Updated April 6, 2012
Dear Ms. Duncan,As promised, below is the link to the blog of what Judge Nugent has gotten the San Diego Sheriff Department involved in. Anything you and Sheriff Gore could do to rectify the situation would be greatly appreciated. I am traumatized and fearful of what Judge Nugent will do next to conceal his, other judiciary and court clerk unlawful (actually criminal) misconduct.Katy’s Exposure Blog Exposing Environmental Health Threats & Those Responsible Short link: http://wp.me/plYPz-3lOThank you in advance for your help,Sharon Noonan Kramer
Original Post of March 27, 2012
March 13, 2012 ~ While Mrs. Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated and being given a false criminal record in the County of San Diego, California; Mr. Kelman was rendering an “Expert Toxicologist Opinion”on behalf of the County of Orange, California. His “expert” opinion was that the Social Security Administration building in which an abnormal number of employees have cancer and autoimmune diseases, is safe for occupancy by the County employees.
December 7, 2011 ~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept 30 ~
MINUTE ORDER: “There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings…. Defendant [Sharon Kramer] has not been charged with a criminal contempt. See Penal Code 166(a)(4)..”.
“166 PC CRIMINAL CONTEMPT * Note: CL – Charge Class (M Misdemeanor)”
March 9, 2012 ~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept 30 ~
MINUTE ORDER: “Ms. Kramer indicates that she will not sign the proposed retraction. Court find Mrs. Kramer is in contempt and sentences her to five consecutive days in custody and directs her to report to the Los Colinas Detention Facility at 9:00 am, March 12, 2012”
March 9, 2012 ~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30 ~
SHARON KRAMER: “I just want to make sure you understand. You’re sending a never impeached US citizen who changed public health policy and was framed for libel by this man [Mr. Kelman’s attorney] to jail for five days. And you understand nobody can even say what I accused Mr. Kelman of lying about with the phrase [sic] “altered his under oath statements”.
Had Mrs.Kramer perjured herself on March 9, 2012 and signed the fraudulent retraction that was crafted by Mr. Kelman’s attorney, Keith Scheuer, for something she did not do – commit libel within in the first public writing, March 2005, of how it became a fraud in policy and US courts that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm -and while under Court threat of unlawful incarceration; her signature would have absolved seven years of judicial, clerk, attorney & plaintiff misconduct aiding to defraud the public & taxpayer over the mold issue. This, while aiding to continue to leave the sick, injured, dying and their families nowhere to turn for medical treatment from intentionally misinformed US physicians or restitution from those responsible for damage.
March 14, 2012 ~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30 ~
After being unlawfully incarcerated for two nights for refusing to commit perjury & given a false criminal record to further harass, demean & discredit her; Sharon Kramer was no longer required by the Court to sign the fraudulent retraction for something she did not do. I.e., commit malicious libel in 2005 by accusing Bruce Kelman of lying about being paid by a think-tank to author the policy statement, “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated With Mold In The Indoor Environment” (2002) for the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine “ACOEM”.
In 2005, Mrs. Kramer accurately wrote that Mr. Kelman’s company, GlobalTox, (now known as Veritox), was paid by the think-tank to author ACOEM’s sister policy statement for the US Chamber of Commerce Instiute for Legal Reform, “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold.” (2003). Mrs. Kramer’s writing of March 2005 exposed how ACOEM, Mr. Kelman, Veritox and the US Chamber were connected in mass marketing the false concept that it had been scientifically proven all claims of illness & death from moldy buildings were only being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science” – for the purpose of misleading US Courts.
She wrote of how Mr. Kelman “altered his under oath statements” while obfucating and trying to say ACOEM was not connected to the US Chamber via his company in mass marketing the scientific fraud while simultaneously having to admit they were closed tied in the deceptive endeavor. The courts suppressed the never impeached evidence that this why she used that phrase as they made the 2005 writing falsely appear to have made an accusation of perjury on the part of Mr. Kelman that the writing did not make.
Several judicuary and clerks involved over the past seven years in unlawfully practicing politics from the bench while framing Mrs. Kramer for libel to the benefit of the affiliates of the US Chamber, are key policy setters for California’s judicial branch – with one chairing the independent state agency that supposedly polices ethics in the judicial branch.
With the aid of Mr. Kelman’s attorney, the courts made Mrs. Kramer’s accurate writing of a mass marketed science fraud that has harmed thousands, falsely appear to be a libelously lie. Court documents and electronic records of the case were falsified. They suppressed much evidence, including the direct evidence that Mr. Kelman did commit perjury in the libel litigation to establish a false theme for Mrs. Kramer’s personal malice for him, while his attorney repeatedly suborned the perjury of Mr. Kelman.
This has aided the science fraud to be able to continue to be used in all US courts and claims handling practices to sell doubt of stakeholder financial responsibility for causation of illness and death from moldy buildings, particularly the insurance industry stakeholders. Thousands of lives have been devastated by the deceit in science aided by the deceit within the judicial branch of California.
On the morning of March 14, 2012, Mrs. Kramer was shackled to a drug addict for an hour bus ride, in the dark, from the Women’s Detention Center in Santee, CA to the Vista, Courthouse after being unlawfully incarcerated for refusing to commit perjury which would aid to defraud the public. She was made to appear before the Court, Plaintiff Counsel and her husband in handcuffs, chains and jail garb with no make up, unbrushed hair & two nights of very little sleep while housed in a dorm setting with criminals and drug addicts.
While feigning confusion, the Court acknowledged the evidence that Mrs. Kramer was framed for libel by Mr. Kelman’s attorney and the prior courts. No longer mandatory, the Court still strongly urged Mrs. Kramer to sign the fraudulent retraction under penalty of perjury after giving her a false criminal record and incarcerating her for refusing to retract something that she did not do – with the underlying matter having broad adverse impact on public health policy and US courts for now seven years past and many years in the future if she had signed.
March 14, 2012 ~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30 ~
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “…I recalled you even said that it wan’t you who had accused the gentleman of perjury or of altering his testimony. It was rather counsel’s efforts to try to make it sound that way. I don’t know if I remember that right or not, if you did say that or that is how you feel. More importantly, I would really strongly urge you give every consideration to agreeing to the proposal counsel made which simply said, “I didn’t mean that”. “I didn’t mean to suggest that”. I’m not saying you have to do that. I’m not. You didn’t hear that from me. But you did hear the important thing.SHARON KRAMER: “No. I did not hear the important thing. I did not hear an apology that the courts framed me for libel seven years ago and I am sitting here in handcuffs for speaking the truth about fraud and policy. If you want to send me back to jail, fine. But I’m not signing an apology for the courts doing that.”…………………………………
SHARON KRAMER: “No. What you’re asking me to do is fraud – to collude with the court to defraud the public after seven years.”
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “Right. But I’m not conditioning my decision this morning on that. That’s not a condition. It was merely a wish.”
SHARON KRAMER “This is a crime.”
March 13, 2012 ~ Orange County, California, Social Security Administration Building ~
While Mrs. Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated and being given a false criminal record, Mr. Kelman was rendering an Opinion on behalf of County of Orange, California that a county building in which an abnormal number of workers have cancer and autoimmune diseases, is safe for occupancy by the County employees.
VOICE Of OC: “environmental health consultant, Bruce Kelman of Veritox Inc., also declared the building safe for ‘regular use without restrictions,’ in a March 13 letter to the county’s outside attorney, Arezou Khonsari.”
[BRIGHT RED words are links & Exhibits attached to pleading]
REQUEST FOR EXPARTE HEARING FOR CLARIFICATION FROM COURT OF INTENT MITIGATE ITS DAMAGE TO SHARON KRAMER OF GIVING HER A FALSE CRIMINAL RECORD
On March 14, 2012, alleged contemner Sharon Kramer was released from two days of unlawful incarceration at the Los Colinas Women’s Detention Center in Santee, California. She was incarcerated for refusing to sign a retraction of something she did not do in a 2005 writing of her’s. The accurate writing has had broad impact on public health; but the courts, Plaintiff Bruce Kelman and his legal counsel, Keith Scheuer made it appear that the writing was a libelous accusation by Kramer that Kelman lied on a witness stand in Oregon about being paid to author the Mold Position Statement for the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine ACOEM. The accurate writing of Kramer’s made no such allegation. Kramer refused to retract the allegation that she never made and for this was sent to jail on March 12, 2012.
