Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

[Guest guest]

Shell, thank you for your answers. I have a few more questions.

It seems to me that MANY of the important questions that might come up

in mold lawsuits have

already been answered in research, and are available in peer reviewed

journal articles.

Why can't a plaintiff simply cite these cases, if the information they

contain is relevant.

Another question. Many of the so called 'expert witnesses' go around

getting paid hundreds or thousands of dollars

giving testimony on issues that they should know are not the way they

say, because of the aforementioned real science. Still, they may go up

in front of a jury and testify that they think something else is the

case. (Usually, in the case of defense witnesses,

it is recent science that they are 'unaware' of. OR THEY WOULD NOT BE

PAID TO TESTIFY.)

How can they get away with this?

Why isn't there a concerted effort to notify these people, formally,

about these things that have already been studied?

>The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

>can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy

>does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the

>qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be

>allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is

>what is made very difficult by the ACOEM " study " . And it is nearly

>impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side

>has one.

[Guest guest]

Shell, thank you for your answers. I have a few more questions.

It seems to me that MANY of the important questions that might come up

in mold lawsuits have

already been answered in research, and are available in peer reviewed

journal articles.

Why can't a plaintiff simply cite these cases, if the information they

contain is relevant.

Another question. Many of the so called 'expert witnesses' go around

getting paid hundreds or thousands of dollars

giving testimony on issues that they should know are not the way they

say, because of the aforementioned real science. Still, they may go up

in front of a jury and testify that they think something else is the

case. (Usually, in the case of defense witnesses,

it is recent science that they are 'unaware' of. OR THEY WOULD NOT BE

PAID TO TESTIFY.)

How can they get away with this?

Why isn't there a concerted effort to notify these people, formally,

about these things that have already been studied?

>The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

>can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy

>does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the

>qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be

>allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is

>what is made very difficult by the ACOEM " study " . And it is nearly

>impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side

>has one.

[Guest guest]

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has

crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

It is not as black and white as you

suggest. If it was, the defense experts would be disqualified as experts and

possibly even prosecuted for perjury. But remember, there are highly

credentialed doctors and organizations and prestigious publications (e.g. ACOEM)

behind what they are saying. Second, you can’t generally introduce a published

article, you have to have a witness to testify to the information in it.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

12:22 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

thank you for your answers. I have a few more questions.

It seems to me that MANY of the important questions that might come up

in mold lawsuits have

already been answered in research, and are available in peer reviewed

journal articles.

Why can't a plaintiff simply cite these cases, if the information they

contain is relevant.

Another question. Many of the so called 'expert witnesses' go around

getting paid hundreds or thousands of dollars

giving testimony on issues that they should know are not the way they

say, because of the aforementioned real science. Still, they may go up

in front of a jury and testify that they think something else is the

case. (Usually, in the case of defense witnesses,

it is recent science that they are 'unaware' of. OR THEY WOULD NOT BE

PAID TO TESTIFY.)

How can they get away with this?

Why isn't there a concerted effort to notify these people, formally,

about these things that have already been studied?

>The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

>can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy

>does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the

>qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be

>allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is

>what is made very difficult by the ACOEM " study " . And it is

nearly

>impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side

>has one.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

It can’t possible hurt. The worst thing

they can say is NO. Go for it. It is another avenue to get the truth out. Just

stay within the marketing arena and you should be ok.

EnviroBob

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

12:37 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shel,

Sometimes I think I should stick my toes

into the expert witness arena regarding the ACOEM Mold Statement and all the

damage it has done. The reason I think I could possibly do this, is

because this is not science. It is merely the marketing of a concept

based on non-science. My degree is in marketing. My experience is in

marketing. I have certainly obtain a certain level of expertise over the

conflicts of interest of this issue and have even been published in

medical journals regarding my understanding of the marketing over the matter.

I don't know. Do you guys think I could

do this? Do they ever bring marketeers in as experts? Have been

asked to provide an affidavit for a mold case. Will show you all the

rough draft intro.

1. My name is Sharon Noonan Kramer. I hold a BBA in

Marketing from the University

of Mississippi,

1977. I have 30 years in field experience of Sales and Marketing. In addition

to my college education and work experience, I am corporately trained by NCR

Corp to understand how a concept marketed.

