Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

ah, Mike B, or whoever you are, comedic relief..of that we can be sure.

you don't even recognize the "beginning" of the matter much less the end.

you are assumption central, says more than enough about you.

On 9/21/10, Sharon wrote:
> The point of review on appeal is to determine if errors were made, not just
> say we are relying on the opinion of those before, without examing the
> evidence of the errors.
>
> On 9/21/10, Mike B. wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>