In the world of family law, few weapons are more powerful—or more dangerous—than judicial discretion. And in the courtroom of Judge Mandy Kimmons, that discretion appears to have been used not to ensure justice, but to suffocate it.

For William Sewell, a self-represented father fighting to retain a role in his daughter’s life, the trial was never a fair fight. Despite a timely motion in limine requesting basic protections to ensure a level playing field in the presentation of evidence, Sewell was denied those protections. And from that moment forward, the court systematically dismantled his ability to defend himself.

A Motion Ignored, A Trap Set

Before the trial began, William Sewell filed a motion in limine—asking the court to exclude any exhibits or witness testimony that had not been properly disclosed during the discovery phase. This is standard in litigation and meant to prevent trial-by-ambush, ensuring both sides know what evidence will be presented.

Judge Kimmons denied the motion outright.

Then, the very scenario Sewell warned about unfolded: opposing counsel Donnie Gamache spent the entire trial week submitting late discovery materials, many of which were then entered into evidence without prior disclosure. Instead of recognizing this as a violation of fair procedure, Judge Kimmons blamed Sewell for not objecting—despite the fact that he had already raised the issue in his pretrial motion.

It was a classic judicial bait-and-switch: deny a motion that anticipates abuse, then claim the abuse wasn’t challenged properly.

One Rulebook for Him, Another for Everyone Else

Throughout the trial, Sewell was held to an impossible standard. The court insisted he comply with courtroom procedures like a seasoned attorney, refusing to offer even procedural guidance—despite rules in many jurisdictions requiring that self-represented litigants be treated with fairness and clarity.

Meanwhile, Donnie Gamache was allowed to submit exhibits at will—often materials Sewell had never seen before—and introduce them as evidence without consequence.

Sewell, in contrast, was denied the ability to introduce most of his own exhibits, even ones that had been previously disclosed. Judge Kimmons dismissed his attempts to use evidence relevant to property value, financial documents, and signed custody agreements from the original divorce. His efforts were routinely blocked under the claim that he had failed to follow obscure rules of evidence—rules his own lawyers had never helped him understand or prepare for.

Judicial Bias, Retaliation, and Reputation on Trial

Instead of acting as an impartial arbiter, Judge Kimmons appeared to treat Sewell as a nuisance. When the trial veered into discussion of investigative articles written about the case—including pieces critical of Judge Kimmons and Gamache—she spent hours grilling Sewell on the content. Rather than addressing the documented misconduct or handling the court proceedings fairly, she redirected the trial into a de facto inquisition.

Kimmons even claimed to have no knowledge of Gamache’s late discovery filings—despite being reminded that the issue was already raised in Sewell’s denied motion. Her refusal to acknowledge this denial only compounded the injustice. She effectively punished Sewell for trusting in the court process and relying on formal motions that the court itself disregarded.

A System Weaponized Against the Self-Represented

William Sewell’s case is emblematic of a broader failure in the family court system: bias against pro se litigants, a lack of accountability for legal gamesmanship, and judges who appear more interested in protecting their reputations than ensuring fairness.

By allowing one side to manipulate the rules while punishing the other for trying to follow them, Judge Kimmons did more than fail to uphold justice—she participated in its erosion.

Sewell may have walked into the courtroom to fight for custody. But he quickly found out that the real battle was just to be treated as an equal human being under the law.

---

All claims in this article are based on the personal experiences and allegations made by William H. Sewell. This article includes opinions and reporting based on interviews, court documents, and publicly available information. Any named parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless proven otherwise.

✊ Defend Free Speech. Protect Parents.

Independent journalism is often the only shield families have against courtroom injustice. If you believe in due process, freedom of the press, and the right to speak out—help us keep going.

👉 Donate | 📣 Share | 💌 Subscribe

Every voice matters. Every dollar helps.