2. Since 2003, I have been researching and studying the marketing

of the concept that it is implausible humans experience symptoms indicative of

poisoning from exposure to microbial toxins and other contaminants that are

found within water damaged buildings. This false concept of implausibility,

widely marketed by influential medical associations, is not founded upon any

accepted scientific methodology to make such a determination. Much like the

history of tobacco issue, misinformation downplaying the severity of mold

induced illnesses has been propagated extensively within medical communities

and within the courts. The intent of this misinformation is to deny financial

liability for insurers and stakeholders of moldy buildings when occupants and

workers become ill from excessive mold exposure within the stakeholder owned

and insured buildings.

3. My research into the conflicts of interest over the matter was

the foundation for a January 2007 front page Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article

titled, “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats, Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help

in Litigation” The original

paper I authored that gained the WSJ’s attention was titled “American College

of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) Exposed, A Case Study in Sham

Peer Review and Conflicts of Interest”.

4. My writings regarding stakeholder industries’ ability to

exhibit undue influence over medical associations and with regard to the mold

issue have been published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

(JACI), the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health

(IJOEH) and Medscape General Medscape (MGM). I have been the subject of

an article regarding the mold issue for the Indoor Environment Connection,

trade newspaper of the mold remediation industry, titled “Kramer vs.

Corruption”.

5. I have moderated a United States Senate Staff briefing over

this matter to assist in educating our government. The Senate Health,

Education, Labor and Pension Committee and the Senate Public Works Committee

were my sponsors. My chosen panel to educate the US Senate as to

the legitimate scientific understanding was comprised of a microbiologist,

olaronthologist, immunologist, physicist and biotoxin treating physician.

6. Through my urging, there is currently a Federal Government

Accountability Office (GAO) audit underway regarding the mold issue. One

of the key areas of the GAO audit is “Please consider in your study…..What

medical and scientific standards are used in determining admissibility of

evidence of both acute and persistent health consequences resulting from

exposure to mold? Which individuals and organizations have promogulated these

standards and what, if any, conflicts of interest exist regarding these

standards?”

7. Efforts spearheaded by me have caused the American Academy

of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) to change their conflict of interest

disclosure policy for those who publish within their journal to include income

generated as expert witnesses for litigation. Like the subject of the WSJ

article, ACOEM, the AAAAI allowed their position statement on mold induced

illnesses to be authored by those who generate substantial income as expert

witnesses for the defense in mold litigation. The paper was a true embarrassment

to AAAAI. The authors’ conflicts were publicly called out by the Center

for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), at my urging. AAAAI received

so many complaints from physicians and scientists, that they were forced to

publish several papers refuting their own position statement on mold induced

illnesses.

8. I have reviewed....

Is that nuts to think I could possibly do

this? I have never even sat in a witness chair. LOL

Sharon

In a message dated 12/18/2007 9:17:24

A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss writes:

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert

witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, this is a requirement that is intended to deny people

justice. Because it limits justice to those who can afford the

experts, and as we know, many people can't. What about them. There are

millions of us. (or is that the whole point?)

This requirement is a perversion of justice and it adds insult to

injury in that people are already sick and they don't have money, and

then they are asked to pay more money. Its just getting worse and

worse.

> Second, you can't generally introduce a published article, you have to have a

witness to testify to the information in it.

[Guest guest]

He may have. Many did, but that was before

ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

He may have. Many did, but that was before

ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

He may have. Many did, but that was before

ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM.

Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

5:47 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is

increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an expert.

Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the ACOEM

“study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM.

Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

5:47 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is

increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an expert.

Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the ACOEM

“study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an

expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Shell,Are you implying that nothing has changed even after the Jan 9 WSJ ????>On 12/18/07, Shell Bleiweiss <

sbleiweiss@...> wrote:

>He may have. Many did, but that was before

ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

>

[Guest guest]

Shell,Are you implying that nothing has changed even after the Jan 9 WSJ ????>On 12/18/07, Shell Bleiweiss <

sbleiweiss@...> wrote:

>He may have. Many did, but that was before

ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

>

[Guest guest]

Shell,Are you implying that nothing has changed even after the Jan 9 WSJ ????>On 12/18/07, Shell Bleiweiss <

sbleiweiss@...> wrote:

>He may have. Many did, but that was before

ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

>

[Guest guest]

All,

Dr. Shoemaker has some new research soon to come out that he feels will really help to move the scientific understanding of these illnesses forward.

