Texas judge abuses his child for Net usage. Cal Courts threaten Katy’s Bloggers with jail time for exposing by Net, many children abused by their actions

Posted on November 3, 2011 by Sharon Kramer

    This is a VIDEO of a abusive Texas Family Law Judge beating his daughter for using the Internet. So offensively abusive, one must sign into YouTube and be over 18 to view.

    Our hearts go out to this poor girl. We at Katy’s Exposure blog know what it feels like for judiciaries to abuse their positions of authority to try to beat people into submission for using the Internet against the judiciaries’  wishes and personal interests.

    Although disturbing to watch, the Texas judge in the video does not hold a candle to the leaders of California’s judicial system when it comes to abuse and trying to stop the use of the Internet. This in a manner that is adverse to many children’s health and safety. The owner of Katy’s Exposure Blog, who just happens to also be in Texas, received a threat mailed interstate from California via the US Postal Service in May of 2011, to stop publishing information of a public record case in California involving abusive judicial practices. (pdf links may take a few seconds to open) The case is Bruce J. Kelman & GlobalTox, Inc., v. Sharon Kramer, Case No. GIN044539, filed in May 2005 in the Superior Court of San Diego, California. 

     The threat came from a California licensed attorney is that if she publishes on Katy’s Exposure Blog about the California court case that is a matter of public record involving many leaders of California’s judicial branch and the US Chamber of Commerce’s environmental science in the courtroom, she will be sued for “republishing defamation”. 

    The threat is based on a temporary injuntive relief order (Gag Order) that the attorney obtained from the San Diego Superior Court on May 2, 2011. It precludes Sharon Kramer from being able to write of the prior case involving the US Chamber of Commerce that is a matter of public record. The case gagging Sharon from writing of what the courts have done is Kelman v. Kramer, Case No. 37-2010-00061530 -CU-DF-NC, filed November 10, 2011. 

    The sole claim of the first case was that Sharon Kramer’s use of the phrase, “altered his under oath statements” in a March 2005 Internet posting was a maliciously false accusation that Bruce Kelman, author of environmental policy for the US Chamber, committed perjury on the witness stand in an Oregon trial in February of 2005.  The phrase was used by Sharon in the sentence,

“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.” 

       The threat to Katy’s and to Sharon is that they are not to republish, “Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements’ when he testified on the witness stand in an Oregon trial“, even when discussing it in the context of a court case that is a matter of public record. We have never republished the phrase for which Sharon was sued, “altered his under oath statements” without discussing it in the context of the case — that is a matter of public record. 

       We can write and publish all day of the scientific fraud in public health and workers’ comp policies over the mold issue involving VeriTox, ACOEM and the US Chamber without using the phrase, “altered his under oath statements”.

But what we cannot do without using that phrase is write and evidence of what the courts did to frame a US citizen for libel to the advantage of the US Chamber of Commerce & adverse to public health.

      This is because those are the sole five word that are the foundation of the public record case. If one cannot write of what words for which they were sued, they also cannot explain the case, evidence judicial “errors” and the judicial errors’ continued adverse impact on public health and workers comp policies.

     Sharon’s March 2005 writing was the first to expose how it became a false concept in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm.  The second time it was publicly written of, it was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, January 2007.

    Sharon has a degree in marketing. Her March 2005 writing named the names of those involved in the mass marketing of misinformation into policy and to the courts: Bruce Kelman; GlobalTox (now known as Veritox); the Manhattan Institute think-tank; US Congressman Gary Miller (R-Ca); the occupational medicine trade association American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM); and the US Chamber of Commerce.

     In October of 2005 and under the pretext of Workers Comp Reform, Governor Schwarzenegger endorsed the “science” of ACOEM and the US Chamber into California workers’ comp policy, stating physicians who treat injured workers should adhere to ACOEM’s mold position statement. It aided many an insurer to deny liability for the costs incurred by workers who are injured from water damaged work environments. The cost was then shifted onto the taxpayer in the form of disability programs and social services.

     In October of 2011, Governor Brown removed it from California Workers’ Comp policy that physicians who treat injured workers should adhere to the ACOEM mold position statement. While aiding to curtail insurer cost shifting onto taxpayers, the scientific fraud of ACOEM & the US Chamber still lingers in many cases throughout the US and in California.

    Sharon, who is a Katy’s blogger, has been instrumental in the reshaping public health policy over the mold issue for the good of the public, even being the catalyst for a federal audit of the issue. Katy’s Exposure Blog has been cited as Reference No 15 for an April 2011 federal OSHA advisory regarding public health and indoor air quality. This is adverse to the interests of the VeriTox, Inc. whose owners are prolific expert defense witnesses in mold litigation.  It is adverse to the affiliates of the US Chamber of Commerce.  

    Sharon is now is facing a criminial record and possible jail time at the hands of the California courts for writing and evidencing what the judges, justices and their clerks have done in the case – that has aided a fraud in public and workers’ comp policy to continue to harm thousands over the mold issue. The owner of Katy’s Exposure has been threatened with legal action should she publish court documents and other information of a case that is a matter of public record.

