Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Mold Criminal Cover-Up-Kramer Files Workers Comp Charges In San Diego Against ACOEM/Chambe
Sharon Kramer, an injured workers advocate who has been challenging company doctors and the US Chamber of Commerce has filed criminal workers comp fraud charges in San Diego against the US Chamber of Commerce and their "doctors"
Mold Criminal Cover-Up-Kramer Files Workers Comp Charges In San Diego Against ACOEM/Chamber
US Chamber Of Commerce & Their "Doctors" Illegal Conspiracy To Attack Injured Workers Rights And Defraud The Public Through ACOEM
Kramer's Workers Comp Fraud Complaint At San Diego DA's On 8/25/201
Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer
SNK1955 [at] aol.com
August 25, 2010
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
San Diego District Attorney Office
300 B Street
San Diego, California 92101
District Attorney Dumanis,
Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the
publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. A prime example of the deliberate
production of ignorance is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about
the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced
research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty. Some of
the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or
governmental suppression, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical
selectivity, inattention by decision makers and a desire to shift the cost burden for
causation of illness onto other individuals or entities.
Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not come to
be, or are ignored or delayed. When the misleading scientific data is allowed to be
applied to establish health policies for the purpose of instilling bias in the courts to cause
more favorable financial outcomes and unfair advantage for insurers, employers and
other financial stakeholders of moldy buildings, it then becomes insurance fraud.
This complaint and request for investigation by the San Diego District Attorney’s
office is of the following:
i.) Bruce J. (“Kelman”), a co-author of the US (“Chamber”) of Commerce’s
and the American College Of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s
(“ACOEM”) Mold Position Statements that are used to set workers comp
insurance policy in the state of California, for criminal perjury while
strategically litigating for over five years in the San Diego courts, Kelman &
GlobalTox v. Kramer No. D054496, Fourth District Court of Appeal,
Division One; and
ii.) Kelman’s attorney Keith (“Scheuer”) for his willful suborning of the
criminal perjury while strategically litigating for over five years in the San
Diego courts to silence a whistleblower of an insurer fraud scheme. Scheuer
has a no less than a 28 year history of willfully inflaming the courts by the
use of misinformation, ROSTON v. EDWARDS 127 Cal.App.3d 842 (1982); and
iii.) bias within ten San Diego judges and justices for failure to stop strategic
litigation carried out by criminal means for over five years in the San Diego
courts; thus
iv.) aiding and abetting systemic unfair insurer advantage over the mold sick
and injured to continue in workers comp and property casualty cases for over
five years, both in California and interstate and while shifting the cost burden
off of insurers and onto California and US taxpayers.
I have been a defendant in a libel litigation for over five years in the San Diego court
system. The plaintiffs are the authors of the ACOEM and Chamber position statements
on the purported science of mold. They are Kelman his business partner, Bryan
(“Hardin”) and the company they own along with four others, GlobalTox, Inc, now
known as (“VeriTox”) Inc.
The sole claim of the case is that my use of my phrase “altered his under oath statements”
was a malicious accusation of perjury by Kelman. Since September of 2005, I have
provided every single San Diego judge or justice to oversee this case with irrefutable
evidence that Kelman has been committing perjury to make up a purported reason for
personal malice while strategically litigating to silence me of the misapplication of
science by ACOEM and the Chamber that has been mass marketed into health policy.
The writing in which the word “altered” was used by me in 2005 was the first, but not the
last, to write of who was involved in instilling the false concept into public health policy
that it had been scientifically proven mold in buildings does not seriously harm priorly
healthy people. This false science in health policy has aided insurers, employers and
others to deny their financial responsibility when people are injured by mold in buildings.
Agnotology becomes insurance fraud, when insurers are given this unfair advantage by
the willful application of scientific misinformation of ACOEM, the Chamber and other
interested parties.
From my writing of 2005:
He [sic, Kelman] 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.
