Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

You realy don't understand, do you?

I seriously feel sorry for you. You tried to make a point, but it got you in
trouble. Maybe you should take measure of the situation and figure a better,
more effective way of disagreeing with others.

Losing is not a pleasant thing, especially when you get taxed with costs of
the trial AND the appeal.

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.
>>>>>