     See pages 6 & 7 of Exhibit 1, that was attached to the October 12, 2011 Complaint for Contempt of Court by the environmental policy author for the US Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Kelman of VeriTox, Inc. It is the Internet posting on Katy’s on Sept 13, 2011, for which Sharon Kramer is most likely going to jail for refusing to be silenced of judicial abuses in strategic litigations adversely impacting public health. Its a posting about the public record California case, Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer, with many judicial and clerical “errors” evidenced by legal documents from the case.  

     The September 13, 2011 post evidences leaders of the California Judicial Council being sent Letters asking for an audit of the case and asking that they stop harassing us and violating our Constitutional rights for EVIDENCING what they have done and the adverse impact of public health policy. Among other judicial actions in the libel case of  Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer, the courts suppressed the evidence that the US Chamber “enviornmental policy” author, Bruce Kelman, committed perjury to establish needed reason for malice. They suppressed the evidence that environmental health advocate, Sharon Kramer, was never impeached as to the subjective belief in the validity of her words. 

  Since when in the United States of America can courts threaten to give someone a criminal record and send them to jail for publicly writing of cases that are matters of public record? 

              Since when can licensed attorneys use the US Postal Service to threaten people by interstate mail for putting information of public records court cases on the Net, complete with the linked legal evidence?

Is it just us, or is no one in the United States permitted to write,

“In the matter of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer, Bruce Kelman and GlobalTox, Inc., sued Sharon Kramer for the words, Dr. Kelman ‘altered his under oath statements’ on the witness stand”?

    The affects of some judicial abuses are visable as shown in the Texas Judge video.  Others are just as harmful, insidious and abusive as illustrated by the actions of the judicial branch leaders of the State of California.

 
Posted in Civil Justice, Environmental Health Threats, Temp | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

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

Posted on October 21, 2011 by Sharon Kramer

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.

http://blip.tv/conflictedsciencemold/3-minute-video-of-perjury-attempted-coercion-into-silence-by-bruce-kelman-2073775

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.

Posted in Temp | 20 Comments

Pardon Our French, But S’entendant pour frauder le public est criminelle. Justices Judy McConnell, Dick Huffman, Ron George & Co. You’ve Been Caught RED HANDED Colluding With The US Chamber of Commerce To Defraud The Public By Criminal Means…..

Posted on September 25, 2011 by Sharon Kramer

…..and as hard as you try; you can not use the California courts and the Court Case Management System (CCMS) to bully us into silence and conceal or what you have done.

We are always direct here at Katy’s Exposure. We are typically a bit more tactful to the point that Federal OSHA found us worthy of citing as a reference for an Indoor Air Quality, health advisory publication. Katy’s Exposure is Reference No. 15.

Sometimes, there comes a point that you just gotta directly call a Spade, a Spade for people to understand how their tax dollars are being used to defraud them by collusion and other criminal means.

So like, aren’t courts suppose to protect people from the bad guys? That doesn’t seem to be the goal in the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court in San Diego, California.

In 2005, Katy’s Exposure blogger from Escondido, CA, Sharon Kramer, publicly blew the whistle via PRWeb of how it became a fraud in US public health and workers comp policies that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm and involving the US Chamber of Commerce. Gazillions of dollars in insurer fraud because of it.

The authors of the fraud in policy, that was legitimized by a trade association of workers’ comp doctors (ACOEM) and mass marketed to the courts by the US Chamber, sued in the San Diego courts for the phrase “altered his under oath statements” within the in the first public writing outting them for mass marketing fraud into policy. Their claim was that this phrase was a maliciously false accusation of perjury.

They then proceeded to use perjury to establish needed reason for malice.

Every damn judge and justice in San Diego, California to oversee the case ignored the evidence that the US Chamber/ACOEM medico-legal policy author committed criminal perjury to establish needed reason for malice while Strategically Litigating Against Public Participation (SLAPP). They ignored the evidence his California licensed “legal” counsel repeatedly suborned the US Chamber/ACOEM author’s criminal perjury.

They also ignored the evidence that the guy’s business partner was an undisclosed party to the litigation. While the guy comes from Big Tobacco, his partner (in crime) is a retired Deputy Director of CDC/NIOSH. They both make a good portion of their handsome livings as expert defense witnesses in toxic torts for the insurance industry and other US Chamber affiliates.

The Wall Street Journal wrote about their escapades seventeen months after Sharon first did, on their front page and above the fold. (Guess none of the judicial branch leaders in the state of California read the Wall Street Journal).


So then, after five years of the courts just not able to grasp that perjury is still criminal even if one authors medico-legal policy for the US Chamber; and not able to grasp that even if you are the link between the US Chamber and the CDC, you still have to disclose you are party to a litigation; the Fourth District Division One Appauling Court crammed through a fraudulent Remittitur in December of 2010 that awarded costs to undisclosed parties. They falsified the CCMS (electronic history of the case) to make it appear these parties were disclosed.

The fraudulent Remittitur issued shortly after (as in lightening speed) Chief Justice Ron George, at the end of 2010, denied for the second time, to review an unpublished appellate opinion that ignored the US Chamber author/plaintiff’s criminal perjury (first opinion, Judy McConnells’s in 2006; second one, Dick Huffman’s in 2010). This, while George was wrapping up several questionable matters of which we are aware, before he absconded from the scene of the crime in 2010 – also known as the helm of the California judicial branch.

