- Robyn Anderson on Symptoms of Mold Poisoning
- William Litvak, Esq., are you intending to harass me w/backdated court docs for Veritox’s junk science to linger in U.S. mold litigations? – Veritox means Truth-Poison on Is The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Being Misused For Politics In Policy & Litigation…..And The Fleecing Of The California Taxpayer Over The Mold Issue?
- Sharon Kramer on Policyholders of America
- Derron Young on Policyholders of America
- Bob on If FBI investigated CJP, would this happen?
- 123123123k on If FBI investigated CJP, would this happen?
- dinajpadillagmailcom on If FBI investigated CJP, would this happen?
- Mary Bullock on Help Dr. Fine & CFJI to End California Court Corruption
- Comm on Judicial Performance, is confidentiality discretionary or absolute? – Veritox means Truth-Poison on Justice Judith McConnell grow a conscience. People are dying from your fraud upon your court.
- Comm on Judicial Performance, is confidentiality discretionary or absolute? – Veritox means Truth-Poison on Notice of Intent to Sue Cal Commissioners on Judicial Performance for RICO with MCCONNELL, HUFFMAN, SCHALL, VERITOX, Inc.
- kasta626 on CA Comm on Judicial Performance wants no audit of its performance
- dinajpadillagmailcom on CA Comm on Judicial Performance wants no audit of its performance
- On Nov 6th please vote NO retention of five San Diego Appellate Justices
- San Diego courts caught backdating fraudulent electronic case records.
- TOXIC MOLD: CA Dept of Health QUIETLY Stops Marketing Litigation Defense Argument
- Veritox & Cal Courts still harassing me w/fraudulent court docs to keep their junk science in U.S. mold litigations.
- If FBI investigated CJP, would this happen?
- California Commission on Judicial Performance Reiterates Its Circular Argument In Lawsuit Against State Auditor
- CA Comm on Judicial Performance wants no audit of its performance
OSHA Issue Bldg Maintenance Advisory, Spring 2011, Cites Katy’s
- This RSS feed URL is deprecated November 20, 2018
- Salem tenants concerned about mold at apartment complex - virginiafirst.com November 15, 2018
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. December 5, 2015
- Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder December 5, 2015
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
I cannot even believe how dirty the CA courts are, with no fear of ever being held accountable. In June of 2018, I caught them backdating fraudulent entries into the electronic case-file (the Register of Action (ROA) and the Case History).
They had to do it in order to criminally renew the void judgment they have been criminally harassing me with for ten years. The Supervisor of the North San Diego Superior Court records dept told me on August 31, 2018, that they were “directed” to do it.
This is the Void Judgment that I have been screaming about for TEN YEARS b/c it’s the document that they have used to frame me as libeling the owners of Veritox, Inc. (formerly GlobalTox, Inc.) for my exposing their gov’t backed junk science in U.S. Toxic Mold litigations in 2005.
The courts and Veritox’s attorney, Keith Scheuer, created this Void Judgment ten years ago via Mr. Scheuer concocting it and two court deputy clerks falsifying court documents and electronic case files in late 2008 early 2009.
Most people seem to think that the August 2008 jury found that I was guilty of libeling this corporation that is co-owned by ex-CDC NIOSH deputy director, Bryan Hardin. But the jury found I was NOT guilty of libeling Veritox. The courts have just been falsifying court documents and electronic records to make it appear that way, including the case’s judgment that they just renewed via fraudulent ROA entries.
Judgments have to be renewed every ten years to remain viable and they have to be supported by the ROA to do it. So the San Diego Superior court just criminally renewed this one from 2008 by corrupting the ROA with a fraudulent, backdated entry — which means they just took a thirteen year fixed SLAPP suit that began in 2005; and criminally turned it into a twenty-three years fixed SLAPP suit that will keep going until 2028.
They don’t give a damn about justice or the people — and they know no one prosecutes judges and clerks who case-fix together. (Just ask Attorney General Becerra if that statement is not correct. He LIED TO ME ON VIDEO with the Chief Justice sitting right next to him on February 9, 2017 when he said his CADOJ would investigate this ongoing epic crime).
Their audacity is truly amazing. Even with being caught in June 2018, backdating more fraudulent entries into the ROA before they renewed the void judgment on July 17, 2018, they went ahead and did it.
Why not? The CA Attorney General’s office is useless at stopping the rampant judicial corruption problem plaguing our courts. Most people don’t know this, but when judges and branch employees get sued in federal court for case-fixing together — the CA Attorney General become the defense attorney of record. The CADOJ then uses the public’s tax-dollars to pay for the defense of the public-cheating judges and those who aid and abet them.
I swear on my father’s grave that I think the California judicial branch is more proficient than the Mafia when it comes to organized crime; and the California Attorney General’s office (and your tax dollars) are used to enable them. No Joke.
So, what is a girl (who can’t stand to watch people lose all they own and some die from the cronyism) to do? I guess I will just keep screaming and writing of what feels like a life-sentence of judicial gang banging, until someone grows a conscience and makes it stop.
We are going again on Oct 5, 2018 because I can under the law. I am NOT shutting up or putting up with this crime for another ten years while having to watch people lose everything they own and some die from the newly renewed toxic void judgment.
I have asked San Diego Superior Court CEO Mike Roddy and San Diego Presiding Judge Peter Deddeh to get those fraudulent entries out of the electronic record (the Register of Action (ROA) and Case History) before the 5th, so Judge Earl Maas III is forced to lawfully vacate the newly renewed void judgment. This is the fraudulent little document that greatly harms THOUSANDS of people from coast to coast and continues to criminally harass me under the color of law for refusing silence of the relentless case-fixing.
I am not kidding one iota when I say that they can make pedophile priests look like choir boys when it comes to feigning respectability while abusing their power to hurt people and CYA for each other.
