Month: April 2022

bookmark_borderStandard Online Legal Declarations

Posted on

The information provided from and through this site is provided “AS-IS”, “AS AVAILABLE”, and all warranties, express or implied, are disclaimed (including but not limited to the disclaimer of any implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.) The information may contain errors, problems or other limitations. Our sole and entire maximum liability for any inaccurate information, for any reason, and users sole and exclusive remedy for any cause whatsoever, shall be limited to the amount paid by the customer for the information received (if any). We are not liable for any indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages (including damages for loss of business, loss of profits, litigation, or the like), whether based on breach of contract, breach of warranty, tort (including negligence), product damage.

The limitations of damages set forth above are fundamental elements of the basis of the bargain between US and YOU. We would not provide this site and information without such limitations. No representations, warranties, or guarantees whatsoever, are made as to the accuracy, adequacy, reliability, currentness, completeness, suitability or applicability of the information for a particular situation.

All responsibility and liability for any damages caused by viruses or malware contained within the electronic files of this site are disclaimed.

bookmark_borderThat’s Suspicious

Posted on

So on March 27, 2022 I sent a message to the lead shill in my case, Dr. Podhradsky. I asked her these six questions:

  1. When and how did attorney Joseph Gross Jr. involve you with my case?
  2. Why did you examine the wrong server for your first report in January of 2015?
  3. Why did you parrot the government’s lie that the NIT was just a flash application?
  4. When and how did attorney Joseph Howard involve you with my case?
  5. Why did you lie about Tinyboard software in your June [2015] report?
  6. Did you communicate about this case with Keith A Becker?

Last week I received her reply. It said words to the effect of “It’s not my fault, contact Dr. Miller” and she gave me his possible contact info. I e-mailed the info@company.com address to see if they could put me in contact with Dr. Miller. Much to my surprise, I got a reply that same day from his company e-mail account. I sent him a pdf of the letter I sent Dr. Podhradsky with some elaboration in the e-mail. He responded:

If you have time, you could give me a phone call and maybe I can clear up some of the points in here that may be confusing.

Dr. Matt Miller

I responded that I didn’t think a phone conversation would be productive and would he please answer my 6 questions. (and perhaps two more). He responded:

Dear Kirk Cottom,
Post conviction appellate concerns are typically handled by counsel and I will refer you to counsel who saw you this far in the process. I have included Joe Howard on this email so he is aware of your attempt to contact me, and I appreciate that you will not contact me again, unless through counsel. Any further and continued efforts will be met by legal action. Thank you.

Dr. Matt Miller

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this response suspicious…