Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Mike B. on 9/22/10

    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
    > 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.

    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.