Priests can only screw their victims one or two at a time. In this matter alone, the CA judicial branch has screwed thousands of people at once with one fraudulent court document (and a few fraudulent electronic case entries to hide and enable it). They just put it in writing that they are going to continue to do it for the next ten years, if someone doesn’t stop them.
Here’s (a minute portion of) the proof: In the matter of Bruce J. Kelman & GlobalTox, Inc. v Sharon Kramer, Case GIN044539 North San Diego County Superior Court. Hearing date, October 5, 2018 at 1:30 PM in Dept 28.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT
The State of California is no longer referring physicians to the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment” for guidance of how to (mis)treat mold injured Californian, including workers.
Commonly referred to as the ACOEM Mold Statement, the paper was authored in 2002 by toxic tort expert defense witnesses – toxicologists Bruce J. Kelman, PhD and Bryan D. Hardin, PhD of GlobalTox, Inc. (now Veritox, Inc.); along with Andrew Saxon, MD of UCLA.
It was promoted as ACOEM’s position statement on the illnesses caused by exposure to mold in water damaged buildings (WDB); as an “Evidence Based Statement”; and as the scientific understanding of ACOEM’s thousands of occupational physicians (aka workman’s compensation doctors who decide if workers’ claims of on-the-job-injuries from contaminated WDB will be covered by workcomp insurance).
In November of 2005, then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed that California physicians could refer to the ACOEM Mold Statement for guidance. This was via a state publication titled “Mold In the Indoor Workplaces”. It may still be found on private sector websites in its original form. https://www.slideshare.net/BlackMoldRemovalPro/california-mold-in-the-workplace
It’s first and fourth pages read as follows in relevant part:
Sometime within the last two years the document was changed without dating the change — making it appear that the State of California never endorsed the ACOEM Mold Statement. As seen on the California Department of Health website, the document now looks like this on its first and fourth pages with reference to ACOEM for guidance, omitted:
How I know California’s “Mold in Indoor Workplaces” was quietly changed within the last two years.
On March 9, 2015 WorkCompCentral published an article by Ben Miller titled “ACOEM Takes Down Position Paper Commonly Used To Defend Against Mold Claims” In most relevant parts the article states,
The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine appears to have retired a controversial position statement on mold that critics say has been used to deny workers’ compensation claims for more than a decade.
The position paper, titled Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment, essentially stated that mold is not likely to cause many of the illnesses that employees mark down as job-related on workers’ compensation forms, according to mold activist Sharon Kramer.
The paper no longer appears on the organization’s website. A search for previous versions of ACOEM’s policies and positions page using WayBack Machine – a website that takes snapshots of web pages and preserves them so users can compare changes later on – shows the paper appearing no later than Dec. 29.
ACOEM representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But Kramer told WorkCompCentral in an interview last week that Michael Hodgson, medical director for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, received a statement from ACOEM’s publications director [Marianne Dreger] last year that the organization would sunset the position paper in early 2015.
Kramer said the sunsetting that appears to have occurred takes away any weight the paper might hold as a defense against workers’ compensation claims where the claimant is seeking benefits for mold-related illness.
“It’s sort of damning for anybody who tries to use that in court because they basically said, ‘Eh, this [is] no longer our understanding,’” Kramer said.
Kramer said the position statement was first published in 2002, then revised in 2011. Neither paper, she said, acknowledged mounting evidence supporting that mold can cause respiratory problems and inflammatory responses in the body.
“It was a litigation defense argument right from the get-go,” she said.
Ritchie Shoemaker, a mold researcher who has testified in more than 200 court cases related to mold illness, said the ACOEM paper was ubiquitous in litigation for many years.
“After 2003, there were no cases that I participated in where defense did not quote ACOEM,” he said.
Mold inhalation causes reactions of varying degrees, depending on the individual, Shoemaker said, and can present itself in an array of symptoms – confusion, memory problems, numbness and tingling, tremors, respiratory problems and even joint problems that look like rheumatoid arthritis at first glance.
“It’s fascinating to see the diversity of inflammatory responses that we have,” Shoemaker said. That position has been supported in literature from the World Health Organization as well as the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.
Shoemaker said there are several ways to show that a patient has been exposed to the inhalation of mycotoxins, which mold produces. Blood samples, brain imaging and soon genetic tests can all be used to show a “fingerprint” that only mycotoxin inhalation produces, he said….
Shoemaker said that even though the ACOEM paper appears to have been sunset, he expects it to continue cropping up in court because ACOEM was the last organization to hold the position that mold inhalation wasn’t likely to cause medical problems.
“They don’t have anything else,” Shoemaker said. “The British were throwing rocks at Washington as he crossed the Delaware River because the Hessians were too drunk to fire their muskets.”
Dr. Shoemaker is right. “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Mold in the Indoor Environment” is still used in litigation as a deceitful weapon against the sick, disabled and dying. It is used by high-paid toxic tort defense expert witnesses and the defense attorneys retained by insurers who hire them. It is frequently discredited, but the experts are paid — win or lose; and it still serves to delay justice for the mold-disabled.
The only reason they are able to still use the junk science, is because even though ACOEM sunset it as a position statement in 2015, they never retracted it from publication in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (JOEM).
For a greater understanding of how the ACOEM Mold Statement has been (and still is) used to greatly harm people, please read the January 10, 2007 Wall Street Journal article titled “Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats, Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by the Defense Also Help in Litigation” by David Armstrong. A couple of key quotes:
Dr. Craner maintains, is that “a lot people with legitimate environmental health problems are losing their homes and their jobs because of legal decisions based on this so-called ‘evidence-based’ statement.”
The paper’s authors say their conclusions are validated by the Institute of Medicine’s paper. But the author of the Institute paper’s mold toxicity chapter, Harriett Ammann, disagrees, and criticizes the ACOEM paper’s methodology: “They took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical toxicity and jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there.”
Because I was aware that the paper “Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Mold in the Indoor Environment” was still being promoted by the CA Department of Health and Industrial Relations Board in late 2015, and that it was still being used against mold injured workers to deny their workcomp insurance claims; I contacted an associate who I knew had worked in setting policies over this issue for many years.
