OSHA Updated IAQ Advisory: California Courts Have Been Colluding With VeriTox, Inc. For Six Years To Defraud Public Over Mold Issue; In The Matter of Bruce J. Kelman vs. Sharon Kramer, San Diego, California

If one wants to understand why and how it remains a fraud in US public health policy that it has been proven moldy buildings never cause severe immune dysfunctions, the below MUST be read online at the US Department of Labor, OSHA website as updated Refence No. 15 on page 24 of the OSHA IAQ advisory,
Indoor Air Quality In Commercial and Institution Buildings.

Has little to do with science and much to do with politics. Concerningly, politics over the Constitution in the California courts. The California Courts Have Been Colluding With “Product Defenders“, perveyors of doubt of causation of environmental illness, VeriTox, Inc. To Defraud Public Over Mold Issue. They Have Systematically Worked To Keep It Unknown In US Public Health Policy And California Workers Comp Policy That Moldy Buidings Can Cause Severe Illness And Sometimes Even Death.

The Way The Courts Have Done This By Suppressing Evidence Of A Plaintiff’s (Veritox Owner, Bruce Kelman’s) Perjury Used To Establish Libel Law Required Reason For Malice As They Framed A Whistleblowing US Citizen For Libel In A Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation. It Has Been Going On For Six Years.

Now, The Courts Are Threatening Contempt of Court (hearing on November 14, 2011) And Jail Time If The Defendant (Advocate For Sick, Sharon Kramer) Continues To Write And Evidence What The Courts Have Done To Aid To Defraud The Public. Its Billions In Fraud And Thousands Of Lives.

The courts and VeriTox want Sharon to never republish the phrase, “altered his [Kelman] under oath statements”, the only thing for which she was sued with the sole claim of the case being this was a maliciously false accusation that Kelman committed perjury when testifying as an expert defense witness.

Sharon can write and speak all day long of the fraud mass marketed into US public health and California workers comp’ policy by the US Chamber, ACOEM, Governor Schwarzenegger et. al., without repeating the phrase, “altered his under oath statements”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIGlZT6g50Q&feature=related

But what she cannot do without repeating the phrase, “altered his under oath statements”, is discuss the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation case and evidence how the courts framed her for libel and suppressed the evidence that Kelman committed perjury to establish libel law needed reason for malice.

For Now, SIX YEARS, the Courts have been suppressing the evidence that Kelman committed criminal perjury to establish libel law needed reason for malice.

From the September 2010 Appellate Opinion by the “case reviewing” court who directly state they are obligated to review to see if clear and convincing proof of malice was established. Also directly stated, they chose not to review.

“We recognize that with respect to malice ‘courts are required to independently examine the record to determine whether it provides clear and convincing proof thereof.’ ( >McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1657, 1664.) However, in Kelman v. Kramer I [November 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion] we expressly rejected Kramer’s argument that such independent review entitled her to judgment. Rather, we found that such review had taken place in the trial court and, following our own detailed analysis of the evidence of Kramer’s hostility towards Kelman, we left the trial court’s determination undisturbed. Given that disposition, we can only conclude that panel which decided Kelman v. Kramer I conducted the required independent review of the record and agreed with the trial court that, as the record stood at that point, there was clear and convincing evidence of malice. Because, as we have indicated the record of malice presented at trial was just as fulsome as the one considered in Kelman v. Kramer I, [meaning there was none in either] we cannot depart from our prior decision without also departing from the doctrine of law of the case.”

From the November 2006 anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion, where they refused to read Kramer’s briefs and the attached exhibits. But, as noted above, in 2010 the same Appellate court found they had done a thorough review of the case in 2006 for “fulsome malice” over a writing impacting US public health:

“As appellant, Kramer has the burden of showing error. (See Howard v. Thrifty Drugs & Discount Store (1995) 10 Cal.4th, 443.) ‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independant, unassessed study of the record in search of error or grounds to supprt the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel”.

(Written by an attorney who has been licensed in California for over thirty years, there was nothing improper in the form of briefs or exhibits attached evidencing Kelman’s perjury to establish malice, etc).

“Kramer asked us to take judicial notice of additional documents, inclunding the complaint and an excerpt from Kelman’s depositin in her lawsuit against her insurance company. We decline to do so as it does not appear these items were presented to the trial court.”

“Initially, we note this lawsuit is not about a conspiracy. This lawsuit was filed by Kelman and GlobalTox alleging one statement in a press release was libelous. Thus, conspiracy issues are not relevant.”

Declaration submitted by the attorney on June 29, 2006:

1. The deposition testimony of Bruce Kelman in the Mercury v. Kramer case reveals that he could not testify about health effects of mold exposure regarding..the Defendant’s daughter.

2. The settlement documents in the same case show that there was a substantial settlement which occured on October of 2003, thus impeaching the Plaintiff’s thesis of a bitter sour-grapes litigant, and impeaching Bruce Kelman’s declaration in opposition ot the 425.16 motion.” Some of the Evidence Suppressed By The Courts Of Kelman’s perjury to establish needed reason for Kramer’s malice while strategically litigating over a matter of public health. (huge pdf link. Takes several seconds to open)

Sharon’s statement to the court in writing on April 27, 2011, BEFORE the court issued a “gag order” that she could not republish that sentence on May 2, 2011:

“In oral argument of 4/14/11, Kramer stated, “I am so sorry, Your Honor, but on behalf of the health and safety of the American public, I will not be able to abide by any injunctive relief order you may grant.” This is because this court is relying on prior improvidently entered orders that rewarded a US Chamber author/plaintiff’s use of criminal perjury to establish malice to deem a never impeached United States citizen to be a “malicious liar” over an accurate writing impacting public health in egregious violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. This order is furthering benefiting a California licensed attorney’s suborning of criminal perjury in a prior litigation and rewarding submission of false documents to this court of judgments that were never entered. This is to gag, vex, harass and financially ruin a never impeached whistle blowing citizen.