The day after her release, on March 15, 2012, Kramer called the Court scheduler of Department 30, North San Diego Superior Court, Cheryl Karini and requested an ExParte hearing as soon as possible. Kramer was charged with Indirect Civil Contempt of Court. While in jail, the charge morphed into Criminal Contempt and a false Misdemeanor was placed on Kramer’s record. Kramer was told by Karini, that the Honorable Judge Nugent said to submit something in writing and notice Plaintiff Bruce Kelman’s attorney, Keith Scheuer and maybe the Court would grant an ExParte hearing after unlawfully incarcerating her for two days and giving her a false criminal record.
This hearing is necessary for the Court to explain how it will be mitigating the damage to Kramer of giving her a false criminal record for Criminal Contempt of Court – a Misdemeanor – for refusing to be coerced into perjury on March 9, 2012 to avoid incarceration. If she had been successfully coerced it would have absolved seven years worth of judicial, clerk and attorney misconduct of framing Kramer for libel, while aiding a false science to continue in US public health policy and US courts over the mold issue. Kramer was never charge with Criminal Contempt of Court, let alone found guilty of it. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is evidence of Kramer’s false criminal record and how it was achieved)
COURT INCARCERATED KRAMER FOR REFUSING TO COMMIT PERJURY WHICH WOULD DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC
February 10, 2012, Scheuer crafted a Proposed Retraction by Sharon Kramer and presented it to the Court. After seven years of falsely and willfully presenting the concept that Kramer accused Kelman of lying on a witness stand in Oregon about being paid to author the Mold Position Statement of ACOEM by the use of her phrase, “altered his under oath statements’ and was guilty of libel with actual malice; Scheuer had the audacity to ask Kramer to sign a statement that she did not accuse Kelman of perjury on the witness stand in Oregon – or go to jail.
Kelman has taken seven years of Kramer’s life and financially ruined her and her family by presenting this false concept of a maliciously libelous accusation of perjury aided by the courts writing in opinions that Kramer made this false accusation. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 2, is the Retraction with a detailed description of why Kramer could not sign it without committing perjury, absolving seven years of judicial, clerk and attorney misconduct while aiding to defraud the public). [BE SURE TO READ THIS LINK!!! It tells the horror story of what happens when one exposes how false science gets mass marketed into policy in the United States for the purpose of defrauding the public & taxpayer over causation of environmental illnesses]
March 9, 2012. Minute Order, Kramer was incarcerated for refusing to be coerced to sign the fraudulent Retraction and apologize for something she did not do. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 3)
Â March 9, 2012 Minute Order: “Ms. Kramer indicates that she will not sign the proposed retraction. Court find Mrs. Kramer is in contempt and sentences her to five consecutive days in custody and directs her to report to the Los Colinas Detention Facility at 9:00 am, March 12, 2012“
March 9, 2012, The Court was aware why Kramer could not sign the Retraction without committing perjury by retracting something she did not do. Nor was it a stipulation of the (Revised) Order & Judgment for [Civil] Contempt of Court she sign the fraudulent retraction to avoid incarceration. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 4, are relevant portions of the sentencing transcript March 9, 2012)
March 9, 2012 The COURT:.. I THEN SENTENCED YOU AS YOU KNOW TO FIVE DAYS BECAUSE I DIDN’T KNOW OF ANYTHING ELSE I COULD DO. ….I WAS IMPRESSED WITH WHAT IS CHARACTERIZED AS A RETRACTION BY SHARON KRAMER, A VERY BRIEF TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT, WHICH WILL BE FILED WITH THE COURT, INVITING YOU TO SIMPLY SAY IT WAS NOT YOUR INTENTION IN WRITING THE PRESS RELEASE TO STATE OR IMPLY THAT DR. KELMAN HAD COMMITTED PERJURY.IT GOES ON “I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT DR. KELMAN COMMITTED PERJURY. I APOLOGIZE TO DR. KELMAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES AT VERITOX, INC. FOR ALL STATEMENTS THAT I HAVE MADE THAT STATED OR IMPLIED OTHERWISE. I SINCERELY REGRET ANY HARM OR DAMAGE THAT I MAY HAVE CAUSED.” ALL THAT WAS NECESSARY WAS FOR YOU TO AGREE TO THAT AND WE WOULDN’T BE HERE TODAY. BUT YOU CHOSE NOT TO, AND THAT’S YOUR RIGHT, CERTAINLY YOUR RIGHT, BUT YOU LEAVE ME WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ALTERNATIVE, AND I THINK YOU KNOW THAT; AND SO THEREFORE, I WILL BE REMANDING YOU TO THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF FOR FIVE DAYS TODAY.
MS. KRAMER: YOUR HONOR, YOU’RE SKIPPING A KEY POINT IN ALL OF THIS. I NEVER ACCUSED MR. KELMAN OF COMMITTING PERJURY. MY WRITING IS 100 PERCENT CORRECT.Â MR. SCHEUER AND THE COURTS MADE IT LOOK LIKE MY WRITING FALSELY ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT TAKING MONEY FOR THE ACOEM MOLD STATEMENT. MY WRITING ACCURATELY STATES THE MONEY WAS FOR THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE…..
THE COURT: YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT HE COMMITTED PERJURY?
MS. KRAMER: I THINK THAT HE ALTERED HIS UNDER OATH STATEMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT I’VE SAID ALL ALONG. HE WAS FLIP-FLOPPING BACK AND FORTH.
MS. KRAMER: I DO UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY, YOUR HONOR. YOU’RE ASKING ME TO APOLOGIZE FOR BEING FRAMED FOR LIBEL AND SPENDING SEVEN YEARS DEFENDING THE TRUTH OF MY WORDS. THIS MAN [Scheuer] IS THE ONE WHO MADE IT LOOK LIKE I ACCUSED MR. KELMAN OF COMMITTING PERJURY IN HIS BRIEFS. WHAT HE DID WAS HE TOOK THE WORDS OF KELLY VANCE, THE ATTORNEY WHO WAS QUESTIONING KELMAN ON THE STAND, AND VANCE WASN’T REAL CLEAR ABOUT THE MONEY FROM THE CHAMBER OR NOT. SO THIS IS WHAT MR. SCHEUER HERE WROTE REPEATEDLY IN HIS BRIEFS. RESPONDENTS BRIEF — AND THIS IS ON THE APPELLATE LEVEL THE SECOND TIME DESCRIBING MR. VANCE’S ACTIONS.
“DURING THE HAYNES TRIAL, THE HAYNES COUNSEL, CALVIN KELLY VANCE, INSINUATED THAT DR. KELMAN HAD ACCEPTED MONEY FROM THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, AND IN RETURN HAD SKEWED THE CONTENT OF THE ACOEM SCIENTIFIC STUDY”
SO THEN HE TOOK IT AND HE FLIPPED THAT TO MY WRITING AND SAID,
“IN HER PRESS RELEASE, APPELLATE STATES UPON VIEWING DOCUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE HAYNES ATTORNEY OF KELMAN’S PRIOR TESTIMONY IN THE CASE IN ARIZONA, DR. KELMAN ALTERED HIS UNDER OATH STATEMENTS ON THE WITNESS STAND. HE ADMITTED THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, A NATIONAL POLITICAL THINK TANK, PAID GLOBALTOX $40,000 TO WRITE A POSITION PAPER.
OKAY, HE STOPS THERE AND LEAVES OUT THE PART, WHERE I SAY
“YEAH, PAID HIM TO AUTHOR A POSITION PAPER FOR THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE“.
