Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09
Posted by Mike B. on 12/30/09
She put the blurb up here for comment, so I did. I'll bet you
I'm correct in my interpretation.
The record is very clear - I've stated on this board MANY times
that I'm not an attorney, nor am I attempting to give legal
On 12/30/09, Deborah wrote:
> "Sounds like", what is this charades...
> Sounds like Mikey wanna be a lawyer now. Gag, that would be a
> low blow for the profession.
> On 12/30/09, Mike B. wrote:
>> Sounds like they want to rule that your statements were NOT
>> privileged, but want to make certain they are procedurally
>> solid ground. Hence, the question presented: "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 in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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
>> Didn't you get rid of your lawyers some time back? What are
>> you going to tell the appeal court....."Yes, you can answer
>> that question because I know Henry Waxman"?
>> On 12/30/09, Sharon wrote:
>>> Here you go, legal geniuses. Get your minds around this
>>> 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. 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.) 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished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 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.
Posts on this thread, including this one