Follow us!

    Re: Valentine's Day

    Posted by Mike B. on 2/15/08

    That's the latest ruling. It supports everything I've said.

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

    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.