Blueprint For Murder In Mississippi ➡ JEALOUSY, SEX, POISON, AND THE 10TH AMENDMENT: THIS SUPREME COURT CASE HAS IT ALL!

•••••


JEALOUSY, SEX, POISON, AND THE 10TH AMENDMENT: THIS SUPREME COURT CASE HAS IT ALL!
SUPREME COURT DISPATCHES
ORAL ARGUMENT FROM THE COURT.
FEB. 22 2011 6:34 PM
The Case of the Poisoned Lover
The Supreme Court gets its sexiest case ever, but all it wants to talk about is standing.

By Dahlia Lithwick
A woman tries to poison her husband's lover; the court discusses vinegar and goldfish. Click image to expand.
A woman tries to poison her husband's lover; the court discusses vinegar and goldfish
When the Lifetime Channel casts the movie version of Bond v. U.S., it will doubtless pit someone Valerie Bertinelli-ish against someone Judith Light-like and leave all the good 10th Amendment stuff on the cutting room floor. That would be too bad, since
the constitutional soap opera underpinning the case may prove to be the most interesting part. Someone in the press gallery this morning at oral argument even suggested the title for the Lifetime movie: The Burning Thumb.

Dahlia Lithwick
DAHLIA LITHWICK
Dahlia Lithwick writes about the courts and the law for Slate.

Carol Anne Bond was a microbiologist living in suburban Philadelphia who was delighted to learn that her best friend Myrlinda Haynes was pregnant--delighted, that is, until she discovered that the father of Myrlinda's baby was Bond's husband of 14 years,
Clifford. (I'm thinking David Hasselhoff or some other generic '70s baddie). Initially Carol sought her revenge against Myrlinda in standard Lifetime-movie-of-the-week fashion, slashing photos and threatening her over the telephone: "I [am] going to make
your life a living hell" and "Dead people will visit you." She also tried to get her best friend fired. The result of all this was a 2005 conviction in state court for Carol Anne Bond for harassment.

Sponsored Content

The Sandwich Generation's Risky Balancing Act

And that's around the time Bond made the jump from Lifetime to the Cartoon Network. In a plot likened by Garrett Epps to something cooked up by Wile E. Coyote, Bond next began smearing poisonous chemicals--including an arsenic-based chemical, 10-chloro-
10H-phenoxarsine, which she had stolen from her work--on Haynes's car and mailbox. * This happened 24 times between 2005 and 2007, and on one occasion Haynes burned her thumb on the highly dangerous chemicals. When Haynes reported the attacks to her
local police, they told her the white powder must be cocaine and suggested she maybe clean her car more often. Luckily for her, her letter carrier leaped into action and alerted the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which through surveillance and good
detective work finally cracked the case. Bond was charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 229, a statute that implements the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. She pleaded guilty in federal court and received a six-year sentence and nearly $12,000 in
fines and restitution.

Bond's lawyers contend that had her case been filed under state law in a Pennsylvania court, her sentence would have been three to 25 months. The use of a federal chemical weapons treaty to charge her was an impermissible intrusion on state's rights,
they say, arguing that 18 USC §229 is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."

In case you missed Fashion Week, I am here to tell you that everyone who is anyone will be wearing the 10th Amendment this year. It is, at least for some members of the Tea Party, this season's three-cornered hat, and it's been invoked lately to
challenge everything from President Obama's health care legislation to expansive federal criminal laws.

Everything that I have just revealed to you--salacious and constitutional--might have made for a fine cable movie and an even better oral argument. The problem is that the 3rd Circuit eventually ruled that Bond lacked standing to challenge her conviction,
finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the 10th Amendment. So instead of debating the merits of trying to poison your husband's lover or the scope of the 10th Amendment's reservation of power to the states, all of oral
argument in today's case suffocates under an airless blanket of "standing doctrine." And standing doctrine is where all interestingness goes to die.

Former Solicitor General (and Slate contributor) Paul Clement represents Carol Bond this morning, and although it must be killing him not to talk about black widows, broken promises, and villainous lovers in bad mustaches, Clement sticks to the standing
question. The gist of his argument is perfectly reasonable: His client "clearly satisfies" the court's "test for standing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine an injury more particularized or concrete than six years in federal prison."

