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 et.al., 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, et.al. 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.

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”

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