The lower court administration, Main Office Clerk of the Court San Diego, then falsified the CCMS computer history of the case to deem the wrong party (Perjurer’s and Undisclosed’s jointly owned corporation) to be a prevaling party of the August 2008 trial….where none of the fraud of science in policy was permitted to be discussed – nor was the perjury that was used to establish malice.

Then the US Chamber/ACOEM boys filed another suit that Sharon is to be gagged from writing of what the courts have done to aid them with insurer fraud remaining in policy. Actually they filed the second suit before George even denied to review his bench bud’s rewarding of criminal perjury on behalf of the US Chamber in the first. (Did they know something we didn’t know about what George was going to do?)

And then the US Chamber authors and their attorney had the balls to use the US Postal Service, interstate, in May 2011 to mail the fraudulent judgment document from the first suit and the newly obtained gag order from the second — that is based solely on the fraud in the first — to Katy’s Exposure. This, with the threat that if we republish the “defamatory matter” [about what the compromised courts have done to abet interstate insurer fraud] we will be sued!

Do we look like we are intimidated by these compromised bench bullies and their chamber of henchmen? We can hold out longer that you can, corrupt California justices and minions. A Truthful Pen is mightier than a Twisted Gavel. Too bad for you! Time and evidence are on our side.
.
.
To read the threat to Katy’s Exposure and some of the evidence of what the good justices, their clerk, et.al., have done to aid interstate insurer fraud on behalf of the affiliates of the US Chamber, by rewarding criminal perjury in a malicious litigation over a matter of public health, click:

HERE, YE
HERE, YE
HERE, YE

and HERE, YE

Sorry, Dick, ex-Chair of the Executive Committee of the California Judicial Council. Sorry, Judy, current Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance. Sorry Ron, ex Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.

You can (and well might) go to Hell. You have been using the California courts and CCMS to defraud the public by criminal means for the US Chamber of Commerce. We are not intimidated by you and we are not shutting up. Too many lives are at stake and the future integrity of the California judicial branch hangs in the balance.

With All Respect Due,
Katy

PS Governor Brown and the California Legislature, could you please promptly call for a Forensic Audit of California’s compromised Judicial Branch? What we know & can evidence is just the tip of the iceberg…and we know that you all know it, too!

PSS Did we mention the part about Governor Schwarzengger endorsing the scientific fraud of ACOEM & the US Chamber over the mold issue into California’s Workers’ Comp “Reform” in 2005 — right after the first lower court ignored that perjury was used to establish malice?

PSSS Justice Richard Huffman, Justice Judith McConnell, Chief Justice Ronald George, and Members of the Judicial Council, there is a comment section below. Feel free to prove us wrong….or STOP the continual harassment of us and the colluding to defraud the pubic. Le parjure est criminelle. S’entendant pour frauder le public est criminelle. Ne comprenez-vous?

Motion To Nullify Void Judgment

Last Page

Posted in Temp | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Letter From Clerk of the San Diego Superior Court, Mr. Michael Roddy RE: Government Code 6200 Violations, CCMS & Case Records Over A Matter Of Public Health…The “Mold Issue”

Posted on September 23, 2011 by Sharon Kramer

This litigation is regarding how it became a fraud in US public health policy that it was scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm and what the California courts have done to aid it to continue in policy.

In 2002, two toxicologists with PhDs – one from NIOSH, one from Big Tobacco – applied math extrapolations to data taken from a researcher’s single, acute mold exposure, rodent study. Based solely on their calculations, they professed to have proven that all claims of illness or death from “Toxic Mold” were only being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science”. Their conclusions reached by the use of fuzzy math and limited data have never been duplicated.

Regardless of science, in 2002, the workers’ comp physician trade association of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) legitimized the fraudulent concept by making it their position statement portrayed to be the scientific understanding of thousands of physicians. The false concept was then mass marketed to the physicians of America that serious illness from moldy buildings “could not be”.

In 2003, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Manhattan Institute think-tank paid the two Phds to write a “lay translation” of ACOEM’s mold position statement for the express purpose that it would be shared with judges. Mass marketed to the courts, it has caused much insurer cost shifting onto taxpayers for the cost of illness caused by water damaged buildings. When insurers have a scientific fraud written into public health policy and mass marketed to the courts, it aids insurers to be able to deny their rightful liability. It should be noted that the US Chamber’s Mold Statement for which the two PhD’s were paid cites false, UCLA affiliated physician authorship.

In reality, it was only written by two PhDs who are prolific expert defense witnesses in toxic torts. They are two of the six co-owners of the corporation of VeriTox, Inc., formerly known as GlobalTox, Inc.

The California courts have been practicing politics – not law – while aiding with a malicious, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) that has been carried out by criminal means for SIX YEARS. Criminal perjury was used by one of the PhD’s to establish libel law needed reason for malice while strategically litigating over the first public writing to expose how the scientific fraud was mass marketed into policy, for what purpose and who was involved.

The courts’ actions of aiding malicious litigation have aided to keep it on the QT of how the scientific fraud became US public health policy and who was involved in mass marketing the false concept. The judiciaries actions have aided in the continuance of interstate insurer fraud, aided insurer cost shifting onto taxpayers and have caused the sick to be unable to receive proper medical treatment from the misinformed medical community.

