Are HUNDREDS of U.S. citizens willing to be filmed telling intricate, detailed lies – OR – are the United States courts wrought with corruption and cronyism? Watch the videos, Congress, and then Just Answer The Damn Question!

Corruption and Burn Out

On Sunday, December 2, 2012, Mr. William Windsor of Lawless America wrote, “700 Videos now posted exposing Government Corruption and Judicial Corruption by the Lawless America Revolution” He also wrote, “Now when you watch one of our YouTube videos, please click the LIKE button, and please click SHARE to post it on your Facebook page.  It is up to each and every one of us to spread the word about the need to save America.

To watch the 700 videos, which are stated to only be half of those already filmed to be shared with Congress and to read more of this peaceful revolution to restore integrity in US gov’t and US courts, please go to the website of LAWLESS AMERICATo see videos about a specific topic or from a specific state, use the Playlists

Please forward this blog to others who would like to help Mr. Windsor and the self professed “Nobodies” restore integrity in U.S. state and federal courts and government.

Thank you for your help,

Sharon Noonan Kramer 

PS. To read the Honorable Katherine Feinstein’s comments regarding the lack of credibility and integrity in the California judicial system, go to “One Legal Online Court Service”  Judge Feinstein is the Presiding Judge of the San Francisco Superior Court.  She is also  a past member of the California Commission on Judicial Performance and the daughter of U.S. Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein. Senator Feinstein is married to University of California Regent, Richard Blum.
Advertisements

“Does the foundational document of this case, the judgment as submitted from a prior case, show Sharon Kramer prevailed over GlobalTox, Inc., in trial and was awarded costs by judgment — or — is this Court acting with no subject matter jurisdiction under C.C.P. 664 (and thus no judicial immunity) to harass and conceal collusive criminal misconduct by plaintiffs, fellow officers of the courts and court clerks? Just Answer The Damn Question!”

As submitted For Dec 7th Motion HearingSharon Noonan Kramer

2031 Arborwood Place

Escondido, CA92029

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, NORTH DISTRICT

Bruce J. Kelman (and five owners of Veritox, Inc., Bryan Hardin, Coreen Robbins, Loni Swenson, Robert Schreibe & Robert Clark)                                              

v.

 

Sharon Kramer, Whistleblower of scientific fraud by Veritox, Inc. and fraud on the court by officers of the court 

Case No. 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC Appellate Case No. D062764

DECLARATION UNDER DURESS OF SHARON KRAMER & PROPOSED CASE DISMISSAL IN SUPPORT OF “MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO VACATE VOID CORAM NON JUDICE ‘JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND PERMANENT INJUCTION’ IN CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF C.C.P.1209(b).”

Hon. Robert Dahlquist Presiding

Department 29

Motion Hearing Date December 7, 2012

1:30 PM

    DECLARATION UNDER DURESS OF SHARON KRAMER

                1. In lawful accordance with Constitutional rights to freely speak truth in America and  Code of Civil Procedure 1209(b)[1] this filing may be read online at the blog, “Just Answer the Damn Question!” (short link http://wp.me/p10kHj-28  )  It is under the blog title of “Does the foundational document of this case, the judgment as submitted from a prior case, show Sharon Kramer prevailed over GlobalTox, Inc., in trial and was awarded costs by judgment — or — is this Court acting with no subject matter jurisdiction under C.C.P. 664[2] (and thus no judicial immunity) to harass and conceal collusive criminal misconduct by plaintiffs, fellow officers of the courts and court clerks?  Just Answer The Damn Question!

              2.  As of November 15, 2012 this case is now an appellate Unruh Civil Rights[3] case for the plaintiffs’, officers of the courts’ and clerks’ criminal roles in aiding the continuance of financially motivated discrimination against the environmentally disabled, their ability to live/work in contaminated buildings and the officer of the courts, et.al., direct hate crimes[4] against the disableds’ advocate, Sharon “Kramer”.  As such, it appears that all case filings must also now be served on the Solicitor General of the California Attorney General’s office. (Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 1, is Kramer’s Civil Case Information Statement “Attachment” Appellate Case No. D062764 Superior Court Case No. 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC)

            3. The Attachment states on page 5, E. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS

Required to be served on the State Solicitor General at the Office of the 
Attorney General under Unruh, Civil Code 51.1  This case is the continuance of 
over seven years worth of fraud on the court and a hate crime by officers of 
the court, their clerks and the plaintiffs against an advocate for the 
environmentally disabled, Sharon Kramer. It is to conceal they have unlawfully 
aided and abetted a scientific fraud to remain in U.S. public health and 
California workman’s compensation policy by framing Sharon Kramer for libel 
with actual malice for exposing the financially motivated scientific fraud in 
policy that is adverse to the environmentally disabled; exposing how it came to
 be policy; and exposing who was involved in mass marketing the scientific fraud
 for the purpose of misleading U.S. courts to deny liability for causation of 
environmental illnesses. 

