Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

??? Mike B,
Still taking drugs?

On 9/24/10, Mike B. wrote:
> Homewrecker.
>
> On 9/23/10, Deborah wrote:
>> thanks for proving my point...tool.
>>
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>