Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Deborah on 9/20/10

    I've kept up w/ this since before it went to trial, even
    before that. Sad parody of justice.

    I have had many, many people look at the two papers created by
    Veritox and the circumstances in which they were created and
    used, the oddities regarding the scientific data used ( or not
    used ) and the issues of authorship. No one, lay person,
    legal or medical professional found integrity and ethics
    within the document.

    I also shared the transcripts of the trial as well as the
    initiating article with the alleged libelous remark; the
    consensus among the random people I've shared it with is that
    apparently truth is no defense against retaliatory defamation
    suits w/ no merit. Apparently there is some question over the
    definition of "altered"; Merriam Webster defines it thusly,

    Main Entry: al·ter
    Pronunciation: \ˈȯl-tər\
    Function: verb
    Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin alterare, from
    Latin alter other (of two); akin to Latin alius other — more
    at else
    Inflected Forms: al·teredal·ter·ing\-t(ə-)riŋ\
    Date: 14th century
    transitive verb
    : to make different without changing into something else
    : castrate, spay
    intransitive verb
    : to become different
    — al·ter·abil·i·ty\ˌȯl-t(ə-)rə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
    — al·ter·able\ˈȯl-t(ə-)rə-bəl\ adjective
    — al·ter·ably\-blē\ adverb
    — al·ter·er\-tər-ər\ noun

    I presumed that, in this case, the first definition of the
    transitive verb alter was the relevant one while the court,
    and Kelman, might have believed the second transitive usage
    was intended. On the other hand, it seems apparent that no
    matter which angle the matter is viewed from, there can be no
    mistake that the intransitive verb if not intentionally used,
    cannot be misinterpreted or be considered a libelous usage.

    Perhaps an etymologist and/or linguist should be consulted
    since the entire question seems to boil down to semantics? Of
    course there is the first amendment so a civil liberties
    expert might be consulted as well, not to mention someone
    knowledgeable about Good Samaritan laws. Just a thought. And
    I am quite certain that Mrs. Kramer intended to inform the
    public, and the courts, that real people and the general
    public were being and could be harmed by the promulgation of
    the papers in question which were being used in litigation as
    well as impacting clinical medicine.

    Seems that meritless, retaliatory actions can flourish in some
    jurisdictions and that is most definitely a sad day and a
    discouraging note for any would-be Samaritans; pointing out
    the truth and helping people seems to be dangerous activity
    while placing the public in peril can be quite profitable.

    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.