“Never Apologize For Being Correct. Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth. For being correct. For being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.” ~M. Gandhi
Short Story: In an Internet writing of March 2005, a US citizen exposed a fraud in US environmental health policy that was advantageous to the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce It has devastated the lives of thousands who can find no help for their environmental injuries and have difficulty obtain justice in the courts.
In May of 2005, those involved with the Chamber and the fraudulent concept in public health policy, sued the citizen for libel for five words in the March 2005 writing exposing the fraud, “altered his under oath statements”.
For six years the San Diego courts, especially its Appellate Court, made the writing appear to make a false accusation that the writing did not make about exchange of think-tank money. The courts suppressed the evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury to establish libel law required reason for malice and their clerks falsified many court records, including judgments and computer entries. They also concealed that a retired CDC employee was an undisclosed party to the litigation. So the courts framed a defendant for libel, suppressed the evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury, concealed the true parties to the litigation and falsified the case record accordingly.
Then, in a second case that began in 2010, the courts gagged the citizen from being able to write the exact words for which she was framed for libel by the prior courts in the first case, “altered his under oath statements”. When the citizen and website owners refused to be silenced of what the courts are doing and the continued adverse impact on the public because of it; the courts held the citizen in contempt of court and are now scheduled to incarcerate her on March 2, 2012, to conceal their collective judicial misdeeds.
The choice they have given the citizen to stay out of jail is to take the evidence of the CA courts colluding to defraud the public off the Net (which she doesn’t control the sites and the owners are saying “NO”) – or to sign an apology written by the plaintiff in which the citizen would be apologizing for being framed for libel by the courts with the implication she is wrong about the science fraud in policy, thereby becoming a coerced accomplice in aiding the fraud to contiue. The courts are doing this, while KNOWING they are aiding a scientific fraud to remain in policy that continues to harm thousands of lives – but works well for the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce.
Seeing as how the California State Bar will take no action to reprimand the plaintiff’s attorney for egregious ethics violations. And Commission on Judicial Performance – which is chaired by one of the justices involved in the framing of a US citizen for libel – will take no action to stop the collusion and attempted cover up for it – we figure our only chance of ridding the deceit in policy, ridding the judicial branch of the ethically challenged and avoiding indefinate coercive incarceration for exposing massive fraud and collusion until “Uncle” is cried; is to get public sunlight on the matter. Thus this blog.
1. the direct evidence that the citizen was ever impeached as to the subjective belief in her words “altered his under oath statements” as an accurate description of the plaintiff’s testimony when serving as an expert witness in a trial in Oregon.
2. the direct evidence substanciating that the plaintiff did not commit perjury to establish a false theme for malice, (with his attorney repeatedly suborning it).
The courts cannot provide this evidence because it does not exist!
Looooong Story: This website is dedicated to the very ugly tale of the cases of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer, San Diego, California; that began in May of 2005 & Kelman v. Kramer that began in November of 2010. The compromised courts of California have been willing participants in Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation “SLAPP” for now seven years.
Their unethical and unlawful actions have collectively and willfully aided the scientific fraud of misapplying TOXICOLOGY MODELS in “expert” testimonies across the United States to continue to be able to be used to deny financial responsibility for causation of individuals’ environmental illnesses in toxic torts. The couts’ actions have aided to leave the sick and injured unable to obtain medical treatment because US physicians are being kept in the dark. If the physicians understood causation of environmental illnesses, that would aid to increase liability for those who cause the illness or insure those who cause them. No longer would they be able to pretend the illnesses do not exist.
This is about compromised politicians masquerading as pilars of a law abiding judicial system, California’s, aiding to defraud the public over illnesses caused by environmental exposures to the benefit of the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce. What they have willfully done by framing a whistleblower of scientific fraud in US public health policy & US courts, for libel with actual malice, is nothing short of crime against humanity. They know it and they know we know it.
Now, they are threatening incarceration of a never impeached US citizen to try to keep their unlawful and unethical misdeeds that have harmed the lives of thousands from coming to greater public light. They have threatened a blog owner with litigation for placing court documents that are matter of public record on the Net, if they are not taken down. Needless to say, we find this tactic ineffectual, moranic and a bellweather of just how far down the rabbit hatch the California judicial system has really gone.
