Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

For the umpteenth time, I fail to feel a need or desire to answer personal
questions from an anonymous poster. It is unimportant to me.

Your alleged lack of financial interests cannot be verified due to your anonymity.

On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
> For the umpteenth time, my name is not important; I have no financial interests
> in this.
>
> How did your husband die? Where is your child that lived with you while you
> were allegedly exposed to chlordane, etc.?
>
> 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
>>>> 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?