Re: Stachybotrys Chartarum IgG antibodies test. Is it accura...

[Guest guest]

,

I second Carl's post. I am so glad you have chosen to share info with

others on this board. Every case is different, but yours encompasses many of

the issues all wrapped into one. (sorry, know how hard this has been for your

family). What is great about your case from an educational standpoint

that can help others is that you offer a virtual check list of how to go thru

nightmare items A to Z and make it out the other side without being totally

beaten down by the tricks of litigation, while also going thru the

nightmare of illness, displacement, etc.

Some cases are easier. I rarely discuss my own case, but ours only lasted

less than two years from the time we discovered an ice maker leak to the

issuance of the settlement checks. Not that it was an easy two years or that

it was over after the checks arrived. In our case, the defense expert

witnesses actually made our case for us. My daughter has CF and ABPA. She had

had a code blue several years prior to the botched remediation in our home.

We never claimed that the house was the cause of life threatening illness

for us - or that we acquired life threatening illness from the home; only

that we could not go home after it was cross contaminated. Which was true.

The house had become very dangerous for my daughter after they screwed up

the remediation. The defensors had to admit that the airborne mold spore

count in our house was higher (it was about double after remediation than it

was before remediation).

It was the testing done by the defense and defendants that actually proved

our case. We were not claiming we had acquired any illness from the

botched remediation, only that the home was now unsafe for our daughter.

So...in our case all we had to do was prove the numbers were higher after than

they were before. Didn't even matter what kind of mold spores. Just total

count.

That is why, when I see people professionally recommending that it is not

necessary to test before remediation, it bugs me. Had we not had these

pre-remediation testing to compare against the post, we would have had a much

more difficult time to prove cross contamination or that they made our

house uninhabitable for our family.

My point in sharing this info is that we had IgG tests, seven labs in our

home doing testing and advising, about 14 or 15 experts all up ready to

testify to all kinds of aspects. But when it came down to it in our case, it

was the pre and post numbers that made the case.

So my point is: don't let some uneducated attorney tell you that just

because HE does not think an IgG test is relevant, that YOU have no case.

There are MANY ways to skin a cat!

Sharon K.

In a message dated 4/12/2009 2:09:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

grimes@... writes:

,

Congratulations on a rare win! Your experience and willingness to

share is invaluable. Can you share with us who the other experts

were?

Did the judge hold a Daubert or Frye hearing?

Was the medical evidence not presented because it wasn't

needed, because the judge disallowed it, or negotiations

eliminated it? Or some other reason.

I'd like to comment on how a couple of your points better inform

us about some misperceptions about mold, mold testing, and

legal cases. If I misrepresent anything, please let us know.

The mold data is important. I agree. But a common perception is

simply getting mold types and spore counts from any type of

" mold test " is all that is needed. Implicit in your story was the

numbers by themselves was not enough. It needed a context for

interpreting the results and it had to come from several different

experts to tie it all together. (The major expense! Not just one

expert, but several).

You needed a credible person to test with the correct types of

samples sent to a reliable lab with the data properly interpreted.

You needed a physician, an engineer, and a microbiologist. Chin

Yang is one of the best, if not the best, microbiologist and he

doesn't just say mold is a problem unless he believes it is. His

opinions include the environmental conditions of where the mold

is growing - which determine what types can grow - not just

numbers. In other words, the types detected in the samples have

to be consistent with the conditions of the house, excluding other

possibilities. That is much more representative and precise than

comparing inside to outside counts.

It appears your team of experts identified a health issue caused

by exposure to mold. You needed evidence that the conditions,

levels and types of mold present were consistent with each other.

That you were exposed to them (mere presence is not the same

as being exposed). The medical effects were consistent with

exposures to them. The source of the water which caused the

mold growth was the fault of somebody (I'm assuming the

builder). All those separate " points of view " then had to be linked

together in a logical manner understood and believable to a jury.

