Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Sharon on 9/20/10

    RemDude,

    Attack someone's character and you can be charged with a crime.
    You mean like submitting false declarations to the court to make up
    a reason of why someone would have personal malice while
    strategically litigating? Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep that
    in mind.


    On 9/20/10, Rem Dude wrote:
    > Deborah,
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > RD
    >
    >
    > On 9/20/10, Deborah wrote:
    >> RD,
    >>
    >> You read the "papers" produced by the plaintiff, his company
    > and
    >> his partners and you've read what Sharon wrote. Do you
    > honestly
    >> 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
    > facing.
    >>
    >> 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.