Clement advances the argument that "the structural provisions of the Constitution are there to protect the liberty of citizens." He explains that the states should have authority to resolve their own criminal justice matters, and "in this case the state
has a real legitimate interest in law enforcement."

He is interrupted by Justice Samuel Alito. "Doesn't that depend on the nature of the chemical that's involved?" he asks. "Suppose the chemical was--was something that people would normally understand as the kind of chemical that would be used in a
chemical weapon? Let's say it's sarin." Sarin is a very, very bad chemical that kills people.

"This isn't sarin," Clement replies. "There is something sort of odd about the government's theory that says that 'I can buy a chemical weapon at Amazon.com.' "

Justice Stephen Breyer challenges Clement on the fact that the one most important case in this area is a 1939 decision that holds that even utility companies, which are closer to being a statelike entity than to being an individual, have no standing to
bring suits under the 10th Amendment. Clement replies that the court should acknowledge that it's not good law anymore.

The Justice Department finds itself in its own Lifetime movie in this case--the one in which the woman, likely another former cast member of "Charlie's Angels," wakes up in a silky peignoir in an opulent mansion and discovers that she has amnesia. Or
something. Because after passionately defending the position that Bond had no standing to raise a 10th Amendment challenge in the lower courts, the Obama administration changed its mind and decided that she did. That put the solicitor general's office in
the strange position of having 20 minutes today to argue that Bond has standing to sue at some times and not other times but should nevertheless lose on her constitutional claims, anyhow.

It also put the court in the doubly strange position of having to reach out and tap a lawyer to argue against standing. Enter Stephen McAllister, a former Supreme Court law clerk and the solicitor general of Kansas who comes into the case for the last 20
minutes to argue that Bond cannot get into a court on her 10th Amendment claims. But first there is--in the manner of all Lifetime films--the Obama administration's offer to split the baby.

Michael Dreeben of the Solicitor General's office tries to provide a 10th Amendment standing compromise. But Justice Anthony Kennedy isn't buying the argument that some kinds of claims might be pursued by private citizens under the 10th Amendment while
others may not. Kennedy puts it in terms that might even find its way into a Lifetime script someday: "The whole point of separation of powers, the whole point of federalism, is that it inheres to the individual and his or her right to liberty; and if
that is infringed by a criminal conviction or in any other way that causes specific injury, why can't it be raised?"

And Alito--the court's officially designated animal lover--raises questions about the breadth of the chemical-weapons statute. "Suppose that the petitioner in this case decided to retaliate against her former friend by pouring a bottle of vinegar in the
friend's goldfish bowl?" he asks. "Well, a chemical weapon is a weapon that includes toxic chemicals. And a toxic chemical is a chemical that can cause death to animals. And pouring vinegar in a goldfish bowl, I believe, will cause death to the goldfish,
so that's--that's a chemical weapon." He wonders whether life imprisonment for vinegar-based offenses isn't excessive.

When Dreeben attempts to say that such regulation might be permissible under the Commerce Clause precedent in the Raich medicinal-marijuana case, Justice Antonin Scalia hops in: "You're trying to drive vinegar out of the interstate market? Do the people
know you're trying to do this? Can you really argue that this statute is designed to drive vinegar out of the interstate market?"

Finally it's McAllister's turn to argue against individual standing in 10th Amendment cases. He does an admirable job, but Chief Justice John Roberts sums up the view of most of the justices when he observes that it's "pretty harsh, if we're talking
about prudential standing, to deny that to a criminal defendant, isn't it?"

McAllister explains that allowing individuals to bring 10th Amendment claims impinges on state sovereignty, because their interests are not always aligned. But the justices seem inclined to allow Bond her day in court, an argument Kennedy sums up at the
close of today's argument with this observation: "Your underlying premise is that the individual has no interest in whether or not the State has surrendered its powers to the federal government, and I just don't think the Constitution was framed on that
theory."

It's not at all clear that Carol Bond will prevail on the merits in her 10th Amendment claims, and she is due for release next year anyhow. But framed as a case about a woman sentenced under federal anti-terror law for what her lawyer dismisses as a mere
"domestic dispute," her plea falls on sympathetic ears at the court. In the meantime, burgeoning Tea Party worries about the federal government's power to criminalize the massacre of goldfish with vinegar may have to wait a few more years for a
definitive answer at the court. Until then, there is always the Nature Channel.

