Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/08/10
On 1/07/10, sharon wrote:
> Your understanding is correct regarding who authored what and who is claiming who authored
> what. One of the main points though is that both men authored the ACOEM paper together and
> one of the two ACOEM authors is lying under oath about who authored the Chamber paper.
Very comical are you and your media corporation/legal defense team. You meaning you and
your team are claiming the what was used to have a judgement against you thrown out on trial
was privelaged attorney client information, and are supposed provide such documentation of
that privelage. To date you haven't provided the court that information. Even the jury that
found you guilty found milace in your in a public e-mail toward Kelman.
And here make the cliam of lying under oath, when your are trying to have removed from the
courts evidence a statement of "changed his testimony".
You can lie on the board all day, or solicit the internet for money like the homeless on the
street. But when and if you get back into the appellate court don't continue to make a joke
out of our judicial system. Two wrongs don't make a right. Pay your damages, make your
appology and stop the meida blitz. I realatiy you have stooped even lower than Kelman in
your methods to circumvent the judicial system to your personal gain.
Posts on this thread, including this one