Reported Judicial Misconduct Committed By Senior District Judge Raymond J. Pettine In Rhode Island Courts
|Recuse this Judge using a Motion To Recuse if you have good reason to believe that this Judge will not be fair and impartial. Also see the page on How To Deal With A Bad Judge.|
Case One: Judge Petition in a hearing said, "You came today for justice. Well, there will be no justice in my courtroom today." Later, this statement disappeared from the transcript. - Reported by Citizen John Carnevalle
Case PETTI001 Case 94-0436P Garganta v Union Central. Complaint filed by Mr. Garganta, the Pro Se Plaintiff. Magistrate Boudewyns and Judge Pettine made it impossible for Mr. Garganta to have a fair breach of contract trial because of the following:
- Mr. Garganta was not allowed to show the jury the evidence submitted to Union Central on the claim.
- Mr. Garganta was not allowed to show the jury the evidence rejected by Union Central on Mr. Garganta's claim.
- Mr. Garganta was not allowed to show the jury the evidence required by Mr. Garganta's policy with Union Central.
- Mr. Garganta was not allowed a brief extension of time after his only medical expert witness became ill.
- Any testimony from Mr. Garganta's witnesses could not be about the excluded evidence mentioned above.
- All procedures set up by the State of Rhode Island regarding legal proof of disability and procedures for establishing the existence of a disability were ignored by the District Court and were not allowed to be part of Mr. Garganta's breach of contract trial.
- The District Court disregarded the proof of loss requirements and other contractual agreements between Union Central and Mr. Garganta.
The District Court's reasoning was the evidence eliminated
from the trial was irrelevant and prejudicial to the insurance company.
Magistrate Boudewyns and Judge Pettine acted in collusion with and assisted Union Central in breaching their contractual obligations with Mr. Garganta.
A close analysis of this case will reveal nothing short of institutionalized, court sponsored insurance fraud. The District Court's handling of this case was a setup guaranteeing a loss for Mr. Garganta.