From 2005 to 2010, the courts framed a US citizen for libel with actual malice over the words, “altered his under oath statements”. These words were used in the first public writing of how it became a scientific fraud in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy, water damaged buildings pose no serious threat to human health & who all was involved in mass marketing the false science into policy & to the court.
The courts suppressed the evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury to establish a false theme for the defendant’s purported malicious reason for writing of the fraud in policy being harmful to many. They suppresse the evidence that the plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly suborned the perjury. (In libel law, one has to establish a reason for malice)
Then in a second case that began in 2010, they gagged the defendant by court order from being able to write the words for which she was framed for libel with actual malice, “altered his under oath statements”. This made it impossible to write of what the judiciary had unlawfully done in the prior case to make the false finding of libel with actual malice and write of the falsified court documents by clerks of the court, without violating a court order.
The defendant/US citizen sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court in September of 2011, seeking her help to stop the harassment by her courts and stop the continued adverse impact on the public because of their unlawful actions. The defendant had to use the words for which she was framed and gagged by court order from writing, “altered his under oath statements” to explain how they did it, why they did it and the continued adverse impact on the lives of thousands.
Instead of help from the Chief Justice, what the defendant received was a Contempt of Court charge for the letters she sent seeking help; $19,000 in sanctions & attorney fees; a threat from an appellate clerk that if she pursued legal action for falsified court documents the appellate justice – who was the first justice to frame the defendant for libel with actual – would just deem the defendant to be a vexatious litigant. The defendant also received a five day jail sentence for putting the letters to the Chief Justice, the framing Justices and their Clerks of the Court on the Net.
In March 2005, Sharon “Kramer” wrote of how it because a false concept in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven all people claiming illness from exposure to the biological contaminants that are found in water damaged buildings were liars out to scam insurers, employers, landlords, builders, real estate agents and school districts. In the writing, she named the names of those involved in mass marketing the scientifically void concept into policy and to the courts:
The “US Chamber” of Commerce, the “Manhattan Institute” think-tank, US Congressman Gary “Miller (R-Ca)”, Bruce “Kelman”, the company of which he is one of six owners and President, “Veritox”, Inc.(Veritox was formerly known as GlobalTox, Inc.) and the American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine “ACOEM”.
Kramer also wrote of how a jury in a mold trial in Oregon, Haynes v. Adair Homes, was able to see through the deceit in mass marketing scientific misinformation for the purpose of misleading judges and juries. This occurred once Bruce Kelman, who was testifying as an expert defense witness in the trial, was forced to discuss how the “US Chamber Mold Statement” – which form the conclusion it has been scientifically proven that all claims of illness and death from “Toxic Mold” are only being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science” – was closely connected to the purportedly unbiased and scientific “ACOEM Mold Statement”.
ACOEM is the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Its a workers’ comp physician trade organization. They write guidelines that physicians must follow if they want to get paid by insurers for their treatment of injured workers. Kelman authored their mold position statement. He also authored the US Chamber’s.
Both are “Garbage Science”. Kelman and co-owner of Veritox, Bryan “Hardin”, had applied math extrapolations to a single, acute exposure, rodent study where mold was blasted intratrecally into the lungs of rats. They professed that their toxicology model (math added to data from a rodent study) scientifically proved the US Chamber mantra of all claims of human illness from the toxins of mold in water damaged buildings were only being made because “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”.
Kramer used the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” to describe Kelman’s flip flopping back and forth testimony on the witness stand in the Oregon trial. He was trying to say the US Chamber Mold Statement was not connected to the ACOEM Mold Statement, but had to admit they were indeed closely connected with one just being worded differently from the other. Found in black and white in the transcript of Kelman’s testimony in the Oregon trial, he stated the US Chamber’s was a “lay translation” going to “two different papers, two different activities” and back to “translation”.
This was after shouting “That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.” when ask about the money involved. A long time professional witness, the shouting in feigned indignation would have stopped line of questioning of the papers’ true relationship had the plaintiff attorney not had a transcript of Kelman’s testimony in its entirety from another case. Kramer is responsible for the plaintiff attorney having the transcript that forced the discussion. She had given it to another client of his – not the family involved in the trial.