THIS MAN MADE IT LOOK LIKE I ACCUSED MR. KELMAN OF PERJURY. AND THEN THE APPELLATE COURT ACTUALLY WROTE IT IN THEIR’S THAT DR. KELMAN DID NOT — DR. KELMAN DID NOT DENY BEING PAID FOR THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE HE ONLY DENIED BEING PAID FOR IT TO WRITE THE ACOEM PAPER. THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT MY WRITING SAID. HE WAS PAID BY THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE TO WRITE THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PAPER. THE ACOEM PAPER WAS JUST A VERSION. SO I’M NOT THE ONE THAT ACCUSED MR. KELMAN OF PERJURY. MR. SCHEUER HERE IS THE ONE FOR SEVEN YEARS WHO CRAFTED THE THING TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I’D ACCUSED HIS CLIENT OF THAT, AND THE REASON BEING IS, SEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY, THE VERY DAY, I WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO PUBLICALLY WRITE OF HOW IT BECAME A FALSE CONCEPT IN US PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY THAT MOLDY BUILDINGS DON’T HARM….I’M NOT THE ONE WHO ACCUSED MR. KELMAN OF PERJURY. MR. SCHEUER MADE IT LOOK THAT WAY, AND THE COURT WROTE THAT I HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT BEING PAID FOR THE ACOEM PAPER, WHEN I DIDN’T.
THE COURT: YOU AND I BOTH KNOW I DON’T WANT YOU TO GO TO JAIL. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THAT AND YOU ACKNOWLEDGED IT. BUT HERE’S THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I’M AFRAID THAT WE’RE LEFT WITH. IS TODAY CONVENIENT?
MS. KRAMER: WELL, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR; BY LAW, YOU CAN’T ORDER ME TO JAIL FOR SOMETHING THAT I CAN’T DO. YOU’VE GOT ME SENTENCED TO FIVE DAYS IN JAIL FOR THESE POSTS. ONE POST IS NOT EVEN MINE. THAT’S KAREN [sic, DEAN]. ANOTHER POST IS NOVEMBER 5TH ON KATIE’S EXPOSURE. THERE IS NO POST OF THAT. AND YOU’RE TELLING ME, THE COURT ORDER SAYS I HAVE TO RETRACT THESE STATEMENTS FROM THESE TWO WEBSITES. BOTH OF THE WEBSITE OWNERS SUBMITTED DECLARATIONS TO YOU SAYING NO, THEY’RE NOT TAKING THEM DOWN.
THE COURT: OR YOU COULD SIMPLY AGREE TO THIS.
MS. KRAMER: I CAN’T AGREE TO THIS. THAT WOULD BE LIKE AGREEING TO — THAT WOULD BE LIKE AGREEING TO GIVE UP WHAT I — THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING THAT I’VE DONE TO CHANGE THE POLICY.
THE COURT: I RESPECT YOUR STANDING ON YOUR PRINCIPLES AND YOUR BELIEFS.
MS. KRAMER: IT’S NOT MY PRINCIPLES, YOUR HONOR. IT’S KIND OF LIKE THIS GUY, THE GUY THAT WAS HERE BEFORE ONLY I’M NOT QUITE AS BAD. [There was a Pro Se litigant who was before the Judge prior to Kramer. He was literally yelling at Judge Nugent for his lack of respect for the First Amendment. Judge Nugent stated to Mrs. Kramer that Mr. Shapiro is “disturbed”.]
THE COURT: YOU’RE NOT EVEN CLOSE. BUT THAT’S NOT THE QUESTION. THE ONLY QUESTION, DOES TODAY WORK FOR YOU? ARE YOU READY TO START DOING THAT FIVE DAYS BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN?
MS. KRAMER: IT’S NOT LAWFUL FOR YOU TO DO THAT.
COURT KNEW KRAMER COULD NOT COMPLY WITH REVISED ORDER TO AVOID INCARCERATION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT
January 19, 2012, the Revised Order stated Kramer was to remove five posts from the Internet containing the words, “altered his under oath statements” by February 6, 2012 or be jailed five days under CCP 1218(a), Civil Contempt. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is the Revised Order)
Code of Civil Procedure §1219(a) states. “The coercive imprisonment must end when the contemner no longer has the power to comply.”
February 10, 2012 The Court was aware that Kramer could not comply with the Revised Order. Website owners refused to remove the posts because of the adverse impact on the public by doing so.
On February 10, 2012, Kramer submitted a Notice To Court Inability To Comply With Unlawful Order & Judgment of January 19, 2012. Attached as exhibit were the declarations of website owners Kevin Carstens and Crystal Stuckey stating they would not remove the five posts, of which one was not even made by Kramer and one that does not exist. The validity of the posts of what has occurred in this case and in Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer that has greatly harmed the public has never been challenged as false or inaccurate. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 & Exhibit 7 are the Declarations of Carstens & Stuckey submitted to the Court) Online:
February 5, 2012 Carstens Declaration
If this court would like to post an explanation of why it is sentencing Sharon Kramer to jail for republishing the phrase the prior courts are evidenced in this courtâ€™s case file to have framed her for libel with actual malice and with one post for which she is to be jailed not even being made by her, I will share the courtâ€™s post with the 2800 members of Sickbuildings.
Until the California judicial system, Mr. Kelman and Mr. Scheuer provide an explanation of why the courts framed a defendant for libel, suppressed the evidence the plaintiff committed perjury, falsified court documents and computer entries, gagged the defendant from republishing the words for which she is evidenced to have been framed by the courts, and is now going to be incarcerate her for refusing silence of how the courtsâ€™ actions continue to harm the 2800 members of Sickbuildings; no posts of Sharon Kramerâ€™s or any other member of Sickbuildings regarding this matter will be retracted.
February 6, 2012 Stuckey Declaration
As the owner of Katy’s Exposure I do not give Sharon Kramer permission to retract the truthful and well evidenced post of September 13, 2011 from Katy’s Exposure, “Is The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Being Misused For Politics In Policy & Litigationâ€¦..And The Fleecing Of The California Taxpayer Over The Mold Issue?” Based on the evidence I have posted on Katy’s Exposure, the answer appears to be a resounding “Yes”.
In relevant part, the November 4, 2011 post on my blog accurately states,“By precluding us from writing the phrase ‘altered his under oath statements’, the words that are the sole cause of action of the case; the courts are essentially taking a case that is a matter of public record and deceptively making it a sealed case where we cannot write of how the courts framed a US citizen for libel while aiding a multi-billion dollar fraud to continue in public health and workersâ€™ comp policies. We cannot publicly evidence what the courts did to frame a US citizen for libel and are now harassing and threatening to block the citizen’s movement (incarceration for Contempt of Court) to keep their misdeeds from coming to greater public light.”
March 1, 2012 The Court called an ExParte hearing of its own accord to postpone the sentencing until March 9, 2012. Kramer could not appear in person. It cost her $78.00 to make the effort to appear telephonically. (which Kramer does not have because the courts, Kelman and Scheuer have been harassing her for seven years). This was for the Court to state that it was postponing sentencing for a week. The Court knew that Kramer had been framed for libel by the prior courts to make her writing falsely appear that she had accused Kelman of lying about being paid to author the ACOEM Mold Statement. It is all over the case file in undeniable evidence. (Attached hereto as Exhbit 8 is the transcript of March 1, 2012)
March 1, 2012 THE COURT:…. AND PLEASE CONSIDER, IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY TO A CONCLUSION, THE OFFER THAT WAS MADE PREVIOUSLY WHEN WE WERE ALL TOGETHER. IT SEEMED SO REASONABLE TO ME. [sign an apology to Kelman that was crafted by Kelman’s attorney for being framed for libel with actual malice by Kelman’s attorney and the courts]
MS. KRAMER: OKAY. WELL, I DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, YOUR HONOR. YOU’RE NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THE UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE THEY FRAMED ME FOR LIBELÂ [OVERLAPPING BY MS. KRAMER.]
THE COURT: I JUST FINISHED TELLING YOU THAT I’M GOING — [OVERLAPPING BY MS. KRAMER.] WHY DO I TRY?
