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!
No comments:
Post a Comment