Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Your post tells me you have no knowledge of libel law or what constitutes libel
with actual malice, or what constitutes strategic litigation against public
participation.

But...you have been of great benefit in the past week or so of reminding me what
objections must be overcome and what the perception biases of the case are.

Never mind. Your questions are too goofy. Will share the final product when
finished. Both mine and Kelman's.

On 1/18/10, johncodie wrote:
> On 1/18/10, Sharon wrote:
>> 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"
>>
>
> Either what it is "WAS" or what it "IS" the tort is of record from your
> actions. Your defense is then journalistic fair reporting of Court Transcripts
> as opposed to you being at the trail and are the best listener as a witness. I
> would think a court reporter with a backup tape recorder be the best at quoting
> what Mr. Kelman said.
>
> And I don't understand your previous comments as to your Proving something?
> Fair Reporting isn't the sceince of theory and duplication of results. You
> don't have a jury to convience so there is no proof. In your own words:
>
> "I am claiming and PROVING I wrote the truth about testimony given in a legal
> proceeding.
>
> "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."
>
> Sharon"
>
> In the the word selection "wrote the truth about testimony" implies you made
> some interpretations of the meaning of words transcribed. Was there any verdict
> written to anybody or group as to "crime" "perjury" etc.
>
> Wouldn't good journalistic style be Dr. Kelman made clarifications to previous
> statements of fact based upon recently found information?
>
> I can't believe you really expected a summary judgement to keep you out of a
> jury trial. You also claim in your defense that you don't, and never had mailce
> for Mr. Kelman. Even in the word selections you present of the man show your
> contempt. You demenor shows you want him charged, convicted and taken to jail.
>
> I'm faily sure the court will not allow you to set a precedence in this case, as
> they were compasionate and only awarded him one dollar. However, you don't get
> the right to rewrite what you want in a court transcript to suit your agenda.