If at anytime in the past five years, even one San Diego judge or justice had
acknowledged the irrefutable and uncontroverted evidence that Kelman, Hardin, VeriTox
and Scheuer were strategically litigating by the use of criminal perjury on the issue of
malice; the insurer unfair advantage in the courts caused by the bogus science of the
Chamber and ACOEM mold papers would have come to a screeching halt. Thus far, none
have. The ten San Diego judges and justices to have overseen the case at various times
with each and all provided irrefutable and uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal
perjury on the issue of malice:
Michael P. Orfield (North County Superior Court, retired)
Justice Judith McConnell (Chair of the California Commission on Judicial
Performance)
Justice Cynthia Aaron (Fourth District Court of Appeal)
Justice Alex MacDonald (Fourth District Court of Appeal)
Judge Lisa Schall (North County Superior Court – now moved to Family
Court)
Judge Joel Pressman (Presiding Judge, North County Court)
Judge William Dato (North County Superior Court)
Justice Joel Huffman (Fourth District Court of Appeal – soon to rule, but
having the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal perjury on the
issue of malice since Oct 2009)
Justice Judith Benke (Fourth District Court of Appeal – soon to rule, but
having the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal perjury on the
issue of malice since Oct 2009)
Justice Joan Iron (Fourth District Court of Appeal – soon to rule, but
having the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal perjury on the
issue of malice since Oct 2009)
I have not filed a complaint against any of the above named judiciaries for their bias of
failing to stop criminal activity in a litigation, which allows the “science” of ACOEM and
the Chamber to continue in the courts while unduly giving insurers unfair advantage in
mold litigations and health policies. However, Justice McConnell, in the capacity as
Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, has been made aware of the
systemic problem in the courts that judiciaries are to perceive that anyone who says mold
can harm is automatically to be considered a malicious liar – no matter what the evidence
of the case states, with herself serving as clear evidence in this libel action that has
lingered in the San Diego courts for five years. I have not filed a complaint because the
marketing campaign of ACOEM and the Chamber was specifically written with
judiciaries being the target market. In other words, I am of the opinion the above named
judiciaries are as much victims in the insurance fraud scheme of having bias intentionally
instilled in them, as they are perpetrators in failing to stop it, caused by the bias that was
instilled in them.
The problem in a nutshell:
In 2002, ACOEM brought in a PhD with a long history as a defense expert witness for
Big Tobacco, Kelman, and his PhD business partner, Hardin, to write their position
statement on mold. Hardin had recently retired from a position of influence at
NIOSH/CDC. Neither man had a research background in mold. Neither are physicians,
so no personal contact with the sick and injured. They applied math extrapolations to
data they used from a mold researcher’s rodent study. Based solely on these calculations
applied to a single rodent study, ACOEM set policy that no one could ever inhale enough
mycotoxins in a building to cause ill health. The implication being that no one could be
made ill from mold in buildings. The conclusions reached from these calculations have
never been duplicated. They have been discredited many times in scientific journal
publications and the media for both the misapplication of scientific data and the conflicts
of interest behind the misapplication.
In 2003, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Manhattan Institute think tank paid
Kelman and Hardin to spin the misapplication of science further with the specific
direction that the Chamber’s paper be written for judges. The two men wrote the
following mantra to mislead and bias the courts by marketing false information to them,
“Thus the notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer as so many trial lawyers and
media would claim is Junk Science unsupported by actual scientific study”.
In 2005, under the premise of workers comp reform, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
who is also President of the Regents of the University of California, put out a
memorandum along with the California Department of Health and Human Services that
all physicians in California should adhere to the ACOEM Mold Statement. It then
became the firm concept in health policy and workers compensation in California that
anyone who was healthy before an exposure but who claimed mold is making them
severely ill, or anyone who speaks on the injureds’ behalf, should automatically be
considered a malicious liar by the California courts and medical professionals.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/IAQ/Documents/moldInMyWorkPlace.pdf
Physicians can refer to the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM) statement, Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with
Molds in the Indoor Environment .http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor State of California
Kimberly Belshé, Secretary Health and Human Services Agency
Sandra Shewry, Director Department of Health Services
John Rea, Acting Director Department of Industrial Relations
I am aware of the Toyota of Poway situation in which the injured workers are serving as
evidence of victims of systemic insurer fraud as established above. I am aware that
Toyota of Poway and their insurer have hired an ACOEM toxicologist, Dr. Stephen
Munday, to evaluate the workers’ injuries and advise on reason to cast doubt for the
workers comp claims. I am aware that Dina Padilla, candidate for California
Commissioner of Insurance is calling for an investigation into the Poway matter,
systemic insurer fraud under SB 899 workers comp reform, and the science and usage of
the ACOEM mold policy in workers comp claims denials.