            4. In October of 2012, Judge Thomas P. Nugent was removed from his courtroom, Department 30; with no explanation given and no punishment rendered for incarcerating a United States citizen w/o subject matter jurisdiction, for refusing to commit perjury by signing a false confession to defraud the public (among other unlawful acts), and the case was reassigned to this Court.

           5. The direct evidence in the case file, now in this Court’s possession, shows the case was overseen by the prior court for nearly two years with no subject matter jurisdiction. This is because the foundational documents to this case, the judgment from a prior case, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer Case No. GIN044539 and its remittitur Appellate Case No. D054496 are known to the court to fraudulent and void to be used for any purpose. (Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2 collectively are i.) the December 20, 2010 Remittitur stating “Respondents” were parties on appeal; ii.) the September 2009 Certificate of Interested Persons only disclosing one “Respondent”, Bruce Kelman; iii.) page one of the September 2010 Appellate Opinion stating Kramer was a prevailing party awarded costs by judgment; iv.) the judgment as submitted as the foundational document to this case in November 2010 stating only Kelman as the prevailing party and no costs awarded by judgment to Kramer; v.) Justice Patricia Benke’s January 2011 refusal to recall and rescind the fraudulent remittitur and vacate the void judgment; vi.) an except of Kramer’s Appellate Brief showing the Appellate Justices knew they were committing fraud on the court by falsely stating Kramer was awarded costs by judgment and that they were concealing the undisclosed parties on appeal; and vii.) the December 31, 2008 Abstract of Judgment which shows the courts recorded that interest accruing costs were awarded to Kelman on September 24, 2008 – contradictory to the judgment as submitted as the sole foundation of this case, which states they were first awarded by judgment on December 18, 2008.    

               6. The direct evidence in the case file, now in this Court’s possession, shows that Judge Nugent incarcerated Kramer in March of 2012, caused her bodily harm and emotional distress then falsified the Sheriff Dept record to conceal what he had done – with no subject matter jurisdiction and thus with no judicial immunity. [5] [6] 

              7.  This court is now ruling with no subject matter jurisdiction if sanctions imposed for Kramer blogging of the criminal misconduct of the prior court and being ordered to publish a false confession of libel on the interent for a sentence she never even wrote, by the prior court who also had no subject matter jurisdiction and held an unlawful trial; is a lawful court order.[7]  It would appear to not get much dirtier than this matter before this court.

              8. The direct evidence in the case file, now in this Court’s possession, shows this incarceration was for Kramer’s refusal to sign a false confession on March 9, 2012 of being guilty of libel with actual malice within the first public writing, Kramer’s in March 2005, of how it became a fraud in public health policies that it was scientifically proven by Bruce “Kelman” PhD and undisclosed party Bryan “Hardin” PhD, that the “notion toxic mold is an insidious secret killer” was only being claimed by the environmentally disabled because of “media reports, trial lawyers, and junk science unsupported by actual scientific study”[8]; and for exposing the purpose of the mass marketing of scientific fraud was to mislead U.S. courts to deny liability for causation of illness.

               9. The direct evidence in the case file, now in this Court’s possession, shows that officers of the Appellate Court framed Kramer for libel in their 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion, concealed it in their 2010 Appellate Opinion; and then the prior superior court in this case attempted to gag Kramer’s ability to write of the collusive misconduct by officers of the courts – jailed her, physically harmed her and libeled her when she refused silence. (Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 3[9] is Kramer’s June 5, 2012 “NOTICE TO COURT.  I AM NOT APPEARING BEFORE YOU AGAIN.  YOU ARE A LIAR AND A CRIMINAL AND I FEAR FOR MY LIFE BECAUSE OF IT.”

               10. On November 7, 2012, Kramer appeared before this Court at a LACK OF COURT JURISDICTION “HEARING” that had been scheduled to be heard before Judge Nugent.

