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

(by Fax) (letter in pdf form) (attached exhibits)

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”.


     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 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.


     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.


   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.


     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:

  1. 4th/1st Admin Presiding Justice Judith McConnell, former Chair of the Commission on Judicial Performance, (CJP)

  2. 4th/1st Justice Richard Huffman,

  3. 4th/1st Justice Patricia Benke,

  4. 4th/1st Justice Cynthia Aaron,

  5. 4th/1st Justice Alex MacDonald (deceased),

  6. 4th/1st Justice Joan Irion,

  7. Judge William Dato (now a 4th/1st Justice and newest appointee to the state’s judicial watchdog agency, Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP)),

  8. Judge Michael Orfield (retired 2008),

  9. Judge Lisa Schall,

  10. Judge Joel Pressman (retired 2017),

  11. Judge Thomas Nugent (retired 2015),

  12. Judge Robert Dahlquist III, and

  13. 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[1] 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.


     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.


       There has never been any question that the sentence for which Mr. Kelman and 4th Justice McConnell, 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, 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:

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 <>

To: bkelman <>

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.


Mrs. Kramer

     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

CC: Lynchpin criminal case-fixer 4th/1st Administrative Presiding Justice Judith McConnell

Not-even-close-to funny & judicial-abuse-enabler Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakayue

[1] VIDEO of the 2/09/17 Appointment of William Dato to the 4th/1st Appellate Court  


Posted in Health - Medical - Science, Mold and Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

If FBI investigated CJP, would this happen?

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.

Sharon Kramer

Posted in Health - Medical - Science | 3 Comments

California Commission on Judicial Performance Reiterates Its Circular Argument In Lawsuit Against State Auditor

          The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) is the state agency charged with overseeing the ethics of nearly eighteen hundred California judges and justices. In August of 2016, the California legislature directed State Auditor Elaine Howle to audit the CJP. In October of 2016, the CJP filed a lawsuit against the Auditor to obstruct her ability to investigate their performance.


          The purpose of audits is to provide guidance to government agencies, including commissions, so they may perform better in the future.  But litigious-time-and-money-wasting CJP wants no guidance of their performance. The amount tax dollars being put to poor use by CJP’s attempt to stop the long overdue  investigation of their questioned-performance is well into the six figures.


          Not only has the CJP hired a private law firm to represent them, they have forced the State Auditor to have to do the same. Public-funded money and man-hours that should be used by the CJP and the Auditor to do their jobs, are instead being applied to the stonewalling lawsuit brought by the misguided state agency, CJP.


          The Auditor’s latest brief was submitted on September 22nd.  It and its exhibits tell the tale of the CJP being dysfunctional for decades and in dire need of overhaul and guidance. The CJP has existed since 1960 and has never been audited. (Above link may take a few seconds to open. It’s a 200+ pg pdf)


          CJP’s latest brief was submitted on September 29th.  It is essentially a rehash of their prior briefs’ and oral argument’s reiteration of the same circular logic.


          Basically, their argument is that they cannot be comprehensively audited because they made up a rule which they claim forbids it. They argue that there can be no exception that they are the exception to the rules which govern auditing the conduct of agencies  — because they wrote rules which govern auditing the conduct of judges.


          In this latest brief, the CJP has dropped a prior alleged reason that the Auditor cannot see their confidential case files.  In prior briefs they were arguing that she might share them with the public, and they could not enable that to happen. When that feigned-fear to stop the audit proved unrealistic and not based on any facts; they continued on with misleading statements that the California Constitution will not allow an audit of their performance.


          CJP’s illogical logic is based on twisting the meaning of California’s Constitution by redefining words to fit their agenda. As I understand it, their argument hinges upon misrepresenting the word “by” to mean “of” for the purpose of overstepping their constitutionally mandated authority.


          They write that the California Constitution provides them power that “The Commission shall make rules for the investigation of judges. The Commission may [not shall] provide for the confidentiality of complaints to and investigations by the commission.”  Yet, nowhere does the Constitution state that the CJP shall (or even may) make rules for investigations of the commission.


          There is a reason that Abraham Lincoln’s words “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” are still frequently quoted today.  It’s because the words “by“, “of“, and “for” have important different meanings and should not be permitted to be misrepresented as meaning the same when describing roles of government.



           It’s a crime in California to obstruct a state audit.  Yet the agency whose charge includes punishment for judges who commit crimes, is trying to obstruct a state audit.


          It is not even close to plausible that the Constitution and its amendments ever had the intent that a state agency could write rules which say their performance cannot be investigated by audit, unless they say it can.


          It’s outrageous that a state agency with “performance” its in name, filed a lawsuit to derail evaluation of its performance.


          Even more outrageous, that same state agency that is charged with investigating California judges so they do not obstruct justice in courts, filed a lawsuit in a California court seeking that a California judge obstruct investigation how CJP investigates California judges.