The Case Records evidence that Clerk of the Court alterations, falsifications, edits, deletions and manipulations have aided to conceal the judiciaries for whom they clerk, aiding with interstate insurer fraud by facilitating a malicious SLAPP litigation.

On appeal only one owner of VeriTox was disclosed on the Certificate of Interested parties. These certificates are to assure justices have no conflicts of interest involving parties to a litigation. The September 2010 Appellate Opinion issued with plural, “Respondents” awarded costs on appeal. The CCMS was altered and falsified to state GlobalTox’s (VeriTox) name was on the Certificate. The Clerk of the Court then issued a Remittitur in December of 2010 that matched the falsified Appellate Opinion and the falsified CCMS entry to state plural “Respondents”.

On December 23, 2010, the lower court CCMS was then falsified to match the false Appelate Court CCMS (covering for the judicial indescetions), stating a date of entry of judgment that does not exist and falsely deeming GlobalTox to be a prevailing party.

An interest accruing lien was recorded with the County Recorder. An Abstract of Judgment was entered in the lower court, with the Case History and CCMS again falsified and altered to support; based on a date of entry of judgment that is not possible to have occurred with the amount of costs incurred by losing party, GlobalTox, included.

Katy’s Exposure has been threatened with legal action should we continue to write and evidence the California courts aiding and abetting interstate insurer fraud by willfully participating in a malicious litigation over a matter of public health that has carried out by criminal means. We have no intention of being bullied into silence while so many lives remain at stake by the Actions of the compromised California courts.

In reality, this case should be titled:

    US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INSURANCE INDUSTRY & CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL SYSTEM v. PUBLIC HEALTH, INJURED WORKERS, FLEECED TAXPAYERS & the FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

Mr. Roddy's Letter Re; Government Code 6200 Violations

California Government Code 6200 states, “Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book, or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited in any public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for two, three, or four years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book, paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any other person to do any of the following:(a) Steal, remove, or secrete.(b) Destroy, mutilate, or deface(c) Alter or falsify.“

Government Code 68150(d) states, “No additions, deletions, or changes shall be made to the content of court records, except as authorized by statute or the California Rules of Court.”

Is The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Being Misused For Politics In Policy & Litigation….And The Fleecing Of The California Taxpayer?

Posted in Temp | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Being Misused For Politics In Policy & Litigation…..And The Fleecing Of The California Taxpayer Over The Mold Issue?

Posted on September 13, 2011 by Sharon Kramer

        Could someone please explain to us why an author of fraudulent medico-legal policy over the mold issue for the US Chamber of Commerce with strong ties to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been an undisclosed party to a Strategic Litigation Against Public Paticipation (“SLAPP”) for six years…and the California Court Case Management System (“CCMS”) has been altered and falsified to conceal this?    

************************ 

 September 11, 2011

 TO:  Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sayauke, Chair of the Judicial Council of California

Justice Douglas Miller, Chair of Executive & Planning, Judicial Council 

Senator Noreen Evans, Legislative Member Judicial Council

Assemblyman Michael Feuer, Legislative Member Judicial Council 

     “I am a whistle blower of how it became a fraudulent concept in US public health policy in the early 2000s’ that it was scientifically established moldy buildings do not harm. I am the catalyst that caused a Federal GAO audit over the issue in 2006, which has aided tremendously to remove the fraud from Federal policy. 

     My co-writing on the blog, Katy’s Exposure, was recently cited as reference for a Federal OSHA occupational safety publication over the mold issue in April of 2011. I am published in medical journals regarding the marketing of misinformation over the issue in the medical community and to the courts. 

     My endeavors to reshape public health policy have been beneficial to public health, but adverse to the interests of those who sell doubt of causation of illness for a living and their clients; such as the insurance industry. In October of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger endorsed the fraudulent concept into California Workers’ Compensation policy under the platform of Workers Comp Reform — that it had been proven moldy work environments pose little to no health threat to workers. He instructed that occupational physicians must adhere to the guidelines of ACOEM over the mold issue.

     This has aided many California workers comp insurers to be able to shift the cost burden of worker injury onto the taxpayer funded, state and federal disability and social services, when insurers have a bogus legitimizing factor written into policy aiding them to deny financial responsibility…. 

      Unfortunately, some of the judiciaries and court clerks involved in this fiasco of aiding this fraud in policy to continue are leading judiciaries and court officers in the state of California.  They are present and past members of the Judicial Council. They have aided the continuance of an Insurer Cost Shifting scheme (that was endorsed by Governor Schwarzenegger) by being willing participants in a malicious, strategic litigation carried out by criminal means.  CCMS is being used by the clerks to conceal the judiciaries’ “indiscretions”…..

Is this the intended usage for a computer system that will eventually link all courts in California and will be the electronic record of all legal cases?