But before that, the judge had to rule that the experts were

credible, to allow them to testify, and that their testimony was

credible. There are many cases where the judge does not allow

the testimony of the experts. More defense attorney's have

learned how to argue against these claims than most plaintiff

attorneys have learned how to present them. How the claim is

structured and how the claims are supported is critical. Simply

saying you were harmed is not sufficient by itself. You have to

" prove " it in a manner acceptable to the judge and to the jury.

You were also fortunate your case took only 2.5 years. That is a

remarkably short time which is evidence to the value of your team

of experts.

Anything else you think important for us to know? What was the

basis for the judge reducing the award? Disagreeing about the

cost of the harm to the house or to you medically?

I apologize if I'm getting too personal.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Sharon,

>

> I agree with you, the medical tests are necessary,but you absolutely

have to

> have the spore counts and mold types to make any impression on the Jury.

The

> Micobiologist (in our case Chin Yang PhD.) then testified as to the

means in

> which the body can be exposed and the small amount necessary to make one

> sick. In order for us to win in court we had to have an Environmental

> Hygeniest, MD who is specialized in Environmental Illness and a

> Microbiologist to tie it all together. We had to prove that we had been

> exposed to the mold in the house. Our IgG results and bloodwork never

made

> it to the jury,honestly they wouldn't understand it-I hardly do. Our MD

> based on his years of experience in treating mold exposure patients was

able

> to testify that our symptoms etc were consistent with his 33+ yrs

> experience. We were able to receive a multi million dollar award from the

> jury which was later reduced by the " uneducated Judge " .

> But I know if we hadn't had the Industrial Hygeniest,MD and

Microbiologist

> (and we also had an Engineer as it was new construction ,) the jury would

> not have come to the conclusion they did.

>

> I agree with Sharon, sounds like you need a new attorney who is more on

the

> ball and educated in the field of toxic tort practice. Maybe when our

> judgement gets entered finally??, your attorney might be able to use the

> case as a precedent?? I would be happy to forward any information to you

> that might help. Our case was Meng V Drees in Loudoun County ,Va. Dec 08.

>

> Hope this helps, I am not an attorney, but going through a legal battle

like

> we are/have been for the past 2.5 yrs, if I can help anyone using our

> experience as a gauge I am happy to.I am so sorry you are having to

>

> Meng.

>

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <_snk1955@..._

(mailto:snk1955@...) > wrote:

>

> >,

> >

> > If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> > conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to

you

> > would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by

themselves to

**************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a

recession.

(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

As the comparison of your story to 's shows, there is not

only (as you say) " MANY ways to skin a cat! " but each time the

cat is different. Sometimes it is a simple comparison. For you it

wasn't inside to outside but a before and after remediation. Other

times the comparison is discredited or not allowed in evidence,

but other information is. Sometimes the chain of association is

important like for , other times key parts of the chain aren't

allowed, breaking the sequence.

I don't mean to be overly pessimistic but the Plaintiff attorneys

must start doing a better job. I always ask them what they need.

Most don't know. I have to educate them as we go but some don't

listen.

This is another factor that increases the cost of litigation. It is

nearly impossible to predict which type of evidence will be

allowed and will be compelling so you have to go for many

different types. And hope your attorney knows how to formulate a

case.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> ,

>

> I second Carl's post. I am so glad you have chosen to share info with

> others on this board. Every case is different, but yours encompasses many of

> the issues all wrapped into one. (sorry, know how hard this has been for your

> family). What is great about your case from an educational standpoint

> that can help others is that you offer a virtual check list of how to go thru

> nightmare items A to Z and make it out the other side without being totally

> beaten down by the tricks of litigation, while also going thru the

> nightmare of illness, displacement, etc.

>

> Some cases are easier. I rarely discuss my own case, but ours only lasted

> less than two years from the time we discovered an ice maker leak to the

> issuance of the settlement checks. Not that it was an easy two years or that

> it was over after the checks arrived. In our case, the defense expert

> witnesses actually made our case for us. My daughter has CF and ABPA. She had

> had a code blue several years prior to the botched remediation in our home.

