Kelman v. Kramer ~ Notice of Lack of Court Jurisdiction Hearing, Federal Rule 201(d) by Declaration Under Duress

This Court proceeded to hold a trial, coram non judice, like an Emperor with a New Robe. I am aware that as of October 12, 2012, This Court, Department 30, will no longer be open to “serve the public”.  As such, this lack of subject matter jurisdiction hearing applies to whichever court will be the next up to bat to try to conceal mass corruption in the California judicial branch as a whole, by the collusive misconduct in this matter.

The Court’s Minute Order of August 31, 2012[1], has unlawfully sanctioned me $3000 for being in alleged civil contempt under C.C.P.1218(a) of a court with no subject matter jurisdiction and for placing the direct evidence of the lack of jurisdiction on internet in lawful accordance with C.C.P.1209(b); that the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction and is willfully aiding and abetting hate crimes against the environmentally disabled and their advocate by trying to suppress evidence from public light of prior unlawful actions of prior courts doing the same in collusive misconduct with this Court.  [1a]          

Additionally on the morning of March 14, 2012, I 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. I was degradingly made to appear before the Court, Plaintiff Counsel and my 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 I was framed for libel by Mr. Kelman’s attorney, Keith Scheuer, and the prior courts. No longer mandatory, the Court still strongly urged I sign the fraudulent false confession of being guilty of libel, under penalty of perjury, after giving me a false criminal record and incarcerating me for refusing to confess to something that I 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 I had signed the false confession.      

 Additionally, this Court is aware that as I was unlawfully incarcerated, I was also unlawfully strip searched, made to clean the bathrooms of approximately eighty tweekers, prostitutes and shop lifters while incarcerated; and caused emotional distress of such magnitude from the matter that I became physically ill, with symptoms manifesting in the extremely painful nervous system  condition of shingle.[2]

March 14, 2012[3]  North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30

THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “…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 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.

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. You should be ashamed of yourself that I am sitting here like this, this morning.”

COMES NOW, Sharon Kramer, the accused, who hereby demands of this Court the dismissal of this cause because of the lack of jurisdictional authority over the subject matter, and hereby files this formal JUDICIAL NOTICE, CHALLENGE OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.
“The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.”Main v Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502(1980) “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time,” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso V: Utah Power & Light Co. 395 F 2d 906, 910 “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even 2nd DCA 1985) “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F 2d 215 “the burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F 2d 416….“Acts in excess of judicial authority constitutes misconduct, particularly where a judge deliberately disregards the requirements of fairness and due process.” Gonzalez v. Commission on Judicial Performance, (1983) 33 Cal.3d 359, 371,374   
THEREFORE, the accused would demand of this Court to produce the documentation as required by the statute to establish the required exclusive subject matter jurisdiction that has been merely assumed in this matter, consisting of:
    1. Documentation that the sole foundational document to this case, the September 24, 2008 judgment from the matter of Bruce J. Kelman & GlobalTox, Inc., v. Sharon Kramer GIN044539 North San Diego County Superior Court, is a valid legal document consistent with the jury verdict, consistent with the abstract of judgment from the case; and lawfully noticed to trial prevailing parties under California Codes of Civil Procedures 664 and 664.5(b).
    2. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to hold a person in contempt of court for placing letters sent to members of the Judicial Council, Administrative Offices of the Courts and Commission on Judicial Performance on the internet in lawful accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1209(b).
    3. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to incarcerate a United States citizen for refusing to sign a false confession under penalty of perjury, of being guilty of libel with actual malice; also stating they do not believe the plaintiff committed perjury.
    4. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to falsify Sheriff Department records and attach false documentation in violation of Government Code 6203, to conceal a United States citizen was incarcerated for refusing to sign a false confession of being guilty of libel with actual malice.
    5. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to hold a trial without establishing subject matter jurisdiction, even upon repeated challenge.
    6. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to sanction a United States citizen for refusing to remove the evidence from the internet of this Court’s incarceration of the citizen for refusal to commit criminal perjury.
    7. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to award attorney fees without establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
    8. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to make monetary awards without designating in writing or stating orally why these monetary awards were made.
    9. Documentation in support of this Court’s legal authority to order a United States citizen to publish a false confession of libel with actual malice on the internet for a sentence the United States citizen never even wrote.

Or, absent the production of such required documentation showing lawful subject matter jurisdiction; dismiss the action entirely immediately at the scheduled hearing of November 2, 2012….Read the Jurisdictional Challenge in its entirety, HERE

MOTION HEARING TODAY IN DEPARTMENT 28, The Honorable Earl Mass III presiding.

In Dept 28 of the North County Superior Court is a motion to be heard today, October 12, 2012, to vacate the void judgment of the foundational case this this one, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer. The Oct 11th Tentative Ruling, indicates the Court will not be vacating a known fraudulent judgment, thereby aiding the defrauding of the public and court harassment of Mrs. Kramer to continue along with the financially motivated and court aided hate crimes against the environmentally disabled.

Court Tentative of October 11, 2012; Mrs. Kramer’s Motion To Vacate of September 20, 2012; Mr. Kelman’s Opposition received by Mrs. Kramer on October 1, 2012; Mrs. Kramer Reply, due and submitted on October 3, 2012.


What are your thoughts?

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s