Re: Diversion tactics; Sharon

More | Report Post

This is how it starts, when he feels cornered, he begins getting personal, then
nasty, and it escalates from there.

He is as unimportant as his name, maybe this is why he chooses the medium of the
internet where he can remain anonymous and feel powerful. Note that he doesn't use
this form of attack on the men, not even FF.

Mike B,

See my post to BB on the other board about reasonable expectations.

1. Are you, or have you ever been married?
2. Do you have children, if so, how are they?
3. Have you, or anyone you know, been personally impacted by indoor exposure to mold?
4. What is your name and occupation?
5. Do you have any personal issues you wish to share that might explain your
personal obsession with myself and Mrs. Kramer?

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?