They want Mrs. Kramer silenced of the San Diego courts framing her for libel & falsifying court documents (2005 -10) to aid the scientific fraud of Mr. Kelman to continue in U.S courts and policies, nationwide. Then jailing her (2012) for refusing to sign a false confession of being a malicious liar for exposing fraud after they framed her. Then falsifying her Sheriff Dept Record to conceal what they have collusively done to her to defraud the public. Too many lives at stake to let this relentless, unlawfu harassment of Sharon Kramer continue by those who are to uphold the law & protect the public!
It is utterly amazing that such egregious Constitutional and civil rights violations could occur in U.S. courts of law by criminal means, with so many lives hanging the balance, and no one does a damn thing to stop it. (“no one” meaning legislators, US DOJ, state legal system policing agencies, the local district attorney, the Governor of California, FBI, etc)
January 23, 2013, Mrs. Kramer’s REPLY to Mr. Kelman’s December 28, 2012 unlawful VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION to be heard on January 25, 2013 1:30 PM in Department 29 of the North San Diego County Superior Court, Judge Robert Dahlquist presiding w/o subject matter jurisdicition.
January 23, 2013 DECLARATION under duress of Mrs. Kramer detailing the Criminal Perjury Under Oath in the December 28, 2012 DECLARATION of Mr. Kelman’s attorney, Keith Scheuer, Esq, California State Bar #82797.
Mrs. Kramer’s REPLY read in pdf w/working links to documents of the cases, detailing eight years of abuse of her by Kelman, Scheuer & the San Diego courts for daring to expose a science fraud in policy and courts over the mold issue as penned by Kelman & Hardin of Veritox on behalf of the affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – while they make money off the backs of the sick, injured and dying & defraud the taxpayer in the process of serving as professional defense witnesses in toxic torts.
“After eight years of malicious litigation no one can even state what is incorrect, let alone libelous, in my March 2005 writing including 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.”
Some highlights of the Kramer Reply Brief:
The sole claim of the underlying case, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer Case No. GIN044539 which began in May 2005 is that Sharon (Kramer)’s use of the phrase “altered his under oath statements” as used in 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.” was a maliciously false accusation that Plaintiff Bruce (Kelman) committed perjury; and that these five words alone in Kramer’s March 2005 writing were defaming to Kelman and the corporation of which he is president, Veritox – formerly known as (GlobalTox) Inc.
In a second case which began in November of 2010, Kramer has been unlawfully and abusively, permanently enjoined from “republishing” a sentence not even in her writing, “Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand’ when he testified in an Oregon lawsuit.” This, under the pretense that Kramer was lawfully found guilty of libel for this sentence. In reality, they do no want Kramer to ever be able to write of these cases again. This is because the courts and attorney, Keith (Scheuer) systematically framed her for libel in the first case for an entirely different sentence; then tried to stop her from writing of it, how they did it, why they did and the impact on the public because of it, in a second case. They could not gag her for the sentence in her writing, because it is known to the courts, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Counsel, to be 100% accurate. (SEE attached Kramer Declaration Under Duress). Kramer and all citizens of California are only obligated to adhere to lawful court orders under C.C.P 1209(a)5.
This harassment has been to conceal eight years of malicious litigation by Kelman, GlobalTox, their attorney, Scheuer and the San Diego Appellate and Superior Courts over Kramer’s March 2005 writing. Her writing was the first to publicly expose how it became a false concept in U.S. public health policy that it was scientifically proven by Kelman and his business partner, Bryan (Hardin) that moldy buildings, particularly their toxins, do not harm. This scientifically void concept is based on Kelman & Hardin applying math extrapolations to data taken from a single rodent study and jumping to the unscientific nonsequitor that they proved no individual could be made ill from the toxins of mold in water damaged buildings. It’s garbage science.
It was mass marketed for the purpose to mislead U.S. courts to deny liability for causation of illness. Kramer’s March 2005 writing named the names of those involved in the deception, including Kelman, GlobalTox, U.S. Congressman Gary Miller (R-CA), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Manhattan Institute think-tank, and the workers’ comp physician trade organization the AmericanCollege of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).
The theme of the hate filled and discriminatory mass marketing is “Thus the notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer as so many trial lawyers and media would claim is Junk Science unsupported by actual scientific study”. These words were written by Kelman & Hardin in 2003. They were paid to write them by the Manhattan Institute think-tank so the U.S. Chamber of Commerce could share them with judges.
Kelman & Hardin also penned the purportedly unbiased Mold Position Statement for ACOEM in 2002. One paper is an edit of the other and both are used together to sell doubt of causation to the courts based on a simple yet deadly twist of exposure science by PhD toxicologists, Kelman & Hardin.
