount to any further claims he might make. His other claims might be true, or might even be understated, but people would will still say, “I won’t be fooled again.” Worse, his enemies might tag him with a sticky nickname like “Duper-Bowl Dan,” or “Key-Witness Kal,” as the case might be.

**********

BTW, here’s a far-out possibility I’d like to see looked into: Is Kal’s name on the prospective-witness list submitted to the judge before the trial by the plaintiff’s lawyers? (I’m not sure, but I believe there is such a thing.) If not, then Kal’s Comments above, and other comments I haven’t quoted, are misleading, because they imply that he was scheduled to testify.

**********************************

B. Kal Claimed that Details of His OJ-Trial Involvement Were Common Knowledge and in the Public Record:

He [Kimball] says:

By noting simply that his [Korff’s] claim to have been an expert witness in the OJ Simpson trial was inaccurate …

Well, it’s not inaccurate. It was true. And Kimball wasn’t there. I was. And this was in the media years ago on the radio. There’s no question.

Korff’s involvement in the O.J. Simpson civil trial is “old news” (much to Kimball’s subsequent embarrassment), and was first broadcast on several radio stations in Texas in the late 1990s while Kimball was still busy studying in school; as the “X” Zone Radio Show broadcast subsequently proved.

I’m not going to deny my involvement in it. In fact it’s in my autobiography. So you know what you can do with your skepticism on this? Go to see my publisher. [Who he?—RK]

When Paul Kimball made these statements I just couldn’t believe it. I mean … this was in all the media, OK? It’s old news. It’s not a surprise.

But it WAS a surprise, because in no way, shape, or form were fuller details of Kal’s OJ-trial involvement “in all the media.” A few interviews on Texas radio stations, a chapter in his unavailable (and unreviewed) autobiography, and perhaps an equally obscure article somewhere, don’t add up to common knowledge, except in Kal’s supercharged wishful thinking. Only one person in ten thousand would have heard or read those accounts.

And no one could gain access to those accounts easily. I.e., they weren’t on the public record where anyone could look them up. A Google search would turn up thousands of hits, but not a link to a synopsis of a radio interview or the contents of an autobiography. A search of www.NewspaperArchive.com failed to turn up a single hit for Kal Korff. There was no bibliography on Kal’s website citing those sources. There was no way to buy his autobiography from his site, or from Amazon.

So Kal’s outrage at PK because “this was in all the media” must be feigned. In the circumstances, he should have given at least a citation to his obscure sources. Magister dixit:

A fact is a fact. Anybody should be able to double-check it.

After writing the above, a disturbing possibility has struck me: Kal’s outrage was not feigned. In other words, he may sincerely imagine that a star-struck world has been, or should have been, taking notes on all his interviews and tying a string around its finger to keep them all in mind. Wow. What sort of nut would do that? (Hey, wait a second—I’m doing that!)

But really, source-citations are absurdly beside the point. Even if he’d cited his sources, no one should have been asked to track down such obscure material. He should have spelled out his actual degree of involvement “up front.” There’s endless room on the Internet—and anyway it would have required only a single sentence. There was no excuse for his being so economical with the truth, when being frugal misleadingly glorified his role in the case.

Even if Texas-radio-type interviews had been broadcast recently on all the networks, he still couldn’t have assumed that more than half his readership would know of them. Furthermore, it wouldn’t have mattered if they all had known: there would still have been no excuse for making a misleading statement, except in a hurried conversational remark, or in a hurried posting on a forum. No one gets a free pass to make misleading statements just because once or twice he provided a more accurate version somewhere.

Shortly after his exchange with Kimball, Kal revised his website: he inserted the explanation below after the sentence claiming to be a key witness. That’s what he should have done in the first place—and then he should have removed the “key witness” phrase.

Korff used his unique expertise on Kennedy’s assassination to help prep and brief lawyers who then successfully cross-examined and subsequently destroyed the credibility of Simpson’s “photographic expert” and JFK “conspiracy buff,” Robert J. Groden.

