Re: Judge tosses Twitter libel suit

More | Report Post

Much like a Santa Ana wind blowing into the San Diego Appellate
court. When the static, immovable airs and visibility blocking smut are
purged from this strategic litigation; six facts remain in evidence, clear
as day, for this Reviewing Court’s opened eyes....

....Contrary to rulings of the San Diego courts, plaintiffs cannot legally
file a libel suit accusing they were falsely and maliciously accused of
committing perjury by the defendant’s words “altered his under oath
statements”; not be able to even state how the phrase translates to an
accusation of perjury; not disclose who the true parties to the litigation
are; and then commit perjury to falsely establish the reason for the
defendant’s malice.

To do so, only proves the plaintiffs do commit perjury. And their
accusation of feigning malicious harm from the word “altered” could not
be established by legal means. They used criminal means and judicial
bamboozlement that the courts bought hook, line and sinker no matter how
much contradictory evidence the courts were provided.

Kramer is legally entitled to a reversal of all of her motions that were
defeated by Kelman’s, VeriTox’s and Scheuer’s fraud on the courts, (9
Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 733, pp. 762-763.);
which makes Kramer the properly recognized prevailing party of the
C.C.P. 425.16 anti-SLAPP motion. As the prevailing party in an anti-
SLAPP motion, Kramer is legally entitled to her costs and fees incurred
from errors of improper courts rulings while ignoring her evidence since
September of 2005 of Kelman’s criminal perjury to establish false
reason for Kramer’s malice when strategically litigating through the
efforts of Scheuer.

“Paterno asks for her attorney fees in preparing this writ petition.
Under subdivision (c) of the anti-SLAPP statute, successful litigants who
prevail on a special motion to strike are entitled to attorney fees as a
matter of right “to compensate . . . for the expense of responding to a
SLAPP suit.” (Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt &
Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 633].) The
trial court should consider Paterno’s request for attorney fees in
connection with Paterno’s special motion to strike....Paterno is awarded
her costs in this proceeding. Paterno v. Superior Court (2008) 163
Cal.App.4th 1342, 1357-1358.

When this Reviewing Court acknowledges what legally cannot be
denied: Kramer’s overwhelming, uncontroverted and irrefutable
evidence that seven judges and justices ignored Kramer’s overwhelming,
uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence of Kelman’s perjury on the
issue of malice and ignored Kramer’s vast evidence of Scheuer’s willful
suborning of Kelman’s criminal perjury; then seven years worth of
scientific fraud perpetrated on US Courts over the mold issue by the US
Chamber of Commerce et al, will immediately cease by the
acknowledgment that their author of their scientific fraud has no qualms
about lying under oath to the courts and strategically litigating; and
while their other author does not disclose he is a party to the strategic
litigation.

The entire point of using criminal perjury in this strategic litigation
was so the fraud of the US Chamber et al, could continue by the
discrediting of the truthful words of a Whistleblower by deeming her to
be a malicious liar for the mere word “altered”. Thus far, errors of the
San Diego courts have inadvertently aided and abetted the US Chamber
of Commerce et al,’s scientific fraud to continue on its merry way in US
courts by deeming the wrong party in this strategic litigation to be the
“malicious liar”; and causing this wronged party to be unable to make a
living as a reputable, real estate agent.

As this Reviewing Court has been informed and evidenced; on
August 31, 2009, an Amicus Curiae Brief by the National Apartment
Association political action committee (“NAA Amicus”) was submitted
into a legal proceeding in Arizona (“Abad”) involving two new born
infant deaths, an apartment building documented to have an atypical
amount of mold, and Bruce Kelman serving as an expert witness for the
defense; with the NAA Amicus submitted in fraudulent validation of
Kelman’s self professed expert mold opinion. (Kelman comes to the
mold issue from Big Tobacco, circa 2000) NAA Amicus pg. 9:

“In a report entitled, ‘A Scientific View of the Health Effects of
Mold’, a pane of l[sic, two] scientists, including toxicologists and
industrial hygienists stated that years of intense study have failed to
produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and
adverse health effects. U.S. Chamber of Commerce, A Scientific View of
the Health Effects of Mold (2003)”

California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3.D.(2) states, Disciplinary
Responsibilities ‘Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a
lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.” Two mothers of
deceased newborns in Arizona are waiting on this Reviewing Court to
“take appropriate corrective action” to undo the harm of this unbridled
strategic litigation so they are not also victimized by the fraud in their
litigation used to falsely deem them to be malicious liars. (Word Count:
560 plus case law and Judicial Ethics Canon citing)....

Reminiscent of the tale of the husband who attempted to sneak in the
back door of his home early one morning wearing his crumpled suit
from the day before, and who replied to his wife’s questioning of where
he had been, with, “I got home at 1a.m. and did not want to wake you,
so I slept out back in the hammock”. When informed by his wife that
she had taken the hammock down three months earlier, the husband then
replied, “Well that’s my story and I’m sticking to it”. The following is
Kelman’s Appellate Reply Brief...

On 2/01/10, Deborah wrote:
> On 2/01/10, johncodie wrote:
>
> "What is the measure of a civilized country? How are you going to
> win your case?"
>
>
>
>
>
> "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest
> members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
>
>
>
>
> "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those
> who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the
> twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life;
> the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H.
>
> Women are still a minority in this country. The ERA has yet to be
> ratified.
>
>
> She'll probably win by determination and the upholding of the 1st
> Amendment Right for starters.
>