In my previous post
I started a detailed analysis of averment [16] of my "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," and it's supporting "Brief." If you are just joining me or missed that
posting please refer back to it by clicking its title here. [Details of A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All]
I will now show you
why I do not hesitate in telling you that Judge Noel L. Hillman is not fit to
sit on the bench in this case or any other case involving a pro se
litigant. Judge Noel L. Hillman, on the
surface appears to be a follower of the old school rapper "D-Nice,"
for he presents an attitude that he will be "taking out you suckers and
you don't know how I did it." Well
bad news for Hillman would be that there is a genre call "battle
rapping," and when a participant feel's that he has an opponent crushed
because his shit is weak, he or she will end the round by telling the opponent
he of she is "easy."
Please click to post
28 "A Judge Should be Placed Before 3 Cannons forIgnoring Canon 3," where you will see that I have previously warned
that judges will, "find phrases within
written case law to support their purported administration of justice, all the
while knowing that said citing’s are not made using the full context of said
decisional case law." I will
now show you how Judge Noel L. Hillman has done the same, in his effort to make
an appearance of the due administration of justice, please do not be fooled.
The second paragraph
of averment [16], and object of our analysis today holds:
"You
further state at Hickson v. Marina Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362,
footnote [11], that: “The Court may consider Kosko's investigation report
as part of the record. See Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1294 (3d
Cir.1994) (holding that "the
district court exercised sound discretion in admitting for consideration"
an unsworn police report). Although Hickson disagrees with the
conclusions drawn therein, the report essentially repeats facts already alleged
or established in the case, i.e., Fedaczynsky's allegations and Hickson's
outstanding warrant, and serves principally to show Kosko's awareness of those
facts—regardless of their ultimate veracity— at the time when the events of
this case were still unfolding.” No other words other than “Bullshit” can fully
explain a reasonable person’s reaction to the true facts. "
I may be wrong, and
please feel free to correct me if I am, but to apply decisional case law one
must understand the full context of the case one is citing. Ok you lawyers and law students out there
help me out here. Now, those that follow
this blog know that I will give you all the facts so that you can make your own
reasonable determination. So, lets take a look at what Clark v. Clabaugh, 20
F.3d 1290,1294 really holds. The above
sentence that Hillman "jacks" is contained within the following:
"Before
deciding whether the evidence suggests a genuine issue of material fact as to
42 U.S.C. § 1986 liability such as to warrant vacatur of the district court's
summary judgment order, we must decide first the propriety of the district
court's consideration of the PSP Report. The plaintiffs relied virtually
exclusively on this report to support the existence of genuine issues of
material fact. The plaintiffs did not submit affidavits in opposition to the
motion, but did submit the sworn deposition of Pennsylvania State Police
Captain Ronald Rostalski properly authenticating the PSP Report. The plaintiffs
also submitted excerpts from their own deposition testimony.
We are quite satisfied that the district
court exercised sound discretion in admitting for consideration the PSP Report,
which is indeed unsworn, authored by an investigator who did not have personal
knowledge, and which contains opinion based on hearsay. We note that
affidavits in support of summary judgment can be opposed by any admissible
evidence, including that contained in "the pleadings, depositions, answers
to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c) (emphasis added). Rule 56(e) further indicates
that the adverse parties' response may be in the form of "affidavits or as
otherwise provided in [Rule 56] . . ." (emphasis added). Thus, while Rule
56(e) makes clear that the appellants were required to submit more than mere
allegations in their pleadings to oppose the movants' properly supported
summary judgment motions, the evidence submitted showing a material factual
issue for trial need not have been in the form of an opposing affidavit, as the
defendants contend. Hence it was not incumbent upon the plaintiffs under Rule
56 to submit counter-affidavits, albeit such affidavits could have enhanced the
strength of their arguments."
As shown above the
reviewing court said that: "Before
deciding whether the evidence suggests a genuine issue of material fact...we
must decide first the propriety of the district court's consideration of the
PSP Report." The court
proceed to show the factors it relied on, which were, as seen above:
- plaintiffs relied virtually exclusively on this report to support the existence of genuine issues of material fact.
- plaintiffs did not submit affidavits in opposition to the motion.
- did submit the sworn deposition of Pennsylvania State Police Captain Ronald Rostalski properly authenticating the PSP Report.
