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
>> 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