Sharon

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM. Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBobSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:12 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:27 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the ACOEM “studyâ€. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimplySent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:08 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnalprosecutions are held to that standard.You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suitswork. (The two can exist side by side, though.)And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused theillnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and verysuddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, thatmay be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is lowand the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit shouldwin.What else strikes people down in the prime of life?What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? Whenthey are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposureissues.As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it"is more likely than not" that the cause of the illness was X.That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standardyou are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for manypeople nonetheless.)But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civillawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weaponis appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to dobodily harm.That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like anyother assault, bioterrorism case, etc.Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be prosecuted.See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdfSee http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the problem....>> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.>> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.>> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.>> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.>> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.>> Ken

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

All,

Dr. Shoemaker has some new research soon to come out that he feels will really help to move the scientific understanding of these illnesses forward.

Sharon

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM. Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBobSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:12 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:27 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the ACOEM “studyâ€. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimplySent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:08 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnalprosecutions are held to that standard.You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suitswork. (The two can exist side by side, though.)And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused theillnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and verysuddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, thatmay be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is lowand the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit shouldwin.What else strikes people down in the prime of life?What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? Whenthey are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposureissues.As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it"is more likely than not" that the cause of the illness was X.That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standardyou are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for manypeople nonetheless.)But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civillawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weaponis appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to dobodily harm.That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like anyother assault, bioterrorism case, etc.Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be prosecuted.See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdfSee http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the problem....>> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.>> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.>> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.>> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.>> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.>> Ken

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

All,

Dr. Shoemaker has some new research soon to come out that he feels will really help to move the scientific understanding of these illnesses forward.

Sharon

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM. Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 5:47 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBobSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:12 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell BleiweissSent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:27 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the ACOEM “studyâ€. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimplySent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:08 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Ammann essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnalprosecutions are held to that standard.You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suitswork. (The two can exist side by side, though.)And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused theillnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and verysuddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, thatmay be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is lowand the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit shouldwin.What else strikes people down in the prime of life?What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? Whenthey are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposureissues.As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it"is more likely than not" that the cause of the illness was X.That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standardyou are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for manypeople nonetheless.)But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civillawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weaponis appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to dobodily harm.That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like anyother assault, bioterrorism case, etc.Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be prosecuted.See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdfSee http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the problem....>> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.>> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.>> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.>> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.>> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.>> Ken

See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

This is the one that should be really making a difference in litigation. It is the Harold Ruling out of Sacramento last year in which the ACOEM modeling theory was not allowed to be presented before the courts.

Judges words:

4 THE COURT: I can. With regard to Dr. Robbins5 relying upon her literature review and then jumping to6 animal studies and then jumping to modeling conclusions, my7 ruling there is she will not be allowed to present that.8 There is not a generally accepted view of that particular9 approach in the scientific community and so therefore it's10 inappropriate to present that to the jury.See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

This is the one that should be really making a difference in litigation. It is the Harold Ruling out of Sacramento last year in which the ACOEM modeling theory was not allowed to be presented before the courts.

Judges words:

4 THE COURT: I can. With regard to Dr. Robbins5 relying upon her literature review and then jumping to6 animal studies and then jumping to modeling conclusions, my7 ruling there is she will not be allowed to present that.8 There is not a generally accepted view of that particular9 approach in the scientific community and so therefore it's10 inappropriate to present that to the jury.See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

The WSJ article didn’t help much in court.

The more recent International Journal of … bashing ACOEM and the Ammann

statements have helped more, but maybe not enough. Overcoming ACOEM et al. is

still a very uphill battle in court.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007

11:54 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

Are you implying that nothing has changed even after the Jan 9 WSJ ?

???

>On 12/18/07, Shell

Bleiweiss <

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss> wrote:

>He may have. Many

did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

>

[Guest guest]

The WSJ article didn’t help much in court.

The more recent International Journal of … bashing ACOEM and the Ammann

statements have helped more, but maybe not enough. Overcoming ACOEM et al. is

still a very uphill battle in court.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell

J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007

11:54 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

Are you implying that nothing has changed even after the Jan 9 WSJ ?

