Re: VIDEO~MOLD Toyota Workers File Complaint w/San Diego DA

More | Report Post

I think you have just practiced law without a license.

I also posted more on the subject, but my comment was "logged and sent to the
adminstrator for review" for some unexplained reason.

On 9/07/10, Sharon wrote:
> Libel law is really quite simple. Truth is your best defense...and one cannot use
> criminal perjury to establish a fictional reason for personal malice to be used
> to "legally" prove they were falsely accused of criminal perjury, with malice.
>
>
> On 9/07/10, Mike B. wrote:
>> You're the only one who doesn't understand that your litigation with Kelman is
>> over. When you have to argue your own appeal (pro se) because you have no
>> attorneys, then your case is over. You're just waiting on the "obituary" from the
>> appellate court.
>>
>> On the other points in your comment below, you're totally wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/03/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> Mike B,
>>>
>>> I would believe that you have been a litigant for over 20 years. Makes sense.
>>> But there is no way you have been in the legal profession for 20 years and don't
>>> know what strategic litigation means. You keep wrongfully assuming my
>> litigation
>>> with Kelman is over. Why is that? Its still in the courts.
>>>
>>> On 9/03/10, Mike B. wrote:
>>>> I've been in the legal profession for over 20 years and have never heard of
>>>> this phenomenon. Tell me, how is it the "strategic litigator" is guaranteed
>>>> success in the court? How did Kelman "strategically litigate" his victory over
>>>> you? Were the judges in on the deal with Kelman?
>>>>
>>>> You're absurd.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/01/10, Sharon wrote:
>>>>> Mie B,
>>>>>
>>>>> Strategic litigation is the process of abusing the judicial process for the
>>>>> purpose of gaining unfair atvantage in a related matter of grater
>>>>> significance to the strategic litigator. It can come in many forms that
>>>>> typically encompass some sort of charater assasination of one who stands in
>>>>> the way of achieving the matter deemed to be of greater signifance to the
>>>>> strategic litigator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. No rebutal from Kelman et al.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sharon