Re: Judge tosses Twitter libel suit

More | Report Post

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:
>
> "1.an 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?
>
>
>
>