Center For School Mold Help Questions Racketeering Over Mold Issue

[Guest guest]

https://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/view/1639/46/

Companies guilty of deceiving public about health dangers

(https://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/index2.php?option=com_content & do_pdf=1 & id=1639)

(https://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/index2.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=1639 & \

pop=1 & page=0 & Itemid=46)

(https://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/index2.php?option=com_content & task=emailform & id=\

1639 & itemid=46) There are many

parallels in the following news article that may be instructive in the case of

the health dangers of mold and the vehement attempts by defense interests to

deny this. If this conduct is called racketeering for the tobacco

industry, then it may also be so for the industries that benefit from lying to

the

public and physicians about mold problems! Reportedly, there are some

formerly employed by Big Tobacco who now labor for mold defense interests. The

cause of the blockade to accessing medical help and preventing and

addressing mold, vigorously, in our nation, may well involve a similar

scenario,

according to the observations of many mold activists. How many are dead,

dying, sick, without work, disabled, bankrupt, homeless, and without medical

care, due to moldy homes and workplaces, without any help, with some actually

harassed if they file Worker's Comp cases or litigation to recoup their

very real losses? We submit that the number of those ill from mold is in the

many millions and may equal or surpass those impacted by tobacco. Is there

a group effort to deny mold's harm to health? Might this also be,

therefore, racketeering, under the RICO laws? If you think so, contact your

legislators and the White House. (SMH)

_Court upholds most of landmark ruling that cigarette makers lied about

health hazards_

(http://www.q13fox.com/business/sns-ap-us-tobacco-lawsuit,0,4308374.story)

NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer

Q13Fox.com

Seattle/Tacoma, WA

5:42 PM PDT, May 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday agreed with the major

elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the top U.S. tobacco

companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the

dangers of smoking.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington unanimously

upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market

cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban

labels such as " low tar, " ''light, " ''ultra light " or " mild, " since such

cigarettes have been found no safer than others.

Throughout the 10 years the case has been litigated, tobacco companies

have denied committing fraud. The companies argued the ban on labels like

" light " would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Philip USA and its parent company, Altria Group Inc., said they

will appeal to the Supreme Court.

" The court's conclusions are not supported by the law or the evidence

presented at trial, and we believe the exceptional importance of these issues

justifies further review, " Altria attorney Murray Garnick said in a

statement.

L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one of

six health advocacy groups that participated in the lawsuit, said the

appeals decision " represents a dramatic victory for public health and an

emphatic condemnation of the tobacco industry and its behavior. "

The government filed the civil case under a 1970 racketeering law commonly

known as RICO, used primarily to prosecute mobsters in cases in which

there has been a group effort to commit fraud.

The suit was first filed in 1999 during the Clinton administration and

pursued by the Bush administration after unsuccessful attempts to settle.

The nine-month trial heard by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler without a

jury included live and written testimony from 246 witnesses and almost

14,000 exhibits in evidence. Prosecutors said the companies secretly agreed

not to compete over whose products were the least hazardous to smokers to

ensure they didn't have to publicly address the harm caused by smoking.

" The government presented evidence from the 1950s and continuing through

the following decades demonstrating that the defendant manufacturers were

aware — increasingly so as they conducted more research — that smoking

causes disease, including lung cancer, " the appeals court wrote in a 92-page

opinion.

The government also argued the manufacturers lied about the dangers of

secondhand smoke, manipulated cigarettes to maintain addiction, intentionally

marketed to youth and destroyed documents to hide the dangers and protect

themselves in litigation.

Internal documents introduced at trial showed industry researchers found

smokers compensate for reduced nicotine in " low-tar " cigarettes by taking

more frequent puffs and inhaling more deeply to satisfy their addiction. Yet

they continued to market those cigarettes as less harmful.

The government had asked Kessler to make the companies pay $10 billion for

a national smoking cessation program, but Kessler said that wasn't within

her legal authority. The government appealed that decision but the appeals

court upheld it.

Besides Philip and Altria, other manufacturers who were defendants

in the lawsuit were: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown & on Tobacco

Corp.; British American Tobacco Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett

Group Inc.

