Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ
Posted by Deborah on 9/21/10
Sharon, please refresh my memory as to exactly what the alleged motive was
that Kelman claimed drove you to allegedly defame him?
On 9/21/10, Deborah wrote:
> I agree. You are assuming that the courts are unbiased and
> non-conflicted, not to mention competent. There are many instances of
> this not being the case throughout the country.
> I always believe that the truth is an adequate defense against a charge
> of defamation, written or spoken. Apparently I was wrong.
> Divining Mrs. Kramer's motive for telling the truth, when weighed
> against the original papers' veracity produced by her adversary,
> requires little flexibility. The fact that the papers are still being
> used is merely proof of ongoing harm and damage; enough credible
> scientists and medical professionals have weighed in on the issue and
> "alterations" of various medical and quasi-medical institutions'
> "position" statements indicate that there were some oversights or
> omissions in the original papers.
> Superior financial interests and power-wielding or manipulation does not
> equate to justice or hard science, or the truth for that matter.
> You have a lovely day, too. As I've said before, thanks to Mrs.
> Kramer's efforts, as well as many of us impacted by the issue, people
> like you experienced an unprecedented boom time. You are very welcome.
> On 9/21/10, Rem Dude wrote:
>> If you believe that crimes were committed, then why are these
>> documents still widely accepted, circulated and used?
>> Apparently the only crime committed was by Ms Kramer. There is no
>> ambiguity there, at least not in the eyes of the court. She lost
>> twice; any rational person can understand that.
>> Seems you want to flexibly apply the law so I do not believe any
>> further discussion is necessary. Emotional, baseless arguments are
>> best left to the uninformed.
>> Have a nice day.
>> On 9/21/10, Deborah wrote:
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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 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
>>>> don�t malign, don�t throw childish rants, just provide
>>>> scientific proof. And if you can�t provide scientific proof,
>>>> may want to reconsider your position on the matter.
>>>> Hopefully, this case will remove the childish antics used
>>>> by �activists� who are systematically intimidating
>>>> 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.
Posts on this thread, including this one