Another disturbing possibility has just struck me: Kal may dismiss all I’ve written in this section as irrelevant, claiming that he was outraged only by the parenthetical phrase in Kimball’s statement below:

The charitable interpretation is that he embellished his role (if he actually had one) in the Simpson case.

But that’s only a single statement; in the Kal-quote atop this section, he referred to PK’s “statements,” plural. And Kimball made that unwise “parting shot” only in his second communication on the matter, in his “Glass Houses” post, not in his first one, his e-mail to XZone host Rob McConnell, which was the one that got Kal’s dander up. All PK’s other statements referred only to Kal’s claim to have been a witness in the lawsuit, not to his claim to have been involved in some way in the Simpson case. So an “irrelevant” dismissal of this section is out.

 

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 1C—
Re-post of and comment on Kal’s August 14 claim: “I have ALWAYS been CLEAR that I NEVER TESTIFIED”[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

Below is a paragraph from a lengthy blog-post by Kal to his site almost two weeks ago. It’s titled, “Paul Kimball Has Problems: Admitting the TRUTH and that he's Wrong.” There’s plenty more at the link below:
http://www.kalkorff.com/joomlatest/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191&Itemid=1

I’ve posted only a smidgen because I don’t want to lose access to his site by re-posting any large amount of text. I believe you have to register, as I have, to view the rest of it.

I (Kal Korff) have ALWAYS been CLEAR that I NEVER TESTIFIED at the Simpson trial in front of any judge, nor did I show up in court.

What baloney. First, on his site and in his XZone appearances, he uttered absolutely no words disavowing such a claim, nor did he specify that he witnessed only as a consultant to the plaintiff’s side. Either of those would be required to justify the words “I have ALWAYS been CLEAR.” A true statement, given their absence, is this: “I have RECENTLY been VAGUE.” (As I noted in Part 2 (post #143) above, he did spell out the details of his involvement in a couple of obscure venues long ago, neither available to the researcher.) [I've corrected this paragraph from an overstated version in my initial post about four hours ago.]

Second, he said on his site that he was a witness in the lawsuit, which means to any lawyer (and non-lawyer) that he testified under oath, either in court or in a deposition. His real role was as a consulting expert-witness, or (better) photo-expert, to the plaintiff’s lawyers. That’s easy enough to type out—half-a-dozen extra words. Any of the listees in an expert-witness directory would have used those words, if that was all they'd done.

And third, he elsewhere:
• Called himself “one of the star witnesses” (implying he played the same public role as did the other star witnesses; indeed, “star witness” in itself implies an in-public testifier) [This item was edited (expanded) on August 28];
• Said that he was the expert-witness who sank the testimony of the other side’s witness (implying participation on the same level as that other witness);
• Said, “I provided the expert testimony to tear down and tear apart Groden's testimony” (again implying participation on the same level as that other witness). (This was in his comment appended to Kimball’s December 29 blog-post.)

I quoted the paragraph containing the first two items in “Key-Witness Kal--Part 1” (see post 140 in this thread). I quote it again below:

I was one of the star witnesses in the O.J. Simpson civil lawsuit effort, which was successful. It resulted in a multi-million dollar award judgment. My specific involvement in that case was that I was the expert witness who sank the testimony of Robert Groden over the issue of whether the photos that showed Simpson wearing the Bruno Magli shoes were forgeries or not. They were arguing that they were, that he didn’t own the shoes. We were able to show that that’s not true and that Mr. Groden’s testimony was not credible. And I was the guy that sank it, and it* was accepted was accepted by the court and was one of many key factors in the ruling.

 

[jritzmann]

Prague Kals very own discussion board - Czech Republic

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Prague Kals very own discussion board - Czech Republic

I hope the porn there is as good as his other forum.

