Re: Wild Bitter Weed
Posted by johncodie on 1/11/10
You are the opposite of: "The U.S. Tax Court handed Lori Singleton-Clarke her victory last month"
"Reached Friday by phone, Judge Goldberg said: "I remember the case well because Ms. Singleton-Clarke was so articulate and
I think she represents the "winner" side of the gathering tribe that has to go up against the warrior doctors. MBA/Nurse.
Now what did arrow words did you cast this after noon?
On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
> You are correct again. And it should not be this way. You are the dicotomy of JC. Instead of wanting everyone else to
> to go thru what you did, YOU work to stop it from happening to others.
> The way to stop it is to make it well known that it is extremely expensive if one negligently builds or maintains
> properties in a manner that is harmful to others. THAT is what will stop the litigation because it will stop the injury.
> In the long run, it will be much more profitable for us all and the contention will be removed aka "sitting bull" from the
> And John for about the 5th time, you have failed to answer the question of why you are still here while claiming to have
> moved on from this issue. As far as the garbage you wrote in your last post, it is made up, WRONG, and there is no
> evidence to support your theories of why I do what I do. But alot of evidence that shows you are now writing known
Let me see marketing degree, real estate broker, gone rouge mold warrior. Two time loser as you lost the first case and you
don't have ammunition for the 2nd case!
> I, unlike YOU, was successful with my mold litigation settlement amount and could have easily moved on....but not in good
> conscience knowing how many people were being harmed while some "informed tribal (self professed) braves" say:
I don't think so we had about the same amount but I sure haven't payed,or owe $400,000 to a firm I terminated for a loss.
I do see Deb rallying to your aid. How much is she funding each month to the Kramer defense fund? I wouldn't classify
soliciting the internet for funding as success.
> "If Me no get womump me deserve, No one get womump they deserve. Me no care if little braves of tribe sick and have brain
> We are getting there inspite of "brave" braves such as yourself. You can call me every name in the book. It is irrelevant
> to me other than it helps me to get the word out of where some of the problems still lay.
You got me in the wrong tibe, gather's look for what comes naturaly off the land, even mushrooms for sustiance. I would
think wasteful would be the time and resources that $400,000 could have just gone to the California Relief fund.
And what words are you trying to get out there while you try to retrieve some that you claim are attorny client privelage.
> It won't stop progress of the tribe members one iota, so that others must endure what you did. Native Americans gathers
did nothing more than be born.
> Try to remember this phrase, because you are going to start hearing it ALOT:
Thats so funny. SPF 14, SPF,30 How about RADs??? The great spirit made mold, it made yellow cake, you just haven't learned
how much to eat, how to shade, and how to in hale the right stuff. The case can be made for all. The issue that you have
not appreciated is that the native americans from the first intruder had no natural immunity therefore they died. It was
their land by inhabitance but they still died and you want to classify anybody that does not match your limits as atypical.
Waiting for your acceptable DNA profiles for the typical expoure limits allowed so that you continue with the Hilter master
race exterminations. Thats the Socialistic medicine. On no need to exerminate those that don't meet your allowed profile,
jut round them up, seperate them from socity, and let them die for natural causes from taking them away from the land that
sustains them. Then in the end blame them for the inferior DNA you inherited.
> “environmentally relevant dose,' which is the dose in the range of typical human exposure as measured in tissue, blood,
> urine of study subjects. Simply put, the environmentally relevant dose is based on the internal concentration of the
> toxicant rather than the administered dose."
> In other words, you cannot take a rat study, add some math and then have the US Chamber market to the courts that it has
> been scientifically proven the poison of mold do not poison. It ain't science now and it never was...AND the courts are
> starting to get hip to it, and a few other key facts along the way of what one cannot do in legal proceedings.
You don't like the odds of the survial of the fittest so your intent is to overtax, and make ill the peaceful so that it
will be easier to attack and survive.
Posts on this thread, including this one