Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Deborah on 1/06/10

    Someone needs to take your comments apart, sentence by sentence; I don't recall Sharon
    claiming a "near-death" experience..

    But, responding to any of your posts is like stepping into a tarpit...maybe you DO have
    a future in litigation..

    So, you have no problem with your name being used, without your knowledge, on a paper
    you did not co-author or author. So that is an affirmative; I, JC, am okay with my name
    being used, without my knowledge or consent, on a paper, even a "lay translation" of a
    paper I had some input on? Is that how I read that

    I saw some mention of furs and Mrs. Obama and other stuff, but I am trying to stay on
    topic here. Are you saying that "public" figures have no ability to control who may or
    may not use their names to endorse a particular product?

    On 1/06/10, Deborah wrote:
    > Speculation, assumption, and innuendo..
    > I would like to hear what Dr. Saxon has to say about it.
    > If I contract with you for a specific job, paper, etc.., I would take issue if you
    > were to affiliate my name, as in co-author, to another paper even if it were a
    > purported "lay translation"; in other words, if the paper were to be translated, even
    > if to another language, I would want to have final authorization for use of my name
    > upon it even if it meant hiring a credible language specialist. A "good name" for
    > business is a highly valuable commodity.
    > On 1/06/10, Deborah wrote:
    >> On 1/06/10, johncodie wrote:
    >>> 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?
    >>> I believe it has been proven, at least confirmed that Ms Kramer had a prior
    >>> legal disagreement with Kelman and made the decision to make that known in
    >>> public as to cause some type damage to Mr. Kelman. Either it to make up for the
    >>> losses she incurred as a result, or for the emotional benefits of retribution.
    >>> The facts of the case have been sketchy but the time involved in the history
    >>> appears to be from eight to ten years.
    >>> Why would I have a problem with my name being used, it is not trade marked and
    >>> most reputable establishment has one designated for either of the
    >>> sexes. "John". Mr Saxon was a member of an association and had entered into
    >>> some agreements of peer review. Mrs Obama just got her picture on the side of
    >>> busses for not wearing furs. The White House might not be happy about it, but
    >>> she is a public figure, and has previously expressed her opinion.
    >>> Mr Saxon is a public figure and was involved in writting a paper for a group.
    >>> He had knowledge, and associations. Did he or has he written a paper that
    >>> totaly disagrees with what was published. Where is his paper? He stated that
    >>> the laymans terms paper was published with his name on it. That may be true,
    >>> that might be false. Was Mr Saxon ever involed in the Globaltox firm? It is a
    >>> matter of record they were employed on a common paper.
    >>> With ever emerging tort reform, I would not place much of any faith in a laymens
    >>> term position paper. Much of all LCD televisions made today are made in china,
    >>> and are disposable with no repair parts made. Love those extended warranties
    >>> for labor and repair without repair parts made. This has come to the bare
    >>> minimum insurance companies pays, and health care reform that has not been
    >>> defined as to the metrics of equality of care.
    >>> Sure Kramer had a beef with Kelman in extrapolating animal data to say her
    >>> daughters near death due to mycotoxins in their home was'nt supported by the
    >>> medical community. But that does not provide the data to the contray. The
    >>> accusation of misconduct of Mr. Kelman by Ms Kramer as to perjury has not been
    >>> substantiated by the judicial system. I don't see any court entertaining any
    >>> malfesence correction that has gone this long.
    >>> One of our Supreme Court Justices approached the Legislature with the following
    >>> quote "Justice Delayed, Justice Denied". One of our most notable civil right
    >>> judges begin 18 months in Kentucky prison for lying to the FBI concerning one
    >>> lie. It was a lie about a conversation and association.
    >>> I see from Ms Kramers recent posting some decline. It shows the lack of rest
    >>> and continue persuit of trival matters. More dribble or grammer correction. If
    >>> the justice department can't get the Emit Teel murder back into trail what would
    >>> warrant misuse of a prior contributor on a laymens paper on effects of
    >>> mycotoxins?

    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.