Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by Sharon on 2/15/08
To reiterate:
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, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
>
> Below is the history of this board for the past year. I have not posted on
> this bord for over one year until your malicious lies about me, that you have
> posted on this board, were brought to my attention.
>
> Military Housing, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
>
> Disinformation tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
>
> Important Article, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
>
> Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Diversion tactics, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
>
> Valentine's Day, 2/13/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Sharon.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Mike B.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by johncodie.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Sharon.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/14/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Sharon.
> Re: Valentine's Day, 2/15/08, by Sharon.
>
> Camp Lejeune Water Contamination, 2/06/08, by Andrea.
> Re: Camp Lejeune Water Contamination, 2/15/08, by Deborah.
>
> Abstract of Study - Discuss This, 2/05/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Abstract of Study - Discuss This, 2/05/08, by ff.
>
> Bruce Kelman versus Sharon Kramer - Update, 2/01/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Bruce Kelman versus Sharon Kramer - Update, 2/04/08, by Mike B..
>
> Holy Fungus Batman, 2/01/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Holy Fungus Batman, 2/05/08, by Pauline Phillips.
>
> Recent Report on the Dead Zone, 1/31/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Recent Report on the Dead Zone, 1/31/08, by ff.
>
> Ahmedsdsds, 1/27/08, by Ahmedsdsds.
>
> Update on Camp Lejeune-TFTPTF Website, 1/16/08, by Deborah.
>
> SLAPP, 1/07/08, by Mike B..
>
> Mold Victim Fighting For Her Life, 1/06/08, by Darlene.
>
> Katrina Cough Study II, 1/04/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Katrina Cough Study II, 1/04/08, by Mike B..
> Re: Katrina Cough Study II, 1/05/08, by ff.
>
> AIHA Webinar, 1/02/08, by Mike B..
>
> Threats and Intimidation, 12/13/07, by Mike B..
>
> Sharon Kramer Legal Opinion, 12/13/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Sharon Kramer Legal Opinion, 12/14/07, by Deborah.
>
> TO: ff, Myco, Sharon Kramer, Deborah, v, et al., 12/11/07, by Mike B..
> Re: TO: ff, Myco, Sharon Kramer, Deborah, v, et al., 12/11/07, by ff.
> Re: TO: ff, Myco, Sharon Kramer, Deborah, v, et al., 12/11/07, by v.
> Re: TO: ff, Myco, Sharon Kramer, Deborah, v, et al., 12/12/07, by Mike B..
>
> May Your Children Rot in Hell - Sharon Kramer, 12/11/07, by Mike B..
> Re: May Your Children Rot in Hell - Sharon Kramer, 12/15/07, by Deborah.
> Re: May Your Children Rot in Hell - Sharon Kramer, 12/15/07, by ff.
> Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff, 12/15/07, by ff.
> Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff, 12/28/07, by John Codie.
> Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff, 12/28/07, by ff.
> Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff, 12/28/07, by Johncodie.
> Re: Your opponents rest ? - ff, 12/28/07, by ff.
>
> FEMA and Moldy Trailers, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
>
> Mold Litigation News, 11/20/07, by Mike B..
>
> Another Mold Settlement, 11/19/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/20/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/21/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/22/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/23/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/23/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/23/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/26/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/27/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/27/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/27/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/27/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/27/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/27/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/28/07, by ff.
> Re: Another Mold Settlement, 11/28/07, by ff.
>
> Ferry Mold, 11/19/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Ferry Mold, 11/19/07, by ff.
>
> Screening, 11/08/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Screening, 11/08/07, by Boogieman.
> Re: Screening, 11/09/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Screening, 11/09/07, by johncodie.
>
> [deleted], 10/23/07, by Anitymncani.
>
> CAMP LEJEUNE WATER CONTAMINATION, 10/12/07, by Andrea.
>
> NY-Toxic Materials found inside my apartment, 10/09/07, by marie.
> Re: NY-Toxic Materials found inside my apartment, 10/24/07, by Johncodie.
> Re: NY-Toxic Materials found inside my apartment, 11/02/07, by johncodie.
>
> name, 9/26/07, by name.
>
> Help the webmaster help you with spam, 9/16/07, by Bob Reap (webmaster).
>
> At Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1957 and 1987?, 9/05/07, by Andrea.
>
> Sporicidin and Bleach, 8/26/07, by Rick Kurland.
> Re: Sporicidin and Bleach, 8/27/07, by RemDude.
> Re: Sporicidin and Bleach, 8/30/07, by John Code.
> Re: Sporicidin and Bleach, 10/26/07, by jim.
>
> Camp Lejeune's water blamed for ills, 6/12/07, by Deborah.
>
> Canned Foods, 5/17/07, by Mike B..