     From what I have witnessed, CCMS is being used against the best interest of the citizens and taxpayers of California– not for their best interest.  Adding insult to injury for the taxpayers of California, I am aware that CCMS deployment is being funded by the use of tax dollars — while diverting needed funds away from our beleaguered trial courts, who are financially struggling to stay open to serve the public…

In its current form, CCMS is a blank slate that is asking for special and conflicted interests to be able to enter false data into the Court Records, some that only the courts see, should the motivation and opportunity arise.

       As such, I am requesting that the Judicial Council review the Court Records, including those that are in the CCMS, in Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer Case No GIN044539 San Diego Superior Court, Kramer v. Kelman Defendant/Appellate v. Plaintiff/Respondent, Fourth District Division One Appellate Court D054496. 

     This is needed to help the Judicial Council understand how their computer system can and is being used to aid judiciaries who chose to breach their judicial vows to practice politics instead of law; and how their clerks are able to add, edit, delete, remove and falsify CCMS records in the Case Record in violations of GC 6200, while aiding to conceal of the actions of the compromised judiciaries….

 READ THE ENTIRE LETTER HERE….

******************

TO: Justice Judith McConnell, Chair of the California Commission On Judicial Performance.

    “As the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Appellate Court, please take measure to remove the Government Code 6200 Clerk of the Court violations from the Case Record, CCMS Case Summary & Docket, and Case File. Please evidence for me when these corrections are made in accordance with Government Code 62150(d)….

     As the Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, by now, you must realize your grave errors when overseeing this case in its anti-SLAPP phase.  You must realize the damage done to many because of the content of your anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion written in November of 2006. You must realize this is a breach of judicial ethics and a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and lives to allow this to continue further. To reiterate:

     In November 2006, you wrote an unpublished Appellate Opinion with Cynthia Aaron and Alex McDonald concurring that A.) framed me for libel; B.) aided to conceal that a retired Deputy Director for CDC National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”), Bryan Hardin, was an undisclosed party to the litigation. You refused to take judicial notice of the evidence that Hardin’s name was improperly missing from the Certificate of Interested Parties as the sixth owner of GlobalTox (now known as VeriTox); and C.) rewarded Kelman’s use of perjury to establish libel law needed reason for malice.” 

A. FRAMED A DEFENDANT FOR LIBEL OVER A MATTER OF FRAUD IN PUBLIC HEALTH

     In their unpublished anti-SLAPP Opinion of November 2006, the Appellate Panel of McConnell, Aaron and McDonald, made it appear that I had accused Kelman of getting caught on the witness stand lying about being paid by by the Manhattan Institute think-tank to author a position statement for a medical trade association, ACOEM: To quote from the anti-SLAPP Appellate Opinion:

      “This testimony supports a conclusion Kelman did not deny he had been paid by the Manhattan Institute to write a paper, but only denied being paid by the Manhattan Institute to make revisions in the paper issued by ACOEM. He admitted being paid by the Manhattan Institute to write a lay translation. The fact that Kelman did not clarify that he received payment from the Manhattan Institute until after being confronted with the Kilian deposition testimony could be viewed by a reasonable jury as resulting from the poor phrasing of the question rather from an attempt to deny payment. In sum, Kelman and GlobalTox presented sufficient evidence to satisfy a prima facie showing that the statement in the press release was false.”

     I made no such accusation. My purportedly libelous writing of March 2005 speaks for itself and is a 100% accurate writing. It accurately states the exchange of money from the Manhattan Institute think-tank was for the US Chamber’s mold position statement, ACOEM’s was a version of the “Manhattan Institute commissioned piece”.

    As written by McConnell and accurately stated in my writing, Kelman admitted being paid by the think tank to author a paper for the US Chamber of Commerce, only after a prior testimony of his from another case in Arizona came into an Oregon trial proceeding.  From there, he flip flopped back and forth and tried to say ACOEM’s mold statement was not connected to the US Chamber’s while having to admit they were — because his Arizona bench trial testimony proved they were. 

     From my purportedly libelous writing stating the think-tank money was for the US Chamber paper – not ACOEM’s. This is contrary to what McConnell FRAMED ME for in a double-speak Opinion, while interpreting Kelman’s testimony in question exactly how I had written it:

“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…..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.”

     [Of worthy note, in both the 2006 and 2010 Appellate Opinions, the Appellate Justices deleted 14 key lines from the middle of the transcript of Kelman’s testimony of which I was writing. These 14 Appellate Opinion omitted lines evidence that Kelman and the defense counsel tried to keep the Arizona testimony out of the Oregon trial and did not want to have to discuss how ACOEM’s mold policy statement was connected to one bought and paid for with think-tank money (for the US Chamber of Commerce)

READ LETTER TO JUSTICE MCCONNELL HERE….

************

TO: Justice Richard Huffman, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Financial Accountability & Efficiency for the Judicial Council:

       VIDEO OF THE DEPOSITION OF BRUCE KELMAN RE: HIS MATERIAL PERJURY IN DECLARATIONS TO MANUFACTURE A NEEDED REASON FOR MALICE WHILE STRATEGICALLY LITIGATING.

     Justice McConnell, you and many others have this video including the California Commission on Judicial Performance and the Chief Trial Intake Division of the California State Bar. Judge Enright was made aware of where to view it on the net in 2010.  The Appellate Panel of you, Irion and Benke have the transcript of the depositions specifically called out for you in Briefs and Appellate Appendix.

