Talk:Edward E. Kramer

Article needs to be cleaned up

"After suffering a spinal injury in jail, Judge Debra Turner allowed Kramer to go back to house arrest in January 2001."

This sentence indicates that the judge, not Kramer, had a spinal injury. And that's just one of many sentences in this article that make no sense. Someone really needs to clean this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.113.255 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Info-en request

If you have recently contacted Wikipedia via email regarding this article, please be aware that we are unable to reply to your emails because they are being blocked by your email system. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

PR reference

• Costner, Robert. "Alleged Ethics Violations Plague Case of Disabled Georgia Writer", Yahoo! News. April 15, 2007.

Is this a reliable source? It appears to be an unfiltered press release from PRWeb [1] and originating from edkramer.org. Tearlach 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

News

New article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2007/10/13/kramer_1014.html --Elonka 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP and COI issues

This article is in sad shape due to BLP issues and obvious COI editing. I've restored what seems to be the most neutral of nothing but bad choices. BLP issues are two fold: claims with no sources and editing by new accounts/anon IPs in what seems an effort to remove some valid info. I encourage all interested parties to improve this article to neutral and well sourced content in line with WP:BLP guidelines. I've also semiprot'd it for one month to stabilize it and reduce the disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a newuser with Wikipedia, so please be patient with me. The above comments by Rlevse seem to me to refer, not to the main biography, but to the section related to the person's arrest. I see this section to be about one half of the text part of the article and 15 out of 20 of the references.

I have to ask, why is the Wikipedia article spending such a large time focusing on what is obviously an embarrassing incident in this person's life, and more so why since this seems to not be consistent with Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons?

This arrest occurred in 2000. The case was ultimately dismissed without a trial. Why prolong this person's embarrassment? It would seem to me that at most this matter only qualifies for a sentence or two in the person's biography. Or better yet, it was a non issue - why even include it at all? WallClimber17 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it hasn't been dismissed. Kramer is still awaiting trial on child molestation charges. 64.46.248.203 (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

this change by WallClimber17 says that "the Court accepted the State of Georgia's request to indefinitely remove the case from its calender" with "Gwinnett County Superior Court, April 22, 2009" as the source.

When I look at the Gwinnett County Superior Court case 00-B-03771-5: STATE VS KRAMER, on that day I see a Continuance w/n the meanings from the attorney for the defendant, and a Order of Continuance from the Judge.

WallClimber17, could you please quote the relevant parts of the court order so that we can verify your change? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the order for continuance, "It is further ordered that the above-styled case shall not be scheduled for trial until such time that the Defendant files an appropriate motion" This is signed by Judge Karen Beyers and the associated attorneys.

The plain language of the order is saying the case has been removed from the calendar indefinitely. Oddly, and seemingly unprecedented, the order requires a request from the defendant to go to trial. Looking at the document in context, after nine years of no trial it would seem the District Attorney's office found a way to dispose of the matter while saving face. In any event, according to Kramer's attorney, there will be no trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WallClimber17 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, the editing seems to have removed any significant information about the arrest and the outcome. This was a cause celebré in the horror community, with no less personages than Harlan Ellison and Robert Sawyer (among others) writing commentary on the subject, yet the only material here is "he was arrested on unspecified charges, the case hasn't gone to trial." I am aware that this needs to satisfy the BLP policy, but the utter lack of information here (despite some significant sources) goes way beyond that. It's also not clear to what extent his (alleged) mistreatment in jail should be in the article (he brought a federal action against the state, which was dismissed, and after it was dismissed he sued his lawyers for malpractice, a case which was also dismissed (cf. Summary Judgement, Kramer vs Yokelye, Fulton County Daily Report, May 14, 2008).) The link to the court site shows several court actions, including one other continuance, later than the April 2009 date which the article lists as the date "the Court accepted the State of Georgia's request to indefinitely remove the case from its calendar" (Gwinett Courts, STATE VS KRAMER, as of Aug 13 2010 3:09AM).