This order is making it against the law for the never impeached citizen to write and speak of errors of the courts in Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer that have aided with a fraud in US public health policy to continue by the courts’ ignoring the evidence that an author of policy for the Chamber and ACOEM used criminal perjury in a malicious, strategic, libel litigation.

It is a matter of court record that the appellate court was informed and evidenced that “WHEN” they acknowledged the plaintiff’s criminal perjury, “THEN” the fraud in policy would immediately cease by rightfully exposing the conflicts of interests & lack of truthfulness in legal proceedings by the plaintiff, policy author and professional witness, Kelman. Instead, the courts rewarded the criminal behavior. This order is furthering the abuse of the prior courts that aids the US Chamber adverse to public interest.

As such, Kramer respectfully informs this court that she will not stop writing and speaking of the fraud in policy and of the courts rewarding criminal perjury in a malicious, strategic litigation that aids the fraud to continue; regardless of the order this court may issue. She informs this court of this because she will not lie to this court that she will follow an injunctive relief order based on prior improvidently entered orders and false documents submitted to this court.

What this court does with this information is unknown to Kramer. But, public safety and integrity in the courts are more important to Kramer than consequences of refusing to be silenced of fraud in policy aided to continue by the judiciaries to oversee Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer.

It is a violation of Kramer’s first amendment rights to reward criminal perjury in a strategic litigation against her and then issue a court order that Kramer be gagged from writing of what the courts have done. The evidence of the appellate court rewarding criminal perjury in a strategic litigation over a matter of public health is a matter of public record in the court files of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer. It is also a matter of public record that they falsely stated in their 2010 opinion that there are judgments entered in the case. As a matter of public record, anyone should be able to write and speak of the documents of the case, including Kramer.”

So..the California courts are going to put a whistleblower of fraud in policy in jail for refusing to be silenced of how the courts colluded with “product defender” plaintiffs, VeriTox, Inc to defraud the public by criminal means.

About Sharon Kramer

Hi, I'm an advocate for integrity in health marketing and in the courts.
This entry was posted in Temp. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to OSHA Updated IAQ Advisory: California Courts Have Been Colluding With VeriTox, Inc. For Six Years To Defraud Public Over Mold Issue; In The Matter of Bruce J. Kelman vs. Sharon Kramer, San Diego, California

  1. katy says:

    Hi Jose,

    We just released two of your comments from Oct 30th that we were not aware were in the hopper. To answer a couple of your questions. Kelman was never made to corroborate the reason given that Kramer would harbor malice for him. Kramer provided uncontroverted evidence, including direct evidence, of Kelman’s actual testimony in her case with Mercury. He gave no such malice causing testimony in that case of “I testified the types and amounts of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life threatening illnesses she claimed”. What he actually put into writing in that case is “A physician with detailed knowledge of the child must be consulted as to the safety of the home.” It was perjury in the libel case to establish a false theme of malice, ie, making Kramer look like a sour grapes litigant. In reality, she received about a half a million dollar settlement.

    You are right. This was not able to be discussed in trial. The judge stopped it. As far as the verdict, a juror submitted an affidavit after trial saying documents got into the jury room that were not discussed in trial that caused the needed votes for Kelman.

    One dollar is always the award in libel cases where no damages are claimed. The courts are seeking that we do not republish the phrase, “altered his under oath statements”, the sole cause of action of the case, because without being able to repeat that phrase, we cannot write and publish what actually occurred in the case:

    1. They suppressed the uncontroverted evidence that proved Kelman committed perjury to establish needed reason for malice.

    2. They suppressed the uncontroverted evidence that Kramer was never impeached as to the reason she used the phrase “altered his under oath statements”.

    3. They suppressed the evidence that they KNEW framing Kramer for libel for a writing over public health, aids the scientifically fraudulent concept that there is proof moldy buildings do not harm of Kelman et al, to continue to be used to sell doubt of causation in the courtroom and claims handling practices.

    4. THAT is why they are threatening incarceration if Kramer does not shut up. She has the proof that the courts willingly colluded to defraud the public on behalf of the affiliates of the US Chamber, by aiding with a malicious SLAPP suit carried out by criminal means. In six years time, no judge in CA can state how the phrase, “altered is under oath statements” translates into a maliciously false accusation of perjury; or state any evidence of Kramer having malice for Kelman before she wrote. After six years time, its easily into the billions of fraud.

  2. katy says:


    Good stuff! Thanks for looking at this in detail. As you state, you are not an attorney or a mold advocate. That’s a good thing. If you can grasp there is something not quite right here just from reviewing over a few days, then why can’t the whole judicial branch of the State of California?

    We are not aware that we did not publish 3 of your posts. Must have gotten lost in the shuffle. Can you send them again and number them 1, 2, 3? We will post them. Also, is it possible that you could take what it is you would like to see and number them for us in individual requests? If we have access to what you seek in electronic format we will put them on this board in links.

    In libel law, one must prove 2 things:
    1st Prong: It must be proven by a standard of clear and convincing evidence that the author of words did not believe them or published with reckless disregard for the truth.

    2nd Prong: It must be proven by a standard of clear and convincing evidence that they published a known falsehood or had reckless disregard because they had dihonorable motivation to harm another. That’s called Actual Malice or Constitutional Malice.