> We never claimed that the house was the cause of life threatening illness

> for us - or that we acquired life threatening illness from the home; only

> that we could not go home after it was cross contaminated. Which was true.

> The house had become very dangerous for my daughter after they screwed up

> the remediation. The defensors had to admit that the airborne mold spore

> count in our house was higher (it was about double after remediation than it

> was before remediation).

>

> It was the testing done by the defense and defendants that actually proved

> our case. We were not claiming we had acquired any illness from the

> botched remediation, only that the home was now unsafe for our daughter.

> So...in our case all we had to do was prove the numbers were higher after than

> they were before. Didn't even matter what kind of mold spores. Just total

> count.

>

> That is why, when I see people professionally recommending that it is not

> necessary to test before remediation, it bugs me. Had we not had these

> pre-remediation testing to compare against the post, we would have had a much

> more difficult time to prove cross contamination or that they made our

> house uninhabitable for our family.

>

> My point in sharing this info is that we had IgG tests, seven labs in our

> home doing testing and advising, about 14 or 15 experts all up ready to

> testify to all kinds of aspects. But when it came down to it in our case, it

> was the pre and post numbers that made the case.

>

> So my point is: don't let some uneducated attorney tell you that just

> because HE does not think an IgG test is relevant, that YOU have no case.

> There are MANY ways to skin a cat!

>

> Sharon K.

>

>

> In a message dated 4/12/2009 2:09:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimes@... writes:

>

> ,

>

> Congratulations on a rare win! Your experience and willingness to

> share is invaluable. Can you share with us who the other experts

> were?

>

> Did the judge hold a Daubert or Frye hearing?

>

> Was the medical evidence not presented because it wasn't

> needed, because the judge disallowed it, or negotiations

> eliminated it? Or some other reason.

>

> I'd like to comment on how a couple of your points better inform

> us about some misperceptions about mold, mold testing, and

> legal cases. If I misrepresent anything, please let us know.

>

> The mold data is important. I agree. But a common perception is

> simply getting mold types and spore counts from any type of

> " mold test " is all that is needed. Implicit in your story was the

> numbers by themselves was not enough. It needed a context for

> interpreting the results and it had to come from several different

> experts to tie it all together. (The major expense! Not just one

> expert, but several).

>

> You needed a credible person to test with the correct types of

> samples sent to a reliable lab with the data properly interpreted.

> You needed a physician, an engineer, and a microbiologist. Chin

> Yang is one of the best, if not the best, microbiologist and he

> doesn't just say mold is a problem unless he believes it is. His

> opinions include the environmental conditions of where the mold

> is growing - which determine what types can grow - not just

> numbers. In other words, the types detected in the samples have

> to be consistent with the conditions of the house, excluding other

> possibilities. That is much more representative and precise than

> comparing inside to outside counts.

>

> It appears your team of experts identified a health issue caused

> by exposure to mold. You needed evidence that the conditions,

> levels and types of mold present were consistent with each other.

> That you were exposed to them (mere presence is not the same

> as being exposed). The medical effects were consistent with

> exposures to them. The source of the water which caused the

> mold growth was the fault of somebody (I'm assuming the

> builder). All those separate " points of view " then had to be linked

> together in a logical manner understood and believable to a jury.

>

> But before that, the judge had to rule that the experts were

> credible, to allow them to testify, and that their testimony was

> credible. There are many cases where the judge does not allow

> the testimony of the experts. More defense attorney's have

> learned how to argue against these claims than most plaintiff

> attorneys have learned how to present them. How the claim is

> structured and how the claims are supported is critical. Simply

> saying you were harmed is not sufficient by itself. You have to

> " prove " it in a manner acceptable to the judge and to the jury.

>

> You were also fortunate your case took only 2.5 years. That is a

> remarkably short time which is evidence to the value of your team

> of experts.

>

> Anything else you think important for us to know? What was the

> basis for the judge reducing the award? Disagreeing about the

> cost of the harm to the house or to you medically?

