Absolute Immunity via Recusal

On or before February 21, 2012, U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams may retain their "Absolute Immunity" by recusing themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407, which are before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden vicinage.

Earl Hickson and Markland Grant have filed a ten page "28 U.S.C.A.§ 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. NoelL. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams. "  (What is 28 USCA §1746)  Within 33 minutes of receiving the motion, amazingly the court was able to docket a hearing date of 2/21/2012. The average person would be impressed and say "wow what an efficient and speedy bunch of judicial officer." Not!

As this blog has strived to document and show, this band of judicial officers within this particular court do all within their power to present the appearance of doing justice.  There is a huge difference between the due administration of justice and the appearance of doing justice.   The posting to come will educate you the viewer of these differences by showing you the allegations made, and the evidence in support, then based upon the judges response you will be able to decide for yourselves.  Are these two judges administering justice, or just attempting to make there actions appear to met-out justice.

Those that have read "Hickson vs. Hillman's & Williams' (JSHIT)" have seen the cover letter to the Clerk of the Court, which evidences the filing of the above "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams." [Link to 1/18/2012 Cover Letter to Clerk of Court]

There is one other document you will need to make your decision as to the "honorability" of these two judge, and that document is the 24 page "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams." Some of you out there in the blogosphere are lawyer and law students versed in the law, and you may want to read each document all at once, please by all means go right ahead.

I will dissect the 29 averments of the motion and combine each with the supporting argument and basis in law from the brief, in a series of postings to follow, which will be headed under the same heading as above, but further designated with the proper "part heading." Hence we will begin with "Absolute Immunity via Recusal (Part One).

Please join me and ask your friends to follow as well.  Follow to see if Judges Noel Hillman and Karen Williams will admit or deny the 29 averments of the motion.  If they deny any of these averment, will they be able to present to you evidence to support such a denial? Will they be able to present you with persuasive decisional case law that gives a legal basis to their denials?

Before I take up too much of you time today, and get long winded please keep this in mind as we discuss this motion.  The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Taverasv Resorts International Hotel, Inc. 07-4555(RMB) held: "Under § 455(a), "any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). In other words, section 455(a) requires disqualification if there is a reasonable factual basis for doubting the Judge's impartiality." Venuto v. Witco Corp., 809 F.Supp. 3, 4 (D.N.J. 1992)(Rodriguez, J.)(quotingUnited States v. Nobel, 696 F.2d 231, 235 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1118 (1983)."

Till next time, and Thank You,

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.