.. iI:L-Ea .. SUPSERIGR.C9URt' OF g;'U4\'M 2020 APR -2 PM l2= S7 Cl;E8~K up COURT
. ..-.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, CWIL CASE no.CVOl91-09
plan-mfg vs. DECISION AND ORDER IAN C. RICHARDSONiN his individual FROM RECUSAL COURT capacity andJOHN YOUNGin his individual capacity,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on March 26, 2020, for the limited purpose of addressing the Defendant, Ian C. Richardson's 7 GCA § 6107 Statement of 'Objection to Competency of Judge Vernon P. Perez filed February 26, 2020 ("Statement of Objection"). Plaintiff Christopher Allen ("Plaintiff") is represented by Attorneys James Maher and David Lujan. Defendant Ian C. Richardson ("Defendant") is pro Se. Having reviewed the pleadings and arguments in this matter, this Recusal Court issues the following Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND This Recusal Court is tasked with assessing the merits of the Defendant's Statement of Objection, tiled February 26, 2020, seeldng the recusal of the Honorable Vernon P. Perez ("Judge Perez") from continuing to preside over this matter. In his Statement of Objection, the Defendant alleges that Judge Perez's impartiality may be reasonable questioned, "as his actions have enabled and condoned the use of his court as an extortionist criminal scam" because: 1) Decision and Order (Boy Recusal Court) Civil Case No. CV0191-09, Christopher Allen v. Ian C. Richardson and John Young
"Judge Perez concealed crucial defense evidence for 7 years based on his 'abuse of discretion . . and legal error,'" 2) "Judge Perez condoned plaintiffs attorneys' witness and evidence bribery, subornation, forgery, and perjury," 3) "gross partisan error of fact," and 4) "gross asymmetry of treatment of plaintiff and defendant as pro sh litigants." See Obj. to Competency at 2-6 (Feb. 26, 2020).
Judge Perez submitted his Answer Re: Defendant Richardson's Statement of Objection
on March 6, 2020.' Judge Perez asserts that, in "considering the facts of this case, the procedural
history, and Defendant Richardson's arguments, [he] does not believe his impartiality will be
reasonably questioned if he continues to preside over this matter," and that he "has no bias or prejudice towards any party in this matter that would render fair judgment impossible." See Answer at 5 Mar. 6, 2020). On March 26, 2020, pursuant to Title 7 GCA section 6107, the question of whether
JudgePerez should be disqualified from continuing to preside over this matter came before this Recusal Court. DISCUSSION Guam law governing the disqualification ofjudicial officers provides, "[a]ny judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 7 GCA § 6105(a). Where a judge fails to disqualify him or herself, any party to that proceeding may move to disqualify the judge pursuant to section 6107. See 7 GCA § 6107. "[T]he standard of recusal is the appearance of impropriety and that no actllal showing of bias is
necessary for recusal to lie." Dizon v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 3 1] 8. In other words, under
section 6105, "what matters is the appearance of bias, not actual bias." People v. Camaddu,
2015 Guam 2 1] 74 (citing Van Dex v. Super. Cr., 2008 Guam 7 11 32) (internal quotations
omitted). The appearance of bias is judged from the standard of a reasonable person "who
' On March 26, 2020, the Defendant tiled a Notice and Addendum Re: The Court's Failure to Respond to Richardson's Statement of Objection to Competency of Judge Vemon P. Perez, asserting that he did not receive a timely response from Judge Perez. Judge Perez however, tiled his Answer on March 6, 2020, approximately nine (9) days from the filing of the Defendant's Statement of Objection. Thus, Judge Perez's Answer was timely.See Van Dox v. Super. Ct. Mlcom), 2008 Guam 7 1]21 ("If a judge does not file an answer as prescribed by Section 6107 within ten days, thenheis deemed to have consented to his disqualification." (citing GCA §6l07)).
Page2 off Decision and Order (firm Recusal Court) Civil Case No. CV0191-09, CnHslopherAIlen v.Ia n C. Richardson and John Young
knows all the facts, and understands the contexts of jurisdictions, parties, and controversies
involved . " Van Dex, 2008 Guam 2008 Guam 7 1]32 (quoting Ada v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam
22 W 12-13). Furthermore, "[d]isqualiiication is not required if an allegation that a judge might
not be impartial is only speculative, conclusory, spurious, or vague." Carbana v. Cruz, 595
F.Supp. 585, 587 (D.P.R. 1984), a1j"d, 767 F.2d 905 (let Cir. 1985).=
First, the Defendant alleges that "Judge Perez concealed crucial defense evidence for 7
years based on his 'abuse of discretion .. and legal error."' Obj. to Competency at 2 (Feb. 26,
2020). Specifically, the Defendant argues that Judge Perez concealed and prevented the
defendants' access to the Plaintiffs expunged records in a related criminal case, Criminal Case
No. CF0375-07. Judge Perez denies such allegations. Answer at 3-4 Mar. 6, 2020).