MS. KRAMER: ….I DON’T APPRECIATE THE COURTS TRYING TO SILENCE ME OF WHAT THEY’VE BEEN DOING TO DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC…..YOU CAN PUT ME IN JAIL IF YOU WANT, BUT I’M NOT SHUTTING UP. I’M SORRY, YOUR HONOR, TO BE SO DIRECT, BUT I’VE HAD IT
WHILE KRAMER WAS UNLAWFULLY INCARCERATED, THE CIVIL CONTEMPT CHARGE MORPHED INTO CRIMINAL CONTEMPT-A MISDEAMENOR
December 7, 2011, Kramer had requested a jury trial for the contempt charges. The Court denied the request in a Minute Order stating this was Civil Contempt and Kramer was not entitled to a jury trial. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 9A is the Minute Order of December 7, 2011)
December 7, 2011 “Defendant’s request for a jury trial in the civil contempt matter is denied. There is no constitutional right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings in which the sentence impose does not exceed six months imprisonment. Codispoti v. Pennsylvania (1974) US 506, 512, Mitchell v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Ca. 3d. 1230, 1244. Defendant has not been charged with a criminal contempt. See Penal Code 166(a)(4) and Mitchell. Supra, as 1240
March 12, 2012, While unlawfully incarcerated with no ability to comply with the Revised Order for Civil Contempt, Kramer was given a misdemeanor on her record for Criminal Contempt of Court. Kramer was never charged with Criminal Contempt of Court, let alone found guilty of it. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 9B is the false charge of being incarcerated for Criminal Contempt & false misdemeanor on Kramer’s record)
March 12, 2012 San Diego County Sheriff Record
166 PC CRIMINAL CONTEMPT M * Note: CL – Charge Class (M â€“ Misdemeanor)
This error of the Court to place a false misdemeanor on Kramerâ€™s record will preclude her from being able to obtain a state license and practice her profession as a California licensed real estate agent, – when she is not forced to spend her all of her time defending from the harassment of the courts, Kelman & Scheuer to conceal seven years of judicial, clerk and attorney misconduct â€“ aiding to defraud the public. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 9C the Court failed to state the charge was “Civil” Contempt In its Order Remanding To Sheriff)
COURT HAD CHANGE OF HEART ON MARCH 12th ~ LEFT KRAMER UNLAWFULLY INCARCERATED FOR TWO NIGHTS WITH CRIMINALS
March 12, 2012 Kramer reported to the Los Colinas Women’s Detention Center as she was unlawfully ordered to do by the Court on March 9, 2012, to avoid having a bench warrant issued for her arrest. By the afternoon of March 12th, before Kramer had even spent one night in jail, it was available on the Sheriff’s Department website that the Court had scheduled a hearing on March 14, 2012. At the hearing, the Court stated Kramer did not have to serve five days after she had already spent two nights for refusing to commit perjury & sign the fraudulent retraction of what she did not do. The Court unlawfully left Kramer incarcerated in a dorm setting for two nights with “tweekers”, prostitutes, shop lifters and heroine addicts. On the morning of March 14th, she was shackled to a drug addict for an hour bus ride, in the dark, from the Los Colinas Women’s Detention Center in Santee to the courthouse in Vista.
She was forced to appear before the Court in handcuffs and chains, no make up, unbrushed hair, in prison garb and with barely any sleep for two nights. In the room were Kelman’s attorney, Scheuer; the court appointed attorney, Tracey “Sang” (who Kramer had expressly terminated as a legal advisor on March 9, 2012 and had complained to the Court of her on January 12 & January 18 asking she be dismissed from the case); Kramer’s husband (who the Court called and notified of the hearing); her 91 year old mother and her sister. Kramer’s clothes had been sent to Vista and she was immediately released from Vista – not Los Colinas – after the intentionally humiliating hearing for daring to speak the truth in America adverse to the interest of the US Chamber of Commerce.
After leaving Kramer unlawfully incarcerated for two nights in an unsafe setting and being given a false criminal record, the Court again suggested on March 14, 2012 that Kramer perjure herself and sign the fraudulent Retraction.
What had caused the Court to incarcerate Kramer on March 9th, by March 14th had become merely a wish of the Court after Kramer had been given a false criminal record, spent two nights housed with criminals and punished for refusing to commit perjury which would have concealed seven years of judicial, clerk and attorney misconduct defrauding the public. -. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is the transcript)
March 14, 2012 THE COURT:… I INVITED COUNSEL TO BE HERE OUT OF COURTESY. THIS IS ULTIMATELY MY CALL AND THAT IS MY CALL. AND, HOPEFULLY, YOU’LL BE RELEASED FORTHWITH. I KNOW YOU’LL BE TAKEN BACK TO WHERE YOU JUST CAME FROM, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT YOU’LL BE RELEASED AT THAT TIME.………………………………
THE COURT:…. YOU KNOW WHAT MY HOPE IS — AND I’M NOT ASKING YOU TO RESPOND. I’M NOT ASKING YOU TO SAY ANYTHING. — BUT THAT IS, IT SEEMED TO ME IN OUR LAST MEETING I RECALLED YOU EVEN SAID THAT IT WASN’T YOU WHO HAD ACCUSED THE GENTLEMAN OF PERJURY OR OF ALTERING HIS TESTIMONY, IT WAS RATHER COUNSEL’S EFFORTS TO TRY TO MAKE IT SOUND THAT WAY. I DON’T KNOW IF I REMEMBERED IT RIGHT OR NOT. IF YOU DID SAY THAT OR IF THAT’S HOW YOU FEEL, MORE IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD REALLY STRONGLY URGE THAT YOU GIVE EVERY CONSIDERATION TO AGREEING TO THAT PROPOSAL THAT COUNSEL MADE, WHICH SIMPLY SAID “I DID NOT MEAN THAT.” I DIDN’T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT. I’M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. I’M NOT. DON’T HEAR THAT FROM ME. BUT YOU DID HEAR THE IMPORTANT THING FROM ME.
MS. KRAMER: NO, I DID NOT HEAR THE IMPORTANT THING. I DIDN’T HEAR AN APOLOGY THAT THE COURT’S FRAMED ME FOR LIBEL SEVEN YEARS AGO. I’M SITTING HERE IN HANDCUFFS FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH ABOUT A FRAUD AND POLICY. IF YOU WANT TO SEND ME BACK TO JAIL, FINE, BUT I’M NOT SIGNING AN APOLOGY FOR THE COURT DOING THAT.
THE COURT: OKAY. THAT’S NOT A CONDITION OF ANYTHING….
MS. KRAMER: NO. WHAT YOU’RE ASKING ME TO DO IS COLLUDE WITH THE FRAUD — WITH THE COURT TO DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC AFTER SEVEN YEARS.
THE COURT: RIGHT. BUT I’M NOT CONDITIONING MY DECISION THIS MORNING ON THAT. THAT’S NOT A CONDITION. IT WAS MERELY A WISH.
IRREGULARITY IN TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ~ IT APPEARS IT WAS THE COURT’S INTENT TO FALSELY GIVE KRAMER A CRIMINAL RECORD
March 9, 2012, Kramer noticed the court of her Express Termination of Sang as her court appointed legal advisor. Twice before Kramer had asked that Sang be removed from the case and that the Court, Kelman and Sang stop misrepresenting she was Kramer’s Legal Counsel.
January 12, 2012 and January 18, 2012, after viewing the Proposed Order of January 10th and Revised Proposed Order of January 17th, both prepared by Scheuer, Kramer submitted objections to the Court trying to force Sang on her. Kramer’s Motions regarding misrepresentations in the Order and Revised Order regarding Sang may be read online at: (1.12.12) & (1.18.12)
Â January 6, 2012 THE TRIAL The reason Kramer expressly terminated Sang stems from the Contempt of Court hearing. Sang, who is not a party to the litigation and is retained as no one’s legal counsel testified at the hearing without being sworn in as a witness. She gave testimony adverse to Kramer’s best interest. Sang was in favor of the Court attempting to deem Kramer mentally incompetent with the acknowledgment that she must first be charged with a misdemeanor before the Court could order such examination.
Sang stated in the trial that she, too, has reservations of Kramer’s mental state and had discussed this with Scheuer before the contempt hearing. At no time had Sang ever mentioned mental issues to Kramer and in fact, had commended her stating in an email, “You do good work”. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 in relevant part the transcript of the Civil Contempt of Court hearing,January 6, 2012)
January 6, 2012 THE COURT:… I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IF THIS WERE A TRUE CRIMINAL CASE, PEOPLE VERSUS, I WOULD BE ORDERING HER DOWN TO THE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT FOR AN EXAMINATION, NOT THAT SHE NEEDS INSTITUTIONALIZATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IF SHE’S NOT COMPETENT TO GO FORWARD IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, SHE HAS A RIGHT TO SAY THAT AND HAVE SOMEONE SAY IT FOR HER…..