>

> I apologize if I'm getting too personal.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> >

> > Sharon,

> >

> > I agree with you, the medical tests are necessary,but you absolutely

> have to

> > have the spore counts and mold types to make any impression on the Jury.

> The

> > Micobiologist (in our case Chin Yang PhD.) then testified as to the

> means in

> > which the body can be exposed and the small amount necessary to make one

> > sick. In order for us to win in court we had to have an Environmental

> > Hygeniest, MD who is specialized in Environmental Illness and a

> > Microbiologist to tie it all together. We had to prove that we had been

> > exposed to the mold in the house. Our IgG results and bloodwork never

> made

> > it to the jury,honestly they wouldn't understand it-I hardly do. Our MD

> > based on his years of experience in treating mold exposure patients was

> able

> > to testify that our symptoms etc were consistent with his 33+ yrs

> > experience. We were able to receive a multi million dollar award from the

> > jury which was later reduced by the " uneducated Judge " .

> > But I know if we hadn't had the Industrial Hygeniest,MD and

> Microbiologist

> > (and we also had an Engineer as it was new construction ,) the jury would

> > not have come to the conclusion they did.

> >

> > I agree with Sharon, sounds like you need a new attorney who is more on

> the

> > ball and educated in the field of toxic tort practice. Maybe when our

> > judgement gets entered finally??, your attorney might be able to use the

> > case as a precedent?? I would be happy to forward any information to you

> > that might help. Our case was Meng V Drees in Loudoun County ,Va. Dec 08.

> >

> > Hope this helps, I am not an attorney, but going through a legal battle

> like

> > we are/have been for the past 2.5 yrs, if I can help anyone using our

> > experience as a gauge I am happy to.I am so sorry you are having to

> >

> > Meng.

> >

> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <_snk1955@..._

> (mailto:snk1955@...) > wrote:

> >

> > >,

> > >

> > > If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> > > conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to

> you

> > > would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by

> themselves to

>

> **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a

> recession.

> ( http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?

ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl,

I couldn't agree more,the plaintiff' attorneys are far less educated than

the majority of people on this forum.As I was pretty much housebound, I

researched everything I could about mold,mycotoxins,construction,damp

buildings etc etc. When my attorney turned around and asked me " why are you

getting even sicker,you have been out of the house for over a year? " I knew

that I had to educate him-he had no concept of Neurotoxicity and all that it

entailed. I realized that I needed to be the advocate for our family and I

sent him all the pertinent info I could find-I even bought him a copy of

Damp Indoor Spaces and Health (A great resource ). Our attorney insisted on

hiring an engineering firm which cost 15,000 who we didn't even use in the

end.We had to hire another engineering firm for another $25,000 + reviewing

docs fee for deposition,reviewing docs fee for trial and testimony

fee-approx $50,000.

We had a great attorney and he with our assistance put together a great

case,but he will even admit he learned a huge amount from our experience!!

Hopefully he will be able to help another family and maybe he has learned

from some of his mistakes in our case??? Attorneys never like to be told

anything!! Even though they work for you!! You have to gently suggest ideas

and as much documentation that you can collect to support your statements is

always the best-After all we are just the victims and don't know anythiing

about the law LOL!!

Sharon, my hat is always off to you, you are the brave one for always

putting yourself out there for those less fortunate that can't, even at the

risk of personal harm and expense to you and your family. Thak you for

always being there for me.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

>

> Sharon,

>

> As the comparison of your story to 's shows, there is not

> only (as you say) " MANY ways to skin a cat! " but each time the

> cat is different. Sometimes it is a simple comparison. For you it

> wasn't inside to outside but a before and after remediation. Other

> times the comparison is discredited or not allowed in evidence,

> but other information is. Sometimes the chain of association is

> important like for , other times key parts of the chain aren't

> allowed, breaking the sequence.

>

> I don't mean to be overly pessimistic but the Plaintiff attorneys

> must start doing a better job. I always ask them what they need.

> Most don't know. I have to educate them as we go but some don't

> listen.