On November 16, 2011, Judge Perez granted the Defendant's request to access the
Plaintiffs expunged records for the limited purpose of trial preparation. See Decision andOrder
(Nov. 16, 2011). Thereafter, on September 16, 2015, the Defendant tiled Motions in Liming
requesting, inter alia, that evidence relatingto the expunged records of either party be excluded
at trial. On May 10, 2016, the court issued its decision permitting the use of the expunged
records at trial, but restricted its use for impeachment purposes. See Decision and Order (May
10, 2016). Both parties sought interlocutory review of Judge Perez's May 10, 2016 Decision
and Order, with the Defendant arguing specifically that the trial court erred in allowing the use
of expunged records for any purpose. On April 9, 2018, the Supreme Court of Guamissuedits
Opinion reversing the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter. See Allen v. Richardson,
2018 Guam 2. The Defendant, relying on the Supreme Court's opinion, now switches his
position to argue that Judge Perez was acting deliberately to conceal crucial evidence contained
in those expunged records .
Here, the fact that a judge renders an unfavorable ruling is not in and of itself grounds
for disqualification. See Danielson v. Winnfield Funeral Home of./ej%rson, Inc., 634 F. Supp.
z "Section 6105 is taken from the federal disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C.A. §455, and the Guam Supreme Court has held that the federal courts' interpretation of the federal statute is instructive for the purpose of interpreting 7 GCA 6l05."People v. Tennessen, 2010 Guam 121125 (citing Ada, 2000 Guam 22 ii 12 n.2).
Page 3 of 5 Decision and Order (from Recusal Court) Civil Case No. CV0191-09, Christopher Allen v. Jan C. Richardson and John Young
1 1110, 1115 (E.D. La. 1986) ("The judge is permitted to fully express himself on legal matters,
2 and adverse rulings against the moving party cannot serve as a basis for disqualification.").
3 Judicial rulings alone do not constitute a sufficient basis for the recusal of a judge. Liteky v.
4 United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1974). "Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for
5 appeal, not recusal." Id. Furthermore, the Defendant's speculation that Judge Perez actively
6 concealed and prevented the defendants' use of evidence, based on a hyper-technical
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
.. iI:L-Ea .. SUPSERIGR.C9URt' OF g;'U4\'M 2020 APR -2 PM l2= S7 Cl;E8~K up COURT
. ..-.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, CWIL CASE no.CVOl91-09
plan-mfg vs. DECISION AND ORDER IAN C. RICHARDSONiN his individual FROM RECUSAL COURT capacity andJOHN YOUNGin his individual capacity,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on March 26, 2020, for the limited purpose of addressing the Defendant, Ian C. Richardson's 7 GCA § 6107 Statement of 'Objection to Competency of Judge Vernon P. Perez filed February 26, 2020 ("Statement of Objection"). Plaintiff Christopher Allen ("Plaintiff") is represented by Attorneys James Maher and David Lujan. Defendant Ian C. Richardson ("Defendant") is pro Se. Having reviewed the pleadings and arguments in this matter, this Recusal Court issues the following Decision and Order.
BACKGROUND This Recusal Court is tasked with assessing the merits of the Defendant's Statement of Objection, tiled February 26, 2020, seeldng the recusal of the Honorable Vernon P. Perez ("Judge Perez") from continuing to preside over this matter. In his Statement of Objection, the Defendant alleges that Judge Perez's impartiality may be reasonable questioned, "as his actions have enabled and condoned the use of his court as an extortionist criminal scam" because: 1) Decision and Order (Boy Recusal Court) Civil Case No. CV0191-09, Christopher Allen v. Ian C. Richardson and John Young
"Judge Perez concealed crucial defense evidence for 7 years based on his 'abuse of discretion . . and legal error,'" 2) "Judge Perez condoned plaintiffs attorneys' witness and evidence bribery, subornation, forgery, and perjury," 3) "gross partisan error of fact," and 4) "gross asymmetry of treatment of plaintiff and defendant as pro sh litigants." See Obj. to Competency at 2-6 (Feb. 26, 2020).
