The Opinion In My Litigation...Had to laugh at this one!

[Guest guest]

K. So I am just about finished with my petition for rehearing. This is

a b--ch to write and I am getting a little punchy. While the courts just

can't seem to grasp that I was writing of a deceit in science and this is

strategic litigation, they did understand one important thing. Look what

they said about my, the crusading whistleblower (meow!) views of the science

compared to Kelman's.

" Kramer also argues the trial court erred in excluding evidence which she

contends would have shown that Kelman's scientific conclusions have been

severely criticized by other, more credible members of the scientific

community and that Kramer has been widely recognized as a crusading

whistleblower

with respect to toxic mold. The trial court correctly excluded this evidence

as irrelevant..... Neither the validity of Kelman's scientific

conclusions nor the sincerity of Kramer's views was relevant to determination

of

those narrower issues. "

Sharon Noonan Kramer