Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Sharon on 1/20/10
You really are goofy and somewhat dense. While you don't get it, I am aware many do as
these posts came up on a google alert yesterday meaning alot of people are reading this.
Deano, explain the big picture to him, please. lol
On 1/20/10, johncoide wrote:
> Don't hate anything; but have had twelve years in monitoring. Interesting our law suits
> were running very close to the same time line. Our settlement amount was agreed to be
> kept confidential, and did pay for the tort of insurance "bad faith" for almost six years.
> It was about three times the damages of the face value of the policy. It won't help if I
> give you the answers, as you need to find the foundations to our democratic free speech.
> As I read what you just put out here, your torn and relive all of your trial and show your
> anger. Its a lesson for all of us, get it out there. I take some of my rage on a
> defenseless golf ball. The tort the court has shown is in your game of frustrations of
> golf as example is you have teed your ball behind Mr. Kelman and striking the ball toward
> him before he has had a chance to "clarify" or complete his hole. Hitting as to hurt Mr.
> Kelman has you removed from continued participation. If you can't answer simple
> historical questions of law, you have no respect for it, and are indulging yourself in a
> continued time warp. I can't even remember the insurance companies experts, No I don't
> dwell on it. But here you are embroiled in it. Can you just turn this over to your
> attorney and show up? I think it would be better for life persuit of happiness that you
> don't appear to have any interest in.
> 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.”
Posts on this thread, including this one