               11. This Court attempted to not hold the HEARING, claiming the HEARING was not a proper court proceeding.  This Court is now indisputably aware of its lack of subject matter jurisdiction, yet has not dismissed the case of its own accord and appears to be attempting to continue to make rulings in the case with no subject matter jurisdiction knowing the foundational document to the case, the judgment from the prior case, is fraudulent and void to be used for any purpose including giving this court subject matter jurisdiction.[10]

               12. This Court is aware of the law that once jurisdiction has been challenged, it cannot be assumed.  It must be proven to exist.  It is the Court’s responsibility to prove it has jurisdiction – not the victim of the seven and a half years of collusive misconduct by officers of the court, plaintiffs and clerks to prove this Court does not have jurisdiction.

TO PROVE THIS COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS DECEMBER 7, 2012 MOTION MADE UNDER DURESS, THIS COURT MUST PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTATION – WHICH IT CANNOT DO – OR DISMISS THE CASE:

             1.  A Certificate of Interested Persons submitted to the Appellate Court in Case No. D054496, which discloses there were multiple “Respondents” as parties on appeal and as is stated in the December 20, 2010 Appellate Court Remittitur.

           2. A judgment document from Case No. GIN044539 that was submitted as the sole foundation to this case in November 2010 which states Sharon Kramer was a prevailing party in trial who was awarded costs by judgment in lawful accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 664.

          3. A Notice of Entry of Judgment dated September 24, 2008, from the trial court to prevailing Pro Per Kramer in lawful accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 664.5(b).

          4. Documentation explaining how costs were awarded to Kelman with interest accruing beginning September 24, 2008, on the court recorded Abstract of Judgment of December 31, 2008 and Recorded Lien of January 19, 2009; and inconsistent with the sole foundational document to this case which states costs were first awarded by judgment on December 18, 2008. (All documents are fraudulent because the void judgment was antedated twice. Once when the costs were filled in w/o dating or initialing sometime in mid October 2008 making it appear costs were awarded on September 24, 2008 (three weeks before Kelman’s costs were submitted by officer of the court, Keith Scheuer, and include client commingled costs of trial loser, GlobalTox); and again when “mgarland 12/18/08” was added to the document after the abstract was recorded on December 31, 2008 by clerk of the court Michael Garland.)

               “The law provides that once State and Federal jurisdiction has been challenged, it musts 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  “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.” Dillon v. Dillon 187 p27   No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct. 768] Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist. [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]  “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

               I declare under the laws of the State of California under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and executed by me this 29th day of November, 2012.

____________________________

Sharon Kramer, victim of over seven years of collusive misconduct of the California legal system for daring to speak the truth in America against the financial interests of U.S. Chamber of Commerce affiliates on behalf of the health, safety and welfare of the America public.


[1] C.C.P.1209(b) states, “A speech or publication reflecting upon or concerning a court or an officer thereof shall not be treated or punished as a contempt of the court unless made in the immediate presence of the court while in session and in such a manner as to actually interfere with its proceedings.”

[2] C.C.P. 664 states, “When trial by jury has been had, judgment must be entered 
by the clerk, in conformity to the verdict… In no case is a judgment effectual 
for any purpose until entered.
[3] Unruh, 51. (a) “This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh 
Civil Rights Act.(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free 
and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, 
national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital 
status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations,
 advantages, facilities,privileges, or services in all business establishments 
of every kind whatsoever.” (6)...includes a perception…that the person is 
associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular 
characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories. 51.1. “If a 
violation of Section 51, 51.5, 51.7, 51.9, or 52.1 is alleged or the application
 or construction of any of these sections is in issue in any proceeding in the 
Supreme Court of California, a state court of appeal, or the appellate division 
of a superior court, each party shall serve a copy of the party's brief or 
petition and brief, on the State Solicitor General at the Office of the Attorney
 General. No brief may be accepted for filing unless the proof of service shows 
service on the State Solicitor General.”
[4] Penal Code 422.55(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole 
or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived 
characteristics of the victim:(1) Disability.(7) Association with a person or 
group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.(b) "Hate 
crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6. which 
states(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or
 threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or 
threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or 
privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by 
the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one
 or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in 
subdivision (a) of Section 422.55

