Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by johncodie on 1/18/10

    On 1/16/10, Sharon wrote:
    > 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.

    I appreciate that you think you can handel more wrangling. It is nice that
    you assume that your in control of the discussion, or assume ladies always
    go first. You have a view with your office and it views toward where you
    once lived. You must fancy some positive outcome of your accumulation of
    more banker boxes of court transcripts? I have no fantasies of you or your
    family, and sense a huge empty house with pets for companionship. Good for

    Now open to the subject of litigation, it you can refrain from trying to
    include any science of mold, or toxicology. I know its hard for you to want
    to jump to your own defense.

    > "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:

    The courts are providing you the benefit of a doubt and allowing you to pay
    for their self examination of if they have error. Not if you or your
    attorny made a mistake, or the if plantiff attorney made some mistakes;
    becuase errors were made in stragegy on both sides. Were there any gross
    errors made as to the interpretation of the law? I'm sure that you feel
    there were misinterpretations but unless we have read hundreds, and hundreds
    of case laws; im sure our interpreation have holes in the applications.

    > 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.

    Interesting defense to ask for privileged communications under a summary
    judgement motion. Summary judgement is typcially clear black and white
    proven case law where a jury would not be required. Priviledged
    communcations pertains to the ethics of those individuals usally pertaining
    to a client first seeking counsel. There are several issues pertaining to
    your request for privileged that I belive the jury found as where you
    inadvertly waived and privilege right.

    > 1. Was Kramer's description of Kelman's testimony privileged? (See
    > Digest Assn v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 262-264, and Paterno
    > Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1355-1357.)

    This might be one cite for allowance but I believe there are more issues
    that would mandate that your cliam for private communications were actually
    due in discovery. No need for your attorny to put what you said to them as
    it was already out there.

    > 2. Does anything in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman
    > Kramer (2006) D047758, November 16, 2006, prevent us from reaching the
    > question of whether appellant's statements were privileged?

    The court gets to review its legal opinion to see if in hind site it would
    bear the proof of review at a higher court. Did they really mess up and
    upon higher court review send it back for trial?

    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.

    You get to present the proof to the court system that they just continue to
    make mistakes in what they are doing. Why has your alleged privilege
    communications with your attorney allowed you be be wrongly found guilty of
    a serious tort causing financial harm? Why is the courts interpretation of
    the law based upon the evidence you provided wrong? What did you do in due
    dilligence to allow Mr. Kelman to explain himself in what communications you
    claim he was in error?

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

    I am not sure where you have obtained this grandioius attitude of your
    superiority of the law! I don't think it serves your institution of higher
    learning any merit of shouting pep rally cheers.

    The courts are not AWESOME! They are unduely influenced and fiancially
    strained. Sometimes they are timely in affirming an individuals
    constitutional rights. In my opinion you owed Kelman a heads up as a fourm
    to defend any misinterpretation as to what he said or meant to say, if you
    wanted to have clarificaion. Otherwise you poison the open communications.

    Now for clarification on the litigation you are involved, what points do you
    think my interpretation/obervations are off without even entering the word
    mold, or toxin.

    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.