Re: Is this fraud? YES

[Guest guest]

Bob,

We discuss Schongar in " My Office is Killing Me! " and you may have to pull

an Oprah on this one.

From the EPA charges:

Schongar generated testing reports but had no equipment to test;

He allegedly produced false clearance reports;

He falsely claimed that he had a engineering degree and a Ph.D;

He falsely claimed that he had EPA grants and EPA product approval.

For remediating, he admitted that he mixed isopropyl alcohol and soap in

his garage.

His Microb had nothing to do with the sound-alike product.

C. May

May Indoor Air Investigations LLC

1522 Cambridge Street

Cambridge, MA 02139

www.mayindoorair.com

www.myhouseiskillingme.com

Bob s writes:

> Has anyone read the charges in this case? Here are my thoughts.

>

> " SCHONGAR is alleged to have deceived representatives from the Connecticut

> school districts by falsely representing that “Microb Shield” was a

> product registered with the Environmental Protection Agency, bearing

> registration number 64881-3. "

>

> However the US Attorney further states:

>

> “Microb Shield”..... was, in reality, ,,,,, “Microbe Shield,” and

> registered to AEGIS Environmental, located in Midland, Michigan. "

>

> So SCHONGAR used the real chemical and did use an " effective " product at

> the schools. So where is the fraud?

>

> Fraud requires three things under the law:

>

> 1. That false information is provided to a person or customer

> Was Schongar information false.? It the US attorney admits it was the

> real product however under a slightly different name. This is known as

> repacking.

> How many consumer products are actually repacked original items? Lots of

> them. e,g. Generic products are actually made by the major manufactures

> but packed under a different name? Is this fraud?

>

> e,g. A chemical company in Michigan (B.....) buy bulk solvents and

> repackages them. Still calls them what they are Xylene, Toulene, etc. Is

> this fraud because the repackager did not actually distill the solvents?

>

> Just because Schongar repackaged Microbe Shield using a slightly different

> name (but still documenting that the ingredients were TRACEABLE to the

> correct reg. number. Is this fraud? Is this misleading information? Was

> this lying to the school district?

>

>

> 2. The customer believes the false information

>

> The school believed they were getting a product that kills mold or

> whatever and that is what they got. Where is the " false " belief?

>

> 3. The customer acts on the information and looses money buying the false

> product. The customer receives no benefit from the purchase.

>

> The school district got their mold problem cleaned up? Where is the

> financial loss?

>

>

> Clearly, there is more going on in this situation than what appears to be

> an almost unsupportable fraud claim.

>

> Did some other contractor loose out on the remediation bid? and call a

> few political friends to cause trouble?

>

> Did AEGIS feel Schongar was cutting in on their product line. If he sold

> their product, the still made the money, so this seems unlikely.

>

> " SCHONGAR and his company had no authorization from AEGIS Environmental to

> apply the “Microbe Shield” product. "

>

> Since when do you need a " license from a company " to apply a product?

>

> This fraud claim seems to be more political publicity than protecting the

> public health.

> How much tax payer money is being spent by the US attorney? the

> investigators? the court system? This money could be used for a lot

> better purposes like " public health. "

>

> Bob

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I think I know how to get ahold of one of the teachers from that school. I will see if I can find out more. You've got me curious now, too.

Sharon

Jeff, Carl, Sharon,Thanks for the update on Schongar. This case is now even more interesting to me.charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Federal Fungicide Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).A probable cause hearing is tentatively scheduled for 1 p.m. on Aug. 4, 2001 at the federal courthouse in New Haven.He was 58, in 2001, now he would be 63. What happened to all these charges? Did the government loose at the probable cause hearing?Now some 4.5 years later, they are indicting him again? Justice delayed is justice denied. Ewart GladstoneHe allegedly produced false "clearance" reports; Schongar generated testing reports but had no equipment to test;He falsely claimed that he had a engineering degree and a Ph.D;stealing identities for credit card bills.He falsely claimed that he had EPA grants and EPA product approval. For remediating, he admitted that he mixed isopropyl alcohol and soap inhis garage.No doubt the prosecuting attorneys have reviewed all of the evidence and could only find a possible EPA violation? Something very strange here.Bob

[Guest guest]

The Local Version of the Conn case.

"In July 2004, Schongar was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Federal Fungicide Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).According to an affidavit for that case from EPA Agent Leonard F. Borges, Schongar said the substance he sprayed "typically" consisted of isopropyl alcohol and "some form of soap solution" he mixed together in his garage."

Mold 'expert' indicted on new charges

LARISSA LYTWYN

January 26, 2006

Email to a friend

Voice your opinion

A grand jury has indicted the man school officials have accused of fraudulent mold remediation work in the former Staples School building.