[5] March 14, 2012 Court Transcript, Court sent Kramer to jail for refusing to commit perjury to defraud public with no jurisdiction. http://freepdfhosting.com/dbe7597bdb.pdf

[6] Evidence that Judge Nugent falsified Sheriff Dept record on April 5, 2012 to conceal Kramer was incarcerated for refusing to sign a false confession. http://freepdfhosting.com/011a20cc26.pdf

[7] December 7, 2012 Kramer’s Motion For Reconsideration submitted under duress. http://freepdfhosting.com/0bafcf85ca.pdf

[8] U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 2003 A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold by Bruce Kelman & Bryan Hardin, co-owners of Veritox, Inc., states, “Thus the notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer as so many trial lawyers and media reports would claim is Junk Science unsupported by actual scientific study.” (Kelman & Hardin were paid by the Manhattan Institute think-tank to write the Chamber’s position statement. The writing cites false authorship of also being co-authored by Dr. Andrew Saxon of UCLA, according to Saxon’s statements made under oath and the only billable hours being Kelman and Hardin. Kelman has stated under oath it was specifically written to be shared with judges. It was the subject scientific fraud of Kramer’s March 2005 writing for which the courts framed her for libel for the words, “altered his under oath statements” in the 2006 appellate anti-SLAPP opinion. They also suppressed the evidence Kelman committed perjury to establish false light reason malice. They suppressed the evidence Hardin was an undisclosed party to the litigation on the appellate court filed Certificate of Interested Persons. They suppressed the evidence that the duo’s scientific fraud had been found to be a “huge leap” not able to be used to deny causation of illness, by a superior court in Sacramento, CA.  Officers of the courts have rolled down hill from there in collusive misconduct to continue to aid the fraud to be used in U.S. courts against the sick, injured and dying; and to conceal their criminal roles in aiding it by harassment of Kramer.)

[9] June 5, 2012 Notice to compromised court w/no subject matter jurisdiction of courts’ criminal acts, bodily harm, emotional distress & harassment of US citizen http://freepdfhosting.com/fd2a0d1cef.pdf

[10] November 2, 2012 Transcript of this Court being made aware it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of fraud on the court by officers of the court, plaintiffs and clerks. http://freepdfhosting.com/16f8cb3941.pdf

November 29, 2012 faxes went sent to the EPA, FEMA, several U.S. Congressment and Senators, and President Obama showing how fraud on the court by officers of the court in this case is aiding to defraud the taxpayers over the mold issue while the victims of Hurricane Sandy are also the victims of corruption in the CA courts and politics over the mold issue in Washington DC.  “Congress, Please remove scientific fraud from policy that moldy buildings do not harm ~ and while you are at it remove corrupt officers of the California courts who aid this fraud to continue nationwide.”

Please watch the October 2012 ONE HOUR INTERVIEW http://wp.me/plYPz-3tc of Sharon Kramer by Mr. Walter Davis of Citizens Demanding Justice on behalf of the documentary, Lawless America The Movie. 

Please visit our sister blog, http://ContemptOfCourtFor.ME to see greater detail of the corrupt CA courts’ harassment of a whistle blower of scientific fraud in US public health policy, written and mass marketing to the courts on behalf of the financial interests of the affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Did officers of the Appellate Court commit fraud on the court in a September 2010 appellate opinion by falsely stating a judgment that was never entered – or – does the Appellate Court not have jurisdiction now to hear an appeal under C.C.P. 664 because the sole foundational document to this case, the judgment from the prior case, is known to the officers of this court to be a void judgment? Just answer the damn question!

November 15, 2012

Civil Case Information Statement Attachment

Appellate Case No. D062764

Superior Court Case No. 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC

Bruce J. Kelman (et. al.) v. Sharon Kramer

Document read in pdf

In lawful accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 1209(b) which states, “A speech or publication reflecting upon or concerning a court or an officer thereof shall not be treated or punished as a contempt of the court unless made in the immediate presence of the court while in session and in such a manner as to actually interfere with its proceedings.” and in accordance with the First Amendment of Constitution of the United States, this court filing may be read online at the blog “Just Answer the Damn Question!”.

It is under the title of “Did officers of the Appellate Court commit fraud on the court in a September 2010 appellate opinion by falsely stating a judgment that was never entered – or –  does the Appellate Court not have jurisdiction now to hear an appeal under C.C.P. 664 because the sole foundational document to this case, the judgment from the prior case, is known to the officers of this court to be a void judgment? Just answer the damn question!”  http://wp.me/p10kHj-1N

This is a limited civil case under $25,000.00.