Liggett was excluded from the ruling because the judge said the company

came forward in the 1990s to admit smoking causes disease and is addictive

and cooperated with government investigators.

The appeals court ruled that two other defendants who were included in the

District Court ruling — Counsel for Tobacco Research-U.S.A. and the

now-defunct Tobacco Institute — be dismissed from the suit. Both are trade

organizations for the cigarette manufacturers, but they did not manufacture or

sell tobacco products.

R.J. Reynolds said it was also considering appeal. " R.J. Reynolds strongly

believes that neither the evidence presented at trial nor the legal

standards justify a finding of liability, " said company attorney L.

Holton

III.

In a statement, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Ogden said the ruling

affirmed " the government's position that for more than 50 years the tobacco

companies deceived the American people. " He said it allows the Justice

Department to now go after companies which continue their deceptive practices.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press.

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377034x1201454326/aol?redir=http://\

www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=

MaystepsfooterNO62)

[Guest guest]

I'm happy to see so many others taking note of this important ruling. I have

been sending this to many government officials. One of those so-called experts

who worked for the tobacco companies and is now working for the insurance

industry in regard to mold claims is Dr. Harbison.

________________________________

From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@...>

; iequality ;

jonathan1@...; MBallardAl@...; MLMJ75@...; ginloi@...;

KatriSteve5@...

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:37:52 AM

Subject: [] Center For School Mold Help Questions Racketeering Over

Mold Issue

https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/content/ view/1639/ 46/

Companies guilty of deceiving public about health dangers

(https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/index2. php?option= com_content & do_pdf=1 &

id=1639)

(https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/index2. php?option= com_content & task=view &

id=1639 & pop= 1 & page=0 & Itemid=46)

(https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/index2. php?option= com_content &

task=emailform & id=1639 & itemid= 46) There are many

parallels in the following news article that may be instructive in the case of

the health dangers of mold and the vehement attempts by defense interests to

deny this. If this conduct is called racketeering for the tobacco

industry, then it may also be so for the industries that benefit from lying to

the

public and physicians about mold problems! Reportedly, there are some

formerly employed by Big Tobacco who now labor for mold defense interests. The

cause of the blockade to accessing medical help and preventing and

addressing mold, vigorously, in our nation, may well involve a similar

scenario,

according to the observations of many mold activists. How many are dead,

dying, sick, without work, disabled, bankrupt, homeless, and without medical

care, due to moldy homes and workplaces, without any help, with some actually

harassed if they file Worker's Comp cases or litigation to recoup their

very real losses? We submit that the number of those ill from mold is in the

many millions and may equal or surpass those impacted by tobacco. Is there

a group effort to deny mold's harm to health? Might this also be,

therefore, racketeering, under the RICO laws? If you think so, contact your

legislators and the White House. (SMH)

_Court upholds most of landmark ruling that cigarette makers lied about

health hazards_

(http://www.q13fox. com/business/ sns-ap-us- tobacco-lawsuit, 0,4308374. story)

NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer

Q13Fox.com

Seattle/Tacoma, WA

5:42 PM PDT, May 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday agreed with the major

elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the top U.S. tobacco

companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the

dangers of smoking.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington unanimously

upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market

cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban

labels such as " low tar, " ''light, " ''ultra light " or " mild, " since such

cigarettes have been found no safer than others.

Throughout the 10 years the case has been litigated, tobacco companies

have denied committing fraud. The companies argued the ban on labels like

" light " would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Philip USA and its parent company, Altria Group Inc., said they

will appeal to the Supreme Court.

" The court's conclusions are not supported by the law or the evidence

presented at trial, and we believe the exceptional importance of these issues

justifies further review, " Altria attorney Murray Garnick said in a

statement.

L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one of

six health advocacy groups that participated in the lawsuit, said the

appeals decision " represents a dramatic victory for public health and an

emphatic condemnation of the tobacco industry and its behavior. "

The government filed the civil case under a 1970 racketeering law commonly

known as RICO, used primarily to prosecute mobsters in cases in which

there has been a group effort to commit fraud.

