On April 24, 2012, when asked the direct question, “In Kelman vs. Kramer Case No. 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC do you have jurisdiction to hold hearings, Your Honor?”, Judge Thomas Nugent refused to answer the “yes” or “no” question. There were five court watchers in his courtroom who heard the Judge refuse to state whether he had jurisdiction over a case. Judge Nugent then proceeded to set a date for a new Contempt of Court hearing – in a case where he cannot even directly state, “Yes, I have jurisdiction over this case”.
April 24, 2012 Court Filing in PDF
Sharon Noonan Kramer
2031 Arborwood Place
Escondido, CA 92029
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH DISTRICT
SHARON KRAMER, Petitioner v.BRUCE J. KELMAN, Respondent
|CASE NO. 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC SECOND NOTICE OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE UNDER EXERCISED APPLICATION OF GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED UNALIENABLE RIGHTS Unlawful Proposed Trial Scheduled (Civil) & Unlawful Proposed Contempt of Court Hearing Scheduled (Not stated Civil or Criminal), & Unlawful Respondent Scheduled Exparte Exparte Hearing Date:April 24, 2012 9am
Thomas P. Nugent Presiding
1. COMES NOW, Sharon Noonan Kramer, a woman, a natural –born citizen, herself, in forma pauperis, neither corporation nor business entity, as a member of the People proclaimed in the United States Constitution, afforded all rights and defense therein, having waived none of them, acting as [h]er own agent (hereinafter “Kramer”), and files this Continuing Notice of Special Appearance in response to improper hearings illegally scheduled at North San Diego County Superior Court.
2. Kramer is present, only under special visitation on the grounds that she has a security interest in the subject matter of the above-styled cause that supersedes the unsupported and fraudulent claims of the other party.
3. Kramer DOES NOT submit to this court’s nor any other foreign jurisdiction, in the above-styled cause, nor to ANY reference thereto, in other cases relating/pending to the relevant issues of this case, where there are facts (in equity) that remain in controversy. Any assertion to the contrary is patently false and specifically denied as Kramer hereby submits these contemporaneous challenges to this and ANY court, and furthermore DEMANDS through statutory mandates and full disclosure PROOF as required, of this Court’s procurement of jurisdiction.
4. Kramer exercises [h]er constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights/liberties, and statutory or procedural defenses, NOT waiving any of [h]er constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights to remedy, in the free exercise of [h]er U. S. Constitutional First Amendment right for redress of grievances.
5. That Kramer has filed notice of this Court’s lack of jurisdiction over this and any cause of action.
6. That on April 12, 2012the Court stated on record, “I understand” “I understand” in reply to Kramer’s statement, “I am not showing up in your courtroom tomorrow. You have no jurisdiction”
7. That Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated by this Court between March 12 and March 14, 2012 for refusing to be coerced to sign a fraudulent document under penalty of perjury which was presented to the Court on February 10, 2012 by Respondent’s counsel which states, “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury. I apologize to Dr. Kelman and his colleagues at Veritox, Inc,. for all the statements I have made that stated or implied otherwise.”
8. That on July 15, 2012, this Court deemed it “frivolous” that all prior courts suppressed Kramer’s uncontroverted and direct evidence that Respondent committed perjury to manufacture a needed theme for malice and Respondent counsel repeatedly suborned the perjury while strategically litigating against Kramer over a writing impacting public health.
9. That this Court falsified Kramer’s Sheriff Department record and libeled Kramer on March 23, 2012 to state Kramer was lawfully incarcerated by the Court under CCP 1218(a) for refusing to adhere to the Order and Judgment for Contempt ofJanuary 19, 2012.
10. That in reality this Court libeled Kramer on her Sheriff Department record on March 23, 2012 to conceal this Court unlawfully incarcerated Kramer for refusing to be coerced into perjury absolving seven years of judicial, clerk, Respondent and Respondent counsel unlawful misconduct aiding to defraud the public over a matter of public health and impacting toxic torts nationwide.