>
> Chromium Linked To Cancer Says NIH, 5/17/07, by Deborah.
> Re: Chromium Linked To Cancer Says NIH, 6/19/07, by M Bob Mean.
>
> Would like to discover you were living in this toxic soup?, 5/15/07, by Angel.
> Re: Would like to discover you were living in this toxic sou, 5/16/07, by cj.
> Re: Would like to discover you were living in this toxic sou, 6/12/07, by
> Angel.
>
> Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered..., 5/15/07, by ff.
> Re: Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered..., 5/15/07, by johncodie.
> Re: Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered..., 5/15/07, by ff.
> Re: Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered..., 5/15/07, by johncodie.
> Re: Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered..., 5/15/07, by ff.
> Re: Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered..., 5/15/07, by johncodie.
>
> Olen Properties HIde Mold Severity in Vegas, 5/14/07, by Angel.
> Re: Olen Properties HIde Mold Severity in Vegas, 5/17/07, by Arch.
>
> MORGELLON'S DISEASE...IS MOLD, 4/24/07, by standswfist.
> Re: MORGELLON'S DISEASE...IS MOLD, 5/07/07, by John Lloyd.
> Re: MORGELLON'S DISEASE...IS MOLD, 6/04/07, by cb thomas.
>
> Victim's of Toxic Mold, 4/22/07, by Darlene.
>
> Tort Tax..., 4/11/07, by Rem Dude.
>
> Rights violated? Need to get coverage?, 4/06/07, by Deborah.
> Re: Rights violated? Need to get coverage?, 4/11/07, by Mike B..
> Re: Rights violated? I apologize for pushing this site., 4/25/07, by Deborah.
> Re: Rights violated? I apologize for pushing this site., 4/25/07, by Holt
> Harrison.
> Re: Rights violated? I apologize for pushing this site., 4/25/07, by Deborah.
> Re: Tram aka Holt Harrison, 4/25/07, by Deborah.
> Re: Tram aka Holt Harrison, 4/25/07, by Holt "Tram" Harrison.
> Re: Tram aka Holt Harrison, 4/25/07, by M3.
> Re: Tram aka Holt Harrison, 4/26/07, by Deborah.
>
> CDC, OSHA Connection, 4/05/07, by Johncodie.
>
> Instant action form to send issues to Congress in real time!, 3/26/07, by s.
>
> CONTACT CONGRESS, 3/25/07, by s.
> Re: CONTACT CONGRESS [home page], 3/25/07, by s.
>
> "TWO FACES OF TOXIC MOLD", 3/23/07, by s.
> Re: "TWO FACES OF TOXIC MOLD", 3/23/07, by s.
> Re: site=response/papers=senate-congress Re: "TWO FACES OF TOXIC, 3/24/07, by
> s.
> Re: "TWO FACES OF TOXIC MOLD", 4/06/07, by luke Brennan.
>
> Killer in recalled pet food may be mold, FDA says, 3/22/07, by s.
>
> Mold Exposure Question, 3/03/07, by Kathy W..
>
> MOLD-WALTER REED INVESTIGATION, 2/21/07, by s.
>
> FEN-Neurotoxic/Valve Case, 2/20/07, by Scott.
>
> contact dermatitis due to hexavalent chromium, 2/15/07, by leslie kelly.
>
> Ira Besserman I do know Dr. Lipsey, and Dr. Thrasher, 2/12/07, by CS.
> Re: Ira Besserman I do know Dr. Lipsey, and Dr. Thrasher, 2/12/07, by
> johncodie.
>
> Boston Society for Advanced Therapeutics/ Angle, 1/26/07, by John Codie.
> Re: Boston Society for Advanced Therapeutics/ Angle, 1/26/07, by Angel.
> Re: Boston Society for Advanced Therapeutics/ Angle, 1/27/07, by johncodie.
> Re: Boston Society for Advanced Therapeutics/ Angle, 1/27/07, by Irritated.
> Re: Boston Society for Advanced Therapeutics/ Angle, 1/28/07, by johncodie.
>
> Public Relations Employee for SMExperts, 1/25/07, by johncodie.
>
> Canad Posits Mold Guidelines, 1/25/07, by MBobMean.
> Re: Canada Posits Mold Guidelines, 1/25/07, by MBobMean.
> Re: Canada Posits Mold Guidelines, 1/25/07, by Sharon.
>
> Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article, 1/24/07, by Sharon Kramer.
> Re: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article, 1/25/07, by MBobMean.
> Re: More Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article, 1/25/07, by Sharon.
> Re: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article, 1/25/07, by Sharon.
> Re: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article, 1/29/07, by MBobMean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/15/08, Sharon wrote:
>> 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!
Posts on this thread, including this one
|
1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.