The forced discussion of the relationship of the two papers in front of the Oregon jury came after a 2004 bench trial testimony of Kelman’s from another case in Arizona, the Kilian case, was permitted into the Oregon trial proceedings. In Kilian, Kelman had stated that GlobalTox was paid by the Manhattan Institute to write a lay translation of ACOEM’s Mold Statement (2002) This lay translation was the US Chamber Mold Statement (2003).
In May of 2005, Kelman & Veritox sued Kramer for the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” claiming it was a maliciously false accusation of perjury. From 2005 to 2010 all courts to oversee the case of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer suppressed the evidence that Kramer even gave an unimpeached explanation of why she used the phrase “altered his under oath statements” to describe Kelman’s flip flopping testimony trying to hide the trail of how false science was mass marketed into policy over the mold issue for the purpose of misleading courts and who all was involved in the marketing.
Throughout the entire case, there was no evidence Kramer was ever impeached as to her belief in these five words or any others. What the courts did was unlawfully deem a never impeached US citizen to be a malicious liar with the intent being to discredit all her words of the science fraud in policy and the courts, that works to the benefit of the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce to deny financial liability for causation of illness.
Not provided with any evidence of a defendant in a libel litigation being impeached as to the belief of their words, the Fourth District Division One Appellate Panel of Justices Judith McConnell, Cynthia Aaron and Alex MacDonald crafted their anti-SLAPP opinion of November 2006 to make it appear Kramer had falsely accused Kelman of lying about being paid by the Manhattan Institute think-tank to make revisions in the ACOEM Mold Statement and was thus guilty of libel.
SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. Courts are suppose to protect people against it to help preserve the right to speak the truth in America. Instead, the courts became willing participants in it. From the 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion where the court made Kramer’s writing appear to make an accusation that it did not make:
“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.”
Kramer’s writing did not accuse Kelman of lying about GlobalTox being paid by the Manhattan Institute to make revisions to the paper issued by ACOEM. Her writing accurately stated that GlobalTox was paid by the Manhattan Institute to write the US Chamber Mold Statement – ACOEM’s was a “version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece”. From Kramer’s writing in question:
“He [Kelman] 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 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.”
All lower courts followed the Appellate Court’s lead. False hearsay documents got into the jury room in the trial of August 2008, overseen by Judge Lisa C. Schall. According to juror Shelby Stutz, this caused the verdict for Kelman. Kramer prevailed over GlobalTox in trial – although one would neve know it. (See Clerk of Court Falsification of Documents page).
The Plaintiff Special Jury Instructions Definition of Actual Malice were crafted to the finding that Kramer’s writing was inaccurate and that she did it because she had personal ill will for Kelman. According to the jury foreman, Reverend Roy Lutz, the jury asked Judge Schall that if they had to follow the jury instructions, did the have to find Kramer guilty of libel with actual malice, to which Judge Schall replied, “Yes”.
In post trial motions, Kramer brought it to Judge Schall’s attention that she was not impeached as to the belief of her words to which Judge Schall replied, “Well the jury didn’t believe you”. The attorney from the case in Oregon, Kelly “Vance”, had submitted a declaration stating he witnessed Kelman’s testimony, Kramer had spoken to him before she wrote and that “altered his under oath statements” was a correct description. Judge Schall found Vance’s self serving and colorful declaration to be the smoking gun proof that Kramer’s writing was incorrect.
When Kramer brought it to Judge Schall’s attention that Vance was a witness she had interviewed who had attested the writing was correct and couldn’t be the clear and convincing proof the writing was incorrect, Judge Schall replied, “You know what Mrs. Kramer, now you are just arguing with me.”
When Kramer brought to Judge Schall’s attention that Kelman had committed perjury to establish false theme for malice and asked her to just make Kelman’s attorney, Keith “Scheuer” corroborate the reason given for malice, Judge Schall replied, “I’m not going to be drawn into that kind of petty behavior of making Mr. Scheuer explain himself on things.”
