Who runs California’s judicial branch? A parody of sorts | Judicial

[Guest guest]

_Who runs California’s judicial branch? A parody of sorts | Judicial

Council Watcher#comments#comments_

(http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/who-runs-californias-jud\

icial-branch-a-parody-of-sorts/#comments)

Rumor is, Justice Huffman (subject of the article and a justice in my case

w/Kelman) is stepping down from his position of being the most powerful

justices in the state of California, who oversees the allocation of all the

courts' money.

Mrs. Kramer says:

_April 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm_

(http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/who-runs-californias-jud\

icial-branch-a-parody-of-sorts/#comment-1237

)

Rate This

Dear California Judicial Council Watcher,

My name is Sharon Kramer and I am a whistle blower of how it became US and

California health policy that it was purportedly scientifically proven

that water damaged, moldy buildings do not harm people.

I first wrote of this in March of 2005 while I named the names of those

involved in mass marketing the novel concept, i.e., the US Chamber of

Commerce, the Manhattan Institute think-tank; US Congressman

(R-CA); a

corporation called GlobalTox, Inc., (now known as VeriTox); the corp’s

president, Bruce Kelman, Phd; and the occupational physician trade

organization that writes the workers’ comp guidelines for the state of

California

under SB 899 – the American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine

(ACOEM). _http://freepdfhosting.com/4051da7b08.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/4051da7b08.pdf)

I went on to help with a 2007 front page, above the fold, Wall Street

Journal article on the subject titled “Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over Mold,

Experts Wear Two Hats Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also

Help in Litigationâ€. This article named the same people and organization

that I did in 2005, and even a few more.

_http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf_

(http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf)

As noted in a new book by Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker, “Surviving Moldâ€, I also

was the catalyst who caused a Federal Government Accountability Office

audit of the current scientific understanding of the health effects of mold.

_http://freepdfhosting.com/e5aa09c851.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/e5aa09c851.pdf)

This report came out in September of 2008. It has federally established

that contrary to what the US Chamber, ACOEM et.al., have mass marketed to

physicians and to the courts which helps to sell doubt of causation, which

helps to stave off liability for the insurance industry and others; severe

illness from the microbes found in water damaged buildings are indeed

plausible to be occurring. _http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-980_

(http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-980)

In May of 2005, Bruce Kelman, PhD and GlobalTox sued me for libel for the

first public writing to expose the conflicts of interest and who all was

involved in mass marketing the information, i.e., my March 2005 Internet

writing that I linked above.

Their sole claim of the case was that my use of the phrase “altered his

under oath statements†within the writing was a maliciously false accusation

that Bruce Kelman, author of the US Chamber’s and ACOEM’s position

statements on mold, committed perjury when testifying in a trial in Oregon, the

subject trial of my writing. _http://freepdfhosting.com/f41c7bcb72.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/f41c7bcb72.pdf)

Although you will never see it mentioned in any opinion or ruling from the

six year long libel case, (which means you will also never see any

evidence of it being impeached) for six years I evidenced for the courts why I

used the phrase “altered his under oath statements†to describe Kelman’s

testimony of which I was writing in March of 2005.

Just one example from the gazillions of times found in the court records

file that I evidenced my logic while citing to the exact words of Kelman’s

testimony that I considered altered under oath statements and why I consider

them this as he was trying to hide that the Chamber paper was so closely

connected to purportedly unbiased science of ACOEM. From my Petition for

Rehearing, September 30, 2010, pdf pages 10 & 11 (huge pdf, takes a minute to

open):

_http://freepdfhosting.com/a3e651283d.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/a3e651283d.pdf)

“Declaration of Kramer submitted to the courts, July 2005: ‘Within the

prior sentences, Kelman testified ‘We were not paid for that…’, not

clarifying which version he was discussing. There was no question asked of him

at

that time. He went on to say GlobalTox was paid for the ‘lay translation’

of the ACOEM Statement. He then altered to say ‘They’re two different

papers, two different activities.’ He then flipped back again by saying,

‘We

would have never been contacted to do a translation of a document that had

already been prepared, if it hadn’t already been prepared.’ By this

statement he verified they were not two different papers, merely two versions of

the same paper. And that is what this lawsuit is really all about.

