Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

Mike B.

What did you say your name was?

And what is your interest in this?

Do you have financial interests in this?

On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
> 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
>> 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?