Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

You are the one guilty of what you accuse others of, and you do it under the
convenient cloak of anonymity. Also prevents any action or investigation into your
more rabid remarks. You also make personal attacks and include family members in your
winding diatribes. How brave, convenient, and confidence inspiring.

At least you've toned down your more aggressive remarks.

Have you or any of your family members served in the military?

On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
> 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?