Pages

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Absolute Immunity via Recusal (part one)


(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.

No comments:

Post a Comment