Correction, Feb. 23, 2011: This article originally misspelled the first name of law professor Garrett Epps. (Return to the corrected sentence.)




http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2011/02/the_case_of_the_poisoned_lover.single.html


-----



Chemical Weapons Treaty Does Not Apply to Petty Crime, Justices Rule


Tourists on Monday outside the Supreme Court. The justices decided a case involving the Convention on Chemical Weapons.
GABRIELLA DEMCZUK / THE NEW YORK TIMES
By ADAM LIPTAK
JUNE 2, 2014
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Congress had not meant to authorize prosecutions of minor crimes under a chemical weapons treaty.

"We are reluctant to ignore the ordinary meaning of 'chemical weapon,' " Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for six justices, "when doing so would transform a statute passed to implement the international Convention on Chemical Weapons into one that
also makes it a federal offense to poison goldfish."

The decision was unanimous, but three justices did not join the majority's reasoning. They said they would have rested the decision on constitutional grounds, saying that the chemical weapons law covered minor crimes but that Congress had overstepped its
constitutional authority by enacting it.

Chief Justice Roberts said constitutional concerns figured in the decision, but only as "background assumptions." Since Congress would not lightly alter the constitutional balance between the federal government and the states, he said, the law should not
be read to "convert an astonishing amount" of local criminal conduct into matters for federal law enforcement.

"In this curious case," he wrote, "we can insist on a clear indication that Congress meant to reach purely local crimes before interpreting the statute's expansive language in a way that intrudes on the police power of the states."

To do otherwise, he said, "would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults."


Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. each issued a concurring opinion.

The chief justice's opinion, Justice Scalia wrote, "enables the fundamental constitutional principle of limited federal powers to be set aside by the president and Senate's exercise of the treaty power."

"We should not have shirked our duty and distorted the law to preserve that assertion; we should have welcomed and eagerly grasped the opportunity -- nay, the obligation -- to consider and repudiate it," he added.

Justice Scalia wrote that the majority's interpretation of the law had left it unintelligible by using "interpretive principles never before imagined that will bedevil our jurisprudence (and proliferate litigation) for years to come."

"Poisoning a goldfish tank is apparently out, but what if the fish belongs to a congressman or governor and the act is meant as a menacing message, a small-time equivalent of leaving a severed horse's head in the bed?" he asked.

"One guess," he wrote, "is as bad as another."

The case arose from a lurid domestic dispute that started when a Pennsylvania woman, Carol A. Bond, learned that her husband was the father of her best friend's child. Ms. Bond, a microbiologist, spread harmful chemicals on the friend's car, mailbox and
doorknob in late 2006 and early 2007, and the friend sustained a minor injury.

The local authorities decided not to pursue the matter. But federal prosecutors charged Ms. Bond with using unconventional weapons in violation of a law based on the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty concerned with terrorists and rogue states.

The arguments in the case mostly concerned the source of Congress's power to enact the law. The Constitution limits the areas in which Congress can act, leaving the rest to the states.

The Justice Department said the law was justified by the federal government's power to enter into treaties and that no additional constitutional authority was required.

That position found support in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, Missouri v. Holland. "If the treaty is valid, there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute" enacted to fulfill it, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote for the court.

Chief Justice Roberts's opinion avoided a ruling on the question of the scope of the treaty power by interpreting the chemical weapons law narrowly.

The case, Bond v. United States, No. 12-158, had made an earlier appearance at the court. In 2011, the court unanimously ruled that Ms. Bond had suffered the sort of concrete injury -- a six-year prison sentence -- that gave her standing to sue.


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/chemical-weapons-treaty-does-not-apply-to-domestic-dispute-justices-rule.html?referrer=


-----


Mold Can Kill You: CONSPIRACY/OR? IN MISSISSIPPI

*****

MoldCanKillYou.com
HOME PAGE
MOLD HEALTH EFFECTS!
MOLD/IN THE BIBLE
OUR STORY
OUR SYMPTOMS
OUR MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS
INSURANCE/MEDICAL/LEGAL
WHERE IS MEDIA ON THIS?
CONSPIRACY/OR?
IF SICK / WHAT NOW?
MOLD TESTING!
MOLD HELP/DATA FORM
PETITION/CONGRESS/SENATE
MEDICAL & MEDIA PRODUCTS
OTHER DANGERS/YOUR AREA!
GOVERNORS PROCLAMATION!
Guestbook
CONSPIRACY/OR?

