Follow us!

    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:
    > RD,
    > 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.
    >> RD
    >> On 9/21/10, Deborah wrote:
    >>> RD,
    >>> 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.
    >>> Kramer.
    >>> 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

    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.