Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Sharon on 9/18/10


    You mean people should fear retribution for speaking out and
    exposing of a deception in US public health policy that harms
    the lives of many?

    Is that the lesson you think is good in America?

    Forget it. Will not be silenced until the environmental
    science of the US Chamber is removed from health policy and the
    courts. Too many lives at stake and too many may fear speaking
    out in the future.


    On 9/17/10, Rem Dude wrote:
    > An excellent lesson for those who attack, disparage and
    > intimidate.
    > Court costs too - ouch!
    > RD
    > On 9/16/10, sangamon811 wrote:
    >> I am from Veritox, and for persons who have been following
    >> issues related to Dr. Kelman, I thought you would be
    >> interested in this recent court ruling:
    >> Court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold
    >> Activist
    >> Ruling affirms 2008 ruling that Dr. Bruce Kelman,
    >> President of Veritox, was victim of defamation
    >> SEATTLE (September 16, 2010) – The California Court of
    >> Appeal this week affirmed the judgment in favor of Dr.
    >> Bruce Kelman of Veritox®, Inc., determining that Dr. Bruce
    >> Kelman was libeled by activist Sharon Kramer. In a
    >> unanimous opinion, Division One of the Fourth Appellate
    >> District upheld the jury’s verdict in Dr. Kelman’s favor
    >> and also ordered Kramer to pay costs to Dr. Kelman.
    >> The Court upheld the 2008 verdict by a San Diego County
    >> Superior Court jury that found. Kramer libeled Dr. Kelman
    >> when she published a press release in March 2005 stating
    >> that Dr. Kelman had altered his under-oath statements on
    >> the witness stand when he testified as a witness in an
    >> Oregon lawsuit. The jury found that Kramer’s statement was
    >> false and defamatory and that she had published it with
    >> malice.
    >> In addition to upholding the 2008 ruling, the appellate
    >> court affirmed the trial court’s award of costs to Dr.
    >> Kelman, and also found that he was entitled to recover
    >> costs on appeal.

    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.