Follow us!

    Re: Diversion tactics

    Posted by Deborah on 2/15/08

    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
    >> 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.