Follow us!

    Re: Valentine's Day

    Posted by Deborah on 2/15/08

    Okay, I can do that. Can't get to it immediately, but I will check it out

    On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
    > 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!

    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.