Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Sharon on 1/20/10


    Nope. You are way off base. Guess again.

    On 1/20/10, johncodie wrote:
    > 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
    > 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"
    > 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

  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.