On December 8, 2015 this person sent me a reply email that said (redacted) “Ms Kramer- I have added a few generally favorable comments and forwarded your email to a friend at the CA Dept of Public Health.” [I have no idea who this wonderful CDPH person is. My associate did not tell me.]
Two weeks later, my associate sent me another email that said (redacted) “Ms Kramer – Here is the response I received from my friend at CDPH. Happy Holidays, XXXX —
XXXX, thanks for your email. It was good to chat…A few responses below.
Molds in Indoor Workplaces
Physicians can refer to the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) statement, Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with Molds in the Indoor Environment. www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52.
I checked, and the webpage for the Occupational Health Branch, HESIS at CDPH still does refer to the ACOEM position paper, which I always thought was not a good document for various reasons. However, it seems that the link is dead and will not connect.
So that’s how I know California’s “Mold in the Indoor Workplace” was not edited any earlier than 2016 to cease marketing the litigation defense argument that was concocted in 2002 by the prolific expert defense witnesses at Veritox, Inc. — Bruce Kelman and Bryan Hardin — along with Andrew Saxon of UCLA.
This Public Service Announcement is another nail in the coffin of the epic insurer fraud scam, based on the junk science of Veritox, Inc., that it’s allegedly proven mycotoxins in water damaged buildings cannot plausibly reach a level to harm anyone.
Sharon Noonan Kramer
Veritox & Cal Courts still harassing me w/fraudulent court docs to keep their junk science in U.S. mold litigations.
Sharon Noonan Kramer
May 14, 2018
William Litvak, Esq.
Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Dear Mr. Litvak,
RE: Tell your clients at Veritox, Inc. to cease criminally harassing me with backdated void judgments and backdated, interest accruing liens that are purposed to keep their junk science in U.S. mold litigations.
Thank you for your notice that you will be substituting in as counsel in Case No. GIN044539. Upon receipt of your substitution notice on Friday, I called your office. I spoke to a woman named Caroline. She tells me that you will be representing Mr. Kelman while seeking to reinstate the nearly ten-year-old, interest accruing (backdated) lien from Bruce J. Kelman and GlobalTox, Inc. v. Sharon Kramer.
You have the name of the case incorrect on your legal document and your May 8, 2018 Proof of Service to “all parties” appears to be grossly incomplete. The name of the case is not “Kelman v. Kramer”. It is Bruce J. Kelman and GlobalTox, Inc. v. Sharon Kramer. (GlobalTox, Inc. is now Veritox, Inc.)
Veritox is the second plaintiff to the case with an interest in the backdated lien that you are apparently going to try to reinstate. They lost in the 2008 trial, but the costs they incurred were rewarded to Mr. Kelman via their prior attorney Mr. Keith Scheuer’s unethical conduct. The five Veritox owners in addition to Mr. Kelman are: Bryan Hardin, Coreen Robbins, Lonie Swenson, Robert Scheibe, and Robert Clark.
In 2001, Veritox co-owner Mr. Hardin retired as a deputy director of Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (CDC NIOSH). Throughout Bruce J. Kelman and GlobalTox, Inc. v. Sharon Kramer he has been undisclosed as a Veritox co-owner on the Certificate of Interested Persons submitted to the appellate court by Veritox’s former counsel, Mr. Scheuer.
The December 2010 appellate court remittitur and electronic records have been falsified on their faces to conceal Mr. Hardin’s stake in the matter. Is it your intent to attempt to conceal, too, that he is an interested party in this ongoing matter as you attempt to reinstate a fraudulent lien?
I don’t see anywhere stating the names of the additional five owners/party to the litigation on your Substitution of Attorney document or on the Proof of Service. I also do not see where any of them, including Mr. Kelman, were noticed of your substitution by the required Proof of Service to “all parties”.
THE CRIMINALLY BACKDATED COURT DOCUMENTS YOU’D HAVE TO USE TO RECORD ANOTHER FRAUDULENT LIEN
Before you proceed to file motions in a North San Diego County Superior Court to reinstate a fraudulent lien, please produce a Notice of Entry of Judgment stating costs were awarded to Mr. Kelman on September 24, 2008 like the face of the current fraudulent lien shows.
(Attached hereto collectively are EXH 1. the backdated, interest accruing lien stating the false Date of Entry of Judgment and cost award as September 24, 2008; EHX 2. proof that Mr. Scheuer did not even submit his client(s) costs until October 14, 2008; and EHX 3. proof that September 24, 2008 could not have possibly been the Date of Entry of Judgement; or that interest could accrue from that date.
The interest accruing lien that Mr. Kelman wants you to cause to be reinstated, is a fraudulent legal document. He has been harassing me with it for years and no judges or justices will make him stop criminally harassing me with fraudulent court documents. Is it your intent to participate in increasing the damages and ongoing harassment?
Also before you proceed to try and reinstate a fraudulent lien, please produce a Notice of Entry of Judgment dated December 18, 2008. This is stated on the third page of the void judgement that your client(s) and their prior attorney, Mr. Scheuer, have been criminally harassing me with for years with judges and justices – even coram non judice. (Attached hereto as EXH 4 is the void judgment in its current form).
As you can see, the stated date of cost award on the face of the void judgment differs from the face of the equally fraudulent lien. If they were legitimate legal documents, the dates would be the same. The void judgement shows a date of cost award as being 12/18/08. The backdated lien shows a date of cost award as being 9/24/08.
Don’t spend too much time looking for Notice of Entry of Judgment documents to corroborate that your client, Mr. Kelman, is not asking you to criminally harass someone with fraudulent backdated court documents – because that’s exactly what he is doing.
There is no proof that judgment was entered, or costs were awarded on September 24, 2008 (like the face of backdated lien shows). There is no proof that judgment was entered, or costs were awarded on December 18, 2008 (like the face of the twice backdated void judgment shows.) This is because it never happened. Both the lien and the judgment (that you would have to use to reinstate the lien) are frauds on their faces.
