Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

"I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge."

First, that's frickin hillarious. Are you saying Kelman should have a
jury trial because Sharon Kramer has a grudge against him? The appellate
court seems to think she does:

"Additionally, there was other evidence presented which could support a
finding KRAMER HAD A CERTAIN ANIMOSITY AGAINST KELMAN. Kelman gave an
expert opinion in Kramer's lawsuit against her insurance company seeking
damages caused by the presence of mold in her home. Kelman stated there
did not appear to be a greatly increased level of risk of mold inside the
home compared to the levels in the air outside the home. While the Kramer
family eventually settled and recovered damages from the insurance
company, a reasonable jury could infer that KRAMER HARBORED SOME
ANIMOSITY TOWARD KELMAN for providing expert services to the insurance
company and not supporting her position." Emphasis mine.

Secondly, this was a pretrial matter where Sharon Kramer filed a motion
to strike the Kelman suit because Kramer thought it was a silly old SLAPP
suit. No jury hears pretrial motions. The court does, though, and it held:

"Kramer brought a section 425.16 motion to strike the complaint. The
court denied the motion, concluding that although Kramer had sustained
her burden of showing the complaint fell within the scope of section
425.16, subdivision (e)(3) and (4), Kelman and GlobalTox had sustained
their burden of showing a probability they would prevail on their libel
claim."

Finally, you will have a tough time defending yourself for your
statements about Kelman based on your "I like juries" defense for
ignoring a court's ruling. Especially when you make essentially the exact
statement that Kramer did and for which she is now being sued.

Best of luck with that.

On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
> I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
> being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge. Exposing the
> fallacies that impact public health in a paper written and promulgated
> by a principal in the company might make the exposee a bit testy. I'd
> be curious to see if any of the "deciders" were ever involved in any
> cases using where the disgruntled party was used as an expert witness,
> either behind or in front of the bench; that would include law partners,
> firms, other businesses, etc.
>
> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>> In this case, it was "judges" - the trial judge, and an appellate
>> panel of judges who affirmed the trial judge.
>>
>> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>" So, you're willing to defend your statement based upon "the paper
>>>> and the transcripts" even though there has been a finding by a
>>>> court which says that the doctor did not alter his testimony?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you say the "court", do you mean a judge or a jury?