Continuing with the
aide of my distinguished corroborators, Sample, Pozen, and Young, via their
paper written for The Brennan Center for
Justice at New York University School of Law entitled: "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards," holding:
"disqualification is prescribed when the judge has personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts."
Let's take a look at
a few more evidentiary facts that these judges had knowledge of, and or feign
the lack there of through "willful ignorance." "Bent of Mind" Leads to Straight Injustice brought to your attention the
holdings of Supreme Court decisional case law that plainly stated: “Second, courts must consider the complaint in its
entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on
Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into
the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
notice," Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct.2499, 2509.
Within an earlier
post, "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (partII)" I stated at "2 (c)" that: "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."
That time has come folks, as I firmly believe that Judge Noel L.
Hilllman will skirt this issue.
.jpg)
So, lets sum up what
we have so far. We have Supreme Court decisional case law that say that a
complaint should be read in its entirety. Now we need the missing piece that
will explain why Judges Noel L. Hillman,
Karen M. Williams, attorney's Christopher C. Mauro and Kathleen M. Bartus
conspired to remove eight pages from the "Third Amended Complaint" of
civil action 08-cv-02407.
If a judge does not
want to review a complaint in its entirety the fist thing he or she "damn
well better do," is remove what he or she doesn't need or want reviewed,
and that is what Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams are attempting here
folks. Those that have read my post
"Attached by Law and Ignored by Will,"
are familiar with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 (c). This rule says that exhibits attached to a
pleading are part of the pleading. I'll say it for you...Hmm? Further as I
revealed in paragraph seven of "Attached by Lawand Ignored by Will" the interpretive notes of this rule of civil
procedure holds at note 19 that: "United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Lukes Episcopal Hosp. 355F.3d (2004, CA5 Tex) holding: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 (
c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes;
therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of complaint for
purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P 12 (b) (6) motion."
So why would two
Federal Court judges violate Supreme Court decisional case law, a Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure and its interpretive notes containing further decisional
case law? Lacking a better term and not beholden to [FN] "Candor Towards
the Tribunal" I will tell you folks that these judges knew that attached
to civil action 08-cv-02407 were valid [FN] "Statutory Laws." Those of New Jersey's Casino Control Act and
New Jersey Administrative Codes that regulate NJ casinos.
I could go into the
math, that would show that I mailed Judge Karen M. Williams five copies of a 78
page "Third Amended Complaint," and that my receipt from the U.S.
Postal Service supports the same. I could
go into the fact that this judge attempted to sell the cohorts lie on the
record within a status conference at a U.S. District Court on 12/17/2010. I
could further show you that Kathleen M. Bartus provided the copies used to
manufacture the altered and mutilated copy of the "Third Amended
Complaint" to civil action 08-cv-02407, but there are easier ways to prove
my point folks.
Two paragraphs above
decisional case law says: "Under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all
purposes; therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of
complaint." Regardless of the tricks attempted by these judges and
attorney's, by law Judge Noel L. Hillman is accountable for the lack of one
mention of the word "Exhibit" within his opinion of Sept. 27,
2010. Still don't believe me, here is a
link to the same on google scholar, search it for the word exhibit, I'll wait…
[743 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010)]
By way of comment,
maybe you the reader can help Judge Noel L. Hillman out of this conundrum,
because the average reasonable person can but conclude that the complaint is
not considered in its entirety if there is not one mention of an exhibit
attached to the complaint. Then there is
the fact that there are numerous over-exposures of the attached exhibits that
this judge fails to mention. Tell you
what, here is a link to accurate and true copies of pages 49 to 55, download
and print them out for yourselves to see if they are not readable...I'll wait…[Accurate/True Copies of Pages 49 to 55]
Those of you out
there in "BloggerLand" that have access to a "PACER
ACCOUNT" can log on to the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Camden, and view the record and compare the above pages to civil
action 08-cv-02407. Afterwards please
come back and share your thoughts, I'm willing to bet that you will agree with
my post "Low Down, Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal(Shame)," as these band of cohorts have clearly violated another
Federal Statute. This time a criminal
one, that being 18 USCS §2071 (a), stating "Whoever
willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or
destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away
any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or
deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in
any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both."
But on this Feb. 21,
2012 one cohort will skirt being charged the above offense by claiming
"Absolute Immunity" by way of Recusal, if you let him get away with
it. Not knowing your stance I intend to stay on that ass though-out the day as
this wrongdoer pounced on the motion in 33 min as shown within paragraph two of
"Absolute Immunity via Recusal." So lets see if we get the same speedy turn
around, which would put a copy of his reply to the motion in my mailbox or
online by 2/22/2012.
But then again the
experts (legal eagle's) say: "Likewise, while some
jurisdictions encourage or require challenged judges to hold evidentiary
hearings, most leave the decision of whether to do so entirely to the judge’s
discretion. With or without hearings,
judges in most jurisdictions do not need to give a reasoned explanation for
their recusal decisions. In practice,
judges have been much more likely to give reasons when they decline to recuse
themselves." [See page 19(21/51) of
Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards]
Lastly, the writers
of "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards"
state another reason that compels me to make this injustice know in this forum,
and that is found on page 20(22/51), wherein they state: "Second, several of the current doctrines concerning
recusal make it likely that disqualification provisions are
under-enforced. Allowing judges to
decide challenges to their own impartiality is not a policy calculated to
promote vigorous enforcement. Transferring
the motion to friendly colleagues on the same court,
while an improvement over deciding
one’s own case, may not substantially improve the
situation. Moreover, the fact that
judges
generally are required neither to hold hearings on
the claim nor to give reasons for their
decisions makes it easy for them to reject even
meritorious disqualification motions with
impunity."
So now we wait,
that's right "We" your rights are on the line as well, but rest
assured for I will keep you posted and 2/22/2012 begins a new count down.
Thank you, as
always!
The Casino Gaming
Oracle!
No comments:
Post a Comment