76.241.109.54 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced information

Dante19 has been removing neutral, sourced information from this article regarding a riot in which this article's subject was injured. The statement being removed is

In the ten years since his arrest, Kramer has "gone to jail, been granted house arrest, had his house arrest revoked, suffered a spine injury during a jailhouse riot and been placed once again under house arrest so he could receive treatment for a laundry list of medical conditions."

The citation for this is "Kramer finally to stand trial?" by Scott Henry, Creative Loafing, Jan. 29, 2009. Dante19 claims the riot didn't occur even though that is a direct quote from the news article.

The article Dante19 says proves this riot is false is "Truth, Justice, and Ed Kramer," Atlanta Jewish Times, October, 2004. However, if you read that article it says

"Things would only get worse when, on December 1, 2000, a food fight occurred in Kramer's unit. Ninety minutes later, according to Kramer, GCDC's Rapid Response Team held a tactical operations drill and told Kramer to put his hands behind his neck. Kramer says a masked deputy then slammed his head into a reinforced cinder block wall.

So one newspaper calls it a riot while another calls it a "fight" where the guards rapid response team was called out.

I'd be fine adding in a sentence that that the riot is disputed, with other sources calling it a fight, and have done this in the article. But removing all this info is not acceptable.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that while Amicus Curiae can be used as sources, by their nature they are a one-sided presentation of the issues. They are also impossible for us to verify unless you can point to where they are online. This means that while they can be used as a source, they shouldn't replace a verifiable, reliable source of information like a newspaper.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that the use of AC/other primary documents as sources in this context is limited. See WP:BLPPRIMARY Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing Sourced Legal Information and Replacing it with Commentary Albeit in Free Paper

I find it hard to believe Wikipedia considers CL, a 100% ad-based free weekly events, reviews, and vice guide albeit on paper, a "verifiable, reliable source of information." Does SouthernNights?

I found all the court docs online here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DefenseFund/files/ (you may have to join group to d/l then unjoin, but it beats paying LexisNexis for copies; the text to them are in the messages too so you actually don't have to join). They've been there for years. My belief is that filing a false affidavit into public record is a criminal offense; can they be quoted from as verifiable?

Affidavits Filed on Behalf of Ed Kramer Sep 3, 2004 Legal Actions Filed on Behalf of Ed Kramer Sep 3, 2004 Bob Barr Amicus Brief on Ed Kramer Sep 8, 2007 Prof Reicher Amicus Brief on Ed Kramer Sep 8, 2007

A District Attorney is an elected official. Is a quote from him a one-sided presentation of an issue? Does not presenting an opposing quote stink of bias on behalf of an editor?

You and I read the same article with a different understanding of the intent. In yours, a food fight became a riot and an hour and a half later guards were called in to stop it. When I read it, there was a food fight. An hour and a half later, there was a "drill" by the county's sniper team and bomb squad (Google them, that's what they do); perhaps it was retribution for making a mess? Is it a rapid response to take 90 minutes if it was a "riot" when, looking at Google news items, they answer hostage situations across the county in minutes. Otherwise, do you believe the ONLY coverage of a full-scale hour and a half "riot" where the Rapid Response Team in the local events guide? Maybe the CL writer was a unreliable narrator.

Wikipedia notes the verifiability policy "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source... in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."

Yet, verifiable quotes were removed by you, and apparently two other editors, one of which, in fandom, has been critical of Kramer and his convention for years. Neutral, right? I'll not make any additional changes or edits since there is no attempt at neutrality here. OrangeMike, also removed the name of a UN dignitary as non-notable, possibly because they do not have fannish ties. I'm done.

