Re: Diversion tactics; Sharon

More | Report Post

Sharon:

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

ff

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
my
> 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
going
> 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?