Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Sharon on 1/16/10


    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?


    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.
    >> 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.
    >>>> blogger-daniel-heimpel-is-shill-for-us-chamber-proponent-for-
    >>>> children-laweekly/
    >>>> Sharon
    >>>> On 1/14/10, johncodie wrote:
    >>>>> 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.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.