Judge Matthew J. Gary |
Internal court records obtained by Sacramento Family Court news reveal that a San Joaquin County judge in 2010 issued a court order removing Judge Matthew Gary from a Sacramento Family Court case for misconduct and bias against a disabled, unrepresented litigant.
Although Gary contested the removal action and denied the bias and misconduct charges, after reviewing the evidence San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua rejected Gary's version of events and ordered the controversial judge disqualified from any further proceedings in the case.
Although Gary contested the removal action and denied the bias and misconduct charges, after reviewing the evidence San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua rejected Gary's version of events and ordered the controversial judge disqualified from any further proceedings in the case.
The motion to recuse, or remove, Gary from the case was filed by pro per Robert Saunders. In accordance with state law, the motion was heard and decided by a neutral, outside-the-county judge. At the time the motion was filed, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George assigned Villapudua to decide the case.
In her ruling rejecting Gary's denial and removing the judge from the case, Villapudua weighed which of the conflicting stories was believable.
"Based on the evidence submitted the court does find that a reasonable person might entertain a doubt that Judge Matthew J. Gary would be able to be impartial. Three separate witnesses stated Judge Gary was impatient and rude to [Saunders]. Three separate witnesses declared the judge appeared biased during the hearing, making snide or rude comments to [Saunders]," Villapudua explained.
"From the sworn declarations submitted it appears Judge Gary became embroiled during the hearing on March 9, 2009. Judge Gary appeared to lose his patience with [Saunders]. He did not adhere to the proper procedure for contempt and had [Saunders] arrested and forcibly removed from his courtroom by multiple bailiffs," Villapudua wrote in the court order ending Gary's jurisdiction over the case.Villapudua's assessment of Gary's credibility and the unlawful arrest and incarceration of Saunders for contempt of court was reaffirmed by a second judge who, at a subsequent court hearing in Sacramento County Superior Court, dismissed a resisting arrest charge against Saunders from the same incident. Evidence in the criminal case included a video recording of the debacle, according to the arrest report of a courtroom bailiff.
In addition, the unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident was witnessed by judge pro tem attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren, both of whom failed to intervene as required by the Code of Judicial Ethics. Gary currently is the Supervising Family Law, Probate and ADA Judge.
"Gary Became Embroiled...Did Not Adhere To Proper Procedure For Contempt"
In his defense, Gary submitted to the San Joaquin County judge a one-sentence answer denying the charges made by Saunders. "I deny the allegations stated in Respondent's Challenge," Gary stated under penalty of perjury. Click here to view Gary's denial. To view the minute order issued by Gary after the hearing in which he charged Saunders with contempt of court, click here.
Second Independent Judge Confirms Gary Misconduct
The dismissal of the criminal case by former prosecutor and veteran Sacramento County criminal court Judge Richard Gilmour infers that the video recording of the incident also supported Saunders' contention that both the contempt and resisting arrest charges were baseless and motivated by Gary's temper, embroilment and abuse of authority.
UPDATE: A government whistleblower has leaked the courtroom security video of the illegal arrest and assault of Robert Saunders. Click here.
Judge Pro Tem Eyewitnesses Fail To Intervene
The criminal charges against Robert Saunders were dismissed by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Richard Gilmour. |
The unlawful contempt of court and resisting arrest incident was witnessed by attorneys Richard Sokol and Elaine Van Beveren.
Both attorneys are Sacramento County Superior Court sworn temporary judges. Judge pro tem attorneys are by law required to take or initiate corrective action if they witness another judge violate the law or any provision of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Canon 3D(1), an important self-policing component of the Code, mandates the intervention to maintain public confidence in the courts and ensure that judge misconduct is kept in check.
As confirmed by two independent judges, Gary's actions were obvious violations of several sections of the ethics code, but court records and other eyewitness accounts indicate that neither Sokol, nor Van Beveren complied with the misconduct reporting requirement. Click here to view an internal Judicial Council of California memo about the legal duty.
As confirmed by two independent judges, Gary's actions were obvious violations of several sections of the ethics code, but court records and other eyewitness accounts indicate that neither Sokol, nor Van Beveren complied with the misconduct reporting requirement. Click here to view an internal Judicial Council of California memo about the legal duty.
In addition, courtroom clerk Christina Arcuri had a legal and ethical duty to report the misconduct by the judge, but took no action.
Court of Appeal Reversals for Legal Errors
The judge then nullified a 17-year marriage so that Patricia would be deprived of all property, support and other rights associated with a lawful marriage. The appellate court reversed Gary's decision, noting that the issues Gary had with Patricia's credibility were irrelevant to determining whether the marriage was valid.
