Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/08/10
> John, write some more stuff. You made me think of something I forgot to address.
You wrote to the winning attorny and copied the court clerk.
I figured out the e-mail that was read in the jury room was read by your attorny that changed the
vote from 8 to 4 against you went to 10-2 against and then possibly all ruling against you. Why
would e-mails be submitted addressing you as a "cyberstalker" in your defense. Two wrongs don't
make a right and worked against you. You claim you got a bigger house over a lake from the
$350,000 in insurance and wind up paying your old attorny $400,000 in legal fees obtaining a 8 to
4 vote against you that went up to 10-2 after e-mails were attached to a Globetox billing. How
you can get attornys in your jury pool is beyond me.
This has gone past a trail of damages and is a PR field day for moldwarriors?
Your letter to the opposing attorny.
"As a licensed attorney in the state of California, you have an affirmative duty to the
courts to present the truth and to not attempt to benefit from improvidently entered orders
based on misrepresentations to the courts. You also have an affirmative duty to inform
the courts if you have presented misrepresentations, whether initially intentional or not,
and to request that the courts set aside any and all orders founded on misrepresentations
you have presented.
This situation, caused by you and your clients’ repeated misrepresentations to the
courts on the issue of malice, has now cost me approximately $400,000.00 in legal
defense costs and fees; not to mention much distress and financial hardship over the past
three and a half years. As such, I would like for you to fulfill your obligations to the
courts as a licensed attorney in the State of California and to inform Superior Court
Judges Michael P. Orfield and Lisa Schall; Appellate Court Judges, Justice Cynthia
Aaron and Justice J. McDonald and Appellate Court Administrative Presiding Justice,
Judith McConnell, that your client gave false testimony before their courts on the issue of
malice; that you ratified this false testimony in your briefs to the benefit of your clients,
several times over when defeating motions and helping to frame the scope of the trial;
and that you would now like for the courts to re-examine all rulings based on the
significant and repeated misrepresentations on the part of you and your clients, Bruce
Kelman and GlobalTox, Inc., on the issue of malice. You are welcome to use the exhibit
documentation that was attached to the supplement you received from me yesterday when
explaining the matter to all courts.
Please let me know as soon as possible, if and when you intend to inform all courts of
the above. Time is of the essence. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important
Mrs. Sharon Kramer
Copy to: Michael Garland, Clerk of the Court, Dept 31
Enclosed: Email, Mr. Scheuer 9.17.08"
Posts on this thread, including this one