Follow us!

    Re: Diversion tactics; Sharon

    Posted by Deborah on 2/16/08

    I no longer hope you are right, I am convinced that he is the sort who can simmer for a
    long time until something sets him off and his anonymity adds to the impression. When
    someone continually engages in abusive behavior despite entreaties to stop, this is a sign
    of serious mental disorder. Have you ever been the target of unwanted and/or unwarranted
    personal attention out of proportion to actual interaction or relevance?

    About my remark, "..not even FF", he doesn't seem to like you either, but I also confused
    him briefly with BB and was thinking of the name-calling and such that he engaged in
    towards you.

    On 2/16/08, ff wrote:
    > DD, Sharon:
    > I'm still not sure I understand what DD means by "...not even ff".
    > Regarding his posts below, that's pretty much in line with the way he started out
    > posting, using whatever tact he thought may offend the worst for each person he
    > attacked. You just don't recall the posts, which appear to have been deleted. He
    > thinks that "bottom of the barrel" tact works best on you and DD.
    > Now, what type of person would do that? Yeah, you're right. But as far as being a
    > threat, in my experience that behavior usually indicates the opposite, no threat at
    > all.
    > ff
    > On 2/16/08, Sharon wrote:
    >> FF,
    >> I am not certain that Deborah sees this the exact same way that I do, but what her
    >> words of "not even FF" mean to me, is that this guy likes to pick on and try to
    >> intimidate and scare women. There is something that is quite creepy about his posts
    >> in many ways. There appears to be an unexplained underlying anger - that has
    > nothing
    >> to do with the mold issue - an a need to intimidate women -in particular Deborah-
    >> while hiding behind a pseudoname.
    >> If you were a female and you knew this guy lived close to you and seems to know much
    >> about your personal life beyond info from this chatboard - as Mike B does with
    >> Deborah - wouldn't the below statement/questions creep you out?
    >> And, as stated in his own words, he has chosen to track me and write malicious lies
    >> on the Internet because I came to Deborah's defense. I know that sometimes we play
    >> hard on these boards in sparring over the mold issue. BB is a prime example. But BB
    >> does not cross the line of being personal, creepy and ask inappropriate questions
    >> while letting it be known he is physically nearby, like Mike B does to Deborah.
    >> I really am concerned that there is something not right with this guy who goes by
    >> pseudoname of Mike B. And I have been for a long time. That's why I came to
    >> Deborah's defense in the first place. I am hiring an attorney on Monday to find out
    >> who this guy really is. I would never forgive myself if something happened to
    >> Deborah because we took no steps to stop her internet stalker, who lives close to
    > her.
    >> Don't you find the below creepy, given that he has let it be known he is
    >> geographically close to Deborah? This is just a small example of what this guy has
    >> been doing for quite some time:
    >> "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, Mike B. wrote:
    >> ....."It was on this same board where you and I were first "introduced" after you
    >> stuck your nose into my discussions with Deborah Davitt."
    >> On 2/16/08, ff wrote:
    >>> DD:
    >>> Can you explain what you mean by "...not even ff".
    >>> ff
    >>> On 2/16/08, Deborah wrote:
    >>>> 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?

    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.