Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

JC,

You have it backwards. The COURTS are the ones now questioning exactly
what happened with the anti-SLAPP.

As far a Google map. It is STILL none of your damn business to track
where my family is. This a chatboard about the mold issue. Not about
a mean spirited little man who lost on his mold litigation and can't
stand to see anyone doing better.

Which, being a father of no less than one daughter, I am certain you
can understand why it creeps me out that you choose to investigate
exactly where my family is.

And I didn't need to "cyberstalk" to find your IP address, nor have I
ever cyberstalked anyone. It was sent to me because you creeped other
people out, too, with your bizarre desire to get into my personal life.

Did I refuse to date your or something in my younger days? Your real
name is not Boby, is it?

Sharon

On 1/16/10, johncodie wrote:
> You, of all people should know of google maps and ariel views. Its
> what realtors use show neigboring properties. Don't act suprized
> and taken advantage; Doesn't take much skill to get an IP address
> since your one swift cyberstalker and support more cyberstalkers
> with your advanced server monitors. I thought you liked all the
> attention, as you in previous post praised more attention being
> given to your case. Those important papers from which you claim
> attorney client privl, from the attorny you fired after the trail.
> Time is of the essense. This treatment stems from your claim to
> having "won" permission to file some more documents with the
> appellate court. After Kelman went public with your loss, I'm sure
> you need anything to claim a victory. Permission to address the
> court is a constitutional right, not a verdit in your favor.
>
> And when you would like to claim this in non of the publics
> business, you fail to remember it is our constitutional right to
> news worthy facts. Don't you think Tiger Woods would like to not be
> in Hattiesburg MS, or have the fans know where he is. Wouldn't it
> be great to be able to turn off fan appeal at any time a person
> would like that privacy.
>
> You are being scutinized because you crowed to the world of your
> victory! I am painting a picture of the victory that I see for
> your conclusion of an appeal. If you don't like the attention I
> would recommend a little more modesty in taking care of your
> business a truly attorny client privelage way. Don't say anything
> more unless your attorny clears it for you.
>
> jc
>
> 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/