Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Low Down Dirty-Dirty Criminal (Shame)

Low Down, Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal (Shame)

In the last posting of Nov. 22, 2011 I left you hanging with my reference to USCS §2071. Some of you may already be familiar with this federal statute, due to your experience as an attorney or student of the law. For those not versed in the law or failing to do their homework, I now extend the helping hand and extract you from the cliff.

USCS §2071 (a) is a federal statute defining the crime of concealment, removal or mutilation of records filed with any court of the United States that holds: "Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Question, "if I can show documentary proof of the concealment and mutilation of documents I filed within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, do you think a judicial officer, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, would report such judicial misconduct if it came to his or her attention. Not!

Help!  wrote an entire case bout it, here's how it go!  After going through all the events of civil action 08cv02407, of which I am revealing to you now, I came to know of further events and circumstances that supported my suspicions, so I collaborated with Markland Grant to file civil action 11cv06304, wherein him and I outlined some 600 or more instances of a violation of USCS §2071. Within this complaint Judge Noel L. Hillman is named as a non-party co-conspirator, his name appears within the complaint some 46 times. His new understudy, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams is cited some 17 times within the same complaint.  Mr. Grant and myself await the return of the Order granting our request for in forma pauperis status, as well as the clerks forwarding of the U.S. Marshal 285 forms we will need to effect service of the summons and complaints.

I know, I know, you're saying to yourselves, "after seeing that the court will not place the courts seal upon the summons' why is this man bothering, why don't he just accept the fact that they have all the power? No you STOP! That's exactly the sort of thinking they want you and I to have. But we have redress by way of "Supreme Tweet Justice," this blog and our constitutional right to petition the court for the same.  That's the premise of civil action 11cv06304.

Oh, might I inform you that there is one huge problem, we are all at a Mexican-stand-off. You see the case was filed Oct. 21, 2011 and assigned to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams and she in turn referred the case to be presided over by, you guessed it, none other than Noel L. Hillman.  Made and averment bout it, here's what I have to show.  Recently posted @, Hickson et al v Mauro et al citing: "Presiding Judge: Noel L. Hillman, Referring Judge: Karen M. Williams." (See "Source Link" Justia_11cv06304 to the right).

With there being unfinished business wherein someone will have to answer and or testify about the mutilation and concealment of documents in these cases and the above named judges are material witnesses as to these facts.  In practicing what I keep preaching, that being a basis in fact and law I posit the holding of  141 Ga. App. 121, 122 holding: "'Whatever difference of opinion may once have existed on this point, [HN1] it seems now to be agreed that the same person can not be both a witness and judge in a cause which is on trial before him.  If he is the sole judge, he can not be sworn; and, if he sits with others, he still can hardly be deemed capable of impartially deciding on the admissibility of his own testimony, or of weighing it against that of another.' Shockley & Co. v. Morgan, 103 Ga.  156, 158.  As indicated, another problem is before whom may his oath as a witness be taken.  The law makes no provision for administering an oath to him as a witness; he can not be sworn before himself.  Baker v. Thompson, 89 Ga. 486 (3) (15 SE 644)"

As the saying goes you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy and I expressed the same when I told or asked them "if the fox steals your chicken, you wouldn't expect upon catching the fox to ask it just to return the chicken, especially if said fox has feathers around his mouth." Same situation here as the record shows that the foxes I'm dealing with have document feathers around their mouth's and have further left a clear paper trail that they had become accustomed to no one following.

Ok, I got you off the cliff, plus jumped the gun and gave you further information, but the above is further information as to the workings of the good ole boy's and girls network.  The sad part is that Magistrate Judge Karen Williams is a victim along with me and Mr. Grant, because she has to go to bed every night knowing that she gave up her morals and bowed to peer pressure and or the pressure to her paycheck.

I'll get back on track with the next posting. Somebody call Nelly, cause it's getting hot in here! Happy Knowledgeable and Clothed Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle

No comments:

Post a Comment