- plaintiffs also submitted excerpts from their own deposition testimony.
From the very first
complaint that Earl Hickson filed in civil action 08-cv-02407 he never relied
on any report of Mark Kosko, one reason could be because he didn't have it, and
a second reason is the fact that he relied upon his on good memory of the events
he experienced.
Did plaintiff
Hickson submit affidavits in support of his motion for summary judgment? Well
you be the judge. One having a copy of the prevailing "Third Amended
Complaint" finds that the certification on page 42 reads:
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is
not the subject of any other court, arbitration or administrative
proceeding. I further certify that all
statements are based on fact and based on prevailing law and all copies of
exhibits are accurate and true copies of said documents. I verify this complaint and certify that it is based
upon the first hand knowledge of Earl D. Hickson and at the risk of sanctions
and or perjury I pray that the
defendants are judged based upon their ability to show my averments to not be
based in fact or law and not. I further pray that the trier of the facts see
through all attempts as misrepresentation of facts and avoidance of the law and
grant a just adjudication of this matter to set forth new law to be followed
within the State of New Jersey and guide other jurisdiction to eliminate the
Constitutional violations stated here within.
When one files a
motion for summary judgment one must include a certification with said motion,
and certification statements #37 and #38, found on page 9 of Earl Hickson's
certification holds:
- I make this Certification with the intention and understanding that same shall be relied upon by a Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, in evaluating whether to enter an Order granting summary judgment on behalf of plaintiff Earl D. Hickson, setting forth that the court has found defendants Harrah’s Hotel and Casino, Security Officer Vance Thompson, Josh Lechtblau, and George Morton liable to plaintiff for damages and the only remaining issue to be tried by the jury is the amount of damages.
- I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
On March
26, 2010 Earl Hickson did sign his "Renewed/Supplemental" Motion for
Summary Judgment," by stating:
CERTIFICATION
I certify that all statements are based on fact and based on
prevailing law and all copies of exhibits are accurate and true copies of said
documents. I certify that it is based upon the first hand knowledge of Earl D.
Hickson and at the risk of sanctions and or perjury I pray that the
defendants are judged based upon their ability to show my averments to not be
based in fact or law. I further pray that the trier of the facts see through
all attempts as misrepresentation of facts and avoidance of the law and grant a
just adjudication of this matter to set forth new law to be followed within the
State of New Jersey and guide other jurisdictions to eliminate the
Constitutional violations stated here within.
As
established within "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (part II),"
Judge Noel L. Hillman said that these were the prevailing documents in the
case. So, why have I drifted into being so long-winded here, Judge Hillman is
"EASY," but I want you to know how I'm taking this sucker out,
ebonically speaking that is. Please stay with me on this, just a few more
paragraphs, OK?
All of
Earl Hickson's document were submitted under penalty of perjury, pursuant of 28
USC § 1746, which holds:
28 USCS § 1746. Unsworn
declarations
Whenever, under any
law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement
made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported,
evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification,
certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the
same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be
taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect,
be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration,
certificate, verification, or statement, in writhing of such person which is
subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in
substantially the following form:
In civil action
08-cv-02407 there was only one valid deposition taken, and that was the
deposition of the plaintiff, Earl Hickson.
Christopher C. Mauro claims to have taken another deposition, but Judge
Noel L. Hillman knows that did not occur, and it is part of the reason he chose
to sit on 11-cv-06304, and attempt to dismiss that case in an effort to prevent
that truth from being revealed. [EASY]
To drive my point
home, and or put a wooden stake through this vampire's heart, the case law
above that Hillman "jacks" clearly says that the report of the State
Trooper was authenticated by a sworn deposition, please will someone ask Judge
Noel L. Hillman where's the [FN] sworn deposition of Mark Kosko, or any other
named party in the complaint for that matter. [EASY]
The case law above,
is the opinion of the Third Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Judge
Hillman's unethical courtroom, and makes their decision mandatory pursuant to
the doctrine of "stare decisis."
The lawyers and law students out there know there should be hell to pay
when an attorney misrepresents decisional case law, as held within the Rules of
Professional Conduct. Judge Noel L.
Hillman has just been shown to not be a professional, [EASY], do you agree?
Thank you oh so much
for all your time,
The Casino Gaming
Oracle!
No comments:
Post a Comment