Follow us!

    Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

    Posted by Deborah on 9/24/10

    edit, "I use the word man loosely,.."

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