New Third-Party Practice

(J.S.H.I.T. #3) and Other Third-Party Practice

Yes, I have disclaimed being a lawyer.  I must admit, growing up, becoming one was fourth on my list of what I wanted to be.

Let's begin to delve into the complaint I filled May 15, 2008. The events causing this action occurred on May 15, 2006 at Harrah's Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City New Jersey.  Yes, I did take full advantage of New Jersey's two year statute of limitations for the filing of a section 1983 claim. Trust me, it was time well spent too.  During that time I had to determine the parties I would hold liable for my false arrest, kidnapping and violation of my civil and constitutional rights.

Don't fall into the trap of naming as a party the name you see on the outside of the buildings. Remember those of you contemplating representing yourselves, you're dealing most times with a corporation.  This corporation can have several names, d/b/a's, a/k/a's, and i/s/h/a's. Not finding out who or what's behind the sign can make your walk to court very brief.  Most casino's have revolving doors that you enter through, if you get the name wrong, the first thing they will plea to the judge is, and they will call him "You're Honor," he's not talking about my client, and the judge will give you a chance to find out who you're trying to sue, and if you fail to get it right your case will be dismissed for failure to properly name a party upon which relief may be granted and you've been spun out of court, just as if you were caught in a casino's revolving door.

From the above you can probably see why I took the time that I did.  I wanted to make sure that I named the proper parties, then I did my studying to make sure that my complaint was as free as possible from attack pursuant to FRCVP 12 Defenses and Objections.  More specifically FRCVP 12 (b) (1) through (7), which includes the subject broached in the above paragraph.  Ask any attorney and they will tell you about this matter, but I'm here to share with you the Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic's most will not tell you about.

Today, lets look at what is called the "Caption Page" of the complaint.  This is where you will find the Court wherein the action is taking place, the docket number of the case, the parties to the complaint and the title of the filing. This action holds that: Earl D. Hickson is the plaintiff and Marina Associates, d/b/a Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Alexander Lovas, Vance Thompson, Anna Haag, Josh Lechtblau, Mark Kosko and George Morton are the defendants. The document is titled as the Third Amendment to Complaint and Jury Demand.  At the bottom of the caption page I clearly stated: " Plaintiff, Earl D. Hickson, for his third amendment to his complaint, as timely filed on May 15, 2008.  Does here within claim against the above captioned defendants, individually, in their professional capacities, and as co-conspirators of Harrah’s Hotel and Casino and other official State Roe, States as Follows."

Why drag you through what appears to be miniscule details you might ask?  I herd that, and here's the answer to your question. I called myself making it plain that I was seeking relief from all the defendants in their individual and professional capacities and as co-conspirators of Harrah's Hotel and Casino. At no time did I name the State of New Jersey or any agency of said State.  Why? Because, during my research I learned of the complications of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act, plus the immunity of the State under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I also knew or learned that, if needed, I could add a third party pursuant to FRCVP 14 (b) When a Plaintiff May Bring in a Third Party, stating: " When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring in a third party if the rule would allow a defendant to do so."  Alas, but when  may a defendant do so, so that I may do so. (E-I-E-I-O again).

FRCVP 14 (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party, (PAUSE-PAUSE, you still with me, this important and you need to get this one). FRCVP 14 (a) says: "A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a non party who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.  But the third party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 10 days after serving its original answers." OK, read that again before you go on to the next paragraph because if you understand what this rule says, when I'm done here, you'll also be able to know what "Mork" meant when he said "nan nu nan nu."

The above paragraph tells us that in order to bring in a party not listed on the caption page of the complaint someone already a party to the action must file a motion and get leave from the court. (For those not understanding the good ole boy's and girl's network that literally means begging the judge to allow you to do what the rule's say you can do, but then again the judge must keep the power, and on that farm there was some you know…)

You can take my word or you can peruse the entire docket sheet, either one, 4/09/11 of the copy from 8/31/11, to see if any defendant received an order from the court saying that they could add a party to the action. (See Dkt_Sheet_as of_4_09_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).  (Go ahead I'll wait...Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock, TIMES UP! NOT!).   The truth is, its not there, right? Christopher Mauro is the attorney for Harrah's et al, and Kathleen Bartus is the attorney for Lechtblau, Kosko, and Morton and the docket sheet is devoid of a motion by either of them seeking to add the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.  So how in the hell did the Division of Gaming Enforcement get added as a party, first without the proper motion being filed and secondly I plainly stated on the caption page that I was seeking redress in the named parties individual and professional capacity?

That's right we have (J.S.H.I.T. #3), the adding of parties to the action contrary to the rules of court, so as to make it appear that there may be an implication of the Eleventh Amendment. NOT!

The big question is who comes up with this stuff? The facts and laws should substantiate that this writer is not making (J.S.H.I.T) up.  If the Rules of Court say there should be a motion, followed by an Order granting leave, what's happening to "so it is written so it shall be done?" If the rules further state that said motion is filed 10 days after the party's original answers are filed it must get leave from the court, why haven't Bartus or Mauro been given this pass by their crony Judge Hillman or Judge Williams for that matter.  Clear case of  judges gone rogue in my opinion.  Hence I believe Dr. Ziad Akl, when he says that he fell victim to a conspiracy between a hospital, its attorney and a state court judge aimed at defeating him in court. (See "Source Link to the right click "Judges Gone Rouge" to link.)

Now we have (J.S.H.I.T. #3), that being the rewriting of  Third-Party Practice to fit the needs of these cohorts.  Sensing that you want to click over and check out Judges gone Rogue, I'll close here, but ya'll come back now, ya hear.  This ole boy got more to tell ya, till then Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle