Re: VIDEO~MOLD Toyota Workers File Complaint w/San Diego DA
Posted by Sharon on 9/01/10
Strategic litigation is the process of abusing the judicial process for the
purpose of gaining unfair atvantage in a related matter of grater
significance to the strategic litigator. It can come in many forms that
typically encompass some sort of charater assasination of one who stands in
the way of achieving the matter deemed to be of greater signifance to the
Nope. No rebutal from Kelman et al.
On 9/01/10, Deborah wrote:
> Hey, Mike B, what is your real name? You appear after JC stops posting
> fairly regularly.
> In my opinion, if you have to ask what "strategically litigating" is, you
> should not be here. What is wrong with it is when it is used to suppress
> established science and replace it with "fake" science, shove into a paper
> and then pass it off as legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific research and
> have the audacity to go around testifying as an expert while using said
> paper as reference and citation is wrong. Remember right and wrong,
> remember this science has been pushed upon medical professional
> organizations and is impacting patients throughout the country whether or
> not they are in litigation or are even aware that they are being exposed.
> Unfortunately, in real life, there are clear rights and wrongs. It is wrong
> to hurt people, lie about hurting them once you've done so and then try to
> deny they could have possibly been hurt in spite of direct action or
> inaction by the perpetrator to prevent being forced to face punishment and
> liability for the victims' medical and legal expenses, perhaps punitive
> damages as well.
> For example, if I were to punch you in the nose and break it, but no one saw
> me do it, you'd be hard pressed to have anyone believe I was responsible yet
> your nose would still be broken and you would know who did it. Then, if you
> were foolish enough to legally pursue the matter, I could, theoretically of
> course, deny having broken it, question whether or not your nose had ever
> been broken or if it had been previously broken and you were, for some
> malicious reason, trying to blame it upon me, and finally say that even
> though I did not do it, even if your nose was broken, you seemed to be
> functioning and breathing fairly well so it was no big deal in any event and
> that it might have been an improvement over what was allegedly the previous
> condition and position of it, but I would have to countersue you for
> publicly making false accusations against me.
> That would be wrong, right? And I would be strategically litigating. Got
> it now?
> On 9/01/10, Mike B. wrote:
>> BTW, Sharon, WTFork is "strategically litigating" and what is wrong with
>> On 9/01/10, Mike B. wrote:
>>> Boy, you tried your best to build yourself up as an "expert" in that
>>> very brief and rambling announcement you made. IMHO, it was the same
>>> old rehearsed, meritless BS you have been spewing for years.
>>> Why are you trying to ride the coat tails of these individuals? Used
>>> car salesmen don't make the most sympathetic claimants.
>>> It is my personal opinion that this will go nowhere, and you will be
>>> sued back to stone ages by Kelman and ACOM.
>>> On 8/31/10, Sharon Kramer wrote:
>>>> You are welcome Deborah. Thanks for sharing with many. Again the
>>>> link to the VIDEO ofToyota of Poway mold injured workers filing
>>>> criminal complaints with the San Diego District Attorney for workers
>>>> comp insurer fraud shifting the cost onto taxpayers; and my
>>>> for criminal perjury on the issue of malice and suborning of it
>>>> strategically litigating for five years in the San Diego courts, by
>>>> Bruce Kelman and his attorney Keith Scheuer, is:
Posts on this thread, including this one