 

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 3[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

C. “Kimball Should Have Contacted Me First”:

Kimball … did no firsthand checking of his own, and never corresponded directly with Korff.

In one of his XZone appearances (which I’ve unfortunately failed to locate in my notes) Kal complained that it’s a violation of journalistic ethics, and impolite, not to contact the source of a remark and obtain clarification before printing a criticism of him.

First, there was nothing to discuss: When Kal claimed he was a witness “in a lawsuit” but his name wasn’t on the official list of witnesses, it was an open-and-shut case. He obviously had misrepresented his role.

Second, if Kimball were a reporter for a newspaper purporting to be objective, or even a columnist--sure he should check with his target before opening fire. But there’s no requirement for a mere opinion-slinging blogger to do so. Unlike a columnist for a newspaper or magazine, Kimball has no large built-in audience he could unduly influence, and his target has all the space he needs to fire back. So Kimball has no public responsibility to bend over backwards to be considerate and balanced.

Third, Kal had established, in some quarters, a reputation as a bad-faith opponent: self-righteous, self-indulgent, careless, and corner-cutting*. (See the Amazon reviews of his Roswell book, for instance.) So certain people, who were mightily offended by that sort of thing, weren’t going to put a kind word in his ear when he taped a Kick-Me sign on his back. It was Kal’s job, having set himself up as a finger-pointing “true-sader,” not to lay himself open himself to criticism by committing any “stretchers.”

The first rule of hubris is: if you're going to be a clever-clogs, make sure you're right, because readers won't cut you any slack if you're not.

(*Corner-cutting example: Korff’s claim that Randle & Schmidt misrepresented the testimony of Gen. Exon. See the Amazon review by Laura Knight-Jadczyk of Korff's Roswell book for details: Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know )

Fourth, Kal feels similarly avoidant about his enemies himself:

I’ve really not had much interaction with him [Mr. Kimball] at all because frankly he’s beneath my standards.

The feeling is mutual—so why expect people to interact with you?

… Korff had been such a self-righteous ass for so long that I can muster only a modicum of empathy for him.

D. “I WAS Involved” and “Paul Kimball wasn’t there”:

Kal has made many statements in the following vein:

He [Kimball] attacks me and says I wasn’t an expert witness or a witness in the OJ Simpson civil trial. Really? Well, Paul Kimball wasn’t there when I was involved in that event. When Paul Kimball says I wasn’t, he’s not telling the truth.

First, Kimball didn’t say (assert) that Kal wasn’t involved in any way, he merely conditionally raised the possibility:

… he embellished his role (if he actually had one) in the Simpson case.

Second, Kimball said that if Kal didn’t testify under oath, then he shouldn’t have said he was a witness in a lawsuit. Alas, he only implied those crucial last three words, which allowed Kal to dodge the bullet by claiming that he really did witness and testify: to his side’s lawyers*. But Kimball wasn’t “saying” (as Korff claims) that that never happened. He merely raised the possibility (with an “if”) that it hadn’t.

*(This consulting, however, was only unofficial, off-the-record testifying, not much different from what a person does when she sings, “I just want to testify / What your love has done for me.” It isn't what the audience is led to believe by the phase, "witness in a lawsuit.")

So Kal is setting up a strawman by saying “I was involved in that event . … Kimball says I wasn’t.” Kimball was saying only that Kal wasn’t involved in the trial as a witness, as Kal had claimed; and therefore, given the emptiness of that claim, that there was a possibility that he was making it all up.

Third, it muddies the waters a bit to say, “Kimball wasn’t there.” It sounds as though he’s chiding Kimball for not being among the audience at the trial. I.e., “there” will have a connotation, to many listeners, of “in the courtroom,” insinuating that Kal’s participation would have been apparent to an observer who took the trouble to look. This is most evident in the following remark:

When Paul Kimball made these statements I just couldn’t believe it. I mean, here’s a guy who’s not an American, he’s Canadian, he wasn’t there last century ….

