Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ
Posted by Sharon on 9/20/10
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
On 9/20/10, Rem Dude wrote:
> 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:
>> 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
>>> Court costs too - ouch!
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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