Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Sharon on 1/19/10

    Wow John! Great stuff. Thank you. Tell me if you can follow this and what you hate
    about it:

    Below is criminal perjury in a libel litigation to establish a false theme for/reason
    for personal malice while strategically litigating against public participation to
    silence the fact that "ya can't take a rat study, add some math and then have the US
    Chamber of Commerce et al, mass market to the courts that science holds all claims of
    illness are a result of trial lawyers, media and Junk Science.

    “I first learned of Defendant Sharon Kramer in mid-2003, when
    I was retained as an expert in a lawsuit between her, her
    homeowner’s insure and other parties regarding alleged mold
    contamination in her house. She apparently felt that the
    remediation work had been inadequately done, and that she and
    her daughter had suffered life-threatening diseases as a result. I
    testified that the type and amount of mold in the Kramer house
    could not have caused the life-threatening illnesses that she claimed."

    The evidence is irrefutable. Bruce Kelman’s and VeriTox’s “legal” counsel, Keith
    Scheuer, willfully and repeatedly suborned Bruce Kelman’s criminal perjury and
    willfully benefited from improvidently entered orders of the courts, when defeating all
    motions from 2005 to 2009 (and most likely will try again in 2010 with his reply to
    this query). All courts, whose work this Court is reviewing, turned a blind eye to the
    matter no matter how much evidence they were provided that proved Bruce Kelman is liar
    who made up a reason for Sharon Kramer to harbor personal malice for him because
    establishing reason for malice is necessary in libel law.

    Keith Scheuer has willfully misled and “Eddie Haskled” the courts for five years in
    violation of his duties as a licensed officer of the California courts. Keith Scheuer,
    August 18, 2008, to the Honorable Judge Lisa C. Schall:

    Gee, Mrs. Cleaver...“Thank you. Rhymes with lawyer, by the way for ease. Your honor,
    umm, without just being grossly brown-nosing here, I’ve been in this case for three and
    a half years. You’ve been in it for about two hours, and I think you have grasped what
    this case is about. I think this is a really simply, really straightforward case. I
    think we can do this in about two days of testimony. It needs to be limited, I think,
    just as you suggested. We don’t have any intention of –first, of going into the science
    that lies behind the ACOEM Statement or any of these other statements. It is
    unnecessary.” (Vol.1 RT 34-35)

    This is willful suborning of criminal perjury by Keith Scheuer, as submitted to the
    courts on September 17, 2005 (Vol.I App.34) and May 7, 2006 (Vol.I App.238)

    “Dr. Kelman testified in a deposition that the type and amount
    of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life
    threatening illnesses that Kramer claimed. Apparently furious
    that the science conflicted with her dreams of a remodeled
    house, Kramer launched an obsessive campaign to destroy the
    reputation of Dr. Kelman and GlobalTox.”

    On 1/19/10, johncodie wrote:
    > On 1/18/10, Sharon wrote:
    >> Your post tells me you have no knowledge of libel law or what constitutes libel
    >> with actual malice, or what constitutes strategic litigation against public
    >> participation.
    >> have been of great benefit in the past week or so of reminding me what
    >> objections must be overcome and what the perception biases of the case are.
    >> Never mind. Your questions are too goofy. Will share the final product when
    >> finished. Both mine and Kelman's.
    > 1. We both know that the trial has already been tried. I hope your not still trying
    > to create a defense, what is out there is out there.
    > 2. Most if not all evidence has been submitted to the court and the court gave you
    > from what you have submitted two points to possibly change or reverse the lower
    > courts decision.
    > 3. I don't know who, or what legal training that you have had, but my associations
    > with the legal profession most definately show that the attorneys are most sensitive
    > to the judges and their belief systems.
    > Two things I believe go against you is a.) things did not work out with your first
    > attorney and his services were no longer required giving the appearance as to you
    > want to be the attorney and try your own case, ie. you can't see your actions as a
    > tort, b.) you lost in the trial for libel and the SLAPP law is the judges duty to
    > see if there was any chance Mr. Kelman would be sucessful, SLAPP is to end trails
    > where there is little change for plantiff to win. Since you lost it appears to be a
    > moot point, giving a jury voice superior knowlege over the judges opinion of
    > pretrial motions.
    > 4. If you haven't figured it out by now, your arogance about telling people they
    > are limited in knowlege are most often used by attornys as when asked if you "know
    > the time", the response is "yes" without giving the "time".
    > My belief system is that SLAPP intent is limited to such public debate items like
    > public health insurance legislation, and not specific to the actualy reporting
    > of "should be court decisions" of perjury based upon reporting of "sworn
    > testimony". I don't see the first admendment right to free speach as the "right of
    > an individual to speak for the court as if fact" I see that as a disrespect for the
    > courts.
    > When your say questions are too goofy, it implies that your having to do the
    > majority of your attorney research for them, and your behind. When your lost the
    > case you claimed you were denied the right to provide the jury evidence. Where is
    > this evidence now?
    > 5. If your mold cause wanted to have the perponderance of any legitamacy you would
    > seek diversity in your peer reviews prior to publishing. Where was your peer review
    > prior to any statements of fact of Mr. Kelman. If your response continues to be I
    > don't need peer review, I have superior knowlege of libel and I used my first
    > admendment right to report he changed his under oath testimony, you have already
    > lost.
    > 6. I have seen in may cases in many cases where the courts give ample opportunity
    > for people that are just out right lying in court and the evidence against them are
    > against them to make corrections, so that the turth does come out, justice is
    > served. If you would have been in the court where Kelman was clarifying his
    > testiomy and you shouted out "He changed his under oath statements", I am pretty
    > sure there would have been a quick objection from the attorny for your outbreak, and
    > a stern warning from the court.
    > 7. Your demener and respect for the court will be closley discerned.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.