Judge Perez submitted his Answer Re: Defendant Richardson's Statement of Objection
on March 6, 2020.' Judge Perez asserts that, in "considering the facts of this case, the procedural
history, and Defendant Richardson's arguments, [he] does not believe his impartiality will be
reasonably questioned if he continues to preside over this matter," and that he "has no bias or prejudice towards any party in this matter that would render fair judgment impossible." See Answer at 5 Mar. 6, 2020). On March 26, 2020, pursuant to Title 7 GCA section 6107, the question of whether
JudgePerez should be disqualified from continuing to preside over this matter came before this Recusal Court. DISCUSSION Guam law governing the disqualification ofjudicial officers provides, "[a]ny judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 7 GCA § 6105(a). Where a judge fails to disqualify him or herself, any party to that proceeding may move to disqualify the judge pursuant to section 6107. See 7 GCA § 6107. "[T]he standard of recusal is the appearance of impropriety and that no actllal showing of bias is
necessary for recusal to lie." Dizon v. Superior Court, 1998 Guam 3 1] 8. In other words, under
section 6105, "what matters is the appearance of bias, not actual bias." People v. Camaddu,
2015 Guam 2 1] 74 (citing Van Dex v. Super. Cr., 2008 Guam 7 11 32) (internal quotations
omitted). The appearance of bias is judged from the standard of a reasonable person "who
' On March 26, 2020, the Defendant tiled a Notice and Addendum Re: The Court's Failure to Respond to Richardson's Statement of Objection to Competency of Judge Vemon P. Perez, asserting that he did not receive a timely response from Judge Perez. Judge Perez however, tiled his Answer on March 6, 2020, approximately nine (9) days from the filing of the Defendant's Statement of Objection. Thus, Judge Perez's Answer was timely.See Van Dox v. Super. Ct. Mlcom), 2008 Guam 7 1]21 ("If a judge does not file an answer as prescribed by Section 6107 within ten days, thenheis deemed to have consented to his disqualification." (citing GCA §6l07)).
Page2 off Decision and Order (firm Recusal Court) Civil Case No. CV0191-09, CnHslopherAIlen v.Ia n C. Richardson and John Young
knows all the facts, and understands the contexts of jurisdictions, parties, and controversies
involved . " Van Dex, 2008 Guam 2008 Guam 7 1]32 (quoting Ada v. Gutierrez, 2000 Guam
22 W 12-13). Furthermore, "[d]isqualiiication is not required if an allegation that a judge might
not be impartial is only speculative, conclusory, spurious, or vague." Carbana v. Cruz, 595
F.Supp. 585, 587 (D.P.R. 1984), a1j"d, 767 F.2d 905 (let Cir. 1985).=
First, the Defendant alleges that "Judge Perez concealed crucial defense evidence for 7
years based on his 'abuse of discretion .. and legal error."' Obj. to Competency at 2 (Feb. 26,
2020). Specifically, the Defendant argues that Judge Perez concealed and prevented the
defendants' access to the Plaintiffs expunged records in a related criminal case, Criminal Case
No. CF0375-07. Judge Perez denies such allegations. Answer at 3-4 Mar. 6, 2020).
On November 16, 2011, Judge Perez granted the Defendant's request to access the
Plaintiffs expunged records for the limited purpose of trial preparation. See Decision andOrder
(Nov. 16, 2011). Thereafter, on September 16, 2015, the Defendant tiled Motions in Liming
requesting, inter alia, that evidence relatingto the expunged records of either party be excluded
at trial. On May 10, 2016, the court issued its decision permitting the use of the expunged
records at trial, but restricted its use for impeachment purposes. See Decision and Order (May
10, 2016). Both parties sought interlocutory review of Judge Perez's May 10, 2016 Decision
and Order, with the Defendant arguing specifically that the trial court erred in allowing the use
of expunged records for any purpose. On April 9, 2018, the Supreme Court of Guamissuedits
Opinion reversing the trial court's ruling and remanded the matter. See Allen v. Richardson,
2018 Guam 2. The Defendant, relying on the Supreme Court's opinion, now switches his
position to argue that Judge Perez was acting deliberately to conceal crucial evidence contained
in those expunged records .