     In September of 2010, the Appellate Panel of you, Patricia Benke and Joan Irion rendered an Appellate Opinion.  Fully evidenced that in 2006, your peers framed a defendant for libel over a matter of public health; rewarded a plaintiff’s use of perjury to establish needed reason for malice; and ignored the evidenced that a retired Deputy Director from NIOSH & author of “health policy” for the US Chamber/ACOEM was an undisclosed party to the litigation; the trio of justices had the audacity to write the following in the unpublished Appellate Opinion:

     ’In a prior opinion, a previous panel of this court affirmed an order denying Kramer’s motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute.  In doing so, we largely resolved the issues Kramer now raises on appeal. In our prior opinion, we found sufficient evidence Kramer’s Internet post was false and defamatory as well as sufficient evidence the post was published with constitutional malice.” 

READ LETTER TO JUSTICE HUFFMAN HERE…

**************

TO: Judicial Council Member Judge Enright, Supervising Judge for the San Diego Superior Court & Clerk of the Court, Michael Roddy:

    “There are false entries made in the ROA stating a date of judgment that is not supported by the Case File.  There is an ROA entry after the Remittitur issued, falsely stating who were the Prevailing Parties. There are documents of judgment of which I was noticed that are not in the Case File. There are documents of judgments of which I was not properly noticed under CCP 664.5(b) that are in the Case File.

     There is an Abstract of Judgment in the Case File, based on a not valid and not properly noticed entry of judgment. There is a judgment lien on my home based on this void Abstract of Judgment.

      As you are aware, this has been a very ugly case over a matter of public health, that has cost me everything I own to defend the truth of my words for the public good. It just keeps getting uglier. Attached is a rather lengthy and direct letter to the Clerk of the Appellate Court, Stephen Kelly and the Clerk of the Superior Court, Michael Roddy.

     As the Presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, please take measure to remove the Government Code 6200 Clerk of the Court violations from the San Diego Superior Court Case Record, CCMS ROA & Case History, and Case File. Please evidence for me when these corrections are made in accordance with Government Code 62150(d).

     I am also requesting of you and Clerk of the Court, Michael Roddy, that I be provided access and a copy of the complete CCMS Case History – not just those items that print when I request a copy of the ROA. This is not a sealed case.  I am aware that there are incorrect entries in the Case History that do not print on the ROA. The Case History is the CCMS Court Record that is shared among the judiciaries and court personnel.

     It is a violation of my First Amendment Rights and prejudicial to me as a litigant, that judges are seeing inaccurate information of which I am not even permitted to see – or know what all they are seeing in the CCMS to be able to challenge the CCMS entries as incorrect.

READ LETTER TO JUDGE ENRIGHT HERE……

**************************

TO: Judicial Council Members Stephen Kelly & Michael Roddy, Clerks of the San Diego Appellate & Superior Courts:

September 11, 2011

Re: Correct Government Code 6200 Violations in Court Records of (“Kramer v. Kelman”) /Defendant/Appellant v. Plaintiff/Respondent, Case No. D054496 Fourth District Division One Appellate Court & (“Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer”), Case No. GIN044539,North San Diego Superior Court

     Appellate Court: Erred December 20, 2010 Remittuter; Altered & erred entries in Appellate CCMS Case History, Awarded costs to undisclosed parties on Appeal, States false judgment date in Case History. Issued a Remittitur based on a back dated Superior Court Proof of Service that was certified signed and mailed by a San Diego Superior Court Deputy Clerk of the Court.

     Superior Court: Altered and erred Register of Action entries &; “stealth” Case History in CCMS. Issued an Abstract of Judgment in violation of CCP 664.5(b). Back dated a Proof of Service of a Minute Order that was certified, signed and mailed by a San Diego Superior Court Deputy Clerk of the Court.

Dear Mr. Kelly and Mr. Roddy,

     This is going to be a very direct letter.  Errors, deletions, additions and false entries in your respective Court Records have caused me extreme financial damage and much distress. They have aided and abetted a malicious, strategic litigation carried out by criminal means; and over a matter of public health. 

     They have aided to conceal the judiciaries for whom you clerk or oversee their Deputy Clerks have been participants in the malicious, strategic litigation; and have been playing fast and lose with the law. Their actions and your actions have aided to defraud the California taxpayers by aiding with the continuance of an Insurer Cost Shifting Scheme, written into California Workers’ Compensation policy by ex-Governor Schwarzenegger in October of 2005. 

      While certain judiciaries in California appear to enjoy the privilege of being above the law; the same privilege is not afforded to Clerks of the Court or their Deputies.  Under Government Code 6200, it is a criminal offense to alter, falsify, remove and/or secrete Court Records. These are not actions in accordance with Government Code 68150(d)…. 

     There are incorrect Court Clerk entries in the (“Court Record”), (“Case File”), Register of Action (“ROA”), (“Case History”) and Court Case Management System (“CCMS”) of the San Diego Superior Court libel case of Bruce J. (“Kelman”) & (“GlobalTox”), Inc., v. Sharon (“Kramer”). There are incorrect Court Clerk entries in the Court Record, CCMS, Case File, (“Case Summary”) and (“Docket”) when on appeal in the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court, (“Kramer v. Kelman”) Defendant/Appellant v.  Plaintiff/Respondent….

