Re: Health Advocate Responds to Allegations of Libel

[Guest guest]

Hey Guys,

I have gotten quite a few off board posts in response to this post of KC's.

I want you all to know that NO ONE else is being accused of libel. The suit

names me and " Does 1-20 " . All this is, is an intimidation tactic to

scare people from speaking out. You can see how well it has worked on me. To

me, this is just further evidence of how much we really need to speak out. I

think we are poking holes in their financially motivated lie, which is

causing a reaction of aggreesion on their parts. Nice, huh? Here are the

purposes

for this lawsuit as stated in my declaration: You can read more on ToxLaw.

THE PURPOSES FOR THIS SLAPP SUIT ARE:

* To intimidate me and others from speaking out. Others are

threateningly referenced in this case as defendants, Does 1-20.

* To hide from the public the true relationship between the

courtrooms; GlobalTox; the US Chamber of Commerce Stakeholder affiliates;

ex-developer, Congressman ; the ACOEM Statement and the Manhattan

Institute

Version.

* To continue to deceive the Courts by masquerading a widely marketed

defense argument as a scientific position -unbiased, extensively peer

reviewed and fully endorsed by a nationally respected learned body of 6,000

physicians

* To financially punish me for speaking out by forcing me to defend

myself

* To occupy my time fighting a lawsuit so I have no time to assist

mold victims.

* To discount my words and demean my reputation as one who would make

libelous statements.

* To stifle my voice by discouraging those who may be easily

intimidated from associating with me.

* To allow GlobalTox and their associates to continue their work on

behalf of commercial stakeholders with minimal scrutiny

* To keep the public uninformed and clinicians untrained concerning the

serious illnesses people are experiencing from excessive mold exposure for

the purpose of limiting the financial liabilities of others

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Adverse

Human Health Effects From Mold Exposure In An Indoor Environment, Evidence

Based

Statement is:

A document of Scant Scientific Foundation;

Authored by Expert Defense Witnesses;

Legitimized by the Inner Circle of an Influential Medical Association, whose

members often times Evaluate Mold Victims on Behalf of Insurers and

Employers;

And Promoted by Stakeholder Industries for the Purpose of Financial Gain at

the Expense of the Lives of Others.

WE NEED OUR PHYSICIANS TRAINED

WE NEED THE PUBLIC INFORMED

[Guest guest]

Maybe Grace can air this. Has anyone approached her yet about

it?

Barth

TOXIC MOLD SURVEY: www.presenting.net/sbs/sbssurvey.html

---

t> Indoor Environment CONNECTIONS

t> The Newspaper for the IAQ Industry

t> Volume 6, Issue 10

t> August 2005

t> Health Advocate Responds to Allegations of Libel

t> By Steve Sauer

t> An expert witness on toxicology has filed a libel suit over a

t> press release published on the Web that accuses him of

t> having " altered his under oath statement on the witness stand. "

t> In a civil suit file May 13, in a California superior court, an

t> attorney representing the environmental risk-management company

t> GlobalTox Inc. called statements about its president, Dr. Bruce

t> Kelman, false and libelous.

t> The complaint disputes the truth of the allegations about

t> Kelman and further claims that the statements have hurt business for

t> GlobalTox and damaged Kelman's reputation as an expert witness on

t> toxicology in mold litigation.

t> According to the lawsuit, Kelman has " served as a consultant

t> and as an expert witness in numerous contexts before policy makers,

t> government regulators, citizen groups and in litigation throughout

t> the United States and in Canada. "

t> The libel suit said statements issued earlier this year falsely

t> accuse him and his company " of providing false testimony under oath,

t> and engaging in dishonest and criminal conduct. "

t> The suit centers around a March 9 press release discussing an

t> Oregon family's victory over the builders of their house. That

t> press release discusses major points of the case, including that

t> and Haynes and their two children attributed their

t> illnesses to mold in the house. The jury in that case found Adair

t> Homes to be negligent.