11. That while Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated by the Court for refusing to be coerced into perjury, the strip searching of her was thus an unlawful and unconstitutional civil rights violation of a wrongfully imprisoned US citizen for her refusal to be coerced into perjury by this Court.
12. That while unlawfully incarcerated by this Court for refusing coercion to commit perjury, Kramer acquired a high contagious and painful skin infection.
13. That this Court and Respondent’s counsel agreed on March 9, 2012 that Kramer would be given a “prophylactic experience” as deterrent from further speaking the truth while unlawfully incarcerated for refusing coercion to sign a fraudulent document under penalty of perjury under the guise of a civil contempt of court violation.
14. That Respondent’s stated law claims are fatally flawed, even assuming, arguendo, and existence of subject-matter jurisdiction. Respondent attached as exhibit to the newest fraudulent COMPLAINT for contempt of court on April 10, 2012, the direct evidence that this Court unlawfully incarcerated Kramer for refusing to commit perjury, she was unlawfully strip searched and that this Court was aware that Kramer could not comply with the Order and Judgment for Contempt of Court of January 19, 2012 under CCP1218(a) at the time of sentencing on March 9, 2012.
15. That the entire case of Kelman v. Kramer is founded upon a three page judgment document from the litigation of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer Case No. GIN044539, North San Diego County Superior Court, submitted to the Court onNovember 4, 2010 by Respondent and Respondent counsel under penalty of perjury.
16. That this Court is aware the three page judgment document, sole foundation for this case that was submitted with Respondent’s original COMPLAINT by Respondent’s counsel on November 4, 2010:
i.) is fraudulent;
ii.) is inconsistent with the Abstract of Judgment obtained onDecember 30, 2008, by Respondent’s same counsel;
iii.) is inconsistent with the Lien recorded with the county on Kramer’s property onJanuary 20, 2009by Respondent’s same counsel;
iv.) includes commingled costs incurred by Respondent’s counsel’s client GLOBALTOX, INC., now known as Veritox, Inc., who Kramer prevailed over in the trial of August 2008,
v.) was antedated twice between October 16, 2008 and January 9, 2009 by the clerk of the trial court – explaining the discrepancy between the fraudulent three page judgment document submitted to this Court by Respondent counsel and Abstract/Lien recorded by the same Respondent counsel;
vi.) was never properly noticed to prevailing parties under CCP 664.5(b);
vii.) was misstated as entered differently in the Appellate Opinion of September 13, 2010, i.e. that the judgment on record acknowledged Kramer was a trial prevailing party who was awarded costs, when in fact it was known to the Appellate justices there was no such judgment ever entered or giving them jurisdiction.
viii.) is inconsistent with the amended judgment entered on October 28, 2011;
ix.) that these facts were suppressed by this Court when denying Kramer’s Motion To Nullify the Void Temporary Injunctive Relief Order on October 21, 2011 while wrongfully assuming jurisdiction;
x.) that the Court Case Management System was falsified to state a tentative ruling was “published” by this Court over the matter on October 20, 2011 when in fact no such tentative ruling was ever issued; and
xi.) as such this Court is aware that under CCP 664 and GC 6200, it holds no jurisdiction to hold a case trial or contempt of court hearing.
17. That Kramer is entitled to a true and correct accounting as a matter of law.
18. WHEREFORE, Kramer submits that Respondent and the above-styled court cannot amend or cure the jurisdictional defect or merits deficiencies in this case, or any subsequent proceedings held thereon, as a matter of law.
19. THEREFORE, this case before a fake court of law is dismissed for lack of statutory qualifications and lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct, and as to matters stated on information and belief, I believe those matters to be true with the evidence found extensively in this Court’s case file and repeatedly suppressed by this Court, and that this document was executed this 24th day of April, at Escondido, California.
Sharon Noonan Kramer,
In Forma Pauperis