Aeneas (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The current version presents both sides of this issue, is NPOV, and uses reliable sources. And yes, the Creative Loafing newspaper counts as a reliable source. The information you keep questioning is a direct quote from that newspaper. As such, it is a reliable, published source which meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

All of your speculation about why it took 90 minutes for the guards to respond to this riot is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. We can only deal with what the reliable sources tell us. If the Creative Loafing newspaper article is wrong, then contact the newspaper and have them print a correction. Otherwise, please do not remove sourced information merely because you disagree with it.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Abuse by Administrator Publicly Known for His Anti-Kramer/DragonCon Bias

Administrator OrangeMike publicly and vocally has pushed an anti-Kramer/DragonCon agenda in fandom and fannish blogs for years. In one example seen here, Unquiet Dreams, OrangeMike writes of Kramer's convention:

orangemike wrote:

Feb. 10th, 2009 01:17 am (UTC)

It sounds like all the worst, ugliest, stupidest things about a con grown too large for its fandom(s): crowded, expensive, and above all non-fannish, with a bunch of passive consumers sitting around listening to actors and other "stars" perform, while posing in the costumes they bought from some dealer.

There are others. OrangeMike has every right to state his opinions in blogs. However, Wikipedia is NOT his blog. When his opinions are warped into his role as a Wikipedia administrator, and his editing and vandaliasm of an article is specifically done to show his own personal bias, then he has violated Wikipedia guidelines. NYlegal1 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Efforts on my part to restore balance in the face of your whitewashing agenda, do not constitute vandalism. Your use of the term "libel" in at least one edit summary came close to violating our "no legal threats" policy, but in the interest of dispassion I let it slide. You seem to be intent on driving away from this article anybody who is not an admirer of Kramer and his show. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the admin is involved, I would suggest that any admin actions taken in relation to this article would be a violation of policy that involved admins may not use admin tools in content disputes. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that I did not in fact impose an NLT block, WikiManOne. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OrangeMike has a specific agenda and has demonstrated his object dislike for Kramer and DragonCon (which Kramer has not been involved in for a decade) and no other Admin appears concerned with his one-sided editing and and quips despite a demonstrated COI which violates WP policy. OrangeMike and his apparent sock puppets of late, seem not to worry about WP articles on other large conventions, for example, Wizard Entertainment events, or does not note them as commercial media conventions in their intro, nor do they censor sourced materials because they cannot confirm the authority (i.e. questioning a SFWA trade publication by OrangeMike, who suddenly after being in fandom for 20 years pretends he doesn't know). It took all of about 2 seconds to find the name and site referencing one of Kramer's published fiction pieces (http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM2146994&R=2146994) and there are probably a dozen more, yet an Administrator unlisted his as a 'writer' (you need numerous professional sales to be an Active SFWA member, being merely an editor doesn't count).NYlegal1 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't care that OrangeMike is a top 400 most active on wikipedia, has admin tools, or his bacon number is 2. You do not make passive aggressive threats and bias editing when dealing with a BLP. Everyone is going to see this forever now. -=Nabakaron=- {talk} =--07:58, 7 October 2011--= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.168.219 (talk • contribs)

Edit request

{{editprotect}} Do we have a source for "largest convention dedicated to science fiction, fantasy, comics, gaming, and the popular arts." in the Ed_Kramer#Dragon_Con_and_other_events section? If not can we remove that claim? Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done, though a fair bit of this article is unsourced, so the best thing would be to remove everything that's unsourced, and build it up again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And the whole Criminal allegations sections appears to be WP:UNDUE with excessive details and a lot of it cited to primary court documents. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The criminal allegations section still appears WP:UNDUE with excessive details, yet any attempt to show equal validity or neutrality is blanked or vandalized, even when from cited secondary sources.NYlegal1 (talk) 03:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotect}} "A number of dignitaries and authors, including Harlan Ellison, Anne McCaffrey[15], and Robert J. Sawyer, have written on behalf of Kramer[16]".

