The Three Statements
Update: Aug. 31, 2012 decision on Motion Hearing
I [Sharon Kramer] have been sanctioned $1000 each because I would not publish a
false confession of libel on the Net for a sentence I never wrote:
A.) March 19, 2012 post on AIHA chatboard is titled, “Let’s discuss the jailing of Sharon
Kramer for contempt of court over her refusal to keep quiet about one of the author’s past
statement concerning the ACOEM paper.” Ordered by this Court ...on August 31, 2012, a
$1000.00 fine for the post “On March 19, 2012 on the online discussion board of the
American Industrial Hygiene Association”.
The AIHA discussion was not even started by Kramer and nowhere in the exhibit
provided by Kelman does Kramer use the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” on
the AIHA board. Apparently This Court, Kelman and Scheuer want no one to be able to talk
about these cases. Kramer did link to the direct evidence that this Court incarcerated her
for alleged civil contempt for refusing to commit criminal perjury and sign a false confession
of being guilty of libel, and then falsified the Sheriff Department record to conceal what this
Court has done – after first giving Kramer a false criminal record. The link she provided on
the AIHA board is: http://freepdfhosting.com/22464c3748.pdf It has many links within it that
tell the tale of mass criminality by the California courts over these cases and their efforts to
keep it from coming to public light.
B.) The March 27, 2012 post on ContemptOfCourtFor.Me is titled, “March 13
~While Mrs. Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated and being given a false criminal record in
the County of San Diego, California; Mr. Kelman was rendering an “Expert Toxicologist
Opinion on behalf of the County of Orange, California….”Ordered by this Court ...on August
31, 2012, a $1000.00 fine for the post “on March 27, 2012 on the blog ContemptOfCourtFor.
Me”
It provides the direct evidence that while Kramer was incarcerated by this Court for
refusing to commit perjury, Kelman... was...claiming extrapolations applied to mechanistic
research are scientific proof a building is safe for hundreds of workers at a Social Security
office in Orange County, CA. It also links to the false confession Kramer refused to sign
containing the statement “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury”. The direct
evidence of exactly how the courts, Kelman and Scheuer framed Kramer for libel in the prior
case, and is a court filing in This Court by Kramer in March of 2012 is linked in this post and
read online at:. http://freepdfhosting.com/67a0fec942.pdf
Additionally the March 27, 2012 post quotes This Court in damning statements made
on the morning of March 14, 2012. From the March 27, 2012 post:
On the morning of March 14, 2012, Mrs. Kramer was shackled to a drug addict for an hour
bus ride, in the dark, from the Women’s DetentionCenter in Santee, CA to the Vista,
Courthouse after being unlawfully incarcerated for refusing to commit perjury which would
aid to defraud the public. She was made to appear before the Court, Plaintiff Counsel and
her husband in handcuffs, chains and jail garb with no make up, unbrushed hair & two
nights of very little sleep while housed in a dorm setting with criminals and drug addicts.
While feigning confusion, the Court acknowledged the evidence that Mrs. Kramer was
framed for libel by Mr. Kelman’s attorney and the prior courts. No longer mandatory, the
Court still strongly urged Mrs. Kramer to sign the fraudulent retraction under penalty of
perjury after giving her a false criminal record and incarcerating her for refusing to retract
something that she did not do – with the underlying matter having broad adverse impact on
public health policy and US courts for now seven years past and many years in the future if
she had signed.
March 14, 2012~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30 ~
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “…I recalled you even said that it wasn’t you who had
accused the gentleman of perjury or of altering his testimony. It was rather counsel’s efforts
to try to make it sound that way. I don’t know if I remember that right or not, if you did say
that or that is how you feel. More importantly, I would really strongly urge you give every
consideration to agreeing to the proposal counsel made which simply said, “I didn’t mean
that”. “I didn’t mean to suggest that”. I’m not saying you have to do that. I’m not. You didn’t
hear that from me. But you did hear the important thing.
SHARON KRAMER: “No. I did not hear the important thing. I did not hear an apology that
the courts framed me for libel seven years ago and I am sitting here in handcuffs for
speaking the truth about fraud and policy. If you want to send me back to jail, fine. But I’m
not signing an apology for the courts doing that.”
…………………………………
SHARON KRAMER: “No. What you’re asking me to do is fraud – to collude with the court to
defraud the public after seven years.”
THOMAS NUGENT: “Right. But I’m not conditioning my decision this morning on that. That’s
not a condition. It was merely a wish.”
