Monday, November 21, 2011

Hickson v. Marina Associates (J.S.H.I.T. #2)

Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic- #2

In the last posting you were introduced to the complaint I filed seeking redress of the violation of my civil and constitutional rights. Before we can delve into the crux of the complaint itself, I must impart Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic #2.

The first tactic could be called "the with-holding of jurisdiction" by improper service of process. By my reading and understanding of the law, said law being FRCVP 4, which states that a valid summons must be signed and bear the seal of the court. Please, by way of comment, have I stated a fact evidenced by the document on the record and further shown the basis in law supporting said fact?

No one inform this writer that he should've jumped over the counter at the clerks office, and ensured that the summons the clerk would be forwarding to the U.S. Marshal for service, had the seal of the court on them. The court will not tell a pro se litigant that FRCVP 4 requires that the seal be on each summons, but the court knows that it can dismiss the case if this occurs. My basis in law for this statement is FRCVP 4 Interpretive Note 38 Defects in form of summons, Unpublished Opinions, holding: "Unpublished: Defect was merely technical flaw that did not prejudice rights of putative defendant where plaintiff did not select wrong defendant, but technically mislabeled correct defendant, and, in fact, putative defendant invited use of this nomenclature and its subsequent use by plaintiff in commencing adversary proceeding; correct defendant had been sued, putative defendant was not prejudice by improper naming, and summons and complaint sufficiently alerted it that it was being sued; therefore, case was characterized as one of mislabeling as oppose to naming wrong defendant. Scient, Inc. v AFCO (In re Scient, Inc.) (2007, BC SD NY) 2007 Bankr LEXIS 634."

From all that I have been able to decipher from reading past Hillman cases this ploy could be a part of his modus-operandi as most of the cases that come before him appear to end in settlements versus a jury verdict. I have determined that upon settlement of a case all of the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics can be swept under a rug and or the record will appear to support the "J.S.H.I.T." exactors actions, especially if said methods are exacted upon a pro-se litigant or party represented by an attorney down with the program.  Maybe they look at it as that attorney will be paid, yet the court's way of meting-out justice will remain intact.

Be aware those of you anticipating going to court representing yourselves, because the good ole boy's and girl's network have other "J.S.H.I.T." maneuvers, such as redacting the courts docket to conceal any slip-up's on the part of one of their team.  Case in point, on December 17, 2008, defendant George Morton, a codefendant in 08cv02407, did appear at the "Initial Conference," held pursuant to FRCVP 16. There was a skit on the "Dave Chappell Show" where to character would say, "Wrote a song bout it, here's how it go." Well I promised that each time I made and allegation I would support it.  So, "I made an averment bout it, here's what I got to show."

Reading the law, said law being United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule, (LCVR) 5.2 (17) stating: "A person may retrieve information from the Electronic Filing System at the court's Internet site,, by obtaining a PACER login and password.  With the exception of social security cases, a person who has PACER access may retrieve docket sheets and documents in civil and criminal cases." That was the best move that I made in protecting my rights, but I cannot take the credit for it was God's blessing of understanding that lead me to and allowed me to understand and act upon what this law said. And like "Indiana Jones" had to make a decision while being chased and coming to a huge abyss, with seemingly no way to get across, yet remembering Bible scripture wherein it says that one must step out on faith.  I wasn't faced with the same peril but I did have faith in God's guidance and He has not, nor do I think He would fail me.  So armed with His word and the blessing of understanding He grants me, "Here I Stand."

I digress, so, back to substantiating the facts of Dec. 17, 2008. Each time those of you that will appear in court pro se, remember that a record of said appearance will or should I say, should be kept. First by the court sign-in sheet the judges clerk will have you and your adversaries sign before the court proceedings begin.  Then whatever takes place during the proceeding will be recorded on tape and if the judge gives the parties any directives or if any stipulations or agreements are made the judge will or should set them forth within a "scheduling order."

The events, or some of them, that took place on 12/17/2008 within 08cv02407, were written within the scheduling order of Judge Joel Schneider. (See Dkt_Sheet_as of_4_09_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).  On page 9 one will see that docket entry 11 says: "SCHEDULING ORDER: In Person Status Conference set for 4/17/2009 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider…" However, realizing that Mr. Morton's in person appearance should not be evidenced as the court has jurisdiction over a person appearing before it and entering a stipulation the cohorts had to redact this Order from appearing on the docket. (See page 9 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

One reviewing the two docket sheets above will note that on 4/09/11 the docket item appeared, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Then on 8/31/11 the docket items appeared, 9, 10, 12 and so on, with number eleven redacted. Yet there is a docket item 11. (See Dkt_Item_11 in the "Source Links" to the right).  But why you might ask? Well there's law bout it, here's how it go." Orange Theatre Corporation v. Rayherstz amusement Corporation et al., 139 F. 2d 871, 874 at [HN3] holds: "We think that the Rules of Civil Procedure call for the use of similar restraint on the part of the federal courts in the exercise of their power over a defendant who has voluntarily appeared to defend an action against him but who desires also to raise a jurisdictional defense.  Under Civil Procedure Rule 12 such a defendant is expressly given the right, at his option, to assert by motion before answer or in his answer itself a jurisdictional defense such as the lack of jurisdiction over his person.  The rule states that "No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion."  If he chooses to assert the defense in his answer, rather than by motion, he must include with it all other defenses of every kind, meritorious as well as jurisdictional, which are available to him."

Not! Morton could not avail himself of that case laws holding because as one can see the docket sheet clearly shows at docket item 10 that the court stated within that entry that: "
SUMMONS Returned Executed by EARL D. HICKSON. GEORGE MORTON, ESQ served on 11/24/2008, answer due 12/15/2008. (nf, ) (Entered: 12/01/2008)." Knowing that the court would be on some Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactical, "B" you know what, Morton bopped into the court on 12/17/2008, two days after his answers to the complaint were due.  Yeah they got that off, as I had know way of knowing then that the good ole boys were just sizing me up.  But remember God is on my side, and trust me on this same point lightening will strike.

Once lightening will strike because the record clearly show that Judge Joel Schneider said within docket item 11, that they try to conceal from you says: "This Scheduling Order confirms the directives given to counsel at the scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 17, 2008; and the Court noting the following appearances:   Pro Se Plaintiff Earl D. Hickson, appearing; Defendant George Morton, Esquire, appearing; and
Christopher Mauro, Esquire, appearing on behalf of the defendant Harrah's." (See Dkt_Item_11 in the "Source Links" to the right)

Homework, just to see if you're with me, check the docket sheet and verify if Morton's answers were not filed until 6/30/2009.  Do you know the docket item number of his answer?  If you do your catching on quickly and your on your way to making a good showing if you have to go up against such jokers. So, as we see, that due to Morton's appearance, before calling on the aide of Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, Kathleen M. Bartus, the court was forced into a situation wherein a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2071.

I'm going to close on that note, using 18 U.S.C.S. § 2071 as a cliffhanger so to speak. I told you this was deep. Until next time Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming from TheCasinoGamingOracle!

No comments:

Post a Comment