As the District Attorney of San Diego, please investigate the criminal perjury by an
author of the ACOEM and Chamber mold policy (agnotology), Bruce J. Kelman, while
strategically litigating in the San Diego courts system for over five years to silence the
information Ms. Padilla is requesting be investigated of systematic insurer fraud in
workers comp practices in California.
It does not take a legal scholar to understand that one cannot maliciously use criminal
perjury in a legal proceeding to establish a purported reason they were maliciously
accused of criminal perjury, even if one is an author of workers comp policy for the state
of California. Yet, somehow, to date, ten San Diego judges and justices have failed to
acknowledge this simple fact of law. Please investigate.
Attached to this complaint is a 40 minute video of under oath testimony, Bruce Kelman,
regarding the ACOEM & US Chamber mass promotion of scientific misinformation to
unduly influence the courts, and the irrefutable evidence of Bruce Kelman’s criminal
perjury to make up a reason for purported malice while strategically litigating in the San
Diego court system along with his attorney, Keith Scheuer, for over five years.
The irrefutable evidence of the above may be found in the files of the Fourth District,
Division One Court of Appeal, 750 B Street, San Diego, California. I declare under
penalty of perjury the above is true and correct. Submitted by me on August 25, 2010,.
to the San Diego District Attorney in a complaint for systematic insurance fraud in
California over the mold issue and criminal perjury in a strategic litigation in San Diego,
by the authors of the fraud.
__________________________
Sharon Noonan Kramer
Enclosure: 1
CC: Justice Judith McConnell, Chair of the California Commission on Judicial
Performance
http://www.drcraner.com/images/A%20Critique%20of%20the%20ACOEM%20Statement%20on%20Mold.pdf
http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf
US Chamber Of Commerce & Their "Doctors" Illegal Conspiracy To Attack Injured Workers Rights And Defraud The Public Through ACOEM
Kramer's Workers Comp Fraud Complaint At San Diego DA's On 8/25/201
Mrs. Sharon Noonan Kramer
SNK1955 [at] aol.com
August 25, 2010
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
San Diego District Attorney Office
300 B Street
San Diego, California 92101
District Attorney Dumanis,
Agnotology is the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the
publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. A prime example of the deliberate
production of ignorance is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about
the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced
research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty. Some of
the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or
governmental suppression, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical
selectivity, inattention by decision makers and a desire to shift the cost burden for
causation of illness onto other individuals or entities.
Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not come to
be, or are ignored or delayed. When the misleading scientific data is allowed to be
applied to establish health policies for the purpose of instilling bias in the courts to cause
more favorable financial outcomes and unfair advantage for insurers, employers and
other financial stakeholders of moldy buildings, it then becomes insurance fraud.
This complaint and request for investigation by the San Diego District Attorney’s
office is of the following:
i.) Bruce J. (“Kelman”), a co-author of the US (“Chamber”) of Commerce’s
and the American College Of Occupational and Environmental Medicine’s
(“ACOEM”) Mold Position Statements that are used to set workers comp
insurance policy in the state of California, for criminal perjury while
strategically litigating for over five years in the San Diego courts, Kelman &
GlobalTox v. Kramer No. D054496, Fourth District Court of Appeal,
Division One; and
ii.) Kelman’s attorney Keith (“Scheuer”) for his willful suborning of the
criminal perjury while strategically litigating for over five years in the San
Diego courts to silence a whistleblower of an insurer fraud scheme. Scheuer
has a no less than a 28 year history of willfully inflaming the courts by the
use of misinformation, ROSTON v. EDWARDS 127 Cal.App.3d 842 (1982); and
iii.) bias within ten San Diego judges and justices for failure to stop strategic
litigation carried out by criminal means for over five years in the San Diego
courts; thus
iv.) aiding and abetting systemic unfair insurer advantage over the mold sick
and injured to continue in workers comp and property casualty cases for over
five years, both in California and interstate and while shifting the cost burden
off of insurers and onto California and US taxpayers.
