Monday, February 6, 2012

Details of A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All

My previous post titled "A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All" delved into the question of what Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams knew, and are now attempting to conceal by presiding on a civil action that would have the defendants answer issues revealing a concerted effort to deny Earl Hickson and Markland Grant equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the courts as afforded by the Constitution of the United States of America.
 Let's take a closer look at one of the six paragraphs of averment [16], as set forth within the plaintiff's "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," and it's supporting "Brief."

The first question asked of Judge Hillman was, "Judge Hillman did you accept Kathleen Bartus’ submissions to the court?"  If I had my own daytime T.V. show, this would be the segment where I reach for the envelope, and announce, "When it comes to accepting the submissions of Kathleen Bartus, the evidence says, Judge Noel L. Hillman, you are the father."
 Judge Noel L. Hillman, fathered this "(JSHIT) progeny" by giving birth to this fact within his submission to the world, in the form of his Sept. 27, 2010 Opinion.  Said opinion is now held out to the world as  Hickson v. Marina Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362. The proofs that this Judge relied upon the submissions of Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, Kathleen Bartus are as follows:
  1. @ 366 to 367 the judge says: "Soon thereafter, Kosko informed Hickson that there was a warrant for his arrest for violation of probation. Hickson denied that he was ever on probation or that a 367*367 valid warrant was issued for his arrest." [Click link and scroll to last sentence of page 366, of Hickson v Marina Associates, et al.]
  • The Proofs Support- (a) On 3/10/2008 Earl Hickson took a photo of the New Jersey Promis/Gavel, showing that I was charged with a violation of probation on 5/15/2008, jailed on the same date and not discharged until 5/25/2008. (b) The same NJ Promis/Gavel shows that I was arrested and charged by "NJ STATE POLICE." (C)  On 7/17/2009 I took a photo of the report sent to me by Kathleen Bartus that stated in box #33 that I was charged with "bail jumping, 2C:29-7" contrary to the NJ Promis/Gavel charge of VOP 2C: 45-3. [Scroll to pg 2 after clicking]  (d) On 3/19/2003 Earl Hickson initialed the document stating at item #13 that: "Time Served, No Probation... (e)The so-called warrant manufactured by Kathleen Bartus, and or someone under her direction has not been signed by Mark Kosko, nor does the name of the judge match that given in Kosko's report that Noel L. Hillman say he could rely on in good faith.   
  1. @ 371 the judge says: "According to his investigation report, Kosko observed video footage depicting Hickson's removal of a voucher from the slot machine at issue and, thereafter, a conversation between Hickson and Fedaczynsky."
  1. @ 371 the judge further states: "Kosko had learned and reasonably relied on the belief that Hickson had an outstanding warrant. Although Hickson challenges the validity of the warrant, Kosko was entitled to rely on it in good faith. See Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261, 273 (3d Cir.2000) ("[W]e have generally extended immunity to an officer who makes an arrest based on an objectively reasonable belief that there is a valid warrant.")"
  2. Judge Noel L. Hillman hangs himself out to dry within his second to last sentence on page 371 where he say's: "Hickson does not raise a genuine issue of material fact on any of these points, including the reasonableness of Kosko's reliance on the warrant."
  • Judge Noel L. Hillman is a Liar and unfit to sit on the bench as the following contradicts his statement. I, Earl Hickson raised the following genuine issues of material fact that this liar ignored and now attempts to continue concealing as follows:
  1. Within the prevailing "Third Amended Complaint" averments, #44, 46, 49,133, 134, 178 and #189 make specific reference to the issue of the warrant. 
  2. As established within 4(c) of "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (part II)" Judge Noel L. Hillman has acknowledged by his own hand that I filed a "Renewed/Supplemental Motion For Summary Judgment. That document also specifically argues the issue of the warrant at averments, #44, 46, 49, 133, 177, and #188.
  3. The above at (b) was supported by a "Brief" wherein I stated at "Point 2 (F)" the following:
"I was raised to respect my elders and to always give a woman respect but I am taken aback by the presentation of Kathleen Bartus when she mailed me an unsigned copy of a purported warrant for my arrest that supposedly served as the basis for Mark Kosko taking me to the Atlantic County Justice Facility, where I was held against my will for 11 days as the cohorts sorted out their plan.  Any warrant that has been executed on May 15, 2006 should have the executing Officer’s signature in the area validating the warrants return to the court.

Mark Kosko stated within his report that Judge Conner issued the warrant of November 22, 2003, (See Exhibit X box 37), yet the presentation of March 2010 say that it was issued by Judge Garofolo.  (See Photo of Warrant I and Photo of Warrant II)."  [Click this link to see accurate copies of the cited exhibits attached as Details of A Non-Existing Warrant]
Now that you have both sides of the story and not just those of a Judge failing to uphold the Constitution of the United States by denying those within the jurisdiction of a United States District Court the equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to his court, do you agree that the clock is ticking for these judges to remove themselves from this matter?

With 14 days left in the "Count Down to a Recusal" why not tell a friend or two about this site?
Thank you, The Casino Gaming Oracle!

No comments:

Post a Comment