The rambling attempted explanation of the two papers’ relationship coupled

with the filing of this lawsuit intended to silence me, have merely

spotlighted Kelman’s strong desire to have the ACOEM Statement and the

Manhattan

Institute Version [sic, the US Chamber's mold statement] portrayed as two

separate works by esteemed scientists. In reality, they are authored by

Kelman and Hardin, the principals of a corporation called GlobalTox, Inc. – a

corporation that generates much income denouncing the illnesses of families,

office workers, teachers and children with the purpose of limiting the

financial liability of others.

One paper is an edit of the other and both are used together to propagate

biased thought based on a scant scientific foundation. Together, these

papers are the core of an elaborate sham that has been perpetrated on our

courts, our medical community and the American public. Together, they are the

vehicle used to give financial interests of some indecent precedence over the

lives of others.’(Appellant Appendix Vol.1 Ex.8:157-158)â€

The sole claim of the libel case is that I maliciously accused US

Chamber/ACOEM mold statements author, Bruce Kelman, of committing perjury when

on

the witness stand in Oregon in February of 2005 via the phrase “altered his

under oath statementsâ€. Although one will never see it in any opinion or

ruling, for six years I provided the courts with uncontroverted evidence that

Kelman committed perjury in this libel litigation to establish needed

reason for my purported malice, (aka, using perjury to “legally†prove he

was

falsely accused by me of being one who would commit perjury).

Kelman and his California licensed attorney, Scheuer, claimed that I

“lauched into an obsessive campaign to destroy the reputation of Dr.

Kelman and GlobalTox†to get revenge because he purportedly gave the

following

testimony in my own mold litigation of long ago in which the “science

conflicted with my dreams of a remodeled homeâ€. Kelman’s declarations

submitted

to the courts three times under penalty of perjury as noted in my Petition

for Rehearing September 30, 2010, pdf page 22

_http://freepdfhosting.com/a3e651283d.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/a3e651283d.pdf)

“I first learned of Defendant Sharon Kramer in mid-2003, when I was

retained as an expert in a lawsuit between her, her homeowner’s insurer

[Mercury

Casualty] and other parties regarding alleged mold contamination in her

house. She apparently felt that the remediation work had been inadequately

done, and that she and her daughter had suffered life-threatening diseases as

a result. I testified that the type and amount of mold in the Kramer house

could not have caused the life-threatening illnesses that she claimed. I

never met Ms. Kramer.†(App.Opn.Brf.Erta,pp.7)

One example in which Kelman’s attorney suborned the above perjury and

inflamed the courts to falsely believe I would have reason for personal malice

for Kelman, as noted in my Petition for Rehearing September 30, 2010, pdf

pages 22 & 23.

Perjury!!! Kelman gave no such testimony in my lawsuit with my homeowner’s

insurer. From Scheuer’s Briefs:

“Dr. Kelman testified in a deposition that the type and amount of mold in

the Kramer house could nothave caused the life threatening illnesses that Kr

amer claimed. Apparently furious that the science conflicted with her

dreams of a remodeled house, Kramer launched an obsessive campaign to destroy

the reputation of Dr. Kelman and GlobalTox.†(App.Opn.Brf.Erta,pp.8)

Although one will never see it mentioned in any opinion or ruling, for six

years I evidenced for the courts that Kelman never even gave the above

purported malice causing testimony in my own mold litigation of long ago that

supposedly caused me to “launch into an obsessive campaign to destroy†his

reputation. For six years, I evidenced that Kelman and his “legalâ€

counsel just kept repeating the lie, but never once provided any corroborating

documentation to support it. The courts just ignored my uncontroverted

evidence. They accepted Kelman’s and Scheuer’s false statements that were

made

under oath at face value. Just a sampling of how many times by how many

people, including my attorneys, the courts were informed and evidenced of

Kelman was using criminal perjury to establish malice, may be read in the bate

stamped documents at: _http://freepdfhosting.com/c35afb9c81.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/c35afb9c81.pdf)

I repeatedly evidenced that my family received a half a million dollar

settlement in that case with my insurer – hardly a malice causing amount

based

on a testimony that Kelman was clearly evidenced to have never even given.