Judge Lisa Schall signed the void judgment on September 24, 2008 with a blank left on the third page. Although I was a trial prevailing party, I wasn’t noticed by the court (or by Mr. Scheuer) of her signing the document and nowhere did it leave a place to acknowledge that I prevailed over Veritox in the 2008 trial.
Judge Schall’s clerk, Michael Garland, then backdated the void judgment twice in the following months. He added the dollar amount on the third page awarding costs to your client(s) sometime after Mr. Scheuer submitted costs on October 14, 2008. Mr. Garlarnd did not initial or date that he had made a change to the legal instrument.
As you know as a real estate attorney, if a legal document is materially changed after signature w/no notation of the change, it becomes a void legal instrument. Regardless, your clients and Mr. Scheuer have been criminally harassing me with this void legal instrument for years. So have the local courts.
On December 22, 2008, Mr. Scheuer submitted the void judgment back to the court to record the fraudulent Abstract of Judgment and Lien. (See EXH 1, the face of void lien). Sometime on or after December 22, 2008, Mr. Garland then backdated “mgarland 12/18/08” next to the dollar amount he had filled in October — making the void judgment then appear that costs were awarded on December 18, 2008. (See EXH 4, the face of the void judgement)
On January 7, 2009, Judge Joel Pressman, who was the North San Diego Superior Court Presiding Judge at the time, misused the falsification of “mgarland 12/18/08” being backdated onto the void judgment as a reason to deny hearing a motion for reconsideration by stating judgment had already been entered on 12/18/08. But the electronic case file confirms nothing happened in the case on 12/18/08.
In January 2009, I motioned for Judge (now Justice) William Dato to clarifying for me why dates on legal documents were inaccurate. He declined to do so, with Judge Schall’s clerk oddly being his clerk for the day. In April of 2009, Judge (now Justice) Dato, who knew the document was fraudulent and backdated; and that Scheuer had submitted Veritox’s costs as being those of Kelman’s; neglected to add that I prevailed over Veritox in trial and was awarded my costs – in violation of C.C.P. 664.5(b) and many other laws.
The appellate court (Justices Patricia Benke, Richard Huffman and Joan Irion) committed multiple willful legal error in the 2010 appellate opinion. This includes word-smithing the appellate opinion when suppressing the evidence that the twice backdated void judgment failed to state I prevailed over Veritox in trial. They left the twice-backdated void judgement in effect and have repeatedly refused to recall their (equally fraudulent on its face) December 2010 remittitur to correct the errors that enable your client to harass me with fraudulent court documents to this very day.
If you look on the third page of the void judgment (see EXH 4) you will see that I was awarded my costs as the prevailing party over Veritox on October 28, 2011, one year after the appellate court left the void judgment in effect. Judge Earl Maas was the judge who claimed he could not vacate the void judgment after appeal (once in 2011 and once in 2012) but was able to amend the void judgment to acknowledge that I prevailed over Veritox and was awarded my costs.
Unlike the criminal backdated falsifications to the void judgment that Mr. Kelman has apparently hired you to harass me with; the addition to the 3rd page stating that I was awarded costs on October 28, 2011 is supported by the evidence that it really happened and happened on that date. It is corroborated by the electronic case record for October 28, 2011 and the court’s ruling showing I prevailed over Veritox in trial and was awarded my costs by judgment.
Even with the addition acknowledging that I prevailed and was awarded costs, I have not been able to lawfully record a lien against Veritox. This is because I would have to use the known void-faced judgment with “$7,252.65” and “mgarland 12/18/08” backdated onto its third page to do it; and I know that would be criminal to use a (twice) backdated void legal instrument to record a lien. California Penal Code 134 states:
Every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of felony.
It would also be a felony for a California attorney to knowingly use a backdated void judgment to try to reinstate a backdated, fraudulent interest accruing lien. This is particularly true for a California attorney such as yourself whose areas of expertise appear to be real estate law and serving as an expert witness.
Which is it?
Mr. Kelman and Veritox continue to harass me with a void lien that falsely states his costs were awarded on September 24, 2008?
Mr. Kelman and Veritox continue to harass me with a void judgment that falsely states his costs were awarded on December 18, 2008?
It’s both. Mr. Kelman continues to criminally harass me with fraudulent court documents – and apparently wants you to help him to increase the damages for me and the ill-gotten profits for him and Veritox.
THE TRUE CURRENCY OF THE FRAUDULENT COURT DOCUMENTS
The continued harassing usages of the fraudulent court documents have caused extreme hardships horrific experiences for me by hands of the compromised local courts, your clients and their former attorney. But the true currency of the fraudulent court documents for your clients has little to do with the dollar amounts written on their faces.
Veritox is using the fraudulent court documents to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars of contracts for their illicit expert defense witnessing interstate enterprise. As of 2017, Mr. Kelman bills for his services as a dishonest expert defense witness in mold litigations at an hourly rate of $475.00 when consulting and $700.00 per hour when being deposed or providing trial testimonies. He would not be able to charge anything if he were in jail where he belongs for criminally harassing me with fraudulent court documents.
According to their website as of September 2015, Veritox may give you a copy of the court documents from Bruce J. Kelman & GlobalTox, Inc. v. Sharon Kramer GIN044539 (2005 to present) & Bruce J. Kelman v. Sharon Kramer 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC (2010 to present) and show you how they use them to obtain clients.
I would assume the accompanying sales pitch to toxic tort defense attorneys goes something like, “Hey, check out this fraud upon the court that the California courts have been helping us with for years and no one holds them or us accountable. Hire us, we’re made of Teflon! We’ll lie our arses off for you and write all kinds of garbage to help you win your cases. We promise you can get away with it.”
