Re: Valentine's Day

More | Report Post

Well, I guess we know who is right.

How about this. I'll provide you with information on just one of the ways
to see it for yourself. Go to the San Diego Superior Court web page and
find the "civil cases" and then the "tentative rulings" link. Click on
that and you will be asked to provide a case number. Type in "GIN044539"
and you will see the latest ruling.

On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
> 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!