The suit was first filed in 1999 during the Clinton administration and

pursued by the Bush administration after unsuccessful attempts to settle.

The nine-month trial heard by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler without a

jury included live and written testimony from 246 witnesses and almost

14,000 exhibits in evidence. Prosecutors said the companies secretly agreed

not to compete over whose products were the least hazardous to smokers to

ensure they didn't have to publicly address the harm caused by smoking.

" The government presented evidence from the 1950s and continuing through

the following decades demonstrating that the defendant manufacturers were

aware — increasingly so as they conducted more research — that smoking

causes disease, including lung cancer, " the appeals court wrote in a 92-page

opinion.

The government also argued the manufacturers lied about the dangers of

secondhand smoke, manipulated cigarettes to maintain addiction, intentionally

marketed to youth and destroyed documents to hide the dangers and protect

themselves in litigation.

Internal documents introduced at trial showed industry researchers found

smokers compensate for reduced nicotine in " low-tar " cigarettes by taking

more frequent puffs and inhaling more deeply to satisfy their addiction. Yet

they continued to market those cigarettes as less harmful.

The government had asked Kessler to make the companies pay $10 billion for

a national smoking cessation program, but Kessler said that wasn't within

her legal authority. The government appealed that decision but the appeals

court upheld it.

Besides Philip and Altria, other manufacturers who were defendants

in the lawsuit were: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown & on Tobacco

Corp.; British American Tobacco Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett

Group Inc.

Liggett was excluded from the ruling because the judge said the company

came forward in the 1990s to admit smoking causes disease and is addictive

and cooperated with government investigators.

The appeals court ruled that two other defendants who were included in the

District Court ruling — Counsel for Tobacco Research-U.S. A. and the

now-defunct Tobacco Institute — be dismissed from the suit. Both are trade

organizations for the cigarette manufacturers, but they did not manufacture or

sell tobacco products.

R.J. Reynolds said it was also considering appeal. " R.J. Reynolds strongly

believes that neither the evidence presented at trial nor the legal

standards justify a finding of liability, " said company attorney L.

Holton

III.

In a statement, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Ogden said the ruling

affirmed " the government's position that for more than 50 years the tobacco

companies deceived the American people. " He said it allows the Justice

Department to now go after companies which continue their deceptive practices.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press.

************ **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x122237 7034x1201454326/ aol?redir=

http://www. freecreditreport .com/pm/default. aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=

MaystepsfooterNO62)

[Guest guest]

You should also send messages to the U.S. Department of Justice at:

ASKDOJ@...

________________________________

From: " snk1955@... " <snk1955@...>

; iequality ;

jonathan1@...; MBallardAl@...; MLMJ75@...; ginloi@...;

KatriSteve5@...

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:37:52 AM

Subject: [] Center For School Mold Help Questions Racketeering Over

Mold Issue

https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/content/ view/1639/ 46/

Companies guilty of deceiving public about health dangers

(https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/index2. php?option= com_content & do_pdf=1 &

id=1639)

(https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/index2. php?option= com_content & task=view &

id=1639 & pop= 1 & page=0 & Itemid=46)

(https://www. schoolmoldhelp. org/index2. php?option= com_content &

task=emailform & id=1639 & itemid= 46) There are many

parallels in the following news article that may be instructive in the case of

the health dangers of mold and the vehement attempts by defense interests to

deny this. If this conduct is called racketeering for the tobacco

industry, then it may also be so for the industries that benefit from lying to

the

public and physicians about mold problems! Reportedly, there are some

formerly employed by Big Tobacco who now labor for mold defense interests. The

cause of the blockade to accessing medical help and preventing and

addressing mold, vigorously, in our nation, may well involve a similar

scenario,

according to the observations of many mold activists. How many are dead,

dying, sick, without work, disabled, bankrupt, homeless, and without medical

care, due to moldy homes and workplaces, without any help, with some actually

harassed if they file Worker's Comp cases or litigation to recoup their

very real losses? We submit that the number of those ill from mold is in the

many millions and may equal or surpass those impacted by tobacco. Is there

a group effort to deny mold's harm to health? Might this also be,

therefore, racketeering, under the RICO laws? If you think so, contact your

legislators and the White House. (SMH)

