Re: Another Mold Settlement
Posted by Mike B. on 11/21/07
Last chance. These questions are, again, focused on my original
posting that started this specific thread, AND your entire
original response thereto:
1. What do either of the scenarios you wrote in your original
response have to do with the information in my original post?
2. Why did you choose those 2 scenarios.
You said "The rest of the story could be...?
Nothing was "screwed up" on my part. I couldn't give a rat's a**
about the "industry side." There was NO industry side even
mentioned in the article I posted.
You ain't done, and I know that. NBD.
On 11/21/07, Mike B. wrote:
> Mike B.:
> Now, take a look below at how my post really read: Do you see
> the word "OR", separating the two scenarios???? It's obvious
> why you left it out. First, that was the only way you could
> get out of your first reaction when you realized you screwed
> up. Secondly, you didn't like the way the second scenario on
> the industry side read, you got rid of it and the word "Or"
> and lastly, you obviously liked the sound of the first
> scenario, and you left it in.
> Mike, like I said, I don;t ever expect you to admit your
> wrong, and I don't care if you do or not. You're caught, and
> I'm done here. Like I said, "light work".
> Altering the post, and them submitting the alteration while
> agrguing and calling me names, etc. I love it.
> WE"RE DONE HERE!
> On 11/20/07, ff wrote:
>> Mike B.:
>> The rest of the story could be...?
>> ...the litigants, now overweight, intoxicated, and homeless,
>> are suing to regain possession of the truck, clothes, and
>> jewelry purchased with proceeds from the settlement. A
>> major convenience store chain is also being sued for
>> accepting purchases from them, with cash also obtained in
>> the settlement, as well as a local business, "Custom Body
>> and Paint". The auto customizing facilitiy allegedly
>> mispelled the first name of one of the litigants, when it
>> was painted onto the now repo'd vehicle. The previous
>> landlord declined comment, stating that the litigants were
>> threatening discrimination suits if he did not allow them to
>> move back into the apartment, employ then to make necessary
>> repairs, and compensate with cash only.
>> Or -
>> ...the litigants' state of health has continued to decline,
>> while at the same time, the previous landlord has leased the
>> contaminated property to more families, claiming that the
>> CDC, US Chamber of Commerce, ACOEM, and other credible
>> entities stand behind him in his accepted view that mold is
>> On 11/19/07, Mike B. wrote:
>>> What are ya'll doing wrong with your litigation?
>>> Apartment Mold
>>> Oakland, CA: (Nov-18-07) Twelve immigrant families who
>>> lived in a dilapidated, unheated, mold and cockroach
>>> infested apartment, brought charges against their
>>> Roosevelt Owyang, accusing him of not providing a
>>> dwelling at the complex. The suit also alleged breach of
>>> contract. The former tenants stated that rain water leaked
>>> into their apartments from windows and ceilings so the
>>> apartments were constantly damp and mold was thick.
>>> Cockroaches were everywhere, and stairway railings and
>>> floorboards were often broken. Several plaintiffs claimed
>>> that they developed asthma along with the 39 former and
>>> current residents who are party to the suit. Several
>>> claimed that they suffered from chronic sinusitis and
>>> respiratory problems as a result of staying at the
>>> apartment. The complaint was filed in state Superior Court
>>> in Alameda County. As part of a settlement reached, the
>>> twelve immigrant families received a $1.3 million payout,
>>> resolving the lawsuit. [INSIDE BAY AREA: APARTMENT MOLD]
Posts on this thread, including this one