Follow us!

    Re: Another Mold Settlement

    Posted by ff on 11/21/07

    Mike B.:

    I didn't put your name down, it posted that way. Once more, you
    throw out more BS, so much that you're lost, again. It's quite
    simple. It's in black and white.

    1.) Your post re: the article
    2.) My post re: two scenarios, one OR the other,
    3.) Your reaction - typical juping the gun, adversarial, and
    anticipated. You screwed up.
    4.) Your second reaction, when you found out the first was wrong.
    5.) Your deception - trying to save face, altering my post, and
    using the aleration to support your fabricated defense. Just
    look at it, the only way your BS would fit, required you to
    leave out the very information that proves you're wrong.

    The record speaks for itself. Read it. You can go on and on ad
    nauseum if you want, after all, when you have nothing to work with,
    and you're caught, maybe confusion will help for you?

    Take a break. Have a good Thanksgiving. And, thank you.


    On 11/21/07, Mike B. wrote:
    > Ditto to your ditto.
    > On 11/21/07, ff wrote:
    >> On 11/21/07, ff, not Mike B,:
    >>> 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 then submitting the alteration while
    >>> agrguing and calling me names, etc. I love it.
    >>> WE"RE DONE HERE!
    >>> ff
    >>> 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
    >>>> harmless.
    >>>> ff
    >>>> 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
    >>>> landlord,
    >>>>> Roosevelt Owyang, accusing him of not providing a
    >>>> habitable
    >>>>> 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
    >>>> others
    >>>>> claimed that they suffered from chronic sinusitis and
    >>>> upper-
    >>>>> 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

  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.