For six years, courts just pretended like the irrefutable evidence of a

plaintiff using perjury to establish reason for defendant’s malice does not

exist. And then in double speak to CYA for each other, they just kept

repeating the lie in their opinions. From the 2010 unpublished opinion by

Justices Benke, Huffman and Irion, pdf page 13:

_http://freepdfhosting.com/783bea4bf1.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/783bea4bf1.pdf)

“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.â€(McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1657,

1664.) However, in Kelman v. Kramer I we expressly rejected Kramer’s argument

that such independent review entitled her to judgment. Rather, we found that

such review had taken place in the trial court and, following our own

detailed analysis of the evidence of Kramer’s hostility towards Kelman, we

left

the trial court’s determination undisturbed. Given that disposition, we

can only conclude that panel which decided Kelman v. Kramer I conducted the

required independent review of the record and agreed with the trial court

that, as the record stood at that point, there was clear and convincing

evidence of malice. Because, as we have indicated the record of malice

presented

at trial was just as fulsome as the one considered in Kelman v. Kramer I,

we cannot depart from our prior decision without also departing from the

doctrine of law of the case.â€

See VIDEO, _http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366_

(http://www.blip.tv/file/2063366) , of Kelman’s deposition, July 22, 2008, in

which he is being asked

under oath why in deposition he cannot remember what he testified to in my

case with my insurer, yet kept submitting declarations claiming he “testified

the types and amounts of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the

life threatening illnesses she claimedâ€. This video also shows they tried

to coerce me into endorsing the science of the US Chamber and ACOEM before

they would stop with the litigation. (Justice Judith McConnell has a copy

of this video evidencing perjury on the issue of malice, as does the CJP and

the State Bar. These deposition testimonies are evidenced extensively in my

Appellate motions in 2010)

Regardless of the undeniable evidence proving otherwise, I have now been

legally deemed a “malicious liar†by the California courts with a.) no

evidence required to have been presented in the case that I did not believe the

truth of my words; and b.) irrefutable evidence in the case that the

plaintiff/US Chamber/ACOEM policy author, Kelman, committed criminal perjury to

establish false (yet libel law required) reason for my purported malice –

in a litigation over the first public writing of how the US Chamber of

Commerce got their fingers into the mold issue and public health policy.

Now, there is a new litigation in which Kelman is seeking I be permanently

gagged by injunctive relief from “stating, repeating, publishing or

paraphrasing, by any means whatsoever, any statement that was determined to be

libelous in the action titled Kelman v Kramer, San Diego Superior Court Case

No. Gin 044539â€. See my March 4, 2011 Opposition to Temporary Injunctive

Relief, pdf page 12: _http://freepdfhosting.com/6f0fa49f4f.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/6f0fa49f4f.pdf)

Besides gagging me from publicly writing of how it became a fraud in

health policy that moldy buildings do not harm and who all was involved in

marketing the concept; this would also stop me from publicly writing of a brand

new California Code of Civil Procedure, CCP 425.19(a)(©(d)(e)(f)(g)

that governs certain Anti-SLAPP cases in the state of California.

Athough I am personally aware of this code’s existence, I have not seen

any public announcement of CCP 425.19 anywhere. But I thought that the

readers of Judicial Council Watcher should know of the new law, just like I do.

And since I anticipate that soon, I will not be able to legally write of it,

I thought I should help the courts out and announce its existence on their

behalf, Now.

So….on behalf of the following California justices and the California

judicial committees of which they chair, I make the following public

announcement in introduction of CCP 425.19(a)(©(d)(e)(f)(g):

HEAR YE! HEAR YE! The Chair of California Commission, Judicial Performance

(CJP) Justice Judith McConnell & the Chair Of Executive Committee,

Judicial Council (JC) Justice Huffman, Jointly Establish The Enactment

Of

New California Anti-SLAPP Law Provision CCP 425.19(a)(©(d)(e)(f)(g),

Approved By California Supreme Court Chief Justice , January

2007 and ratified by him, December 2010.

