Request for extension of time to file opening brief under California Rules of the Court 8.60(b)(c) and 8.63(b)(11)

This post will be updated on January 8, 2013 with the supporting links to all statements made.

Request for extension of time to file opening brief under California Rules of the Court 8.60(b)(c) and 8.63(b)(11)

 

Case No. D062764

Bruce J. Kelman (and undisclosed parties) plaintiffs/respondents v. Sharon Noonan Kramer, appellant under duress

 

In accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure 1209(b) this request & attachments may be read at ContemptOfCourtFor.Me  http://wp.me/p20mAH-mG

 

Declaration of Sharon Noonan Kramer

 

               1. On December 28, 2012, the Appellate Court sent to me the notice that they had received the reporter’s transcript.  I received this notice on January 2, 2013.

               2.  It was stated in the notice that my opening brief is due 40 days from December 28, 2012, making the due date of February 6, 2013.

               3. As of today, Saturday, January 5, 2013, I have not yet received the reporter’s transcripts from the Appellate Court. I received the notice of completion and availability on the afternoon of Friday, January 4th. I will not be able to obtain a copy from the North County court until Monday, January 7th at the earliest.

               4.  I will be in WashingtonD.C. for a conference and congressional meetings from Monday, February 4th to February 9th.  I would have barely over three weeks to prepare and submit an appellate brief and appendix by Friday, February 1st.  I cannot prepare/submit an appellate brief/appendix that short of period of time.

               5. A default notice was mailed to me on October 30, 2012 stating the Appellate Court had not received my Civil Case Information Statement. This has now been filed.  I have yet to receive a notice of the clearing of this default.

               6. Also, I have yet to receive confirmation from the Appellate Court regarding if this court may legally proceed to hear this appeal when the remittitur and judgment from the foundational case to this one, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer Case No. D054496 and anti-SLAPP Case No. D047758, are fraudulent and void. 

               7. I have spoken twice to the clerk of the Appellate Court, Stephen Kelly, in the past several days about the remittitur he falsified under seal of the State of California, undisclosed parties/entities on appeal (and in this case), and void judgment from the foundational case for this one.  He tells me he is conferring with an Appellate Court senior attorney of how to proceed. (See attachments a, b & j)

Government Code 6200 states, “Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book, or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited in any public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for two, three, or four years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book, paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any other person to do any of the following:(a) Steal, remove, or secrete…(c) Alter or falsify.”

                8. Specifically, the antedated 2008 judgment from the prior case is the sole foundation for this case to permanently enjoining me from writing of fraud on the court by officers of the court, clerks and plaintiffs in the prior case. It fails to state that I was a trial prevailing party awarded costs. It is contradictory to the Abstract of Judgment recorded by the court on December 30, 2008 in which interest accruing costs are awarded to Bruce (Kelman) three months before they are stated on the void, antedated judgment and three weeks before Kelman’s costs were even submitted by his attorney, Keith (Scheuer), with costs incurred by his trial loser client, GlobalTox (Veritox), commingled by Scheuer and submitted as Kelman’s. The court failed to notice me of the judgment in violation of C.C.P 664.5(b) (See c – h & k)

               9. The September 2009 Certificate of Interested Persons submitted in the prior case by Kelman and Scheuer discloses only one “Respondent”, Kelman. Yet the December 2010 remittitur awards costs to undisclosed “Respondents”. Because the remittitur is fraudulent, I have no way of knowing the identity of who all are undisclosed “Respondents” from the prior case, foundation to this case. This makes the falsified remittitur also a fraudulent foundation for this case. (See a & b)

Rules of the court 8.208 states: Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons (f) Supplemental information, A party that learns of changed or additional information that must be disclosed under (e) must promptly serve and file a supplemental certificate in the reviewing court. (e) Contents of certificate (1) If an entity is a party, that party’s certificate must list any other entity or person that the party knows has an ownership interest of 10 percent or more in the party.

              10. Being made aware of discrepancy between one disclosed party and the awarding of costs to multiple undisclosed parties/entities and that the judgment is fraudulent and void; in January of 2011 this court refused to recall and rescind the fraudulent remittitur of December 2010 and vacate the void judgment that are the foundation to this case, now on appeal under duress. This court ignored the law thereby aiding the unlawful harassment of me to continue for now over two additional years. (See attachments i & j)

“If the remittitur issues by inadvertence or mistake or as a result of fraud or imposition practiced on the appellate court, the court has inherent power to recall it and thereby reassert its jurisdiction over the cause.  This remedy, though described in procedural terms, is actually an exercise of an extraordinary substantive power.  Correction of the clerk’s clerical or other mistakes in the remittitur is a very minor aspect of the proceeding; its significant function is to permit the court to set aside an erroneous judgment on appeal obtained by improper means.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed.) Appeal, §736, p.765)