Gary also received a black eye from the court appeal during a short stint as a criminal court judge. An embarrassing, elementary legal error by the judge in a 2007 trial compelled the 3rd District to reverse the criminal conviction of Daniel Ray Maier in People v. Maier.
Both Gary and Villapudua were appointed to the bench in June, 2007 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Judge Gary is paid $169,289 per year.
Gary Receives "Poster Child of the Month" Award from Family Court Reform Group
Judge Xapuri Villapudua. |
For his deference to attorneys, and mismanagement of Sacramento County Family Court, Gary received a "Poster Child of the Month Award" from the Family Court Accountability Coalition, a statewide family court watchdog group.
Gary received the honor for "serial due process, equal protection and access to the courts violations," according to the FCAC Blog.
"Anecdotal evidence suggests that the current presiding judge, Matthew J. Gary is a right-wing, anti-government ideologue who believes government is dysfunctional and is determined to prove it...while collecting a $170,000 annual salary from the state."FCAC also cited a 2007, Sacramento Lawyer magazine interview with Gary:
"Gary characterizes his legal philosophy as favoring judicial restraint. Among the U.S. Supreme Court justices who he admires are Antonin Scalia..."UPDATE: Family Law Courts.com asks whether Family Court bailiffs are enforcing the law or acting as judicial puppets.
Related Content:
* Controversial Judge Matthew Gary Removed from Supervisory Position
* Matt Gary Disqualification Records & Update
* Supervising Judge Matt Gary Warns Family Court Problems Will Get Worse
* Judge Matthew Gary Reversed by 3rd District Court of Appeal for Improper Investigation, Forensic Analysis
Click to visit Sacramento Family Court News on: Facebook, YouTube, Google+, Scribd, Vimeo, and Twitter. For additional reporting on the people and issues in this post, click the corresponding labels below:
1 comment:
San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Xapuri B. Villapudua deserves a standing ovation for upholding the LAW, contrary to the respective presiding judges of the RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT who send out "form letters" in response to justified complaints of litigants, excusing and covering up impeachable acts of judicial malfeasance and blatant fraud upon the court of their sub-ordinate judicial officers with an "exercise of judicial discretion". One prime example is JUDGE DALE WELLS of the INDIO FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT, who reportedly already destroyed the lives of hundreds of parents and their children during his reign of terror as a commissioner, reappointed as judge to family court in January 2011 where he continues his carnage and gross human, civil and constitutiona rights abuses unabated without any checks and balances. He blatantly discriminates against parents on grounds of their nationality and immigrant status, belittles, insults and denigrates them and even their extended family, brutally separates a mother from her US born children because of her German and South African nationality which allegedly makes her a "flight risk" and allocates OWNERSHIP to the US father, a convicted felon, long-term meth addict and violent alcoholic, who would never be granted custody by any ethical judge in any other civilized nation. Judge Dale Wells has been disqualified on 12 May 2011 with a 170.6 declaration which he ignored. He is obsessed to stay on the case to continue his torture of the mother and her children. He needs to be impeached and removed from family court and held accountable for the irreparable harm and unquantifiable damages he maliciously inflicted on parents and children. A petition for a forensic audit of his cases has been launched:
http://www.change.org/petitions/california-state-auditor-forensic-audit-judge-dale-wells-riverside-superior-court?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=url_share&utm_campaign=url_share_after_sign
More details can be found here:
Issuing children as never-ending sanctions:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/judge-dale-wells-issues-children-as-sanctions-against-a-parent/
Ruling that Alcohol is not a Drug:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/judge-dale-wells-rules-alcohol-is-not-a-drug-in-contrast-to-the-national-institue-on-alcohol-abuse-and-alcoholism/
Issuing contradictory rulings when he has simply lost it:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/judge-wells-snaps/
Ruling that an illegal gun is not an issue:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/judge-dale-wells-and-guns-riverside-superior-court/
Developing a new standard for the fit parent:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/riverside-superior-court-develops-a-new-standard-for-the-fit-parent/
Discriminating against a parent based on national and legal residence status:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/judge-dale-wells-discriminates-against-a-parent-based-on-national-and-legal-resident-status/
Obsessively attempting to sanction a litigant numerous times in violation of any due process guaranteed under the 14th amendment.
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/obsessive-compulsive-sanctioning-disorder-judge-dale-wells/
Denying divorce because of belief:
http://viewsandnewsriversidesuperiourcourt.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/judge-dale-wells-denies-divorce-because-of-belief/
Post a Comment