Re: Valentine's Day

More | Report Post

Since you all seem to want to live vicariously through my life, I will show you just a snippet of
the case. Remember, the only 5 words I am being sued for, even with ALL that I have written about
the deceit of ACOEM being promoted by the US Chamber and used to win lawsuits based on false
science while causing the medical community to be misinformed and thereby leaving thousands unable
to obtain proper medical treatment when experiencing symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure
to mold toxins indoors are the 5 little words of "altered his under oath statements". Therfore,
what I am NOT being sued for should tell you as much of the story as what I am being sued for.

THE PRESS RELEASE:

“March 09, 2005
Jury Finds "Toxic Mold" Harmed Oregon Family, Builder's Arbitration Clause Not Binding

In relevant part:

“Dr. Bruce Kelman of GlobalTox,Inc, a Washington based environmental risk management company,
testified as an expert witness for the defense, as he does in mold cases throughout the country.
Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne's attorney of Kelman's prior testimony from a case in
Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand. He admitted the
Manhattan Institute, a national political think-tank, paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position
paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Although much medical research
finds otherwise, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the types of illnesses
experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands from across the US, could be caused
by "toxic mold" exposure in homes, schools or office buildings.

In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman Gary
Miller (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building
industries'associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found
as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American
College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.” (one can read the entire press release at
Moldwarriors.com)

Plaintiff’s sole defamation allegation in this action is the assertion that the Press Release
somehow “falsely implied that [Plaintiff] provided perjurious testimony in lawsuits.” The Press
Release, however, said no such thing. Rather, it simply and accurately stated that the Plaintiff
had “altered his under oath statements on the witness stand” once forced to discuss the connection
of two policy papers after being presented with his testimony from a prior trial that contradicted
his testimony in the Oregon trial. Plaintiff’s assertion that “altered” is synonymous
with “perjury” is baseless.

Testimony, Bruce J. Kelman June 2004
Kilian vs. Equitable Trust
Q. You mention that after the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicien published
the position paper, that you were approached by the Manhattan Institute to rework or reword your
research, correct?
A. I would characterize it – I mean, they literally asked for a lay translation of that article.
Q. But—Which you eventually did, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Most of it is almost word for word the same, correct?
A. I – the translation is the same as the original article?
Q. Well, translation is an interest word. Thery’re both in English, correct?
A. Yes.
Q: So shall we call it the Manhattan Institute version versus the ACOEM version rather than the
translation? The words are substantially similar, correct?

Testimony Bruce J. Kelman February 2005
Haynes vs. Adair Homes
Q: Thank you. So, you participated in writing the study, your company was paid very handsomely for
it, and they you go out and you testify around the country legitimizing the study that you wrote.
Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
A: Sir,that is a complete lie.
A: ….In April of 2003 I was contacted by the Manhattan Institute and asked to write a lay verson of
what we had said in the ACOEM paper – I’m sorry, the American Collego of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine position statement. When I was initially contacted I said,”No”. For the
amount of effort it takes to write a paper I can do another scientific publication. They then came
back a few weeks later and said, “If we compensate you for your time, will you write the paper?”
And, at that point, I said, “Yes, as a group.” The published version, not the web version, but the
published version of the ACOEM paper came out in the Journal of Environmental and Occupational
Meidicne in May. And, then sometime after that, I think it was July, this lay translation came
out. They’re two different papers, two different activities. The – we would have never been
contacted to do a translation of a document that had already been prepared, if it hadn’t already
been prepared. (one can read this entire testimony at moldwarriors.com)

Testimony Bruce J. Kelman December 2007
Kelman vs. Kramer
The Witness: They are two different processes. The Manhattan Institute report is – expresses the
same science, but uses lay language a non-physician would understand, a layperson.
Q: But lay translation is not the way that you would describe it?
A: That the way the Manhattan Institute describe it. I have never viewed it as a translation.
They are both in English.

Really?
Kilian, never described as "translation"? cuz both are in "English"?
Haynes: Never described as a "lay translation"?

Meaning of purported unbiased and scientific ACOEM mold statement, as translated by the authors of
the purported unbiased and scientific ACOEM Mold Statement for the US Chamber of Commerce and
political think-tank Manhattan Institute: “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious
secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim is ‘Junk Science’
unsupported by actual scientific study.”

Wonder why anyone would want me silenced about the relationship of the ACOEM Mold Statement and the
US Chamber of Commerce paper?

"In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman Gary
Miller (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building
industries'associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found
as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American
College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.”

So was that fun for you all to see an inside look at my lawsuit? It is really pretty simple.

Sharon

On 2/17/08, Sharon wrote:
> JohnCodie,
>
> Not true. I switched attorneys back mid-summer. I now have attorneys who specialize in libel.
> Should have done this in the first place. And I have no problem being exposed to the public eye
> as you say. Not my favorite thing to do, but it is necessary to move this issue forward and
> remove the deceit from the mold issue.
>
> What I DO have a problem with, are people interpreting what is happening in my life and my case
> who have no clue what they are talking about. Like you just now, concluding there is a
> problem...when there is not and Mike B putting out absolute lies that I would be turning over
> documents I was supposedly withholding on the 14th of February. That was PURE garbage, made up
> in his own little mind. So, I could care less what people say about this case as long as they
> have their facts straight. I wrote the truth and stand by it.
>
> If you are going to write, get your facts straight before writing. Which both you and Mike B
> have not done.
>
> All is going well. Please THINK before you write about my life.
>
> Sharon
>
> On 2/17/08, johncodie wrote:
>> Monday: Is a holiday for some, but not all. Sharon. If you didn't already realize your exposed
>> to the public eye. Weathering the storm might not mean much to you; but you wouldn't be asking
>> the court for money, or getting another attorney if all was well in the Kramer Camp tonight.
>> Sleep in as late as you can. People don't respond well to being Hottie Toddied>
>>
>> jc
>>