Explanation of what my libel suit means for all of us

[Guest guest]

If you ever questioned if CA is denying the causation of these illnesses

on purpose, this should answer your question. If you ever questioned if the

influence of industry really does threaten democracy, this should answer

your question.

_PRESIDING JUSTICE CANDIDATE JUDITH MCCONNELL & NINE SUBORDINATE SAN DIEGO

JUDICUARIES~ASSISTING WITH STRATEGIC LITIGATION BY ._

(http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/presiding-justice-candidate-judit\

h-mcconnell-nine-subordinate-san-diego-judicuaries-assisting-with-strategic-liti\

gation-by-criminal-means-by-an-author-of-environmental-pol/)

What the above means as explained to a friend:

You asked what does this mean.

I.

WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO FIRST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THEY WANT ME

DSICREDITIED AND SHUT UP OF- IT IS A BILLION DOLLAR INSURER FRAUD SCHEME THAT

MARKETED IT WAY INTO US HEALTH POLICY BY THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ET AL, and

the UNIVERSITY OF CA HAS BEEN PROFITING FROM IT:

_WATCHDOG ON SCIENCE: Corrupt Doctors: The Untold MOLD Story_

(http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2009/08/corrupt-doctors-untold-mold-story\

..html)

II.

WHAT IT MEANS:

What it means for me is that law in the State of CA is now that if one

writes policy papers for the US Chamber of Commerce that the University of

California profits from; then under " new law " , US Chamber policy authors are

permitted to commit criminal perjury while strategically litigating against

one who has exposed the fraud of the Chamber's " environmental science' and

the fraud of how it is used to stave off insurer liability for mold induced

illnesses - while the UC profits.

What it means for me is that if one speaks out of the deceit of the US

Chamber/ACOEM/UC connection, the under " new law " they can be financially

ruined and deemed a malicious liar by strategically litigating against them

(for

using the word " altered " ), even if there is no evidence of them even once

having been impeached as to the subjective belief in the validity of their

words.

What it means for ALL of us is that democracy is dead in the state of CA,

if one speaks out against insurer fraud that is to the financial benefit of

the affiliates of the US Chamber (while the UC profits and helps to shift

costs off of insurers and onto taxpayers by promoting the environmental

science of the US Chamber in insurer claims handling practices and to the

court) - with reckless disregard for public health and safety.

This is a simple libel case. The sole claim of the case is that my phrase

" altered his under oath statements " was a false and malicious accusation

of perjury (in the same writing that I named names of those who marketed the

scheme - first public writing to do so)

III.

IN LIBEL YOU HAVE TO PROVE TWO THINGS:

1. That the author of the words did not believe what they wrote or wrote

with reckless disregard for the truth. Since July of 2005, I have been

evidencing the EXACT WORDS of US Chamber author, Kelman's, that I consider to be

" altered under oath statements " - and why I consider them such:

“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 US Chamber 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.. "

2. You have to prove actual malice. (meaning the person wrote a known

falsehood from a mean spirited motivation). Actual malice can seldom be

proven by direct evidence. It must be inferred from extenuating circumstances.

Since September of 2005, I have been providing ALL courts with

uncontroverted evidence that the US Chamber author used perjury in his

declarations

to make up false extenuating circumstances for my purported malice. Kelman

was a defense expert in my own litigation of long ago. In reality, he was

a non-entity in the case, whose testimony helped me receive a half of a

million dollar settlement because he had to acknowledge the air test numbers

showed that my home was an increased risk for my daughter who has CF after

a botched mold remediation.

But in declarations in this libel litigation, he claimed that he gave the

following testimony in my mold case that he NEVER gave (aka criminal

perjury to establish false reason for malice), to make it look like I would

want

to get back at him and that is why I wrote " altered " .

Kelman's declaration, submitted to the courts three times, 2005, 2006, 2008

“She [Kramer] 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.†NO! He gave no such testimony in my mold litigation of long

ago!!!!!!!!!!

