Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Rem Dude on 9/20/10


    When you attack someone's character in an effort to intimidate
    and/or victimize, you can be charged with a crime. In this case,
    justice has been served - twice in fact. No matter how noble the
    cause, you donít break the law in the process without
    repercussions. Now, you can attempt to blur the issues and
    obfuscate the facts, however, libel on this scale is an
    actionable offense.

    The moral of the story is - If you donít agree with researchers
    and scientific evidence, simply produce your own irrefutable
    facts. However, resorting to childish antics and defamation in
    an effort to intimidate can cross the line.

    If you want to challenge the facts, donít lie, donít intimidate,
    donít malign, donít throw childish rants, just provide
    scientific proof. And if you canít provide scientific proof, you
    may want to reconsider your position on the matter.

    Hopefully, this case will remove the childish antics used
    by ďactivistsĒ who are systematically intimidating researchers
    and peer reviewed data. Personally, I have my doubts, however,
    this case will become an important defense for those who find
    themselves the target of defamation.

    So at the end of the day and unintentional as it may be, Ms.
    Kramer has been of some benefit to the industry; she has
    provided a useful tool to prevent intimidation.


    On 9/20/10, Deborah wrote:
    > RD,
    > You read the "papers" produced by the plaintiff, his company
    > his partners and you've read what Sharon wrote. Do you
    > feel justice has been served here?
    > How sad that anyone could be so flippant about seeing such
    > attempts to silence good Samaritans. I anxiously await your
    > cynicism over what the Gulf Coast residents are and will be
    > Sad lesson for those that speak the truth out loud for its an
    > even sadder testament to the state of our times and country;
    > "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a
    > revolutionary act." George Orwell Guess it obvious who is
    > running the barnyard.
    > For a nice segue, here is another Orwellian quote, "- People
    > sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
    > stand ready to do violence on their behalf." On behalf of the
    > service personnel, their families, recovering veterans, and
    > everyone else, too, I thank and salute you, Sharon, for having
    > the courage to tell the truth and do it publicly.
    > 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) Ė The California Court of
    >>> Appeal this week affirmed the judgment in favor of Dr.
    >>> Bruce Kelman of Veritoxģ, 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 juryís verdict in Dr. Kelmanís 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 Kramerís 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 courtís 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.