In YOUR 2006 Opinion, did YOU state that Dr. Kelman admitted payment from the Manhattan Institute after being confronted with his Kilian testimony’? – OR- Are YOU conspiring to silence me because YOU framed me for defamation for writing “Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne’s attorney of Kelman’s prior testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand.”? Just Answer The Damn Question, Justice Judith McConnell!

BIG Disqual of McConnell“Damn Question!” answered on behalf of Presiding Justice Judith 
McConnell ("PJ"):  The direct evidence proves it is confirmed by PJ’s, 
Justices Cynthia (“Aaron”)’s and Alex (“McDonald”)’s 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion 
that Respondent Kelman did “alter his under oath statements" after being 
confronted with the Kilian transcript, a case in Arizona. The justices framed 
Appellant for libel in the 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion.   

In their September 2010 alleged case review Benke, Justice Richard 
(“Huffman”) and Joanne (“Irrion”) willfully and collusively concealed their 
peers framed a United States citizen, Appellant 

1.) PJ’s fraudulent and framing November 2006 anti-SLAPP Opinion acknowledges 
Kelman “altered his under oath statements” after being confronted with the 
transcript from a case in Arizona, Kilian. PJ then framed Appellant to falsely 
make it appear Appellant accused Kelman lied about being paid to make revisions
 in a medical association, ACOEM’s, Mold Position Statement: 

“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  [sic, bench 
trial] 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.” 

2.) Appellant’s March 2005 writing accurately states Kelman “altered his under 
oath statements” when confronted with a prior testimony from Arizona, Kilian. 
As evidenced above, this is confirmed to be a 100% accurate statement according
to PJ’s opinion. Appellant’s writing did not accuse Kelman of lying about being
paid to make revisions in the ACOEM Mold Position Statement as PJ maliciously 
made Appellant’s writing appear for the purpose of framing her for libel. 
Appellant’s writing accurately states the Manhattan Institute think-tank money 
to Kelman (and undisclosed party, Hardin) was to write the Mold Position 
Statement for the US Chamber of Commerce. It accurately states ACOEM’s paper 
was a different version of the “commissioned piece”.

“Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne’s attorney of Kelman’s prior 
testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements 
on the witness stand.  He admitted the Manhattan Institute, a national political
think-tank, paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the 
potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Although much medical research 
finds otherwise, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the 
types of illnesses experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands 
from across the US, could be caused by "toxic mold" exposure in homes, schools 
or office buildings. 

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.” [ACOEM]

3.)  The 2010 Appellate Opinion by Benke, Huffman, Irrion concealed PJ, Aaron 
and McDonald had framed Appellant for libel in the 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion over 
her March 2005 writing. The writing was regarding public health and the mass 
marketing of a false scientific concept to lend undue credibility to Kelman’s, 
Hardin’s and Veritox’s scientific fraud upon United States courts. The six 
justices willfully aided and abetted the continuing defrauding of the public: 

“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.” 

“Thus any disagreement we might entertain with respect to our prior disposition 
would be no more than that: a disagreement. 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.” 

"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 [anti-SLAPP Opinion] we expressly rejected Kramer's argument 
that such independent review entitled her to judgment."

As Appellant’s allegedly libelous phrase “altered his under oath statements”, 
the only five words for which she has ever been sued, is proven true by PJ’s own
opinion; it is also proven Appellant is not now nor has she ever been guilty of 
publishing or republishing defamation.  If one has not published defamation, 
there is also no malice established for writing the truth.  The evidence is 
undeniable. Six appellate justice framed Appellant over a writing impacting 
public health, aiding mass marketing of scientific fraud and impacting mold 
litigations nationwide.

They made Appellant’s writing appear to have made a false accusation that it 
did not make to make Appellant appear to be a malicious liar for exposing the 
defrauding of the public. Now they want it hidden of what they have done.

The continuing damage to Appellant and to the public is far from “nominal” by 
the officers’ of the court intrinsic and collusive fraud upon the court.  
Respondents’ scientific fraud that Appellant exposed and was framed to 
be a malicious liar for it by PJ, has been used against many US citizens
and workers who have been injured by biocontaminants in water damaged buildings.
The false science founded upon conflicted interests, continues to be used in 
claims handling practices, denial of needed medical treatments and wrongful 
delay/denial of financial responsibility for causation of illness, disability 
and death. 

In March of 2012, the court incarcerated Appellant for refusing to be coerced 
to sign a false confession of libel under penalty of perjury, “Retraction of 
Sharon Kramer”. It was crafted by Scheuer, and submitted to the court in 
February 2012.  It also contained the sentence, “I do not believe Dr. Kelman 
committed perjury”. The jailing was terrorizing bullying of Appellant in an 
attempt to give her a “prophylactic experience” to silence her that PJ, Benke 
and other judiciaries have acted as corrupt politicians, not impartial overseers
of law. Appellant was strip searched, caused emotional distress and made ill 
from the unlawful incarceration. Now virtually destitute from the years of 
costly harassment, she asked the court on April 27, 2012 to pay for her needed 
medical attention. No response was received.

In April of 2012, the Court ordered falsification of the Sheriff Department 
record to make it appear Appellant was lawfully jailed under CCP1218(a) for 
violating the January 2012 Civil Contempt Order - to cover up that she was 
really jailed for refusing silence of PJ, Benke, framing her for libel 
in the predicate case and Appellant’s refusal to sign a false confession under 
penalty of perjury. This falsification of the Sheriff Department record occurred
when the Court ordered the removal of the false criminal record under PC166 
and replacement of it with a false civil contempt record under CCP1218(a). The 
libelous falsification of Appellant’s Sheriff Department record is a criminal 
act in itself, to conceal unlawful and criminal acts involving PJ & Benke.

Read the "Motion To Disquality Justice Judith McConnell Self-Known To Be 
Maliciously Presiding Coram Non Judice" at our sister blog ContemptOfCourtFor.ME.