Re: Valentine's Day

More | Report Post

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!