Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Deborah on 9/24/10

    ??? 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.

    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.