Re: Re: Mediator vs. Lawyer???

[Guest guest]

Having been a land lord I sympathize their position. How can I say

this without pissing people off. Their is no conclusive scientific

evidence that holds up in court or can be refereed to that toxic mold

is anything more than a nuisance. I can't even go to ssi and claim

disability because of my severe reactions to mold even though it has

crippled me for almost ten years. Just go to the cdc site and you will

see what I am saying. I am sure people can find me all kinds of links

that refute what I am saying but no links that I can take to court and

use to get on disability. Or get access to safe housing, or get access

to decent medical care. Or at least none that I know of.

A land lord does not have reliable information and I don't think they

should be the one that is to be sued. I think medical Dr's should be

sued for the fraud that is being perpetrated. Clearly they have the

tools at their fingertips to prove what everyone on this list knows.

They choose not to and refute what we say here. That is fraud.

I have to believe that given proper information that most landlords

and business owners would do the right thing. No such information is

available. I know this might be an unpopular view but I just don't see

how you can hold someone accountable for what to them is seems not to

be a hazard.

I would be less sympathetic to a land lord or business that had

multiple occupants get sick and tried to cover up the truth and

continue exposing people to a hazard. And never express publicly their

outrage at the lack of reliable information regarding safe

environments.

But the little guy with four apartments that hasn't a clue. I just

don't know weather I would call that fair.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:15:06 +0000, you wrote:

> I think the only way to let

>landlords know that they cant get away with this is to take them to

>court. sence I am already dealing with a lawsuit, I could not take on

>sueing him too, but it really bothers me that he is still renting out

>these apartments knowing that it is harming his renters

[Guest guest]

I have to say I am disappointed in this post. So what you are saying is

that one person being sick isn't enough, it would take several for you to feel

like then maybe something should be done but even then it would not be your

responsibility. My landlord knew about problematic leaks, saw sores all over my

body saw my champion bread dogs hair falling out, saw the mold and did nothing.

I paid for testing, I lost everything, I am sick, one dog is blind the other is

sick. I can't even get in my car anymore, and this is the doctors fault????

You yourself are experiencing the symptoms yet there is not enough proof for a

landlord to be responsible enough to take care of his property and remove the

" nuisance " . I don't understand this thought process...

Everyone wants to put it off on someone else. Just the fact that the

information that states it is a nuisance should be enough for you as a landlord

should do something about it.

Chris

Christ <antares41-41@...> wrote:

Having been a land lord I sympathize their position. How can I say

this without pissing people off. Their is no conclusive scientific

evidence that holds up in court or can be refereed to that toxic mold

is anything more than a nuisance. I can't even go to ssi and claim

disability because of my severe reactions to mold even though it has

crippled me for almost ten years. Just go to the cdc site and you will

see what I am saying. I am sure people can find me all kinds of links

that refute what I am saying but no links that I can take to court and

use to get on disability. Or get access to safe housing, or get access

to decent medical care. Or at least none that I know of.

A land lord does not have reliable information and I don't think they

should be the one that is to be sued. I think medical Dr's should be

sued for the fraud that is being perpetrated. Clearly they have the

tools at their fingertips to prove what everyone on this list knows.

They choose not to and refute what we say here. That is fraud.

I have to believe that given proper information that most landlords

and business owners would do the right thing. No such information is

available. I know this might be an unpopular view but I just don't see

how you can hold someone accountable for what to them is seems not to

be a hazard.

I would be less sympathetic to a land lord or business that had

multiple occupants get sick and tried to cover up the truth and

continue exposing people to a hazard. And never express publicly their

outrage at the lack of reliable information regarding safe

environments.

But the little guy with four apartments that hasn't a clue. I just

don't know weather I would call that fair.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:15:06 +0000, you wrote:

> I think the only way to let

>landlords know that they cant get away with this is to take them to

>court. sence I am already dealing with a lawsuit, I could not take on

>sueing him too, but it really bothers me that he is still renting out

>these apartments knowing that it is harming his renters

FAIR USE NOTICE:

[Guest guest]

jeanie,

In a nutshell

Janet

[Guest guest]

Keep Hope alive.

Elvira

[] Re: Mediator vs. Lawyer???

>

> > I think the only way to let

> >landlords know that they cant get away with this is to take them

to

> >court. sence I am already dealing with a lawsuit, I could not take

on

> >sueing him too, but it really bothers me that he is still renting

out

> >these apartments knowing that it is harming his renters

>

FAIR USE NOTICE:

[Guest guest]

jeanine,

I am sorry if I came off wrong on my stance towards land lords. I did

not mean to sound callous towards you and others in similar

situations. From the things you have told me I can see why you feel

the way you do.

I just wish we could get straight answers from medical Dr's.

It would really help our cause.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:08:58 +0000, you wrote:

> robert, if your waiting for healthy people to agree to expose theri

>selfs to toxic molds in clinical trails to see how sick they get, you

>have a long wait ahead. thats what animal trails are for.

>and some of the illnesses caused by toxic mold exposure are covered

>under disability. like post stress syndrome, CFS, and some states put

[Guest guest]

Every situation is obviously different.

The main point I was trying to make is if the medical establishment

acknowledged what everyone on this group already knows. I would have

to think that most land lords would do the right thing. They would

have no choice.

I apologize if I sounded callous or insensitive.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:23:24 -0800 (PST), you wrote:

> I have to say I am disappointed in this post. So what you are saying is

that one person being sick isn't enough, it would take several for you to feel

like then maybe something should be done but even then it would not be your

responsibility. My landlord knew about problematic leaks, saw sores all over my

body saw my champion bread dogs hair falling out, saw the mold and did nothing.

I paid for testing, I lost everything, I am sick, one dog is blind the other is

sick. I can't even get in my car anymore, and this is the doctors fault????

> You yourself are experiencing the symptoms yet there is not enough proof for

a landlord to be responsible enough to take care of his property and remove the

" nuisance " . I don't understand this thought process...

> Everyone wants to put it off on someone else. Just the fact that the

information that states it is a nuisance should be enough for you as a landlord

should do something about it.

> Chris