Re: Kelman v Kramer ruling 12.29.09

More | Report Post

Sharon:

You make an unsubstantiated allegation - "You make up alot of trash about me while you hide behind a pseudonym. But this is one
of THE worst. I have never smoked around my children and no one has ever said I have."

Time to put up or shut up, Sharon.

Let's start with the present: Where does it say in my comment below that "you smoked around your children?"

On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
> Mike B,
>
> You make up alot of trash about me while you hide behind a pseudonym. But this is one of THE worst. I have never smoked around
> my children and no one has ever said I have. Nor, have I ever been a Tobacco Scientist who makes money saying second hand
> smoke does not have an adverse effect on children while researching other causes in IAQ to cast doubt of second hand smoke
> causing illness. If you want to understand how smoking relates to the mold issue, then go to the UCSF tobacco legacy library
> and search the following names:
> Ron Gots, Bruce Kelman, Paul Lees-Haley, Harriet Burge, Thomas Platts-Mills...just for starters.
>
>
>
> 1/11/10, Mike B. wrote:
>> Sharon:
>>
>> Your credibility blows in the wind along with your tobacco smoke. Your audiences need to be aware of your smoking history.
>> You had a daughter with Cystic Fibrosis, and you blamed mold for worsening her condition. Yet, you smoked cigarettes
>> everyday. You probably smelled (and still do) like an ashtray everytime you were near her. What a zealous hypocrit you are.
>>
>>
>> On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
>>> Deborah,
>>>
>>> You are correct again. And it should not be this way. You are the dicotomy of JC. Instead of wanting everyone else to have
>>> 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
>>> matter.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> fabirications.
>>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> "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
>>> injury."
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It won't stop progress of the tribe members one iota, so that others must endure what you did.
>>>
>>> Try to remember this phrase, because you are going to start hearing it ALOT:
>>>
>>> “environmentally relevant dose,' which is the dose in the range of typical human exposure as measured in tissue, blood, and
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> http://ehsehplp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info&37;3Adoi&37;2F10.1289&37;2Fehp.0901417
>>>
>>> On 1/11/10, Deborah wrote:
>>>> The average citizen has a considerable disadvantage going into litigation, even with a competent attorney. Takes big
>>>> bucks to litigate even the most cut and dried case of right v wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/11/10, Johncodie wrote:
>>>>> Sharon:
>>>>>
>>>>> Like most native americans taken advantage of during the Andrew Jackson era, I am a gather as opposed to your tribe
>>>>> which is the warrior. I pick up useful information where I can find it and continue the tribal ways. You contiue on
>>>>> the war path with painted war paint, or atleast lipstick. In response to your comments noted in "response". You
>>>>> entered into littigation battle and now that the blood has spilled in the first defeat the sharks are approaching for
>>>>> the continued battle to be scheduled with the clerk. You can't stop thinking about it you won't let the appeal go.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/11/10, Sharon wrote:
>>>>>> JC,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You write, "I want the individual that think they have a good chance of breaking even
>>>>>> in litigation over toxic mold air to go outside and take a few breaths to clear the head; and make interior home
>>>>>> changes to improve upon their health."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said, self professed loser who thinks it is his obligation to direct others to be the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> Attack of words
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what
>>>>>> country you live it, but I live in the United States of America.
>>>>>
>>>>> This doesn't warrant a response.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people are injured by willful negligence of
>>>>>> another then they are entitled to restitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why don't you honor the court findings and make restitution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And IF they get restitution, then those who are negligent will think
>>>>>> twice before they do it again, staving off unnecessary injury to others.
>>>>>
>>>>> The money being paid to those on Wall Street show how out of touch you are about the negligent investors and the
>>>>> taxpayers having to file the taxes this year. As per your example of non-admission of wrong there is hardly ever
>>>>> restituion made.
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is not mold. It is the growing of
>>>>>> environmental justice - an area of litigation that is in its infancy, and must be properly nurtured in the name of
>>>>>> public health.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know of a few environmental courts, and the building inspectors that tried to have the local municipilites to
>>>>> include semi-annual inspection of homes were swiftly defeated by the State Realtor's board. It would require all
>>>>> house holds to be subject to inspection either owned or rented. Public Health is the Health Department with
>>>>> jurisdictions and laws. We have clean air, clean water federal laws. Wow a new specialty of study, law and
>>>>> engineering? Environmental Justice !!!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What gives you the right to hold yourself out as omnipitent that others must agree to be losers, too, just like you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because I have as many or more hours of remediation of a dwelling with some of the national self proclaimed
>>>>> environmental justice experts; a settlement placing my family in a warm dry home, family in the insurance department,
>>>>> children already demonstating the initiative to be a part of the solution, rather waiting on a final payout. An
>>>>> understanding of those who might be classified by society as loosers, but do have enough common sense to support
>>>>> themselves rather the join an internet warrior advocacy group.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You did not answer my question: If you are so over this issue, then why are you still here posting to this board?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because there are mold warriors like yourself that keep beating the war drums of "If we have enough signatures on a
>>>>> petition and you send me enough money to my cause I an reverse a jury of 12 of the findings I am a vicious war
>>>>> warrior".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face it, John. A main theme in your posts has always been and continues to be that you do not like upity old
>>>>>> sorority girls from Ole Miss.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did marry a graduate of one of the professional schools there but she was from another state university sorority. I
>>>>> guess she didn't have enough time for the silly meetings the gals of Ole Miss were soliciting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fiddle de de.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hunky Dorie
>>>>>
>>>>> It is irrelevant in my life what you do and so..I am not even going to
>>>>>> bother to think about it another day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats what you said Friday!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are you trying to now claim "attorny client priv" when your attorny provided the damning e-mail of the plantiff?
>>>>> Your appeal that has to be much more expensive makes no sense. Does this become a new law under the enviromental
>>>>> justice?
>>>>>
>>>>> jc