I have been a defendant in a libel litigation for over five years in the San Diego court
system. The plaintiffs are the authors of the ACOEM and Chamber position statements
on the purported science of mold. They are Kelman his business partner, Bryan
(“Hardin”) and the company they own along with four others, GlobalTox, Inc, now
known as (“VeriTox”) Inc.
The sole claim of the case is that my use of my phrase “altered his under oath statements”
was a malicious accusation of perjury by Kelman. Since September of 2005, I have
provided every single San Diego judge or justice to oversee this case with irrefutable
evidence that Kelman has been committing perjury to make up a purported reason for
personal malice while strategically litigating to silence me of the misapplication of
science by ACOEM and the Chamber that has been mass marketed into health policy.
The writing in which the word “altered” was used by me in 2005 was the first, but not the
last, to write of who was involved in instilling the false concept into public health policy
that it had been scientifically proven mold in buildings does not seriously harm priorly
healthy people. This false science in health policy has aided insurers, employers and
others to deny their financial responsibility when people are injured by mold in buildings.
Agnotology becomes insurance fraud, when insurers are given this unfair advantage by
the willful application of scientific misinformation of ACOEM, the Chamber and other
interested parties.
From my writing of 2005:
He [sic, Kelman] 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.
If at anytime in the past five years, even one San Diego judge or justice had
acknowledged the irrefutable and uncontroverted evidence that Kelman, Hardin, VeriTox
and Scheuer were strategically litigating by the use of criminal perjury on the issue of
malice; the insurer unfair advantage in the courts caused by the bogus science of the
Chamber and ACOEM mold papers would have come to a screeching halt. Thus far, none
have. The ten San Diego judges and justices to have overseen the case at various times
with each and all provided irrefutable and uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal
perjury on the issue of malice:
Michael P. Orfield (North County Superior Court, retired)
Justice Judith McConnell (Chair of the California Commission on Judicial
Performance)
Justice Cynthia Aaron (Fourth District Court of Appeal)
Justice Alex MacDonald (Fourth District Court of Appeal)
Judge Lisa Schall (North County Superior Court – now moved to Family
Court)
Judge Joel Pressman (Presiding Judge, North County Court)
Judge William Dato (North County Superior Court)
Justice Joel Huffman (Fourth District Court of Appeal – soon to rule, but
having the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal perjury on the
issue of malice since Oct 2009)
Justice Judith Benke (Fourth District Court of Appeal – soon to rule, but
having the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal perjury on the
issue of malice since Oct 2009)
Justice Joan Iron (Fourth District Court of Appeal – soon to rule, but
having the uncontroverted evidence of Kelman’s criminal perjury on the
issue of malice since Oct 2009)
I have not filed a complaint against any of the above named judiciaries for their bias of
failing to stop criminal activity in a litigation, which allows the “science” of ACOEM and
the Chamber to continue in the courts while unduly giving insurers unfair advantage in
mold litigations and health policies. However, Justice McConnell, in the capacity as
Chair of the California Commission on Judicial Performance, has been made aware of the
systemic problem in the courts that judiciaries are to perceive that anyone who says mold
can harm is automatically to be considered a malicious liar – no matter what the evidence
of the case states, with herself serving as clear evidence in this libel action that has
lingered in the San Diego courts for five years. I have not filed a complaint because the
marketing campaign of ACOEM and the Chamber was specifically written with
judiciaries being the target market. In other words, I am of the opinion the above named
judiciaries are as much victims in the insurance fraud scheme of having bias intentionally
instilled in them, as they are perpetrators in failing to stop it, caused by the bias that was
instilled in them.
The problem in a nutshell:
In 2002, ACOEM brought in a PhD with a long history as a defense expert witness for
Big Tobacco, Kelman, and his PhD business partner, Hardin, to write their position
statement on mold. Hardin had recently retired from a position of influence at
NIOSH/CDC. Neither man had a research background in mold. Neither are physicians,
so no personal contact with the sick and injured. They applied math extrapolations to
data they used from a mold researcher’s rodent study. Based solely on these calculations
applied to a single rodent study, ACOEM set policy that no one could ever inhale enough
mycotoxins in a building to cause ill health. The implication being that no one could be
made ill from mold in buildings. The conclusions reached from these calculations have
never been duplicated. They have been discredited many times in scientific journal
publications and the media for both the misapplication of scientific data and the conflicts
of interest behind the misapplication.
