Re: Valentine's Day

More | Report Post

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!