 

     Which is it?  A judgment was entered on December 12, 2008 and Presiding Justice McConnell accepted my intent to appeal on January 14, 2009 in violation of Rules of the Court 8.751? Or a judgment was not entered on December 12, 2008, and the Appellate Case Records are violations of Government Code 6200 stating a judgment that was not entered –with the lower court records made to match after the Remittitur issued in December of 2010?

      The Minute Order was mailed from the court on December 16, 2008, which I would not be able to prove had I not sent the post marked envelop back to the court on December 18, 2008, for the Case File because the Proof of Service was dated December 12, 2008, four days before it was mailed. The Minute Order states Kelman prevailed over Kramer and Kramer prevailed over GlobalTox.  Yet, the Superior Court ROA was falsely edited on December 23, 2010 to match the “errors” in the Appellate CCMS to state:

“ROA #264 12/23/2010 Remittitur (Judgment of 12-12-08 is affirmed) filed by The Superior Court of San Diego.

[sic, ROA entries 265-267 are missing or are concealed only to be visable on the stealth Case History]

ROA #268 12/23/2010 Judgment was entered as follows: Judgment enter for GLOBALTOX INC:KELMAN, BRUCE J and against KRAMER, SHARON...”

     The case is still pending.  The presiding judge has not signed off.  Prior to the false editions and additions on December 23, 2010, in the Superior Court CCMS (after the Remittitur – stating undisclosed  “Respondents”, isssued back with an Appellate Opinion stating date of entry of judgment of 12/12/08) there was no entry in the lower court ROA showing any judgment was entered on 12/12/08…because there was not. Odd how both CCMS histories of this case are consistent in their incorrectness with neither matching the Case File.

      Rather than attach and mail a mountain of evidence to an already lengthy letter, I am going to put this letter to you, the Clerk of the Fourth District Division One Appellate Court, Mr. Kelly; and Clerk of the San Diego Superior Court, Mr. Roddy; online. I will link to the evidence of errors, alterations and false documents in your Case Records that need to be corrected under Government Codes 6200 and 68150(d).    

     This letter and the linked Court Records referenced as follows, may be read online at the reputable and Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration source reference, health advisory blog, “Katy’s Exposure – Exposing Environmental Health Threats and Those Responsible”.. This letter may be found on the Internet by searching the blog title of this letter:

“Is The California Court Case Management System (CCMS) Being Misused For Politics In Policy & Litigation….And The Fleecing Of The California Taxpayer?”

      As Clerks of the Court and members of the California Judicial Council; how you choose to address the needed corrections of errors, falsifications, additions, deletions, and secret & false entries in the CCMS Case History in your Court Records will answer the questions raised in the blog title regarding your intended usage of CCMS.

     If I have any errors or misstatements of fact in this letter, please let me know so we (the owner of the blog and I) may then correct the online version. My apologies for typos in this letter. I do not type well and can no longer afford to hire a typist directly because of the mishandling by the courts of this case.     

     I currently have an interest accruing judgment lien on my home for costs incurred by a party I prevailed over in trial (with one being an undisclosed party), based on a false judgment never properly entered or noticed; false abstract of judgment; false Remittitur awarding costs to undisclosed parties on appeal.  I am gagged by the court from writing a sentence for which I was never sued – which, coincidentally, would gag me from writing of what the judiciaries and their clerks in this case have done that aids abets insurer fraud and the fleecing of the public….

       I am not going to shut up.  I am not going to go away until someone acknowledges that every single judge and justice to oversee the case of Kelman & GlobalTox v. Kramer ignored the evidence that Bruce J. Kelman, author of medico-legal policy over the mold issue for the US Chamber of Commerce and ACOEM, committed criminal perjury to establish needed reason for malice while strategically litigating against public participation against the first person, Sharon Kramer, to publicly write of how these papers were connected to mass market a scientific fraud in US health and California workers’ comp policies. This, as the courts FRAMED ME for libel.

     False Clerk of the Court CCMS entries of judgments never entered, parties never disclosed as the judiciaries practiced politics, not law, are aiding and abetting insurer fraud in violation of Government Code 6200.  That is criminal.

     When this is acknowledged, the fraudulent concept in public health policy that it has been scientifically proven all claims of illness from the toxins of mold found in water damaged buildings are only being made because of “trial lawyers, media and Junk Science” will immediately cease. Lives will instantly be saved…. 

     Appellate Court Record To Be Corrected By Clerk of the Appellate Court, Stephen Kelly:

     1. Either provide evidence from the Case File on Appeal that GlobalTox and the owners of the corporation where disclosed as parties on appeal on the Certificate of Interested Parties stamped received on September 14, 2009 by the Clerk of the Court or Remove the word “Respondents” and “et. al” from the December 20, 2010 Remittitur, evidence and date its removal; and send me proof when removed.

     2. Either provide evidence from the Case File on Appeal that GlobalTox and the owners of the corporation where disclosed as parties on appeal on the Certificate of Interested Parties stamped received on September 14, 2009 by the Clerk of the Court or Remove from the CCMS Docket that GlobalTox’s name was on the Certificate of Interested Parties, September 14, 2009; evidence and date its removal; and send me proof when it is removed.

