Re: Valentine's Day

More | Report Post

As posted by Mike B, that is inflammatory and false:

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!

Re: Bruce Kelman versus Sharon Kramer - Update
Posted by Mike B. on 2/04/08

Really, Sharon, what's the problem with your discovery
responses? Are you withholding production of documents that
have been requested or subpoenaed? What kind of documents are
being sought by Kelman? Will those documents help him in his
suit against you?

And by the way, you should take your own advice and READ the entire appellate
ruling.

As appellant, Kramer has the burden of showing error. (See
Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th
424, 443.) “The reviewing court is not required to make an
independent, unassisted study of the record in search of
error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to
the assistance of counsel.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th
ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) We may ignore points that
are not argued or supported by citations to authorities or
the record. ( Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th
974, 979.)

......We decline to sift through the
record for her exhibits to see if any error might have
occurred.

Sharon

On 2/15/08, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
>
> That's it. You are NOT correct with the false information you are publicly
> putting out about me, based on nothing but a document you found on the
> internet. And I NEVER post or monitor the ToxTort board. I monitor the
> Black Mold Board. Thank God, someone else does monitor this board and
> alerted me to the malicious lies you are writing about me....once again.
>
> I am not withholding any documents that I am required to turn over. Kelman
> is not requesting any new documents from me.
>
> This is malicious on your part. I have asked you to stop NUMEROUS times.
> Yet, you continue to put out false information, even after being told it is
> false.
>
> I told you exactly what happened. I switched legal counsel and they were
> delayed in turning over documents beyond the date stipulated with the prior
> attorney.
>
> You have chosen to continue to stalk me while remaining annonymous thru a
> pseudoname, yet publicly implying and outright stating that I am lying and
> hiding something, when I am not. Nor have I ever been accused of hiding
> anything.
>
> I have had it with you. No more. That's it. I will be seeking legal
> council on Monday.
>
> Sharon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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!

