Basis in Fact & Law For Recusal (part II)

When I was growing up you would always hear the daytime soap opera's open with a line saying, "previously on As The World Turns or  today on, All My Children."  Well folks if you take a passive approach to the facts being revealed herein, courts will continue their daytime soap opera of performing the appearance of justice.

But, who am I to break tradition so, previously on "The Countdown To a Recusal" as held within the post titled "Blogging, A Reversal of Power" you were brought up to speed as to the unconscionable scheme being attempted by U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and his merry band of unethical cohorts.

Today we answer the question, " Why is Judge Noel L. Hillman presiding over civil action 11-cv-06304 when the complaint cites him as an non-party co-conspirator," which was asked within the post titled "A Judge Should be Placed Before 3 Cannons for Ignoring Canon 3."  The answer to this question is found within the plaintiffs "Brief" of averment [12], and said answer is further given a basis in law as the case law defines and reveals what a "fraud upon the court is.   But now that a U.S. District Judge has joined in the scheme, it has become "fraud upon and by the court, has it not?

I am just the messenger, you be the judge for averment [12] of the "Motion" says: "12. The two judges, Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams cannot deny that they individually and collectively knew of the misrepresentations evidenced within the purported deposition of Sharon Fedaczynsky, which brought into question, this document’s validity, yet Noel L. Hillman couched his opinion of September 27, 2010 on this document."  On page 7 and 8 of the "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR RECUSAL OF U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams," you will find the following:

Averment [12]

The facts show that the purported deposition of Ms. Fedaczynsky is very, very questionable, yet you ignored the fact that the deposition is addressed to the “Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden,” you further ignored that the deposition referred to the plaintiff as “Eric Hickman” you judge Hillman also embraced the fact that a “Mr. Fedaczynsky” is listed as being a witness at said deposition.  As we say socially “It’s all Good,” yes it was all good as long as you could keep these facts hidden but now that John and Jane Q. Public know of the same and have access via: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B1nZXLmzKrmnOWVhYWY2OTktNzIzNy00OGEzLWFkMGQtMzkwMzYzNDg3OWVl&hl=en_US, they await your response to this motion, they await to see if you have an ounce of integrity left.

Your continued involvement in 1:11-cv06304 moves the acts of Mauro and Bartus beyond “fraud upon the court,” to active fraud by the court.  Knowing that truthful testimony will destroy your credibility and expose your unethical behavior you have walked the path of aiding Christopher C. Mauro and Kathleen Bartus, for reason only you know of judge Hillman.  Fraud upon the court is given basis in law by Triffin v. ADP, 986 A. 2d 8, 11, holding: “We explained that a fraud on the court occurs "where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." Ibid. (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir.1989); Perna v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 916 F.Supp. 388, 397 (D.N.J.1995)). We further noted that unlike common law fraud on a party, fraud on a court does not require reliance. Ibid. We noted that "[s]eparate and distinct from court rules and statutes, courts possess an inherent power to sanction an individual for committing a fraud on the court." Ibid. Consequently, we remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. We held that, "[f]ollowing a hearing, the trial court may impose sanctions on plaintiff on its own motion or on the application of defendant, or both."”

Armed with the above facts a reasonable person can decide if he or she believes that Judge Noel L. Hillman has  "bent of mind" to prevent his fellow cohorts from having to answer a well pleaded complaint wherein the cohorts might break down and tell the truth about him.  You be the judge.  Click the links to see the copy of the purported deposition, doesn't it say as I claim.

Those that are trained in the law know that a lawyer has a duty to inspect the accuracy of all documents he or she files with a Federal Court of Law.  If said lawyer ignores FRCVP 11, he or she must be prepared to face the sanction's that will be imposed for such ignorance.  The plaintiff's as pro se litigant's are subject to the same sanctions, and do you think that a judge would hesitate to exact such a sanction on the pro se party.  Well if I turned this laptop over to Markland Grant right now he would be able to tell you a story or two.

 The facts reveal themselves and the band of wrongdoer's acts give support to their guilt.  Case in point, while reviewing my "blogger stats" I found that there were two views of this blog from "Referring URL" http://www.google.coin/imgres?q=district+court&hl=e.  Now I ask you, do you think that two members from a district court are watching me telling you the truth?  But now that we know that they know that you know the truth, lets let them know that we know that they are viewing by saying: "Hello Judge Hillman, welcome to the party pal, the clock is ticking and you have 19 days left to show your true colors and or unbend your mind."

As always I thank you for your time and ask that you tell a friend or two.

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. But now the Judges peek at and or view the redeeming effect of the internet, which this writer predicts will change the tides of injustice.