Re: Diversion tactics
Posted by Mike B. on 2/15/08
What job(s) have you held in the last 10 years? Do the taxpayers pay for your
medical treatment everytime you go to the doctor?
On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
> 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
>>> 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