Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

You couldn't verify my lack of financial interest even if I gave you my name and a
DNA sample. You would still make unsupported accusations and paranoid, conspiracy,
RICO, boogeyman claims simply because I disagree with you.

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