MS. SANG: I, TOO, HAVE GIVEN THOUGHT TO THIS VERY ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. AND COUNSEL AND I WERE DISCUSSING IT BEFORE THIS HEARING. WHAT I AM — AS A CRIMINAL ATTORNEY, THE MECHANISMS THAT I USUALLY USE IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS IS A 1368.
THE COURT: 1368. I KNOW IT WELL.
MS. SANG: IT’S REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT I BELIEVE WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL. ……………………………….
THE COURT: SHE’S GOT TO BE CHARGED WITH A MISDEMEANOR. I JUST READ THE SECTION. BUT I’M NOT SO SURE THAT WE COULDN’T AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO GET HER EXAMINED. I’VE GOT THE PAPERS. YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD DOCTOR UP AN ORDER AND IF SHE WOULD GO….,
January 6, 2012 Kramer appeared by Affidavit on her own behalf for the Contempt hearing as is her legal right to do. After reading the transcript of the Contempt hearing, Kramer was forced to spend $600.00 (which she does not have after seven years of harassment by the courts, Kelman and Scheuer) to quickly have a mental status exam on January 12, 2012 with Dr. Lorna Swartz. This was to thwart off the “Nice Lady, But Crazy” defense of the court, Sang, Scheuer and Kelman for colluding to defraud the public and concealing seven years worth of judicial, clerk and attorney misconduct.
January 21, 2012 The examination results, which were submitted to the court on February 10, 2012, find Kramer quite competent and doing well considering she has been “in a hostile environment, aligned and subject to libel” for now seven years at the hands of the court. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 with 01.06.12 TRIAL Exhibit 11 ~ Court, Sang & Scheuer were attempting a mental incompetence defense on behalf of courts and Kelman.)
Kramer’s appearance 1.06.12 by AFFIDAVIT
January 6, 2012 I am not physically appearing before any judge with unbridled Contempt of Court and incarceration power, who is i.) suppressing the uncontroverted evidence in his case file that all prior courts suppressed the evidence the plaintiff committed perjury in a prior case to establish needed reason for malice, ii.) is suppressing the evidence that the plaintiffâ€™s attorney repeatedly suborned the perjury, and iii.) is suppressing the evidence that the prior courts in the prior case, KELMAN & GLOBALTOX v. KRAMER, framed me for libel over a writing impacting public health and safety.
This court’s Temporary Injunctive Relief Order (TIRO), is precluding me from writing and evidencing the corruption of prior courts by stopping me from writing the exact words for which I was framed for libel in the prior case, “altered his under oath statements”.
The direct evidence in this court’s case file is that the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court framed me for libel in their 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion to make my writing appear false. Then in their 2010 Appellate Opinion suppressed the evidence of what they had done in 2006. In their unpublished anti-SLAPP Opinion of November 2006, made it appear that I had accused Kelman of getting caught on the witness stand lying about being paid by the Manhattan Institute think-tank to make edits to a position statement for a medical trade association, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, ACOEM.
KRAMER HAS A $19, 343.95 LIEN ON HER PROPERTY â€“ NO EXPLANATION GIVEN BY COURT
February 23, 2012, Scheuer placed a judgment lien on Kramer’s name in the amount of $19,343.95. (Attached hereto as Exhibit 12)
October 20, 2011 False CCMS entry, it is stated that a Tentative Ruling was issued regarding Kramer’s Motion To Nullify the Void Temporary Relief Order “TIRO”. No such Tentative Ruling was ever issued. The Court gave no explanation for this denial or awarding of costs in writing or orally at anytime. Yet it is in the Revised Order & Judgment For Contempt of Court. (Attached hereto collectively as Exhibit 13 & Exhibit 14 is the false court record stating a Tentative Ruling was issued on October 20, 2011 and the actual record showing no Tentative Ruling was ever issued.)
October 21, 2011 The Transcript of oral argument in which the Court denied Kramer’s Motion to Nullify the TIRO with no explanation.
January 6, 2012 The Transcript of the Contempt of Court hearing again gave no explanation for the denial or the $19,343.95, (or all the undisputed evidence of the prior courts’ unlawful actions that are suppressed in this Court’s case file).
Â Kramer’s Motion was to lift the TIRO because if she could not write the words for which she was framed for libel with actual malice in the prior case without violating a court order, altered his under oath statements.; she also cannot write of the misconduct that caused her to be falsely deemed guilty of libel with actual malice over the first public writing of how it became a fraud in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. There is nothing frivolous about this or what the courts, particularly the Appellate Court, did in Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer to frame a whistleblower of fraud in policy for libel with actual malice.
October 17, 2011 Scheuer submitted an Opposition to Kramer’s Motion. Under the pretense that Kramer’s Motion to Nullify the TIRO was “frivolous” and Kramer was a “vexatious litigant”. Â Without stating what was “frivolous” or “vexatious” the Court denied Kramer’s Motion to nullify the TIRO.
As brought to the Courts attention before in prior pleadings – and simply ignored – the court must find several elements to hold an action frivolous or in bad faith: (1) The action must be determined to be without merit; (2) the action is prosecuted for an improper motive, including harassment or delay; or (3) the action indisputably has no merit, when any reasonable attorney would agree that the action is totally and completely without merit. Winick Corp. v County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 (1986) 185 CA3d 1170, 1176, 230 CR 289. The finding must be beyond a reasonable doubt if the proceeding results in punitive sanctions. 37 CA4th at 1086.
UNDER THREAT OF THE APPELLATE COURT CLERK, KRAMER IS PRECLUDED FROM APPEAL/WRIT FOR THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT & ORDER
On October 5, 2011, Kramer was politely threatened by the “Clerk” of the Appellate Court that should she file a lawsuit for his falsification of court records as to who were the parties on appeal and who prevailed in trial, the Appellate Court would deem her to be a vexatious litigant. The Clerk stated this to Kramer in a telephone call he made to her that this is what would occur if she pursued legal action for the Government Code 6200 violations. Kramer’s follow up FAX to Kelly’s threatening phone call regarding the falsified remittitur of December 20, 2011 and alteration of the CCMS as to who were disclosed parties on appeal may be read online at: (Attached hereto as Exhibit 15 collectively is the falsified Remittitur & alteration of the Appellate Court’s CCMS to match, with the evidence the Appellate Clerk knows he falsified the Remittiter awarded costs to undisclosed parties, aided to conceal that in the anti-SLAPP of 2006, Bryan Hardin was an undisclosed party on Appeal & knows he changed the CCMS entry of Certificate of Interested Parties to match the falsified Remittitur)
October 5, October 12, & October 17, 2011, So on October 5, 2011, the Clerk of the Appellate Court, called Kramer and threatened her if she pursued legal action for his Government Code 6200 violations of falsifying court documents. The threat was that the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Court would deem Kramer to be a “vexatious litigant”. On October 17, 2011, Kelman submitted an Opposition to Kramer’s Motion to Nullify with the statement that Kramer is a “vexatious litigant”. The Letter from Kramer to Clerks of the Appellate & Superior Court (who are both members of the Judicial Council) on September 11, 2011 questioning the discrepancies in Case Record of the disclosure of parties on appeal, etc., was attached as exhibit in its online version to Kelman’s Complaint (10.12.11) of why Kramer should be held in contempt.
In other words, Kramer sought help from the Clerks to correct errors of awarding costs to wrong parties and ended up unlawfully incarcerated with a false criminal record while Clerk of the Court Government Code 6200 violations – which are criminal – have continued to go unaddressed.
(09.11.11) Kramer’ s LETTER to Appellate & Superior Court Clerks re: discrepancies in the Case Record
(10.05.11) Kramer’s follow up FAX to Clerk after he threatened her that McConnell would deem her Â a “vexatious” if she pursued action for his record falsification
(10.12.11) Scheuer’s COMPLAINT for Contempt of Court with letter to Clerks in its online version as exhibit of Contempt
(10.17.11) Scheuer’s OPPOSITION to Kramer’s Motion to Nullify the TIRO falsely stating Kramer has been found to be a “vexatious litigant”.
