Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Oh really? Care to put a wager on it? I will give you a hint: You can't use criminal perjury
to "legally" prove you were maliciously accused of criminal perjury, particularly if you are an
author of US public health policy papers for the US Chamber of Commerce, et al. That is
called "strategically and criminally litigating with further criminal intent"

On 1/20/10, johncodie wrote:
> On 1/20/10, Sharon wrote:
>> JC,
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>>
> You must be confused with your high school youth friend. I am neither goofy or dense and
> have been working in a highly technical, intuitive, field for years. I'm sure plenty of
> people are reading this as you enjoy reaping the public bias perception; I get to extract a
> little bit more of clarifying information about your mind set, and your progress. I don't
> need the big picture or the straight skinny. I don't even have to inquire about your next
> trip to Washington D.C. or any other major mold warrior event. I belive you have provided
> enough information for people to decide if they would like for you to continue to represent
> their case.
>
> I do get the defense strategy, I just don't buy into what you are going to provide to the
> courts will remand the ruling back to court for a retrial, or overturn the jury decision.
> Your so focused on the scales of justice tilting from one side based upon liable words to the
> other side for perjury. The courts just don't work that way. There is way too much
> extraneous words and emotions in your presentation and not fully packed with facts. Alot of
> fluff.