SUMMARY

First of all, if you have read this entire website, you will
understand that something is wrong with the system in general. But,
you dont have to go far, to be able to realize that most of the
systems of the world are in shambles; no matter where you are at, no
matter what the issue is concerning, or what is happening. All people
must realize that, "All bad can be a seed for good"; as in this case,
it just happened to be that we were dealing with the Mold
Issue. We most likely would not have found the proper medical
attention, had all of this went any other way than it did. We must
look to bright side of things in this regard. The sad part of all of
this, is that we worry that there are folks like ourselves out there,
that are very sick, and/or not waking up today, tomorrow, or, have
not
in the past, from possibly death due to this. What we
have uncovered, most folks will never know anything about, unless
someone tells them, like this story, as we feel is meant to tell, not
coverup, so as to put others years ahead of where we started out,
trying to figure out all of this! I will make reference to several
different entities, subjects of interest, quotes and other types of
material, as to relate to what we are trying to depict, in a
truthful manner.

"All truth passes through 3 stages; first, it is ridiculed, second,
it
is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self evident"
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
POINTS
OF INTEREST

MS has been rated the most corrupt judicial system in the nation.
2007

MS has been rated the worst healthcare system in the nation. 2007

MS has been rated the worst for infant mortality in the nation. 2007

MS has almost always been rated the poorest state in the nation,
since
record keeping data started.

MS was exposed to the worst natural disaster in the nations history. 2005/Hurricane Katrina

MS has many other low, if not the lowest ratings in the nation, in
many other areas as well.

With all of these points made, MS has many good attributes as well,
and some better than many of the other states, but, in most any
society, civilization or country, as I've probbaly visited appx. 20
countries myself; you will always notice that the worst of the worst,
usually always comes out of the poorest regions on earth, and that
the
people of these regions suffer the most, most always at the hands of
the "well-to-do", or the "higher-ups"; and in proportion to an
individuals rankings monetarily, in that area, is usually
the determining factor in their outcome, in most of the areas of
their
lives and or livelihood. It is somewhat like a cast system if you
want
to call it that, or a pecking order. A man once told me that MS is
the
Mexcio of America. In some ways it could be viewed this way I am
sure,
even though I love my home here. I have reservations about what I am
beginning to see and learn now, that most people would have never
dreamed of, had they not walked in my shoes. We all know, that most
anywhere you go, can be as bad as another area, possibly in just
different ways. We just happened to be in MS where our demise took
place, so naturally, we started investigating, to see what we were up
against and why?

An interesting (Article & Podcast of John Grisham), being interviewed
by Bill Moyers on PBS, I thought really summed up, in more words than
one, what is going on in some of the political arenas, especially in
MS. Grisham is getting into some non-fiction books and stories now,
but as he states, it comes with a lot of investigating and extra
work.
Word has it, that he is now in Stealth Mode, as far as being able to
contact Grisham, as media circles depict, due to death threats, etc.
Anyone that can read between the lines, can understand why many
politicians have not been too happy with his work and what it
exposes.
Bill Moyers, as we have learned, was displaced from some of his media endeavours at one time or another, due primarily from his airing
certain particular controversial things, that some of the mainstream
media were not happy seeing exposed. Moyers return to the spotlight,
as we have since learned, was due primarily from popular demand and a
public outcry. The 30-minute Podcast/Video, of Grisham & Moyers
Interview, which is in readable format as well is: http://
www.pbs.org/
moyers/journal/01252008/watch4.html

