Follow us!

    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
    > are
    >> 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.
    >> Sharon
    > 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
    > event.
    > 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

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.