Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by ff on 2/17/08
Sharon: I'm really concerned here, this just isn't typical of Mike B. anymore, what's going on? ff On 2/16/08, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
>
> There is NOTHING that justifies how you have harassed and made implied threatening remarks
to
> Deborah for quite some time. Why would you even think it is appropriate to taunt that you
> are annonymous while asking the where abouts of her child in conjunction with her husbands
> death?...while implying you live near her in real life. Answer: You don't. I have seen
> you do this over and over again to her, while implying you live in New Orleans. You appear
to
> take delight in this. It's one thing to spar, it's another to intentionally intimidate
> regarding one's life off of the chatboard world, while remaining anonymous.
>
> And when I asked you to stop harassing Deborah in such a way, you instead decided to
> cyberstalk and track my life, too. In your own words, you have admitted this is what
brought
> on your rage with me. Now, you are writing malicious lies about me on a public chatboard
> while hiding behind your annonimity. And these are not small lies of no consequence.
>
> You have a problem, Mike B. And it is really obvious. And I am going to take steps to find
> out your true identity on Monday. You have gone WAY TOO FAR to remain annonymous any
longer.
>
> 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
>
> On 2/16/08, Deborah wrote:
>> First, I did in post information regarding my spouse and Vet issues within counsel net some
>> time ago. I also posted information regarding A O and mold exposures faced by V i e t Vets
>> as it paralleled my later civilian experiences with the same toxins.
>>
>> Second, I have wondered frequently, and made statements about the level of incompetence or
>> complete disregard for another's safety it would take for any of the landlords who poisoned
>> us through their direct action or negligence, a couple of them with substances or by means
>> of which they had a much higher level of expertise in than any average citizen. I have
>> wondered if it was intentional and others have suggested too much has/had happened to be all
>> coincidental.
>>
>> Third, I have yet to see you make a valid point or statement explaining why you are here,
>> why you have focused on me, although you did indicate that your attack on Sharon was the
>> direct result of her standing up for me during our "discussion", and what your personal,
>> immediate interest is in toxic torts. I must have been sleeping, discussions imply some
>> level of give and take; I also don't have discussions with anonymous individuals as a rule.
>>
>> Fourth, you ask, no demand, answers to questions you pose yet refuse to answer any of the
>> simplest questions posed to you then act chagrined when you fail to receive the recognition
>> or respect you so obviously crave.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>> Sharon Kramer:
>>>
>>> I invite you to do something similar to what you did yesterday on the thread Deborah
>>> Davitt started regarding "diversion tactics", and go back in time on this board looking
>>> for the many comments posted by Deborah about her husband's death, and her child living
>>> with her at the time she freely says she was intentionally poisoned by her landlords.
>>>
>>> To any reasonable person, this will demonstrate the relevancy of my questions. It will
>>> also evidence how much Deborah likes to discuss them when telling details of her life
>>> story on this board dating back to 2002.
>>>
>>> On 2/16/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>> Deborah,
>>>>
>>>> "He starts this, disappears, returns and the cycle begins again. This goes beyond
>>>> lurking."
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I have come to notice that pattern, too. It is like he can't control himself.
>>>> The cycle starts off moderate and gets more aggressive as he goes. It always seems to
>>>> culminate with some personal questions about you that are phrased in an eery,
>>>> inappropriate way - on the verge of a threat - but not quite. Like taunting how he can
>>>> stay anonymous while asking the where abouts of your child and discussing the death of
>>>> your husband. What does that have to do with a toxic tort discussion? Nothing. And
>>>> it is the same pattern over and over again. It is one thing to spar on these boards
>>>> with those who are on the opposite side of an issue. But this guy has a problem. He
>>>> doesn't even like to discuss the issue. He just likes to harass you, and now me for
>>>> speaking up for you.
>>>>
>>>> Sharon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/08, Deborah wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>> Statement: "It was on this same board where you and I were first "introduced" after
>>>>> you stuck your nose into my discussions with Deborah Davitt."
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment: The fact that he would call the exchanges "discussions" is indicative of
>>>>> some disassociation with reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> He starts this, disappears, returns and the cycle begins again. This goes beyond
>>>> lurking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.