EAST COAST GOOD NEWS
If you are interested in how public health policy over the mold issue is impacted by what occurs in the courts and visa versa, you really should read this latest NY Appellate ruling, CORNELL v. 360 W. 51st ST. REALTY, LLC The gist is that the Appellate Court determined that there is enough accepted scientific evidence within the medical community to corroborate mold & co that are found in water damaged buildings can cause illness. They also found that toxic mold is known to cause illness.
As we understand it, what is significant about this case as it relates to policy, is that the lower court relied on the Frasher case of 2007 to find that moldy buildings could not cause illness. In Cornell 2012, this finding was overturned by the Appellate Court.
Frasher was the subject case of the Wall Street Journal article of 2007 “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold Experts Wear Two Hats,Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation“ The article is about how it became a false concept in public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm.
The policy was penned by prolific expert defense witnesses in mold litigation, Bruce Kelman & Bryan Hardin of Veritox, Inc., along with Dr. Andrew Saxon of UCLA. The litigation defense argument was legitimized by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine making the three men’s writing a position statement for the occupational medicine trade association. It was then portrayed to be the medical understanding of thousands of physicians with extensive knowledge of illnesses caused by water damaged buildings.
In Frasher, the judge relied solely on the ACOEM and AAAAI Mold Statements. AAAAI is another medical association for which Dr. Saxon co-authored their position statement. It relied heavily on ACOEM’s.
Because the unscientific litigation defense argument was established as public health policy by the medical associations, the judge in Frasher found that to be the current science that was acceptable in the courtroom -which was the whole point of expert defense witnesses authoring medical association position papers on the subject.
Dr. Harriet Ammann had submitted a stellar AFFIDAVIT in Frasher explaining to the court that the ACOEM & AAAAI Mold Statements were not the end all be all in science over the mold issue. Regardless the NY court in Frasher stuck with ACOEM et.al.
In this newest case, Cornell, the Appellate Court specifically addressed the errors of courts relying upon the Frasher case and misperceptions it established to deny liability for causation of illness from water damaged buildings. The Appellate Opinion of Cornell regarding the Frye hearing is well worth the read.
Congratulations go out to Dr. Johanning, Dr. Yang and all others involved who made this happen in New York!
WEST COAST BAD NEWS
In 2005, Sharon Kramer was the first to public ly write of how ACOEM’s Mold Statement and its sister, the US Chamber’s Mold Statement – that are both authored by Mr. Kelman & Mr. Hardin of Veritox, were setting false public health policy for the purpose of misleading the courts.
It was a paper that Mrs Kramer had co-written in 2006 which caught the attention of Mr. David Armstrong of the WSJ. It is titled “ACOEM Exposed, A Case Study in Sham Peer Review and Conflicts of Interest – The Rats That are Saving the Insurance Industry Billions”.
Mr. Armstrong did a fantastic job in the 2007 WSJ article and was able to boil the complexity of the politics of the mold issue down to just four pages. He interviewed over 50 people for the article, including Dr. Ammann, over a six month period of time. Being on the front page of the WSJ, his article helped tremendously to add credibility to those claiming illness from moldy buildings and their physicians.
Before the information was able to be read in the mainstream media, in 2005, Mr. Kelman and his company, VeriTox, sued Mrs. Kramer for libel for the words, “altered his under oath statements” in her 2005 writing of how the false policy came to be. This was to try to stop the information of the inadequecies of his expert witness opinion from coming to public light in the media, like the WSJ, and in US courts.
Unfortunately, the California courts chose to practice politics from the bench in the libel litigation, which is also known as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. They crafted their opinions to make it appear that Mrs. Kramer’s writing had falsely accused Mr. Kelman of lying about being paid by a think-tank to author the ACOEM Mold Statement. Mrs.Kramer’s writing accurately states that Mr. Kelman was paid by the think-tank to author the US Chamber Mold Statement. (another fact that Mr. Kelman and his company, VeriTox, Inc., would prefer is not widely known)
Now, the CA courts want Mrs. Kramer silenced of their role in aiding a litigation defense argument to remain in policy far longer than it should have by crafty opinions used to deem a whistle blower of science fraud in policy to be a malicious liar – thereby casting doubt on the validity of all her words.
