Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Deborah on 9/21/10


    You failed to address the two papers, the circumstances under which
    they were written, authorship, how these papers were used, by whom
    and for what. I do believe crimes were committed, just not by Mrs.

    I do believe, based on the transcripts I read, that the plaintiff
    changed his statements under direct questioning about specifics of
    the papers in question. I do believe Mrs. Kramer showed, beyond any
    doubt, that marketing had been used to spin a paper into a having
    near absolute scientific authority when, in fact, it did not.

    Furthermore, the impact the papers had on the legal and medical
    professions as well as the general public at large has been adverse.
    The only ones that benefited from it, besides those hired to
    produce them, are those with vested interests and potential
    liabilities in mold exposure toxic torts; that list could include
    lawyers, realtors, contractors, builders, real estate investors (
    breaking that into component parts might be time-consuming ) and
    others I've accidentally left out.

    Mrs. Kramer's work in exposing the above matters was conducted in
    the interest of the public good and for informative purposes, not
    for "revenge" or desire to cause harm to Mr. Kelman's "reputation";
    any harm done to his reputation or "good" name were as a result of
    his own actions and inactions. The courts seem to forget that they
    are bound by their oaths of office and that misprision of felonies
    is a crime.

    As hard as it has been to see justice done, the time will come when
    falsifying and/or manipulating scientific data and info that results
    in the direct harm, personal, medical and/or financial, to others
    and the general public will be considered a criminal act much as
    loading a gun, aiming at someone and shooting them unjustifiably is.

    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 don�t 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 don�t 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, don�t lie, don�t intimidate,
    > don�t malign, don�t throw childish rants, just provide
    > scientific proof. And if you can�t provide scientific proof, you
    > may want to reconsider your position on the matter.
    > Hopefully, this case will remove the childish antics used
    > by �activists� 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) � 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.