Monday, February 6, 2012

Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (part II)

In the last post, "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench," you were introduced to the plaintiff's basis in fact and law as to "averment [14], as found on page  10 of the "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams."

The first paragraph of the "Briefs" support of averment [14] asks Judge Hillman to answer the question, "Does page 165 of 1:11-cv-06304 “Exhibit Attachment to Complaint of Earl Hickson and Markland Grant Pursuant to FRCVP 10 (C),” show that on February 2, 2010, Christopher C. Mauro signed docket item [46], “Answers to Third Amended Complaint,” on behalf of “Vance Armstrong?

Here are just a few reasons Judge Noel L. Hillman was asked the above question.
  1. A look at the caption page of the "Third Amended Complaint" does not list a party by the name of "Vance Armstrong. [Click the Link, I'll wait…]
  1. On page 367 of Hickson v Marina Associates, Judge Noel L. Hillman pens: "In May 2008, Hickson filed his original complaint in this Court. Subsequently, he amended his complaint multiple times. Hickson finally filed his third amended complaint in December 2009."

    1. The above is proven to be an outright lie as revealed by the courts docket sheet wherein it is shown that the "Third Amended Complaint" was mailed to Judge Karen M. Williams on 8/17/2009. [See Docket item [32] by scrolling to page 11 of this link.]
    2. The above statement by this Judge is further proven to be false by the fact that Judge Karen M. Williams did receive said "Third Amended Complaint" and she did file the cover letter that was mailed with the filing that referenced the documents as pertaining to the "Third Amended Complaint." [See cover letter to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams dated 8/17/2009 @ pg. 18] Wherein Earl Hickson writes that he enclosed "(1) Original Third Amendment to the Complaint…
    3. As I will show later on, by some combination of the Judges and the "liars for hire," it took these band of cohorts some 4 months to mutilate this "Third Amended Complaint" to remove all attached exhibits presenting valid New Jersey statutes and regulations controlling the NJ Casinos.
  1. For argument sake, lets say we give Judge Hillman a chance to say that item 2 above was an honest mistake.  If so he could maintain his honorability by answering why Christopher C. Mauro's answers for his client Harrah's Hotel and Casino were accepted by him when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hold the following:
    • FRCVP 15 (a) (3)  Time to Respond, Unless the court orders otherwise, any required response to an amended pleading must be made within the time remaining to respond to the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading, whichever is later.
      1. Docket item [6] says that Harrah's and Alexander Lovas were served on 9/23/2008 and their answers were due 10/13/2008. [See Docket Sheet dated 8/31/10 scroll to page 9]  Hence there was no time remaining to respond to the original pleadings, so a reasonable person would understand that the defendants had 10 days to respond correct?
      1. Earl Hickson did follow the rules of court and when the "Third Amended Complaint" was sent to the judge, copies were also sent to the defendant's attorney's . [See USPS Receipt dated 8/17/2009  evidencing said mailings on page 19 of this link]
      1. Here in lies the conundrum of the cohorts lies.  If a reasonable person were to be so gracious as to accept the ruse that the "Third Amended Complaint" was not filed until 12/14/2009, as the cohorts makes the docket support the same at docket item [36], [See Docket Sheet scroll to page 12], 10 days from 12/14/2009 would mean that the defendants answers to the prevailing "Third Amended Complaint" should have been filed by 12/24/2009. Not 2/2/2010, as evidenced by docket item [46].  [See Docket Sheet scroll to page 13]
  1. Christopher C. Mauro, is the lead "liar for hire." It is beyond this writer's creative process as to why this man reverts to lying, creating documents, and relying on favors.  I can only guess that he is of the same opinion as the 1925 U.S Army War College Study, stating: "Blacks are mentally inferior, by nature subservient and cowards in the face of danger."  I learned of this study as it is the opening statement to the movie "Red Tails," which I highly recommend.  Vance Armstrong is a person invented by Christopher C. Mauro, used so that he can avoid being disbarred if a non-willfully ignorant judge called him on the fact that there is no party name Vance Armstrong.
    1. Once more let's be so gracious as to allow Hillman and Mauro to claim honest mistake.  This can't happen, as Judge Hillman was made aware of this lie within docket item [62], filed 8/25/2010, which is more than thirty days prior to his Sept. 27, 2010 Opinion on the Summary Judgment Motions.
    1. Christopher C. Mauro did not slip and use the name "Armstrong" once but in one document he is shown to refer to Vance Thompson more that five times, yet signs the document on behalf of Vance Armstrong. Yet Judge Noel L. Hillman sweeps this fact under a rug along with the "Verified Complaint for Order to Show Cause."
    2. Judge Noel L. Hillman kills Christopher C. Mauro scapegoat by hanging all the cohorts when he pens on page 367 of Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F.Supp.2d 362, that: "That same month, he filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2010, he submitted a "Renewed/Supplemental" Motion for Summary Judgment." [Please click the link scroll to last ¶ of "II. Background"]
    3. The docket sheet reveals that "(c)" above was in fact filed on 3/26/2010.  Bad new for Judge Hillman, because, by him stating that he knew this document was filed now he must come forward with reasons as to his ignorance of the fact that Earl Hickson informed his "biased ass" that his buddy Christopher C. Mauro was signing documents, and filing them with the court on behalf of a "Vance Armstrong," who is not a party to the action, in violation of FRCVP 11.  [See averment 2 within copy of page 18 of Docket item [50], the "Renewed/Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment" Hillman writes of above in (c)]

Blacks are not mentally inferior as the study above stated.  Any reasonable person armed with the facts and documents above could conclude that in this matter Earl Hickson's skin tone has caused the band of unethical cohorts to assume that his grasp of the law would be inferior to theirs.  Viewer, what about you, will you allow these unfit judicial officers to continue depriving citizens, and those within the jurisdiction of these United States, their Constitutional Right to equal protection of the laws of this land and "meaningful access to the courts as well?
 In the article "Black Pilots Shattered Myth, by MSgt. Linda E.Brandon," she quote's: "Can you imagine," asked Carter, "with the war clouds as heavy as they were over Europe, a citizen of the United States having to sue his government to be accepted to train so he could fly and fight and die for his country?" Because so many have fought and died this writer will not let his Constitutional Rights be trampled by those supposedly sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. This writer stands for all Americans and all within the jurisdiction of these United States of America. Viewer will you stand with me? Start by telling a friend or two about what you have read here, I will appreciate it, as well as those you tell.  Plus you will be securing your own rights and those to come after you.

Thank You for your time,
The Casino Gaming Oracle!

No comments:

Post a Comment