They cannot back down without acknowledging they framed a whistle blower of false science in policy for libel – which aided Mr. Kelman’s unscientific science to remain in policy and US courts seven years longer than it should.
Mrs. Kramer is scheduled to be incarcerated by the CA courts tomorrow, March 9, 2012, for refusing to be silenced of what the CA courts have unlawfully done to her that kept the Kelman/ACOEM/US Chamber/Insurance Industry game going. They actually have the nerve to want Mrs. Kramer to sign an APOLOGY to Mr. Kelman for being framed for libel by his attorney and the courts over the billion dollar fraud in policy – or go to jail.
Lets’ hope there is as much good news on the West Coast tomorrow as there was on the East Coast earlier this week, and that the courts back down from incarcerating a US Citizen for daring to tell the truth in America adverse to the political whims of leading California judiciary.
Katy's Exposure 
Please do not punish the messenger.
Yes. It says “Status Conference” today. In reality it is the date for sentencing of coercive incarceration. They want us to stop putting the evidence on the Internet of how the courts framed me for libel over the words, “altered his under oath statements” as found in the first public writing seven years ago today, of how it became a false concept in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. The website is still under construction, but many of the documents are there of how they did it and why they want me silenced of their judicial misconduct. Go to ContemptOfCourtFor.Me for more info and linked legal documents.
The good justices of the Fourth District Division Onel Appellate Court have some explaining to do to the public, including the Chairwoman of the CA Comm on Judicial Performance, Justice McConnell. This is the “independant state agency” that is to police ethics in the judicial branch.
I don’t know anything about your judge. Go to Judge DeAnne Salcido’s Facebook page and ask your questions there.
Status Conference (Civil) continued pursuant to Court’s motion to 03/09/2012 at 01:30PM before Judge Thomas P. Nugent.
tHIS WAS ON THE COURT WEBSITE
PENNY
Trial judge was Gonzalo Curiel, What do you know about, I didnt read the entire case however I am going to now. Am I replying in the right place?
Penny, when citing case law on cannot cite from other states. However, I feel certain this case is going to help you in San Diego, CA. This is because it will help the good justices of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court understand that they have been practicing politics from the bench while backing the wrong horse. You need to go back and read the post in its entirety including all the links. Curious to know, who was the trial judge?
Secrets Secrets Secrets Secrets Secrets Secrets Secrets
The Kaiser Hospital Foundation built their HUGE 30 Acre Medical Center on the south end of the very contaminated NASA Boeing SUPERFUND Site in Downey. The Downey Studio’s went in before the Hospital and is located directly between Kaiser and a Huge Stripmall and with many Food Establishments Downey is where the Apollo and the Shuttles were built. The Apollo went into Deep Space with experiments of deadly Bacterias, FUNGUS and Virus and came back to Downey for post flight analysis and soon Employees began getting extremely sick from FUNGUS. The pieces of both Shuttle accidents were takem to Downey for analysis and were found to be contaminated with FUNGUS but Deep Space FUNGUS’ were classified as MUTANT SPACE FUNGUS. Before Kaiser built their HOSPITAL Med Ctr. NASA applied tons of Anti- FUNGALS and reports said to keep the contamination and illnesses from spreading was to ‘Put a Cap On It’ and while construction was taking place HUNDREDS of persons became SICK. It has been the general rule, as with Tobacco- Asbestos, Agent Orange, to deny-deny-deny. Please read beneath. I can’t imagine why they didn’t mention a Movie Studio, can you?
