Trial Transcripts:

Judge Austin’s response to attorney misconduct, witness tampering and interfering with

witness deposition. The judge was holding our deposition books in his hands and he

claimed he had read everything.

THE COURT: Now you're getting into how people behave in depositions and the attorneys. If

there had been an attorney on the other side, both attorneys.

Attorneys sometimes on both sides of the depositions behave very badly. They behave badly,

and I get the transcripts, and I get to see it. It's hard to believe. But none of that comes in

before the jury. There are times when I'm up here, and I see for the first time with attorneys that

I know aren't getting along very well and are in trial, and they give me the deposition transcript

of somebody because they want to impeach them, and then I often enjoy it because I know the

attorneys aren't going to get along with some witness they don't get along with, and I realize this

is probably going to be a fun deposition to read. It wouldn't be fun to be at, but it will be fun to

read how these lawyers behaved with each other. And there are many times where I'm not let

down. Well, I'm let down by the behavior, but not by the entertainment value. So I get to read

all those things. And that happens all the time during depositions. The jury doesn't get to know

any of that. You can have the people that are the worst people in the world in depositions,

attorneys with each other, and then when they come to court, the happy face goes on, and you

would never know they were the exact same person in the deposition transcript that I was just

reading where they are calling each other names and yelling at each other. It happens, though.

So the jury doesn't get to know all that stuff.

THE COURT: They don't get to know any of that stuff either. It's the conduct of the litigation.

And you don't get to know people's litigation practices, the way they deal with things in the

course of the legal aspects of the case. None of that comes before the jury. So you can't really

refer to any of that(RT.Vol.4P.227L.11-P.228L.13-21).

When the whistle blower complained about opposing counsel, Brendan Dooley,
trespassed onto her property for the purpose of harassing and intimidating her knowing
well that she was home alone. This is how Judge Austin responded:

THE COURT: Yeah. If it's after the case was filed, you would have needed to file a
supplemental complaint for some new act that you could sue for that happened after you filed
the case. (RT Vol. 4 P. 231 L. 6-28)

Judge Austin and the three attorneys made up jury instructions that was designed to
guarantee money damages against the whistle blower and joked about it:
THE COURT: It's still -- on the verdict form, you have to have something that says go to the damage page or
don't go to the damage page. Otherwise, we could have a situation on either side where they could check "no,"
so you lose on that cause of action on either side, and they check all the no's and then they award damages.
That could happen. Or, they could check "yes" to all of them and then not go to the damage page because they
don't know they are supposed to do it. So that's the problem that I'm having. Or they could check "yes" to one
of them and "no" to the another one, and be confused whether they go to the damage page. There needs to be
some sort of instructions under all those situations to tell them what to do. Do you think or am I –

MR. WHEELER: Well, it sounds like a judicial council dark hole (RT Vol 30 P.2775 l10 P 2782 L9)

The architect had asked for an out- right ownership of the whistle blower’s land. Judge
Austin allowed the criminal trespasser to waste tax payer’s money to come to court with
unclean hands allowing him to play hot and cold with the court and triple the amount of
land he initially asked for. The statement shows Judge Austin was having ex-parte
meetings with the architect and his attorneys. How often do litigants come to court and
they don’t know what they want.

Sample Transcripts:

The architect stated:

“I don't think we have determined, you know, the elements of the easement.” (CT

Vol. 13 P. 1097 L6-P. 1101 L19).

The architect stated:

“I'm assuming it will get structured as a neutral use easement, if it's an easement”
(RT Vol.13 P. 1088 L 5-59).
Despite several documented ex-parte meetings with Judge Austin, the trial transcript
shows how Judge Austin abused his power by giving a green light to the white-collar
criminal’s attorneys that his courtroom was up for sale.

Judge Austin on the record addressing Clyde Long.

The court: All right. This is what I want you -- it's 4:30. I want you to write it out on a piece of

paper what that easement is going to be that's going to get recorded, if that's what you want, and

I want to see what it is because I have to cross-examine you to figure out what it is, and that

shouldn't be right. I shouldn't have to do that. I want it on a piece of paper. It's not in your

complaint what you want. And I want to know what it is that you want so I know what I'm ruling

on, okay? So you got until tomorrow to do that, and we'll meet again at 1:15. (RT Vol.14 P. 1224

L6-P. 1234 L 26)

Judge Steven K. Austin committed fraud by not recusing himself from the case based on
his conflict of interest presiding over a case that involved his former employer "State
Farm". Judge Austin and his clerk tampered with court records by omitting the names of
state farm agents present on that day. According to the judge an army of agents were
present on that day by about 10 people.

THE COURT: Sure. I'll try the week before. Usually I let you know a week before. When's your
issue conference?

MR. WHEELER: I was just going to bring that up. February 5th, I believe.

THE COURT: Yeah, we might have an idea by then.

Whistle Blower: February 4th.

THE COURT: Are you going to be on the telephone for that? It's okay. You don't have to fly out
here.

Whistle blower: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah. You can be on the phone for that. That's okay with me. Because I don't see
this case as one that's going to resolve and I don't need to have you here personally if the
parties aren't interested in settling. And from everything I know from the beginning of this case,
no one's interested in that.

MR. WHEELER Can I then have the State Farm representative -

MR. WHEELER: You want someone here?

THE COURT: I think it would be good to bring Mr. Chang. Would you do that?

