Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

http://www.laweekly.com/photoGallery/index/?
section=news&gallery=262723&position=7&page=1

Sharon:

You might not admit it but you do lie about such things as
moving to a bigger house overlooking a lake.

The house may be bigger or not but it is minus the pool and
the view of the lake. Rancho Sante Fe is a plush retirement
community established by the movie stars looking for weekend
hideaways. You sold property there as an agent but you
don't live there and your view is of a gully in cramped
subdivison without any pool or yard, on the end of a
culvsac. I can understand you would want to be included in
mold toxicology and remediation; go to ASTM confereses as
and expert. Anybody can google and see you moved from
waterfront property back to the city where your husband
provides continued support. Why not be content with growing
old like the rest of us, and spend more time with the family
rather than trying to a part of the "in-crowd". Yes people
ask my daughter if she goes to "ole miss" and she grins joy
with "No"!

On 12/30/09, Sharon wrote:
> Here you go, legal geniuses. Get your minds around this
> one.
>
> 12/29/2009 Order filed. In reviewing the briefs and
> record on appeal, the following questions have arisen: In
> her motion for summary judgment, defendant and appellant
> Sharon Kramer appears to have argued that her description
> of plaintiff and respondent Bruce J. Kelman's testimony in
> the Haynes trial as "altered" was privileged and entitled
> her to judgment as a matter of law. 1. Was Kramer's
> description of Kelman's testimony privileged? (See
Reader's
> Digest Assn v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 262-
> 264, and Paterno v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th
> 1342, 1355-1357.) 2. Does anything in our prior
unpublished
> opinion in this matter, Kelman v. Kramer (2006) D047758,
> November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the question
of
> whether appellant's statements were privileged? The
parties
> are directed to respond this question by letter brief
> within 30 days of the date of this order. The order of
> November 30, 2009, setting this case on calendar on
> Wednesday, January 13, 2010, for oral argument is vacated.
> The case will be recalendared upon receipt of the parties'
> letter briefs. The clerk of the court will notify all
> parties of the new date and time.
>
> http://www.blip.tv/file/2878576/