    Actual Malice can seldomly be proven by itself. One must establish a reason why a person would be motivated to publish a known falsehood about someone. That’s called having Personal Malice for someone.

    So, to prove libel with actual malice, it must be proven by a standard of clear and convincing evidence that the writing was knowingly false AND that there was a personal reason for wanting to do this from a motivation of just out to harm someone. Exposing a fraud marketed into US public health policy involving many, is not evidence of personal malice for one involved in the fraud. That’s called the First Amendment of the Constitution to be able to speak the truth for the public good without fear of retribution.

    You seem to have missed this point in your replies. Sharon’s writing is 100% correct. The exchange of money was for the US Chamber paper. The courts framed her to make it look like she had said Kelman got caught lying about being paid to make edits in the ACOEM paper.

    Look again at the complaint for Contempt of Court, page 6 of Exhibit 1, of why they want us to stop publicly writing of this case. THIS FRAMING of a US citizen for libel by misrepresenting their words in TWO appellate opinions, is what they want kept on the QT, (among other things).

    Complaint for Contempt of Court:

    Click to access 6dcd05474d.pdf

    Also, Katy’s Exposure has never been sued for libel and was never part of the underlying case. Under the constitution of the United States, we have as much right as anyone else to write and evidence what occurred in this case. (just like you are currently doing) It is a matter of public record. Yet, they threatened us via the US Postal Service, not to do it. If we can’t republish, “altered his under oath statements”, we can’t write of what the courts did because that is the sole cause of action in the libel case.
    Interstate mailed threat to Katy’s Exposure:

    Click to access f5e28ee28c.pdf

    So please resend the posts we missed and number for us what you would like to see. It is fascinating to us that you can review this case in such a short period of time and comprehend their was not proof of a known falsehood and no proof of personal malice, leading to actual malice.

    We will leave you with this. In both the 2006 and 2010 Appellate Opinions, they omitted 14 key lines from Kelman’s testimony in question from the Oregon trial, making it appear that he willingly discussed the US Chamber and ACOEM connection. FALSE the defense tried to keep the Arizona testimony out and shut down the line of questioning.

    Pages 4 -6 of the 2006 & 2010 Appellate Opinion citing Kelman’s testimony in Haynes. There are fourteen lines of the transcript omitted from the middle.

    MR. VANCE: And, you participated in those revisions?
    BRUCE J. KELMAN: Well, of course, as one of the authors.
    MR. VANCE: All right. And, isn’t it true that the Manhattan Institute paid
    GlobalTox $40,000 to make revisions in that statement?”
    KELMAN: That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.
    MR. VANCE: Well, you admitted it in the Killian [sic] deposition, sir.
    BRUCE J. KELMAN: No. I did not. (Typed.Opinion.pp.4)

    MR. VANCE: Would you read into the record the highlighted portions of
    that transcript, sir?
    MR. KELMAN: “And, that new version that you did for the Manhattan
    Institute, your company, GlobalTox got paid $40,000. Correct. Yes, the
    company was paid $40,000 for it.”…

    These below 14 missing lines were also omitted. They corroborate Kramer’s contention that the line of questioning of the US Chamber/ Manhattan Institute’s relationship to ACOEM over the mold issue would have been stopped if the plaintiff attorney Calvin (“Vance”) had not had the Arizona Kilian v. Equity Residential Trust (U.S.Dist.Ct., D.Ariz., No. CIV 02- 1272-PHX-FJM, (Kilian) transcript in its entirety.

    These omitted 14 lines illustrate the defense attempting to invoke the rule of
    completeness, after Kelman shouted “..ridiculous..” when asked of paid edits, the ACOEM
    paper and the Manhattan Institute. In 2010, before they rendered their opinion, they were evidenced of the impact it had on the case in their 2006 Opinion omitting the same thing. From Brief TO the Court:

    MR. VANCE: And, you participated in those revisions?
    BRUCE J. KELMAN: Well, of course, as one of the authors.
    MR. VANCE: All right. And, isn’t it true that the Manhattan Institute paid
    GlobalTox $40,000 to make revisions in that statement?”
    KELMAN: That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.
    MR. VANCE: Well, you admitted it in the Killian [sic] deposition, sir.
    BRUCE J. KELMAN: No. I did not. (Typd.Opn.pp.4)

    (Omitted From Opinion):

    MR. VANCE: Your Honor, may I approach. Would you read into the record,
    please, the highlighted parts of pages 905 and 906 of the trial transcript in
    that case.
    MR. KECLE: Your Honor, I would ask that Dr. Kelman be provided the rest
    of the transcript under the rule of completeness. He’s only been given two
    JUDGE VANDYKE: Do you have a copy of the transcript?
    MR. KECLE: I do not.
    MR. VANCE: Your Honor, I learned about Dr. Kelman just a –
    JUDGE VANDYKE: How many pages do you have?
    MR. VANCE: I have the entire transcript from pages –
    JUDGE VANDYKE: All right. Hand him the transcript.
    MR. VANCE: I’d be happy to give it to him, Your Honor.
    JUDGE VANDYKE: All right. (App.Opn.Brf.Erta,pp.26)

    (Back In The Opinion)

    MR. VANCE: Would you read into the record the highlighted portions of
    that transcript, sir?
    MR. KELMAN: “And, that new version that you did for the Manhattan
    Institute, your company, GlobalTox got paid $40,000. Correct. Yes, the
    company was paid $40,000 for it.”…

    You should also know that in rough draft, Sharon wrote “weasled” when describing Kelman’s testimony, but found “altered” to be a more polite and politically correct description. In retrospect, “weasled” appears to be a more correct description of the entire case, including the appellate opinions.

