Blip

About this episode

In a 2004 testimony, in a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman described the relationship of the Chamber Paper to the ACOEM Paper as “I would characterize it – I mean, they literally asked for a lay translation of that article.” Question “Well, translation is an interesting word. They’re both in English, correct?” Reply: “Yes”. In the 2005 Oregon testimony, when forced to discuss the two papers’ connections in front of the jury and after testifying to the purported unbiased peer review process of the ACOEM Paper, Bruce Kelman described the two papers as a “lay version”, “lay translation”; then “two separate works”, “two separate activities”. He then flip-flopped back to “lay translation”. . When providing the courts in the San Diego libel litigation with reason as to why Mrs. Kramer would harbor malice for Kelman - a key element in libel litigation - Kelman committed perjury three times in declarations submitted to the courts, deflecting from the national significance of the Chamber's deceit in science and making Kramer's writing of it appear to be a personal vendetta against an expert defense witness in her own mold litigation of 2003. Kelman wrote under penalty of perjury as to the purported reason for Kramer to harbor malice for him stemming from a prior litigation in 2003. Since September of 2005, all San Diego courts have been informed via uncontroverted evidence that Kelman was committing perjury as to why Kramer would have malice for him. All courts have thus far ignored the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman's criminal perjury in a litigation to silence a whistleblower over a deceit in science mass marketed to the courts by the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. Declaration of William J. Brown III, stating that the courts have been well informed of Kelman's perjury on the issue of malice: William J. Brown III SB#86002 P.O. Box 231216 Encinitas, California 92023-1216 (760) 334-3800 (760) 334-3815 Fax SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BRUCE KELMAN, GLOBALTOX, INC., Plaintiffs, v. SHARON KRAMER, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: GIN 044539 DECLARATION OF WILLIAM J. BROWN III ) I, William J. Brown III, declare: That I am an attorney licensed to practice before all the California courts and am the prior attorney of record for Defendant herein in both this case of Kelman and GlobalTox vs. Kramer, and her mold litigation case of Mercury vs. Kramer. As such, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify of my own personal knowledge to the following: 1. I am aware that in this case, Mr. Kelman’s (Plaintiff’s) declaration dated September 16, 2005, provided false testimony as to the reason Mrs. Kramer (Defendant) would hold malice for Plaintiff. Plaintiff stated it in his opposition declaration to the anti-SLAPP motion that, “She [Defendant] apparently felt that the remediation work had been inadequately done, and that she and her daughter had suffered life-threatening diseases as a result. I testified that the type and amount of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life-threatening illnesses that she claimed.” 2. I am aware that Counsel for Plaintiff in this case, Keith Sheurer, (Counsel) provided false reason to the courts as to why Defendant would hold malice for Plaintiff, based on the above noted declaration. In Counsel’s Opposition of Motion to Strike filed September 16, 2005, he wrote, “Dr. Kelman testified in a deposition that the type and amount of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life- threatening illnesses that Kramer claimed. Apparently furious that the science conflicted with her dreams of a remodeled house, Kramer launched into an obsessive campaign to destroy the reputation of Dr. Kelman and GlobalTox.” 3. The above two statements are false. Plaintiff gave no such testimony in the case of Mercury vs. Kramer. Defendant never claimed to have suffered life threatening disease from mold in their home. Her daughter has always had one in the form of cystic fibrosis. 4. I did not file a reply brief to the opposition in t

• Release Date

  May 2, 2009

• Runtime

  03:57