             11. Additionally, when deciding the anti-SLAPP motion in 2006, this court was made aware that Bryan (Hardin), co-owner of Veritox who is a Deputy Director of CDC/NIOSH & Assistant U.S. Surgeon General (retired), was an undisclosed party on the Certificate submitted to this court by plaintiff/respondent attorney Scheuer in June 2006. Evidence of non-disclosure of a party on appeal was concealed in the November 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion. It was public knowledge in the case since the filing of my 2005 declarations that Hardin is an owner of Veritox. Exhibit of Hardin’s & Kelman’s testimonies from law suits stating so were provided. (See s)

           12. As it stands today, I am not certain this court will ever be able to lawfully hear an appeal of this case. It is a malicious case wrought with intricate fraud that never would have occurred were it not for this court’s refusal to recall and rescind the fraudulent remittitur and vacate the void judgment from the prior case. This matter has now deteriorated to the point that I was incarcerated in March of 2012 for refusing to be coerced into signing a false confession of libel w/actual malice, with the Sheriff Department record falsified to conceal the true reason for incarceration and with a judge then losing his courtroom of many years. It has gotten so out of control that in July of 2012 the court ordered I must publish a false confession on the internet of being guilty of libel for a sentence I never even wrote, “Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand’ when he testified in an Oregon lawsuit.” – to conceal how I was framed for a different sentence; pay the court $3,000 for refusing silence of the collusive misconduct; and never write of these cases again. (See attachments m – q)

           13. This is an Unruh case since collusive misconduct has aided and abetted discrimination in policies, claims handling practices and lack of accommodations for citizens and workers environmentally disabled by exposure to biocontaminants found in water damaged buildings — via the framing of their advocate, a whistleblower of scientific fraud in policy and in US courts, for libel with actual malice for the words, “altered his under oath statements”; and while falsifying court documents and harassing to conceal misconduct from public light. The cases have been maliciously libelous character assassinations of me, false imprisonment for refusal of coercion to commit perjury, physically harming to me, financially ruining for my family and emotionally terrorizing. All for exposing a fraudulent twist in exposure science and how it was mass marketed into policies for the purpose of misleading U.S. courts to deny liability for causation of environmental illness. I named names of those involved including Kelman, Veritox, a U.S. Congressman from California, a think-tank, a medical association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Under California Penal Codes much of the unbridled wrath qualifies as hate crimes by officers of the courts themselves against the environmentally disableds’ advocate, Moi. (See l – r)

I was never lawfully found guilty of libel. Two jurors submitted affidavits saying false hearsay documents got into the jury room which caused the verdict for Kelman. When the jurors balked, the judge directed them they had to follow Plaintiff’s Special Definition of Malice, which inferred my writing was incorrect and that it had been predetermined I had personal malice for Kelman. Kelman’s bogus science, which is what this case is about, was not permitted to be discussed in trial. This court twice, suppressed the evidence that Kelman committed perjury to establish malice.(See t, u)

“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can notperform in the usual mannerits impartial task of adjudging cases that arepresented for adjudication.” Kennerv. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice,2d ed., p. 512, 60.23    

 

 

As Such, Extension Of Time Is Required For Good Cause:

           1. Lack of timely receipt of notice of completion of court transcripts, lack of notice of cleared default and prior commitments that cannot be changed prevent me from being able to prepare and file an opening brief by February 6, 2013.          

           2. I cannot file an opening brief until this court establishes it has legal jurisdiction to rule without first recalling and rescinding the fraudulent remittitur and vacating the void judgment from the foundational case. As I understand it, “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389. Rules of the Court state that accurate Certificates of Interested Persons are to be filed to assure no conflicts of interest exist which would cause bias for parties/entities by appellate justices reviewing cases. Remittiturs are legally required to be accurate by Government Code. Void judgments cannot be used for any purpose under Code of Civil Procedures.  There is no statute of limitations on fraud. (see j& l, desire to have me deemed a “vexatious litigant” to aid continuance of fraud on the court by officers of the courts, clerks and plaintiffs)

            3. The time of when my opening brief is due is not in my control. It is in this court’s control as I await Mr. Kelly’s response based on advice from the senior attorney, advisor to the Appellate Court. I cannot designate a desired date for extension other than preferably that this court will expedite addressing these matters beginning with recalling and rescinding the fraudulent remittitur from Case No. D054496 of its own accord. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed.) Appeal, § 736, p. 765)

           4. This request for extension and clarification of how this court intends to proceed when the underlying documents to the case are known to this court to be fraudulent and void will also be noticed to the Solicitor General of the California Attorney General’s office under laws that govern Unruh cases.             