What Kal should have said, if he wanted to keep things clear, was, “There’s no way Kimball could know if I was involved as a consulting-expert-witness, because such consultations are conducted in private.” But it sounds more damning to say, “He wasn’t there,” which implicitly makes Kimball look as though he’d been snuggling down in his armchair, instead of being up and about, chasing down facts. And, since Kal likes to take an accusatory stance, he took it.

 

[DBTrek]

I don't know.

Korff is getting stale. He's not even making sense anymore.

Our final example concerns our deliberate spelling of Paul Kimball's company as "Red Star" instead of "RedStar" which is the way Kimball spells it. Folks, it is NOT going to be until the OFFICIAL products come out, that we will spell the name of his company correctly. We also did this for Royce Myers III, having formerly spelled his name as "Meyers." We do this for the same reason we deliberately release LOW resolution excerpts from stuff we have been filming. The reason is to control possible leaks.

. . . so he freely sent Royce some pictures, and because he doesn't know how to spell the guys last name these pictures are somehow protected from leaking? Pass the crack rock, cuz' I don't get it.

It is also for this SAME REASON, that we often DO throw vague info out there, to basically TEST these so-called UFO "researchers."

Ah, he can spell, he's actually just testing the rest of us! By displaying the spelling skills of a second grader he's seeing how many people in the ufo community are able to identify a moron.

It's all part of the secret plan.

I'm going to misspell my signature now to protect this message from 'leaking'.

-DBTkre

 

[derekcbart]

Okay, this is a BS reply because I noticed that I wasn't getting emailed on when this thread was being updated anymore and I need to write a reply to get the email notification working again. Please ignore.

 

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 4[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

E. “Paul Kimball’s Not a Lawyer”:

Paul Kimball says he’s a lawyer, but according to people who went to the school he graduated from, you can’t be a lawyer unless you practice law.

That’s wrong; one can be a lawyer, and therefore call oneself a lawyer, without actively practicing law. There are many non-practicing lawyers in Congress and in law schools (as professors), for instance. They are usually referred to as lawyers, period. Qualification is used primarily when a lawyer wants to subtly differentiate himself from a head-in-the-clouds legal theorist (like a law professor or journal editor) by calling himself a “practicing attorney.”

Here are eight representative definitions of attorney and lawyer that I found by Googling for “definition (lawyer)”. Six of them explicitly define the sole requirement for being a lawyer as being certified to practice law (see the boldfaced words in the definitions), and one of them defines it implicitly. I’ve underlined the one exception. Thus, by consensus, a lawyer is a lawyer, whether he practices law or not.

* Attorney: A person legally appointed by another to act as his or her agent in the transaction of business, specifically one qualified and licensed to act for plaintiffs and defendants in legal proceedings.
--American Heritage Dictionary

* a professional person authorized to practice law; conducts lawsuits or gives legal advice
--wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A lawyer is a person licensed by the state to advise clients in legal matters and represent them in courts of law (and in other forms of dispute resolution). Most countries today require professional law advisors in their judicial systems. Lawyers have many names in different countries—including "advocate", "attorney", "barrister", "counselor", "civil law notary" and "solicitor"—and many of these names indicate specific classes or ranks of jurists. ...
--en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer

* from Latin advoco - invite - provides clients with their interest protection in different instances. He/she assists in protection of human rights and interests, makes legal consultations, represents citizen interests in the court, and stands as a defence attorney during criminal case investigation in the court.
--www.jobmarket.com.ua/en/professions_dict/en11

* A person that has been trained in the law and that has been certified to give legal advice or to represent others in litigation. Also known as a "barrister & solicitor" or an attorney.
--www.canadianlawsite.com/Dictionary_L.htm

* means a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. [Presumably “barrister” and “solicitor” are defined elsewhere (in this Australian definition) as being persons certified to practice, as in the Canadian definition above.]
--scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/2/1223/0/PA000130.htm

* A member of the legal profession. [i.e., one certified as such—not a practicing attorney.]
--www.fisicx.com/quickreference/politics/legalterms.html

* means a legal practitioner who is entitled to practise in the Court.
--www.fmc.gov.au/rules/html/dictionary.htm

For Paul Kimball to call himself a lawyer, that’s disingenuous, to use a legal term. Paul Kimball’s not a lawyer. He doesn’t practice law.
He needs to qualify that and say, “As a non-practicing attorney,” or “as someone who went to law school.”