As taken from the Veritox website:
“On August 26, 2008, a San Diego County Superior Court trial jury found that Sharon Kramer libeled Dr. Bruce Kelman of Veritox®, Inc., when she published a press release in March 2005. In her press release, Mrs. Kramer stated that Dr. Kelman had altered his under-oath statements on the witness stand when he testified as a witness in an Oregon lawsuit. The jury found that Mrs. Kramer’s statement was false and defamatory and that she had published it with malice. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on behalf of Dr. Kelman. Nevertheless, Mrs. Kramer persisted in spreading the defamation. Accordingly, in November, 2010, Dr. Kelman filed a second lawsuit against her, to enjoin her from republishing the libel. The San Diego Superior Court issued a preliminary injunction against her in May 2011. She willfully disobeyed the injunction on several occasions, and as a consequence was incarcerated for civil contempt of court for two days in March 2012, and was fined $3,000 in July 2012.” The Court [FALSE, not a court, but a rogue judge] entered judgment in Dr. Kelman’s favor in July 2012, permanently enjoining Mrs. Kramer from republishing the libel. Mrs. Kramer’s appeal from the judgment was dismissed in March, 2013, when she failed [refused] to file an opening brief [in a court which the presiding justice refused to prove had subject matter jurisdiction upon challenge]. Mrs. Kramer continues to post false [corroborated as accurate] information and accusations maligning Veritox and its employees, as well as California justices, judges, court clerks and administrators, members of Congress and other elected officials. In the interest of saving time and minimizing annoyance, we currently ignore her posts regarding this matter. If you are a current or prospective client and have any questions about this, please call us for additional information and documentation.
(They have since deleted the last sentence from their website. But the rest of the false advertising for an illicit interstate enterprise via usage of criminally backdated court documents, etc. remains)
Their clients (the third-party true-beneficiaries to Mr. Kelman’s and Veritox’s continued and enabled criminal harassment of me in the California courts) are U.S. toxic tort defense attorneys retained by insurers or employed at government agencies. This includes toxic tort defense attorneys at the USDOJ and in California toxic torts where government agencies are named defendants.
Defense attorneys across the United States could not use Veritox or Veritox’s junk science in their toxic torts to cheat the environmentally disabled — if Mr. Kelman was behind bars for criminally harassing the original whistleblower (moi) of how his junk science was mass-marketed as Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) to lending false credibility to his bogus expert defense witness opinions in mold litigations.
THE JUNK SCIENCE OF MR. KELMAN & MR. HARDIN OF VERITOX, INC
Veritox co-owners, Mr. Kelman and Mr. Hardin, are toxicologists who hold PhDs. Mr. Kelman comes to the mold issue circa 2000 after years of being an expert defense witness for Big Tobacco. Mr. Hardin comes to the issue circa 2001 almost immediately after retiring from the CDC NIOSH.
In 2002, Mr. Kelman and Mr. Hardin concocted a bogus risk assessment model that I call “the Veritox Theory” or “the GlobalTox paper”. It became the mainstay of the defense in mold litigations via being falsely marketed as EBM and as falsely claimed proof that mycotoxins (aka “toxic mold”) in water damaged buildings can’t plausibly reach a level to hurt anyone.
A simple unethical twist of science, the two men simply applied extrapolations to data they had taken from a bench researcher’s study of sudden blasts of mold being instilled in rats’ throats. They professed to have proven mycotoxins in water damaged buildings (WDB) could not plausible harm humans. It is not current accepted science now to make such a grandiose claim based on this kind of misapplication of data, and it never was. It’s junk science hiding behind lofty-looking credentials using impressive-looking numbers.
From a 2017 “expert” opinion of Mr. Kelman’s in a mold litigation:
“Furthermore, a review of toxicity of various mycotoxins indicates that it is nearly impossible to inhale sufficient mycotoxins in an indoor environment to produce toxic effects”
The above “expert” statement is complete hogwash. There is no known minimum exposure to mycotoxins in the indoor environment before symptoms indicative of debilitating toxicity occur; and the only “review” Mr. Kelman could have done to form the above conclusion is that of his own calculations. The Veritox Theory is a Linear No Threshold (LNT) risk assessment model. No one uses LNTs anymore. They have become widely understood to be junk science. Mr. Kelman is frequently discredited for using the above “expert” garbage.
In 2005, after about a year of researching how this bogus concept became the mainstay of defense attorneys and defense experts in mold litigations, I wrote of what I learned. I put it in the context of how Mr. Kelman was (unsuccessfully trying) to use his Veritox Theory in an Oregon mold case. I have a degree in marketing and I called them on the widely marketed insurer fraud scam based on the junk science.
At the time, I had no idea how incestuous the San Diego courts are and how far they would go to protect their own. When one screws up a legal proceeding to the point of real potential for liability for the courts, they all follow suit in retaliation to conceal the grave errors – digging a large cesspool of corruption that they can’t climb out of without exposing the stench and all the unclean hands that helped to dig the pool.
They’ve been harassing me and framing me for libel on behalf of your client, ever since the first judge in matter, Judge Michael Orfield, suppressed the evidence in 2005 that Mr. Kelman committed perjury to make up a reason for malice in a libel suit. They have been using falsified court documents, falsified electronic case records, etc., like a bunch of bumbling Keystone cops — while keeping the profitable insurer fraud scam, based on Veritox’s bogus risk model, going in mold litigations from coast to coast. Thousands have been, and continue to be, harmed by the ongoing criminal antics in the local courts.
IS IT YOUR INTENT TO USE A VOID JUDGMENT TO HARASS ME?
So, if it still your intent to try to use the void judgment to reinstate the fraudulent lien, please know that the first place I will go is to California Attorney General Becerra. He’s already told me (on video) that the CADOJ will investigate this ongoing crime in the California courts purposed to keep the Veritox Theory insurer fraud scam going. I’ve already had one meeting with an attorney from the CADOJ Public Crimes Unit with a witness present.
