Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

JC,

I will take your BS IF you stick to the subject of mold and litigation.
But please STOP with the lies. I am looking at the lake out my office
window right now as I type this. And please leave my home and my family
out of your fantasies.

"The COURTS aren't doing a thing. They have a full docket, and the
COURTS don't question a thing. They make rulings on Laws. You or your
attorny might be doing the leg work but I can assure you the court
officers are doing the best they can to stay awake."

Really? Well you should let the COURTS know what they are doing wrong
then, oh Omnipitent 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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.

Too bad you don't have the capability to view the case law the courts cited
with their questions, you say that courts don't ask. They are AWESOME!

On 1/16/10, johncodie wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/10, Sharon wrote:
>> JC,
>>
>> You have it backwards. The COURTS are the ones now questioning
> exactly
>> what happened with the anti-SLAPP.
>
> The COURTS aren't doing a thing. They have a full docket, and the
> COURTS don't question a thing. They make rulings on Laws. You or your
> attorny might be doing the leg work but I can assure you the court
> officers are doing the best they can to stay awake.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> No investigative tracking, you put your address on your correspondence,
> mapquest does the rest. We didn't lose our litigation, in fact the
> aprasier assigned the case provide the attorny a statemenet the
> insurance company's intent was to screw us from the beginning. Thats
> the reason he was reassigned. If you want to claim you came out better
> than I did; thats fine with me.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I have no interest as to where you are at this moment or any other
> individual. You lay claim to your bigger house with the lake view. The
> facts from satellite imaging just don't support your claim.
>
>> 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.
>
> Anybody that has a server to the internet knows that unless it is
> encrypted secured it is in the public domian. No need to hack it all
> out there where you placed it. Good you have webmasters to track and
> ping for you. It must make you feel important. Your personal life is
> what you choose to keep off the internet.
>
>>
>> Did I refuse to date your or something in my younger days? Your real
>> name is not Boby, is it?
>
> Now that is a hoot! Nope you must have some history with some Bobby, or
> Boby. It isn't me. You have already indicated who that boy was from
> your past in an e-mail. Thats not me, but I will respect you and his
> romantic past.
>
> jc
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>>