Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Rem Dude on 1/19/10

    Sharon Kramer is now giving lessons on libel???!!! Has the world suddenly stopped
    turning, are pigs flying, are snowballs being formed in the Oval Office? What’s
    next, an anti-smoking campaign or how to sell real estate in a down market?

    Kramer once again proves there is no bottom to the hypocrisy crater. Sharon, you
    need some time off to reflect. I would suggest a decade or two. You and reality are
    not orbiting in the same space/time continuum.


    On 1/18/10, Sharon wrote:
    > 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.
    > 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.

    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.