Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Wow. Talk about the shoe being on the other foot!

Sharon, for years you have blindly attacked anyone who disagrees
with your “plausibility” notions. You threaten them with exposure,
you demean their character, you spread lies and innuendo about them,
and your lies have lead to legal action. You crave attention, yet
squeal like a child when you get it.

Talk about being bitter and hateful - Honey you wrote the book on
being bitter, vile and hateful. About time you get a little taste of
what you spew daily. Sucks don't it?

Too bad you are not capable of a little introspection.

RD

On 1/16/10, Sharon wrote:
> John Codie,
>
> Stop it, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! You really are starting to creep me
> out. And you are writing lies while you do it. You are making
> things up about where I live, what my view is, how close I am to
> Rancho Santa Fe, what my house looks like, how big it is, my lake
> view, etc.
>
> NONE of this is any of YOUR business and has nothing to do with
the
> mold issue. I have no intention of describing in detail where I
> live to refute your lies or to give more personal information
> involving my family to someone who is getting creepier by the day.
>
> It is character assasination by some Good Ole Boy who LOST in a
> mold litigation, hates anyone who does better, and could give a
> damn if the science gets advanced so no others have to go thru
what
> you did. As a matter of fact, your posts indicate a person who
> would prefer to see others suffer because you did.
>
> Stop it, NOW, John. Your bitterness over your own personal mold
> experience is glaringly showing. You absurdly profess to be over
> the mold issue, yet you post here daily which would indicate
> otherwise. Don't take it out on me and stop trying to figure out
> exactly where I and my family live.
>
> I have your IP address. I know how long you spent on internet
> sites the day before yesterday trying to find out where I live.
>
> YOU ARE CROSSING A LINE WITH YOUR RECENT POSTS. PLEASE, CEASE AND
> DISSIST.
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
> On 1/15/10, johncodie wrote:
>> Thats great Sharon:
>>
>> That means more and more people are checking up on your facade.
>> You have your address plastered on all the correspondece, and
>> can see your a couple of miles away from the lake. No longer
>> water front property unless your house slides down the huge
>> gully behind the house and the gully won't drain. Isn't always
>> location, location, location that was your former days of real
>> eastate always desribed as property worth?
>>
>> Too bad it hasn't been providing credible truth to those you
>> preach your dose mold solutions. Media management from your own
>> words, you are a cyberstalker with accomplishes looking over
>> your shoulder. They and you should just love to make the news
>> media spin. Wow two website owners monitor thier searches for
>> their favorite celeberty.
>>
>> Now how is that view of the future lake? Ok just walk back
>> outside to that porch for a smoke over the gully and just spit.
>> It was a great view while it lasted.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/15/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> 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/