Re: Re: From Sharon Kramer~QuanTEM Labs Jan 10 Newsletter~Fal...

[Guest guest]

Only explanation must be because they are mean spirited, dense, little,

people who never learn.

_http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/quantem-labs-oklahoma-false-l

ight-over-mold-sharon-kramer/_

(http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/02/02/quantem-labs-oklahoma-false-light\

-over-mold-sharon-kramer/)

Sharon

In a message dated 2/2/2010 2:18:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

ldelp84227@... writes:

Pretty disgusting Sharon. I don't understand why they can do this.

[Guest guest]

,

This is why they are doing it. I've got them by the balls for

strategically litigating to keep the scientific fraud of ACOEM and the US

Chamber

going in US courts. For some reason, they seem to hate me. Submitted to the

San Diego Appellate Court last week.

Much like a Santa Ana wind blowing into the San Diego Appellate court. When

the static, immovable airs and visibility blocking smut are purged from

this strategic litigation; six facts remain in evidence, clear

as day, for this Reviewing Court’s opened eyes....

.....Contrary to rulings of the San Diego courts, plaintiffs cannot legally

file a libel suit accusing they were falsely and maliciously accused of

committing perjury by the defendant’s words “altered his under oath

statementsâ€; not be able to even state how the phrase translates to an

accusation of perjury; not disclose who the true parties to the litigation are;

and then commit perjury to falsely establish the reason for the

defendant’s malice.

To do so, only proves the plaintiffs do commit perjury. And their

accusation of feigning malicious harm from the word “altered†could not be

established by legal means. They used criminal means and judicial

bamboozlement that the courts bought hook, line and sinker no matter how

much contradictory evidence the courts were provided.

Kramer is legally entitled to a reversal of all of her motions that were

defeated by Kelman’s, VeriTox’s and Scheuer’s fraud on the courts, (9

Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 733, pp. 762-763.);

which makes Kramer the properly recognized prevailing party of the C.C.P.

425.16 anti-SLAPP motion. As the prevailing party in an anti- SLAPP motion,

Kramer is legally entitled to her costs and fees incurred

from errors of improper courts rulings while ignoring her evidence since

September of 2005 of Kelman’s criminal perjury to establish false reason for

Kramer’s malice when strategically litigating through the

efforts of Scheuer.

“Paterno asks for her attorney fees in preparing this writ petition.

Under subdivision © of the anti-SLAPP statute, successful litigants who

prevail on a special motion to strike are entitled to attorney fees as a

matter of right “to compensate . . . for the expense of responding to a

SLAPP suit.†(Wanland v. Law Offices of Mastagni, Holstedt &

Chiurazzi (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 15, 22 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 633].) The

trial court should consider Paterno’s request for attorney fees in

connection with Paterno’s special motion to strike....Paterno is awarded

her costs in this proceeding. Paterno v. Superior Court (2008) 163

Cal.App.4th 1342, 1357-1358.

WHEN this Reviewing Court acknowledges what legally cannot be

denied: Kramer’s overwhelming, uncontroverted and irrefutable

evidence that seven judges and justices ignored Kramer’s overwhelming,

uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence of Kelman’s perjury on the

issue of malice and ignored Kramer’s vast evidence of Scheuer’s willful

suborning of Kelman’s criminal perjury; THEN seven years worth of

scientific fraud perpetrated on US Courts over the mold issue by the US

Chamber of Commerce et al, will immediately cease by the

acknowledgment that their author of their scientific fraud has no qualms

about lying under oath to the courts and strategically litigating; and

while their other author does not disclose he is a party to the strategic

litigation.

The entire point of using criminal perjury in this strategic litigation

was so the fraud of the US Chamber et al, could continue by the

discrediting of the truthful words of a Whistleblower by deeming her to

be a malicious liar for the mere word “alteredâ€. Thus far, errors of the

San Diego courts have inadvertently aided and abetted the US Chamber

of Commerce et al,’s scientific fraud to continue on its merry way in US

courts by deeming the wrong party in this strategic litigation to be the

“malicious liarâ€; and causing this wronged party to be unable to make a

living as a reputable, real estate agent.

As this Reviewing Court has been informed and evidenced; on

August 31, 2009, an Amicus Curiae Brief by the National Apartment

Association political action committee (“NAA Amicusâ€) was submitted

into a legal proceeding in Arizona (“Abadâ€) involving two new born

infant deaths, an apartment building documented to have an atypical

amount of mold, and Bruce Kelman serving as an expert witness for the

defense; with the NAA Amicus submitted in fraudulent validation of

Kelman’s self professed expert mold opinion. (Kelman comes to the

mold issue from Big Tobacco, circa 2000) NAA Amicus pg. 9:

“In a report entitled, ‘A Scientific View of the Health Effects of

Mold’, a pane of l[sic, two] 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)â€

California Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3.D.(2) states, Disciplinary

Responsibilities ‘Whenever a judge has personal knowledge that a

lawyer has violated any provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct,

the judge shall take appropriate corrective action.â€

Two mothers of deceased newborns in Arizona are waiting on this Reviewing

Court to

“take appropriate corrective action†to undo the harm of this unbridled

strategic litigation so they are not also victimized by the fraud in their

litigation used to falsely deem them to be malicious liars. (Word Count:

560 plus case law and Judicial Ethics Canon citing)....

Reminiscent of the tale of the husband who attempted to sneak in the

back door of his home early one morning wearing his crumpled suit

from the day before, and who replied to his wife’s questioning of where

he had been, with, “I got home at 1a.m. and did not want to wake you,

so I slept out back in the hammockâ€. When informed by his wife that

she had taken the hammock down three months earlier, the husband then

replied, “Well that’s my story and I’m sticking to itâ€. The following

is

Kelman’s Appellate Reply Brief...

In a message dated 2/2/2010 2:18:23 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

ldelp84227@... writes:

Pretty disgusting Sharon. I don't understand why they can do this.

>

>

> To My Many Friends in the IAQ and Integrity in Science/PR/Media

Industries,

>

>