Re: Diversion tactics; Sharon

More | Report Post

It took me a while to read all of these statements, and it'll take me longer to respond.

First, at a minimum, it's pretty clear from the comments below that I've been formally
threatened with litigation and other possible legal action by Sharon Kramer. Therefore, I
would like to make certain the record of all communications between us all is preserved. I'm
not a computer person/expert by any means, but I hope and formally request that Mr. Reap and
others associated with the ToxLaw.com and its chatboards and chat centers use some form of
backup and storage hardware/software that archives or stores in retrievable format the posts
submitted here for the past 24 months.

When it is all pieced together, it will be shown that Sharon Kramer and Deborah Daniels
Davitt are not only wrong about me, but they intentionally and malisciously ignored the truth
in making their statments in this thread.

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?