Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ
Posted by Rem Dude on 9/19/10
No, what public should fear are misguided activists who blindly
attack, disparage, and intimidate others in an effort to distort
Self-importance begets insignificance. At the end of the day,
you’re alone howling at the moon and no one is listening or
On 9/18/10, Sharon wrote:
> 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
> courts. Too many lives at stake and too many may fear
> out in the future.
> On 9/17/10, Rem Dude wrote:
>> An excellent lesson for those who attack, disparage and
>> Court costs too - ouch!
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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