Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Sharon on 1/08/10
Well, you were getting close, but now you are cold again. I most likely cannot
respond to you anymore til Sunday. So you have two whole days to bash away,
Hotty Toddy, Have a nice weekend.
On 1/08/10, johncodie wrote:
> 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