TECHNICAL ABSTRACT
The need to monitor and rapidly identify the microorganisms inhabiting a Spacecraft’s’ recycled water and atmosphere is of critical importance in assessing thresholds of unacceptable contamination levels. This assessment is significantly hindered by current microbiological methods requiring culture and isolation, or Molecular methods requiring prior knowledge of the target organism. The significant innovation proposed here is a method to simultaneously and without bias amplify, separate, and identify of all the genetically different microbial species directly from a single complex sample of air or water. From a single analysis, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) can provide a comprehensive survey of all the bacteria, fungi or protozoa present and a breakdown by percentage of the relative abundance of each species. Modification of the DGGE procedure will allow quantitative determination of the total number of each organism within a sample. This technology is based on amplification of a 16S RDNA fragment from all phylogenetically related bacteria within a user defined group. The level of specificity can range from all species within a kingdom to one Genetically unique species. The DGGE process has the potential to be incorporated onto a microchip for rapid, automated use aboard spacecraft or for wide industrial applications.
POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS
Excellent commercial potential exists for the proposed technology to identify Significant microorganisms and determine their relative abundance from indoor air or water samples. The first market targeted will be industrial hygienists. Laboratory services will be provided to the large industrial hygiene market servicing sick buildings in industry, food vendors and hospitals. After the Phase II effort, the contractor will team with a chip manufacturer to produce small, hand held devices for the rapid identification of specific airborne or aqueous microorganisms. Microbial characterizations of indoor air currently rely on culturing and isolating microorganisms. It has been well documented that lessthen 5% of environmental organisms can be successfully cultured; therefore, a molecular approach is needed. The contractor is currently serving the Industrial Hygiene market using technology developed in a previous NASA Phase II Contract. However, the contractor needs the ability to more specifically identify the organisms present in the air or water sample. This proposed development has the advantage of being able to quickly and accurately characterize microorganisms from a single sample.
The Downey Property remains the responsibility of the Federal Government. Now why do you suppose that is?
“The ultimate success of a truth depends not on the many but on the perseverance and earnestness of the few”.
Emma Goldman
and President Eisenhower
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My Goodness Look What I Found !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is the West Coast trying to keep a BIG SECRET? I bet the East Coast has no idea
I found this Technical Abstract and another one even better to follow this one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why has NASA withheld such Advancements from the Public?????
This proposal is to develop a portable fluorescence-based detection system for capture and identification of biological pathogens including fungi and
bacteria. Peptide biosensors designed with phage display will be used to
detect targeted organisms in a rapid, non-invasive manner. To accomplish
this, we propose three tasks: 1.) Develop peptide-based, micro-array ligand
systems for the detection of 5-15 pathogenic fungi/bacterial targets via
phage display; 2. Establish optimal sampling/capture procedures for the
spore-specific biosensor module (ligand-coated microchip); and 3. Design an
automated spore detection and analysis system using computer-aided
fluorescent microscopy. Pathogen-specific peptide ligands will be developed
and cross linked to fluorescent tags and then covalently affixed to a micro
slide/chip, which will be inserted into the detection system. Assessment of
airborne fungal contaminants will involve a multi-parameter analysis of
ligand-spore affinity, specificity and quantity using a ‘wind-tunnel’
model. This detection system will identify the individual strain of
airborne agents/spores with high sensitivity and reproducibility and will
provide an important bio-sensing tool for monitoring human health in
industrial and hospital environments as well as during space missions. This
novel biosensor technology satisfies the NASA SBIR program “Commercial
Microgravity Research-“Portable Biological Sensors”.
POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS
As set forth in the attached Exhibit 1, the total market size for the
proposed product is enormous with an estimated total market value of over
$11M in year one assuming a market penetration in year one of only one-half
of one percent. According to estimates from the 1999 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), there are over 4.7 million commercial
buildings in the U.S., comprising 67.3 billion square feet of floor space.
Over half of this space was built prior to 1964. Statistics for U.S.
Government buildings versus non-Government buildings was not located
although it is expected that the government would typically contract out
spore detection efforts in all but very secured buildings.
My case is currently under appeal in the appellate court in San Diego, CA. Will I be able to use this case as precedent for my appeal?
I am doing it on my own in pro per as I cannot afford to hire someone to help me write the appellate brief.
Will this help change laws in CA?
A Step In The Right Direction, for Mold-Sufferers, by the New York Appeals Court.