    3. Either provide evidence from the Case File on Appeal that a judgment was entered on December 12, 2008 or Remove from the CCMS Docket that a judgment was entered on 12/12/08, evidence and date its removal; and send me proof when it is removed..

    4. Provide the dated, file stamped, signed, and noticed legal judgment document that gave the Appellate Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

    5. The Appellate Court was provided evidence that Kelman committed criminal perjury in his declarations, three times, to establish needed reason for malice. Quote, “I testified the types and amounts of mold in the Kramer house could not have caused the life threatening illnesses she claimed”  The Appellate Court was evidenced that Scheuer suborned Kelman’s perjury, even in his Appellate Brief of September 2009. His theme in his briefs: “Apparently furious that the science conflicted with her dreams of a remodeled home, Kramer launched into an obsessive campaign to destroy the reputation of Dr. Kelman and GlobalTox”. Either provide evidence from the Case File on Appeal that corroborates the stated reason for malice or cease and desist with using the CCMS in violation of GC6200 to conceal that all judges and justices overseeing this case rewarded a plaintiff’s criminal perjury to establish needed reason for malice while strategically litigating.

    6. The Appellate Court was provided evidence that I found Kelman’s testimony when retained as an expert witness in Oregon of flipping back and forth to describe the relationship of the ACOEM & US Chamber mold statements from “lay translation” to “two separate papers, two separate works” and back to “translations” to be “altered under oath statement”.  Either provide evidence from the Case File I was ever impeached as to the subjective belief in the validity of my words or cease and desist with using CCMS in violation of GC 6200 to conceal that all judges and justices overseeing this case deemed a never impeached US citizen to be guilty of being a malicious liar.

     Trial Court Record To Be Corrected By Clerk of the Court, Michael Roddy

     1. Either provide evidence from the Case File that a judgment was entered on December 12, 2008 or Remove from the stealth Case History that a judgment was entered on 12/12/08, evidence and date its removal and send me proof it is removed.

     2. Either provide evidence from the Case File that a judgment was entered on September 24, 2008, was filed stamped, signed and noticed under CCP 664.5(b) to both prevailing parties or Remove from the CCMS ROA and Case History, Abstract of Judgment that there was a legal judgment entered on September 24, 2008, evidence and date its removal and send me proof it is removed.

    3. The courts were provided that Kelman submitted and was awarded costs that were incurred by GlobalTox in the amount of $3,626,33. Either provide evidence from the Case File to refute that the courts awarded costs to a party, not incurred by the party, or Remove from the CCMS stealth Case History that an amended judgment was properly entered awarding Kelman $7,252.65 on 12/18/08, evidence and date its removal; and send me proof it is removed.

    4. On the Minute Order dated December 12, 2008, it states, “The Record in this case reflects that Plaintiff Bruce J. Kelman is the prevailing party solely as against Defendant Sharon Kramer. Defendant Sharon Kramer is the prevailing party solely as against Defendant Globaltox, Inc.”. Provide evidence from the Case File that the Amended Entry of Judgment dated 12/18/08 (after the Minute Order was finalized) states both Kelman and Kramer are prevailing parties) was entered.

     5. Either provide evidence from the Case File that Kelman and GlobalTox were the prevailing parties or Remove from the CCMS ROA and Case History that Kelman & GlobalTox were the prevailing parties as falsely entered in the ROA and Case History on December 23, 2010, evidence and date its removal; and send me proof it is removed.

     6. Either provide evidence from the Case File that Judge Maas, now presiding judge over this case affirmed on December 23, 2008, that a judgment was entered on December 12, 2008 deeming Kelman and GlobalTox to be the prevailing parties or Remove from the CCMS ROA and Case History that on December 23, 2010, the lower court presiding judge quote:“the Remittitur (Judgment of 12-12-08 is affirmed) filed by The Superior Court of San Diego”.  Evidence and date the removal; and send me proof it is removed.

.    7. If is evidenced by the Case File as legitimate CCMS entries, Add back the deleted entry #183 thru #187 made between October 23 & October 28, 2008, to the ROA and Case History; evidence and date their addition; and send me proof if and when they are added back..

      8. Either provide evidence from the Case File that a Judgment was entered on September 24, 2008; or Rescind the Clerk of the Court issued Abstract of Judgment that was entered on December 31, 2008, stating a date of entry of judgment of September 24, 2008.  This is a further abuse and violation of Code of Civil Procedure 664, 664.5(b) and Government Code 6200. Send me proof when the Abstract is withdrawn. 

      9. Provide from the Case File, the dated, file stamped, signed, and noticed legal judgment document upon which the December 31, 2008, Abstract of Judgment is based awarding Kelman $7,252.65 in costs (plus one dollar).

      10. Provide from the Case File, the dated, file stamped, signed, and noticed legal judgment document as it appeared prior to the Entry of Amended Judgment dated 12/18/08, after Kelman’s costs were submitted in October 2008.

READ LETTER TO COURT CLERKS KELLY & RODDY HERE. (long one. takes a bit to open pdf)

******************* 

 

Posted in Temp | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment