Follow us!

    Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

    Posted by Deborah on 1/07/10

    So, Saxon denies authoring the Chamber paper...and Kelman says he did...hmm, who am
    I most likely to believe.. If I authored a paper that would be used as evidence,
    evidence that would likely impact people's health, physical and financial, I would
    want to examine any "translation" of the original paper, especially in my own
    language, and give permission for my name to be used on said translation...and
    possibly compensated unless my magnanimity dictated otherwise.

    To get this straight, the Chamber paper is involved in the dispute in AZ, not the
    ACOEM paper, right?

    Now why would any of this be confusing to a lay person? Early on, I found copious,
    accepted scientific papers on the dangers of mold, especially in agricultural
    literature to begin with...also in librarians' newsletters and such. I had contacts
    in the agricultural and book world and had a vague recollection of these things
    which were corroborated by said contacts and the scientific literature I found.

    It perplexes me that anyone who wrote on the subject in early 2000 wouldn't have had
    access to what I read and much, much more.

    On 1/06/10, Sharon wrote:
    > John Codie,
    > What planet do you live on????? No, my daughter never claimed illness from
    > mycotoxins. No, there is no Grand Jury involved. No, the litigation is not
    > complete. We are before the Appellate Court. And No, to much more stuff you are
    > making up off the top of your head about my life. Cut it out. If you can't get
    > facts straight, don't write.
    > Deborah,
    > Just so it is clear. Andrew Saxon did co-author the ACOEM mold statement w/Hardin
    > and Kelman. He did not author the paper for the US Chamber, but they listed him
    > an author without him even knowing it, according to his testimony. Kelman's
    > testimony says Saxon did author it and they got his permission. One of the two
    > authors of the ACOEM paper is not telling the truth about who wrote what for the
    > Chamber paper. And now, this paper is in a legal proceeding in Arizona involving
    > dead infants.
    > amicus-brief-in-mold-case-two-infant-deaths-in-mold-filled-apt-wasatch-prop-mgmt-
    > citing-us-chamberacoem-litigation-defense-report-to-disclaim-health/
    > On 1/06/10, johncodie wrote:
    >> On 1/06/10, Deborah wrote:
    >>> so, you would have no problem with your name being used prominently to market
    >>> a product for the purpose of generating a profit even if you were unaware of
    >>> it and thus without having authorized its use, especially if the product was
    >>> of little merit and may very well cause harm by it promoting false and/or
    >>> seriously flawed information?
    >> I believe it has been proven, at least confirmed that Ms Kramer had a prior
    >> legal disagreement with Kelman and made the decision to make that known in
    >> public as to cause some type damage to Mr. Kelman. Either it to make up for the
    >> losses she incurred as a result, or for the emotional benefits of retribution.
    >> The facts of the case have been sketchy but the time involved in the history
    >> appears to be from eight to ten years.
    >> Why would I have a problem with my name being used, it is not trade marked and
    >> most reputable establishment has one designated for either of the
    >> sexes. "John". Mr Saxon was a member of an association and had entered into
    >> some agreements of peer review. Mrs Obama just got her picture on the side of
    >> busses for not wearing furs. The White House might not be happy about it, but
    >> she is a public figure, and has previously expressed her opinion.
    >> Mr Saxon is a public figure and was involved in writting a paper for a group.
    >> He had knowledge, and associations. Did he or has he written a paper that
    >> totaly disagrees with what was published. Where is his paper? He stated that
    >> the laymans terms paper was published with his name on it. That may be true,
    >> that might be false. Was Mr Saxon ever involed in the Globaltox firm? It is a
    >> matter of record they were employed on a common paper.
    >> With ever emerging tort reform, I would not place much of any faith in a laymens
    >> term position paper. Much of all LCD televisions made today are made in china,
    >> and are disposable with no repair parts made. Love those extended warranties
    >> for labor and repair without repair parts made. This has come to the bare
    >> minimum insurance companies pays, and health care reform that has not been
    >> defined as to the metrics of equality of care.
    >> Sure Kramer had a beef with Kelman in extrapolating animal data to say her
    >> daughters near death due to mycotoxins in their home was'nt supported by the
    >> medical community. But that does not provide the data to the contray. The
    >> accusation of misconduct of Mr. Kelman by Ms Kramer as to perjury has not been
    >> substantiated by the judicial system. I don't see any court entertaining any
    >> malfesence correction that has gone this long.
    >> One of our Supreme Court Justices approached the Legislature with the following
    >> quote "Justice Delayed, Justice Denied". One of our most notable civil right
    >> judges begin 18 months in Kentucky prison for lying to the FBI concerning one
    >> lie. It was a lie about a conversation and association.
    >> I see from Ms Kramers recent posting some decline. It shows the lack of rest
    >> and continue persuit of trival matters. More dribble or grammer correction. If
    >> the justice department can't get the Emit Teel murder back into trail what would
    >> warrant misuse of a prior contributor on a laymens paper on effects of
    >> mycotoxins?

    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.