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=41344&LangType=1033
A New York appeals court on Tuesday, March 6, clarified a 2008 ruling, Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp., finding that it did not bar individuals from pursuing claims that they developed illnesses from toxic mold.
The Appellate Division, First Department, held that the Manhattan Supreme Court made an error, when they dismissed a suit brought by Brenda Cornell against the owners of her apartment building at 360 W. 51st St.
Ms. Cornell had claimed she suffered from dizziness, a rash, congestion, etc., from dangerous mold in the building where she lived. The First Department ruled Tuesday that it did not intend “Fraser” to set forth a “categorical rule.”
Doctor Eckardt Johanning, testifying as an expert for Ms. Cornell, said “It’s not as clear-cut as smoking causes cancer, yet,” of the link between mold and illness. “But it’s pretty damn close. It’s certainly not junk science.”
The case is Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty et al., New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, No. 4810.
NEW YORK, March 6 (Reuters) – An appeals court on Tuesday clarified a 2008 ruling, finding that it did not bar individuals from pursuing claims that they developed illnesses from toxic mold.
In a 3-2 decision, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marcy Friedman erred when she dismissed a suit brought by Brenda Cornell against the owners of her apartment building at 360 W. 51st St. Cornell claimed she suffered dizziness, a rash, congestion and other symptoms due to the presence of dangerous mold in the building, where she lived for six years.
Friedman based her ruling on the First Department’s 2008 decision in Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp., which she said held that “current epidemiological evidence” cannot demonstrate causation between mold and illness, the appeals court wrote.
But the First Department ruled Tuesday that it did not intend Fraser to set forth a “categorical rule.”
“We never disavowed the underlying theory that exposure to mold may, under certain circumstances, give rise to respiratory and other ailments,” wrote Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels for the majority, which included Justices David Saxe and Sheila Abdus-Salaam.
In dissent, Justice James Catterson, joined by Justice Richard Andrias, said he remained unconvinced that the testimony from Cornell’s experts met the standard required under Frye v. U.S., a 1923 federal case, which held that an expert’s theory must be generally accepted within the scientific community.
“While the plaintiff’s expert may have sought to demonstrate that there was scientific evidence that mold caused the plaintiff’s injuries, the expert failed to establish the essential requirement of Frye,” Catterson wrote.
The same doctor, Eckardt Johanning, testified as an expert for plaintiffs in both the Fraser and Cornell cases.
Morrell Berkowitz, the lawyer for Cornell, said the decision has “tremendous significance” for similarly situated plaintiffs in the First Department.
“It’s not as clear-cut as smoking causes cancer, yet,” he said of the link between mold and illness. “But it’s pretty damn close. It’s certainly not junk science.”
Alan Korzen, who represents the building owners, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
The case is Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty et al., New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, No. 4810.
For Cornell: Morrell Berkowitz and Beatrice Lesser of Gallet Dreyer & Berkey
For 360 West 51st: Alan Korzen and Mindy Payne of Bonner Kiernan Trebach & Crociata
(Reporting by Joseph Ax)
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=41344&LangType=1033
Mold case can go forward: appeals court
newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com
An appeals court clarified a 2008 ruling, finding that it did not bar individuals from pursuing claims that they developed illnesses from toxic mold.
I hate playing the role of “Devil’s Advocate”, but, after I read the actual legal “ruling” issued by the court, here is what I emailed to someone else, PRECEDED by what she emailed me back:
Person replied to me:
“I understand, but it’s what the judge said that makes such a big difference.”
——————————————————————————–
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 11:58:53 -0800
From: josephsalowitz@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: New York Appeals Court says mold case can go forward–more details
To:xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi xxxxxx,
I read the case. Thanks for emailing it to me. The Mold sufferer won NOTHING, except the right to continue her legal case. She has NOT yet won the case. It is some small progress. But it’s not yet a WIN. It’s still costing her a fortune in lawyer’s fees and Court costs.
God Bless,
Joe
Good luck to Mrs. Kramer tomorrow. I would be nice if that NY ruling would be able to help her.
[Note that the link CORNELL v. 360 W. 51st ST. REALTY, LLC did not work for me.]