SHARON KRAMER “This is a crime.”
C.) The April 2, 2012 post on ContemptOfCourtFor.Me is “Kelman v. Kramer
3rd Request For ExParte ~ Re: Court, Remove March 26, 2012 Libelous Sheriff Dept
Record” Ordered by this Court with no subject matter jurisdiction on August 31, 2012 a
$1000.00 fine for the post on “April 2, 2012 on the blog ContemptOfCourtFor.Me”
This post is Kramer’s actual court filing complete with file stamp. It is titled basically
same as the pleading when this Court would not even grant an exparte hearing after
unlawfully incarcerating Kramer and giving her a false criminal record, only to replace it with
a false civil contempt of court record to conceal this Court incarcerated Kramer for refusing
to commit perjury and sign a false confession. (The false misdemeanor is still on Kramer’s
Sheriff Department record). The post quotes directly from Kramer’s 3rd Request of five for
an ExParte before this Court which begins:
“On March 23, 2012, after being told by the Scheduler of Department 30 to submit
something in writing, notice Keith “Scheuer” and maybe the judge would grant an exparte
hearing to correct the false Criminal Contempt of Court record it had given Sharon “Kramer”;
Kramer submitted a “Request For Exparte Re: Court’s Intent To Remove False Criminal
Record Of Defendant Sharon Kramer”. She did not state, “and please replace the false
Criminal Contempt record with a false Civil Contempt record to conceal the Court unlawfully
incarcerated me for refusing to commit perjury by signing a fraudulent document that my
signature would have absolved seven years of judicial, clerk, attorney and plaintiff
misconduct in the cases of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer and Kelman v. Kramer.”
Update: Aug. 31, 2012 decision on Motion Hearing
I [Sharon Kramer] have been sanctioned $1000 each because I would not publish a
false confession of libel on the Net for a sentence I never wrote:
A.) March 19, 2012 post on AIHA chatboard is titled, “Let’s discuss the jailing of Sharon
Kramer for contempt of court over her refusal to keep quiet about one of the author’s past
statement concerning the ACOEM paper.” Ordered by this Court ...on August 31, 2012, a
$1000.00 fine for the post “On March 19, 2012 on the online discussion board of the
American Industrial Hygiene Association”.
The AIHA discussion was not even started by Kramer and nowhere in the exhibit
provided by Kelman does Kramer use the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” on
the AIHA board. Apparently This Court, Kelman and Scheuer want no one to be able to talk
about these cases. Kramer did link to the direct evidence that this Court incarcerated her
for alleged civil contempt for refusing to commit criminal perjury and sign a false confession
of being guilty of libel, and then falsified the Sheriff Department record to conceal what this
Court has done – after first giving Kramer a false criminal record. The link she provided on
the AIHA board is: http://freepdfhosting.com/22464c3748.pdf It has many links within it that
tell the tale of mass criminality by the California courts over these cases and their efforts to
keep it from coming to public light.
B.) The March 27, 2012 post on ContemptOfCourtFor.Me is titled, “March 13
~While Mrs. Kramer was unlawfully incarcerated and being given a false criminal record in
the County of San Diego, California; Mr. Kelman was rendering an “Expert Toxicologist
Opinion on behalf of the County of Orange, California….”Ordered by this Court ...on August
31, 2012, a $1000.00 fine for the post “on March 27, 2012 on the blog ContemptOfCourtFor.
Me”
It provides the direct evidence that while Kramer was incarcerated by this Court for
refusing to commit perjury, Kelman... was...claiming extrapolations applied to mechanistic
research are scientific proof a building is safe for hundreds of workers at a Social Security
office in Orange County, CA. It also links to the false confession Kramer refused to sign
containing the statement “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury”. The direct
evidence of exactly how the courts, Kelman and Scheuer framed Kramer for libel in the prior
case, and is a court filing in This Court by Kramer in March of 2012 is linked in this post and
read online at:. http://freepdfhosting.com/67a0fec942.pdf
Additionally the March 27, 2012 post quotes This Court in damning statements made
on the morning of March 14, 2012. From the March 27, 2012 post:
On the morning of March 14, 2012, Mrs. Kramer was shackled to a drug addict for an hour
bus ride, in the dark, from the Women’s DetentionCenter in Santee, CA to the Vista,
Courthouse after being unlawfully incarcerated for refusing to commit perjury which would
aid to defraud the public. She was made to appear before the Court, Plaintiff Counsel and
her husband in handcuffs, chains and jail garb with no make up, unbrushed hair & two
nights of very little sleep while housed in a dorm setting with criminals and drug addicts.