There is a saying in California’s judicial branch, Speak With One Voice “SWOV”. When SWOV is used by judiciary to conceal that other judiciary framed a defendant for libel with actual malice over a writing impacting public health & suppressed the evidence that the plaintiff committed perjury to establish false them for malice; SWOV then becomes conspiring to defraud by those whose sole function is to protect the public and uphold the Constitution – including the First Amendment right to speak the truth in America without retaliation BY THE COURTS themselves.
The below is an example of SWOV being given precedence over the law. In 2010, the Appellate justices gave priority to covering for their peers judicial misdeeds of 2006, rather than acknowledge the irrefutable evidence of error and the continued devastation to the lives of thousands because of the misdeeds of aiding SLAPP. As written in the 2010 Appellate Opinion:
Given that circumstance and the fact that only nomimal damages were awarded against Kramer, the value of promoting stability in decision making far outweighs the value of any reevaluation of the merits of our prior disposition. (See People v. Shuey, supra 13 Cal.3d at p. 846.) Accordingly, on appeal Kramer is bound by our prior determinations of law.
In 2010 the Appellate Panel of Justices Patricia Benke, Richard Huffman and Joann Irrion were to do an independant review of the case for error. Instead, they pretended like Kramer had been legally found guilty of libel with actual malice by their peers in 2006 as they suppressed the irrefutable evidence proving otherwise. From the 2010 Appellate Opinion:
“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.”
We recognize that with respect to malice “courts are required to independently examine the record to determine whether it provides clear and convincing proof thereof.” (McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991)227 Cal.App.3d 1657, 1664.) However, in Kelman v. Kramer I we expressly rejected Kramer’s argument that such independent reviewentitled her to judgment. Rather, we found that such review had taken place in the trial court and, following our own detailed analysis of the evidence of Kramer’s hostility towards Kelman, we left the trial court’s determination undisturbed. Given that disposition, we can only conclude that panel which decided Kelman v. Kramer I conducted the required independent review of the record and agreed with the trial court that, as the record stood at that point, there was clear and convincing evidence of malice. Because, as we have indicated the record of malice presented at trial was just as fulsome as the one considered in Kelman v. Kramer I, we cannot depart from our prior decision without also departing from the doctrine of law of the case. [There was not one piece of evidence ever presented in this case of Kramer even uttering a harsh personal word of Kelman before she wrote of the fraud in policy in March of 2005. “Just as fulsome in trial as the one considered in Kelman v Kramer I” is code for there was no evidence in either]
In 2006, in addition to crafting their opinion to make Kramer’s writing appear to make a false accusation it had not, the Appellate Justice also suppressed the evidence that Kelman committed perjury to establish a false theme for malice. They refused to examine Kramer’s exhibits referenced in her attorney’s Appellate briefs providing the direct evidence of Kelman committing perjury. They refused to take judicial notice of even further evidence of it. The Appellate Justices did no review of the evidence for malice in 2006. It is falsely stated in the 2010 Appellate Opinion issued by the “reviewing” peers that they did. In 2006, they took Kramer’s truthful words regarding a science fraud in policy – a First Amendment right to be able to state and provide evidence; and attributed it to evidence of personal malice for Kelman. From the 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion:
“Further, in determining whether there was a prima facie showing of malice, the trial court also relied on the general tone of Kramer’s declarations. These declarations reflect a person, who motivated by personally having suffered by mold problems, is crusading against toxic mold and against those individuals and organizations who, in her opinion, unjustifiably minimized the dangers of indoor mold. Although this case involves only the issue of whether the statement “Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand” was false and made with malice, Kramer’s declarations are full of language deriding the positions of Kelman, GlobalTox, ACOEM and the Manhattan Institute. [sic, the Appellate Court neglected to mention the US Chamber of Commerce and US Congressman Gary Miller (R-Ca)] For example, Kramer states that people “were physically damaged by the ACOEM Statement itself” and that the ACOEM Statement is a document of scant scientific foundation; authored by expert defense witnesses; legitimized by the inner circle of an influential medical association, whose members often times evaluate mold victims o[n] behalf of insurers and employers; and promoted by stakeholder industries for the purpose of financial gain at the expense of the lives of others.” [No evidence of personal malice for Kelman, merely accurately speaking of a deception in US public health policy.]
