Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by johncodie on 1/19/10
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
> 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.
1. We both know that the trial has already been tried. I hope your not still trying
to create a defense, what is out there is out there.
2. Most if not all evidence has been submitted to the court and the court gave you
from what you have submitted two points to possibly change or reverse the lower
3. I don't know who, or what legal training that you have had, but my associations
with the legal profession most definately show that the attorneys are most sensitive
to the judges and their belief systems.
Two things I believe go against you is a.) things did not work out with your first
attorney and his services were no longer required giving the appearance as to you
want to be the attorney and try your own case, ie. you can't see your actions as a
tort, b.) you lost in the trial for libel and the SLAPP law is the judges duty to
see if there was any chance Mr. Kelman would be sucessful, SLAPP is to end trails
where there is little change for plantiff to win. Since you lost it appears to be a
moot point, giving a jury voice superior knowlege over the judges opinion of
4. If you haven't figured it out by now, your arogance about telling people they
are limited in knowlege are most often used by attornys as when asked if you "know
the time", the response is "yes" without giving the "time".
My belief system is that SLAPP intent is limited to such public debate items like
public health insurance legislation, and not specific to the actualy reporting
of "should be court decisions" of perjury based upon reporting of "sworn
testimony". I don't see the first admendment right to free speach as the "right of
an individual to speak for the court as if fact" I see that as a disrespect for the
When your say questions are too goofy, it implies that your having to do the
majority of your attorney research for them, and your behind. When your lost the
case you claimed you were denied the right to provide the jury evidence. Where is
this evidence now?
5. If your mold cause wanted to have the perponderance of any legitamacy you would
seek diversity in your peer reviews prior to publishing. Where was your peer review
prior to any statements of fact of Mr. Kelman. If your response continues to be I
don't need peer review, I have superior knowlege of libel and I used my first
admendment right to report he changed his under oath testimony, you have already
6. I have seen in may cases in many cases where the courts give ample opportunity
for people that are just out right lying in court and the evidence against them are
against them to make corrections, so that the turth does come out, justice is
served. If you would have been in the court where Kelman was clarifying his
testiomy and you shouted out "He changed his under oath statements", I am pretty
sure there would have been a quick objection from the attorny for your outbreak, and
a stern warning from the court.
7. Your demener and respect for the court will be closley discerned.
Posts on this thread, including this one