  3. Jose Testx says:

    I have to wonder if it wasn’t possible to have avoided this lawsuit simply by putting out a small clarification that Kelman did not commit perjury — that your press release never intended to convey such a meaning. Maybe Sharon felt the language was clear and that a jury would rule in her favor. Perhaps Sharon though she would be able to present all your evidence and not have it be cut out.

    Here is something I don’t understand. In the Order to Show Cause from October, Scheuer writes near the top: “..Plaintiff will apply ex parte for an Order to Show Cause why Defendant Sharon Kramer should not be held in contempt ….”

    Did I read that correctly and Kelman’s lawyer is agreeing that Sharon should *not* be held in contempt?

    Judging from the rest of the document, I am assuming Kelman/Scheuer brought to the attention of the court the webpage he believes was in violation. So, is he now changing his mind about having SK be held in contempt?

    It doesn’t seem reasonable she would be held in contempt, of course. Did Kelman realize that as well after complaining?

    As concerns the perjury she claims Kelman committed in order to support a claim of malice, does she have a link that covers that in detail? It’s not clear from the video I saw (neither the 3 minute nor 20 minute versions) that there was perjury (although I may have simply not paid attention or understood a key point). I have not seen the document Kelman submitted in March(?) of 2008 (after not remembering in the deposition in 2007), and I have not seen his testimony from the old trial to which this claim refers. Without both of those, I can’t compare to see if perjury is a reasonable interpretation.

    As concerns the libel trial, it seems to me from the details I have gathered that Sharon was short-changed by having certain evidence excluded although also perhaps she didn’t appeal the errors properly (?). I don’t at this point blame the Appeals court for the trial judge having rejected evidence that *may* have caused the jury to rule differently.

    I did reread what Sharon wrote (as provided here http://www.mold-help.org/content/category/91/ ), and taking her explanations into account, certainly don’t think that phrase necessarily suggests perjury or has any part that is false. You didn’t state “perjury” or “lie”. “Altered” can mean many things and certainly might be one way to describe what happened. It seems maybe Kelman’s side controlled the discussion in the courtroom and kept pushing the interpretation that views that wording as false and implying perjury. Having read that section initially under that context of perjury, it did seem to me Sharon was suggesting something close to lying under oath.

    I also read most of Kelman’s brief to her retrial request. I’m going to look at it more closely, but it seems clear and pursuasive (not necessarily always in a good sense) and by the rules of the book. This supports some of the suspicions I have that Sharon may have gotten out-lawyered. This is not a hit on Sharon’s legal aid, although by this point she was pro per. ..And since IANAL, I am just guessing.

    Finally, it appears 3 of my prior comments are still “awaiting moderation”. Could you take a look at that when you get a chance, katy?

  4. katy says:


    Its interesting to us that you can spend just a couple of days reading the history of this case and understand there was no evidence of Sharon Kramer having malice for Bruce Kelman. You are right. They cannot silence 100 Sharon Kramers or threaten everyone with jail time not to write of this case. It is a matter of public record. Yet, they appear to be trying to threaten and bully the whole world into silence of what they have done.

    We at Katy’s Exposure received a threat of litigation, May 2011, from Kelman that was mailed to us, interstate via the US Postal Service, should we continue to write of what the courts have done. Here is the threat to us, not to put anymore on the internet about the case of Kelman & GlobalTox V. Kramer: http://freepdfhosting.com/f5e28ee28c.pdf

    They want us to stop writing the phrase, “altered his under oath statements”. We can write all day about the fraud in public policy over the mold issue without the use of that phrase. But we cannot write of what the courts have done to aid the fraud to continue in policy by framing a whistle blower, without using the phrase since they are the five words for which Sharon was sued. They are trying to block free speach of writing of a case that is public record and intimidate others from doing the same. We have never republished that phrase without disclosing it is the subject of a lawsuit.

    For Sharon, they are threatening to put her in jail for what we have recently posted on Katy’s about the courts, members of the Judicial Council and Chair of the Comm on Judicial Performance have done to defraud the public via this suit. Bottom line: they suppressed the evidence that a plaintiff committed perjury to establish needed reason for a defendant’s malice in a litigation over public health. They suppressed the evidence that the defendant gave a logical and an unimpeached explanation of why she chose those words.

    They framed Sharon to make it appear she accused Kelman of lying about being paid to author the ACOEM mold statement, when Sharon’s writing is 100 percent accurate. The Money was for the US Chamber’s mold statement.

    This is the October 12, 2011 Contempt of Court Complaint. http://freepdfhosting.com/288c14ba7c.pdf

    Look at it Exhibit 1. Particularly Page 6 It is what Kelman attached of what they want us to stop publicly evidencing on Katy’s. They want us to stop evidencing the misdeeds of California’s judicial leaders, many who have had hands on involvment in this case. They want us to stop evidencing they KNOW of their misdeeds, know they are criminal and know they are aiding a fraud to continue to be used to sell doubt of causation in the courtroom, Interstate; and their misdeeds have aided this to continue for SIX YEARS.

    We at Katy’s are not going to be bullied into silence of the rampant corruption in the leadership of the Ca judicial branch, aiding to defraud the public; and then threatening jail time and legal action for those who expose it. They seem to have forgotten about something called the Constitution of the United States and that they took oaths to uphold it.

  5. Jose Testx says:

    Little fix on last comment:
    The case is being made in my mind, but if I clear my mind and start from the beginning of the pdf the story may not be clear. In other words, that pdf, while useful to me now, may not by itself be a great intro to this case.