That attorney understands that the documents you will need to (criminally) use to reinstate the fraudulent lien are backdated and void on their faces. He also understands that the Administrative Presiding Justice of the Fourth District Division One Court of Appeals (4th1st) Justice Judith McConnell, is “compounding” the problem via obstructing the vacating of the void judgment and removal of your clients’ backdated and fraudulent liens, obtained by collusive fraud upon the court.
FOR THIRTEEN YEARS, THIRTEEN SAN DIEGO JUDGES & JUSTICES HAVE BEEN CASE FIXING WITH YOUR CLIENTS, KEEPING THE JUNK SCIENCE TO COMMIT INSURER FRAUD IN U.S. MOLD LITIGATIONS FROM COAST TO COAST.
These are the local jurists who have hands-on helped your client to harass me by criminal means for thirteen years. Not one of them has done anything to make your clients’ and their former attorney Keith Scheuer’s criminal harassment of me, stop:
4th/1st Admin Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, former Chair of the Commission on Judicial Performance, (CJP)
4th/1st Justice Richard Huffman,
4th/1st Justice Patricia Benke,
4th/1st Justice Cynthia Aaron,
4th/1st Justice Alex MacDonald (deceased),
4th/1st Justice Joan Irion,
Judge William Dato (now a 4th/1st Justice and newest appointee to the state’s judicial watchdog agency, Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)),
Judge Michael Orfield (retired 2008),
Judge Lisa Schall,
Judge Joel Pressman (retired 2017),
Judge Thomas Nugent (retired 2015),
Judge Robert Dahlquist III, and
Judge Earl Maas III.
And last but not least:
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue who has seen the fraudulent backdated court documents multiple times that you are apparently going to criminally use to continue to harass me. She seems to think what you are about to get involved in with the above-named judges, justices and your clients at Veritox, is just a hysterically funny “harmless error”. See Video of Chief Justice Cantil-Sakayue cracking jokes with Judge Pressman on February 9, 2017; claiming she read 45 pages (that corroborate the fraudulent court documents’ various continued and criminal usages to cheat the public); and voting to appoint Justice Dato to the 4th/1st over my objections.
THIS IS WHY THOSE WHO COLLUSIVELY WORK TO KEEP VERITOX’S JUNK SCIENCE AND INSURER FRAUD IN MOLD LITIGATIONS HATE ME SO MUCH:
In May of 2005, Mr. Kelman and Veritox, Inc. (formerly GlobalTox, Inc.) sued me for libel in a California state court for the words “altered his under oath statements” in my 2005 writing titled “Jury Finds ‘Toxic Mold’ Harmed Oregon Family. Builder’s Arbitration Clause Not Binding”.
I had accurately used those words in a sentence to describe Mr. Kelman weaseling on an Oregon witness stand. This was a key part of the story of how the Veritox Theory became EBM and current accepted science by unethical means; and how it could be defeated by making Mr. Kelman talk about the exchange of money among the players. (I was trying to be polite with “altered” rather than “weaseled”).
From my 2005 writing exposing how Veritox got their junk science into policies as legitimate science and how to beat it in court:
The case (Haynes vs. Adair Homes Inc.) is a first in the Northwest to award personal injury damages to a family exposed to toxic mold in a newly built home. This verdict is significant because it holds construction companies responsible when they negligently build sick buildings…
…By the time the Haynes discovered the mold, it was too late. Mrs. Haynes and the children were exhibiting neurologic and immune system damage. Paul Haynes reported the problem to Adair Homes, but the company refused to take responsibility. The family was forced to flee their new house in an effort to save the health of the mother and young sons….
…Dr. Bruce Kelman of GlobalTox,Inc, a Washington based environmental risk management company, testified as an expert witness for the defense, as he does in mold cases throughout the country. 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)
My writing accurately stated that the think-tank money was for the U.S. Chamber version when marketing the bogus Veritox Theory (“GlobalTox paper”) and I described how that version was connected to the allegedly unbiased version written by Mr. Kelman and Mr. Hardin for their so-called “esteemed colleagues” in the “learned body” of ACOEM.
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 [“nonprofits”]. 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]
The purpose of suing me was to stop sunlight from shining on how the scientifically fraudulent Veritox Theory was mass marketed into policy – that it was proven “toxic mold” does not harm — purposed toward misleading courts to deny liability for parties who are financially responsible for the disabling and killing of people. Mainly this would be various types of insurer who issue policies such as property/casualty, workcomp, errors and omissions, and health. It also includes government agencies and their toxic tort defense attorneys who use the services of Veritox and their junk science in mold litigations.
The California SLAPP suits (there are two, one beginning in 2005 and one in 2010) were fixed to a false finding of libel with actual malice by the local jurists, Mr. Kelman’s attorney Keith Scheuer, and court clerks. They systematically suppressed evidence that Mr. Kelman frequently lies under oath when serving as a toxic tort defense witness and as a plaintiff in SLAPP suits.
Justice Judith McConnell and her colleagues in the 4th/1st have repeatedly suppressed the direct evidence that the Veritox Theory is the heart of one of the biggest insurer fraud scams ever perpetrated on the U.S. public; and that they know they are causing it to continue by criminally case-fixing SLAPP with the fraudulent court documents, that you are apparently going to also use.
The second case, Kelman v. Kramer, began in 2010 via usage of the backdated void judgment from Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer. It was about trying to permanently enjoin me from telling anyone of the ongoing case-fixing in California with fraudulent court documents, — purposed to defraud the public via enabling Veritox’s junk science to continue in EBM and mold litigations across the U.S.
THE SENTENCE FOR WHICH I HAVE BEEN FRAMED FOR LIBEL FOR THIRTEEN YEARS
There has never been any question that the sentence for which Mr. Kelman and 4th Justice McConnell, et.al. continue to criminally frame me for libel (with fraudulent and backdated court documents) is correct:
“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.”
