Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

I meant to say, good name, one backed up the color of authority reflected from
a distinguished and prominent professional career in a specialized field of
medicine that gives an imprimatur of expertise to the paper in question.

No, no big deal.

On 1/06/10, Deborah wrote:
> so, you would have no problem with your name being used prominently to market
> a product for the purpose of generating a profit even if you were unaware of
> it and thus without having authorized its use, especially if the product was
> of little merit and may very well cause harm by it promoting false and/or
> seriously flawed information?
>
>
> On 1/06/10, johncodie wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>