Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Sharon on 1/08/10
You are doing great! Thank you for bringing another key fact to public light.
There is NO public email or even a private one that even mentions Bruce Kelman
As far as the jurors, would you like to see what they have to say
of how the verdict came to be?
On 1/08/10, johncodie wrote:
> 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