Schongar, 59, of Clifton Park, N.Y., is facing a trial on three counts of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud by misrepresenting the qualifications of the product he used.

The indictment alleges that Schongar's companies, Microb Phase Inc., Microb Phase Environmental and Air Tech Services (collectively referred to as "Microb Phase"), deceived the Easton, Manchester and Bristol school systems, all of which hired him for mold remediation services between 2001 and 2004. Schongar allegedly told officials in the three school districts that he would use a procedure he called "The Microb Phase Process" to "stop microbial action" and "eliminate musty odors, fungi and bacteria and aid in the prevention of school closure."The indictment also alleges that Schongar falsely claimed that the product he used was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under registration number 64881-3, when in fact that number was registered to a company called AEGIS Environmental in Midland, Mich. The grand jury found that neither Schongar nor his company had authorization from AEGIS Environmental, or any of its representatives, to apply AEGIS Environmental's Microb Shield product or use EPA registration number 64881-3.According to the indictment, Schongar also deceived customers by claiming he and his company had a relationship with the EPA to establish a program that could help schools improve air quality.Though Schongar has been charged, Easton Police Chief said his department is still investigating possible "criminal activity" that may have taken place during Staples' mold remediation efforts in 2004 and 2004."There are no arrests pending, but the investigation is still open," said.He also gave credit to the co-chairmen of School Building Committee 2003, Ed Czernik and Beverlee Dacey, for providing information and assistance for the original investigation into Schongar and his company. In a prepared statement, Czernik and Dacey stated that from April to November 2003, the building committee met regularly to address mold-related health complaints at Staples. Those complaints came from school staff and students alike.The co-chairmen said the committee was concerned about whether the chemical Schongar sprayed at the school was related to the health complaints.After attempting to contact Schongar several times, Czernik and Dacey turned to the Board of Education and school administrators for help.Both stated that school officials and administrators would not help them. Therefore, they decided to pursue their own investigation of Schongar and Microb Phase. (Editor's note: those administrators left the Easton school system last year.)"Our research raised serious concerns regarding the veracity of [schongar's] statements as to what was applied to the building," they stated. What was sprayed?In July 2004, Schongar was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Federal Fungicide Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).According to an affidavit for that case from EPA Agent Leonard F. Borges, Schongar said the substance he sprayed "typically" consisted of isopropyl alcohol and "some form of soap solution" he mixed together in his garage.Borges said Schongar claimed he was a certified environmental inspector and had earned his Ph.D. Borges could not verify the credentials.The prior case also revealed that Schongar had worked for Analytical Labs in the 1990s before being terminated for applying a questionable substance at a New York university. If convicted of the new charges, Schongar will face up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 on each count.Senior U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Bree Burns will hear the case in New Haven. Assistant U.S. Attorney T. Kang and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Lauterback are prosecuting the case.Schongar is expected to plead innocent when he is arraigned next week.

©Easton Courier 2006

Email to a friend

Voice your opinion

Top

Published by Hometown Publications1000 Bridgeport AvenueShelton, Connecticut 06484 FAX: E-mail: eastoncourier@...

[Guest guest]

Jeff, Carl, Sharon,

Thanks for the update on Schongar. This case is now even more

interesting to me.

charged with mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Federal

Fungicide Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

A probable cause hearing is tentatively scheduled for 1 p.m. on Aug. 4,

2001 at the federal courthouse in New Haven.

He was 58, in 2001, now he would be 63. What happened to all these

charges? Did the government loose at the probable cause hearing?

Now some 4.5 years later, they are indicting him again? Justice

delayed is justice denied. Ewart Gladstone

He allegedly produced false " clearance " reports; Schongar generated

testing reports but had no equipment to test;

He falsely claimed that he had a engineering degree and a Ph.D;

stealing identities for credit card bills.

He falsely claimed that he had EPA grants and EPA product approval.

For remediating, he admitted that he mixed isopropyl alcohol and

soap in

his garage.

No doubt the prosecuting attorneys have reviewed all of the evidence

and could only find a possible EPA violation? Something very strange

here.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I put a call into the teacher who this one really well. She hasn't back. Last time I talked to her - about a year ago, she was really sick and they were giving her a hard time about her worker's comp.

The way I remember, he did this in 5 different states. And it was a parent/attorney that started doing some research that nailed him.

I thought this was over about a year ago. I thought he was convicted and off to jail, but maybe not.

Could it be that he is now being tried in Federal Court for things he did in other states?

Sheila Ozalis was chosen as an IAQ Hero for her work at the Staples Elementary School in Easton that resulted in the discovery and cleanup of a variety of molds as well as the exposure and arrest of Shongar, a convicted felon and president of Microb Phase. Microb Phase was a New York mold remediation company the Easton school board hired to improve air quality at the school. He also performed work in the Newtown schools.