  6. Jose Testx says:

    Sharon, I am skimming the pdf you mentioned in comments below and just took a first look where it talks about the 14 omitted lines. I don’t know what a court case record looks like, but I would like to see it to compare carefully. Absent that, you certainly appear to be making the case, in what I am reading, that this court process has done you an injustice (at least in terms of getting the judgement right). As I convince myself of this, I might represent simply one more little voice that Kelman et al could do without. Anyway, I would like to figure out what role the appeals court has played in this. To what degree are their hands tied to look only at evidence that was accepted at trial, etc. What is the proper way to question a trial judge’s wrongful rejection of important evidence. I still don’t know what the jury saw.

    As I said before, if the goal was to shut down voices, it probably won’t work, regardless of how the libel suit turns out. And a negative result for you is likely to add to the fire.

    Have you at any point considered making peace with Kelman if he would stop his lucrative business of testifying as he does? Does he realize that at some point, if he is in the wrong and if there is a lot of money at stake and/or an important public issue (which there are), that he will come out bad? He is setting himself up for perhaps undue negative exposure simply because a lot of people are going to sympathize with you and see him as more of a villain than perhaps he is (after all, scientists don’t all agree on every point). Honestly, would you consider trying to extent an olive branch if he would stop the slant of his current practice? Does he really want 100 Sharons breathing down his neck and writing critiquing his analysis and talking about his abuse of the court system? I don’t think the court itself wants to be seen as abusing their power. .. And again let me ask, have you considered contacting the ACLU now that there is this gag order? Just talking to someone there (and I never have) may help you identify precedent that cold quickly get the appeals court to sit up.

  7. Jose Testx says:

    Occupy the Moldy Jail Cell
    Occupy the Cell Against Molds
    Buck the Court for Molds
    Protecting your Rats and Mice
    [The above are actually 5 words as well]

  8. Jose Testx says:

    We can add another argument against the rat/mice analysis.

    [5]: Human babies (and humans generally) are likely much more vulnerable to many pathogens than are rats.

    Admittedly, I am pulling that statement out of the air, but I think many would agree it is as reasonable and believable as anything Kelman stated.

    Part of the reason why that might be true is because we have evolved in ways that allow us to find solutions to hygiene that are more sophisticated than what rats have accomplished (eg, we don’t use our mouths so much or keep it so close to the ground and have found many ways to control our environments and treat diseases). Also, our mental achievements over even just centuries have allowed many humans to survive who in a past age might have become a casualty of evolution.

    So while the rats can tolerate a large dose, and the mice can tolerate not even 10% of that perhaps (although I’m not sure the actual molds in the two experiments were related), humans might tolerate much less.

    [BTW, I don’t mean to sound discouraging in some of the things I have been saying. I know that if I felt wronged, I would take this all more personally. Susan B., to pick one historical figure, was wronged and lost her court battles, but she won other more important battles that decades later led to a triumph in the war. .. Maybe you’ll help start, “Occupy the Jail Cell” or start a fashion line of government grade ankle bracelets ;-) ]

  9. Jose Testx says:

    [Whatever happens in the courts, you have a defense on this website.]

    It might be neat to create characters (useful for animations, cartoons, games, logos, etc) — using open content/ open source copyright licenses of course — based on molds.

    We have good molds (penicillin and others that eat up potentially serious human pathogens) along with bad molds. Many stories can be told. By using open content license, we have many ways to encourage the public to participate in creating these stories and shaping the characters.

  10. Jose Testx says:

    I should make (more) clear on the last comments (to be give the other side): I have not seen evidence of malice (which even has to go back to around 2005), and it does seem from the bits I have seen that the courts certainly may have helped filter the trial’s evidence to favor Kelman. I do worry that this trial helps the industry and hurts consumers in unjust ways (but that can be addressed through things like further publishings and continued spotlight on the issue). And I am certainly sympathetic to the overall financial costs to SK, and the SLAPP implications, where the person with the current largest pot of gold can use it to preserve their position.

  11. Jose Testx says:

    I should make clear on the last comment: I am not at this point convinced there is a huge problem, neither by the courts nor with federal agencies as concerns this mold issue.. or that indoor mold is a problem of some seriousness. I have to read a lot more to form a strong opinion on these topics. There is no doubt that there are problems with courts and such, but these problems appear to be institutional and/or human nature. I haven’t read to say, “there is a specific problem as concerns mold coverup”.

    It is for this reason (assuming many others new to this topic would share this view above), that I thought it would be a good idea to create a wide audience for this topic by focusing on something fun, easy to digest, and where maybe a wide audience can come to agreement (the ridiculousness of the gag order).

  12. Jose Testx says:

    If you are interested, I may be willing in the future to write repeated comments or blog entries (I may open up a blog later via wordpress for the currently mostly empty website tofreeornottofree com) where I specifically use those 5 words to give my perspective on something patterning what you would have written. There is no gag order on me, I have no reason for malice, and I can certainly form an opinion (which likely won’t match yours, but could approach it).

    We can make a game of this and extend it to as many people as possible (even creating an online cheap html5 video game or simply an Internet blogging game). A light-hearted take on this 5 words madness serves to increase interest among the public as well as to mock the idea that any court would think of barring you personally from saying any given 5 words ever.

    [Note, the website I’m going to be creating covers many topics, but a central theme is that people empower themselves when they work together and share. It’s a lack of sharing that leads the wealthy to isolate and divide individuals. A major tool used to divide people is to encourage the keeping of trade secrets and discouraging sharing. Giants (who can buy copyrights, patents, and large firms loaded with trade secrets) against many small individuals will almost always win, but giants against an “open source” giant of individuals is a different matter. Also, I have software development skills, which is why I mentioned the online video game.]