          Please let me know as soon as possible how officers and clerk of this appellate court intend to proceed to correct the continuing damage to me, to my family and to the public from past unlawful indiscretions and how we are to proceed from here with this appeal made under duress.

           I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and executed by me this 5th day of January, 2013 and submitted as respectfully as possible.

                                                                                 ____________________________

                                                                                 Sharon Noonan Kramer,

                                                                                 Appellant Under Duress

Attached hereto a, b, c & d. All other references available upon request and may be read online at ContemptOfCourtFor.Me http://wp.me/p20mAH-mG

a.)  September 2009, (prior case) Certificate of Interested Persons submitted to this  

      court by Scheuer and Kelman stating Kelman was alleged to be the sole

     “Respondent” on appeal.

b.)  The December 2010 (prior case) remittitur stating costs were awarded to undisclosed “Respondents” in direct conflict with the September 2009 Certificate Of Interested Persons submitted to this court by Scheuer and Kelman. 

c.)  The antedated judgment from the prior case, as submitted as the sole foundation for this case, falsely stating only Kelman was a trial prevailing party who was awarded costs by judgment allegedly on December 18, 2008. (Contradictory to December 30, 2008 Abstract of Judgment issued by the court and January 19, 2009 Lien that Scheuer and Kelman recorded on my property which states interest accruing costs were awarded on September 24, 2008.)

d.)  The fraudulent Abstract of Judgment issued by the court and Lien recorded on my property by attorney Scheuer and Kelman in January 2009 stating interest accruing costs were awarded to Kelman on September 24, 2008 – three months before they are stated as being awarded on the antedated judgment (foundation   to this case) and three weeks before costs were even submitted by Scheuer in October of 2008.

e.)  January 7, 2009 notice from the lower court presiding judge falsely stating that they had lost jurisdiction to hear my timely filed December 22, 2008 Motions for Reconsideration because an amended judgment had been entered on December 18, 2008. Nothing had been amended other than “MGarland 12/18/08” added by the dollar amount that had been filled in earlier w/o initialing or dating making it appear that interest accruing costs were awarded on September 24, 2008 – as evidenced by the fraudulent Abstract. “MGarland 12/18/08” would have had to have been added after the judgment was submitted for Abstract on December 22, 2008.  It is a fraudulent, antedated and void judgment inconsistent with the jury verdict and Abstract of Judgment.

f.)   The September 2010 appellate opinion, page one, falsely stating there was a judgment entered in my favor.

g.)  Excerpt from my appellate brief of 2009, showing the appellate court was aware no such judgment had ever been entered acknowledging I was a trial prevailing party and that Scheuer had commingled his clients’ costs and submitted them as Kelman’s.

h.)  December 2010, falsification of CCMS consistent with the fraudulent and void judgment on record stating “ROA# 268 12/23/2010 Judgment was entered as follows: Judgment entered for GLOBALTOX INC: KELMAN BRUCE J and against KRAMER, SHARON

i.)    January 2011, Justice Patricia Benke’s refusal to recall and rescind the fraudulent remittitur with undisclosed parties, entities, “Respondents”; and refusal to vacate the void judgment.

j.)    October 5, 2011 page one of the follow up fax to Mr. Kelly in which he called me that day and politely threatened that Justice Judith McConnell, presiding judge of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court, would deem me a “vexatious litigant” should I pursue legal action for his Government Code 6200 violations of remittitur falsification under seal of the state of California.

k.)  October 28, 2011, the lower court (prior case) amended the judgment to state I was a prevailing party and corrected the CCMS Register of Action. The court refused to vacate the void, antedated judgment that is inconsistent with the Abstract of Judgment issued by the court.

l.)    December 28, 2012, page one and ten, of Scheuer’s untimely filed and served, motion to the lower court to have me deemed a “vexatious litigant” for daring to write the truth of their scientific fraud in policy and in U.S. courts; and the continued adverse impact on the public, nationwide, by this court framing me for libel twice for the words, “altered his under oath statements”; while this court also suppressed the evidence that Kelman committed perjury to establish false theme for my alleged malice, with Scheuer repeatedly suborning it.