Code of Civil Procedures, CCP. 425.19 finds that too many California

citizens are using the Internet to glean and share information of corruption,

waste, abuse, fraud and ineptitude of the governing bodies of the California

judicial system that are advantageous to the financial interests of

affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce and adverse to the public’s best

interest. As such, to stop truth that stops injustice in the courts, the inner

circle of said governing bodies finds and enacts,

(a.) should the need arise to strategically litigate against the public’s

best interest and if one writes medico-legal policy for the US Chamber of

Commerce and/or the American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine (ACOEM) that aids intrastate and interstate unfair advantage in

insurer

claims handling practices and of which the Regents of the University of

California profit when their employees testify as expert witnesses for the

insurance industry in toxic torts, primarily claims of worker, tenant and

homeowner injury from exposure to microbes found in poorly constructed and/or

poorly maintained buildings; these US Chamber/ACOEM policy authors and

their (illegal) legal counsel shall be permitted by the courts to use criminal

perjury and suborning of criminal perjury to establish false reason for a

defendant’s malice while strategically litigating; and

(b.) if a California citizen writes of the fraud of science and marketing

behind the policy established by the US Chamber and/or ACOEM and of which

the Regents of the University of California profit, the courts shall be

permitted to deem the citizen to be a “malicious liar†with no evidence

required to substantiate their words are a lie and/or malicious; and

(c.) the courts may use state funded web sites such as the appellate courts

’, to maliciously character assassinate the citizen by deeming them to be

a “cyberstalker†while knowing this fallacy was established by false

hearsay documents that somehow, got in a jury room and caused a verdict for the

US Chamber/ACOEM authors;

(side note to CCP 425.19, see:

1.) Fourth District Division One Appellate Court website, October 14,

2010, amendment to opinion putting the “cyberstalker†slur on the

government

funded website:

_http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41 & doc_id=1\

385769 & doc_no=D054496_

(http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41 & doc_id=1\

385769 & doc_no=D054496)

2.) See Amended Opinion; Declaration of Juror #5, Attorney Shelby Stuntz;

Dec of Trial Attorney, Lincoln Bandlow, etc. stating somehow docs not in

trial mysteriously went to the jury at:

_http://freepdfhosting.com/e025ff30d3.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/e025ff30d3.pdf)

3.) See CA Supreme Court, Ron , being informed that Huffman, Benke

and Irion added new and false argument in their Amended Opinion so they

could get that “cyberstalker†slur on the Fourth District’s website, pdf

page

18: _http://freepdfhosting.com/b8365e1ddb.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/b8365e1ddb.pdf) )

Back to CCP 425.19

(d.) if the citizen attempts to bring it to the attention of the

legislature or to public light that the Chairs of the CJP & JC have jointly

established CCP 425.19 with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s

approval, then

upon motion by the criminal perjury committing US Chamber/ACOEM policy

authors, lower courts are encouraged to be used to issue injunctive relief

motions to gag the citizen from writing of the existence of CCP 425.19, how it

came to be, who was involved and how it aids with the continuance of

interstate and intrastate insurer fraud in the billions on behalf of US Chamber

affiliates, while the Regents of the University of California continue to

profit off the backs of the sick, injured and deceased; and

(e.) CCP 425.19 is only to be used in unpublished opinions and only by

affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce and/or affiliates of Justices

McConnell, Huffman and now retired Chief Justice ; and

(f.) this amendment to the California Anti-SLAPP laws shall be known as

the “SLAPP EACH OTHER ON THE BACK WHILE WE SCREW THE PUBLIC AND THE FIRST

AMENDMENT†addendum or in short title, the “JUDICIAL CORRUPTION

WHISTLEBLOWER

RETRIBUTION†act.

