Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Sharon on 1/17/10
Wow, Mike B. There is nothing snotty at all in your question. Are you okay?
I am claiming and PROVING I wrote the truth about testimony given in a legal
"Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne's attorney of Kelman's prior
testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements
on the witness stand."
On 1/16/10, Mike B. wrote:
> 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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