(Atlantic City, NJ)-
" Absolute Immunity via Recusal" post
#48 was an introduction to the overall matter of Earl Hickson's and Markland
Grant's motion for recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M.
Williams. The time has come for you to
be introduced to the "Motion" itself, and it's accompanying
"Brief in Support."
Trusting that
everyone is up to speed, have read the previous post's that documented the
filing of Hickson and Grant's "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams," and "Brief in Support of Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams." If you are just joining us
please click each document, as to familiarize yourself with it. Each part of "Absolute Immunity via
Recusal" will cove a different section of the motion and its accompanying
brief, but there are some of you that may want to have the whole picture in
your mind's.
On page 4 of the 24
page Brief you will find the "Introduction," which sums-up the
procedure, and statutory laws Hickson and Grant must follow to recuse Judges Noel
Hillman and Karen Williams. The "Introduction" says: "When a party seeks to disqualify a judge for personal
bias or prejudice under 28 U.S.C.A. § 144, the judge must examine the affidavit
or declaration and accompanying certificate to determine whether they are
timely and legally sufficient. Only if
the documents meet strict scrutiny does disqualification become mandatory. If the affidavit or declaration is presented
in time and in proper form, the court must take as true the facts set out in
the affidavit or declaration. Only
questions of law are presented and there can be no dispute about the truth or
falsity of the allegations of the affidavit or declaration."
To these two pro se
litigants the firs sentence, "When a party seeks to disqualify a judge for
personal bias or prejudice under U.S.C.A. § 144, the judge must examine the
affidavit or declaration and accompanying certificate to determine whether they
are timely and legally sufficient."
The most important phrase of the sentence is "the judge must
examine." Are you struck with the
thought that "Damn the judge must decide to remove him or her self?"
Well folks U.S.C.A.
§ 144 is statutory law and there is no way around it, so Judge Noel L. Hillman
has the first shot at removing himself from this matter. A-ha? But the ultimate question is, should he have
been presiding on this matter in the first place? Within post 28, "A Judge Should be Placed Before 3 Cannons for Ignoring Canon 3"
I addressed this issue by stating: "Why is
Judge Noel L. Hillman presiding over civil action 11-cv-06304 when the
complaint cites him as an non-party coconspirator? Judge Hillman's name appears in the complaint
some 46 times, and not due to honorable actions, ministerial acts or the
carrying out of his judicial duties.
This Judge is cited for turning his back on the due administration of
the law."
Those that have read
post 27, "Just-Us (Noel L. Hillman's LittleRascals) vs. Justice (E. Hickson & M. Grant)" are aware of what the "AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY: REPORT OF THE
COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY JUDICIARY 10 (2003) (JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY),"
said when it stated: "[And so, when it
comes to the judiciary, the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial
Conduct (some variation of which has been adopted by virtually every state
judicial system and the federal courts) declares that judges “shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judges activities,”
and adds that judges “shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”]"
As a member of the
public, would you have confidence in the integrity and independence of a court
wherein it is shown that a U.S. District Judge and a U.S. Magistrate Judge are
attempting to conceal the mutilation, removal and destruction of documents on
their courts docket? Would you have
confidence in the integrity and independence of a court that is shown to be
aiding in the concealment of such judicial misconduct?
That's what this
blog is all about. Informing you, of
this misconduct, because Judge Noel L. Hillman is attempting to pull the wool
over you eyes. But I want you to know
that decisional case law puts the matter in your hands and gives you the power
to decide. For example the United States District Court, D. Colorado, Garcia v Berkshire Life Ins., case no. 04-cv-01619-LTB-BNB,
holds: "As a general rule, recusal is
required when "a reasonable person armed with the relevant facts would
harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." Maez v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph,
Inc., 54 F.3d 1488, 1508 (10th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1264 (10th
Cir.)(ruling that a judge should
recuse himself from a case when his or her participation in the case creates an
appearance of impropriety). The standard under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is an
objective one, requiring recusal only "if a reasonable person, knowing all
the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's
impartiality." United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.
1993)."
You be the judge,
and I will provide you with all the facts for you to base your decision. You will see and can see the 29 questions
that Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams must answer to come to their
conclusion of stepping down from this matter, or hiding behind their absolute
immunity and standing on the lies. I
offer you the opportunity to decide before 2/21/2010 what they should do. Do you agree with me that they will have the
choice of Recusal or hiding behind "Absolute Immunity?"
Till next post,
Thank you All,
The Casino Gaming
Oracle!
Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.
Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment