Follow us!

    Re: Diversion tactics

    Posted by Mike B. on 2/15/08

    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
    > 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
    >>>>> 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.