Within the "Source Links" on the right you were provided with the link to Judge Noel L. Hillman's opinion of September 27, 2010. With all due respect to other honorable judges I will show you, the readers of this blog, that there is a network of good ole boy's and girl's within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. They are beyond being rogue judges, as they are practicing "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics" to conceal my kidnapping and prevent Harrah's Hotel and Casino from being held liable for violating my civil and constitutional rights under 48 U.S.C.S §1983.
After providing you with the laws and relevant decisional case law within the previous posting, we have now reached the point where the cat can be let out of the bag, or should I say, reveal that the cheese does not stand alone as the song says that we learn as children. In the song most of us learned in preschool, "The Farmer in the Dell," we are taught unknowingly at an early age, the composition of a conspiracy. How you might ask? Well, if the farmer takes the wife, the wife takes the children, the children take the nurse, the nurse takes the dog, the dog takes the cat, the cat takes the rat, and the rat takes the cheese, the farmer will have conspired to take the cheese if he knew that all would take according to the song. Yet the song tells us that the cheese stands alone, and if that was the law, one could interpret that to mean that it is to be left alone because it stands by itself.
Ok, back to the rats that stole and or conceal my cheese. My cheese being, my constitutional right to petition the court for redress of the violation of my civil and constitutional rights pursuant to §1983. On May 15, 2008, I filed a civil action in the U.S. Dist. Court for the District of N.J., Camden, vicinage. Thirteen days after I filed said complaint it was given the case number of 08-cv-02407 (NLH). This fact is evidenced by the letter I received from the clerk of the court acknowledging the same. (See "Source Link" Clerk Letter 5/28/08)
The above letter from the clerk of the court also shows that the case was assigned to be presided over by Judge Noel L. Hillman, and originally Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider would preside over the pretrial matters.
At this point you might be saying to yourself, "Ok, he filed a complaint, but why is this guy attacking the integrity of the court?" It is just that very question's answer that leads me to ask you the public to be the judge, because the judges I have had to deal with so far are less than honorable. Remember, that I stated to you in previous postings that one must have a basis in fact and law when one presents a matter to the court. I'm going to practice the same when I present matters to you. If I make an allegation, I will show you the basis for that allegation.
Let's begin with the first Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic. The Court, from day one had no intention of allowing this case to come before a jury. This fact was made plain to me when I realized that the summons' in the case were not issued according to the black letter of the law. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCVP) Rule 4 Summons holds: "(1) Contents. A summons must. (F) be signed by the clerk; and (G) bear the court's seal." You decide, because my basis in fact says that the clerk of the court issued five summons' on 5/28/2008, all lacking the mandate of FRCVP 4 (G). (See "Source Link" Summons of 5/28/08).
One can see that the five summons' issued on 5/28/2008 were devoid of the required seal of the court. There is a "Treatise" called "Sutherland Statutory Construction," wherein section 57.2 Criteria for classifying as mandatory or director, is discussed. Section 57.2 of Sutherland Statutory Construction states: "The question whether a statutory provision has a mandatory or directory character is one of statutory construction. To determine whether a statute is mandatory or directory, effect must be given the entire statute, its nature and object, and the consequences that would follow from each construction. The same criteria applicable to decisions of other kinds of issues of statutory construction apply, i.e., the intent of the legislature of the manifested meaning of the statute. For example, "shall" is considered presumptively mandatory unless there is something in the context or character of the legislation which requires it to be looked at differently." One would think that when FRCVP 4 says that a summons must be signed by the clerk and bear the courts seal the context is clear, but not if your practicing Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics.
We will call the above (J.S.H.I.T.#1), as it was the cohorts first line of defense, with more to follow as you will see. Till next time Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming from TheCasinoGamingOracle!