Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Deborah on 1/06/10

    I wonder how that might affect cases that relied upon that paper as
    evidence and used the "expert".

    On 1/05/10, sharon wrote:
    > Yes. Andrew Saxon has stated under oath that he is falsely listed as an
    > author of "A Scientific View Of The Health Effects Of Mold", US Chamber
    > of Commerce 2003.
    > Although the paper states four authors, in reality, only Bruce Kelman
    > Bryan Hardin authored and were paid for the paper by the Manhattan
    > Institute think-tank. The think-tank specifically told them they wanted
    > something for judges.
    > They falsely put Saxon's name on it. Saxon, the only physician of the
    > bunch, said he had nothing to do with it and did not even know his name
    > was on it.
    > On 1/04/10, Deborah wrote:
    >> 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
    >> author...?
    >> 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.