Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Mike B.

Wrong. What it means is, I have already won new trial. Now we are
going back to examine the criminal elements of this litigation to
silence a Whistleblower so that the US Chamber of Commerce and
other political actions committees can continue to perpetrate
frauds on the courts. Willful perjury on the issue of malice and
willful subornning of perjury on the issue of and attempted
coercion into silence.

http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366/

Sharon

On 12/30/09, Mike B. wrote:
> 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
> advice.
>
>
> 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
>> on
>>> 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 in our prior unpublished opinion in this matter, Kelman v.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
>>> privileged?"
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>> 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 Does anything in our prior unpublished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.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blip.tv/file/2878576/