Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Sharon on 1/18/10


    No! Not "priveleged communication". Privilege. The issue of Privilege.
    Meaning was it a fair reporting of the events that transpired in a legal
    proceeding involving a semi-public figure. New York Times v. Sullivan.

    And did errors in the MSJ rulings and anti-SLAPP rulings cause an unnecessary

    And can one legally use criminal perjury to establish a false reason for why
    they were purportedly accused of criminal perjury. NOPE!

    You are starting to remind me of Rosanne Rosanna Dana.

    "priveleged communication.....never mind"

    On 1/18/10, johncodie wrote:
    > 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
    > you!
    > 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
    > 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.)
    > 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
    > v.
    >> 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
    > cited
    >> 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.