Re: Letter~CA Ins.Comm Candidate.Jack & Carl

[Guest guest]

No Jack, I am no longer asking for transparency from Cheryl. I gave up

on that one a long time ago of who is the unnamed " leadership " of ACHEMMIC

and how are decisions really made in the org.

I am asking for transparency from YOU and CARL.

Jack, you say " What I got tired of was the constant bickering between

Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals and they both stood by

their

convictions "

In the name of transparency, Jack, what is it you are claiming you caught

in the middle of? What convictions do Kramer and Wisecup standby?

Do you feel it is important for people to continue to speak out of the

deceit of ACOEM?

Why did KC, a few others and myself leave ACHEMMIC?

Carl, you are welcome to jump in here and help Jack answer these

questions.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Specifically, what is this " issue 'someone' is trying to be re-instigate on

(which) is a dead issue about a structure which no longer

exists. " ? What's the issue?

What happened with this " structure which no longer exists over this 'dead

issue " ? Was there any lack of transparency in the matter?

Does it play into what is the current position of this new org or impact

's current question of is it okay for her to speak of the deceit of

ACOEM/US Chamber/UC et al?

Who decides what issues are dead and not to be discussed on Sickbuildings?

I have never known you to deem an issue dead or stop a discussion on

Sickbuildings. Why now?

What is this " hidden agenda " by the disconcerted you speak of? Instead of

speaking in broad generalities, could you elaborate, please?.

It is kind of important to me and many others that people not fear

retribution from their own peers (see 's question of if she was in

trouble)

for speaking out of the deceit of ACOEM/Chamber et al, so I could really use

some clarification of these questions.

Is that the " hidden agenda " or is it something else?

And, as far as I am aware, no one has ever regretted leaving ACHEMMIC.

If you are too busy helping others right now to address this silly ole

" nonsense " , that's okay. I will wait for your answers til you are not too

busy.

Thanks

Sharon

In a message dated 8/18/2010 3:02:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

grimes@... writes:

Jack and group,

For those of you who don't understand this issue and don't care

then I suggest you not read the rest. Because I'm ranting.

If you do care or want to read then understand I am deliberately

not being my usual diplomatic or polite self. Why? I and others

have already beat this horse to death. I've already told those

behind this manufactured controversy my position and they

stopped harassing me. I do not appreciate this repeat

contrivance. So...

You wrote, " I have noticed that Carl has not responded.. Where

are you Carl? "

I'm making a living, helping people and otherwise accomplishing

productive tasks. This is delaying my responding to several

people on who have specifically asked me

questions. I had a Board meeting this afternoon and 3 conference

calls tomorrow plus my consulting appointments and follow-up.

The issue " someone " is trying to be re-instigate on

is a dead issue about a structure which no longer exists.

ACHEMMIC was originally an ad hoc organization with no legal

standing or even substantive existance. Hard opinions were

expressed and because those actions were not taken some

[Guest guest]

If theres a problem going on here I did like to know.

at least what the disagreement is over.

I do recieve the emails, I didn't join because I have to much on my plate to

deal with right now, but I do fell I have a right to know if there are problems

and why some would leave that project.

weither I would join at a later date on not might depend on it.

I cant support something if I fell theres something I'm being kept in the dark

about.

>

>

>

> What started this thread being in discussion was 's comment of the

> importance to speak out of the deceit of the US Chamber et al, and basically

> that she was glad to see a candidate for CA Comm of Insurance speaking out

> of the insurance fraud.

>

> We started ACHEMMIC because of lack of transparency within the EPA. Their

> not following through on what they started on the recommendations of the

> GAO audit, while not giving clear answers of why this is.

>

> ACHEMMIC was SPECIFICALLY formed to request transparency from the EPA in a

> manner to add some muscle to the question lack of transparency in the EPA,

> coming from the voices of many.

>

> Jack, you say " What I got tired of was the constant bickering between

> Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals and they both stood by

their

> convictions "

>

> In the name of transparency, Jack, what is it you are claiming you caught

> in the middle of? What convictions do Kramer and Wisecup standby?

>

> Do you feel it is important for people to continue to speak out of the

> deceit of ACOEM?

>

> Why did KC, a few others and myself leave ACHEMMIC?

>

> Carl, you are welcome to jump in here and help Jack answer these

> questions.