October 28, 2011, Kramer was able to have the judgment document amended from Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer to finally reflect that she prevailed over GlobalTox in trial and was awarded costs. The Appellate Opinion of September 2010, falsely stated this judgment had already been entered – when they knew it had not. The CCMS was then falsified on December 23, 2011 to match the false judgment that was REALLY on record, i.e., that Kelman & GlobalTox prevailed in trial. It is still not a valid judgment on file, even after Kramer was able to be recognized as a prevailing party on October 28, 2011 because, as the Court is aware, it shows Kelman was awarded costs on December 18, 2008 which is not even possible and does not match with the Abstract of Judgment recorded. Judgment amended on October 28, 2011, online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/eb670f25d6.pdf
January 20, 2009 The Abstract of Judgment and Lien placed on Kramer’s property, shows costs were awarded to Kelman on September 24, 2008 -not December 18, 2008 (and included costs incurred by GlobalTox). The judgment document with only Kelman being awarded costs, supposedly on December 18, 2008, is the sole foundation document for the second case, Kelman v. Kramer, that Scheuer submitted to this Court as a valid judgment document on November 4, 2010 This Court being provided evidence on September 22, 2011, that the judgment document from the prior case that this entire case is founded upon is fraudulent along with how the courts framed Kramer for libel, etc., may be read online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/9664d78467.pdf (huge pdf)
December 18, 2008 The evidence that the judgment document from the first case that this entire case is founded upon is fraudulent and that Kelman placed a fraudulent lien on Kramer’s property as of January 20, 2009, with interest accruing from three weeks before he even submitted costs & three months before the court supposedly awarded him costs on December 18, 2008 may be read online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/dfed8e0765.pdf
Kramer has never been found to be a vexatious litigant. She has only filed one lawsuit in her entire life, 2004, via an attorney. The case was dismissed by Judge Nugent in a Motion for Summary Judgment. Kramer did not appeal. The numerous false court documents and unchecked false statements that always seem to go in Kelman’s favor are undeniable. Kramer has a lien with interest accruing before costs were even submitted. She is to pay costs on appeal to undisclosed “Respondents”.
This Court denied Kramer’s Motion to Nullify the TIRO with no explanation given and awarded Kelman $19,343.95 via the Revised Order & Judgment for [Civil] Contempt of Court, with Kramer seeking help from the Clerks of the Court to correct the false court documents being part of the evidence of why Kramer is in Contempt. This, all under the false pretense that she is in contempt, needed to be locked away and deemed a criminal because she repeated the words, “altered his under oath statements”.
EXPARTE COMMUNICATION WITH PLAINTIFF & FALSIFICATION OF COURT RECORD WHEN DRAFTING THE ORDER & JUDGMENT FOR CONTEMPT
“The trial judge should personally prepare the contempt order and not delegate that duty to counsel or the clerk. The judge should take meticulous care in preparing the order to increase the likelihood that it will be upheld.” Hawk v Superior Court (1974) 42 CA3d 108, 125 n16, 116 CR 713.
March 9, 2012, Kramer submitted a Request to the Court that the Government Code 6200 violations, secretions and alterations of records be corrected in the online court record. This included the omission that Scheuer, not the Court, drafted the Revised Order & Judgment for Contempt submitted to the Court onJanuary 17, 2012 and drafted the original order on January 11, 2012. While other omission were corrected and added to the record, these two entries were not.
This begs the questions: How did Scheuer know that he needed to draft a revision? Why has it been secreted from the record that Scheuer, not the Court, wrote the original Order and the Revised Order? Why was the record not amended to properly add that Scheuer wrote the Original and the Revised when Kramer brought this to the Court’s attention on March 9, 2012? Other omissions were added upon her Notice to the Court.
March 9, 2012 Kramer’s Notice To Court & Counsel of Government Code 6200 Violations provided evidence that these documents were missing from the electronic case record:
“1/11/2012 Omitted (Proposed) Order and Judgment of Contempt filed by Kelman, Bruce J, which falsely states Ms. Tracey Sang was representing Mrs.Kramer at the trial. (Ms. Sang, without being sworn in as a witness, was encouraged by the Court to testify. She testified that the Courts’ only option was to have a psychological examination of Mrs. Kramer (who the court assigned Ms. Sang to â€œhelpâ€ with a legal defense, October 21, 2011); and she had discussed this with plaintiff counsel before the hearing. Omitted Proposed Order read online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/9b1237ef39.pdf
1/17/2012 Omitted: (Revised) Proposed Order and Judgment of Contempt filed by Kelman, Bruce J. This was revised after Mrs. Kramerâ€™s Notice To Court on January 12, 2012 to still falsely state Ms. Sang is Mrs. Kramer’s Counsel, but that she did not testify on Mrs. Kramer behalf at the Contempt of Court hearing. Read online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/1056e73b21.pdf
(THE FOLLOWINGÂ OMISSION WASÂ CORRECTED AFTER MARCH 9, 2012, BUT NOT THE OTHERS) 1/18/2012 Omitted SECOND NOTICE – Other (To Court Regarding Tracey Sang) filed by Sharon Kramer, noting irregularities in trial proceedings, failure of Judgment to state this is Civil Contempt, etc. Read Online at http://freepdfhosting.com/cdc000a511.pdf
1/19/2012 FALSIFICATION OF COURT RECORD Mr. Kelman did not submit a Proposed Order on this date. Judge Nugent did not sign a Proposed Order on this date. He signed a Revised Proposed Order while ignoring the evidence in Mrs. Kramer’s Notice of 1/18/2012 which is (was) omitted from the online ROA.”
January 11, 2012 The original by Scheuer, online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/c8ad376455.pdf
January 17, 2012 The revised by Scheuer at: http://freepdfhosting.com/0944496b46.pdf
(Attached hereto as Exhibit 16, is the CCMS with both draftings by Scheuer, January 11th and January 17th omitted from the record even after Kramer’s request to amend & Proofs of Service of Scheuer writing the Order & Revised Order) Online: http://freepdfhosting.com/a8750ae4cb.pdf
ROUNDING OUT THE REWARDING OF BILLION$ IN BAD BEHAVIOR
November 19, 2006 The undeniable evidence that is being suppressed in this Court’s case file is that the current Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance crafted an anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion in November of 2006 in which she took a truthful writing of a fraud in policy and made it appear to be a false accusation of perjury.Â Additionally, she suppressed the evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury to establish false theme for personal malice. She also suppressed the evidence that the plaintiffâ€™s expert opinion of denying causation of illness based on a toxicology model was found to be a “huge leap” of science in a litigation in Sacramento. And she suppressed the evidence that a newly retired Deputy Director of NIOSH, Bryan Hardin, was an undisclosed party to the litigation. A brief description of the evidence she suppressed is online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/29f946dad9.pdf
September 14, 2010 The then Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council suppressed the evidence of what the Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance had done in 2006 to frame a whistle blower of fraud in policy for libel with actual malice with all courts following her lead. Along with concealing that the Administration of the Court, Clerk of the Appellate Court & Judicial Council member had falsified the Remittitur under seal of the State of California. Kramer’s Petition for Rehearing of September 30, 2010 provides the direct evidence of exactly how they did it. Online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/1c081515dd.pdf
April 30, 2010 The Regents of the University of California, who generate income every time one of their employees testifies as an expert witness (they keep over half the money) were informed that their imprimatur being on the US Chamber’s Mold Position Statement was being used in a litigation in Arizona. The university’s name was lending false credibility to Kelman’s testimony that a moldy apartment could not have caused the deaths of two newborns all claims of illness and death from “toxic mold” were only being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”.
The Regents did nothing to stop the California Constitution, Article IX, Section 9 violation of the University name being misused for political and sectarian purposes on behalf of the insurance industry in a litigation involving deceased infants and a $25 million dollar insurance policy. Online of the Regents being informed of how the public university’s name was being used to defraud the public: http://freepdfhosting.com/b8b0e0e95f.pdf
Â December 2010 Mayoral Candidate and current District Attorney for San Diego County, was provided the direct evidence that the Appellate Court justices framed a whistle blower of fraud in policy – which is workers comp insurer fraud in the State of California – for libel with actual malice; as they suppressed the evidence that the plaintiff and author of the workers comp fraud committed perjury to establish malice. Although heavily funded to stop insurance fraud, the District Attorney claimed she could not intercede. A brief overview of some of what the District Attorney, the California Attorney General and the Governor know of this case that has aided the insurance fraud aided to continue by what the courts have done over this case is online at: http://freepdfhosting.com/1c081515dd.pdf
December 14, 2011 The California State Bar, whose job it is to protect the public from unethical attorneys claimed there was no evidence Kelman committed perjury to establish malice or that Scheuer repeatedly suborned it.Â They made this claim while simultaneously claiming the lost the file.
