August 15, 2016

Presiding Judge Steve Austin,

Contra Costa County Superior Court

Department 1 ANNX Room 2

PHONE: 1-925-608-1101

FAX: 1-925-957-5917

Re: COMPLAINT against Judge Bruce (MILLS) abuse of power and unlawful incarceration with intent to cause bodily harm (unlawful strip search) to whistleblowner Joseph James (SWEENEY) in violation of Code of Civil Procedure 1219(a)[1] and Judicial Canon 2(B)2 [2] Case No D13-01648

Honorable Presiding Judge Austin,

This fax and its supporting evidence may be read online at Katy’s Exposure blog under the title “Cause a CJP audit on Wed & be ordered to jail by Friday?[3]

I write to you today on behalf of myself and many others who are grateful to SWEENEY for causing a Bureau of State Auditor (BSA) audit of the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP).   SWEENEY is a tireless and effective whistleblower of severe ethics problems in the California courts being aided to continue by blind-eyed watchdogs at the CJP.

In an audacious move which gives the appearance of judicial impropriety and retaliation for SWEENEY causing a CJP audit (and strongly appears to prove SWEENEY’s and many others’ points about California jurists finding themselves above the law) on Friday, August 12, 2016, SWEENEY was ordered to jail by MILLS. His jail term of 25 days is to start tomorrow.  MILLS is making the ridiculous claim that SWEENEY needs to be jailed for  civil contempt of court by refusing to be coerced to remove a website from the Internet. SWEENEY removed the website from the Internet months ago.

Two days prior to MILLS’ absurd and physically-impossible-to-follow judicial directive in order for SWEENEY to avoid being sent to jail; on Wednesday, August 10, 2016, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) approved four legislators’ requests for an audit of the CJP for their lack of adequately reprimanding unethical judges.[4] SWEENEY, proprietor of Court Reform LLC, is widely recognized as a key driving force who caused this audit.[5]

[1] CCP §1219(a) “The ‘coercive’ imprisonment must end when the contemner no longer has the power to comply.”

[2] Judicial Canon 2.(B.)2 Judicial Canon 2 “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. B. Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office (2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.”

[3]“Cause a CJP audit on Wed & be  ordered to jail by Friday?” https://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/

[4] August 10, 2016 CJE & Court Reform LLC “8/10/2016 Press Release: California Judicial Watchdog Faces First Audit in 56 Years” http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/2016/08/10/8102016-press-release-california-judicial-watchdog-faces-first-audit-in-56-years/

[5] Court Reform LLC http://www.courtreformllc.com/

___________

Page 2

What caused SWEENEY to become aware of rather serious ethics problems in the California courts that harm many Californians, is the manner in which his divorce is being handled in Contra Costa County courts.

SWEENEY is a young chemist, who comes from a small Midwestern town and has a math and science tutoring company. He is trying to divorce the older woman who he married in 2010, whose family is fabulously wealthy and well-connected in California.  He is also trying to maintain his parental rights and a relationship with the daughter born from the failed marriage.  SWEENEY is a self-represented litigant. His ex-wife and her parents have been represented by an extensive amount of legal counsel.

In an effort to spotlight what appears to be collective judicial bias reaching a level of impacting rulings and orders beneficial to his ex-wife and her wealthy family in violation of CJP Rule 111.4; SWEENEY started a website http://www.DivorcingTheEvilsizors.Com in the fall of 2015.   The website was dedicated to displaying the court proceedings of the divorce, as SWEENEY has a legal right to do without experiencing judicial retaliation. Code of Civil Procedure 1209(b)[6]

“A speech or publication reflecting upon or concerning a court or an officer thereof shall not be treated or punished as a contempt of the court unless made in the immediate presence of the court while in session and in such a manner as to actually interfere with its proceedings.”

Regardless of SWEENEY’S rights to publicly state and publicly provide direct evidence of what has been occurring in the case; the Contra Costa County First District Division One Court of Appeal (1^st/1^st) somehow came to the conclusion that whistleblower-SWEENEY’s publicly commenting on the case somehow was domestic violence against his ex-wife, to the level of requiring a restraining order.

On May 27, 2015 [7] while character assassinating SWEENEY and disregarding what he believes to be shining light on judicial ethics problems, the 1^st/1^st made it publicly appear that SWEENEY had committed acts of domestic violence against his ex-wife. Justices Humens, Dondero, and Banke wrote,

“The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on May 27, 2015, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports.  After the court’s review of requests under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120, and good cause established under rule 8.1105, it is hereby ordered that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports.  The petition for rehearing by appellant is denied.”

What is most concerning on a broad-scale about this judicially self-beneficial opinion is the fact that it is a published opinion.  This means it may be cited as established case-law should anyone in any court in any kind of case in California, choose to publicly expose what they believe to be ethics problems in their court proceedings. People could end up incarcerated for exposing what some courts are hiding and be ordered to jail if they do not publicly retract the case-fixing evidence from public view.  This is an additional violation of Canons of Judicial Ethic 2.(B).2  “use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.” 

I co-own the blog, Katy’s Exposure and have since 2013.  By the efforts of SWEENEY giving us an opportunity to voice our concerns of problems in the CA courts, I too, submitted a letter to the JLAC. Conflict driven published opinions in California’s appellate courts and erred case-law they establish, can and have wreaked much havoc on many people’s lives in California and across the United States.[8]

The SWEENEY matter was returned to the lower court after the May 2015 Published Opinion.  His ex-wife and her parents then filed a Civil Contempt of Court complaint against SWEENEY in December of 2015 [9]after his website DivorcingTheEvilsizors.Com went live in the fall with evidence of questionable acts in the courts.