Stated in the November 2006 anti-SLAPP opinion (confirming that the above is correct, Kelman did “alter his under oath statements” – but framing me for libel for it, anyway) as written by – you guessed it! – case-fixer extraordinaire Justice Judith McConnell. Concurred by Justice Cynthia Aaron and Alex MacDonald (deceased):
“The fact that Kelman did not clarify that he received payment from the Manhattan Institute until after being confronted with the Killian deposition testimony [the case in Arizona] could be viewed by a reasonable jury as resulting from the poor phrasing of the question rather that from an attempt to deny payment”.
Here’s the second reason they hate me so much:
I have learned to use the criminal harassment in the California courts to shed greater light on the insurer scam based on Veritox’s junk science, to help save lives nationwide. I never would have been able to get enough attention on Veritox’s junk science to cause the 2007 front page Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article about Mr. Kelman and his junk science if he hadn’t sued me for libel.
The 2007 WSJ article is “Court of Opinion, Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation” By David Armstrong, January 10, 2007. To quote key excerpts:
The paper has become a key defense tool wielded by builders, landlords and insurers in litigation. It has also been used to assuage fears of parents following discovery of mold in schools. One point that rarely emerges in these cases: The paper was written by people who regularly are paid experts for the defense side in mold litigation…. The dual roles show how conflicts of interest can color debate on emerging health issues and influence litigation related to it.
“a lot people with legitimate environmental health problems are losing their homes and their jobs because of legal decisions based on this so-called ‘evidence-based’ statement.”
The ACOEM paper goes further. It says not only is there no evidence indoor mold causes serious health effects, but even if mold produced toxic substances, it’s “highly unlikely at best” that anyone could inhale enough to cause a problem. The paper reaches this conclusion by extrapolating from animal studies in which rodents’ throats were injected with molds.
“They took hypothetical exposure and hypothetical toxicity and jumped to the conclusion there is nothing there.”
In 2005-07, I was also spending a bit of time in DC while the California courts were busy case-fixing SLAPP and framing me for libel with Mr. Scheuer on behalf of your clients. If Mr. Kelman hadn’t sued me, I wouldn’t have gotten the WSJ article. And if the WSJ author had not been looking for comment from U.S. Senators and staffers in 2006, I never would have gotten U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) to order a federal audit of the issue.
The Federal Government Accountability Office Report (GAO) issued in September of 2008 and blew Veritox’s junk science out of the water. Titled “INDOOR MOLD Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts”; it found that it is indeed plausible that mycotoxins in the indoor environment could reach a level to harm. (I am aware that this document is frequently cited to expose that your client’s “expert” reports in mold litigations are junk science; and in rebuttal, that he tries to say the Federal GAO is not an authority. Too funny!)
In 2015 when ACOEM was forced into stop marketing Veritox’s junk science as an “Evidence Based Medicine” position statement, that was portrayed to be the scientific understanding of thousands of learned physicians — I was given the honor of making the public announcement of it via WorkCompCentral. That article is “ACOEM Takes Down Position Paper Commonly Used to Defend Against Mold Claims”. To quote:
ACOEM representatives did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But Kramer told WorkCompCentral in an interview last week that Michael Hodgson, medical director for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, received a statement from ACOEM’s publications director [Marianne Dreger] last year that the organization would sunset the position paper in early 2015. Kramer said the sunsetting that appears to have occurred takes away any weight the paper might hold as a defense against workers’ compensation claims where the claimant is seeking benefits for mold-related illnesses.”
“It was a litigation defense argument right from the get-go,” she said.
Although Mr. Kelman’s words carry little weight these days and cases settle more easily and $$$ higher for plaintiffs; he still is enabled to regurgitate his junk science when retained as an expert defense witness in U.S. toxic torts — directly because he’s not in jail where he should be for harassing me for years with fraudulent court documents that you are apparently about to start harassing me with, too.
So, head up. If you are going to harass me with fraudulent court documents for Veritox and Justice McConnell, et.al. then you’re going to have to do it publicly. This letter, the attached criminally backdated court documents and the above referenced videos may be viewed online at the blog “Veritox Means Truth-Poison”. It’s under the blog title, “William Litvak, Esq. are you intending to harass me w/backdated court docs for Veritox’s junk science to linger in U.S. mold litigations? Short link: https://wp.me/p7Yx8Q-fo
Here’s the third reason they hate me so much:
They (you, if so inclined) can harass me til the cows come home, frame me for libel, jail me for refusing to sign a false confession that begins with the sentence “I do not believe Dr. Kelman committed perjury” and criminally record all kinds of fraudulent and backdated liens on my property. But ya can’t hide the truth!
Plainly stated, your client Mr. Kelman, is a high-paid, junk-scientist, and a menace to the health of society; and everybody knows it. This includes Justice Judith McConnell — who has been pimping out her court for him and toxic tort defense attorneys who use his blowhard services — via case-fixing his Strategic Litigations Against Public Participation since 2006; and repeatedly refusing make the criminal harassment stop.
He’s also a bully and a sore loser. Upon receipt of your invalid notice of substitution of counsel, on Friday I sent the following email to Mr. Kelman:
From: Sharon Noonan Kramer <email@example.com>
To: bkelman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 6:34 pm
Subject: Too funny. Bring it on.
Sorry I’m kicking your hiney left and right in U.S. mold litigations. :) Guess that’s just the way it goes when one lives in a house of cards.
In conclusion, the primary reason I am sending you this letter is to ascertain your true colors right up front. So, please let me know your intent as soon as possible and if you will also be criminally representing the other owners of Veritox as you try to reinstate a fraudulent lien.
The face of the void judgment and fraudulent, backdated, interest accruing lien that you are apparently going to try to use to reinstate more harassing fraud, also includes the costs that the other owners incurred (even though they lost in trial). Their costs of $3,626,33 were submitted to the court on October 14, 2008 by Mr. Scheuer as being part of Mr. Kelman’s incurred costs in GIN044539.