>

> This is another factor that increases the cost of litigation. It is

> nearly impossible to predict which type of evidence will be

> allowed and will be compelling so you have to go for many

> different types. And hope your attorney knows how to formulate a

> case.

>

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> >

> > ,

> >

> > I second Carl's post. I am so glad you have chosen to share info with

> > others on this board. Every case is different, but yours encompasses many

> of

> > the issues all wrapped into one. (sorry, know how hard this has been for

> your

> > family). What is great about your case from an educational standpoint

> > that can help others is that you offer a virtual check list of how to go

> thru

> > nightmare items A to Z and make it out the other side without being

> totally

> > beaten down by the tricks of litigation, while also going thru the

> > nightmare of illness, displacement, etc.

> >

> > Some cases are easier. I rarely discuss my own case, but ours only lasted

> > less than two years from the time we discovered an ice maker leak to the

> > issuance of the settlement checks. Not that it was an easy two years or

> that

> > it was over after the checks arrived. In our case, the defense expert

> > witnesses actually made our case for us. My daughter has CF and ABPA. She

> had

> > had a code blue several years prior to the botched remediation in our

> home.

> > We never claimed that the house was the cause of life threatening illness

> > for us - or that we acquired life threatening illness from the home; only

> > that we could not go home after it was cross contaminated. Which was

> true.

> > The house had become very dangerous for my daughter after they screwed up

> > the remediation. The defensors had to admit that the airborne mold spore

> > count in our house was higher (it was about double after remediation than

> it

> > was before remediation).

> >

> > It was the testing done by the defense and defendants that actually

> proved

> > our case. We were not claiming we had acquired any illness from the

> > botched remediation, only that the home was now unsafe for our daughter.

> > So...in our case all we had to do was prove the numbers were higher after

> than

> > they were before. Didn't even matter what kind of mold spores. Just total

> > count.

> >

> > That is why, when I see people professionally recommending that it is not

> > necessary to test before remediation, it bugs me. Had we not had these

> > pre-remediation testing to compare against the post, we would have had a

> much

> > more difficult time to prove cross contamination or that they made our

> > house uninhabitable for our family.

> >

> > My point in sharing this info is that we had IgG tests, seven labs in our

> > home doing testing and advising, about 14 or 15 experts all up ready to

> > testify to all kinds of aspects. But when it came down to it in our case,

> it

> > was the pre and post numbers that made the case.

> >

> > So my point is: don't let some uneducated attorney tell you that just

> > because HE does not think an IgG test is relevant, that YOU have no case.

> > There are MANY ways to skin a cat!

> >

> > Sharon K.

> >

> >

> > In a message dated 4/12/2009 2:09:13 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> > grimes@... <grimes%40habitats.com> writes:

> >

> > ,

> >

> > Congratulations on a rare win! Your experience and willingness to

> > share is invaluable. Can you share with us who the other experts

> > were?

> >

> > Did the judge hold a Daubert or Frye hearing?

> >

> > Was the medical evidence not presented because it wasn't

> > needed, because the judge disallowed it, or negotiations

> > eliminated it? Or some other reason.

> >

> > I'd like to comment on how a couple of your points better inform

> > us about some misperceptions about mold, mold testing, and

> > legal cases. If I misrepresent anything, please let us know.

> >

> > The mold data is important. I agree. But a common perception is

> > simply getting mold types and spore counts from any type of

> > " mold test " is all that is needed. Implicit in your story was the

> > numbers by themselves was not enough. It needed a context for

> > interpreting the results and it had to come from several different

> > experts to tie it all together. (The major expense! Not just one

> > expert, but several).

> >

> > You needed a credible person to test with the correct types of

> > samples sent to a reliable lab with the data properly interpreted.

> > You needed a physician, an engineer, and a microbiologist. Chin

> > Yang is one of the best, if not the best, microbiologist and he

> > doesn't just say mold is a problem unless he believes it is. His

> > opinions include the environmental conditions of where the mold

> > is growing - which determine what types can grow - not just

> > numbers. In other words, the types detected in the samples have

> > to be consistent with the conditions of the house, excluding other

> > possibilities. That is much more representative and precise than

> > comparing inside to outside counts.