???

>On 12/18/07, Shell

Bleiweiss <

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss> wrote:

>He may have. Many

did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is increasingly difficult.

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

He mentioned that to me as well.

Also Shell, Dr Shoemaker’s testimony was

upheld and the plaintiff was awarded 2.3 million.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007

6:50 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

All,

Dr. Shoemaker has some new research soon

to come out that he feels will really help to move the scientific understanding

of these illnesses forward.

Sharon

In a message dated 12/19/2007 3:39:41

P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BobEnvironmentalAirTechs writes:

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM. Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

5:47 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is

increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert

witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

He mentioned that to me as well.

Also Shell, Dr Shoemaker’s testimony was

upheld and the plaintiff was awarded 2.3 million.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007

6:50 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

All,

Dr. Shoemaker has some new research soon

to come out that he feels will really help to move the scientific understanding

of these illnesses forward.

Sharon

In a message dated 12/19/2007 3:39:41

P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BobEnvironmentalAirTechs writes:

Shell,

As I understand it it was long after ACOEM. Only a year ago.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

5:47 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

He may have. Many did, but that was before ACOEM. Now it is

increasingly difficult.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington,

Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of EnviroBob

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

1:12 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Shell,

As I understand it Richie Shoemaker has crossed that burden.

EnviroBob

size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Shell Bleiweiss

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

11:27 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

The standard of proof in a typical civil suit for personal injury

can be stated as more probable than not. However the ACOEM controversy does not

go so much to the standard that must be proved as to the qualifications a

professional witness has to have in order to be allowed to testify as an

expert. Getting in this expert testimony is what is made very difficult by the

ACOEM “study”. And it is nearly impossible to win a case without an expert

witness when the other side has one.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

(direct)

(general)

sbleiweissshell-bleiweiss

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

size=2 width="100%" align=center tabIndex=-1>

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

9:08 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ammann

essay, location of PDF for printing...

Ken,

Whoa there! I think your spin may have made a Freudian slip! Crimnal

prosecutions are held to that standard.

You are wrong in that this interpretation is not how civil law suits

work. (The two can exist side by side, though.)

And also if you are saying that 'something else' might have caused the

illnesses, when somebody is healthy for most of their life and very

suddenly their health falls apart due to massive mold exposure, that

may be true. As long as the likelihood of that something else is low

and the likelihood of mold causing it is high, then the lawsuit should

win.

What else strikes people down in the prime of life?

What else would have caused these many sudden illnesses then? When

they are all alike? When they all result in similar post-exposure

issues.

As I am sure you know, civil lawsuits are required to prove that it

" is more likely than not " that the cause of the illness was X.

That is a HELL of a lot different than the (criminal lawsuit) standard

you are advocating (which I think might still be attainable for many

people nonetheless.)

But its not what is required in civil lawsuits. The standard in civil

lawsuits (not criminal cases) is 'more likely than not.

I DO think that criminal prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon

is appropriate in cases where there was a malicious intent to do

bodily harm.

That does apply in many cases, too. That should be treated like any

other assault, bioterrorism case, etc.

Assaults on families with deadly biological warfare agents should be

prosecuted.

See http://biotoxin.info/docs/Ammann_Johanning_Frye.pdf

See http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/trichothecene/casedef.asp

> While I agree mold can cause what you say.... I think that is the

problem....

>

> It can [possibly] cause these illnesses.

>

> So until there can be a definite method to identify when mold is causing

illness I'm suspecting there can be no liability.

>

> If mold exposures cause illness in 20% of the population it seems a

claimant must show he was a part of the 20% population susceptible to the

illness before the illness can result in a recoverable claim.

>

> Invaribly when a person becomes sick there are more of his family that do

not get sick. Thus science seems to be saying mold can not yet be proven the

cause of the sickness until other parameters are identified.

>

> It took 50 years before the cause and effect relationship of tobacco could

be accepted. I'm of an age where I remember every step of the way. The mold

situation seems to be taking the same path. Unfortunately there will be no deep

pockets with mold as there was with the tobacco companies.

>

> Ken

See AOL's top

rated recipes and easy

ways to stay in shape for winter.