Initially, the litigation was about aiding the scientific fraud to continue on behalf of commerce and industry. Now its about concealing what the San Diego courts have done to Kramer by criminal means to aid it to continue by falsely making her appear to be a malicious liar; and trying every trick in the book to destroy her. They framed her for libel with actual malice for one sentence in the first case and unlawfully gagged her from writing of it in a second – as the games play on in courts all across America directly because of these cases.
The judgment from the first case is fraudulent and void. As such, the filing of this Reply under Duress does not give this court subject matter jurisdiction to hear this unlawful and untimely served (Vexatious Litigant Motion). The December 28, 2012 declaration of California licensed attorney, Keith (Scheuer), is wrought with provably false statements made under penalty of perjury. (SEE Declaration Under Duress of Sharon Kramer). Should this Court grant this (Vexatious Litigant Motion), it would be a criminal act without judicial immunity and abuse of the judicial process to make it harder for Sharon (Kramer) to ever sue officers of the courts, clerks and plaintiffs for even the very minimal of criminal acts that have occurred in this case and the foundational case, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer.
This would include falsifying the Remittitur, Certificates of Interested Entities & Persons, Judgment, Abstract of Judgment, Liens, Sheriff Department Records, FBI Records and the California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Register of Action (ROA) entries. It would also make it impossible for Kramer to file an opening brief on appeal Case No. D062754, which would aid the Appellate justices, particularly Presiding Justice Judith (McConnell), to not have to address the Appellate Court’s prior unlawful and criminal acts in the prior case which allowed this case to go forward with no subject matter jurisdiction.
12. In the December 28, 2012 untimely served Vexatious Litigant Motion, Scheuer does not mention this Motion of Kramer’s or the unexplained, unlawful DENIAL of Benke while suppressing the direct evidence that the criminal Remittitur is undeniably fraudulent and that it released jurisdiction of the prior case enabling this case to unlawfully go forward. “Uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence is generally accepted as true.” Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd. (1970) 3 Cal.3rd 312 317-318 [90 Cal.Rptr. 355]; Keulen v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 1099. Not in the San Diego, California courts.
13. Because of criminal acts by the courts themselves, the courts have a collusive vested interest along with Kelman, Hardin, Scheuer, Veritox and possibly other unknown entities/parties in seeing Kramer be falsely designated as a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order pursuant to C.C.P.391.7 so she cannot sue them for collusive criminal acts.
PLAINTIFF COUNSEL UNTIMELY FILED & SERVED VEXATIOUS LITIGANT MOTION
1. Even if this court did have subject matter jurisdiction, which clearly it does not because of the falsified Remittitur and Void Judgment from the case of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer being the foundation to this case; the Vexatious Litigant Motion was untimely filed and served by Scheuer on December 28, 2012. It was mailed to Kramer via the U.S Postal Service not on or before the required 21 days before the hearing date. In violation of Code of Civil Procedure 1005(b), it was “snail mailed” by Scheuer to Kramer merely 15 court days before the hearing date. (SEE Vexatious Litigant Motion attached Proof of Service by Keith Scheuer)
2. Kramer, who is not an attorney, could not possibly file a viable reply in a whole new area of law to her, Vexatious Litigant, with so little time to learn it and so much direct evidence of corruption needing to be shared with this court, which is relatively new to the case.
3. The only thing Kramer knows of the subject is that there is case law established in 1982 to protect properia persona litigants against unethical attorneys who try to unlawfully use this tactic to their advantage via false, misleading and incomplete evidence to squelch Pro Pers and their lawful evidence.
4.The case is Roston v. Edwards (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 842 [179 Cal.Rptr. 830,] It states, “Defendants, in their zeal to present a portrait of plaintiff Roston…that would enhance their position, made reference to a multitude of cases which were inappropriate for consideration by the trial court… The presentation of such matter, if designedly done, is certainly to be discouraged. One might mistake it for an attempt to inflame the court against a party to the action.”
5. The inflammatory attorney in Roston v. Edwards was Keith Scheuer. In that case, too, he attempted to have a pro per litigant be falsely deemed a vexatious litigant by inflaming the courts with false and misleading statements and partial evidence. This misconduct is “certainly to be discouraged” by this court when Scheuer attempts to abuse the judicial process yet again by this untimely served, vexing, Vexatious Litigant Motion.
6. Clearly, Scheuer’s desire in filing this rushed, untimely served, unfounded and vexing motion is to make it impossible for Kramer to ever sue for unlawful and criminal acts by Scheuer, judiciaries with no immunity, clerks of the courts and plaintiffs in both of these cases.
Exhibits To Motion http://freepdfhosting.com/9fda1049e3.pdf
10.28.11 Judgment Amended http://freepdfhosting.com/53b48859a4.pdf
04.05.12 Fraudulent Minute Order To Sheriff http://freepdfhosting.com/531eb17f9f.pdf
12.20.12 Libelously False Sheriff & FBI Record http://freepdfhosting.com/4b8ab34d84.pdf
& 3.09.05 Kramer’s March 2005 writing http://freepdfhosting.com/5236773327.pdf