Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Sharon on 1/08/10
"non-inflammatory language". I don't think I would go quite that far. lol But it is definately
NOT evidence of malice to speak out of a deception adverse to the health and safety of the
American public for the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal "Reform" et al, to willfully
have a scientific fraud written specifally for judges ie - that it is scientifically proven the
poisons of mold do not poison, with payment for the fraud coming from the Manhattan Institute
Center for Legal Policy. It is called the right to freedom of speech guaranteed to all US
citizens under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
And yes, in a litigation where the sole claim of the case is that he was falsely accused of being
one who would commit perjury, he committed perjury to establish a false reason for malice.
John, write some more stuff. You made me think of something I forgot to address.
On 1/08/10, Deborah wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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