This is another very interesting article, that appeared in a
Mississippi News Publication, the "Jackson Free Press". This article
exposes many issues that you might not hear through typical media
avenues. This article will shed light on a real problem in MS,
especially regarding Insurance. It will help one better understand
how
deep some of the issues go. This article sheds light on the Dicky
Scruggs issue; including the mention of others, like Trent Lott, Paul
Minor, Oliver Diaz, Etc. It is an eye-opener to many in MS, as well
as
across the country. One could possibly speculate, that this
article, directly &/or indirectly, correlates with what John Grisham
depicts in the above link. This will help many understand that the
big
corporate conglomerates, such as many large insurance companies, do
not take lightly as per being exposed, as well as being made pay
their
debts to society & their policyholders. It depicts the same scenario
that has been around for years; whereby many insurance companies and
large corporations had rather pay the politicians and attorneys,
versus the public and/or plaintiffs which have been wronged. This
basically enlightened us, as to what we were up against. Most who
have
read this article, state that there was wrong doing by most named
defendants, but, when one looks at the big picture, and the entire
scope of this in it's entirety, it is very scary! A friend of mine,
upon viewing this article, stated; "We Are Now Living In A Fascist Dictatorship". (This goes back to the saying, "The One Who Owns The
Gold, Rules"). The Link is: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/comments.php?id=15380_0_9_0_C



"The marvel of all history, is the patience with which men and women,
submit to burdens unneccessarily laid upon them by their
governments"
George Washington
INTERESTING NOTES/
HAPPENINGS/
QUESTIONS

I had several friends & relatives, who frequented my trial that we
lost in; some of these people were fluent in understanding legal
procedures unlike ourselves. They came offering counsel and support.
Many of them believed that even if we had won this case, no matter
what the verdict or outcome would have been monetarily, that most
surely there would have been an appeal, so as not to set a
precedence,
or let this information that we had, leak out to the public or
press.
In other words, several of the people who came and sat with us,
stated
that we knew too much about the Mold Issue, and that most of the
entities involved here, would do just about anything to keep this
quiet. This is not to mention, that the mobile home industry, with
all
the flaws we found with them, could possibly be exposed as well. Our
case actually was a double or triple threat to too many entities
involved, whether directly or indirectly.

During the course of the years that we have been involved in this
case, I had been warned by numerous people; including law-enforcement officials, attorneys, business owners, etc., to be careful about
"what
you know". Thus meaning that I/we, were up against serious money
here,
and that these people would use any methods to try and stop this
information from being revealed.

ODD/STRANGE
OCCURANCES

*Sometimes, before some of our legal proceedings, we would recieve
obscene phone calls with unlisted numbers, which we assumed were
accidental miss calls. None of these happened at any other times, and
havent since.

*We have had nearby neighbors, mention that they had people in the
community tell them, that we were just suing to get money from the
entities involved in this case, and that we werent sick at all. Of
course none of these people have ever seen the home, or investigated
or looked at our medical bills either.

*The most bizarre incident came when a candidate for sheriff, came by
my home one day, stating that a certain individual in the community,
who lived closeby, had shown him a pile of video tapes, and told him
that we were dealing drugs, and that he had been monitoring our home
and business for years now, and that he wanted him to help him
incriminate us should he be elected. It has been the laugh of the
community, not to mention, what an idiot. First of all, any drug
dealer I have ever heard of, steers clear of the juducial system,
and/
or trying to do what is morally right, second of all, if this were
true, why would we be fighting for what is rightfully ours that we
have lost, as we would naturally have plenty of money if this were
the
case, and want out of the spotlight with the legal system entirely,
furthermore, going up against a system with big money, while our
whole family was sick at the same time, and trying to get well, not
to
mention, some of the people we knew, that had quit talking to us in
the community, not only due to one of the entities we were suing, and
his ties to many of the people in our community, due to his long
established business and political influence in the area. We have
always wondered if big insurance, or any of the entities being sued
might have been behind this. A lady who had been in a terrible Mold
lawsuit out in Texas, that recieved national attention, reccomended
that we watch a particular movie called, "Runaway Jury", as she said
it depicts the lengths that some insurance comapnies will go, to get
something on you or to set you up, especially if you are onto
something that could cost them huge sums of money. She mentioned that
on 2 seperate occassions, that men broke in her home during her
lawsuit, and she actually shot one of the men in the back with a
rifle.

