Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

Don't be silly. You should know by now, I have no intention of shutting up
until the fraud of the US Chamber et al, is removed from this issue. Seems
like I might have a direct path to make this happen.

On 9/22/10, Mike B. wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>