Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

John Codie,

You are becoming creepier by the day. Got a message from two
website owners yesterday that someone was searching their cites
for "sharon kramer lake address". They wanted to know if I
thought I should be concerned. I replied "no" probably just one
of the trolls from ToxLaw. But now I am beginning to wonder.

And thank you for reposting the LAWeekly article. Means alot
to me. lol

Be sure to read the emails from the reporter, Daniel Heimpel,
in the links below of what he actually knew before he and Jill
Stewart published that horrid false light writing....3 weeks
before trial.

http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/huffington-post-
blogger-daniel-heimpel-is-shill-for-us-chamber-proponent-for-
children-laweekly/

Sharon

On 1/14/10, johncodie wrote:
> 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/