Kramer submitted a second complaint against Scheuer. This one was for commingling of his clients funds and placing a fraudulent lien on Kramer’s property with interest accruing from three weeks before he even submitted his clients’ costs, along with submitting (and awarded) costs incurring by his client that Kramer prevailed over in trial, GlobalTox. The State Bar did not even bother to send a response in writing that they received the complaint of December 14, 2011.
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles, was oddly sent to San Francisco. In a telephone conversation with the State Bar in January of 2012, no explanation could be given as to why the State Bar did not even acknowledge receipt of the complaint and the undeniable evidence of a California licensed attorney commingling client funds and placing a false lien on the opposition’s property. Online is the complaint not even acknowledged as received by the State Bar, December 2011: http://freepdfhosting.com/ff3341cf93.pdf
October 2005 Last but not least and as found in this Court’s case file. One month after the first court denied Kramer’s anti-SLAPP motion in September of 2005, while suppressing the evidence that Kelman committed perjury to establish needed reason for malice & suppressing the evidence that Kramer gave a logical and unimpeached reason for her use of the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” in the first public writing of how the US Chamber was connected to ACOEM in marketing false science into policy over the mold issue Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed the false science of Kelman and Hardin over the mold issue â€“ the ACOEM Mold Statement – into California’s workers comp policy under the platform of “Workers Comp Reform”. ACOEM wrote the workers comp guildelines under SB889. It proved to be a field day forCalifornia workers comp insurers while many injured workers lives were forever ruined and taxpayer picked up the tab.
As a result of Schwarzenegger’ endorsement of the ACOEM Mold Statement [which Brown has removed], workers made ill from moldy buildings could obtain no benefits and no medical treatment. Insurers were able to shift the cost of illness off of themselves and onto the defrauded public. Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of the ACOEM Mold Statement in CA workers comp policy October 2005 is no longer available on the Internet. [It should be noted, Schwarzenegger was sued for failure to disclose mold in a real estate sale, 2004]
It is deceptive nonsense that two PhDs, Kelman & Hardin, could apply math to data taken from a single rodent study and profess they have scientifically proven all claims of illness and death from moldly buildings are only being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science” Yet that is exactly what the California courts have aided to continue by being willing participants in a malicious, strategic litigation against public participation, carried out by unlawful means and would now like their role in the matter to stay hidden from public light.
If Kramer is lying about the courts unlawfully practicing politics from the bench, unlawfully incarcerating a US citizen because she would not agree to conspire to defraud the public by signing a fraudulent apology for being framed for libel by the courts over a writing impacting public health; and incarcerated and given a false criminal record to try to scare her, humiliate her and discredit the truth of her words about the courts colluding to defraud; it would be real simple for this Court to prove Kramer is liar. All the Court would need to do is produce two pieces of evidence to corroborate Kramer was not framed for libel and the courts did not reward Kelmanâ€™s use of perjury to establish malice while strategically litigating against public participation. Those two pieces are:
1. That Kramer was ever impeached as to her belief that Kelman “altered his under oath statements” while obfuscating to hide how ACOEM was connected to the US Chamber to market false science into policy over the mold issue for the purpose of misleading the courts.
2. The direct evidence proving that Kelman did not commit perjury and Scheuer did not suborn it to establish a false theme for Kramer’s purported malice while strategically litigating against public participation.
The Court cannot do it. The evidence does not exist that Kramer was ever impeached.
Â Kramer’s writing of March 2005 is completely accurate that the exchange of think-tank money to Kelman’s company, GlobalTox/Veritox, was for the US Chamber’s Mold Statement of 2003. The Court, with no legal grounds to do so, incarcerated Kramer for refusing to perjure herself and apologize for something she did not do, i.e., libelously accuse Kelman of lying on a witness stand in Oregon about being paid by the think-tank to author the ACOEM Mold Statement of 2002.
There can be no question that Kramer believes Kelman was obfuscating, flip flopping and altering his under oath statements when force to discuss the close connection of the US Chamber to ACOEM while setting false policy over the mold issue. Since July of 2005, she has provided all courts involved in this travesty of justice with the evidence that this is what she meant by the use of this phrase. even citing to the exact words of Kelman’s from the Oregon transcript that she considers obfuscating and altering.
All courts suppressed the evidence that a defendant in a libel suit was never impeached as to the subjective belief in the validity of her words â€“ with the Appellate Court going out of their way in 2010 to suppress the evidence they did this in the 2006 anti-SLAPP as did the trial court and the court that denied the MSJ (2008) and anti-SLAPP (2005).
Kramer was even willing to be unlawfully incarcerated if that’s what it took to defend the truth of her words because so many lives continue to be devastated by the unlawful actions of the California judiciary, clerks and attorneys involved in this litigation. These are libel cases, in which the second case precludes the defendant from writing of what the courts did in the first case to frame her for libel over the words, “altered his under oath statements” and its continued damaged to her and the public. The first prong of libel is that must be proven that the defendant does not believe the truth of their words. If there is anyone who the courts cannot prove this, as she has gone above and beyond to defend the truth of her words, it is Kramer.
The Appellate Court, twice, falsely made it appear that Kramer had libelously accused Kelman of lying about being paid by the think-tank to author the ACOEM Mold Statement of 2002, even deleting 14 key lines from the middle of the transcript of Kelman’s testimony to change the color of what occurred (see Exhibit 2, pages 7-10) . Kelman’s attorney did a bait and switch in his briefs of taking the words of the attorney questioning Kelman in Oregon, Kelly Vance; made Vance’s words appear to be the writing of Kramer’s and a false accusation of perjury. In their 2010 Appellate Opinion, this evidence of Scheuer’s deception was suppressed by the Appellate Court. (see Exhibit 2, page 8, 9)
The court cannot erase history and Kramer cannot retract what the courts, Kelman and his attorney have done to her for daring to speak the truth in America of a fraud in policy over the mold issue involving the US Chamber of Commerce & an expert witness who was trying to hide from a jury how the false science was marketed into policy for the purpose of misleading US courts and while harming thousands.
By this Court enjoining Kramer from being able to write the words for which she was framed for libel by prior courts in May of 2011, this Court has also played a significant role in aiding a fraud in policy to be able to be used to sell doubt of causation of environmental illness in all US courts.
(I’m sorry Judge Nugent, its obvious you do not want to be here – but you know that is the truth) That is why Kramer sought help from the Judicial Council and the Chief Justice on September 11, 2011 only to be unlawfully incarcerated and given a false criminal record.
An adjudication for indirect contempt requires that the facts show the contemner’s willful and contemptuous refusal to obey a valid order of the court. In re Cassil (1995) 37 CA4th 1081, 1087“1088, 44 CR2d 267 (accused does not have burden of proving inability to comply with order). For contempt for willful disobedience of a court’s order (see CCP §1209(a)(5)), include facts establishing the court’s jurisdiction to make the disobeyed order and the contemnerâ€™s knowledge of the order, ability to comply, and willful disobedience. See In re Cassil (1995) 37 CA4th 1081, 1086,1088, 44 CR2d 267. The order must be in writing or entered in the court minutes; an oral order that has not been reduced to writing or entered in the minutes is insufficient to support an adjudication of contempt. In re Marcus (2006) 138 CA4th 1009, 1015â€“1016, 41 CR3d 861; Ketscher v Superior Court (1970) 9 CA3d 601, 604â€“605, 88 CR 357. The order must also be definitive; otherwise, it lacks the certainty required to punish in a proceeding that is regarded as criminal or quasicriminal. 9 CA3d
The Court has clearly violated its Contempt of Court jurisdiction by, among other actions, unlawfully incarcerating Kramer and giving her a false criminal record when she refused to perjure herself and sign a retraction for something she did not do – accuse Kelman of lying about being paid by a think-tank to author the Mold Position Statement for the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine.