GIN044539 is Kelman and GlobalTox v. Kramer. It is not “Kelman v. Kramer” as your substitution of counsel inaccurately states. That case, Kelman v. Kramer (in which Mr. Kelman and Mr. Scheuer also recorded a fraudulent lien on my property) is Case No. 37-2010-00061530-CU-DF-NC.
They used the same void judgment in that case (that you are about to use to harass me) to feign court subject matter jurisdiction with Judge Nugent (2010-12), Judge Dahlquist (2012-13), and you guessed it! – Justice McConnell (2013-14). Coram non judice = no immunity from prosecution for criminally case-fixing.
(Attached hereto collectively and EXH 5, EXH 6 and EXH 7 are my October 2015 requests to Mr. Kelman and Justice McConnell asking them to stop harassing me with fraudulent court documents; and the 4th/1st unlawful refusal (again) to recall and rescind the fraudulent and fraud concealing remittitur from GIN044539.)
If you are going to choose to proceed to criminally harass me with backdated court documents, please correct your substitution of counsel statement to state the right harassing case name and provide an accurate Proof of Service to all parties in the litigation. I don’t know where you think you can have this matter heard, because there is no court in the United States that will knowingly rely on the twice backdated, void judgment from Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer for its subject matter jurisdiction. (Except of course, in San Diego)
Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer
This is a spoof based on the absurd idea that the CA Constitution gives the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) final authority to decide who may investigate them and their files. The below comments and actions have not been made by those who they are attributed to.
(Scene: 455 Golden Gate Ave, Office of the Comm on Judicial Performance. FBI agents walk in and the lead agent addresses CJP’s receptionist)
We’re from the FBI. We’re here to confiscate your files. We’d also like to talk with your Director, Victoria Henley. Is she here?
Ms. Henley is here, but she’s not in the building. She’s preparing to retire and is clearing out her desk. She’s downstairs loading her belongings into her vehicle.
You mean that semi trailer in the parking lot that three guys have just about finished filling with legal document boxes?
Yes, that’s Ms. Henley’s vehicle. I believe she’s just about finished clearing out her desk.
Whose here right now whose in charge?
Commissioner Erica Yew is here. Let me find her for you. I think I just saw her with the repairman whose here to fix the ten over-heated shredding machines.
(Judge Erica Yew walks into the reception area and introduces herself to the lead FBI agent)
Hello, Mr. FBI man. Golly gee-willikers, how are you today?
I’m fine. We’re here to confiscate all CJP records and files and we’d appreciate your cooperation as we do it.
(bats eyelids and smiles) We’d love to cooperate with your investigation of us. But gosh, the California Constitution says we alone make up rules about how judges are investigated and we made one up that says no one can have all our files of how we investigate judges, unless we decide they may.
Lady, are you f**king nuts? The California Constitution says the CJP can make up rules of how judges are investigated, not how the CJP is investigated.
Oh my, I’m so confused. I don’t know what to do. According to the rules that I helped to make up, I may or may not decide to give you the files. Our Rule 102(g) states: (Disclosure of information to prosecuting authorities) The commission may release to prosecuting authorities at any time information which reveals possible criminal conduct by the judge or former judge or by any other individual or entity.
So let me get this straight. You think the California Constitution says that you can make up rules that lets you decide if you may or may not let the FBI confiscate all your files in a criminal investigation?
Yes..I think..I don’t know. Maybe it would help if you said “Mother may I“? No wait, then I would have to say “Yes, you may” or “No, you may not“. Oh, my poor little confused brain. I am truly a lady in distress, Mr. FBI man. I am feeling stuck. Whatever should I do?
Show me where the files are and then step aside. I’m confiscating them to investigate the CJP covering up many judicial crimes occurring in the California court going back for years.
(Commissioner Yew’s demeanor completely changes from sweet, confused and innocent to a tough as nails criminal defense attorney)
(in a guttural growl) You forgot to say “Mother may I“, A**hole. Now I’m going to sue you in a court where we decide if the judge’s actions are ethical or not; and if that judge deserves to stay in office.
Get out of my way. We’re taking your files. Where are they?
The two boxes are around the corner. Bwah, ha ha, ha ha! We made up a rule yesterday that the CJP may shred and discard confidential files upon perceived threat of any government agency demanding to see them. Sorry, there was nothing written that explicitly exempts the FBI from that rule.
We’re lawyers, you idiot! And we’re going to argue that the California Constitution gives us the right to make up rules that may obstruct any and all investigations of files we’ve deemed confidential. The two boxes around the corner are all that are left after our self-determined, lawful-shredding under our new rule — and we’ll sue you if you take them.
What???? Ummmm, I guess we’ll have to hire a law firm to defend us in the lawsuit.
(Yew switches back into sweet demeanor)
Yes. I agree with you, Mr. FBI man. I would so love for you not to have to waste tax-dollars with us in litigation, but I just can’t figure out any way on our own for you to be able to investigate us and see what we really do behind closed doors. Gosh, I wish we had written a rule that say you can investigate us without us telling you that you may. But we didn’t, so you can’t. Oh my. This is so stressful and confusing for me. Do you think you could just go away so I don’t have to think about this perplexing problem anymore?
Yea, that’s not gonna happen.
Okay, I guess I’ll see you in court and that makes my poor little heart so sad. So like, you have a nice day, Mr. FBI man. And please let us know if there is anything, anything at all, that we can do to help you.
By the way, do you know anything about how we can get the Legislative Budget Committee to give us more money — without being able to audit our files to see how we’ve used the money they’ve been giving us for fifty years?
End of Spoof
VIDEO of Ca Budget Committee hearing May 2017. Judge Yew & Ms. Henley were asking for more money while discussing the money the legislature had already given them being spent on suing the State Auditor — to obstruct the legislature’s investigation so they could know what to budget. (This may seem like a spoof, but it’s real!)
CJP v. State Auditor hearing Nov 3rd @10am in San Francisco Superior Court, Dept 504, Honorable Suzanne Bolanos presiding.
Donuts in the park across the street starting at 8:30am.