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 8/17/2010 5:53:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> toxicologist1@... writes:

>

> : you were encouraged by Sharon Kramer to ask this question. I have

> never advocated such a position. What I got tired of was the constant

> bickering between Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals and they

both

> stood by their convictions. I, like others (Shoemaker, Fisher and probably

> Carl) wanted out of the loop. I asked Sharon to take me out of the loop

> and she refused to do so. I am of the position that we must agree to

> disagree. Sharon can do as she wishes and Cheryl can do as she wishes. Do not

bring

> this issue up with me again. I am tired of it.

>

> I asked Sharon to take me out of the loop, so did Shoemaker, Fischer and

> others.

>

> Jack-Dwayne: Thrasher, Ph.D.

> Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

> www.drthrasher.org

> _toxicologist1@..._ (mailto:toxicologist1@...)

> Off: 916-745-4703

> Cell: 575-937-1150

>

> L. Crawley, M.ED., LADC

> Trauma Specialist

> _sandracrawley@..._ (mailto:sandracrawley@...)

> 916-745-4703 - Off

> 775-309-3994 - Cell

>

>

>

>

>

> Sharon Noonan Kramer

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

just like in this group, we ask questions, we get several answers, we than base

our desision on what we take from that and what we believe ourselves.

--- In , " Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...>

wrote:

>

> You are asking for transparency then go after Cheryl regarding these issues.

As I said Cheryl has her convictions, you have yours.

>

> You brought this issue up on this forum by sending an email to , asking

her to post her question to me and Carl. So why don't you show your transparency

by admitting it.

>

> I suggest that you post the email that Sharon sent to you so that

everyone can see that you were put up to do this.

>

> I have noticed that Carl has not responded.. Where are you Carl?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jack and group,

For those of you who don't understand this issue and don't care

then I suggest you not read the rest. Because I'm ranting.

If you do care or want to read then understand I am deliberately

not being my usual diplomatic or polite self. Why? I and others

have already beat this horse to death. I've already told those

behind this manufactured controversy my position and they

stopped harassing me. I do not appreciate this repeat

contrivance. So...

You wrote, " I have noticed that Carl has not responded.. Where

are you Carl? "

I'm making a living, helping people and otherwise accomplishing

productive tasks. This is delaying my responding to several

people on who have specifically asked me

questions. I had a Board meeting this afternoon and 3 conference

calls tomorrow plus my consulting appointments and follow-up.

The issue " someone " is trying to be re-instigate on

is a dead issue about a structure which no longer exists.

ACHEMMIC was originally an ad hoc organization with no legal

standing or even substantive existance. Hard opinions were

expressed and because those actions were not taken some

individuals voluntarily decided to leave. They say they were

forced out but I have yet to figure out how a gun can be put to

their head via e-mail. Facebook, maybe! Or Twitter. But not e-

mail. Then their decision was regretted.

The original ACHEMMIC took only one action and stopped all

others.

Now, the new ACHEMMIC just recently became official as a legal

entity and is in the process of developing the necessary structure,

Bylaws, Board of Directors, etc. and moving toward applying to

be a non-profit organization.

The recent e-mail posted here is demanding to know who the

Board is. But how can Cheryl or anyone answer that until an initial

Board is officially created according to the new Bylaws? Once all

this is done then members will be able to vote and conduct other

business according to the Bylaws and Rules of Order.

They can bring any issue before the new, official Board. All votes

will be duly recorded according to the Bylaws. Once it is a non-

profit the Bylaws and financial statements must be made

available to anyone who asks. But they aren't there yet. Get it?

This whole kurfuffle (is that even a word? let alone spelled

correctly) is a facade for a hidden agenda by shadow people.

Those with an axe to grind about transparancy need, as you so

correctly stated, to become transparant themselves. Who is

behind it? What do they want? What will satisfy them? Why are

they attacking something which no longer exists instead of

working to move our agenda forward in a productive manner.

You can't hold accountable something that no longer exists. And

you can't hold the new organization accountable for the old. But

we can all address issues with the new group, ONCE IT IS

FULLY CONSTITUTED AND able to ACT.

Now, I have another conference call coming up. I have someone

from EPA who is calling me. People on want

responses. I don't have time for nonsense and hidden personal

agendas.

