Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/08/10
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
> 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."
The courts, the judges, the clerk, the officers of the court aren't giving you, your attorny, your
opposing attorny, Kelman, or the even the assitant to the Court that will be willing to take your next
dollar of the $400,000 dollar judicial cost you just took 3 and one half years to expedite any
consideration. You give yourself too much credit, and proably could not get the time of day from any
unless you have restarted the money flow of positive cash payment.
They like to forget and have a happy holiday season and hope for a world where Kelman and Kramer could
be respectful of each other.
The judicial system has provided you several days in court for your defense where you did not
prevail. A reputable attorny should have already told you your appeal has no merit. It is you that
thinks the judicial system hold your hopes and dreams of a reversal with them each day. From the
attorney juror neither side entered the e-mail that changed two to four votes. And you ask to have
him request that decision be put aside when it was your own attorny that submitted those e-mail into
evidence. That was a wholesale major mistake on his part. Submit evidence not knowing how it was to
be used in his defense, No plan. And the no plan continues.
How sad you were blinded by the lime light, now three litigations. No court date and probably an
attorny waiting for at least some indication you can pay the next round. That would be the cost of at
least a half million dollar slander, where it was all supposed to be between you and your attorney.
just doesn't make common sense. How did Kelman get wind of the statement? Your recent claim is your
former attorny must have leaked the mailice toward Kelman.
Posts on this thread, including this one