Kimball’s blog-post had a sidebar giving his career highlights, from which it was clear that his next step after getting his LLD (sp?) was getting involved in movies, not practicing law (good for him!). So there was no intent to deceive.

This is unlike Kal Korff’s failure to explicitly mention that his employer is a private organization. (And that therefore his military rank is of the same type as a colonelship in the Salvation Army.) To wit:

My name is Kal Korff and I’m a colonel in the Israeli-based and Israeli-founded Special Secret Services.

Since being a colonel connotes working for a state-sanctioned organization, and “secret service” likewise connotes a state-sanctioned organization, it’s disingenuous for Kal not to renounce those connotations by using words such as, “in the Special Secret Services, a private Israeli organization.”

Using “in the Israeli-based and Israeli-founded Special Secret Services,” delicately skirts such a disavowal. Most readers will treat those words as mere place-of-origin background information. After all, the Mossad is also an Israeli-based and Israeli-founded organization, and that doesn’t disavow its state sanctioning. Most of his audience (except those who have learned from experience to “screw in their loupes” when perusing his claims) won’t twig to the clue—and they weren’t intended to.

2. Paul Kimball lied and claimed he was a "lawyer" and then in his very next Internet posting, but only after I (Kal Korff) confronted him on his lie, Kimball then changed his "story" and said that he NEVER said he was a lawyer!

Well, yes, Paul, you DID.

Do you not even read your OWN postings on your own blog? Since you are a one-man "show" per se who runs a one-man blog, WHO ELSE can you "blame" Paul? The answer is NO ONE, except yourself.

(Here’s a link to the larger post from which the above was taken: http://www.kalkorff.com/joomlatest/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=191&Itemid=1)

On Xzone radio, Kal has stated that he gets by on only four hours’ sleep. Disheveled commentary like that above is sorry evidence of the fact. That’s the charitable explanation for his fact-twisting. The uncharitable one is that He’s lost it—if indeed he ever had it.

Contrary to Kal, Kimball didn’t disavow being a lawyer. He just acknowledged that he wasn’t a practicing lawyer; and he added that he didn’t think such precision was necessary in an informal blog-post. I agree: it wasn’t as though Kimball had been:

• Formally describing his occupational qualifications or accomplishments, or
• Offering legal advice, either as a hobby or for remuneration, or
• Writing a letter to a periodical, or speaking on the air.

In such cases a specific disavowal would be called for. I suspect that professional codes of conduct, or guidelines, for lawyers recommend stating “non-practicing” only in situations such as those above. (Kal has alluded to such guidelines—in another quote that I’ve lost track of—to back up his position.) In other words, the context and purpose of saying “as a lawyer” determines whether qualification is appropriate.

(In addition, when arguing with a “no-holds-barred” opponent (Rob McConnell’s characterization), it’s prudent to fully qualify everything to avoid giving him a pretext he can seize upon as a diversion.)

Here’s an analogy. A psychiatrist tells a patient that a spot on the patient’s wrist looks worrisome. The patient replies that it’s just an age-spot. The shrink counters, “Speaking as a doctor, I can tell you that it’s not.” It doesn’t matter that he’s not a practicing physician. His years of study have taught him the basics. There’s no need for qualification about his credentials in a situation like that.