If I've offended anyone that's tough! But I doubt it because I've

already stated this to the cadre of the discontented and they

stopped involving me. This is my last word here or elsewhere.

That's where I am.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

You are asking for transparency then go after Cheryl regarding these

issues. As I said Cheryl has her convictions, you have yours.

You brought this issue up on this forum by sending an email to ,

asking her to post her question to me and Carl. So why don't you show

your transparency by admitting it.

I suggest that you post the email that Sharon sent to you so that

everyone can see that you were put up to do this.

I have noticed that Carl has not responded.. Where are you Carl?

Re: [] Re: Letter~CA Ins.Comm Candidate.Jack &

Carl

What started this thread being in discussion was 's comment of the

importance to speak out of the deceit of the US Chamber et al, and

basically

that she was glad to see a candidate for CA Comm of Insurance speaking

out

of the insurance fraud.

We started ACHEMMIC because of lack of transparency within the EPA.

Their

not following through on what they started on the recommendations of

the

GAO audit, while not giving clear answers of why this is.

ACHEMMIC was SPECIFICALLY formed to request transparency from

the EPA in a

manner to add some muscle to the question lack of transparency in the

EPA,

coming from the voices of many.

Jack, you say " What I got tired of was the constant bickering between

Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals and they both stood

by their

convictions "

In the name of transparency, Jack, what is it you are claiming you caught

in the middle of? What convictions do Kramer and Wisecup standby?

Do you feel it is important for people to continue to speak out of the

deceit of ACOEM?

Why did KC, a few others and myself leave ACHEMMIC?

Carl, you are welcome to jump in here and help Jack answer these

questions.

Sharon

In a message dated 8/17/2010 5:53:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

toxicologist1@... writes:

: you were encouraged by Sharon Kramer to ask this question. I

have

never advocated such a position. What I got tired of was the constant

bickering between Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals

and they both

stood by their convictions. I, like others (Shoemaker, Fisher and

probably

Carl) wanted out of the loop. I asked Sharon to take me out of the loop

and she refused to do so. I am of the position that we must agree to

disagree. Sharon can do as she wishes and Cheryl can do as she wishes.

Do not bring

this issue up with me again. I am tired of it.

I asked Sharon to take me out of the loop, so did Shoemaker, Fischer and

others.

Jack-Dwayne: Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

_toxicologist1@..._ (mailto:toxicologist1@...)

Off: 916-745-4703

Cell: 575-937-1150

L. Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

_sandracrawley@..._ (mailto:sandracrawley@...)

916-745-4703 - Off

775-309-3994 - Cell

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/18/2010 6:23:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

jeaninem660@... writes:

I'm setting here wondering weither it was such a good idea to send that

link and that position statement to my lawyer.

what a buch of BS.

Jeanine,

While I am completely disillusioned with " the leadership " of ACHEMMIC

making decisions that adversely impact the work of others - with little to no

consideration of the years worth of efforts of others; I can say

unequivocally that the POA policy paper is solid on the science.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

well, this is exactly why I dont like putting my name to anything, I cant even

trust to sign a pitition without wondering is there are other purposes behind

it. I thought something was wrong when I was first added to be a member than

next thing I know I'm not and than I get another invatation to become one.

screw it. I'm really glad I was kept in the dark.

now I'm setting here wondering weither it was such a good idea to send that link

and that position statement to my lawyer.

what a buch of BS.

>

> Jack and group,

>

> For those of you who don't understand this issue and don't care

> then I suggest you not read the rest. Because I'm ranting.

>

> If you do care or want to read then understand I am deliberately

> not being my usual diplomatic or polite self. Why? I and others

> have already beat this horse to death. I've already told those

> behind this manufactured controversy my position and they

> stopped harassing me. I do not appreciate this repeat

> contrivance. So...

>

> You wrote, " I have noticed that Carl has not responded.. Where

> are you Carl? "

>

> I'm making a living, helping people and otherwise accomplishing

> productive tasks. This is delaying my responding to several

> people on who have specifically asked me

> questions. I had a Board meeting this afternoon and 3 conference

> calls tomorrow plus my consulting appointments and follow-up.

>

> The issue " someone " is trying to be re-instigate on

> is a dead issue about a structure which no longer exists.

