# 10 WHAT THE ACOEM DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Post # 16

7/11/05, ff wrote:

>

> Ms. Sharon Kramer:

>

> Reading your posts and other responses following the lawsuit

> in which you identify yourself as a defendant, I would like to

> thank you for continuing to post on this subject. As this

> board is devoted to " black mold, " and the magnitude of mold

> problems is well recognized, black mold is obviously a public

> health threat. As such, I hope CA (venue?) law will allow

> continued disclosure.

>

> A key topic on Toxlaw has been the validity of science and

> expert testimony, on both sides. Your situation is one needed

> in assessing that validity. I hope the information/updates

> continue, and certainly, this is an option open to either side.

>

> ff

************************************************************************Post

# 17

Re: Found this in the Insurance Journal

Posted by _Sharon_

(http://counsel.net/cgi-bin/chatscripts/mailform.cgi?uid=kfc1955 & dmn=sgd.uge & nam\

e=Sharon & subject=Re:+Found+this+in+the+Insurance+Journal)

on 7/11/05

ff,

Thank you. And I do sincerely appreciate the host of ToxLaw

allowing me to continue to post information that is extracted

from a legal, public document along with the words of Dr. Kelman

and various websites that are also in the public domaine.

This sick cycle has to stop. People are being made gravely ill

and their lives are being unnecessarily ruined, while others are

receiving bad advice on how to limit financial liability over the

matter. Ultimately, because of this bad advice, those who are

concerned about financial liability end up paying out much more.

The bad advice serves to further the damage for those who have

been made ill, which in turn, then costs everyone. This means

our society as a whole is paying dearly in the lost health of our

Nation's children and in the resultant economic burden this

imposes on our Nation's economy.

The only ones profiting and living well off of this sick,

perverse and insidious scenario are the ones who are responsible

for giving the bad advice in the first place.

Sharon Kramer

******************************************************************

Post # 18

>Re: Found this in the Insurance Journal

Posted by _Sharon_

(http://counsel.net/cgi-bin/chatscripts/mailform.cgi?uid=kfc1955 & dmn=sgd.uge & nam\

e=Sharon & subject=Re:+Found+this+in+the+Insurance+Journal)

on 7/11/05

From my Declaration in the lawsuit that Bruce Kelman and GlobalTox

sued me for writing Dr. Kelman " altered his under oath testimony "

on the witness stand. (After being presented docs from is prior

testimony in a case in Arizona)

1. I have been sued for libel by toxicologist, Bruce Kelman

(Kelman), and the environmental risk management corporation of

which he is a principal, GlobalTox, Inc. (GlobalTox). The false

accusation of libel stems from a press release that I authored in

March of 2005, regarding a lawsuit filed by the Haynes' family

against their builder, Adair Homes,...It is a construction

defect/mold case. The press release was place on PR Web, a free

internet press release site. I paid $300 to have assistance with

the formatting and to have the press release expedited. To date, it

has been read by no less than 1800 media journalists and 142,000

people from the PR Web site alone...

(Comment: As of today's date, 6/11/05, it has now been read by

150,462 people and picked up by no less than 1,945 media

journalists just from the PR Website alone. I have no way to track

the reads and pick-ups from the other websites that this press

release is published on. This is an increase of approx. 8,500

people and 145 media journalists in just the past four days, simply

from PRWeb alone. Hmmmmm? Wonder what that is all about?)

3. The phrase that Kelman and GlobalTox allege is a libelous

accusation of perjury on my part is " altered his under oath

testimony " . The phrase was used within the sentence, " Upon viewing

documents presented by the Haynes' attorney of Kelman's prior

testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath

testimony on the witness stand. " GlobalTox was not even referenced

in the allegedly libelous sentence. Kelman obviously did " alter

his under oath statements " as displayed in the attached Exhibit.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 are pages 53 to 59 of the Haynes trial

transcript.

4. During Kelman's testimony, questions turned to money that the

Manhattan Institute, a national political think-tank, had paid

Kelman's company, GlobalTox, for a broadly marketed version

(Manhattan Institute Version) of a paper he had coauthored, along

with another principal of GlobalTox, Hardin (Hardin). The

original paper was written for the American College of Occupational

and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), a national medical policy-

writing body. The third coauthor, Saxon, also does expert

witness testimony for the defense but is not a principal of

GlobalTox. The Manhattan Institute Version is an edit of this

original paper that is entitled " Adverse Human Health Effects from

Mold in an Indoor Environment, Evidence Based Statement " (ACOEM

Statement). Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy

of the ACOEM Statement. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a true and

correct copy of the Manhattan Institute Version.

5. During Kelman's testimony in the Haynes case, when the payment

from the Manhattan Institute was brought into question, the

interaction between Mr. Vance (Vance), the Haynes' family attorney,

and Kelman, took on a more confrontational tone. At one point,

Kelman stated, " Sir, that is a complete lie. " In response to the

question, " ....So you participated in writing the study, your

company was paid very handsomely for it, and then you go out and

you testify around the country legitimizing the study that you

wrote. Isn't that a conflict of interest, sir? "

6. Prior to the Manhattan Institute money question, the line of

questioning was of revisions made to the ACOEM Statement before

it's publication. Kelman and Hardin both were involved int the pre-

publication edits of the ACOEM Statement. Vance switched from

questioning about the ACOEM Statement itself, to ask about the

Manhattan Institute Version.

7. When originally asked the question by Vance, " All right. And,

isn't it true that the Manhattan Institute paid GlobalTox $40,000

to make revisions in that statement? Kelman replied " That is one

of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. " Vance then

referenced the case from Arizona, Killian vs Equity Residential

Trust, et al., Case No. CIV 02-1272-PHX-FJM, United States District

Court for the District of Arizona (Kilian), and said, " Well you

admitted to it in the Killian deposition, sir. " Kelman

replied, " No I did not. "

8. Thereafter, the Kilian trial transcript was admitted into the

record allowing the line of questioning to continue. Kelman was

then asked by Vance, " Would you read into the record the

highlighted portions of that transcript, sir? " Kelman read from

the Kilian transcript, " And that new version that you did for the

Manhattan Institute, your company, GlobalTox got paid $40,000,

Correct? 'Yes, the company was paid $40,000 for it. " Attached

hereto....

9. In the above referenced exchange, the direct question was asked

of Kelman if the Manhattan Institute had paid GlobalTox for

revisions to the ACOEM Statement. Kelman replied with an indignant

and false denial. If Kelman was confused as to whether Vance was

asking about the ACOEM Statement or the Manhattan Institute

Version, yet was intending to be forthright in his testimony, a

more appropriate answer may have been, " Yes, GlobalTox was paid

$40,000 for a revision of the ACOEM Statement, but that was much

later. "

10. Kelman chose not to clarify the payment from the Manhattan

Institute at that time in his testimony. Only after the Kilian

transcript was permitted into the court record, which allowed the

line of questioning to continue, did he attempt to explain the

relationship between the ACOEM Statement and the Manhattan

Institute Version.

11. In his attempted explanation, Kelman altered back and forth in

describing the relationship of the two papers....

Sharon Kramer