Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

Sharon:

There you go practicing law without a license again.

The court of appeal did not review the evidence because the trial court
looks at the evidence. If the appellate court doesn't find an abuse of
discretion by the trial court, then the appellate court cannot review
the evidence.

You lose. End of story. It's over (unless you take a frivolous appeal to
some higher court).

You ain't the "mold queen" anymore.

On 9/21/10, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
>
> Apparently, you can't read. No. It is not over. Self admitted in
the
> Opinion, the courts did not do an independant review of the evidence
of
> the case. This is especially relevant to the uncontroverted evidence
> of Kelman's perjury on the issue of malice while strategically
> litigating, going unchecked in the San Diego courts for five years.
>
> "..courts are required to independently examine the record to
determine
> whether it provides clear and convincing proof thereof." (McCoy v.
> Hearst Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1657, 1664."
>
> On 9/20/10, Mike B. wrote:
>> You lose, Sharon Kramer. Bottom line.
>>
>> Maybe you need to call the DA or something!?!
>>
>> It's over, Kramer.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/20/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>