Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/04/10
On 12/31/09, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B.
> Wrong. What it means is, I have already won new trial. Now we
> going back to examine the criminal elements of this litigation to
> silence a Whistleblower so that the US Chamber of Commerce and
> other political actions committees can continue to perpetrate
> frauds on the courts. Willful perjury on the issue of malice and
> willful subornning of perjury on the issue of and attempted
> coercion into silence.
A "Win" is a judgement in your favor. What you do obtain unless
your attorny is working under a contingency fee is an hourly
billing. I can harly say that is a "Win" Since your probably still
the defendant in this defamation suit filed by Kelman. When the
clerk will notify you of a new trail date means there is no trail
scheuled and that court's priority to hear your case is really
low. If my memory serves me right there had already been a
judgement in your case in favor of Mr. Kelman. If on appeals you
would have posted a bond with the court.
Do I understand you to say that you have convienced the District
Attorney to have have a grand jury hear evidence of criminal conduct
by a Mr. Kalman and the "Communist" "Political Action Committies"
have unduely influenced the judicial system?
If the court hasn't imposed a time limit for filing the necessary
papers that would be in my opinion a moot point, case dismissed.
I can appreciate your delight for a unspecified court date, but who
do you mean by "We". I never knew you were even associated with the
law, or considered an official of the court/judical system. You did
pay your way to a judicial hearing to congress that was canceled,
and you moderated a panel of experts in a non-congressinal media
Please help us understand this, the National Inquirer and other rag
time new papers need more emotional fodder to sell.
Posts on this thread, including this one