Follow us!

    Re: Peer reviewed Proof, Dr. Lipsey, etc.

    Posted by DD on 8/23/04

    Haven't checked it lately, but some of that 'stuff' helped win the
    Plaza Towers case in New Orleans. Don't think anyone is laughing.

    You seem to confuse political might with the law, reason, and right.
    Being politically correct is not the same thing as being right.

    Back to the same issue as before, it takes big money to fight an
    individual who has the deep pockets of their insurance company behind

    In my case, it takes a lot to fight back against the entrenched notion
    of landlords being favored regardless of the law.

    So, to simplify:

    1. the landlord and his employee entered my apartment repeatedly
    without my knowledge to rig/apply quick fix to a problem they knew
    existed, but I didn't.
    2. the landlord knew of my sensitivites and illness.
    3. the pesticide company said they would spray one thing and sprayed
    another that happened to be banned.
    4. the dept. of ag agent was on a first name basis with pesiticide
    agents and failed to timely do testing, hinting at collusion between
    5. the dept. of ag agent had access to information pertaining to the
    landlord and myself hinting at collusion.
    6. the several burglaries and odd occurrences as hearings and trial
    approached or motions were filed.
    7. the judges' failure to render rulings on my judgement, failure to
    read case, reprimand defense attorney for abuse of process, and more
    seems to indicate collusion or incompetence.
    8. there seems to be collusion on the part of local government,
    judiciary, law enforcement, attorneys with the landlords to deprive or
    deny tenants rights.
    9. it seems that my losses and injuries are inconsequential to anybody
    but me and I am not a poor mexican immigrant with 4 children;
    fortunately I am articulate, educated, and have some family connections.

    All the fancy spin won't change lead into gold are make right an
    undeniable wrong.


    On 8/20/04, mary wrote:
    > For clarity, that would be
    > The 'Critical Review' offered as the 'first case to prove' is a sad
    > collection of snips and clips that is apparently offered as proof.
    > It is far worse than I would have guessed. Anyone seeking to use
    > this as evidence will be crushed and laughed at. Here is a tip: If
    > the jury and judge laugh at you, it is a bad sign.
    > Best Regards,
    > Mary
    > On 8/20/04, Peer-Reviewed Proof wrote:
    >> On 8/02/04, Susan wrote:
    >>> On 2/25/04, fresh air wrote:
    >>>> On 2/24/04, fresh air wrote:
    >> Dear Susan Go to Mold Survivor--upper right hand corner is a
    >> Section called Critical Review--First Case to Prove --You will
    >> find many studies there to start.
    >> Cheri

    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.