Follow us!

    Re: Diversion tactics

    Posted by Mike B. on 2/15/08

    Don't try to get the military sympathy vote.

    I've spoken only the truth on this and every other site I post on. I don't care if you
    don't like the truth or the tone of it.

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

    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.