Re: ACHEMMIC

More | Report Post

JC,

1. I received close to a half a million dollar settlement in my private litigation of 8
years ago. More than enough to get my old house fixed if I was so inclined to do so.

2. People made contributions to my legal defense fund Because I was the first to
publicly write of the deception of the US Chamber of Commerce's marketing campaign for
the courts in the writing in question. It is kind of important to shut this down. Five
years later, the case is still in the courts and will continue in the courts until this
stopped as it is harming MANY.

3. There is no monitary judgement being paid on my behalf. Quit making stuff up, John!

4. I'm sorry. I don't know Sandra Tyson but do know thousands of others pleading for
help. Shutting down the deceit of the Chamber will help stop this.

5. I left ACHEMMIC. I can't speak for what they do or do not do.

6. You still sound bitter that all did not go well for you 10 years ago and if things did
not go well for you, then they should not go well for anyone else. Wrong attitude for
one to live their life by.

Sharon

On 8/12/10, johncodie wrote:
> On 8/11/10, Sharon wrote:
>> No. I don't know anyone named Sandra Tyson. And I do not generate income from this
>> issue - as you WELL KNOW - while promoting or not promoting ACHEMMIC's or anyone
>> else's agenda. No. I am not concerned about being a "noteworthy cyber space figure
>> of respect". If I was, I certainly wouldn't be participating in this nonsense on a
>> public forum with you!
>>
>> This is what I want and what I have ALWAYS wanted: I was the deception of the US
>> Chamber of Commerce et al, over this issue that it has been scientifically proven
> all
>> claims of mold induced illness are only being made because of "trial lawyers, media
>> and Junk Science" G-O-N-E from public health policy. That's it. That is all I want
>> and I will not be stopping until I get it. Can't. Too many lives at stake.
>
> Your legal defense does recieve money, as is any monitary judgements being paid on
> your behalf. So if your on the street pandering for a dollar, or you permit some to
> pander for that dollar on your behalf it is considered income. Your accountants can
> argue the arms lenght it did not go into my bank account, even though the soliciations
> use your name, and the purpose. You should know Sandra Tyson as she was one of the
> individuals pleading for help from these chat room relief groups. Maybe she could
> have benefited from one of those solicited dollars. She, and Frank, and Mary and
> others were trying to find the first 10 years benefits of the mold is gold melodrama.
>
> Prior to the Chamber of Commerce you wanted your house on the Lake fixed, placed in
> the same shape as it was before. You wanted to have public record of your daugher's
> health issues attributed from the generated mold. You wanted compensation for your
> and their pain and suffering. The Chamber of Commerce was only a party to the mold is
> gold melodrama when inspectors started cooking the mold. Ask any knowlegable
> inspectors. The Chamber used influence to reduce their members liability, mold has
> been added as an additional coverage, or removed from policies for years. ACHEMMIC
> and other groups are just trying to get numbers of minimum exposure so it justifies
> their business profit for having the government on their side. Even on hazadous waste
> site's for know PEL's the government is broke. You won't stop junk sceince until your
> groups start publishing it; you can't get the government onboard, and can't get your
> people in government positions. With the census, and statistics were a nation of
> numbers. There are no lives at stake! There are no numbers of deaths attributed to
> mold! There was a person "Sandra Tyson" who thought she would be the "one" to bear
> the proof; but you and your groups dismissed her. She and Frank, Mary have provided
> enough information to be given the opportunity to be counted as one of those
> statistics but they got ignored, or mistreated with the mold cure prescribed by some
> of these experts that are spreading their brand of junk science.
>
> jc