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.

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