1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

3 ---ooo---

4 In re the Matter of:

5 APRIL BERGER,

6 Pe t i t i oner , Case No .: 06FL0 44 1 5 vs.

7 Department: 122

8

9

1 0

ROBERT SAUNDERS,

COPY Respondent.

11 REPORTER ' S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

12 BEFORE THE HONORABLE THADD A . BLIZZARD , JUDGE THEREOF

13 SEPTEMBER 4 , 2013

14 ---ooo---

15 APPEARANCES

16 For the Petitioner:

17 LAW OFFICE OF J . RICHARD SOKOL 1321 Howe Avenue , Suite 235

18 Sacramento , California 95825

19

2 0

BY: J . Richard Sokol , Attorney at Law

For the Respondent:

LAW OFFICE OF ARCH IBALD R. CUNNINGHAM 21 1489 McAllister Street

San Francisco, California 9411 5 22 BY: Archibald R . Cunningham, Attorney at Law

23 For the Minors :

2 4 LAW OFFICE OF ELAINE V. VAN BEVEREN 2233 Watt Avenue , Suite 296

25 Sacramento , California 95825

26

27

28

BY: Elaine v . Van Beveren, Attorney at Law

---ooo--

Reported b y: Angel a L. Wes t on , CSR# 11658

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS ------------~

1 parent. It's a precondition in some cases. Evidently some

2 judge or judicial officer thought it was appropriate in this

3 case, and you said five years old , but I've heard in various

4 places in the file that it's been repeated since then.

5 MR. CUNNINGHAM: No, what has been repeated is

6 that four different judges have validated that order. So

7 it's not that there has been f our different judges ruling on

8 it. There has been a continuation where every time the issue

9 comes up the new judge says, oh , you haven ' t compl ied with

1 0 the evaluation. So ln between that , about four years ago, on

11 March 9th, 2009, if you check the record, Judge Gary was in

12 charge of this family law case. He had Mr. Saunders

13 arrested. Both of these --minors' counsel and Mr. Sokol

14 were there.

15 MR. SOKOL: Actual l y, he didn't have him arrested;

16 he had him taken from court.

17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Okay . The Court record says he

18 was arrested. The woman, the judge, Judge Villapudua -- I

19 may be mispronouncing that name -- she granted Mr . Saunders '

20 mot i on to have Judge Gary disqualified. Under the case law

21 that I' ve cited , and it is in my Order to Show Cause, all of

22 h i s orders are vo id back to March 9th. On March 9th he

23 terminated the l ast of the supervised visitat i on Mr. Saunders

24 had. So that order is void or voidable under the supreme

25 court precedent and the cases I ' ve cited. So if nothing

26 else, Mr. Saunders should have his visitation restored back

27 to that time.

28 Also, what is particularly disturbing to me is both of

SACRAMENTO OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS----------6