          One can’t help but wonder if CJP filed this suit hoping that California judges would surely rule the performance of their watchdog could not be audited, so that the pattern of ignoring valid citizen complaints against judges could not be seen by the Auditor’s eyes.


          I’ve read all the briefs and declarations in this case. They are online at the San Francisco Superior Court website civil case number CPF16515308.


          I have not found even one sentence which supports the concept that the Constitution’s intent could honestly be interpreted to mean that the CJP was given authority to obstruct an investigation of their performance. Their constitutional mandate allows them to make rules of how judges are to be investigated — not to make rules of how they are to be investigated.




          November 3, 2017 at 10 am is the date and time of the upcoming hearing in the matter of the Commission on Judicial Performance v. State Auditor Elaine Howle,  It is calendared to take place in Department 504 of the San Francisco Superior Court. The Honorable Judge Suzanne Bolanos is scheduled to preside.


          Beginning at around 8:30 or so, some of us will be having donuts and o.j. in the park across from the courthouse. Anyone is welcome to come join us and have a donut (til they run out). It’s not a rally with speeches or anything like that.


          It’s just an oppotune time to chat with others who will be at the courthouse to help Judge Bolanos see that the long-overdue-audit of CJP’s less-than-stellar-performance is a matter of great public interest.


Hope to see you there!

Sharon Noonan Kramer

Posted in Civil Justice, Environmental Health Threats, Fourth District Division One Appellate Court | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

CA Comm on Judicial Performance wants no audit of its performance

On August 17th at 9:30 am in San Francisco Superior Court Department 302, an important public-interest hearing will take place. The case is the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) v. the Bureau of the State Auditor (BSA) Elaine M. Howle. The hearing is scheduled to be presided over by Judge Suzanne Bolanos.

Several people have asked me to explain to them why this hearing is so important.  The following is not a comprehensive explanation.  It’s a broad overview explaining just the gist of the matter.

CJP is the state agency charged with overseeing the conduct of California’s nearly 1800 judges and justices.  The CJP has been in existence since 1961 and has never been audited. For years people have reported that their performance is less than stellar, and as a result is causing much hardship for people who can find no relief from unethical conduct in the courts.

The CJP has sued State Auditor Howle to stop her office from being able to audit their questionable performance.

In August of 2016, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) issued the order for Ms. Howle and the BSA to audit the CJP’s performance and financials.  They asked Ms. Howle to examine more than two dozen questions broadly covering the agency’s “policies and practices for handling and resolving complaints against judges.

The audit request came about because of public outcry, various reports and testimonies to the California Legislature that indicate the CJP is shielding and enabling judicial misconduct in legal proceedings (suborning of perjury, concealment of fraudulent court documents, bias causing wrongful outcomes of litigations, “case-fixing”, etc). 

There are judges who have also complained. Their complaints have been that the CJP allows itself to be misused to retaliate against judges who have spoken against insider politics, ethics problems and financial mismanagement in California’s judicial branch.  There is strong evidence that the CJP is not forthright nor consistent in its performance.

The citizen effort which caused the audit to come to fruition was led by Joseph Sweeney of Court Reform LLC, Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence, Political Science Professor Tamir Sukkary, and California Attorney Barbara Kaufman. 

Many other organizations and citizens sent letters and called their legislators in support of the need for the audit once Mr. Sweeney, Ms. Russell, Mr. Sukkary, and Ms. Kaufman opened the door. The judges’ trade organization, the California Judges Association, also sent a letter in support of the need for the audit of the CJP.

The scope of the proposed audit was prepared by the BSA last year. There are approximately eighteen areas in need of investigation. The CJP has primarily balked to having those areas audited which address their performance-failures to consistently adhere to CJP Rule 111.4. The Rule states,

“Discipline, including an advisory letter, shall not be imposed for mere legal error without more. However, a judge who commits legal error which, in addition, clearly and convincingly reflects bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty is subject to investigation and discipline.”

In October of 2016, the CJP filed their lawsuit against State Auditor Howle in the San Francisco Superior Court seeking to limit the scope of the proposed audit to their financials — but not their performance. They claim that one of the rules (which they wrote for themselves) Rule 102 prevents audit of their confidential case-files; and thus prevents audit of their performance when handling the cases.   

 News reports indicate that “the controversial lawsuit against the auditor was ordered by CJP Director Victoria Henley and reportedly will cost the public north of six figures. Henley is paid $194,000 per year by California taxpayers.”

Ms. Henley has served as CJP’s Director-Chief Counsel since 1991.  In May of 2017 she announced her plans to retire at the end of this year.

