Blogging, A Reversal of Power

Judge Caught Flip-Flopping the Truth

Within the post "Absolute Immunity via Recusal" you were introduced to the fact that Earl Hickson and Markland Grant filed a timely "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."  This ten page motion is supported by a 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." With 20 days left in the "Count Down to A Recusal," let's look further into the basis in fact and law for these two judges recusal.

This is not a complicated process folks, but as the standard for the review of a motion of this sort, is that of a reasonable person armed with all the facts surrounding the circumstances, I want to make sure that we are all on the same page.  For those just joining this cause, please refer back to the parts you've missed by clicking the titled links to those postings.  You may start with the one above.

The "Introduction" to 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" was covered within the posting titled "Absolute Immunity via Recusal (part one)."  After this introduction the plaintiff's proceed to give a basis in fact and law to the twenty eight "Specific Facts and Reasons for Belief that Judges are Biased or Prejudiced" that are required to be stated in good faith for such a motion.

The first five averments of the motion covers all the preliminary stuff, you know, who's who, you can't just start running off at the mouth folks, this is not an argument with your spouse or your best friend.  Averments [5] through [10] begin on page 5 of the Brief, and this section was covered in the post proceeding this one, and said posting is titled "Basis in Fact & Law For Recusal (part I)."

This post covers the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman is caught attempting to conceal the truth, which actually folks, amounts to nothing more than his attempt to cover his own ass.  TO LATE! Caught by his own hand, and as you will see, these to litigants confront him  on it directly.

On page 7 of the "Brief" the plaintiff's set forth that averment [11] is given basis in fact and law as follows:

Averment [11]

At http://thecasinogamingoracle.blogspot.com/2011/12/judge-should-be-placed-before-3-cannons.html I ask John and Jane Q. Public, Why is Judge Noel L. Hillman presiding over civil action 11-cv-06304 when the complaint cites him as a non-party coconspirator?  The days when you alone have access to impose the appearance of justice are gone judge Hillman.  Through the power of the internet I have the same power to share all the facts you wish to conceal.  W.E.B. DuBois, said “Awful as race prejudice, lawlessness and ignorance are, we can fight time if we frankly face them and dare name them and tell the truth; but if we continually dodge and  cloud the issue, and say the half -truth because the whole stings and shames; if we do this, we invite catastrophe.    Let us then in all charity but unflinching firmness set our faces against all statesmanship that looks in such directions.”

A person a having copy of civil action 1:11-cv-06304 on a computer capable of searching the document will find that the name “Hillman” appears some 46 times.  This same reasonable person would further find that the name “Williams” appears some 17 times.  The names of these two judges do not appear just because they were judges in the matters before the court but a close examination of the context with which these names were referenced would reveal that they are spoken of as non-party co-conspirators.  In that context even judges are not allowed to adjudicate matters they have an interest in.

The above is given a basis in law by Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 546, holding: “Before 1974, § 455 was nothing more than the then-current version of the 1821 prohibition against a judge's presiding who has an interest in the case or a relationship to a party. It read, quite simply: "Any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein." 28 U. S. C. § 455 (1970 ed.).”

Judge Hillman, you can no longer continue to hide the truth, your interest in civil action 1:11-cv-06304 is personal as you continue to attempt to conceal your misconduct.  But your own hand has revealed the same and published it to the world via the internet broadcast of  Hickson v. Marina Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362.  I am just telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Judge Hillman operates on an "Appearance of Justice" when in reality he is concealing, and ignoring the facts holding the truth. My turn to blow up the spot folks, but those of you familiar with this writer know that I tend to get a little long winded.  I will follow the rules of blogging today by closing here.  I will trust that "inquiring minds" wanting to investigate the 46 and 17 allegations against the judges will click on the link to the complaint filed in civil action 11-cv-06304, as found within the posting titled "Got Proofs--Need Judges."

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

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.