Basis in Fact & Law For Recusal (part I)

The basis in fact and law for the recusal of Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams is set forth within Earl Hickson and Markland Grant's "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M.Williams."

The plaintiff's legal arguments as to "Specific Facts and Reasons for Belief that Judges are Biased or Prejudiced" for "Averments [5] through [10]" begin on page 5 of the Brief.  Those versed and trained in the law will know how to read each averment and then turn to the brief for it argument and basis in law.  For those not as well versed please allow these two pro se litigant's some license and you will be writing your own brief's in no time.  [Click link above and scroll to page 5 to confirm accuracy]

Averments [5] through [10] of the "Motion for Recusal" are supported by the following arguments and presentations of laws when the plaintiff's state:

"Averments [5] through [10]

The plaintiff’s anticipate that judge’s Hillman and Williams will feigned that their disqualifications are misplaced and Earl Hickson is not pleased with the rulings of Judge Hillman and that the same applies to Mr. Grant, when as we will show herein, such an outcry by them would be misplaced as their “bent of mind” will be evidenced by their inability to dispel the 28 averments of this motion and support each denial or failure to admit with documentary proof’s or  evidence supporting their denial or failure to admit.

Judge’s Hillman and Williams knew or should have known that their combined and concerted acts support a display of a deep-seated favoritism for Atlantic City Casinos’ and or a deep-seated antagonism that would deny fair judgment in favor of Hickson and Grant.  They knew and attempt to conceal the fact that truthful testimony and or answers to civil action 1:11-cv-06304 would show the lies of Christopher C. Mauro, Kathleen Bartus, Russell Lichtenstein, Victor P. Wasilauskas, made on behalf of their respective Atlantic City Casino clients, specifically, Harrah’s and Caesars Hotel and Casinos.

The above is given support in law by Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 540 holding: “First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.  In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source: and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required…when no extrajudicial source is involved.  Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.  Second, opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”

There is a maxim that “even a dog knows the difference between being kicked and tripped over.”  Plaintiff Earl Hickson has surely evidenced a proclivity to know the difference between being prejudiced and antagonized.  Now-a-days when a court wants to disallow testimony or a presentation all it has to say is the affiant lacks personal knowledge of the subject matter.  Yes context matters and the context with which judge Hillman states four times that I lacked personal knowledge to make my claims, as evidenced by the holdings of Hickson v.Marina Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362, holding:

•  @pg.373- “At this stage of litigation, Hickson has not demonstrated the malignant action or intent necessary to sustain this claim. Again, he relies entirely on speculation and self-conceived conclusions, and not personal knowledge of facts or events.”

•  @pg.375- “As articulated above, Hickson presents no evidence, other than broad accusations devoid of personal knowledge, to demonstrate the requisite intent or action to sustain that cause of action under Section 1983.”

•  @pg.377- “The Court further stresses that, even accepting Hickson's averments as if they were set forth in an affidavit, only those facts to which Hickson has personal knowledge may be considered as true. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(1) ("A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated.")”

•  @ Footnote[4]- “The Court further stresses that, even accepting Hickson's averments as if they were set forth in an affidavit, only those facts to which Hickson has personal knowledge may be considered as true.”

Now that Earl Hickson has personal knowledge and can substantiate judge Hillmans affinity to protect the Atlantic City Casinos’ continued interest in concealing how they violate their patrons civil and constitutional rights judge Hillman reveal his “bent of mind” in favor of the Atlantic City Casinos’ and against African-American pro se litigants as evidenced by his willingness to cite the New Jersey Casino Control Act while rendering an opinion in a case where a non-African-American was kidnapped from the Borgata.  This man could afford an attorney and Hillman granted him protection of the laws and further stated in Friedman v. Borgata, 2009 U.S.  Dist. LEXIS 29084 at [*19]: “First, the Casino Control Act, N.J.S.A. 5:12-1 to -210, is the codification of the "common law right [of a casino licensee] to exclude or eject permanently from its casino hotel any person who disrupts the operations of its premises, threatens the security of its premises or its occupants, or is disorderly or intoxicated.”  This law is for the casino, and it does not provide permission for a city police department, otherwise acting unreasonably, to drive an intoxicated patron to the bus station and leave him there.”

The above citation from Friedman v. Borgata was set before judge Hillman within Earl Hickson’s “Letter Brief in Lieu of Formal Brief, In Support of Motion for Revision of Courts 9/27/2010 Order & Opinion,”  which is docket item [67].  Is there any wonder that the Clerk of the Court has given this docket item a “Text Description” of: “MOTION for Reconsideration of 65 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 64 Opinion by EARL D. HICKSON. (js) (Entered: 10/12/2010).”  This fact is just one of many that support’s your proclivity to conceal document’s judge Hillman.   The a-fore mentioned text description conceals the filing of the Letter Brief from the public. Who knows how many pro se litigants, or other African-American’s you have denied equal protection of the laws to or for how many years you have practiced what I have labeled Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT)."

Now you, the public at large have access to the same legal arguments and basis in decisional case law that Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams must consider on or before February 21, 2012.  Now Earl Hickson and Markland Grant ask that you keep in mind the holding of the Federal Statutory law cited in the introduction of the motion which 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."

Reasonable people, now that you are armed with the above facts, and if neither judge can present evidence to the contrary should these two judges be recused based upon averments [5] through [10].

Thank you, for viewing this accurate and true copy of the documents filed in this action.  Earl Hickson and Markland Grant ask that you continue to follow this walk through these documents, and we pray that you will comment as to your confidence in the impartiality and integrity of these judges and their band of cohorts.

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.