Re: Valentine's Day

More | Report Post

That is it, the one page?

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!