In 2003, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Manhattan Institute think tank paid
Kelman and Hardin to spin the misapplication of science further with the specific
direction that the Chamber’s paper be written for judges. The two men wrote the
following mantra to mislead and bias the courts by marketing false information to them,
“Thus the notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer as so many trial lawyers and
media would claim is Junk Science unsupported by actual scientific study”.
In 2005, under the premise of workers comp reform, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
who is also President of the Regents of the University of California, put out a
memorandum along with the California Department of Health and Human Services that
all physicians in California should adhere to the ACOEM Mold Statement. It then
became the firm concept in health policy and workers compensation in California that
anyone who was healthy before an exposure but who claimed mold is making them
severely ill, or anyone who speaks on the injureds’ behalf, should automatically be
considered a malicious liar by the California courts and medical professionals.
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/IAQ/Documents/moldInMyWorkPlace.pdf
Physicians can refer to the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM) statement, Adverse Human Health Effects Associated with
Molds in the Indoor Environment .http://www.acoem.org/guidelines/article.asp?ID=52.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor State of California
Kimberly Belshé, Secretary Health and Human Services Agency
Sandra Shewry, Director Department of Health Services
John Rea, Acting Director Department of Industrial Relations
I am aware of the Toyota of Poway situation in which the injured workers are serving as
evidence of victims of systemic insurer fraud as established above. I am aware that
Toyota of Poway and their insurer have hired an ACOEM toxicologist, Dr. Stephen
Munday, to evaluate the workers’ injuries and advise on reason to cast doubt for the
workers comp claims. I am aware that Dina Padilla, candidate for California
Commissioner of Insurance is calling for an investigation into the Poway matter,
systemic insurer fraud under SB 899 workers comp reform, and the science and usage of
the ACOEM mold policy in workers comp claims denials.
As the District Attorney of San Diego, please investigate the criminal perjury by an
author of the ACOEM and Chamber mold policy (agnotology), Bruce J. Kelman, while
strategically litigating in the San Diego courts system for over five years to silence the
information Ms. Padilla is requesting be investigated of systematic insurer fraud in
workers comp practices in California.
It does not take a legal scholar to understand that one cannot maliciously use criminal
perjury in a legal proceeding to establish a purported reason they were maliciously
accused of criminal perjury, even if one is an author of workers comp policy for the state
of California. Yet, somehow, to date, ten San Diego judges and justices have failed to
acknowledge this simple fact of law. Please investigate.
Attached to this complaint is a 40 minute video of under oath testimony, Bruce Kelman,
regarding the ACOEM & US Chamber mass promotion of scientific misinformation to
unduly influence the courts, and the irrefutable evidence of Bruce Kelman’s criminal
perjury to make up a reason for purported malice while strategically litigating in the San
Diego court system along with his attorney, Keith Scheuer, for over five years.
The irrefutable evidence of the above may be found in the files of the Fourth District,
Division One Court of Appeal, 750 B Street, San Diego, California. I declare under
penalty of perjury the above is true and correct. Submitted by me on August 25, 2010,.
to the San Diego District Attorney in a complaint for systematic insurance fraud in
California over the mold issue and criminal perjury in a strategic litigation in San Diego,
by the authors of the fraud.
__________________________
Sharon Noonan Kramer
Enclosure: 1
CC: Justice Judith McConnell, Chair of the California Commission on Judicial
Performance
http://www.drcraner.com/images/A%20Critique%20of%20the%20ACOEM%20Statement%20on%20Mold.pdf
http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf
For more information:
http://www.drcraner.com/images/A%20Critiqu...
Add Your Comments
Latest Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
There is an error in this reporting
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 7:34PM
Correction-Kramer did not file a workers comp charge against the Chamber or ACOEM
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 9:15AM
Mothra vs. Godzilla and ACOEM
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 7:57AM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network