More | Report Post

More | Report Post Really, Sharon, what's the problem with your discovery responses? Are you withholding production of documents that have been requested or subpoenaed? What kind of documents are being sought by Kelman? Will those documents help him in his suit against you? And by the way, you should take your own advice and READ the entire appellate ruling. As appellant, Kramer has the burden of showing error. (See Howard v. Thrifty Drug mpmp Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443.) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) We may ignore points that are not argued or supported by citations to authorities or the record. ( Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.) ......We decline to sift through the record for her exhibits to see if any error might have occurred. Sharon On 2/15/08, Sharon wrote: rbrb Mike B, rbrb rbrb That's it. You are NOT correct with the false information you are publicly rbrb putting out about me, based on nothing but a document you found on the rbrb internet. And I NEVER post or monitor the ToxTort board. I monitor the rbrb Black Mold Board. Thank God, someone else does monitor this board and rbrb alerted me to the malicious lies you are writing about me....once again. rbrb rbrb I am not withholding any documents that I am required to turn over. Kelman rbrb is not requesting any new documents from me. rbrb rbrb This is malicious on your part. I have asked you to stop NUMEROUS times. rbrb Yet, you continue to put out false information, even after being told it is rbrb false. rbrb rbrb I told you exactly what happened. I switched legal counsel and they were rbrb delayed in turning over documents beyond the date stipulated with the prior rbrb attorney. rbrb rbrb You have chosen to continue to stalk me while remaining annonymous thru a rbrb pseudoname, yet publicly implying and outright stating that I am lying and rbrb hiding something, when I am not. Nor have I ever been accused of hiding rbrb anything. rbrb rbrb I have had it with you. No more. That's it. I will be seeking legal rbrb council on Monday. rbrb rbrb Sharon rbrb rbrb rbrb rbrb rbrb rbrb rbrb rbrb On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote: rbrbrbrb Well, I guess we know who is right. rbrbrbrb rbrbrbrb How about this. I'll provide you with information on just one of the ways rbrbrbrb to see it for yourself. Go to the San Diego Superior Court web page and rbrbrbrb find the oxxocivil casesoxxo and then the oxxotentative rulingsoxxo link. Click on rbrbrbrb that and you will be asked to provide a case number. Type in oxxoGIN044539oxxo rbrbrbrb and you will see the latest ruling. rbrbrbrb rbrbrbrb On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrb You are just so sweet. If you have this info, why not just post it rbrbrbrbrbrb since you claim it is factual? rbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrb On 2/14/08, Mike B. wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb According to my computer, this post is and always was included on the rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb ToxBoard Chatboard where Sharon Kramer has posted regularly. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb I have not posted any oxxotypes of false, public writingsoxxo or rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb anything oxxopotentially and legally libelous.oxxo rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb A few simple answers by you to a few simple questions might clear rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb this up: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 1) Did the court (San Diego Superior) presiding over your litigation rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb (Kelman v. Kramer) issue an order (or oxxorulingoxxo) in November or rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb December 2007 that required you to provide answers and documents to rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb the plaintiff (Kelman)? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 2) Did that same court award sanctions to the plaintiff in that same rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb order/ruling? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 3) Did the same court grant your motion for reconsideration of it's rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb November or December order/ruling? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 4) Did the same court modify its November or December order/ruling to rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb allow you to raise the attorney-client privilege as a response to the rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb document and information requests? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 5) Did the same court uphold the remainder of its previous November rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb or December order/ruling, including its previous award of sanctions? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 6) Did the same court, in its amended order/ruling of January 25, rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 2008, deny your request for sanctions (somewhere over $5,000+)? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb 7) Did the same court, in its amended order, require you to provide rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb your responses/production of documents/objections to the plaintiff rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb within 20 days of the date of the amended order (1/25/2008)? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb On 2/14/08, Sharon wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Mike B, rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb This is not a board I post on. You can look back at the history rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb and see that I have not been on this one for over a year. So stop rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb feigning ignorance. And also stop writing wild accusations based rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb on something you know NOTHING about. I have not failed to turn over rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb or withheld any documents I am required to produce... as you are rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb IMAGINING in your own little mind. My attorneys were late in rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb turning them over, as I had switched attorney. I did not pay a rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb sanction. So stop trying to make some big mystery or implication rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb that I have ANYTHING to hide out of a few lines you read on the rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb internet. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb I am not kidding. ONE MORE of these types of false, public writings rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb by you and I WILL be finding out your identity. What you are rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb writing as you cower behind a pseudoname is potentially and legally rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb libelous. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Sharon rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb On 2/14/08, Mike B. wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb oxxoYou are wrong with your understanding that I am withholding ANY rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb documents requested of me that I am required to turn over.oxxo rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb This sounds like a typical plan to not produce documents because rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb you will claim some sort of privilege, like the attorney-client rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb privilege. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Well, they'll only motion the court to have those oxxoprivilegedoxxo rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb documents reviewed oxxoin cameraoxxo by the court. You'll spend a bunch rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb of money on attorney's fees for memoranda in opposition to rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb submitting the documents in camera. You'll lose that argument. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb You'll then have to produce the documents to the court, or rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb possibly a special master, for their review and determination on rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb privilege. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Hint - just because an attorney was copied with your rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb correspondence does not automatically make the document rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb privileged. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb On 2/14/08, Sharon wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Mike B, rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb You have reached new lows. I do not appreciate being discussed rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb on a chat board that I do not even frequent and would not have rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb known you were posting such garbage were it not specifically rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb brought to my attention. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb You are wrong with your understanding that I am withholding ANY rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb documents requested of me that I am required to turn over. Nor rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb is Kelman requesting any such documents. WHAT IS YOUR REAL rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb IDENTITY?????????? I have had enough of you making false rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb postings of things you know nothing about in relation to my rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb litigation with VeriTox. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Sharon rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb On 2/14/08, Deborah wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Do you really think that any statement made by Sharon rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb regarding alteration of testimony, which the good doc did, rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb is as important as the fact that the papers promulgated by rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb these people caused harm by downplaying and denying mold rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb induced illness from indoor environments? rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb An honest question, please keep any answers or comments rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb directed to the topic. rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb On 2/13/08, Mike B. wrote: rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb Sharon is going to give Bruce Kelman a nice Valentine's rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb gift tomorrow - documents she's been withholding from rbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb production. I'll bet there are some treasures amongst them! ">