And neither was there a need in the situation in which Kimball made his comment. He wasn’t offering to draw up a will, or review a mortgage contract, or evaluate the rights and wrongs of some business-related squabble. Nothing complicated or freighted with financial consequences, in other words.

 

[Roger Knights]

[align=center][size=x-large]Key-Witness Kal: Part 1D[/size]

[size=large]Roger Knights[/size][/align]

Here are quotations from a 2004 book by David Livingston Smith, Why We Lie, that explain why I think Kal didn’t deliberately lie, and is indignant when accused of doing so.

In light of what follows, I’m removing, from my earlier post, “Key-Witness Kal, Part 1,” the quote from Blake about “a truth that’s told with bad intent,” because I don’t think Kal consciously intended to mislead. He just let his built-in Walter-Mitty module seize control and run away with his tongue and pen.

PS: I think it’s admirable that Kal wanted to see justice done in the Simpson case. If he offered his advice to the prosecution and plaintiffs without being paid, or even being asked, that is even more admirable. And it’s a feather in his cap that he’s knowledgeable enough about photos to be able to consult on the subject. But he ruined the nobility of what he did because he succumbed to the fatal temptation to swank.

Good liars, so the myth goes, always know what they are doing; they are calculating and exquisitely aware of their deceptions. People who lie without knowing that they are lying are thought to be at best confused and at worst insane. Evolutionary psychology opposes this cozy mythology. Lying is not exceptional; it is normal, and more often spontaneous and unconscious than cynical and coldly analytical. Our minds and bodies secrete deceit.
…………………..
The everyday game of strategic impression management seethes with deception.

Our impressive skill at thinking several moves ahead is a mixed blessing, for it makes us painfully conscious of the consequences awaiting those cheaters who trip up. … And the more nervous we become, the more likely we are to betray our dishonesty accidentally.
……………
If we could selfishly manipulate others while remaining blissfully innocent of our true intentions, this would go a long way to solving the Pinocchio problem.

As unconscious poker players, we can manipulate others while remaining innocent of many of our self-serving intentions. If accused, we can sincerely take offense and claim that it is all in the paranoid eye of the beholder. Self-deception about out own Machiavellian agenda also makes us relatively insensitive, on the conscious level anyway, to the selfishness of others. We sleep because waking would spoil the game.

I define lying as any form of behavior the function of which is to provide others with false information or to deprive them of true information.
………………..
Lying can be conscious or unconscious, verbal or nonverbal, stated or unstated.
……………….
Consider the cunning use of innuendo, strategic ambiguity, and crucial omission, as epitomized by Bill Clinton’s infamous declaration that he “did not very sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.”

The capacity for self-deceptive thoughts led our ancestors to actively and intentionally, albeit unconsciously, keep certain thoughts out of the spotlight of conscious awareness. A portion of the mind became specialized for generating and nurturing falsehoods maintained side-by-side with an unconscious grasp of reality.
……………..
Consequently, modern human beings are naïve realists who take for granted the accuracy of their misrepresentations of the social world.

If self-deception took root in the human mind because it enabled us to be better deceivers by protecting us from clever mind readers, … there is a deep fissure running through our inner landscapes.

Daniel C. Dennett argues that our minds harbor a seething crowd of competing versions of reality, all jostling for control.

Self-deception is perhaps made possible by a system of unconscious filters that select what information is suitable for public consumption (conscious awareness) and what must be held back. The choice of what to hide and what to reveal is based on an unconscious assessment of what is most likely to be advantageous in the politics of social life.

It is seriously unsettling to entertain the thought that we spend our lives being duped by our own minds. The mirror of consciousness distracts us by projecting a flattering self-portrait, leaving us free to pursue self-serving social machinations unconsciously, in the dark, undisturbed by conscience and unburdened by guilt.

Mother Nature has seen to it that the conscious mind is relatively blind to the nuances of social behavior. … [because] You cannot maintain a highly distorted conception of yourself together side by side with a true estimate of others. … If one is blind, one loses a whole dimension of experience.