Part I.

A. APPEALABILITY

On July 2, 2012, a judgment was entered by default for $1.00 after the court held a trial with no subject matter jurisdiction, and no notification it was proceeding with the trial.

On January 19, 2012, $19,000.00+ was awarded to the plaintiff(s) with no stated reason in writing or orally; and a lien was placed on Sharon Kramer’s property.

On July 2, 2012, $7,200+ was awarded to plaintiffs in attorney fees, because Sharon Kramer refused to appear before a court, with no subject matter jurisdiction, that had incarcerated her in March of 2012, had her unlawfully strip searched, caused her bodily harm and emotional distress for refusing to commit criminal perjury and sign a known false confession of being guilty of libel over a writing impacting public health, which also contained the false sentence, “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury” – when he did to establish false theme for malice and officers of this court concealed it in two appellate opinions.

On July 2, 2012, $3,000 in sanctions were issued with more threat of incarceration because Sharon Kramer refused to publish a false confession on the internet of being guilty of libel with actual malice for a sentence she never even wrote – which would aid to conceal this Appellate Court framed her for libel for a completely different sentences in two appellate opinions; one in the November 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion and again in September 2010 as they suppressed the evidence Bruce Kelman committed perjury to establish false theme for malice.

D. APPELLATE CASE HISTORY

I have a degree in marketing from Ole Miss and am an advocate for integrity in health marketing when setting public health policies. In 2005, I wrote of how a scientific fraudulent concept was mass marketed into US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. This was for the purpose to mislead courts to deny liability of moldy building stakeholders for causation of illness.

 The fraudsters sued me for libel for five words in the writing “altered his under oath statements”. The Case No. is GIN044539.  The compromised officers of the CA courts aided the fraudsters to falsely deem me guilty of libel.

In two appellate opinions they made the writing appear to have made a false accusation that it did not make, thereby aiding to cast doubt on all my words and aiding the fraud to continue to flourish and grow.  The anti-SLAPP Case No. is D047758.  On appeal after trial the Case No. is D054496.

In both appellate opinions, officers of the court also suppressed the evidence that the fraudsters committed perjury to establish libel law required reason for malice and that a retired U.S. Assistant Surgeon General, Bryan Hardin, is an undisclosed party to the litigation on the Certificate of Interested Persons. He was also a paid for hire co-author the scientific fraud for the US Chamber of Commerce and a compromised US policy setting medical association, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), the subjects of my writing of how the scientific fraud became policy. 

In January of 2011, Appellate Justice Patricia Benke refused to recall and rescind the fraudulent remittitur which awarded costs to “respondents” when there was only one “respondent” disclosed on the September 2009 Certificate of Interested Persons, Bruce Kelman.  She refused to set aside the known void judgment on record that was inconsistent with the stated judgment on record in the fraudulent September 2010 Appellate Opinion and inconsistent with the Abstract of Judgment and Lien recorded on Sharon Kramer’s property by the San Diego Superior Court.

Attached hereto collectively as EXHIBIT 1 are: i.) the first page of the September 2010 Appellate Opinion falsely stating a judgment had been entered in Sharon Kramer’s favor, ii.) the judgment document as submitted by Kelman as the foundation for this second case in November 2010, with no mention of Sharon Kramer being awarded a judgment or being a trial prevailing party iii) the December 20, 2010 Remittitur stating “respondents” were disclosed on appeal, iv.) the September 13, 2009 Certificate of Interested Persons only disclosing Kelman as a party on appeal, v.) July 2005, except of declaration of Sharon Kramer showing Bryan Hardin was a known party to the litigation all along, yet not disclosed on Certificates of Interested Persons vi.) December 30, 2008 Abstract of Judgment that differs from both the void judgment document that is the sole foundation of this case, and the stated judgment in the fraudulent September 2010 Appellate Opinion; and vii.) Office of the Court, Justice Benke’s, January 2011, refusals to recall and rescind the fraudulent remittitur and vacate the void judgment.)
 
In a second case, this case, in which the falsified and void judgment from the first case is the sole foundational document, they have tried to gag me of what they have done and the continued adverse impact on the public because of it.  In March 2012 they put me in jail for refusing to sign a false confession of being guilty of libel w/actual malice, had me unlawfully strip searched, caused me bodily harm and emotional distress, gave me a false criminal record for alleged civil contempt, and then libeled me by falsifying the Sheriff Dept record to conceal what they had done.  
 

