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
>> 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