Human beings have, and must have, an extraordinarily ambivalent attitude toward rules of social conduct. … We are prepared to accept the restrictions imposed by social regulations only if there is a hefty personal payoff for doing so.

Although we claim to value truth above all else, we are also at least dimly aware that there is something antisocial about too much honesty. This dilemma has often been portrayed in literature and film, from Dostoyevsky’s Prince Mishkin, whose innocence and honesty destroy the lives of those around him, to the 1997 film, Liar, Liar!, in which a lawyer wreaks havoc when he is placed under a spell condemning him to be truthful for 24 agonizing hours. Evolutionary biology suggests that no normal person would be capable of such a feat. We are all natural-born liars.

 

[Tommy Allison]

I've lied to myself repeatedly, that I could abstain from eating the chocolate bars I got on sale at Borders for a buck a piece. I told myself I would send them to friends, and good customers.

Instead... They met an untimely demise here at my home, and only 2 escaped the carnage.

This, unfortunately is 100 percent true. I ate 3 of these damned addictive things. They weren't little ones either. Do I have guilt? Oh yes I do, but they were soooooo tasty.

 

[Tommy Allison]

David, I kid you not, these damned Lindor Petit Dessert bars are fricking addictive. When I ran out, I wanted to buy more.

Another true story.

 

[David Biedny]

David, I kid you not, these damned Lindor Petit Dessert bars are fricking addictive. When I ran out, I wanted to buy more.

Another true story.

Can you PROVE it's true? Can you PROVE that these "Lindor Petit Dessert bars" are real? How can we be sure that they are addictive?

You gonna share those things, or what?!?

 

[Tommy Allison]

Yes, I can, and Yes, I'm happy to share.

PM me your mailing addy.

 

[Tommy Allison]

I should write a book called "Why we tell the truth about chocolate."

I could also write about "Why we lie about chocolate", explaining the rationale we have about hoarding chocolate, and not sharing.

 

[DBTrek]

Hmmmmm . . . something I saw on the Grand Emperor Korff's site has me thinking . . . he states:

"The REAL "criminal" her per se is Royce's buddy David Biedny. This is the man who has threatened me with physical violence on more than once occasion, which Royce Myers III, being in law enforcement, says NOTHING about! That's nearly illegal, and very borderline, according to the Oregon police. They told us when we discussed Royce that as an officer, Royce SHOULD have at least admonished David Biedny NOT to threaten to harm people. Biedny has admitted he used to be in a bit of a street gang and has basically an anger management problem."

What the? What is 'a bit of' a street gang. Like . . . he was in the Crips Reserves? Only one weekend a month of gang banging or something?

Were there health benefits?

-DBTrek

 

[David Biedny]

What the? What is 'a bit of' a street gang. Like . . . he was in the Crips Reserves? Only one weekend a month of gang banging or something?

Were there health benefits?

-DBTrek

It's called the "Jewish Boys from Brooklyn" gang.

Flatbush Avenue.

Gene is a member as well.

Oy.

 

[DBTrek]

From today's KKKorff rant:
http://www.kalkorff.com/joomlatest/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208&Itemid=1

In my specific case, Major Randle, you have accused me (Colonel Kal Korff) of harboring something I CANNOT truly ever possess, even if I wanted to, which of course I don’t. I was born in Oakland, California, which is a city whose population is 95% Afro-American. My initials are KKK. I am Jewish. I am an American who lives behind the former Iron Curtain. My major book project these past nearly SIX YEARS has been my upcoming Mother of All Books about terrorism and HATRED, called Secret Wars: Defending Against Terrorist Plots. Six YEARS of my life would NEVER have been spent on this project, nor would I have left the USA, if I did NOT devote my life to trying to STOP hatred, while also insuring people face HARD, STERN TRUTHS.

From the US Census 2000
Community and Economic Development ~ City of Oakland, California

Oakland, CA