Monday, February 20, 2012

Corroboration via The Legal Papers (part II)

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.
 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
 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