Mr Shongar faces federal fraud and environmental charges and was arrested this summer for spraying a mystery agent in Staples School multiple times. Federal agencies and the Easton Police are investigating together to determine whether there was criminal negligence in the maintenance of Staples, which will be replaced by a new elementary school on Morehouse Road by 2005. Teachers and students have been complaining about mold related illnesses at Staples since the mid-90s; parents have taken their children out of the school while teachers have fallen ill.

Attorney Ozalis is a partner in & Ozalis, LLP. She graduated from Drew University in 1984 with a degree in chemistry and Pace University School of Law in 1987 with a law degree. In a statement responding to her award's announcement she noted, "We made Staples Elementary School [sSES] a safer environment for the children and teachers to go to school. The majority of our committee refused to accept less than the best alternatives for making the building as safe as can be for the children and teachers. Ed Czernik, Beverlee Dacey, Peg Macaluso, Bob Moffitt, and Charlene Ashby of the School Building Committee 2003 worked tirelessly to make SSES the healthiest environment possible."

Her comments upon receiving this award included the following: "What was right for our committee was to really examine why teachers and children were sick in Staples Elementary School and take whatever steps were right and best for the school to remediate the problems we found...We had open enemies we could see and detect such as mold, bird excrement, and carbon dioxide, but as our committee saw, there were also hidden enemies such as mold abatement companies that not only produced fabricated test data, but failed to disclose the true chemicals they were using to address the mold, both of which can had dire consequences for the children and teachers. If we have accomplished anything with our work I hope we have highlighted the necessity for all companies who abate, test, or deal in any way with mold or indoor air quality issues to be licensed and regulated by the state and federal government. Our children deserve nothing less."

Connecticut Magazine - Archives - 06/02/2003 - Why ny Can't Breathe

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Thanks for finding that article. It sure is confusing. It says he was

convicted in 2004 and it now appears that the EPA is charging him

again. Isn't this double jeopardy?

I would be interested to know the history behind the mold complaints in

these schools. The article says they used Schongar for 3 years.

2001-2004. Did he correct their problems or just kept spraying

chemicals?

The article Carl linked to said Schongar was initially charged in 2001.

Did the school keep using him for the next two years?

If you could contact the teacher maybe she could give us some accurate

history.

Is this case really about failed remediation? Did people get sick?

Bob

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

This story has implications to IAQA's " IAQ Aware " program. Schools

really need this program. Here we had school maintenance staff and

administration who knew they had a problem and decided to chose someone

who had the best sales pitch. The school maintenance staff and

administration did not do their homework. Reminds me of a true story

about a middle school in 1996.

The school maintenance staff and administration hired a consulting firm

to do an IAQ baseline survey in August in the Chicago area in a new

school before it is open. They tested for ozone (why?), nitrogen

oxides (why?), carbon monoxide(why?), carbon dioxide (unoccupied

building), temperature and relative humidity.

The report (signed by a CIH) comes back with 0% relative humidity on

most days (yep, that's zero) in August in Chicago!!!. Worse yet, the

carbon dioxide levels averaged 150 ppm. (The normal background in the

atmosphere is 380 ppm. - so this reading is impossible.

The school asks me to review the report. I tell them they were ripped

off for $8,000. They data was worthless due to an obvious lack of

calibration.

So what did the school district do? They hired the same firm 6 months

later to do another round of tests.(low bidder of course!) They did

not want to admit that they hired someone incompetent in the first

place, so they kept on using him.

In the Shongar case, it took dogged work by a concerned parent to get

things right, not the highly paid supposedly expert school

administrators.

Sheila Ozalis definitely deserved her award, not only for getting the

air quality fixed, but also for bucking the system.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob,

I understand what you are saying. I think the Seattle school district has undergone somewhat of a similar situation - of rehiring those who found nothing in the first place - even though there is a teacher who cannot work anymore.