The only names listed are authors and not dignitaries. The only author that seems to be sourced is Anne McCaffery to a blog posting. 1) Can we verify that the blog posting is indeed by McAffery? 2) If so, then the sources provided would indicate the phrasing should be "American Jewish Life magazine[16] and Anne McCafferey[15] have written on behalf of Kramer." Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe "dignitary" is a reference to an obscure United Nations bureaucrat, whose name I removed from the article because he was non-notable (that removal is one of the accusations of "biased editing" leveled against me by Kramer's advocates here). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind posting here the sources for each of these names? I can only find one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

[2] was the edit that removed the "dignitary". It looks like the source is the court documents. Currently, the guy looks to be a law prof [3] Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made it invisible for now. The only article cited was this, and I can't see where that says these three people have written on his behalf. If I'm missing it, please let me know. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

[4] The link removed in this edit may source all the names, but the name doesnt strike me as a reliable source. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's self-published, and they're not allowed to be used as a source for people other than the author, and only then in an article about him. See WP:BLPSPS. So that website can't be used as a source for other names. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

SFWA Forum, Issue 199, October 2004 is the proper source for each, and it a printed journal, not a blog. NYlegal1 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is SFWA Forum? since Wikipedia doesnt have an article about it. The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America article doesnt mention this publication and the groups website [5] is, well, vague might be the best word, about what the publication is. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"This electronic publication is only available to Active and Associate members and you will be asked for your discussion forum username and password at the next screen". It is mentioned on the SFWA website, but is not important enough to be mentioned in the article on SFWA. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it just a membership newsletter or scholarly journal or ...?? In essence is it a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? or the equivilent of a blog?Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a member forum; but if somebody posted to it claiming to be Harlan who was not Harlan, heads would roll: so it's a reliable source of what was written on its pages by the participants therein. Since I'm not a member, I have no way of checking whether the posts have been misrepresented. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Up until 2007 it was a quarterly printed publication, mailed out to all active members. I am unsure that helps with the validity issue, but SFWA is not known for publishing submissions under false pretenses.NYlegal1 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Policies

Just posting here something I posted on NYlegal's page.

The article is a biography of a living person, and must therefore rely almost entirely on secondary sources: see WP:PSTS and WP:SOURCES. Source material self-published by Kramer (e.g. his website if he has one) is allowed with caution, so long as he doesn't discuss third parties: see WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. Primary sources (e.g. court documents) may be used to augment the secondary sources, but nothing in the article should be supported only by primary sources: see WP:BLPPRIMARY.

Those are the policies, and if they're applied strictly here, they will almost certainly end whatever the dispute is. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've gone in and removed the unsourced and poorly sourced, or made it invisible for now, per BLP. I also added a couple of refs. Once protection is over, editors can decide which bits of it to rebuild if anything important was removed, but I don't think it was. In fact, it could probably use a further trim. I even wonder whether it should exist, but I'll leave that for others to deal with. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the criminal allegations section is the largest of all in the entry, it would appear that quite possibly, Kramer accomplishments aren't relevant enough to constitute an WP entry at all.NYlegal1 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I've asked NYlegal1 not to edit the article again, in part because of his COI, and in part because he has added at least one serious BLP violation. It would therefore be appreciated if the other editors on the page would look at any suggestions he makes here, and add them if they're appropriate. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have, in fact, made several points for discussion here, to which no one has replied, notwithstanding the clear COI of an Admin whose edits appear self-serving at best, and follow a sourced agenda against Kramer / DragonCon through his own blogged comments external to this site. I will not edit further, as requested. NYlegal1 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it's not clear what you want, not clear that your sources are good, and you keep accusing people of having agendas. In future, create a new section (called something like "edit request"), post the material you would like to see added, plus a reliable source, per WP:SOURCES; or post the material you would like to see removed, along with an explanation. Then ask that another editor look at it for you, but without accusing anyone of anything. That's more likely to attract assistance. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

While looking over this, I have come to the conclusion that is a total mess. You have an admin removing sources and pieces of content without neutral reasoning (or at least explaining it so people don't see it as such) and leaving broken content that no longer functions as a whole. You have someone else that takes issue with this bias and returns with equally unacceptable violations. I understand that some people can not control emotions/bias but this is wikipedia--A source for sources, not a personal tug of war over page content. If this NYlegal1 guy isn't allowed to edit, I believe OrangeMike should keep clear as well. Also, I fear this topic is just going to continue to be COI tugged more and more now that the additional legal charges have be filled (which is why I came to this page). You may have to put the page under content review and have a reliable admin take charge. -=Nabakaron=- {Talk} =--08:20 7 October 2011 (UTC)--= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.168.219 (talk • contribs)

Dragon*Con statement

There is currently a statement about Kramer on the mainpage of http://dragoncon.org:

It has come to our attention that former chairman of Dragon Con Ed Kramer has been in the news recently.

