Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

The mold warrier pdf is a copy and past of alleged sworn statements or
depositions from such affected cases. It doesn not include any statements
in legal sworn statements of the Kelman v Kramer ruling. That ruling is
actualy a indefinite postponement of a court date. Nothing was indicated of
any grandjury, DA activity of tort by Mr. Kelman by misuse of Mr. Saxon's
work product.

Dream weavers, or wishful thinking wouldn't a conviction, finding of a Jury
of a tort by Mr. Kelman to have violated a law be necessary before a civil
court be allowed to enter any evidence? Where is the civil or criminal
intent, undue influence by Mr. Kelman upon the court.

If the evidence was flawed isn't that grounds for appeal, but what is Andrew
Saxon's expertise as to support the opposite position of Mr. Kelman. His
statement is his name was used on a subsequent work without his permission.
What agreements/contracts does Mr. Saxon have as to providing peer reviews
and signoff of committee work? Sometimes there is guilt by simple
association. There is always more to the story which hasn't been heard in a
court, and under penalty of perjury.

The case of Kelman v Kramer isn't going anywhere for a long time.

On 1/06/10, Deborah wrote:
> 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
> and
>> 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.
>>
>> http://moldwarriors.com/SK/AuthorshipUSChamber.pdf
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366/
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>