Follow us!


    Posted by Sharon on 8/12/10


    Like I said you assume facts not in evidence in your hypotheses which causes your conclusions
    to be incorrect based on the false assumptions.

    1. My house was under 2000 sf. It was a beautiful little gem. But small. Got more than
    enough had I been inclined to remodel from top to bottom.

    Not even going to bother with the rest. Why are you always so interested in my personal
    life? Are you sure I didn't turn you down for a date or something at your favorite
    university in the whole world - Ole Miss?

    On 8/12/10, johncodie wrote:
    > On 8/12/10, Sharon wrote:
    >> 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.
    > A half a millon doesn't come close to replacing a house that size, not even close to the
    > amount orginaly awarded to your freind Ms Ballard. You left the house and moved into town
    > closer to your husbands business and have ravine and walking path in place of a lake view.
    > No pool where you had a pool, and no place to park that big RV,or dock the boat. I know
    > those prices you tried to get in Rancho Sante Fe, those were in the millons. You settled
    > for what you could get so have the attorneys paid.
    >> 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.
    > People made request for your legal defense fund because your actions resulted in a
    > judgement your still trying to get out of, which benefited Thrasher, and Shoemaker; who
    > depended on you to get the winds blowing in their direction as being a solution to mold
    > related problems. It's not the Chambers paper or the opposing view paper that is harming
    > anybody. You got yourself into a political tail spin and can't get out with your dignity
    > intact. There are no mold people being found with toxins. None.
    >> 3. There is no monitary judgement being paid on my behalf. Quit making stuff up, John!
    > There is a judgement and it is costing you dearly. You might not have had to cut back on
    > the number of packs of cigarrettes you smoke but it is a drain. Can you go another 5
    > years?
    >> 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.
    > You should know Sandra Tyson, you should Frank, you should know Mary; they were the grass
    > roots supporting your cause. The Chamber is a personal issue of which you picked the
    > battle. It had no bearing on Sandra Tyson.
    >> 5. I left ACHEMMIC. I can't speak for what they do or do not do.
    > Why do good people put their name on a petetion, or join a political group when they don't
    > know what they do or not do. At your national level of recognition don't you think you
    > should be sure of an association before put your name with theirs.
    >> 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.
    > Things did go exceptionaly well for us, we avoided having our nest egg washed away with
    > Katrinia, We were able to place the children in private school, and an ivy league collage.
    > We are thus far avoiding the massive layoffs not seen for 36 years. I can play golf or
    > tennis with the children, where once I was looking for fuel to heat the home. Your
    > settlement was two years prior to our settlement; so no the M. Ballard mold is gold rush
    > wasn't used as it had no bearing. Two honest men set the sights for the litigation of
    > breach of contract, not mold. It was really never an issue. The Chamber of Commerce Paper
    > has no influence when the court takes all evidence at face value. Find the people that are
    > covered in mold and that is your beginning. The mold era is over, even if your case hasn't
    > been dismissed.
    > jc
    >> 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

    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.