(Correction. Ms. Henley’s annual income is reported to be just shy of $270,000.00.) IMG_5136

The purpose of audits of government agencies is not to cause punishment for past misdeeds (including those by recent retirees). It is to investigate past and current problem areas so that suggestions for improvements may be made to cause better stewardship of government agencies in the future. 

The State Auditor’s stance is that Judge Bolanos must ultimately decide “whether the Legislature has the legal authority to require state agencies to provide confidential materials to the Auditor during an audit directed by the Legislature”.

Under the direction of Auditor Howle, the BSA has conducted numerous audits of many state agencies. These have led to performance reforms and improved financial efficiency in the public’s best interest. 

To our knowledge, no one has ever accused State Auditor Howle or her staff of being reckless with their handling of sensitive and confidential material. Multiple unfounded inferences within the CJP’s briefs that the State Auditor would somehow be less than professional when handling their confidential files, strongly appears to be a desperate attempt to paint a false light portrait to derail the comprehensive auditing of the CJP.

One may read all the briefs and declarations that have been filed in the matter of COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE VS. ELAINE M. HOWLE ET AL Case Number: CPF16515308 at the San Francisco Superior Court website:

The private-sector government-watchdog, Judicial Watch, Inc., has submitted a friend of the court brief in support of the California State Auditor’s and her staff’s ability to perform the much needed and long overdue comprehensive audit of the CJP.  They are also requesting to appear at the August 17th hearing.

Judicial Watch’s recent Press Release provides an additional overview of the importance of the matter.  To quote:

“The case sheds much-needed light on the unbelievable history of a taxpayer-funded agency that’s conducted its business in private—and with no oversight—for 56 years, even though protecting the public is among its key duties. The agency is known as Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) and it’s charged with enforcing rigorous standards of judicial conduct and disciplining judges in the nation’s largest court system.”

Sharon Noonan Kramer

Posted in Health - Medical - Science | 3 Comments

In Remembrance of Mold Advocate Mary Mulvey Jacobson

Dear All,

It is with great sadness that I report that Mary Mulvey Jacobson passed away on May 20th. It is easy to understand what a wonderful person she was by reading the local Boston area reports of her passing.

5/22/17 Wicked Local Parkway remembers, honors Mary Mulvey Jacobson

On May 12, the Parkway Community YMCA dedicated the “Mary Mulvey Jacobson Community Room” in her honor. Although she wasn’t well enough to attend the ceremony, organizers Skyped her in so she could see all who had gathered in her honor, including representatives from West Roxbury Main Streets, Ethos, the Irish Social Club, West Roxbury Business and Professional Association, Kiwanis Club and the Rotary Club, as well as local politicians including state Sen. Mike Rush, Congressman Stephen Lynch, District Attorney Dan Conley, and City Councilor Matt O’Malley.

“We decided that because she was so dedicated that it was fitting to have that room dedicated to her,” said Marion Kelley, Parkway Community YMCA executive director. “We brought the laptop around so she could wave to folks. … She really enjoyed it.”

5/23/17 Boston Globe Obituary

Mary was the President of the West Roxbury Business and Professional Association, Chairperson on the boards of the Parkway YMCA and Ethos, President of the Irish Social Club. She was a member of the Ward 19 Democratic Committee for 20 years. Mary was also involved in numerous other community organizations. There are far too many to mention.

5/24/17 Bulletin Newspaper “Remembering Mary Mulvey

Anyone who ever set foot in the Irish Social Club at some point would have run into Mary Mulvey Jacobson. She was a consummate advocate for the Parkway community, and helped to share her love of the neighborhood by giving back as much as she could, whether it was helping out over at the YMCA or her bi-annual turkey delivery in the form of Family in Need, Jacobson was always on a mission….Residents knew her to be a powerful force over the years, almost always working for others, and she helped to bring back the Irish Social Club after it had fallen into disuse and disrepair.

Her Family in Need program not only fed more than 200 residents and families in the Parkway, but also helped two or three families directly with whatever they needed, whether it was help with home repairs, children’s clothing or almost anything they needed, when Jacobson was on the job, residents knew they would be taken care of.

“Mary was an easy organizer. Life just came together around her. She knew everyone and everyone knew her. A force of nature,”..“She did things because she truly cared about her community and because doing the right thing mattered… She was kind, generous of her time, and always with a smile and a good laugh”

In the community, Jacobson will always be remembered as a kind soul who did whatever she could to help those around her. Jacobson’s like will not be seen again…she was the type of person you would go to and ask for help and she was there to say yes every single time. She had a way about her, she would go in and talk to people and even if it was difficult for them they would usually go along with Mary and she had a really nice way of working with people and getting things done.’