Center for School Mold Help has much info of what the schools deal with. Also, Healthy Schools Network, deals with a variety of issues that cause poor indoor air quality.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Confronting mold in our schoolsBy SARAH LARSONThe Intelligencerhttp://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-01282006-604707.htmlphillyburbs.com Pa.If bacteria or chemicals are contaminating water at your child's school, routine testing usually will find it.If mold is contaminating your child's school, however, no routine test would reveal it.That is because, while standards regulate and require testing of the quality of our drinking water, none exist to regulate or require testing of the quality of the air we breathe indoors — despite the fact that we spend 75 percent to 90 percent of our lives inside."The Clean Air Act is about outdoor air; the Clean Water Act is about outdoor water. There are very, very few laws on indoor air quality," said Barnett of the New York-based Healthy Schools Network. "What's really astounding is there are 54 million children in school across this country, and there is no agency tracking what's happening to children there, whether they're sick, whether they're well, whether the environment is harming them. No one does that. It always boggles our minds."The air we breathe indoors can be degraded by a litany of contaminants, from radon to chemicals from carpets to disease-causing viruses and bacteria. Children are at greater risk because their still-developing bodies are particularly susceptible to pollutants and because they spend many hours inside schools, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.That makes the healthfulness of school air a hot topic these days."There are many more seminars being put on now to educate us about indoor air quality," said Dave Hansel, director of operations for the New Hope-Solebury School District. "Even putting new carpet in classrooms is an issue because it gives off (chemicals). There's a lot of information that's been out there in the past, but it seems lately there's a lot more."Just four out of every 10 schools in the United States have an indoor air quality management program, a July 2005 EPA report found. Even among those schools, performance varied, "suggesting that having a program is not equivalent to implementing effective" policies, the authors concluded.In most cases, the problem is mold."It's far and away the No. 1 issue in all places," said Ed Montz, who founded Pottstown-based Indoor Air Solutions, Inc. in 1993. "Mold wasn't even on the radar screen 15 years ago, and now it's the No. 1 complaint."Montz's company was called in December to help the Souderton Area School District, the latest district in this area to grapple with mold. Mold was found on carpets and student desks in several classrooms at West Broad Elementary in July and September, and parents there continue to be concerned about its impact on their children's health.Superintendent Amuso said he is awaiting written reports from an EPA and a state Department of Health representative and will then schedule a public meeting to discuss the situation.Meanwhile, he said he is convinced the cleanup the school already has done is sufficient."I want the building to be safe. I am very comfortable that it is safe," said Amuso, who started as superintendent in February 2005. "Whatever the EPA recommends, whatever the state department of health recommends, we'll do."This isn't the first time the Souderton district has had to contend with mold. It was found growing on insulation around air conditioning pipes at Franconia Elementary School in the summer of 2003. About eight of the school's 27 classrooms were affected. Cleanup cost more than $35,000.But Souderton is by no means alone. Mold is increasingly infesting schools across the country, and it's making kids sick.A Fairfield, Conn., elementary school was so contaminated with mold that it had to be bulldozed and rebuilt. In June, a Dickinson Law School graduate sued the school's owner after developing skin problems while living in a residence hall. Her doctors advised her to check for mold, and the lawsuit says she found it in the living room.And in Boyertown, coincidentally where Amuso previously was superintendent, a school had to be closed for a month in August 2003 to deal with mold.Finding mold raises questions, but there are few solid answers.No standards outline how much mold is too much, and it is unlikely that any will be set any time soon."There are too many variables," said Montz, who served on a Pennsylvania mold task force the Legislature formed last year. "There are probably a million species of molds, and some are more harmful than others, and some people are more sensitive to them than others. You have to take a variety of factors together."And when it comes to the health of individual children, he said, much of the objective measures are meaningless without documented health effects. Parents need to work tirelessly to determine if their children are sensitive to a contaminant, such as mold, and get it documented by a doctor, he said."Otherwise, you'll never know the cause and make the link between something like asthma and an environmental cause," Montz said. "But to do that, we all have to work together. And too often, students, parents, employees, tenants, whatever, all end up on one side, and the school, landlords, employers end up on the other. It ends up being an inherently adversarial relationship."Complicating the picture is the fact that scientists are still learning about mold."Before the mid-1990s, everyone thought that mold was simply a nuisance," said Dr. Ruth Etzel, who headed the Environmental Health Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics and was involved in early research into mold's effects on children, particularly babies. "There was a total paradigm shift from something not considered to be a medical problem to the point where many people who are at the forefront of this research now realize that mold is a much larger medical problem even than we thought 10 years ago."But science moves slowly, and debate over mold remains. That gives people who grapple with it precious little to go on."It's frustrating for those of us sitting out here in the hinterland waiting for the oracle on high to tell us what to think about this," said Montz, noting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hasn't updated its position on mold or funded research to advance scientific knowledge on mold in years. "The scientific community is far too slow to catch on and lead the way."In the end, that leaves the burden of concern on parents."Some doctors and health officials will say, "We don't know anything about it, it must not be true,' when what they should say is, "We don't know anything about it, let's collect data on it,' " Etzel said. "So those parents who are most active in seeking out this information are better placed to protect their children. But often, those who are willing to stand up and say, "This is the truth as I see it' are very much alone." Larson can be reached at or slarson@.... January 28, 2006 8:29 AM