Follow us!

    Re: Diversion tactics; Sharon

    Posted by ff on 2/16/08


    Yes, you're right, I agree, and no, it's not funny. It's sick, regardless of the reasons he
    does it.


    On 2/16/08, Sharon wrote:
    > FF,
    > I would think that true, too (meaning -Mike B is not a physical threat) and did for quite
    > some time. But, it has become more and more obvious as time goes on, that he DOES live
    > near Deborah, likes to terrorize her and DOES have some "real world" knowledge of her past
    > and past associates. I find it quite disturbing that his newest agressive posts are to
    > taunt her by stating she doesn't need to know his identity and at the same time, ask the
    > where abouts of her child and the cause of her husband's death. Nothing funny or benign in
    > that one.
    > "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.?"
    > Why would an annonymous poster on a chatboard want to know the where abouts of Deborah's
    > child and mention the death of her husband at the same time? That is beyond scary, when
    > one considers he lives close to Deborah and has a strong history of taunting her on this
    > chatboard.
    > And he has admitted that he decided to track me on the internet, simple because I "stuck
    > nose into his discussion with Deborah". Why such rage just because I told him to leave
    > Deborah alone?
    > Something is NOT RIGHT about this guy. I have been saying this for quite awhile. I am
    > to find out exactly who he is. Hopefully he is just some angry little perv who is
    > harmless. But, better safe than sorry. And there is a reason I am putting this on the
    > board. I want my concerns documented.
    > Like I said before, we can all play rough on ToxLaw sometimes, but this Mike B is way out
    > of line with his personal attacks, cyberstalking and his implied threats and intimidation
    > tactics with Deborah.
    > Sharon
    > On 2/16/08, Deborah wrote:
    >> FF,
    >> 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.