Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Mike B. on 1/16/10
Are you claiming "literary license" or the "litigation exception" as a
Which was your statement about Kelman - a provably false statement of fact,
or a loose and figurative expression of opinion?
On 1/16/10, Sharon wrote:
> 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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:
>>> You have it backwards. The COURTS are the ones now questioning
>>> 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
>> 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.
Posts on this thread, including this one