While feigning confusion, the Court acknowledged the evidence that Mrs. Kramer was
framed for libel by Mr. Kelman’s attorney and the prior courts. No longer mandatory, the
Court still strongly urged Mrs. Kramer to sign the fraudulent retraction under penalty of
perjury after giving her a false criminal record and incarcerating her for refusing to retract
something that she did not do – with the underlying matter having broad adverse impact on
public health policy and US courts for now seven years past and many years in the future if
she had signed.
March 14, 2012~ North San Diego Superior Court, Dept. 30 ~
THE HONORABLE THOMAS NUGENT: “…I recalled you even said that it wasn’t you who had
accused the gentleman of perjury or of altering his testimony. It was rather counsel’s efforts
to try to make it sound that way. I don’t know if I remember that right or not, if you did say
that or that is how you feel. More importantly, I would really strongly urge you give every
consideration to agreeing to the proposal counsel made which simply said, “I didn’t mean
that”. “I didn’t mean to suggest that”. I’m not saying you have to do that. I’m not. You didn’t
hear that from me. But you did hear the important thing.
SHARON KRAMER: “No. I did not hear the important thing. I did not hear an apology that
the courts framed me for libel seven years ago and I am sitting here in handcuffs for
speaking the truth about fraud and policy. If you want to send me back to jail, fine. But I’m
not signing an apology for the courts doing that.”
…………………………………
SHARON KRAMER: “No. What you’re asking me to do is fraud – to collude with the court to
defraud the public after seven years.”
THOMAS NUGENT: “Right. But I’m not conditioning my decision this morning on that. That’s
not a condition. It was merely a wish.”
SHARON KRAMER “This is a crime.”
C.) The April 2, 2012 post on ContemptOfCourtFor.Me is “Kelman v. Kramer
3rd Request For ExParte ~ Re: Court, Remove March 26, 2012 Libelous Sheriff Dept
Record” Ordered by this Court with no subject matter jurisdiction on August 31, 2012 a
$1000.00 fine for the post on “April 2, 2012 on the blog ContemptOfCourtFor.Me”
This post is Kramer’s actual court filing complete with file stamp. It is titled basically
same as the pleading when this Court would not even grant an exparte hearing after
unlawfully incarcerating Kramer and giving her a false criminal record, only to replace it with
a false civil contempt of court record to conceal this Court incarcerated Kramer for refusing
to commit perjury and sign a false confession. (The false misdemeanor is still on Kramer’s
Sheriff Department record). The post quotes directly from Kramer’s 3rd Request of five for
an ExParte before this Court which begins:
“On March 23, 2012, after being told by the Scheduler of Department 30 to submit
something in writing, notice Keith “Scheuer” and maybe the judge would grant an exparte
hearing to correct the false Criminal Contempt of Court record it had given Sharon “Kramer”;
Kramer submitted a “Request For Exparte Re: Court’s Intent To Remove False Criminal
Record Of Defendant Sharon Kramer”. She did not state, “and please replace the false
Criminal Contempt record with a false Civil Contempt record to conceal the Court unlawfully
incarcerated me for refusing to commit perjury by signing a fraudulent document that my
signature would have absolved seven years of judicial, clerk, attorney and plaintiff
misconduct in the cases of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer and Kelman v. Kramer.”
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
The Growing Hazard of Mold Litigation
US Chamber of Commerce
(Released July 2003)
Executive Summary
The insurance industry has reported "toxic" mold claims in the billions of dollars. Insurance
companies in Texas alone paid $1.2 billion in mold claims in 2001. Is mold the next
asbestos? The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, partnering with the Center for Legal
Policy of the Manhattan Institute, commissioned two papers that take a close look at mold
litigation and the science of mold. The first, by Cliff Hutchinson and Robert Powell, two
experienced litigators with Hughes and Luce in Dallas and Austin, provides a legal
perspective on mold claims. The second, written by a team of scientists led by Dr. Bryan
Hardin, former Deputy Director of NIOSH and former Assistant Surgeon General in the
Public Health Service, addresses the scientific evidence – or lack thereof – that forms the
foundation of these claims.