_Court upholds most of landmark ruling that cigarette makers lied about

health hazards_

(http://www.q13fox. com/business/ sns-ap-us- tobacco-lawsuit, 0,4308374. story)

NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer

Q13Fox.com

Seattle/Tacoma, WA

5:42 PM PDT, May 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday agreed with the major

elements of a 2006 landmark ruling that found the top U.S.. tobacco

companies guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the

dangers of smoking.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington unanimously

upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market

cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban

labels such as " low tar, " ''light, " ''ultra light " or " mild, " since such

cigarettes have been found no safer than others.

Throughout the 10 years the case has been litigated, tobacco companies

have denied committing fraud. The companies argued the ban on labels like

" light " would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Philip USA and its parent company, Altria Group Inc., said they

will appeal to the Supreme Court.

" The court's conclusions are not supported by the law or the evidence

presented at trial, and we believe the exceptional importance of these issues

justifies further review, " Altria attorney Murray Garnick said in a

statement.

L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one of

six health advocacy groups that participated in the lawsuit, said the

appeals decision " represents a dramatic victory for public health and an

emphatic condemnation of the tobacco industry and its behavior. "

The government filed the civil case under a 1970 racketeering law commonly

known as RICO, used primarily to prosecute mobsters in cases in which

there has been a group effort to commit fraud.

The suit was first filed in 1999 during the Clinton administration and

pursued by the Bush administration after unsuccessful attempts to settle.

The nine-month trial heard by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler without a

jury included live and written testimony from 246 witnesses and almost

14,000 exhibits in evidence. Prosecutors said the companies secretly agreed

not to compete over whose products were the least hazardous to smokers to

ensure they didn't have to publicly address the harm caused by smoking.

" The government presented evidence from the 1950s and continuing through

the following decades demonstrating that the defendant manufacturers were

aware — increasingly so as they conducted more research — that smoking

causes disease, including lung cancer, " the appeals court wrote in a 92-page

opinion.

The government also argued the manufacturers lied about the dangers of

secondhand smoke, manipulated cigarettes to maintain addiction, intentionally

marketed to youth and destroyed documents to hide the dangers and protect

themselves in litigation.

Internal documents introduced at trial showed industry researchers found

smokers compensate for reduced nicotine in " low-tar " cigarettes by taking

more frequent puffs and inhaling more deeply to satisfy their addiction. Yet

they continued to market those cigarettes as less harmful.

The government had asked Kessler to make the companies pay $10 billion for

a national smoking cessation program, but Kessler said that wasn't within

her legal authority. The government appealed that decision but the appeals

court upheld it.

Besides Philip and Altria, other manufacturers who were defendants

in the lawsuit were: R..J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Brown & on Tobacco

Corp.; British American Tobacco Ltd.; Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Liggett

Group Inc.

Liggett was excluded from the ruling because the judge said the company

came forward in the 1990s to admit smoking causes disease and is addictive

and cooperated with government investigators.

The appeals court ruled that two other defendants who were included in the

District Court ruling — Counsel for Tobacco Research-U.S. A. and the

now-defunct Tobacco Institute — be dismissed from the suit. Both are trade

organizations for the cigarette manufacturers, but they did not manufacture or

sell tobacco products.

R.J. Reynolds said it was also considering appeal. " R.J. Reynolds strongly

believes that neither the evidence presented at trial nor the legal

standards justify a finding of liability, " said company attorney L.

Holton

III.

In a statement, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Ogden said the ruling

affirmed " the government's position that for more than 50 years the tobacco

companies deceived the American people. " He said it allows the Justice

Department to now go after companies which continue their deceptive practices.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press.

************ **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola. com/promoclk/ 100126575x122237 7034x1201454326/ aol?redir=

http://www. freecreditreport .com/pm/default. aspx?sc=668072 & hmpgID=62 & bcd=

MaystepsfooterNO62)