Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by Sharon on 2/19/08
What????? Can you take your last post and clarify it a bit? I am not following what you are trying to
say. And why you are trying to say it in the first place. While this may be fun and voyeristic for
you, this is my life. So, somethings I will answer. Somethings I will not. Not because I have
anything to hide, just some things better not discussed in detail on a chatboard.
Yes. Kelman and I are both recognized as public figures in this case. It's a bit different situation
than it was THREE years ago when they filed this suit...which was before I became recognized as a
public figure. Which was the point of the suit in the first place, I believe. Sometimes, things
backfire when one is too aggressive.
With all that has been written, do you understand, it is only 5 little words in question, "altered his
under oath statements". Nothing real complex about it. And the suit supposedly has nothing to do with
what I write about their garbage science - if I am lying about their garbage science, then why has the
complaint not been amended to include these vast amounts of words as defamatory? Seems like info to
the GAO about the marketing of their garbage to the courts would be a whole lot more damning than the
word "altered", don't you think? Seems like if I was lying about their garbage science, there would be
a WHOLE lot more words within the approx. 65,000 pages of documents I willingly turned over to them
than just "altered", don't you think? I put these documeents on dics for them. Easier to share with
the plaintiff bar as to what Kelman has been told and provided documentation of. Hard to say under oath
that you are not aware of something when it has been provided to you thru a court proceeding.
Just should have started off with a libel attorney in the first place. I don't understand why he
continues. Nobody cares about the word "altered" in the big scheme of things. And this suit is
obviously not shutting me up. It is just giving more info. We are both just pouring money down the
drain from this lawsuit. I, and many others are not backing down from a need for a Congressional
hearing into the deceit of ACOEM and it's impact of gov't understanding/public policy, upon completion
of the Federal GAO audit. And you know what? We are going to get it, too!!!!
http://www.bio toxin. info /docs / Request%20for%20Congressional%20Hearing%20Regarding%20Mold%
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