Follow us!

    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
    the truth.

    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:
    > RemDude,
    > 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.
    > Next
    > 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.