Follow us!

    Re: Judge tosses Twitter libel suit

    Posted by Sharon on 2/02/10

    Right. Not just a JNOV,(judgment notwithstanding the verdict) but a reversal of
    the anti-SLAPP, too.

    On 2/02/10, johncodie wrote:
    > On 2/01/10, sharon wrote:
    >> Deborah,
    >> Oh yea, ALLEGED would have been a good word to add in there.
    > Alleged is findings of court jury of facts, your seeking on a reversal by
    > appeal.
    >> On 2/01/10, Deborah wrote:
    >>> On 2/01/10, Sharon wrote:
    >>> "are; and then commit perjury to falsely establish the reason for the
    >>> defendant’s ALLEGED malice."
    >>> 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....
    > This sounds like the start of a novel, where are the six fact?
    > 1.
    > 2.
    > 3.
    > 4.
    > 5.
    > 6.
    > ....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.
    > So you say that all you have to do is file a SLAPP motion and the San Diego
    > courts have to not weigh the evidence.
    > 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.
    > I seriously doubt that you know what the courts used in making their final
    > conclusions, by your own admission it was an e-mail by Kellman your attorny
    > provided that caused some of the juries to rule against you.
    > 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.
    > Where are the six facts of the case that provides you the entitlment, just
    > claiming the wish for reversal does not weigh heavily on a reversal.
    > “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.
    > When you can provide well supported documentation of additional facts of court
    > errors, or conflicting statements of others refuting Kellman, and supporting
    > your position wil the Court decide on additional actions. It is rare the
    > Court will acknowledge errors when a jury was the deciding entity.
    > 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.
    > Are you now claiming you can't sell homes due to your decision of becoming
    > political, and had to become a mold advocate by the force of the court. How
    > many clients did you tell that the millon dollar view was always going to be a
    > millon dollar view that you can count on when you needed to pay the bills.
    > Did you lie,or its just what you expect from a real estate agent.
    > You shouldn't calling yourself a Whistlebower, expert, or other description,
    > but just defendant. Words like scientific fraud, junk science etc. are the
    > terms the courts do not rely upon as there is little case law on the
    > manufacture of false data. Example tobbacco was doing legitamate studies to
    > peak addiction, but kept it out of country as best to prevent having to
    > deliver it to authorities. The tobbacco media, and legal representativees
    > were perpertrating the fraud. The court qualifies the experts prior to
    > trail. If you are going to establish yourself as a expert whistleblower you
    > need to establish that in addition to defendant.
    > 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, (Kelman comes to the
    > mold issue from Big Tobacco, circa 2000) NAA Amicus pg. 9:
    > " apartment building documented to have an atypical
    > amount of mold, 2. and Bruce Kelman serving as an expert witness for the
    > defense;3. with the NAA Amicus submitted in fraudulent validation of
    > Kelman’s self professed expert mold opinion.
    > "fraudulent validation" Three areas that need supporting data to support.
    > I thought the court approved his as to being an expert, and he provided an
    > scientific opinion based on the amount of mold he witnessed. So where is the
    > fraudulent validation? Is it the defendant that says so, or are you the
    > expert whitleblower?
    > “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)....
    > Citing Judicial Code isn't going to help, they already know it, telling a
    > judge that he commited an ethical violation, is as bad,or worse than the liabel
    > 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...
    > Are you saying that your sleeping with the judge, or your husband is coming
    > home late? I am sure your going to stick to your story you had no mailace.
    > Again I go back to the Andew Hamiliton defense, sure you were actively working
    > on the reputation of Kellman. Why is it in the best intrest of the nation,
    > and constitutional of all citizens to allow you to highlight in the methods
    > you used of all this alleged fraud?

    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.