Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/08/10
On 1/08/10, Sharon wrote:
> 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.
My typing, the e-mails submitted by your attorneys attached to the billing statement was inadvertly read
by the jury in private deliberations, never in trail. How stupid is that it cost you two to four votes.
Why would your attorney submit e-mail from Kelman to colleges describing you as a cyberstalker to the
court if he did not know how he planned on using the evidence. Kind of like its part of the defense
claim he commmitted perjury because he told others you were a cyberstalker. Don't you see if had no
merit from two wrongs don't make a right.
Posts on this thread, including this one