His attorney, Scheuer, then used the above false declaration statement of

Kelman’s to mislead the courts that I would have reason to harbor malice

for Kelman and his company, based on a testimony Kelman is clearly evidenced

MANY TIMES OVER to have never even given. Specifically within his briefs,

Scheuer wrote:

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

the Kramer house could not have caused the life threatening illnesses that

Kramer 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.â€

Since September of 2005, I have been providing all courts to oversee this

litigation that Kelman and Scheuer were using perjury to make up a reason

for my purported malice, an element required to be substantiated in libel

law. I provided them no less than 23 pieces of evidence that the above is

perjury to make up a needed reason for malice. From the first of

approximately 20 times the courts have been informed and evidenced of the

perjury, my

September 2005 declaration:

" Mr. Sheuer has attempted to paint me as a vengeful woman who has an

obsession to get back at Kelman for testimony he gave in our case in December,

2003. Sheueer states that my daughter and I claimed we acquired life

threatening illnesses as a result of mold when what I really wanted was for my

insurance company to pay for my house to be remodeled. He also states I was

furious when Kelman testified that the science did not support what I wanted.

I am surprised at Mr Sheuer’s lack of verification of facts before making

these false and malicious statements, which are oddly not backed up with

any support documentation attached. We were not even in litigation in

December of 2003. But given the obvious lack of fact checking, I am not

surprised

at this answer. This would be a boilerplate scenario for Kelman to step

into. Many people have life threatening illnesses after excessive exposure to

mold and mycotoxins. It is a complaint that is quite common. In regard to

these illnesses, it would be also be a boilerplate response for Kelman to

say the science does not support this, based on the ACOEM Statement.

However, the boilerplate family Sheuer and Kelman describe is not our

family. I do not know how Kelman could have testified in our case in December

of 2003. We settled in October of 2003. Although very sick, I never claimed

I had a life threatening illness. My daughter has always had the life

threatening illness of CF. We ultimately received a fairly sizable settlement

from all three defendants in the case. If we had chosen to correct the cross

contamination that occurred during the remediation process, we received

enough money to do so. "

IV.

COURTS ARE AIDING INSURER FRAUD

It is really BAD, Gil. The courts have been aiding and abetting insurer

fraud by failing to stop strategic litigation carrried out by criminal means

by an author of " environmental " policy for the US Chamber that the UC

profits from when their physicians testify as expert defense witnesses for

workers comp and other insurers. Over half the money for these testimonies go

to the Regents of the UC.

V.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO US HEALTH POLICY IF THEY ACKNOWLEDGE PERJURY ON THE

ISSUE OF MALICE IN THIS STRATEGIC LITIGATION:

I have MORE than told the courts what the effects are of them refusing to

acknowledge Kelman's perjury on the issue of malice. They know EXACTLY

what they are doing:

“When this Reviewing Court acknowledges what legally cannot be denied:

Kramer’s overwhelming, uncontroverted and irrefutable evidence that seven

judges and justices [sic, now ten] 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 (sic, “Hardinâ€) does not disclose he is a

party to the strategic litigation.†(App.Reply.To.Court.Query, pp.43-45).â€

(Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing, p. 22)

[http://freepdfhosting.com/ad67e0cb4f.pdf]

VI.

THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT:

" Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt,

particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. A

prime

example of the deliberate production of ignorance is the tobacco industry's

conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use.

Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything

except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty. Some of the root

causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or

governmental suppression, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable

culturopolitical selectivity, inattention by decision

makers and a desire to shift the cost burden for causation of illness onto

other individuals or entities.

Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not

come to be, or are ignored or delayed. When misleading scientific data is

allowed to be applied to establish health policies for the purpose of

instilling bias in the courts to cause more favorable financial outcomes and

unfair

advantage for insurers, employers and other financial stakeholders of

moldy buildings, it then becomes insurance fraud. When judicuaries repeatedly

ignore irrefutable evidence that strategic litigation against public

participation has been occurring in their courts and has been carried out by

criminal means to silence, punish, discredit and financially cripple one who

has been willing to speak against the insurer fraud and expose the

devastating impact it is having on US citizens with the involvement of the US

Chamber

of Commerce; it indicates that the courts have either a.) become so

serverly biased by the misinfomation marketed to them by the US Chamber et al,

that they cannot look at the facts of a case with clear eyes; or b.) they

have succumbed to political pressure and the whims of the monied to the point

that justice for average citizens is no longer attainable in the

California judicial system. "

Its all here in this pdf

_http://freepdfhosting.com/b801845975.pdf_

(http://freepdfhosting.com/b801845975.pdf)

Please let me know if you now understand this.

Sharon