Re: Valentine's Day
Posted by Sharon on 2/19/08
Yep. That's it. That's supposedly the whole enchilada as to the reason for this litigation "altered"
"adapted, adjusted, amended, converted, cooked, corrected, diversified, doctored, fitted, fixed, modified,
qualified, redone, refitted, reformed, remade, remodeled, renovated, reshaped, retailored, revised,
spiked, transformed, turned, updated".
I don't if he would have liked any of these any better as a description of his testimony, once forced to
discuss the relationship of the ACOEM mold statement and the US. Chamber paper in front of a jury, by the
Kilian transcript being allowed into the record. Nor am I of the opinion he really cares about this word
I think it was more of a Chinatown situation: "She's my sister, she's my mother, she's my sister..."
She's a version, she's a lay translation, she's not lay translation, she's seperate work, she's a
translation". Altered sure seems accurate to me.
You can read the whole testimony at moldwarriors.com
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
A. I would characterize it – I mean, they literally asked for a lay translation of that article.
Q. But—Which you eventually did, correct?
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?
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.
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 themselves
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.”
"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.”
On 2/19/08, Deborah wrote:
> The word that caused all the trouble and sleepless nights for this guy is "altered"; would he have been
> okay with any of these synonyms?
> "adapted, adjusted, amended, converted, cooked, corrected, diversified, doctored, fitted, fixed, modified,
> qualified, redone, refitted, reformed, remade, remodeled, renovated, reshaped, retailored, revised,
> spiked, transformed, turned, updated" from thesaurus.com.
> On 2/19/08, Sharon wrote:
>> John C,
>> What????? Can you take your last post and clarify it a bit? I am not following what you are trying to
>> say. And why you are trying to say it in the first place. While this may be fun and voyeristic for
>> you, this is my life. So, somethings I will answer. Somethings I will not. Not because I have
>> anything to hide, just some things better not discussed in detail on a chatboard.
>> Yes. Kelman and I are both recognized as public figures in this case. It's a bit different situation
>> than it was THREE years ago when they filed this suit...which was before I became recognized as a
>> public figure. Which was the point of the suit in the first place, I believe. Sometimes, things
>> backfire when one is too aggressive.
>> With all that has been written, do you understand, it is only 5 little words in question, "altered his
>> under oath statements". Nothing real complex about it. And the suit supposedly has nothing to do with
>> what I write about their garbage science - if I am lying about their garbage science, then why has the
>> complaint not been amended to include these vast amounts of words as defamatory? Seems like info to
>> the GAO about the marketing of their garbage to the courts would be a whole lot more damning than the
>> word "altered", don't you think? Seems like if I was lying about their garbage science, there would be
>> a WHOLE lot more words within the approx. 65,000 pages of documents I willingly turned over to them
>> than just "altered", don't you think? I put these documeents on dics for them. Easier to share with
>> the plaintiff bar as to what Kelman has been told and provided documentation of. Hard to say under oath
>> that you are not aware of something when it has been provided to you thru a court proceeding.
>> Just should have started off with a libel attorney in the first place. I don't understand why he
>> continues. Nobody cares about the word "altered" in the big scheme of things. And this suit is
>> obviously not shutting me up. It is just giving more info. We are both just pouring money down the
>> drain from this lawsuit. I, and many others are not backing down from a need for a Congressional
>> hearing into the deceit of ACOEM and it's impact of gov't understanding/public policy, upon completion
>> of the Federal GAO audit. And you know what? We are going to get it, too!!!!
>> http://www.bio toxin. info /docs /
>> On 2/19/08, johncodie wrote:
>>> Defamation: GIN044539: Like you said just the facts. $5,625 Request from Defendant Kramer denied.
>>> It's Tuesday, the day after Monday. The Defamation laws are complex. The Cost of Litigation is
>>> expensive. The time spent is about two years. Questions remain: Did you have authority to have in
>>> your possession one of the Globtox documents that you claim Kelman did not know you had in your
>>> possession? Are either two of you recognized by the court to be public figures, or private
>>> citizens? Globtox is associated with Kelman, Kramer has her own platform group that she supports.
>>> The litigation gets complex as the facts on both sides gets skewed. The tobbacco settlement started
>>> with propritary documents stolen from a corporation, that was deemed admissiable for the state of MS
>>> deposition. The state of KY was seeking its suppression. The attorney that used those documents
>>> goes to trial next month. The attorny general of MS went to sealed settlements with State Farm last
>>> month. As important as the trail of the 6 individuals done wrong by State Farm with those documents,
>>> is equaly important as the Defamation suit that is forthcoming. The perfect defense of defamation is
>>> the "truth". Why does it take so long for the turth to come out? Today is Tuesday, you were going
>>> to expose someone? I am amazed your attorney's allow you to post on this board. You would't be
>>> foolish enough to try and reprsent yourself by telling your attorneys how to proceed with your case?
>>> On 2/17/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>> 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.
Posts on this thread, including this one