Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

Deborah,

Yep. We have pointed this out and evidenced why for the courts
that with the word "altered" I meant "changed" to obfucate of
not wanting it known ACOEM is so closely tied to the US Chamber
over the issue. Also, what the good folks at VeriTox fail to
state in their recent post, is that I have been awarded court
costs, too, as the prevailing party over GlobalTox.

On 9/20/10, Deborah wrote:
> 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
> 1
> : to make different without changing into something else
> 2
> : 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.
>>