Santa Barbara jury finds City was negligent. No big deal. The moldy building harmed no one. Really???

City Attorney representsAccording to a May 10, 2013 article in the Santa Barbara Independent, “Jury Reaches Verdict in Mold Lawsuit“,  “A Santa Barbara jury ruled against a family suing the Santa Barbara Housing Authority for chronic illnesses they alleged were caused by toxic mold in their apartment. The verdict…concluded that the Housing Authority was in fact negligent in its maintenance of the apartment but that none of the four plaintiffs suffered harm as a result of that negligence….Attorneys for the Housing Authority acknowledged there was mold in the premises, but disputed that it was toxic…and the ensuing trial constituted a showdown between the dueling experts….and the jury concluded that the property was not maintained in a dangerous condition during the Budkes’ tenancy.”
 
 According to a May 13th Press Release issued by the defense firm it appears that the jurors were precluded from hearing of the neurological damage to an infant and evidence of mycotoxins being a known causer of neurological damage.  The press release publicly bragging about keeping evidence from the eyes of a jury states, “Plaintiffs alleged adverse health conditions as a result of living in an uninhabitable apartment. They claimed that their daughters developed asthma and severe allergies, and that their youngest daughter was born with severe neuro-cognitive and neuro-behavioral deficits as a result of conditions in the apartment.  Strategically crafted motions in limine and a full week of 402 hearings resulted in all neurological, neurobehavioral and psychological claims being dismissed by the Court.  All evidence relating to mycotoxins and poisons was likewise dismissed.”
 
What kind of person brags about winning by causing the court to keep from the eyes of a jury, the evidence of what is a likely cause/contributor of severe injury to an infant? “Crafty” is not the first word that comes to our mind. Neither is “Benefit to Society”.
 
Besides devastating insult to tragic injury for the family involved, what we find most concerning are the number of children who will be harmed in the future based on the false concept that this kind of “strategically crafted” court case proves lack of causation of injury from the toxins of mold and other biocontaminants that are found in water damaged builidngs. We feel quite certain that the jury was not aware that when crafty attorneys are able to limit evidence of causation of toxic injury so the insurer is not held financially responsible; the jurors and other taxpayers foot the bill for the care of the injured via social services and disability payouts.  The term for this is “cost shifting” and it is a huge problem in America.
 
So…here’s your chance to tell the people of Santa Barbara, CA, what you think about a jury finding their City was negligent on building maintenance…but….it is no big deal because the moldy building was proven to have caused no harm to anyone.  Go to the Santa Barbara Independent article link, sign in and comment if so inclined.
 
1.See defense firm’s press release bragging about keeping evidence of injury, mycotoxins and poison out of the trial.  
2. See plaintiffs’ original complaint & the City stating they will do nothing to stop the damage to the family or costly litigation; their insurer will handle it.
3. See defense attorney is also a temporary California judge.
4. See Wall Street Journal for how it became a false concept in policy that mycotoxins in water damaged buildings were proven not to harm — for the purpose of misleading courts to deny liability for causation of injury. (Two PhDs applied math extrapolations to data from one rodent study and professed they had proven this.  Widely parroted in policies and courts, its shear nonsense and never vetted science that such limited data could form such a broad conclusion.)  “Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation
5. See more on the subject of the California courts aiding and abetting this scientific fraud to continue in all courts in California and nationwide.  Please visit our sister blog ContemptOfCourtFor.ME
 
Go to the Santa Barbara Independent article link, sign in and comment if so inclined.
This entry was posted in Health - Medical - Science and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Santa Barbara jury finds City was negligent. No big deal. The moldy building harmed no one. Really???

  1. Dana says:

    Typical…. my medical evidence in my disability case in CA was disregarded. The judge only found the state’s doctor ‘credible’ and found my two doctors to be not credible!

  2. Cole Day Rain says:

    I find it HIGHLY suspect that all of the medical evidence was tossed out of the case. I also HIGHLY suspect the “jury instructions” and would love to see a copy of what the jury was instructed, particularly any extra instructions provided during the trial. There needs to be a review of the medical evidence against the complete lack of medical evidence in the case. It takes little effort by a corrupt judge to abuse the standard of evidence in a case and is usually the most obvious display of corruption.

    Because this issue is potentially fatal to the public, it deserves separate review by a special grand jury at the very least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s