Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

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?