My signature on the false confession would have absolved the collusive misconduct of the fraudsters, officers of the courts and their clerks that have aided $B in the defrauding of the public in a cost shifting scheme off of insurers and onto taxpayers for the burden of cost of environmental illness, death and disability.

Since the foundational document to the second case is void, the San Diego Superior officers of the court have been harassing me, jailing me, harming me physically, sanctioning me and trying to intimidate me into silence with no subject matter jurisdiction.  No jurisdiction = no judicial immunity for criminal misconduct of putting me in jail, falsifying court documents, etc. The numerous document falsifications by officers of the court and their clerks are in violation of Government Code 6203(a) which states, “Every officer authorized by law to make or give any certificate or other writing is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she makes and delivers as true any certificate or writing containing statements which he or she knows to be false”, This is far more than a misdemeanor. It is billions in financially motivated hate crimes against the environmentally disabled with the compromised officers of the courts and their document falsifying clerks now desperate to conceal their unlawful roles in aiding it.

Needless to say, I have no intention of being silenced of the science fraud in policy and what the compromised leaders of the Ca judicial branch have done and continue to do to aid it; and to conceal their role in aiding it, while lives continue to be devastated daily.  This has been going on for seven and a half years and has taken my husband and me to the brink of poverty. 

I’m not shutting up until Justices Judith McConnell and Justice Richard Huffman of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court in San Diego, CA, et. al., are removed from the bench and put behind bars for their collusive crimes against humanity, defrauding of the taxpayer of billions of dollars and treason against the United States Constitution they are sworn under oath to uphold.  Their clerk, Stephen Kelly, threatened me that McConnell would deem me a vexatious litigant if I filed anything in the appellate court regarding his falsification the December 2010 Remittitur under seal of the State of California.

McConnell is the former Chairwoman of the CA Comm on Judicial Performance (CJP). Huffman, the former Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Council (JC) for 14 years. This is the most powerful position in the CA judicial branch. I have him for fraud on the court in an appellate opinion to conceal that the judgement is void and fraudulent; and that they have tried to use the void judgment as a valid legal document to shut me up of officers of the CA courts colluding to defraud the public on behalf of the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce. 

So far, I can show direct evidence of twelve San Diego judiciaries being hands on involved, several clerks falsifying documents with the State Bar, CJP, JC, CA Chief Justice and local DA shielding them and aiding and abetting in the continuing harassment to try to silence and discredit me. Judge Thomas Nugent just lost his courtroom of 20 years in the North San Diego County Superior Court and they have brought a new man up to bat, Judge Robert Dahlquist, who can’t seem to grasp he has no legal jurisdiction to tell me to do anything while he is now also colluding to defraud.  Again, no valid legal document for foundation of case = no jurisdiction = no judicial immunity for conspiring to defraud the public in financially motivated hate crimes of the environmentally ill, disabled and dying – and their advocate, me.  I am also being cyberstalked by the “The Courthouse Gang” with the local district attorney refusing to take action to protect me, even though she knows I am fearful for my life from the massive fraud I have exposed in public health policy and in the California courts.

The above is just the CA courts’ and the local DA’s involvement. I can show direct evidence of much more involvement in WashingtonDC, in several federal and state agencies, and down both sides of the isle in both Congress and in the Senate aiding and benefiting from the scientific fraud remaining in policy directly because of the unlawful actions of the CA courts trying to silence and discredit me. It has been extremely difficult to get this matter to public light because of all the misinformation being spread over this matter and officers of the courts repeatedly libeling me to make me appear to be a malicious liar.

The matter is actually quite simple: I exposed fraud that was written into policy on behalf of the financial interests of affiliates of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and adverse to public health. Officers of the courts framed me for libel to make me look like a liar to aid the fraud to continue be able to sell doubt of causation of environmental illnesses in courts all across the US. Now they want me silenced by hook or by crook so they can stay on the bench and continue to aid this fraud that is nothing more than a financially motivated hate crime of me and the environmentally disabled and to aid many more frauds that are occurring in the courts of California by incestuously compromised officers of the courts.

E. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS

Required to be served on the State Solicitor General at the Office of the Attorney
General under Unruh: 51.1.  

