Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Sharon on 9/23/10

    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.

    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.