I am going to jail in Feb for refusing to be silenced

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

Anything you could do to help me get sunlight in this would be GREATLY appreciated. I am going to jail for five days in Feb for civil contempt of refusing to be silenced of how the CA courts have been practicing politics - not law - while aiding the false concept to continue in policy, medical offices and courts that toxicology models can be used by themselves to deny causation of individual's environmental illnesses.

My fear is, once I am in there, they will never let me out. With civil contempt, people can be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime and no jury trial. Its called "coercive incarceration". One example:

PA Man Jailed for 14 Years for Contempt of Court to be Released

Although I am published in medical journals, I am not a scientist or a physician. I have a degree in marketing and sold real estate for a living.

What changed my path in life, is that I had a leak in an ice maker line back in 2001 and mold grew. The remediators had no idea what they were doing and they cross-contaminated our house. Blew mold everywhere. I have a daughter with Cystic Fibrosis who is highly susceptible to mold. So of course, I did a lot of research when faced with this issue. Our insurer sued us for refusing to accept only $30K. Long story short, we ended up receiving about a $500K settlement. We sold the house with full disclosure. My daughter is now 28, very health, and a video editor in LA. (part of why she is so healthy is because of what I learned going thru this issue that doctors are not taught - something good comes from everything)

While researching, I came upon thousands of people who are not as fortunate as us. Did not have the means to go buy another house or fly to go see specialists. Did not have a large, close family to see them thru. I couldn't walk away without doing something to change the issue and stop the evidence of the ill health effects from being suppressed in policy, medical offices and the courts. Has little to do with biological science and much to do with the misuse of the science of marketing. (think Big Tobacco marketing).

I went to DC and told them there was a problem. I ended up moderating a Senate staff breifing over the mold issue with a panel of four scientists/physicians they let be pick and bring. That started the slooooooow change in federal policy.

Early on, I grasp the concept that what they were doing was a simple twist of science mass marketed to deny liability for causation of illness. (this doesn't just apply to mold. it applies to many environmental exposures).

With regard to mold they took a single toxicology model and mass marketed it to mean that it was highly unlikely people could be sick if they were exposed to inhaled mycotoxins indoors. (2002). A medical association, ACOEM, legitimized it, KNOWING they were legitimizing a litigation defense argument.

They spun it further to mean people claiming illness from mycotoxins (notice "inhaled" is gone) were doing so because of "trial lawyers, media and Junk Science". (2003) The US Chamber mass marketed it to the courts. They also promoted it as "toxic mold" with the implication that all illnesses from mold are related to toxicity. (think asthma and allergy are not toxic illnesses, etc)

They spun it even further in the courts that this modeling theory alone meant individuals "Could not be" made ill from mycotoxins because they fell below this hypothetical exposure limit - projected it as no one could be made ill from mold (notice "toxic" is gone) or the biological contaminants found in water damaged buildings.

It became the concept in US policy and courts that anyone claiming illness from a water damaged building was just doing so because of "trial lawyers, media and Junk Science". It caused a push back of fear in that even if people were just a little sick, they would go to their doctors and the doctors would tell them they "could not be" sick from their buildings. Knowing that wasn't true, they would search on their own and find legitimate horror stories of worst case scenarios and think that applied to them. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. But there was no place to go to find clear answers. As is true with all good parents, they would choose to err on the side of precaution - which in many cases was a logical but unnecessary over reaction.

They over react, building owners under react - making a perfect storm for the contention, confusion and litigation to continue. Those who mass marketed the scientific misinfo, then make money off of the contention by serving as expert witnesses in the litigations that are resultant of the willful marketing of misinformation.

THIS IS WHY THEY HATE ME SO MUCH and want me to shut up. I get it. Its marketing.

I caused a federal GAO audit that helped to establish these illnesses are plausibly occurring. The Senate HELP committee and the late Sen Kennedy ordered it at my urging.

I am trying to finish the job and knock it out of mold policy once and for all. See letter to OSHA, etc.

As is always the matter, its never the original action that gets gov into trouble. Its always the cover up for the wrongs. The CA courts were practicing politics, not law, when they first framed me for libel in 2005 while being evidenced of the twist in science they were aiding to continue. Now they KNOW they backed the wrong horse (when they should not have been betting at all) and are trying to shut me up of how they have aided the false science to continue in policy by what they have done to me.

I am in a unique position, it is not an expert witness who has committed perjury in my case. It is a plaintiff that the courts have been concealing committed perjury to establish needed reason for malice. ONE Ca judiciary acknowledging the evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury when strategically litigating against me to establish needed reason for malice - and the whole charade collapse - because the plaintiff is an author of the false science he uses in court to state illnesses "Could not be" caused by the exposure based solely on his mass marketed modeling theory. No longer is it just in science where the charade collapses, it is the practicing of politics in the upper echelon of CA courts.

The plaintiff is the author of the model theory that was legitimized by ACOEM and the US Chamber. How these two papers were connected in marketing false science to mislead the courts was the subject of my writing. I explained it by using a case in Oregon. I was trying to get the word out that you can defeat the false science by making the experts discuss the marketing. I feel I was pretty successful with this and know my efforts have saved many lives.

For this, I am going to jail for refusing to be silenced of how the CA courts have aided this to continue far longer than it ever should have and are now trying to keep it quiet of what they did.

Sharon