This case is the continuance of over seven years worth of fraud on the court and a
hate crime by officers of the court, their clerks and the plaintiffs against an 
advocate for the environmentally disabled, Sharon Kramer. It is to conceal they 
have unlawfully aided and abetted a scientific fraud to remain in U.S. public 
health and California workman’s compensation policy by framing Sharon Kramer for 
libel with actual malice for exposing the financially motivated scientific fraud 
in policy that is adverse to the environmentally disabled; exposing how it came 
to be policy; and exposing who was involved in mass marketing the scientific fraud
for the purpose of misleading U.S. courts to deny liability for causation of 
environmental illnesses.  

"Disability" means any mental or physical disability as defined in Sections 12926 
of the Government Code.  The relevant section of this code state, k)"On the bases 
enumerated in this part" means or refers to discrimination on the basis of one or 
more of the following:…physical disability, mental disability, medical condition…
(l) "Physical disability" includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Having any physiological disease, disorder, condition…that does both of the 
following:(A) Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, 
immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including 
speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive,digestive, genitourinary, hemic and 
lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.(B) Limits a major life activity. For purposes of 
this section:(i) "Limits" shall be determined without regard to mitigating 
measures such as medications, assistive devices, prosthetics, or reasonable 
accommodations, unless the mitigating measure itself limits a major life activity.
(ii) A physiological disease, disorder, condition..limits a major life activity 
if it makes the achievement of the major life activity difficult.(iii) "Major life
 activities" shall be broadly construed and includes physical, mental, and social 
activities and working.(2) Any other health impairment not described in paragraph 
(1) that requires special education or related services. (6)(n) "…physical 
disability, mental disability, medical condition,.." includes a perception that 
the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with 
a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics.
Under Penal Code 422.55(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole 
or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived 
characteristics of the victim:(1) Disability.(7) Association with a person or 
group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.(b) "Hate 
crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6. which states
(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat 
of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any 
other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured 
to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or 
laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual
 or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 
422.55.(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly 
deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for 
the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of 
any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of 
this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, in whole or in 
part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the 
victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.
Unruh states, “If a violation of Section 51, 51.5, 51.7, 51.9, or 52.1 is alleged 
or the application or construction of any of these sections is in issue in any 
proceeding in the Supreme Court of California, a state court of appeal, or the 
appellate division of a superior court, each party shall serve a copy of the party
's brief or petition and brief, on the State Solicitor General at the Office of 
the Attorney General. No brief may be accepted for filing unless the proof of 
service shows service on the State Solicitor General. Any party failing to comply 
with this requirement shall be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the failure 
before the court imposes any sanction and, in that instance, the court shall allow
the Attorney General reasonable additional time to file a brief in the matter.”

Part II. NATURE OF ACTION 
A. 12. Forced court filing under duress because of collusive misconduct by 
officers of the court and falsification of court documents. Fraud on the court by 
officers of the court, clerks and plaintiffs in financially motivated hate crimes 
against the environmentally disabled and their advocate, Sharon Kramer.  Need for 
court to recall and rescind the fraudulent anti-SLAPP opinion of November of 2006,
then step down off the bench.

Part III. PARTIES AND ATTORNEY INFORMATION

Bruce J. Kelman, President of Veritox, Inc.,

Attorney of Record, Keith Scheuer, Esq.  State Bar # 82797

Undisclosed parties to the litigation. (Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2,  is the evidence that the Appellate Court is aware the void judgment from the prior case, which is the foundation of this case, awarded costs to the following five people and owners of Veritox, who Kramer prevailed over in the August 2008 trial)

  1. Bryan Hardin, Retired Assistant U.S. Surgeon General; Deputy Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Protection National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health; owner of Veritox, Inc.,
  2. Coreen Robbins, owner of Veritox, Inc.
  3. Loni Swenson, owner of Veritox, Inc.
  4. Robert Schreibe, owner of Veritox, Inc.
  5. Robert Clark, owner of Veritox, Inc.

Officers of the Court and Clerks who falsified court documents; suppressed evidence of plaintiff perjury, plaintiff counsel suborning of perjury, concealed parties to the litigation, and framed a United States citizen for libel with actual malice; then attempted to use a known void judgment document to conceal the collusive misconduct in a second case, this case, in financially motivated hate crimes of the environmentally disabled and their advocate, Sharon Kramer.

