Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Deborah on 1/06/10

    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.
    >>>> 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.