“The passing of Mary is a huge loss….Not only did Mary dedicate her life to the families and businesses of West Roxbury, but she also inspired so many of us to get more involved in improving where we live, work and play,”


This is what I want the world to know of Mary Mulvey Jacobson and what she did that has helped thousands of people:

In her professional career, Mary was Chief of Staff for a Boston City Councilor. Her ability to work full time ended around 2000 after being made gravely ill from exposure to mold in a water damaged building.

True to form, instead of sitting back feeling sorry for herself, Mary worked as much as she could to change policies on a national level. She didn’t want anyone to experience the same thing that she had.   She was especially concerned for the welfare of economically disadvantaged children living in substandard housing.

I first met Mary in Washington DC in September of 2004. She was attending U.S. Congressman John Conyers’ caucus over the mold issue that had been primarily organized by Dr. Simone Sommer and her son, Josh.

Bianca Jagger was the keynote speaker. Like Simone, Josh, Mary and countless others who packed the hearing room, Bianca was also injured by mold and was having difficulty finding help from mislead U.S. physicians.


[Photo: September 2004 Josh Sommer, Simone Sommer, Bianca Jagger, Congressman Conyers, Katrine Stevens, Mary Mulvey Jacobson, and Nancy Davis ]

It quickly became obvious to me that Mary has special talents and skills. She was a delightful person who spoke her mind directly without being offensive.

She and I developed a fast friendship.  We met in D.C. several times in the coming years. We knocked on so many legislators’ doors together that I can’t even count them all.

As I recall, I would explain how a widely marketed scientific fraud was occurring in the mold issue and what needed to be done to stop it.  But Mary was the closer!

She could truthfully and passionately articulate the vast harm from the problem and why the legislators needed to act to make it stop.  Although the subject matter was not a pleasant one, it always warmed my heart to watch Mary artfully articulate her heartfelt pleas for help.

We were seeking legislative help to remove the scientifically void concept from physician educational materials, policies, and toxic torts — that it had been proven mycotoxins in water damaged buildings can never reach a level to harm.

For a greater understanding of the widely-marketed science fraud by U.S. policy-setting medical associations, et. al. please read the January 2007 Wall Street Journal article “COURT OF OPINION Amid Suits Over Mold, Experts Wear Two Hats Authors of Science Paper Often Cited by Defense Also Help in Litigation

The 2007 WSJ article was written by David Armstrong of WSJ Boston office.  It came about in large part because of a D.C. door which Mary was key in causing to crack open.

It was the door of the late Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mary’s home state. Senator Kennedy was the minority chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee (HELP) when we first began calling on that office.

A long story short, in October of 2006 via HELP, Senator Kennedy ordered a federal GAO audit of the mold issue. The audit report was titled “INDOOR MOLD: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts” It was released for publication in October of 2008.

Contrary to what the medical associations were falsely marketing as proven science, the audit found that it was indeed plausible that mycotoxins in water damaged buildings were physically harming people.

Best said in Mary’s own words, July 2007:

“A short time after that we communicated our concerns and offered this documentation to you, we also offered them to the Wall Street Journal who believed that we had merit in our suspicions. After a 6 month investigation, the Journal published this past January a front page, top of the fold article exposing the conflicts of interest that surrounded the publishing of the ACOEM’s Guidelines on mold illnesses. Of note, one doctor mentioned in the WSJ article and the key sponsor of the ACOEM Evidence Based Guidelines had been recruited for membership by ACOEM to write the paper. This former Deputy Surgeon General had his membership compted so he could submit the paper.

We also offered our information to elected officials on the Federal level. Especially in light of Katrina and Rita, we were very pleased that Senator Kennedy submitted to the GAO this past October a request for study of our government’s efforts to “minimize and mitigate illnesses associated with human exposure to mold in housing and other indoor environments.” He notes that there is growing evidence that otherwise healthy individuals who are exposed to most experience persistent health problems.”

Like the WSJ article of 2007 (of which Mary was a behind the scenes contributor) the 2008 GAO Report lent rightfully-due credibility to the words of those being disabled by mold, their advocates, their treating physicians, and their attorneys. It became more widely known as scientifically plausible that people are being disabled by the microbial contaminants found in water damaged buildings.

In subsequent years, much has been written of the scientific fraud in policies which Mary was instrumental in exposing. Although it still lingers in some physician educational materials, government funded policies, insurer claims handling practices and toxic torts – it has been widely discredited and is much easier to fight in courts and claims handling practices all across the United States, in large part because of Mary.

Today there are many younger advocates, physicians and attorneys in the mold issue who still fight for justice for those being environmentally disabled.  I want them to know who Mary was and what she did to give them a fighting chance to be heard.

Mary Mulvey Jacobson was a rare and great lady.  Like many others who knew Mary, I feel fortunate to have known her, to have learned from her, and to have called her my friend.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

Posted in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Health - Medical - Science, Mold and Politics, Toxic Mold | Tagged | Leave a comment