In "A New Plague – Mold Litigation: How Junk Science and Hysteria Built an Industry,"
Hutchinson and Powell explain the phenomenon of mold litigation by opening with an
overview of litigation over Alar and plastics, both based on a media-generated fear of
alleged health hazards – fear without scientific support. It segues into a discussion of the
1980s media reports of an emerging illness – "sick building syndrome." Although this new
health hazard resulted in buildings being shut down and in some cases abandoned, clear-
eyed scientists have shown the threat to be highly exaggerated – more due to psycho-social
factors than to any disease entity. Nonetheless, litigation over alleged health effects from
indoor air quality has endured. Against this backdrop of public suspicion of indoor air and
media generated fear of phantom toxics, mold claims emerged in the mid-1990s and quickly
grew.
In November 1994, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) task force looked
for possible causes of a rare bleeding lung disorder in eight babies in Cleveland. The CDC
explored the possibility that molds could be at fault and concluded there could be a link. The
Cleveland study generated a spate of publicity, so much publicity that the CDC convened a
working group to reevaluate the findings. The second working group published a report in
June 1999 contradicting the Cleveland study. It was about as negative as possible in
rejecting the evidence of any association between mold and infant pulmonary hemorrhage.
Despite a further CDC report in 2000 also refuting the Cleveland study, "the juggernaut of
media frenzy, tort lawyers, and newly-coined [mold] remediators was rolling too fast to be
slowed by mere science."
Hutchinson and Powell lay out the development of mold litigation, including some significant
cases with large verdicts, and point out that the proliferation of "junk science" claims that
form the foundation of mold litigation ironically occurred at the same time that the U.S.
Supreme Court Daubert decision laid down new guidelines that tightened the standards for
scientific testimony. The Supreme Court said that federal judges need to be gatekeepers –
that they have an obligation to be vigilant against "expertise that is fausse and science that
is junky." The authors examine mold litigation through the Daubert microscope and argue
that the serious health claims that pervade mold litigation – brain damage, lung hemorrhage,
and cancer – cannot withstand scrutiny under the "reliable science" standard of Daubert.
The scientific community has not been unresponsive to the spurious nature of mold claims.
Probably the most complete examination of the scientific record was conducted by Cleveland
microbiologists who published their findings in January 2003, concluding that there is no
supportive evidence for serious illness from toxic mold in the contemporary environment.
Other studies from the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) came to similar conclusions. The authors note that
"science has confirmed common sense" since mold is not some rare, exotic toxic material but
is everywhere, making up 25 percent of the earth's biomass. If mold were extremely toxic,
one could expect to see epidemics wherever people are exposed to the highest levels of
mold – vacation spots and outdoor camps, for example.
Nonetheless, the opportunism of trial lawyers and the media's love for scary stories have
kept the litigation "mushrooming." The pace of litigation is increasing. The Insurance
Information Institute indicates that 10,000 mold-related suits are pending nationwide, a 300
percent increase since 1999. This number may be conservative. A California plaintiffs'
lawyer asserts that he has "thousands" of claims himself, including one brought by Erin
Brockovich.
Hardin and his team of scientists provide a detailed primer on mold in "A Scientific View of
the Health Effects of Mold." Fungi, they point out, play an "essential role in the cycle of life
as the principal decomposers of organic matter, converting dead organic material into
simpler chemical forms that can in turn be used by plants for their growth and nutritional
needs. Without fungi performing this essential function, plant and animal debris would simply
accumulate." Mold is everywhere.
The paper examines in depth each type of health complaint associated with mold and offers
an extensive survey of the scientific literature on the topic. It determines that mold can cause
allergies for those who are "atopic" or prone to allergic reactions. And, "despite the fact that
it can produce toxic substances under appropriate growth conditions, years of intensive
study have failed to establish exposure to Stachybotrys ["toxic" mold] in home, school, or
office environments as a cause of adverse health effects." The paper concludes that
infections caused by mold are rare, except for those individuals who are "immune-
compromised." Finally, it asserts that "there is no sound scientific evidence that mold causes
'toxicity' in doses found in home environments."
US Chamber of Commerce
(Released July 2003)
Executive Summary
The insurance industry has reported "toxic" mold claims in the billions of dollars. Insurance
companies in Texas alone paid $1.2 billion in mold claims in 2001. Is mold the next
asbestos? The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, partnering with the Center for Legal
Policy of the Manhattan Institute, commissioned two papers that take a close look at mold
litigation and the science of mold. The first, by Cliff Hutchinson and Robert Powell, two
experienced litigators with Hughes and Luce in Dallas and Austin, provides a legal
perspective on mold claims. The second, written by a team of scientists led by Dr. Bryan
Hardin, former Deputy Director of NIOSH and former Assistant Surgeon General in the
Public Health Service, addresses the scientific evidence – or lack thereof – that forms the
foundation of these claims.
