A former state district court judge is accused of providing false information in a request for a continuance.

Current Judge Guy Bradberry on June 24 ordered former Judge Wilford Carter to pay $5,700 to attorney Walt Sanchez, who asked Bradberry to sanction Carter.

Carter claimed to have a hearing in federal court in Texas on April 7, the same day an adoption trial was scheduled to begin in 14th Judicial District Court in Calcasieu. Sanchez said no such hearing was scheduled.

Carter said the sanction should not have been ordered because the scheduling conflict did exist, and because the continuation motion wasn’t officially filed into the record.

On Friday, Carter asked another judge, Clayton Davis, to recuse Bradberry from the case. Carter claimed Bradberry had shown bias toward Sanchez’s client throughout a yearslong proceeding.

When Carter stepped down from the bench in October, he was the longest-serving judge in 14th Judicial District Court. Bradberry is also a long-serving judge.

During his time on the bench, Carter sparred with the other judges over the parish’s family court, which he believes is “illegal.”

“That may be a lot of reason why a judge might give me a little more attention than he would another lawyer,” Carter said.

Because the proceedings were part of an adoption, most of the documents are not public record, but the American Press did obtain copies of motions not related to the adoption, with the names of involved parties removed.

In his motion requesting sanctions, Sanchez said his law associate saw Carter at the courthouse in Calcasieu Parish on April 7, at the same time Carter said he was to be in federal court.

Sanchez researched the federal court docket and found that Carter’s client did not have a hearing “fixed on the morning of April 7th, nor had one ever been set for that date, contrary to Carter’s motion.”

Sanchez claimed the continuance caused proceedings to be delayed until Sept. 8.

Bradberry had allowed Carter to retrieve the motions without filing them to “minimize” court costs, but once Sanchez learned that there was not a hearing in federal court, asked Bradberry to force Carter to file the continuance, and Bradberry did.

Carter was not present when Bradberry delivered sanctions on June 24. In his motion to have Bradberry removed, Carter said he was never properly served. No attempts to contact him were made and his truck was visible from Bradberry’s window, he said.

On June 26, Bradberry set a rehearing on July 8 and moved up the trial date from Sept. 8 to July 8. The July 8 hearings did not occur because Carter requested Bradberry’s removal.

The federal docket filed in Sanchez’s motion does not show an April 7 hearing, although it does show a pretrial conference set for April 24. On April 8, the pretrial conference was reset for May 27.

Carter said, though, that the record will show that he did have a pretrial conference scheduled April 7 in federal court. He plans to present a calendar that shows the scheduled hearing, he said. In the days leading up to April 7, a co-defendant filed a motion to continue, which also caused his client’s date to be reset.

“I thought I had this conflict,” Carter said. “It’s not whether you have a conflict; do you have reason to believe you have a conflict.”

Bradberry’s office said it was not necessary to file a motion to continue because the April 7 date was set in error, Carter said in his motion.

“The judge never even received my motion,” Carter said. “He told me to come pick it up because he didn’t need it, but yet this is the basis for a sanction. So you only done it because Walt Sanchez asked to do it.”

Carter has asked for sanctions against Sanchez. He said Sanchez filed the motion for sanctions against him, knowing the continuance was never filed in the record. The continuance was picked up by Jonathan Brown, Carter’s law associate, on April 4 “unsigned and unread” by Bradberry, Carter said. The motion wasn’t filed because Bradberry’s office said it wasn’t necessary, Brown said.

Carter requested Bradberry’s removal because Bradberry was to be called as a witness and because he said Bradberry had shown repeated favoritism to Sanchez’s client.

Carter said Bradberry and Sanchez’s client had served in the same organizations and even visited each other’s homes. Bradberry and Sanchez’s client said they were acquaintances, but had not visited each other’s homes. Davis would not allow Carter to enter past rulings as evidence of favoritism, telling him that should have been done on appeal.

Davis said that bias must be proved to be “substantial” and he did not find that.

“They are thrown together as all of us are thrown together in this community,” Davis said.

Furthermore, Davis said, Bradberry is “only a witness in the cause in order to try to create a reason for recusal. The mover in the case doesn’t like the way he’s ruled and wants to put the judge on the stand to explain his rulings.”

Carter said he wants Bradberry to explain his reasoning for sanctioning him.

“Why would you sanction a lawyer in a motion of new trial when you did not even accept the motion for a new trial?” Carter said.

Davis said Carter asked to have Bradberry removed because he was angry with him because of the sanction. Carter said that offended him.

“I’m not angry with (Bradberry),” Carter said. “I think he’s biased.”

When discussion of Carter’s truck arose, Davis told him that he and Brown were not to park illegally around the courthouse.

Sanchez said he does not comment on pending litigation.(MGNonline)