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
Posts on this thread, including this one