Re: court of Appeal Upholds Libel Verdict Against Mold Activ

More | Report Post

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.
>>>>>>>>>>