Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Deborah on 9/24/10

    Mike B, I presume that remark was directed to me...okay, big man, and I use the word
    man in the loosely, care to elaborate? Whose home did I allegedly wreck? We can use a
    comical diversion from the indoor mold and toxins affect on health, woefully biased
    civil justice system, and conflicted and prostituted science that adversely impacted
    so many lives. I am fascinated, your perverted interest in the private lives of myself
    and Sharon is turning into an obsession. Does your wife know?

    Amazing how brave you can feel when posting anonymously, isn't it?

    On 9/24/10, Deborah wrote:
    > ??? 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.