    Note, that people may not read the details of the case and may conclude after skimming material that the case is mostly just a beef one stranger has with another; a wasteful “pride” fight over $1 is the impression Kelman’s attorneys likely intended to create.

    I don’t put your chances of winning this case very high, but in effect the decision likely accomplished very little for the industry (assuming they backed Kelman). You have not really lost anything and are continuing to keep the pressure on various groups.

    BTW, you already have an interesting title to work with (“I blew a whistle on the California courts colluding with the US Chamber to defraud the public and all I got was this stupid ankle braclet” — mentioned in the truthout article), but do note, I do prefer to participate from a perspective that doesn’t make allegation I have not had time to convince myself are accurate.

    In fact, many people will hesitate until they can be convinced you are really being wronged. As long as there is doubt in their minds, people will back off. If you use the tactic of simply mocking what should be clear to many is a mockable gag order, that will increase support.

    *** now to address your last comment ***

    Within this last pdf you linked, I will look for more information on the original case to which the statement, “I testified the types and amounts of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life threatening illnesses she claimed,” is referring. [I think that case would be your mold suit from years back.]

    In any case, Kelman appears to say in his deposition in 2008 on that topic that he didn’t remember his testimony for the referenced Kramer mold case. Is it the case that the just quoted statement made it into the libel trial record but, in contrast, the original mold trial testimony (his testimony at your trial of years back) and his deposition on that topic (shown in the video above) did NOT make it into the libel trial record? [I’ll assume for now this last question is answered affirmatively.]

    Let me ask, can a person find online the evidence that forms a part of the record of a given trial? Do you have links to the accepted evidence for the libel trial? for your mold trial?

    Why do you think the jury ruled for Kelman to the extent they did? I imagine a reason is that he was asking only for $1. Also, I figure if the answer to the above question (“is it the case that the just quoted statement…”) is true, then that also played an important part.

  13. katy says:


    Thank you for taking the time to look at this. It helps us to understand perception of what the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court put out – based on double speak. For example, you write: “Also, fwiw, the quotes presented in that appeals link above suggest to me that Kelman did not commit perjury or change his position between the Killian case and the Haynes hearing.”

    That is exactly right. However, what you are missing from the equation is that the courts suppressed the evidence that Kelman DID commit perjury in his declarations to establish a needed reason for malice. And Sharon never said he committed perjury when testifying as an expert in Oregon, nor did she write that his testimony in Kilian was different from that in Oregon. The Appellate Court added those spins, while suppressing the unimpeached explanation Sharon gave for why she chose those words. She was describing Kelman altering back and forth about the connection of ACOEM to the US Chamber in marketing false science. He was trying to say they were not connected but had to admit they were because a prior testimony from another case was permitted into the proceedings in Oregon over the defense counsel’s objection.

    The Fourth omitted 14 key lines from the middle of what transpired in the Orgeon trial, in both their 2006 and 2010 Opinion. Best read here to understand SOME of what they have done.
    http://freepdfhosting.com/6afe5efd81.pdf (takes a minute to open)

    And…the lower court was evidenced of Kelman’s perjury to establish a false theme for malice. Although the App Court was asked to take judicial notice of additional evidence, they had other evidence already in their possession.

    Thanks for looking at this in detail, with new eyes. It helps us to understand what the perception is from the double speak in those Opinions. Let us know what you think after you read the above pdf. It has links to other pdfs from the case.

    Keep in mind, the only five words for which Sharon was sued are “altered his under oath statements”. The court had the burden of determining the evidence proved libel with actual malice by a standard of clear and convincing proof

    They cannot answer the two questions required to prove libel:
    1. What did Sharon accusing Kelman of lying about by the use of that phrase? Where is the corroborated evidence for this?
    2. Why did Sharon have personal malice for Kelman? Where is the corroborated evidence for this?

  14. katy says:

    Hey Jose,

    Thank you for your supporting comments. We know it may seem involved and complex, but it is reallly not. Its simple. The courts have backed themselves into a corner of having to put a person in jail for the republishing the phrase “altered his uder oath statements”, because it is the purported repetition of a maliciously false accusation of perjury. However no one can state how that phrase translates into an accusation of perjury and no one can state why the author of that phrase would have malice. So.they want this person to be silenced of how they framed someone for libel with actual malice. I repeat that phrase, is all I have to do.

    We know you will probably not understand this because we don’t have time to write it in detail. But the courts gers it. What is as stake is how toxicoligical risk assessment in US policy has been misapplied to deny liability for causation of environmental illness across the board.

    They have made it so easy for us. All we have to do is keep repeating that phrase. LOL five little words to change risk assessment. Its kind of a game of chicken where the courts are f**ked either way. LOTS of lives at stake. Not shutting up. Dumbasses backed themselves into a corner. All we have to do is not do what they say I must and let them be the agressors. We win if they keep it up. We win if they cry uncle.

  15. Jose Testx says:

    I have a very limited perspective, but I do know that some fights are not worth fighting (winning a battle.. losing the war.. or vice-versa). The libel suit, at some point, might be one of these cases. [Yes, I know it’s easy for me to say.]

    I wish you (all) well, and hope your daughter is getting along “OK” with the Cystic Fibrosis. Reading Kelman’s position paper, although it does try to downplay indoor mold threats, it does at least recognize that a fair percentage of the population can react badly to that sort of thing. This means people should be able to agree that laws probably should be passed to regulate this to some extent.

    Again, hope things turn out fine in the end.

