Case Law Condemnation of the Cohorts

I'm tired too, of kicking the dead horse so to speak.  Just as you, the viewer are probable wishing that I move on, I wish to do the same as well.  That is why the "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," was filed.

Today, after not receiving any notice from the court as to Judge Noel L. Hillmans decision on the recusal motion, nor seeing any opinion or memorandum posted on the internet, as evidenced by the lack of justia.com having updated its record on the case, I will assume that Judge Hillman has chosen not to react as quickly as he did in setting the hearing date of 2/21/2012.

My main goal for this posting is to bring you one last "Condemnation of the Cohorts" as the following case law will show.  The Supreme Court of the United States, within Scott v. Harris 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007), at 1776 stated:

"At the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a "genuine" dispute as to those facts. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c). As we have emphasized, "[w]hen the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no `genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (footnote omitted). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."

Judge Noel L. Hillman has ignored the above case law as his Sept. 27,2010 opinion substantiates.  One have further interest in a greater understanding of the law will note that in the above case of Scott v. Harris, the court cites that there was a video tape, which revealed and clarified the facts of the case and further showed that the lower court should not have just accepted the plaintiff's version of the facts.

 You might be thinking "I thought this (Gaming Oracle) guy was the plaintiff, so why would he point out case law going against the plaintiff?"  If you are thinking like that, you are falling prey to the line of thinking that "Liars for Hire" and (JSHIT) practitioners want you to have.  The above case law points out the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman should have utilized the exhibits attached to the complaint pursuant to FRCVP 10 (c), and he should not have written an opinion devoid of one reference to said attached exhibits, as that act certifies his and his cohorts condemnation as unethical judicial officers.

 With the above stated I now rejoin you in awaiting Judge Noel L. Hillmans notice that he will step aside so that justice may be done.  With that being his only option as the facts and documents support, I will proceed in sharing the facts that were presented to the court as part of the summary judgment motions filed. Prepare yourselves, just because we will be moving on from Judge Hillman, you will be introduced to the "Liars for Hire." 

Thank You, for all your views and support, please tell another friend or two.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!