MR. WHEELER: Ms. Coors, yes, I will.

THE COURT: She would be okay too. Either one. So we may have an adjustor here so that I'll
be able to work with that adjustor to see if I can get the case settled. And I'll be able to talk to
you directly on the telephone as well as (whistle blower) (RT.Vol.010314 P..15L.24-P.17L.4)

The transcript below captures how much control Judge Austin’s former employer, State
Farm and their agent attorney Dewey Wheeler, exerted over Judge Austin and often
addressed the judge disrespectfully. Dewey Wheeler was upset when Judge Austin
agreed to call in the former owner of the whistle blower’s house to come and testify
about the destruction of privacy by the architect. Judge Austin was visibly emotional and
shaking according to the whistle blower’s complaint

THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you just do that? Is that okay with you guys?

MR. WHEELER: Well, if it's the court order, I'll have to deal with it. I –

THE COURT: You seem very upset with my ruling, and it's a little bit different than what I've
seen in the past, so I'm having a hard time understanding why. It's a witness you've known
about from the beginning of the case that your client testified about, that she talked to her while
she is smoking cigarettes in the backyard. You didn't depose her, for whatever reason. You
could have subpoenaed her, you could have done anything in order to get her testimony. And
now you seem perturbed with me that I'm saying it's okay for her to testify. Why is all that
happening?

MR. WHEELER: I am not perturbed with you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Perhaps you're perturbed with other parties in the case, and I'm just
reflecting that it's about me, but -- but it has that feel to me, and I'm just wondering why. But
that's okay. Okay. So she's going to testify. Do you want to take her deposition before?

MR. WHEELER: As I indicated, 9:00 o'clock Friday morning at my office (RT.Vol.14.P.1139L.1-

26).

The following are transcripts showing a Kangaroo trial in which anything could happen
irrespective of the law. Judge Steven Austin knew that the architect, a trespasser, could
not have an international infliction of emotional distress, but nonetheless allowed him to
collect damages:

The court: Second one is claims of emotional distress by XXXXX (the architect) making any

emotional distress claim?

MR. LONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Was that in the original complaint?

MR. LONG: Yes, it was.

THE COURT: All right. Okay. That's not appropriate because you're making a legal argument

that he's not entitled to make that claim of emotional distress, and he's got a cause of action.

What cause of action does he have?

MR. LONG: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

(RT.Vol.4P.242L8-P243L13).

Judge Austin knew the architect was not entitled to obtain damages to his decking he had built

illegally on top of EBMUD which a small part extended onto the whistle blower’s land.

THE COURT: But, at the same time, I think this one suffers from the same problem, and
that's the question of harm. The deck shouldn't have been there in the first place or either
because it was in the East Bay MUD right-of-way and it shouldn't be there. And there was
some evidence of that. (RT.Vol.29P.2734L24-P.2735L.3).

THE COURT: And there is some evidence that they may not have been entitled to have the
deck there in the first place, so there can't actually be harm by a deck they weren't
supposed to have. I could understand that argument as well, that by destruction of the deck
they weren't supposed to have, it was prohibited by East Bay MUD or for some other
reason. (RT.VOL.29P.2731L.10-27).

THE COURT: But then it goes on and says, in a footnote that's cited in some other
cases,that the destruction of the fence and foliage is destruction to real property, and since
you didn't own that real property, you can't get damages for it. So you can't -- the
destruction, itself, you can't get damages for, it says in the footnote.

THE COURT: Yes. That's what it says in Footnote 5 of the case at Page 218: "Damage to
fence and foliage in the circumstances alleged is damage to real property." So it says you
can't get -- doesn't actually say it -- it's not very well written -- but in other cases that I read,
one of which was an unpublished opinion were they talked about it, they said what that
means is that if you don't own the property, these are like real property, and so it's
destroying somebody else's real property, and you can't get damage for that because you
don't own that real property, but you just can't get physical damage to the decking that was
taken down that was on their property.

MR. DOOLEY: Understood.

THE COURT: There's a secondary item and that's this item that says self-help as some
sort of defense (RT.Vol.041714P.2170L.13-P.2180L.6).

The transcripts here show that Judge Austin and the three attorneys were
intentionally wasting tax payer’s money to confuse and drag the stressful trial.

“I think we're going a little --one thing that's great -- and why this trial I think is going to take
a substantial period of time, we have to break down every issue, and there are many, many,
many, many, many issues in this case. And I want to isolate them so I can rule on each
issue, and then we'll have the next issue and the next issue and the next issue and the next
issue, and there have to be a hundred or more, I would think, over the course of these
matters being even the pretrial matters are going to be lengthy. So if we get them all mixed
up together, it's going to cause us problems.” (Rt. Vol. 3 P. 58 L24-P. 59 L. 7)

THE COURT: How much or bring up that issue. So if you could address that. It sounds like

you're just trying to say that it looks like they must have cheated on their property taxes so they

must be bad people (RT.Vol.4P.168L-5-9).

The transcript listed below show that Judge Austin wanted the whistle blower out of her

property.

THE COURT: To show they are bad people when it comes to real estate?(RT.Vol.4P.168L.24)

It's a difficult case, in many respects and exactly how this property will be used, going forward,

it's not going to matter that much as long as they don't move back, but if they do move back, it's

going to make a big difference I think in terms of how the property will be used because of just

the history. Okay (RT.Vol.062414P.3301L.9-P.3302L8).