[6] CCP 1209(b) states, “A speech or publication reflecting upon or concerning a court or an officer thereof shall not be treated or punished as a contempt of the court unless made in the immediate presence of the court while in session and in such a manner as to actually interfere with its proceedings.”

[7] May 27, 2015 1^st/1^st  Published Opinion http://freepdfhosting.com/1b4082c68a.pdf

[8] July 19, 2016 Katy’s Exposure letter to the JLAC http://freepdfhosting.com/2a1a8b52f7.pdf

[9] December 15, 2015 Order to Show Cause http://freepdfhosting.com/9b64b78b10.pdf

_______________

Page 3

Like the judges and justices involved, the family SWEENEY is trying to divorce while still maintaining a relationship with his child, wanted case evidence off of the Internet and out of public view. SWEENEY complied and removed his website DivorcingTheEvilsizors.Com from the Internet in March of 2016. His appointed attorney filed a reply brief for the August 12, 2016 contempt of court hearing.[10]

On March 28, 2016, SWEENEY testified before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee of the Public Health and Safety Committee about the unbridled ethics problems in the California courts being abetted to continue by the toothless watchdog, CJP.[10] Many other people from counties all across California also testified.  This caused media attention on the severe problem caused by unpunished lack of ethics in the California courts. This March 28, 2016 public outcry led by SWEENEY and the Center for Judicial Excellence (CJE) and joined by many others,  caused the legislature to act and approve the request for audit of the CJP on August 10, 2016.

Two days after the audit of the CJP was approved by the JLAC, SWEENEY found himself back in MILLS’ court for the charge of civil contempt of court and ordered to jail for twenty five days.  Contrary to how MILLS is unethically and unlawfully handling the matter, incarceration for alleged civil contempt is not intended to punish a litigant for past deeds which angered a judge.  By law, incarceration for alleged civil contempt of court is purposed to coerce a litigant into lawful accordance with a court’s lawful directive.  (See Judge’s Benchguide to Contempt and Sanctions.[11]) MILLS has five prior CJP admonishments.[12]. He is still sitting in a position to violate California citizens such as SWEENEY, and obviously has no fear of any real punishment.

SWEENEY cannot comply with MILLS’ impossible order to remove a website from the Internet that SWEENEY has already removed.  If SWEENEY is sent to jail tomorrow by MILLS it will be for SWEENEY’S refusal to do the impossible and in violation of CCP 1219(a). “The ‘coercive’ imprisonment must end when the contemner no longer has the power to comply.”

It will be one more abuse of judicial ethics by MILLS in violation of Judicial Canon 2.(B.)2 “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities. B. Use of the Prestige of Judicial Office (2) A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office or use the judicial title in any manner, including any oral or written communication, to advance the pecuniary or personal interests of the judge or others.”.

As the Presiding Justice of the Contra County Court, under Rules of the Court, Rules 10.630C(4)A(j) [13], I believe you have a duty to protect SWEENEY and the courts from judicial abuse.  Please act to stop SWEENEY’s impending unlawful imprisonment complete with bodily harm. Please inform the CJP of MILLS abuses of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. By Rules of the Court, MILLS is to be informed of his ethics violations by the presiding judge, also.  Given what SWEENEY was able to accomplish to help stop corruption in the courts, this situation is clearly giving the appearance of inappropriate judicial conduct and retaliation of a whistleblower.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, Judge Austin.

                                                                                                               Sincerely,

                                                                                                               Sharon Kramer

[9]  August 12, 2016 SWEENEY reply brief: http://freepdfhosting.com/3664caa8ef.pdf

[10] March 28, 2016 VIDEO of Sweeney before the Budget Committee http://search.aol.com/aol/video?q=video+california+commission+on+judicial+performance&v_t=keyword_rollover

[11] California Judges’ Benchguide on Contempt and Sanctions.  www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg03.pdf

[12]MILLS CJP discipline history. https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/2016%20Public%20Misconduct%20Report%20Judge%20Bruce%20Mills%20-%20Contra%20Costa%20County%20Superior%20Court%20Hon.%20Bruce%20Clayton%20Mills%20CJP%20Discipline%20History%20and%20Catalog.pdf?token=AWzuOM8RkqHQadl99qmhqdEXLcz8hM_YHMHDf_t5eh1-BUgkGGqwxYVW7kDcpIZfhULrM1ELOcdpNr2kJk5mb2_U1wTUEvOtdzR1H4yL8jW1rFcaFAJgFHEXFXsMOMxdOdUiuYp-1JULeoyIo0UrD7cV

[13]CA Rules of the Court, Title 10.603 C (4)Oversight of judicial officers The presiding judge must:(A)Judges Notify the Commission on Judicial Performance of: (i) A judge’s substantial failure to perform judicial duties, including any habitual neglect of duty….(B)Notice Give the judge a copy of the notice to the commission under (A) if appropriate. If a copy is not given to the judge, the presiding judge must inform the commission of the reasons why so notifying the judge was deemed inappropriate”

16.08.15 Letter to help keep whistleblower Joe Sweeney from unlawful incarceration and bodily harm for exposing severe ethics problems in the California courts and the Commission on Judicial Performance.