You are at the Legal Reform Website and the Pro Se Way Website

Reported Judicial Misconduct Committed By Magistrate Judge Timothy M. Boudewyns In The United States District Court Of Rhode Island

Magistrate Judge Timothy M. Boudewyns Was Known For His Lack Of Objectivity in The United States District Court Of Rhode Island.

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.

Complaint One  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 Federal 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.

Complaint Two  See complaint filed by Citizen Don Gill [Case Gill v Rhode Island 94-0331B] asserting complete manipulation of civil procedure, judicial bias, judicial intimidation, unauthorized practice of law, altered transcripts and manipulation and denial of due process and other civil rights.  This case is a classic example of the shenanigans Citizens without influence experience in Rhode Island courts.

Some comments: 3 different lawyers familiar with Federal District Court have told those involved with Caught that they would not want Magistrate Judge Boudewyns to try a case for them. 2 of these lawyers said outright they would not trust the Magistrate's objectivity. The third lawyer expressed being "uncomfortable" with the Magistrate, particularly when the case involves the "little guy" against the "big guy."  Richard Garganta's experience with Magistrate Judge Boudewyns leads him to comment as follows:

"The Magistrate has serious problems with objectivity. The Magistrate believes "official duty" and "judicial efficiency" involves superimposing his idea of how a case should go into every aspect of a case. The Magistrate's rulings and reasoning are more affected by his view on how a case should go instead of being based on objectivity, law and facts. The Magistrate's bias in favor of the large insurance company was obvious from the start of my proceedings. In denying me summary judgment, the Magistrate created his own non-factual arguments. While some may think this a stretch, one word that comes to mind in describing the Magistrate is "pampered" by the system."
Graphic Line
Graphic Line
People Say You Are Cheap.  Prove Them Wrong...Donate Today!
Donate online NOW
Due to volume, we only deal with
electronic communications
now (email).


Is Gay Prejudice Taught In The Bible?   Tithing - Fact vs. Fiction