Follow us!

    Re: Diversion tactics

    Posted by Deborah on 2/15/08

    I remain unconcerned. Intimidate away, it is what you try to do best.

    Unfortunately, in the legal arena, words are often re-defined for purposes
    of litigation. Again, I said, I like juries....

    I bear some resentment toward the landlords that poisoned me and failed to
    disclose defects in the places they put out to lease despite my informing
    them of my health issues. Would a mother have some remaining ire against
    someone who promulgated a paper based on a single rodent study and testified
    as an expert using that same paper, despite having no clinical experience,
    that was used in an unsuccessful attempt to deny a claim made by said
    mother; a reasonable person might? I believe a decent, reasonable person
    might try to warn an unsuspecting public of a grave and imminent danger
    being perpetrated upon them. I believe Sharon Kramer is a decent, reasonable
    person; I fail to hold her detractor in a similar light.

    What this man did, he did for hire. And the conclusion he reached is suspect
    by many, including real doctors and researchers.

    On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
    > "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
    > 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?

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.