Keith Scheuer, Esq.

Tracey Sang, Esq.

Judge Michael Orfield (retired)

Justice Judith McConnell

Justice Cynthia Aaron

Justice Alex MacDonald

Judge Lisa Schall and her clerk, Michael Garland

Judge Joel Pressman

Judge William Dato and his clerk

Justice Patricia Benke

Justice Joanne Irrion

Clerk of the Appellate Court, Stephen Kelly

Judge Thomas Nugent and his clerks, Cheryl Karini and Alan Lum

Judge Earl Mass III

Judge Robert Dahlquist

Judge Robert Trentacosta,

Judge Kevin Enright

Chief Justice Ronald George

Chief Justice Tawny Cantil-Sayauke

Judicial Council Chairman Douglas Miller

Judicial Council Member Noreen Evans

Judicial Council Member Michael Feuer

Clerk of the San Diego Superior Court, Michael Roddy

District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, who receives millions annually in funding to stop insurer fraud and hate crimes in San Diego county, and instead has chosen to gain unfair advantage in county litigations by shielding mass corruption in the San Diego courts including but not limited to the Fourth District Division One Court of Appeals. 

November 15, 2012                                     _______________________________

                                                                              Sharon Kramer, United States citizen            

                                                                              and Appellant Under Duress

Read more at our sister blogs:

 ContemptOfCourtFor.Me  “Because the Constitution, thousands of lives and restoring scruples to the California judicial branch is worth the fight”

Katy’s Exposure  “Exposing environmental health threats and those responsible”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Question to Kevin H. Brown, CEO of the National Apartment Association – “So, aptly spoken…are you lying to your members or lying to the courts?” Just Answer The Damn Question!

Our first Damn Questions! go to Kevin H. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the National Apartment Association (“NAA”).  NAA is a political action committee located in the DC area.  They respresent and lobby on behalf of multi-million dollar property management companies from across the US.  Among other functions, these property management companies oversee the leasing and maintenance of multi-tenant housing of thousand of US Citizens.

The Damn Questions! for Mr. Brown are:  “Isn’t it insurance fraud to present the purported environmental science of the US Chamber of Commerce to the courts in an effort to bias their decision in favor of an NAA member, while telling the courts that ‘years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects’…and then turn around and warn the NAA members via your blog that  NAA is aware ‘mold can cause major health problems and even death. Don’t let it get out of control and affect your company or your residents.’? 

So, aptly spoken…are you lying to your members or lying to the courts?”

Mr. Kevin Brown
Chief Executive Officer
4300 Wilson Boulevard, Su 400
Arlington, Virginia 22203

Dear Mr. Brown,

We have a blog called “Katy’s Exposure – Exposing Environmental Health Threats & Those Responsible for Them”.  I think you are aware of this blog, because you were sent a certified letter on April 28, 2010 telling you of its existance and how it relates to you, the NAA and a particular Amicus Curiae brief the NAA submitted in a legal proceeding in Arizona involving new born infant deaths and an apartment building documented to have an atypical amount of mold.

On  August 31, 2009, the NAA submitted an Amicus to the Arizona courts that stated:

“In a report entitled, ‘A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold’, a panel of scientists, including toxicologists and industrial hygienists stated that years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects.’ U.S. Chamber of Commerce, A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold (2003)”

[FYI, purported author for US Chamber who says under oath that he never even read the Chamber’s “Scientific View” even 3 years after it was published, UCLA physician, Andrew Saxon]

But on May 19, 2010, the NAA blogged a warning to its members titled “Mold: Your Silent Enemy”.  This blog states:
 
“Remember, mold can cause major health problems and even death. Don’t let it get out of control and affect your company or your residents.”

So….Isn’t it insurance fraud to present the environmental science of the US Chamber of Commerce to the courts in an effort to bias their decision in favor of an NAA member, while telling the courts “years of intense study have failed to produce any causal connection between exposure to indoor mold and adverse health effects”…and then turn around and warn the NAA members via your blog that  NAA is aware “mold can cause major health problems and even death. Don’t let it get out of control and affect your company or your residents.” ? 

So, aptly spoken…are you lying to your members or lying to the courts?”

You may send your answer via email to our new blog, “Just Answer The Damn Question!” and we will post your response on your behalf.  Link to our email address: DamnQuestions

Thank you,                     

Katy & Sharon

Just Answer The Damn Question! Blog Team