For those wishing to
side with Judge Noel L. Hillman, please be advised that if my position lacks
merit-- there will be not one trained in the law to agree with me correct? For those so siding, I further posit that ye
shall deem thy-selves "fearful Good ole Boy's and Girl's Network
Members."
The above reveals
the crux of the problem, for said members of the "Network," are
fearful. This is not my proclamation,
but the statement of those more versed in the law than I. I am referring to the holdings of James
Sample, David Pozen, and Michael Young, wherein they assembled to write a paper
for The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
entitled: "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards."
One downloading the
"pdf" of the above document will find that upon scrolling to section
"C. Underuse and Under-enforcement" on page 20 (22/51), the author's
state: " And the
fear of angering the judge with an unsuccessful motion – which may apply
especially to lawyers who are likely to appear before the judge in other cases
– may deter the filing from the start."
At the time the
paper was written by James Sample, David Pozen and Michael Young, one was a
2003 graduate of Columbia School of Law, Harlan Fiske Stone & James Kent
Scholar, another a 2007 graduate of Yale Law School, Heyman Fellow, and the
last (M.Y.) a member of the 2008 class at NYU School of Law. Considering that I am just a layman, I accept
the former as experts, and would ask that you question them directly if you beg
to differ.
I have no idea if
these three individuals have changed their positions on the standards for the
recusal of a judge over the years, but their paper supports my position as I
will show here. Hence it would appear
that three "studied" and knowledgeable individuals agree with my
premise, whereby the merit of the motion should be confirmed.
On Tuesday,
2/21/2012, Judge Noel L. Hillman may be able to write an opinion that plays on
the fact that I am a pro se litigant, and as such, I should be considered an
attorney, at least in a self-representative capacity. Then he may take refuge and refuse to recuse
himself as page 18 (20/51) of "Fair Courts:Setting Recusal Standards" states: "It is more difficult to disqualify a judge
for bias against an attorney than for bias against a party54."
Note that the above
holds a footnote, and footnote 54 says: "See generally Richard E. Flamm, Judicial
Disqualification: Recusal and Disqualification of Judges § 6.4.1, at ch. 12
(1996). See also id. § 12.1, at 335
& n.8 (noting that courts have interpreted Canon 3E’s general standard as
prescribing disqualification when the judge has personal knowledge of disputed
evidentiary facts)."
I nearly
"pee-ed" my pants upon reading the above footnote, why? Within the "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal ofU.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams," @ page
3/10 you will find that the plaintiff's stated: "Unlike U.S.D.J. Stephen C. Robinson, who claimed not to know of five
relevant facts in Levine v. Gerson, 334 F. Supp 2d 376, 377, judges Noel L.
Hillman and Karen M. Williams cannot deny that they individually and
collectively knew the following."
My distinguished
corroborators, Sample, Pozen, and Young state and hold by the citing's in
footnote 54 that "disqualification is prescribed when the judge has
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts." Let's see, if a judge has knowledge that a
deposition is captioned for a court other than his, the opponent of the
deposition has related the fraud to the judge, the judge has documents signed
by a non-party, and to top the cake, the judge knows that he does not have any
documents signed by the defendants, yet he couches his rulings on the
statements of defense counsel. [See Details of ANon-Existing Warrant Tells All]
With the "Count
Down" looming, and several heads on the "chopping block," so to
speak, I'll keep this brief and continue within my next posting. Consider
this one card removed from Judge Noel L. Hillman's hand and or one that he can't
pull from his sleeve. Please continue
supporting this cause by telling a friend or two. I appreciate your support and I pledge to see
this through to the end so that all may have confidence in our judiciary.
Thank You,
The Casino Gaming
Oracle!
No comments:
Post a Comment