>

> ACHEMMIC was originally an ad hoc organization with no legal

> standing or even substantive existance. Hard opinions were

> expressed and because those actions were not taken some

> individuals voluntarily decided to leave. They say they were

> forced out but I have yet to figure out how a gun can be put to

> their head via e-mail. Facebook, maybe! Or Twitter. But not e-

> mail. Then their decision was regretted.

>

> The original ACHEMMIC took only one action and stopped all

> others.

>

> Now, the new ACHEMMIC just recently became official as a legal

> entity and is in the process of developing the necessary structure,

> Bylaws, Board of Directors, etc. and moving toward applying to

> be a non-profit organization.

>

> The recent e-mail posted here is demanding to know who the

> Board is. But how can Cheryl or anyone answer that until an initial

> Board is officially created according to the new Bylaws? Once all

> this is done then members will be able to vote and conduct other

> business according to the Bylaws and Rules of Order.

>

> They can bring any issue before the new, official Board. All votes

> will be duly recorded according to the Bylaws. Once it is a non-

> profit the Bylaws and financial statements must be made

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Yes. You said you were done. Yes you said why...something about it being

" nonsense " of my grave concern that ACHEMMIC is promoting fear of

retribution by " the leadership " for mold victims and advocates who chose to

speak

directly of the deceit, is the gist I got of your reasoning.

I have been screaming for your, Jack, Melinda and Ritchie help on this for

over a month. I bit my tongue until the paper came out because I did not

want to upset the apple cart. But the paper is out and it is NOW time for

you leaders of this issue to step up to the damn plate and shut this DOWN

that ONE person can control who is allowed to say what over this issue.

You know damn well I did not want to take this to Sickbuildings. But you

left me no choice. I will be damned if my six years of hard work outting

the deceit - that is all over that POA paper and used extensively by the

expert witnesses and attorneys for their business interests - is silenced and

discredited by " the leadership " of ACHEMMIC.

I came here to do a job and I going to finish it. And I don't need any

help from " the leadership " discrediting the validity of my truthful words by

instilling fear in people. If I wanted that, I would go to VeriTox and ask

them to write me a letter of non-recommendation.

No Carl. You are not done. YOU need to step up to the plate along with

Jack, Ritchie and Melinda and undo this harm to the mold community of

allowing fear of retribution from their OWN peers if they say the wrong thing.

This is WRONG. If you are going to hold yourself out as leaders of an

esteemed new non-profit in this issue, then act like one. You have a duty to

MAKE THIS STOP.

Sharon.

In a message dated 8/18/2010 6:07:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

grimes@... writes:

Sharon,

I said I'm done with this and I said why.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

-----Original Message-----

From: _snk1955@..._ (mailto:snk1955@...)

Sender: _ _

(mailto: )

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 15:32:34

<_ _ (mailto: )

>

Reply-_ _

(mailto: )

Subject: Re: [] Re: Letter~CA Ins.Comm Candidate.Jack & Carl

No Jack, I am no longer asking for transparency from Cheryl. I gave up

on that one a long time ago of who is the unnamed " leadership " of ACHEMMIC

and how are decisions really made in the org.

I am asking for transparency from YOU and CARL.

Jack, you say " What I got tired of was the constant bickering between

Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals and they both stood by

their

convictions "

In the name of transparency, Jack, what is it you are claiming you caught

in the middle of? What convictions do Kramer and Wisecup standby?

Do you feel it is important for people to continue to speak out of the

deceit of ACOEM?

Why did KC, a few others and myself leave ACHEMMIC?

Carl, you are welcome to jump in here and help Jack answer these

questions.

Sharon

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

you know, I've been around for long enough to see a few organisations formed out

of this group and they has always ended up causeing problems and it usually

comes down to money.

money that never reaches the hands of the victoms, just like many other

non-profit organizations floating around out there.

top this off with hearing about a lady who started a non-profit chuch group so

she wouldn't have to pay taxes, and I've had about all the non-profit BS I want

to hear about.

it always comes down to money doesn't it.

screw the ones who really need the help,I need payed for my so called expertize

and/or just time. thats basicly saying " I dont really give a shit about the

suffering people "

I'm done with all of it. dont worry, I know my posts wont get posted because

thats always what happens if someone doesn't like what I have to say.