(g) CCP 425.19 (a)(©(d)(e)(f) are never to be applied in conjunction

with Judicial Ethics Canon 3.(D)(1)which states, “Whenever a judge has

reliable information that another judge has violated any provision of the Code

of Judicial Ethics, the judge shall take or initiate appropriate corrective

action, which may include reporting the violation to the appropriate

authorityâ€

For a VIDEO history of the origin and reason of CCP 425.19 please view: “

The Fight

Against Fraud & Corruption at ACOEM, The US Chamber of Commerce &

The Collusion of CA Justices†from the 100th Anniversary of the Triangle

Factory Fire Conference, March 25th and 26th, San Francisco.

_http://www.blip.tv/file/4975029_ (http://www.blip.tv/file/4975029)

For documentation of the origin, history and reason for CCP 425.19, as

told thru

legal documents, please see: “TRUTHOUT Sharon Kramer Letter To Saxon

â€

_http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/truth-out-sharon-kramer-lette

r-to-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/_

(http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/truth-out-sharon-kramer-letter-to\

-andrew-saxon-mold-issue/)

So thank you, Judicial Council Watcher. I am certain that Justices Huffman

(JC), McConnell (CJP) and Chief Justice (CSC) would want me to get

it out before I am gagged from writing of it, that the trio have

established new law in California, i.e.,

“If one writes policy for the US Chamber/ACOEM they are permitted to use

C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L perjury in the California courts; and California citizens

can now be legally deemed to be “malicious liars†with ZERO evidence

required to support this.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

Thanks for posting this. This sheds so much light on the real problem with the

court system!

~Dana

>

> _Who runs California’s judicial branch? A parody of sorts | Judicial

> Council Watcher#comments#comments_

>

(http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/who-runs-californias-jud\

icial-branch-a-parody-of-sorts/#comments)

>

> Rumor is, Justice Huffman (subject of the article and a justice in my case

> w/Kelman) is stepping down from his position of being the most powerful

> justices in the state of California, who oversees the allocation of all the

> courts' money.

>

> Mrs. Kramer says:

> _April 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm_

>

(http://judicialcouncilwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/who-runs-californias-jud\

icial-branch-a-parody-of-sorts/#comment-1237

> )

>

> Rate This

>

> Dear California Judicial Council Watcher,

> My name is Sharon Kramer and I am a whistle blower of how it became US and

> California health policy that it was purportedly scientifically proven

> that water damaged, moldy buildings do not harm people.

> I first wrote of this in March of 2005 while I named the names of those

> involved in mass marketing the novel concept, i.e., the US Chamber of

> Commerce, the Manhattan Institute think-tank; US Congressman

(R-CA); a

> corporation called GlobalTox, Inc., (now known as VeriTox); the corp’s

> president, Bruce Kelman, Phd; and the occupational physician trade

> organization that writes the workers’ comp guidelines for the state of

California

> under SB 899 †" the American College of Occupational and Environmental

Medicine

> (ACOEM). _http://freepdfhosting.com/4051da7b08.pdf_

> (http://freepdfhosting.com/4051da7b08.pdf)

> I went on to help with a 2007 front page, above the fold, Wall Street

> Journal article on the subject titled “Court of Opinion Amid Suits Over

Mold,

> Experts Wear Two Hats Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also

> Help in Litigationâ€. This article named the same people and organization

> that I did in 2005, and even a few more.

> _http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf_

(http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf)

>

> As noted in a new book by Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker, “Surviving Moldâ€, I also

> was the catalyst who caused a Federal Government Accountability Office

> audit of the current scientific understanding of the health effects of mold.

> _http://freepdfhosting.com/e5aa09c851.pdf_

> (http://freepdfhosting.com/e5aa09c851.pdf).......

........> So thank you, Judicial Council Watcher. I am certain that Justices

Huffman

> (JC), McConnell (CJP) and Chief Justice (CSC) would want me to get

> it out before I am gagged from writing of it, that the trio have

> established new law in California, i.e.,

> “If one writes policy for the US Chamber/ACOEM they are permitted to use

> C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L perjury in the California courts; and California citizens

> can now be legally deemed to be “malicious liars†with ZERO evidence

> required to support this.

>

>

> Sharon Noonan Kramer

>

>

>