Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

JC,

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.
Gerts.

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

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.