> >

> > It appears your team of experts identified a health issue caused

> > by exposure to mold. You needed evidence that the conditions,

> > levels and types of mold present were consistent with each other.

> > That you were exposed to them (mere presence is not the same

> > as being exposed). The medical effects were consistent with

> > exposures to them. The source of the water which caused the

> > mold growth was the fault of somebody (I'm assuming the

> > builder). All those separate " points of view " then had to be linked

> > together in a logical manner understood and believable to a jury.

> >

> > But before that, the judge had to rule that the experts were

> > credible, to allow them to testify, and that their testimony was

> > credible. There are many cases where the judge does not allow

> > the testimony of the experts. More defense attorney's have

> > learned how to argue against these claims than most plaintiff

> > attorneys have learned how to present them. How the claim is

> > structured and how the claims are supported is critical. Simply

> > saying you were harmed is not sufficient by itself. You have to

> > " prove " it in a manner acceptable to the judge and to the jury.

> >

> > You were also fortunate your case took only 2.5 years. That is a

> > remarkably short time which is evidence to the value of your team

> > of experts.

> >

> > Anything else you think important for us to know? What was the

> > basis for the judge reducing the award? Disagreeing about the

> > cost of the harm to the house or to you medically?

> >

> > I apologize if I'm getting too personal.

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> > -----

> > >

> > > Sharon,

> > >

> > > I agree with you, the medical tests are necessary,but you absolutely

> > have to

> > > have the spore counts and mold types to make any impression on the

> Jury.

> > The

> > > Micobiologist (in our case Chin Yang PhD.) then testified as to the

> > means in

> > > which the body can be exposed and the small amount necessary to make

> one

> > > sick. In order for us to win in court we had to have an Environmental

> > > Hygeniest, MD who is specialized in Environmental Illness and a

> > > Microbiologist to tie it all together. We had to prove that we had been

> > > exposed to the mold in the house. Our IgG results and bloodwork never

> > made

> > > it to the jury,honestly they wouldn't understand it-I hardly do. Our MD

> > > based on his years of experience in treating mold exposure patients was

> > able

> > > to testify that our symptoms etc were consistent with his 33+ yrs

> > > experience. We were able to receive a multi million dollar award from

> the

> > > jury which was later reduced by the " uneducated Judge " .

> > > But I know if we hadn't had the Industrial Hygeniest,MD and

> > Microbiologist

> > > (and we also had an Engineer as it was new construction ,) the jury

> would

> > > not have come to the conclusion they did.

> > >

> > > I agree with Sharon, sounds like you need a new attorney who is more on

> > the

> > > ball and educated in the field of toxic tort practice. Maybe when our

> > > judgement gets entered finally??, your attorney might be able to use

> the

> > > case as a precedent?? I would be happy to forward any information to

> you

> > > that might help. Our case was Meng V Drees in Loudoun County ,Va. Dec

> 08.

> > >

> > > Hope this helps, I am not an attorney, but going through a legal battle

> > like

> > > we are/have been for the past 2.5 yrs, if I can help anyone using our

> > > experience as a gauge I am happy to.I am so sorry you are having to

> > >

> > > Meng.

> > >

> > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, <_snk1955@...<_snk1955%40aol.snk>

> _

> > (mailto:snk1955@... <snk1955%40aol.com>) > wrote:

> > >

> > > >,

> > > >

> > > > If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has

> in

> > > > conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to

> > you

> > > > would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by

> > themselves to

> >

> > **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in

> a

> > recession.

> > (

http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Some " Key Words " - " Pre and Post testing. " The Before and After. Very smart

strategy.

> >

> > >,

> > >

> > > If your attorney does not know how to properly apply the data he has in

> > > conjunction with your illnesses and other evidence, then my advice to

> you

> > > would be....get a new attorney. IgG results cannot be used by

> themselves to

>

>

> **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a

> recession.

> (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003)

>

>

>