Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Deborah on 1/04/10
Did I understand correctly that Dr. Saxon claimed to have not authored
the paper in question in spite of Kelman's putting Saxon's name as an
On 1/04/10, johncodie wrote:
> 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.
> Sorry Sharon:
> 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