Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by Mike B. on 2/14/08
"You are wrong with your understanding that I am withholding ANY
documents requested of me that I am required to turn over."
This sounds like a typical plan to not produce documents because
you will claim some sort of privilege, like the attorney-client
Well, they'll only motion the court to have those "privileged"
documents reviewed "in camera" by the court. You'll spend a bunch
of money on attorney's fees for memoranda in opposition to
submitting the documents in camera. You'll lose that argument.
You'll then have to produce the documents to the court, or
possibly a special master, for their review and determination on
Hint - just because an attorney was copied with your
correspondence does not automatically make the document
On 2/14/08, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
> You have reached new lows. I do not appreciate being discussed
> on a chat board that I do not even frequent and would not have
> known you were posting such garbage were it not specifically
> brought to my attention.
> You are wrong with your understanding that I am withholding ANY
> documents requested of me that I am required to turn over. Nor
> is Kelman requesting any such documents. WHAT IS YOUR REAL
> IDENTITY?????????? I have had enough of you making false
> postings of things you know nothing about in relation to my
> litigation with VeriTox.
> On 2/14/08, Deborah wrote:
>> Do you really think that any statement made by Sharon
>> regarding alteration of testimony, which the good doc did,
>> is as important as the fact that the papers promulgated by
>> these people caused harm by downplaying and denying mold
>> induced illness from indoor environments?
>> An honest question, please keep any answers or comments
>> directed to the topic.
>> On 2/13/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>> Sharon is going to give Bruce Kelman a nice Valentine's
>>> gift tomorrow - documents she's been withholding from
>>> production. I'll bet there are some treasures amongst them!
Posts on this thread, including this one