  16. Jose Testx says:

    I have some observations on the appeal’s decision in the libel case, http://www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article39167.html . I am not a lawyer [IANAL] and have not studied law, worked as a paralegal, etc. These are layperson opinions.

    >> Our review of our prior opinion does not show our analysis of the evidence of falsity and malice or our application of the fair reporting privilege were in any sense manifestly incorrect or radically deviated from any well-established principle of law. Thus any disagreement we might entertain with respect to our prior disposition would be no more than that: a disagreement. Given that circumstance and the fact that only nomimal damages were awarded against Kramer, the value of promoting stability in decision making far outweighs the value of any reevaluation of the merits of our prior disposition.

    This tells me that because the awards of $1 was so small, standard practice of using the prior decision will be followed by them, even if the current appeals court might have ruled otherwise if ruling today for the first time.

    >> In >Kelman v. Kramer I we determined the record presented at that point was sufficient to sustain findings of falsity and actual malice. Because there was no material difference in the evidence presented at trial, under law of the case the trial court was bound, as are we, by our prior determination that there was sufficient evidence of falsity and malice.

    This tells me that no extra relevant evidence was provided during trial after their initial ruling.

    As to what existed back in 2006 when the original motion to strike was denied, they said this:

    >> We agreed with Kramer that her press release fell within the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute.. However, we found that Kelman had established a prima facie case of libel.

    So, it seems to me that the only relevant evidence ever that existed as concerns malice was a claim of libel (which later was validated by a jury.. according to court records). Their decision was simple, if there is libel (untruths), then their is no protection for the writing.

    Now, I don’t know if I have seen a link to the following quotes that appear in the blog entry. I am assuming these quotes came from an appeals court decision (but I don’t think it is part of the link mentioned at the top of this comment).

    “Kramer asked us to take judicial notice of additional documents, inclunding the complaint and an excerpt from Kelman’s depositin in her lawsuit against her insurance company. We decline to do so as it does not appear these items were presented to the trial court.”

    It appears from some googling that California courts (and maybe most courts) don’t accept new evidence at appeals time.

    Sharon claims I think that deposition testimony relevant to the malice question was rejected by the trial judge. If so, I will guess that an appeal should be filed on a formal point saying that some evidence was given to the judge and the judged committed an error of some sort in not allowing the evidence to be shown to the jury.

    As long as that evidence is not accepted, I think the appeals court cannot take it into account.

    “As appellant, Kramer has the burden of showing error. (See Howard v. Thrifty Drugs & Discount Store (1995) 10 Cal.4th, 443.) ‘The reviewing court is not required to make an independant, unassessed study of the record in search of error or grounds to supprt the judgment. It is entitled to the assistance of counsel”.

    This suggests to me that they think there could be errors by the trial judge, but it is for Sharon to properly bring these up in appeals. For example, perhaps they won’t look at rejected deposition testimony unless earlier in time the proper appeal was filed and succeeds (an appeal that an error was made in rejected such evidence). As long as that evidence appears like if it was never presented in trial, then they can’t look at it. [IANAL, so I am guessing.]

    I don’t know how (or if) they deal with rejected deposition testimony at this point in time. Maybe there would be a retrial.. but keep in mind the point I mentioned above on how they might not be too keen to do a retrial given how the verdict was sort of a split and costs awarded were token. So they may not be keen to give extra opportunities if say deadlines were missed or the proper formality was not undertaken. This would be especially true if Sharon was represented by competent counsel.

    [From a comment you left on a recent truthout article, I learned that you (meaning, Sharon Kramer) is now pro per, but I don’t think you were at the time.]

    IANAL.. just trying to help out a bit.

    Also, fwiw, the quotes presented in that appeals link above suggest to me that Kelman did not commit perjury or change his position between the Killian case and the Haynes hearing. All references to the papers were generic and can easily lead to confusion in a back and forth discussion. It’s reasonable to call the second a version of the first in some contexts but not in others depending on the point one is trying to differentiate (context matters). Also, he was replying in one case to a question by the attorney. He was replying to what he thought was the question even if he would not have asked it quite that way. He never phrased the words in one way and then clearly contradicted that. I saw a clarification not a change in position. Lawyers do try to get witnesses to appear to trip up, and a witness who assumes good faith in answering and giving the benefit of the doubt about what was being asked or who at all uses the technically incorrect language in a reply can get into trouble. I think that is what happened there. Of course, I don’t have the rest of the transcript and am looking at the piece selected out by the appeals court.

    And I am not saying that Sharon’s 5 words suggest he committed perjury or that Sharon had malice.

    Finally, I also did not find enough information to conclude that Kelman committed perjury as concerns the question about the Mercury case (I think that is what the video above is about, and there are 6 pages of testimony in the pdf http://freepdfhosting.com/cc7651016c.pdf ). Maybe it is clear that he did lie, but I watched a 20 minute video from some other link on a different blog entry that appears to be the full version from which clips were taken in composing the much shorter video in this blog entry, and I still didn’t see it. I didn’t see a quote from one testimony matched next to a different contradictory quote from a second testimony. [So, if that side by side comparison is included in future blog postings, it would help convince that Kelman did lie on that particular “side” issue.]

  17. Jose Testx says:

    Concerning the comment posted earlier about flaws in the rats/mice analysis by Kelman et al., it seems you (Sharon) may have some chance be able to get sympathetic researchers to publish a small article in some sort of peer reviewed journal (though probably not a top one) that clarifies that the sort of implication drawn by Kelman in those 26 pages (and not necessarily referencing Kelman), largely supported by the rat/mice examples at the end, does not follow at all.

    I know that papers have to have more substance than just that, in general, but the value apparently placed on that Kelman paper by US courts could be sufficient justification to allow such a rebuttal paper to be published in a quasi-important (or important) journal.