t> That same press release also criticizes Kelman's testimony in

t> the case, saying he " altered his under oath statements on the

t> witness stand. " It is the truth of this phrase that plaintiffs

t> dispute in the complaint against the author of the press release,

t> Sharon Kramer, a California Realtor and one of the crusaders active

t> in the Internet-based effort to promote comprehension of health

t> issues related to mold.

t> Once involved in her own mold case at a home in California,

t> Kramer has " collected numerous sad tales of deeply damaged people

t> whose lives have been permanently altered because of injuries

t> suffered due to mold exposure in schools, homes, and at work, " her

t> attorney writes in a court document. Such anecdotes about health

t> issues related to mold were included in informational packets

t> distributed last September to members of Congress.

t> Kramer is named as the primary defendant in the libel suit, and

t> 20 others not identified by name are also being sued for making

t> potentially libelous statements.

t> In the complaint filed on behalf of Kelman and GlobalTox,

t> plaintiffs' attorney says each of the defendants published

t> defamatory statements on " various online message boards and internet

t> sites " about his clients.

t> In a court document filed July 1, Kramer's attorney asked the

t> court to dismiss Kelman's lawsuit against Kramer, saying that the

t> only reason Kelman filed suit against Kramer was " to intimidate "

t> her " from expressing her opinion about the rigged, biased, pre-

t> bought `research' regarding the dangers of certain molds in the

t> indoor environment, and the causation of real physical injury by

t> exposure to those molds. "

t> Later in July, Kramer returned to her preferred medium of the

t> Internet, where she publicly voiced her innocence in the libel case

t> on various Web sites devoted to mold issues. She also continued to

t> insist that her statement about Kelman in the press release was true.

t> She maintains that on Feb 18, while Kelman was testifying under

t> oath as a defense witness in the case of Haynes v. Adair Homes, he

t> made seemingly contradictory statements about whether he was

t> involved in - and compensated for – co-authoring a position paper

t> related to the health effects of mold.

t> She says that the transcript of proceedings for both court cases

t> support her claim. Further, she has posted on various Web sites

t> last month the text of a declaration she and her attorney conducted

t> as part of her legal defense. In her 28-page declaration, Kramer

t> quotes liberally and comments on these court transcripts, both of

t> which are in the public domain.

t> Kramer's post have appeared on mold-help.org, which is mostly

t> frequented by people seeking to advance awareness of mold-related

t> health issues, and also other Web sites including toxlaw.com and

t> counsel.net.

t> According to an official court transcript of the Haynes case

t> tried in Oregon, Kelman was called to testify and explained that he

t> had been asked to summarize the position statement of the American

t> College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine on the health

t> effects of mold. This " lay version, " as he described it in his

t> testimony, was being prepared for the Manhattan Institute, a

t> nonprofit organization.

t> During his testimony in the Haynes case, attorney Vance

t> asked Kelman, " Isn't it true that the Manhattan Institute paid

t> GlobalTox $40,000 to make revisions in that statement? " The

t> transcript shows that Kelman responded, " That is one of the most

t> ridiculous statements I ever heard. "

t> Vance then provided Kelman with a transcript of his expert

t> testimony from a prior case, Kilian v. Equity Residential Trust et

t> al., heard in Arizona District Court. In the Kilian transcript, an

t> attorney asked Kelman whether GlobalTox received $40,000 in payment

t> for a " new version " of the American College of Occupational and

t> Environmental Medicine position paper, to which Kelman

t> answered, " Yes. The company was paid $40,000 for it. "

t> The motion to strike the libel complaint against Kramer further

t> implies that jurors in the Haynes case perceived trouble with

t> Kelman's testimony, prompting them to rule against the defendants

t> for whom Kelman was called to testify.

t> Kelman's attorney, Scheuer, did not respond by deadline

t> to calls seeking comment on the defendant's motion to strike the

t> complaint.

t> The California court is expected to rule on the defense motion

t> Sept. 30. Under California law, plaintiffs have until 10 days

t> before such a ruling to respond to motions to strike.

t> Footnote to IEConnections Article: GlobalTox has now changed their

t> name to VERITOX. It is a new corporation.

t> FAIR USE NOTICE:

t>