Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by Deborah on 2/19/08
Sealed documents, complex issues.
If the general public at large will be adversely impacted by the information suppressed, is it even legal?
If a chemical company is producing, distributing, selling chemicals that are known to be harmful, to
persist long after application, and to negatively affect the environment, is it even legal to do this?
Do they have an expectation of privacy if their endeavors are impacting the air, soil, water, food
supply, animals, humans, and DNA?
If they know this, hide the information from the regulatory agencies and the public, proceed with it,
are they guilty of public harm?
Do they have more rights to the resources of the planet than the people who live on it?
On 2/19/08, johncodie wrote:
> Defamation: GIN044539: Like you said just the facts. $5,625 Request from Defendant Kramer denied.
> It's Tuesday, the day after Monday. The Defamation laws are complex. The Cost of Litigation is
> expensive. The time spent is about two years. Questions remain: Did you have authority to have in
> your possession one of the Globtox documents that you claim Kelman did not know you had in your
> possession? Are either two of you recognized by the court to be public figures, or private
> citizens? Globtox is associated with Kelman, Kramer has her own platform group that she supports.
> The litigation gets complex as the facts on both sides gets skewed. The tobbacco settlement started
> with propritary documents stolen from a corporation, that was deemed admissiable for the state of MS
> deposition. The state of KY was seeking its suppression. The attorney that used those documents
> goes to trial next month. The attorny general of MS went to sealed settlements with State Farm last
> month. As important as the trail of the 6 individuals done wrong by State Farm with those documents,
> is equaly important as the Defamation suit that is forthcoming. The perfect defense of defamation is
> the "truth". Why does it take so long for the turth to come out? Today is Tuesday, you were going
> to expose someone? I am amazed your attorney's allow you to post on this board. You would't be
> foolish enough to try and reprsent yourself by telling your attorneys how to proceed with your case?
> On 2/17/08, Sharon wrote:
>> Since you all seem to want to live vicariously through my life, I will show you just a snippet of
>> the case. Remember, the only 5 words I am being sued for, even with ALL that I have written about
>> the deceit of ACOEM being promoted by the US Chamber and used to win lawsuits based on false
>> science while causing the medical community to be misinformed and thereby leaving thousands unable
>> to obtain proper medical treatment when experiencing symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure
>> to mold toxins indoors are the 5 little words of "altered his under oath statements". Therfore,
>> what I am NOT being sued for should tell you as much of the story as what I am being sued for.
Posts on this thread, including this one