Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

On 9/19/10, Rem Dude wrote:
> 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
> cares.
>
> Sad
>
> RD
>
> 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
> the
>> courts. Too many lives at stake and too many may fear
> speaking
>> 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.
>>>>