I have spent years of my time " no pay " right here tring to help the victoms,

theres some ways I have more expertize than some claimed experts,

some experts right here on this board wouldn't have their ever gaining knowledge

if they weren't on this board learning from us.

and still out of all these organisations that get formed, not a damn penny has

found it's way to me.

spare me the lecture on what all is envolved and how hard and time consummeing

it is to get a organization like this started, I dont care, my time is just as

valuable as anyones elses.

I cant even aford to get my car running so that I might be able to drive myself

to a doctor instead of waiting for others to have the time to take me, so no,

your vauable time means nothing to me just like mine obviously means nothing to

you.

>

> Jack and group,

>

> For those of you who don't understand this issue and don't care

> then I suggest you not read the rest. Because I'm ranting.

>

> If you do care or want to read then understand I am deliberately

> not being my usual diplomatic or polite self. Why? I and others

> have already beat this horse to death. I've already told those

> behind this manufactured controversy my position and they

> stopped harassing me. I do not appreciate this repeat

> contrivance. So...

>

> You wrote, " I have noticed that Carl has not responded.. Where

> are you Carl? "

>

> I'm making a living, helping people and otherwise accomplishing

> productive tasks. This is delaying my responding to several

> people on who have specifically asked me

> questions. I had a Board meeting this afternoon and 3 conference

> calls tomorrow plus my consulting appointments and follow-up.

>

> The issue " someone " is trying to be re-instigate on

> is a dead issue about a structure which no longer exists.

>

> ACHEMMIC was originally an ad hoc organization with no legal

> standing or even substantive existance. Hard opinions were

> expressed and because those actions were not taken some

> individuals voluntarily decided to leave. They say they were

> forced out but I have yet to figure out how a gun can be put to

> their head via e-mail. Facebook, maybe! Or Twitter. But not e-

> mail. Then their decision was regretted.

>

> The original ACHEMMIC took only one action and stopped all

> others.

>

> Now, the new ACHEMMIC just recently became official as a legal

> entity and is in the process of developing the necessary structure,

> Bylaws, Board of Directors, etc. and moving toward applying to

> be a non-profit organization.

>

> The recent e-mail posted here is demanding to know who the

> Board is. But how can Cheryl or anyone answer that until an initial

> Board is officially created according to the new Bylaws? Once all

> this is done then members will be able to vote and conduct other

> business according to the Bylaws and Rules of Order.

>

> They can bring any issue before the new, official Board. All votes

> will be duly recorded according to the Bylaws. Once it is a non-

> profit the Bylaws and financial statements must be made

> available to anyone who asks. But they aren't there yet. Get it?

>

> This whole kurfuffle (is that even a word? let alone spelled

> correctly) is a facade for a hidden agenda by shadow people.

> Those with an axe to grind about transparancy need, as you so

> correctly stated, to become transparant themselves. Who is

> behind it? What do they want? What will satisfy them? Why are

> they attacking something which no longer exists instead of

> working to move our agenda forward in a productive manner.

>

> You can't hold accountable something that no longer exists. And

> you can't hold the new organization accountable for the old. But

> we can all address issues with the new group, ONCE IT IS

> FULLY CONSTITUTED AND able to ACT.

>

> Now, I have another conference call coming up. I have someone

> from EPA who is calling me. People on want

> responses. I don't have time for nonsense and hidden personal

> agendas.

>

> If I've offended anyone that's tough! But I doubt it because I've

> already stated this to the cadre of the discontented and they

> stopped involving me. This is my last word here or elsewhere.

>

> That's where I am.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I said I'm done with this and I said why.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

Re: [] Re: Letter~CA Ins.Comm Candidate.Jack & Carl

No Jack, I am no longer asking for transparency from Cheryl. I gave up

on that one a long time ago of who is the unnamed " leadership " of ACHEMMIC

and how are decisions really made in the org.

I am asking for transparency from YOU and CARL.

Jack, you say " What I got tired of was the constant bickering between

Kramer and Wisecup. I spoke with both individuals and they both stood by

their

convictions "

In the name of transparency, Jack, what is it you are claiming you caught

in the middle of? What convictions do Kramer and Wisecup standby?

Do you feel it is important for people to continue to speak out of the

deceit of ACOEM?

Why did KC, a few others and myself leave ACHEMMIC?

Carl, you are welcome to jump in here and help Jack answer these

questions.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Could you all get on a three way call or something and work this out?