In "A New Plague – Mold Litigation: How Junk Science and Hysteria Built an Industry,"
Hutchinson and Powell explain the phenomenon of mold litigation by opening with an
overview of litigation over Alar and plastics, both based on a media-generated fear of
alleged health hazards – fear without scientific support. It segues into a discussion of the
1980s media reports of an emerging illness – "sick building syndrome." Although this new
health hazard resulted in buildings being shut down and in some cases abandoned, clear-
eyed scientists have shown the threat to be highly exaggerated – more due to psycho-social
factors than to any disease entity. Nonetheless, litigation over alleged health effects from
indoor air quality has endured. Against this backdrop of public suspicion of indoor air and
media generated fear of phantom toxics, mold claims emerged in the mid-1990s and quickly
grew.
In November 1994, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) task force looked
for possible causes of a rare bleeding lung disorder in eight babies in Cleveland. The CDC
explored the possibility that molds could be at fault and concluded there could be a link. The
Cleveland study generated a spate of publicity, so much publicity that the CDC convened a
working group to reevaluate the findings. The second working group published a report in
June 1999 contradicting the Cleveland study. It was about as negative as possible in
rejecting the evidence of any association between mold and infant pulmonary hemorrhage.
Despite a further CDC report in 2000 also refuting the Cleveland study, "the juggernaut of
media frenzy, tort lawyers, and newly-coined [mold] remediators was rolling too fast to be
slowed by mere science."
Hutchinson and Powell lay out the development of mold litigation, including some significant
cases with large verdicts, and point out that the proliferation of "junk science" claims that
form the foundation of mold litigation ironically occurred at the same time that the U.S.
Supreme Court Daubert decision laid down new guidelines that tightened the standards for
scientific testimony. The Supreme Court said that federal judges need to be gatekeepers –
that they have an obligation to be vigilant against "expertise that is fausse and science that
is junky." The authors examine mold litigation through the Daubert microscope and argue
that the serious health claims that pervade mold litigation – brain damage, lung hemorrhage,
and cancer – cannot withstand scrutiny under the "reliable science" standard of Daubert.
The scientific community has not been unresponsive to the spurious nature of mold claims.
Probably the most complete examination of the scientific record was conducted by Cleveland
microbiologists who published their findings in January 2003, concluding that there is no
supportive evidence for serious illness from toxic mold in the contemporary environment.
Other studies from the American Industrial Hygiene Association and the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) came to similar conclusions. The authors note that
"science has confirmed common sense" since mold is not some rare, exotic toxic material but
is everywhere, making up 25 percent of the earth's biomass. If mold were extremely toxic,
one could expect to see epidemics wherever people are exposed to the highest levels of
mold – vacation spots and outdoor camps, for example.
Nonetheless, the opportunism of trial lawyers and the media's love for scary stories have
kept the litigation "mushrooming." The pace of litigation is increasing. The Insurance
Information Institute indicates that 10,000 mold-related suits are pending nationwide, a 300
percent increase since 1999. This number may be conservative. A California plaintiffs'
lawyer asserts that he has "thousands" of claims himself, including one brought by Erin
Brockovich.
Hardin and his team of scientists provide a detailed primer on mold in "A Scientific View of
the Health Effects of Mold." Fungi, they point out, play an "essential role in the cycle of life
as the principal decomposers of organic matter, converting dead organic material into
simpler chemical forms that can in turn be used by plants for their growth and nutritional
needs. Without fungi performing this essential function, plant and animal debris would simply
accumulate." Mold is everywhere.
The paper examines in depth each type of health complaint associated with mold and offers
an extensive survey of the scientific literature on the topic. It determines that mold can cause
allergies for those who are "atopic" or prone to allergic reactions. And, "despite the fact that
it can produce toxic substances under appropriate growth conditions, years of intensive
study have failed to establish exposure to Stachybotrys ["toxic" mold] in home, school, or
office environments as a cause of adverse health effects." The paper concludes that
infections caused by mold are rare, except for those individuals who are "immune-
compromised." Finally, it asserts that "there is no sound scientific evidence that mold causes
'toxicity' in doses found in home environments."
Kelman v. Kramer toxic mold defamation case