Here, the fact that a judge renders an unfavorable ruling is not in and of itself grounds
for disqualification. See Danielson v. Winnfield Funeral Home of./ej%rson, Inc., 634 F. Supp.
z "Section 6105 is taken from the federal disqualification statute, 28 U.S.C.A. §455, and the Guam Supreme Court has held that the federal courts' interpretation of the federal statute is instructive for the purpose of interpreting 7 GCA 6l05."People v. Tennessen, 2010 Guam 121125 (citing Ada, 2000 Guam 22 ii 12 n.2).
Page 3 of 5 Decision and Order (from Recusal Court) Civil Case No. CV0191-09, Christopher Allen v. Jan C. Richardson and John Young
1 1110, 1115 (E.D. La. 1986) ("The judge is permitted to fully express himself on legal matters,
2 and adverse rulings against the moving party cannot serve as a basis for disqualification.").
3 Judicial rulings alone do not constitute a sufficient basis for the recusal of a judge. Liteky v.
4 United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1974). "Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for
5 appeal, not recusal." Id. Furthermore, the Defendant's speculation that Judge Perez actively
6 concealed and prevented the defendants' use of evidence, based on a hyper-technical
7 interpretation of a court ruling, is mere inflammatory conjecture. Thus, the Recusal Court finds
8 that Judge Perez did not conceal crucial defense evidence based on an abuse of discretion or
g legal error.
10 Second, the Defendant alleges that "Judge Perez condoned witness bribery, subornation,
11 fraud, and perjury." Obj. to Competency at 3-4 (Feb. 26, 2020). Specifically, the Defendant
12 argues that Judge Perez effectively granted "summary blanket impunity" when he struck the
13 Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's June 6, 2018 Motion for Summary Judgment, which the
14 Defendant asserts contained supporting documentary evidence of witness bribery, subornation,
15 and fraud by the Plaintiffs attorneys and their investigator. Judge Perez denies these
16 allegations.
17 Judge Perez explains that the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's June 6, 2018
18 Motion for Summary Judgment was struck on procedural grounds, as it was filed beyond the
19 briefing timeline. Answer at 4-5 (Mar. 6, 2020). As aforementioned, the fact that a judge ruled
20 against a party is not in of itself grounds for disqualification. See Danielson, 634 F. Supp. at
21 1115. Moreover, the mere fact that Judge Perez struck the Defendant's response and the
22 documents containing the suspected evidence of bribery, subornation, fraud, and penury, does
23 not mean he condoned those alleged activities. Again, this is simply inflammatory conjecture by
24 the Defendant. Thus, the Recusal Court finds that Judge Perez did not condone witness bribery,
25 subornation, fraud, or perjury.
26 Further, the Defendant alleges Judge Perez relied on a "gross partisan error of fact." Obj . 27 to Competency at 4~5 (Feb. 26, 2020). Specifically, the Defendant argues that Judge Perez
28 erroneously declared that the Defendant was not directly involved in CF0375-07 when
Page 4 of S Decision and Order (from Recusal Court) Civil CaseNo. CVOl91-09, Christopher Allen v. Ian C Richardson and John Young
rendering the May 10, 2016 Decision and Order. Judge Perez acknowledges that the defendants
were referred to as witnesses in the May 10, 2016 Decision and Order. However, Judge Perez
also correctly notes that CF0375-07 was a criminal case between the People of Guam and the
Plaintiff as the criminal defendant. Moreover, the May 10, 2016 was ultimately reversed and
remanded by the Supreme Court of Guam. See Allen, supra. Thus, the Recusal Court finds that
Judge Perez neither relied on a gross error of fact nor misrepresented a fundamental fact of die
case.
Finally, the Defendant alleges "gross asymmetry of treatment of plaintiff and defendant as pro Se litigants." Obj. to Competency at 5-6 (Feb. 26, 2020). Judge Perez denies such allegation, affirming that he has no bias or prejudice towards any party in this matter that would
render a fair judgment impossible. Answer at 5 (Mar. 26, 2020). Upon review of the facts in this highly contested matter, the decade long procedural history, and the Defendant's objections
above, the Recusal Court finds no appearance of bias and thus, finds no cause to require Judge
Perez's recusal in this case.
Accordingly, having found no cause, the Recusal Court D ENI ES the Deflendant's
Statement of Objection, and sends this matter back to the assigned Court.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court D ENI ES the Defendant's Statement of
Objection to Competency of Judge Vemon P. Perez, and sends this matter back to the assigned
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED APR 02 2020
I IIIIII I /as • | In HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Page 5 of 5