Kramer asked us to take judicial notice of additional documents, including the complaint and an excerpt from Kelman’s deposition in her lawsuit against her insurance company [sic, Kelman submitted false declarations as a reason for malice claiming to have given a malice causing testimony in 2003, that he never even gave in Kramer’s litigation with her insurer. The Appellate Court refused to acknowledge the direct evidence of Kelman’s perjury to establish reason for malice in a SLAPP suit]. We decline to do so as it does not appear these items were presented to the trial court.” (the evidence of Kelman’s perjury was also provided to the trial court).
As appellant, Kramer has the burden of showing error. (See Howard v. Thrifty Drug & Discount Stores (1995) 10 Cal.4th 424, 443.) “The reviewing court is not required to make an independent, unassisted study of the record in search of error or grounds to support the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel.” (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 594, p. 627.) We may ignore points that are not argued or supported by citations to authorities or the record. (Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.) [There was nothing incorrect with the citing of evidence found in the Appellant Appendix. The brief was written by an attorney licensed to practice law in California for over 30 years. [Falsely stated in the 2010 Appellate Opinion, the Appellate justices did not do a review for malice in 2006, (because they declined to read the Appellant Appendix)]
The trial court drew an inference that Kramer was intending to imply that the payment for the revisions was a bribe to obtain certain revisions favorable to the defense position in toxic mold litigation. However, the statement in her press release at issue here was limited to stating Kelman had altered his under oath testimony and did not refer to any particular testimony. As published, it was an allegation of perjury not bribery.”
The bribery matter was never mentioned again in the case. Yet, in the 2010 Appellate Opinion, they added it back to make it appear Kramer had also been found guilty of falsely accusing Kelman of taking a bribe. The Justices of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court did this by deceptively metioning it was addressed in the 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion, without mentioning their peers found there was no allegation of bribery made. From the 2010 Appellate Opinion:
The court stated the gist of the press release statement was that Kelman committed perjury in the Haynes case, lied about a subject related to his profession, or `accepted a bribe from a political organization to falsify a peer-reviewed scientific research position statement.‘ The court stated there was admissible evidence to show Kramer’s statement was false; that Kelman was clarifying his testimony under oath, rather than altering it; and to show Kramer acted with actual malice.” (Kelman v. Kramer I, supra, D047758, fn. omitted.)
SECOND LAWSUIT, tried to gag me from McConnell BS fill in
The BIG LIE of the 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion and Speak With One Voice practiced by every court there after:
“Initially, we note this lawsuit is not about a conspiracy. This lawsuit was filed by Kelman and GlobalTox [sic VeriTox] alleging one statement in a press release was libelous. Thus, conspiracy issues are not relevant.”
Joseph Gobbels was Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda. He is widely known as a master of the Big Lie to mislead the masses. According to Gobbels:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
To reiterate, If we are the ones who are lying about the courts involved in this matter willfully committing crimes against humanity, willfully defrauding the public, willfully framing a whistleblower for libel with actual malice, willfully gagging her to conceal judicial misdeeds and now intending to incarcerate an honest US citizen for repeating the words for which she was framed, “altered his under oath statements”; it would be very simple for the courts to prove we are lying. All they would have to do is present two pieces of evidence:
1. the direct evidence that the defendant was ever impeached as to the subjective belief in her words “altered his under oath statements”.
2. the direct evidence that the plaintiff did not commit perjury to establish a false theme for malice.
The courts cannot provide this evidence because it does not exist.
To read of the falsification of court documents and computer entries, please see Clerk of the Court page. To read how they systematically made the false finding of libel – even deleting a portion of the transcript from the middle of Kelman’s testimony in the Oregon case to change the color of the testimony in their Appellate Opinions, please see the Framed a Defendant For Libel page. To read of Kelman’s perjury and Scheuer’s repeated suborning of it with all courts turing a blind eye, please see the Criminal Perjury To Establish Malice page and the State Bar page. To read of the Contempt of Court charges with the court suppressing the evidence of collusion to defraud in the prior case, see Second Lawsuit page.