Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Deborah on 1/08/10

    It seems like he committed fraud, plain and simple and you had the audacity to point it out in
    non-inflammatory language that has no hint of malice.

    On 1/08/10, johncodie wrote:
    > On 1/07/10, sharon wrote:
    >> Deborah,
    >> 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

  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.