Follow us!

    Re: Valentine's Day

    Posted by Deborah on 2/15/08

    You are just so sweet. If you have this info, why not just post it
    since you claim it is factual?

    On 2/14/08, Mike B. wrote:
    > According to my computer, this post is and always was included on the
    > ToxBoard Chatboard where Sharon Kramer has posted regularly.
    > I have not posted any "types of false, public writings" or
    > anything "potentially and legally libelous."
    > A few simple answers by you to a few simple questions might clear
    > this up:
    > 1) Did the court (San Diego Superior) presiding over your litigation
    > (Kelman v. Kramer) issue an order (or "ruling") in November or
    > December 2007 that required you to provide answers and documents to
    > the plaintiff (Kelman)?
    > 2) Did that same court award sanctions to the plaintiff in that same
    > order/ruling?
    > 3) Did the same court grant your motion for reconsideration of it's
    > November or December order/ruling?
    > 4) Did the same court modify its November or December order/ruling to
    > allow you to raise the attorney-client privilege as a response to the
    > document and information requests?
    > 5) Did the same court uphold the remainder of its previous November
    > or December order/ruling, including its previous award of sanctions?
    > 6) Did the same court, in its amended order/ruling of January 25,
    > 2008, deny your request for sanctions (somewhere over $5,000+)?
    > 7) Did the same court, in its amended order, require you to provide
    > your responses/production of documents/objections to the plaintiff
    > within 20 days of the date of the amended order (1/25/2008)?
    > On 2/14/08, Sharon wrote:
    >> Mike B,
    >> This is not a board I post on. You can look back at the history
    >> and see that I have not been on this one for over a year. So stop
    >> feigning ignorance. And also stop writing wild accusations based
    >> on something you know NOTHING about. I have not failed to turn over
    >> or withheld any documents I am required to produce... as you are
    >> IMAGINING in your own little mind. My attorneys were late in
    >> turning them over, as I had switched attorney. I did not pay a
    >> sanction. So stop trying to make some big mystery or implication
    >> that I have ANYTHING to hide out of a few lines you read on the
    >> internet.
    >> I am not kidding. ONE MORE of these types of false, public writings
    >> by you and I WILL be finding out your identity. What you are
    >> writing as you cower behind a pseudoname is potentially and legally
    >> libelous.
    >> Sharon
    >> On 2/14/08, Mike B. wrote:
    >>> "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
    >>> privilege.
    >>> 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
    >>> privilege.
    >>> Hint - just because an attorney was copied with your
    >>> correspondence does not automatically make the document
    >>> privileged.
    >>> 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.
    >>>> Sharon
    >>>> 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

  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.