m.) Excerpt of the November 2006 Appellate court anti-SLAPP opinion in which this court framed me for libel for the words, “altered his under oath statements” as found in use of the sentence,  “Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne’s attorney of Kelman’s prior testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand. in the first public writing of how it became a fraudulent concept in policy that moldy buildings do not harm as I named the names of those involved.  This court falsely made my accurate writing appear to make a libelously false allegation that Kelman “altered his under oath statements” when caught lying about being paid by a think-tank to edit the ACOEM Mold Position Statement.  To quote from the defendant framing, 2006 Appellate anti-SLAPP Opinion:

“This testimony supports a conclusion Kelman did not deny he had been paid by the Manhattan Institute to write a paper, but only denied being paid by the Manhattan Institute to make revisions in the paper issued by ACOEM. He admitted being paid by the Manhattan Institute to write a lay translation. The fact that Kelman did not clarify that he received payment from the Manhattan Institute until after being confronted with the Kilian deposition testimony could be viewed by a reasonable jury as resulting from the poor phrasing of the question rather from an attempt to deny payment. In sum, Kelman and GlobalTox presented sufficient evidence to satisfy a prima facie showing that the statement in the press release was false.”

And my March 2005 writing accurately stating the think-tank money was paid to GlobalTox for a lay translation, US Chamber’s mold position paper – not to make edits in the version that Hardin and Kelman penned for ACOEM.

“Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne’s attorney of Kelman’s prior testimony from a 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 regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure…..In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries’ associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the AmericanCollege of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.” [ACOEM]

n.)  Excerpt of the 2010 Appellate Opinion, suppressing the evidence that their peers framed a defendant for libel in the 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion with the lower courts following their lead while concealing evidence of bias in strategic litigation against public participation discriminatory to the environmentally disabled, their advocate and void of constitutional law the courts are to uphold:

“In a prior opinion, a previous panel of this court affirmed an order denying Kramer’s motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute… In doing so, we largely resolved the issues Kramer now raises on appeal. In our prior opinion, we found sufficient evidence Kramer’s Internet post was false and defamatory as well as sufficient evidence the post was published with constitutional malice.” 

  • o.)               Direct evidence that officers of this court, twice, libelously suppressed my unimpeached evidence of why I logically and accurately used the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” to describe Kelman’s flip-flopping testimony in question — to falsely establish that the first prong of libel with actual malice had been met by a standard of clear and convincing evidence.

p.)  March 2012, evidence that Judge Thomas Nugent incarcerated me for refusing to be coerced to sign the “Retraction of Sharon Kramer”, a false confession of being guilty of libel w/actual malice that was crafted by Scheuer and presented to the court on February 10, 2012.  He also falsified the Sheriff Department record to conceal I was incarcerated for my refusal to commit criminal perjury.

q.)  July 2012, the Judgment, Order and Permanent Injunction that I am never to write of these cases again and must publish a false confession on the internet for a sentence I never even wrote, “Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements’ when he testified in an Oregon trial. This unlawfully forced public perjury would conceal from public light that this appellate court framed me for libel twice for the sentence, “Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne’s attorney of Kelman’s prior testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand.” while also interpreting there was altered testimony by Kelman after prior testimony of his was permitted into the Oregon trial, exactly how I had written it.  (See m & n)

r.)                Direct evidence that officers of the court know Kelman’s expert witnessing testimonies are not current accepted science in the courts when selling doubt of causation of environmental disability and have known this since 2005. Yet, chose to frame me a malicious liar for the words, “altered his under oath statements” for exposing how it was mass marketed into some policies to lend false credibility to aid Kelman, Veritox and the affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in misleading the courts. It would appear that this court has willfully and falsely portrayed  me to be a liar to aid the scientific fraud to continue in U.S. courts adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the American public.

s.)                Excerpts from my 2009 appellate brief showing this court knew it was concealing that Bryan Hardin, co-owner of Veritox, co-author of the ACOEM Mold Statement, co-author of the U.S. Chamber Mold Statement (which cites false physician authorship), prolific expert defense witness in toxic torts, retired Assistant U.S. Surgeon General, and retired Deputy Director of CDC/NIOSH, has been an undisclosed party to the litigations all along.

t.)                 Affidavits of jurors, my attorney and my expert witness who was not permitted to testify in trial.  False hearsay documents got into the jury room causing a verdict for Kelman. Plaintiff Special Definition of Malice inferred my writing was incorrect and that it was predetermined I had malice for Kelman, Kelman’s bogus science in the courtroom was not permitted to be discussed in trial.  This is what has been allowed to continue, harming to the lives of thousands, by the courts framing me for libel with actual malice. 

u.) The undeniable evidence that this court, twice, suppressed the evidence  Kelman committed perjury to establish malice and Scheuer repeatedly suborned it.

 

Advertisements

What are your thoughts?

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