Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/20/10
On 1/20/10, Sharon wrote:
> 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
> 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"
You will have to give context to who "you" is as if is a attorney in a trail, an expert
witness, and "legally" in what context?
Your mind is truly twisted right now.
I know for a fact that attorneys for industry use to litigate all the time over patent
infringements just because it was good busniness practices. It didn't matter if they had a case
or not; They make money in litigation. It might be using the courts for their financial gain,
but they always have access to the court system just like you.
Are you going deeper and deeper in a world of killing all the officials of the court because
they are criminally engaging in strategical litigation for future criminal intent of more
litigation. Perhaps we should warn potential law students and others in your community of this
perception of "SCLWFCI"
Posts on this thread, including this one