    Kelman could then no longer state his “expert” opinion as per his paper is based on the literature because there would be a fairly direct refutation.

    If this all has been done, sorry for repeating. I don’t think this approach would help the libel case, but it would help in the larger picture.

  18. Jose Testx says:

    Can Mrs Kramer (Sharon) appeal the gag order using a defense that it is necessary for her to explain exactly what it is that she lost in the appeals in order to (a) preserve the integrity of that article and her other writings and (b) properly criticize what she views are flaws in the public court system. [Sorry, if this is SK’s position and I am being redundant.]

    At least (b) would probably involve First Amendment criticism of government. There are groups that could look at this case and help you (ACLU?) if you need help. Perhaps some of these groups can also quickly point you to precedent that would help void such a gag order.

  19. Jose Testx says:

    [I’m not sure under which blog entry to post this comment, so I will just do so here.]

    I don’t know enough to judge the US Chamber of Commerce position paper “A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold” (2003) http://freepdfhosting.com/38f337db1b.pdf.

    But you might find use in the following four counter-arguments to the analyses done starting on page 20 (the rat and mice section).

    [1]: The authors two cases yield potentially incompatible results under their analysis.

    The authors state:

    >> These calculations do not tell us where to draw a line between “safe” and “unsafe” conditions, but they do make it clear that it would be difficult to deliver a toxic dose of mold toxins by inhaling spores in the indoor air.

    One of their assumptions appears to be that if you are sufficiently near the concentrations they calculated based on what was used in the lab animal experiments then you should see similar results in a young infant. Unfortunately, they don’t define what near means (where to draw the “line”); however it is interesting to see how vague that line appears to be.

    They consider a lower boundary case for seeing damage: somewhere above it, you could expect to be in trouble, while somewhere below it, you could expect to be fine.

    From the first analysis on a test on rats, the first calculated dosage is of:

    (a) continuous exposure for 24 hours to 3 million spores per cubic meter.

    From a second analysis on a test on mice, the calculated dosage is of: continuous exposure for 3 weeks to about 9,000 spores per cubic meter.

    The analysis used by the authors converted units of time with impunity (ie, 1 hypothetical unit of exposure for a week is seen to equal 7 such units of exposure for only a day).

    We can use this same logic to extend their results for the mice case to put it on par with the rat case. We derive for the mice case:

    (b) continuous exposure for 24 hours to about 190,000 spores per cubic meter.

    We see that the calculated rat dosage values that would produce no problems at all for the rats, (a), is one order of magnitude (about 10X) larger than the analogous calculated mice dosage values (that would actually produce minor effects) for the mice.

    That is, (a) would suggest to many people that a value 1/10th that size should *also* cause no problems, yet (b) is an example of such a value that in fact did create small but noticeable problems in mice. To more than a factor of 10X, then, these experiments contradict each other if we make all the assumptions made by the authors and assume a reasonable area in which to draw a line. This argument here shows the authors’ analysis is rather vague and weak when, of the two sole cases used, the one with 1/10 the concentration will do more harm.

    Maybe we should conclude that a value of 1/1000 will do even more!

    [2]: We can attack the assumption that greater concentration of a “seed” necessarily means greater effect.

    Let’s look at two examples and one line of reasoning.


    From that simple assumption that greater concentration always leads to a greater effect, we should expect many more trees to grow when we dump 1 billion seeds into an acre of land than when we dump 1 thousand seeds.

    In reality, we might see the following. One billion seeds would overwhelm the land. For example, many small seedlings might start to grow, but many would die young and remove enough nutrients from the soil so that none or very few others would grow to any significant size. In contrast, a much lower concentration of seeds might lead to many large trees in time.

    Almost surely there is a saturation point, and oversaturating might even lower the odds of successful growth. In any case, beyond some ideal number, the effects are reduced or negligible and other components would play a much more important role (eg, humidity level or presence of some other condition, perhaps intimately tied to the actual concentration number).


    The 2001 US terror anthrax mail attacks involved concentrations much higher than what is required to lead to death, yet most of those affected actually survived.

    One Reasoning:

    High concentrations offers an efficient mechanism for removal.

    For instance, we can cover all the walls of a house with bread and take all the possible spores that might contaminate it and (a) concentrate them in a little ball or (b) spread them thinly through the air of the entire house. We will observe much more growth of mold in (b), yet the authors assume that (a) is necessarily much worse. [This house of bread is an analogy to our lungs.]

    [3]: Generalizing to other organisms is not generally justified.

    There are innumerable examples of one organism or toxin in high concentrations having no effect on another organism yet having lethal effects in tiny concentrations on a third.

    [4]: Changing time periods by adjusting concentration levels in opposite proportion is not generally justified.

    (A1) Putting your hand inside a room with 1 million scorpions (ants, vipers, etc) for 1 second

    does not equal

    (A2) putting your hand inside a room with 1 scorpion for 1 million seconds.

    Besides not being equal, we also sometimes get greater but sometimes, alternatively, lower effects in a higher concentration case.

    The higher concentration of A1 might lead to no effect if those nearby animals don’t manage to prick you sufficiently (or at all) during that second. Meanwhile, the A2 case might lead to more harm than A1.

    Or, they each might lead to similar harm.

    Or A1 might lead to more harm than A2.

  20. Pingback: California Courts Have Been Colluding With VeriTox, Inc. For Six Years To Defraud Public Over Mold Issue; In The Matter of Bruce J. Kelman vs. Sharon Kramer, San Diego, California | Katy’s Exposure « The Leslie Brodie Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s