Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by Sharon on 2/16/08
Mike B, Below is in your own words as to why you have chosen to cyberstalk me and put malicious
lies on a public chatboard. It's because I came to Deborah's defense when she
indicated to me off board that she was somewhat scared of you as we all know that you
reside in the same city and you seem to know things about Deborah's life that one would
not find on this chatboard. Plus, you seem to harbor much ill will for Deborah and have
for quite some time. You seem to take delight in the fact that you can remain
annonymous while asking all kinds of personal questions about her. Now, you have not
only continued to harass and concern Deborah, you have chosen to also cyberstalk me for
coming to Deborah's defense and you have put malicious lies on a public chatboard, and
continued to do so, even after being told they were false statements. Here it is in your own words: 1. "On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote: ....."It was on this same board where you and I were first "introduced" after you stuck
your nose into my discussions with Deborah Davitt." 2. "On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
For the umpteenth time, my name is not important; I have no financial interests in this. How did your husband die? Where is your child that lived with you while you were
allegedly exposed to chlordane, etc.?"
(Deborah, once again, trying to fend off a cyberstalker who is physically close in
location to her) "On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
For the umpteenth time, I fail to feel a need or desire to answer personal questions
from an anonymous poster. It is unimportant to me.
Your alleged lack of financial interests cannot be verified due to your anonymity."
3. "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!"
4."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?"
Sharon Kramer
On 2/15/08, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
>
> Did you or did you not accuse me, on a public chatboard, of withholding litigation
> documents from production?
>
> Is this or is it not within a case that I am involved in, that you know nothing about
> except what you track of me on the internet?
>
> Did you or did you not then indicate on a public chatboard that I would be turning
> over these documents I am supposedly withholding on February 14, 2008?
>
> And did you or did you not, on a public chatboard, accuse me of intentionally
> withholding documents because they may help the other party in the suit againts me?
>
> See Below:
> 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?
>
> Cyber stalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone.
>
> It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology,
> particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass
> another individual...The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring,... and any
> form of persistent offensive behaviour. The harassment must be such that a reasonable
> person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause
> another reasonable person distress.
>
> When identifying cyberstalking "in the field,"...the following features or
> combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation:
> malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate
> purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment
>
> A number of key factors have been indentified:
>
> False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim
> and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on
> websites. Attempts to gather information about the victim. They often will monitor
> the victim's online activities...
>
> Cyberstalkers may research individuals to feed their obsessions and curiosity. More
> commonly they will post defamatory or derogatory statements about their stalking
> target on web pages, message boards and in guest books designed to get a reaction or
> response from their victim,thereby initiating contact.
>
> Once they get a reaction from the victim, they will typically attempt to track or
> follow the victim's internet activity.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>> As I said before, according to my computer, this post is and always was included on
>> the ToxBoard Chatboard where Sharon Kramer has posted regularly.
>>
>> You can list all the threads you want, but the fact remains, I have always posted
>> right here. You have joined in many of those discussions. Did someone alert you to
>> each and every one of those?
>>
>> I have found your posts on this very same ToxBoard Chatboard without ever going to
>> the Black Mold board. Back in September or October, I came to this exact board and
>> found your self-lauding post about the publication you co-authored. At this exact
>> location, I found your continued harsh and scathing remarks about Burce Kelman and
>> VeriTox. On this same board, I provided some comments in response to your posts and
>> comments about the Texas Medical Board. It was on this same board where you and I
>> were first "introduced" after you stuck your nose into my discussions with Deborah
>> Davitt. Did somebody alert you to all of those, too? What about all the exchanges
>> (posts) between you and BB that appeared on here for the past 2 weeks?
>>
>> You might want to check into how this whole ToxLaw board thingy works before you
>> vent your spleen next time.
>>
>> The court's ruling speaks for itself. It's on the court's official web site.
>>
>>
>> On 2/15/08, Sharon wrote:
>>> 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.