The Fourth District Division One Appellate Court justices falsely made a truthful writing to be libelous with the aid of Kelman’s. There can be no doubt that this Court understands. This Court’s actions have caused extreme damage to Kramer physically, financially and emotionally. This is piled on to the seven years of damage to Kramer by prior courts, Kelman and Scheuer framing her for libel with actual malice over a writing impacting public health. An ExParte hearing is required for the Court to explain its plan to mitigate this damage to Kramer and to remove her false criminal record for alleged Civil Contempt of Court.
March 21, 2012
Sharon Kramer, Pro Per
DECLARATION OF SHARON KRAMER
Judge Nugent, please stop abusing judicial power to harass me. You are harming not only me and my family, but also the public. On March 13, 2012, I was unlawfully sitting in jail and being given a false criminal record for daring to speak the truth in America of a fraud and public health policy and for refusing to commit perjury by signing a retraction for something I did not do. Mr. Kelman & Mr. Scheuer, did it with the aid of the courts suppressing evidence and twisting a truthful writing into a libelous accusation of perjury while making it appear to make a false accusation that the writing did not make.
At the same time, on March 13, 2012, Mr. Kelman was issuing an “expert opinion” that workers in the Social Security Administration office in Orange County, California were scientifically determined to be reasonably safe from harm from an exposure to PCE based solely on a toxicology model and a questionable permissible exposure limit “PEL”.
There has been an abnormal amount of cancers and autoimmune diseases among the workers in this building. Because of Mr. Kelman’s phoney expert opinion, the questionable PEL standard and very limited testing, the workers are unscientifically and falsely being told they are proven to be safe and they must keep working in the building.
County, Workers Remain at Odds Over Safety of Office Building
“Nonetheless, county officials say the authoritative statements from two environment consultants who reviewed toxic tests taken this month are enough to warrant the cancellation of the evacuation plans….environmental health consultant, Bruce Kelman of Veritox Inc., also declared the building safe for ‘regular use without restrictions,’ in a March 13 letter to the county’s outside attorney, Arezou Khonsari.”
It is not science now nor was it ever to conclude safety for all individuals based solely on toxicology models and resultant questionable PELs founded on many hypotheticals that do not and cannot address real world exposures. THAT is what I really brought to light was occurring over the mold issue in my writing of March 2005, i.e., how they were able to market this false science into policy for the purpose of denying financial liability for causation of illness and death from exposure to contaminants found in water damaged buildings. It’s the same game, different day with the PCEs.
Everyday that you let this harassment of me continue and suppress the evidence that Mr. Kelman committed perjury to establish needed reason for malice as the courts framed me for libel in Kelman & Globaltox v. Kramer, -and all courts suppressed the evidence; someone’s health is being potentially endangered. You are aiding the science of toxicology to be misused & abused to falsely deny causation of environmental illnesses leaving the vulnerable to a horrible lifetime of sickness and early death while the cost burden for worker illness is shifted from insurer to taxpayer.
It is beyond ludicrous to think that all of this wrath is over the word “altered” (while billions in insurer fraud has been allowed to continue by what the courts have done to me and continue to do).
Please stop, Judge Nugent, I am begging you. Correct the continuing damage to me, my family and to the public by the Appellate Court practicing politics from the bench in Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer – not practicing law. Please stop trying to conceal what they have done to me and the continued damage to the public from it. I am not the liar or the criminal in these litigations. Please stop punishing me and trying to discredit and silence me for telling the truth of how industry controls its liability for causation of environmental illnesses by bastardizing the sciences of toxicology and marketing -while so many lives hang in the balance.
I declare under penalty of perjury and the laws of State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and this declaration is executed by me this day, March 21, 2012, in Escondido, California.
Submitted as Respectfully as Possible,
Sharon Kramer, Pro Per
Submitted To Court, March 23, 2012 REQUEST FOR EXPARTE RE: COURT’S INTENT TO REMOVE FALSE CRIMINAL RECORD OF DEFENDANT SHARON KRAMER
EXHIBIT 1. ~How Civil Contempt of Court Morphed To False Criminal Contempt & A Fraudulent Misdemeanor On Mrs. Kramer’s Record
EXHIBIT 2. ~ March 9, 2012 ~ Why Kramer Refused To Commit Perjury & Defraud Public While Aiding To Conceal Seven Years Of Judicial, Clerk & Attorney Misconduct By Signing The Fraudulent Retraction
EXHIBIT 3. ~ March 9, 2012 ~ Courts Incarcerated Kramer Because She Refused To Sign The Fraudulent Retraction Which Would Have Absolved Judicial, Clerk & Attorney Misconduct.
EXHIBIT 4. ~ March 9, 2012 ~ Sentencing Transcript – Court Knew It Was Unlawful To Send Kramer To Jail
EXHIBIT 5. ~ January 19, 2012 ~ Revised Order & Judgment States Nothing Of Kramer Having To Sign Kelman’s Proposed (fraudulent) Retraction, Submitted To Court On February 10, 2012
EXHIBIT 6. ~February 5, 2012 ~ Declaration Of Kevin Carstens Stating Evidence Of Court Corruption Harming Public Will Not Be Removed From 2800 Member Support Group, Sickbuilidngs@YahooGroups.Com
EXHIBIT 7. ~ February 6, 2012 ~ Declaration Of Crystal Stuckey, Owner of Katy’s Exposure, Stating Evidence Of Court Corruption Harming Public Will Not Be Removed From Katy’s Blog
EXHIBIT 8. ~ March 1, 2012 ~ Transcript of ExParte Hearing Called By Court
EXHIBIT 9. ~ December 7, 2011 to March 12, 2012 ~ HOW The Court & Sheriff’s Department Went From Civil Contempt To Criminal Contempt To A False Misdemeanor On Kramer’s Record
EXHIBIT 10. ~ March 14, 2012 ~ After Kramer Had The False Misdemeanor On Her Record She Was No Longer Required To Sign The False Retraction For Which She Was Unlawfully Incarcerated.
EXHIBIT 11. ~ January 6 & January 21, 2012 ~ Contempt Of Court Transcript In Which They Were Going For A Mental Incompetency Of Mrs. Kramer Defense For Judicial Misconduct & Mental Status Evaluation Of Mrs. Kramer Stating She Is Doing Well Considering The “Hostile Environment Of Being Aligned And Subject To Libel”
EXHIBIT 12. ~ February 23, 2012 ~ $19,343.95 Lien On Kramer’s Name, No Explanation Given By Court
EXHIBIT 13. ~ October 20, 2011 ~ Falsification of Court Case Management System “CCMS” Stating a Tentative Ruling Was Issued
EXHIBIT 14. ~ October 20, 2011 ~ Evidence That No Tentative Ruling Was Issued – No Explanation Given Why The Court Would Not Nullify The Order Which Stopped Kramer From Being Able To Write Of What The Courts Are Doing That Is Defrauding The Public.
EXHIBIT 15. ~ September 11, 2011 ~ Excerpt of Letter To Clerk Of Appellate Court RE: His Falsification Of The Remittitur, December 20, 2011 & Falsified Alteration of CCMS September 9, 2009 in Kelman & GlobalTox v Kramer.Â (This Letter from Kramer to the Clerk of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court was submitted as exhibit by Kelman on October 17, 2011 as to why Kramer should be held in Contempt of Court. It caused a call from the Clerk to Kramer on October 5, 2011 with a threat that Justice McConnell would deem Kramer to be a vexatious litigant, should she pursue legal action for the Clerk record falsification. What the Clerk Was Aiding To Conceal By This Falsification is MASSIVE FRAUD over the mold issue, implicating the involvment of the Federal Government by concealing that a retired Deputy Director of CDC/NIOSH – who is also a co-owner of Veritox & co-author of ACOEM’s & US Chamber’s Mold Position has been an undisclosed party to the litigation since the beginning in 2005. This Government Code 6200 Violation by the Clerk is concealing that in both the 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion and the 2010 Appellate Opinion they suppressed the evidence of the CDC NIOSH link – Bryan Hardin – being an undisclosed party, Government Code 6200 violations are criminal and pushable by up to four years in prison)
EXHIBIT 16. ~January 11 & January 17, 2012 ~ Omission that Scheuer – not the Court – Wrote the Proposed Order & Judgment and Revised Order & Judgment. (Kramer brought this and other omissions in the electronic case file to the Court’s attention, March 9, 2012. While other omissions were corrected, these two were not.
Return To HOME PAGE