Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Should add to this,

No. That is ridiculous that my attorneys were in the jury room. But citing to the letter to Kelman's
attorney was a good thing. Reminded me of the letter. thanks.

On 1/08/10, Sharon wrote:
> You are doing good, John.
>
> Okay. Now with the information you currently posess, ask this question: What is it the courts are
> seeking to understand about what occurred in this litigation pre-trial with their questions about the
> MSJ and the anti-SLAPP rulings?
>
> To quote from your prior post:
>
> "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."
>
>
> On 1/08/10, johncodie wrote:
>>
>>> John, write some more stuff. You made me think of something I forgot to address.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok,
>>
>> 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
>> matter.
>> Sincerely,
>> Mrs. Sharon Kramer
>> Copy to: Michael Garland, Clerk of the Court, Dept 31
>> Enclosed: Email, Mr. Scheuer 9.17.08"