* We had a man working at our home one day while we were at a legal proceeding. He stated that his truck was parked where it could not be
seen from the road, as he was raking leaves and loading them into his
truck behind our home. He stated that a vehicle drove up the
driveway,
and as he saw it, he went to it, and asked the man what he needed. He
stated that the man said that he had worked for me years ago, and was
just coming by to say hello. We have an electronic gate, so he asked
the man how he got in, and he said the man showed him a large device
like a programming analyzer, that he said he got in the gate with, my
man said he had never seen a gate opener like this one before, as he
knew ours all looked the same. He said the man left immeadilately
after seeing that I wasnt home. How odd we thought, we sell
equipment,
we meet by appointment due to owning 2 businesses that we run, and
this has never happened before.

*The day of our first trial, whereby the judge recused himself, we
were at home, getting ready for a 9AM trial, I smelled smoke, looked
out our window, and appx. 1/4 mile away at my office, I saw a large
fire burning at appx. 6AM. Of course, this is where we had a place to
burn wood at times, but it was starting to get into the field before
I
could get to it. I put the fire out immeadiately. Then, what really
concerned me; was that we were in a severe drought and under a burn-
ban, for actually everything south of I-20/appx. 75 miles away. This
would have burned up not only my land, but possibly all the
neighboring woodlands that our lands join. How convenient to not be
able to be at a trial you have been waiting almost 3 years for, not
to
mention, possibly being arrested for arson, etc.

Since this Legal Undertaking of ours started; we have never seen the
likes of how popular our property has become. (Sometimes
I've wondered
if we owned land that now had acquired some type of hidden secrets or treasures, that surely we dont know about)! We've had everything
from
Grave-Seekers, Artifact & Relic-Hunters, Lost and/or Delerious, as
well as possibly Drug-Crazed Tresspassers, People wanting permission
to fish in water 3-6 inches deep, near a road/bridge, then to see
these same peoples relatives, running on foot, from this same area,
so
as to get in their cars to race away, when traffic or we would
approach our gate to leave our property, of course we had not granted
any permission as well. One and/or two women at a time, coming to our business, so as to buy heavy equipment, and/or farm related
equipment,
of course never purchasing anything, but some we could tell were
drinking, and/or using drugs, some were just plain provocative
towards
men. People inviting you on their property, so as when you arrive,
they then try to initiate an incident or fight, then thereafter,
usually every time you see them, are nice again, and continue to
invite you to come over to their property again to see them, and/or
have issues they call you usually at night about, we presume to get
us
back on their property. There are other issues as well, but how
ironic, in 20 years of doing business, as well as a lifetime of never
facing any of these odd occurrences, they all transpire while engaged
in this legal delimna.

*There were many former employees, as well as others, who had worked
for this mobile home dealer that we purchased our home from, who I
met
from time to time, usually from being out in the public, that would
tell me they were sorry about what all had happened to my family, and
even wanted to know if we had ever been compenstated for our losses.
These people would even provide damning evidence about some of the
atrocities that they saw this dealer commit, some of them would go
into details about why and how this happened to us. They sometimes
would mention that some of the same things that happened to our home,
they had seen happen to others years before this/our delimna. Later,
when I and my attorney went to see them in person, they either
couldnt
remember anything. or simply wouldnt talk, but the ones that would,
would tell everything that they knew, but asked that we not drag them
into court. We understood that they were for the most part scared.

*The saddest part about all of this, is that we have lost a few
friends over this, and even had a few relatives that didnt want
anything to do with us, or this issue anymore. For the most part, it
was because they didnt want to have to testify, and/or verify as to
what they had seen with this home, that they knew for a fact, was
wrong, but would have put them at an inconvienence, or at odds with
some of the social fabric in the community that some of the people we
were bucking would not like.

*There are other things that happened, that are really bizarre, but
cannot be proven, but are well documented, but, what really matters
here, is that the people get the proper information with this
exposure
in its entirety, so as to help other families or those deling with
any
of these type delimnas. Ours just happened to be Mold!




"When your one step ahead of the crowd, your a genius, when your two
steps ahead, your a crackpot!"
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (Feb. 1998)
EMAIL: IN...@MOLDCANKILLYOU.COM OR: TOMMY...@MOLDCANKILLYOU.COM


Bloggers/Comments/Postings: http://blog.moldcankillyou.com

Online Store/Merchant Account/Medical & Media Tools & Resources: www.shop.moldcankillyou.com

Copyright 2007-2011. Tommy Riley. All rights reserved.



http://www.moldcankillyou.com/CONSPIRACY_OR_.htm

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)