We have this to say about that:

Edward Kramer resigned from the Dragon Con Convention in the year 2000 after being indicted on
felony charges in Gwinnett County. He has not had any role in Dragon Con planning or activities
since that time. 

Since 2000 the convention has been managed by three of the other founders. These men have been
involved with the convention since the beginning. They are chairman Pat Henry, and board
members Dave Cody and Robert Dennis. In these eleven years the convention attendance
has grown from less than 10,000 to over 46,000 this past Labor Day.

Pat Henry
Chairman
Dragon Con / ACE Inc

Would it be worth quoting any of this in the article? --Elonka 17:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I'm wondering whether it might really be almost WP:UNDUE? (I'm cynical enough to note that the announcement doesn't discuss what percentage of the company he owns at this point. Is that even public record?) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently so.[6] Kramer owns 34% of Dragon*Con, Pat Henry owns the same, and the rest is divvied up with other shareholders. In any case, this Wikipedia has been tagged since February 2011 as having neutrality issues. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Or can the tag be removed? --Elonka 23:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I say remove it.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Boys Club

In the 1980's (at least) Ed worked at the Boys Club in Brookhaven, Atlanta. I don't know if he was a volunteer or regular staff. He taught DnD, chess and other board games to many kids. The years I know about are pre-DragonCon. El duderino ^(abides) 19:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Titan Comics

I used to work at Titan Games and Comics, of which Ed was part owner at the time. He didn't actually work there, but would often show up with two or three different little boys roughly once a week. We all used to choke on our bile when we'd see the way he gently talked to them or stroked their backs while directing their attention to some comic or other. He often talked to them as if trying to impress upon their minds how important he was, as if they should be grateful he was giving them his attention. Of course, this is classic child grooming behavior. Everyone who worked there KNEW Ed was grooming these little boys for sex but no one knew what to do. We always used to wonder where he was getting them and how he was getting them away from their parents. When the thing finally went public none of the employees were surprised in the least because he was so blatant about it.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Edward E. Kramer → Ed Kramer – Granted that his usual authorial byline is "Edward E. Kramer", the fact is that he's commonly known in news reports as just "Ed Kramer", or sometimes "Edward Kramer". We shouldn't paper over the notoriety of his drawn-out trial, nor the fact that he pled guilty, and for that reason this page ought to be at the name readers will be familiar with from news reports. Ed Kramer is already a redirect to this article; it ought to be the page title instead. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC) --172.9.22.150 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think. Wouldn't using "Ed Kramer" actually "paper over" his crimes, insofar as it might allow people to disassociate the criminal from the author "Edward E. Kramer" whose byline they know? I don't understand how the current title does a disservice to readers. Xoloz (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Back in the news

• Visser, Steve (13 November 2014). "DA 'knew' conviction would not end Dragon Con co-founder's court presence". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 14 November 2014.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward E. Kramer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012222658/http://clatl.com/2002-01-30/cover.html to http://clatl.com/2002-01-30/cover.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles needs updating with info on new twists in legal cases against Kramer

There are apparently new legal twists in the legal saga of Kramer. See the following articles: https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/Dragon-Con-co-founders-legal-saga-marked-by-strange-twists-558455281.html

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/coverage-for-recused-gwinnett-judge-could-cost-county-77k/tJ9RtALOFG5gxIXDwBcDIJ/

Someone should update the article to reflect this new info. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I can try but I need your help. I am fully familiar with the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)