"Judges Hillman and Williams knew that civil action 11-cv-06304 would require that Kathleen Bartus reveal the truth as to the documents she submitted to the court purporting to be warrants for the arrest of Earl Hickson, that were contrary to other documented facts within the record, yet judge Hillman accepted these documents." The afore recites the allegation made within averment #16 of Earl Hickson and Markland Grant'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."
The above allegation is given a basis in fact and law on pages 10 to 11 of the plaintiff's "Brief in Support of Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams." Said basis in fact and law is argued as follows:
Well Judge Hillman did you accept Kathleen Bartus’ submissions to the court, which she would now have to stand own her own, and answer in civil action 1:11-cv-06304? Your own words at Hickson v. Marina Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362, 371 holding: “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.”
You further state at Hickson v. Marina Associates, et al.,743 F.Supp.2d 362, footnote , that: “The Court may consider Kosko's investigation report as part of the record. See Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1294 (3d Cir.1994) (holding that "the district court exercised sound discretion in admitting for consideration" an unsworn police report). Although Hickson disagrees with the conclusions drawn therein, the report essentially repeats facts already alleged or established in the case, i.e., Fedaczynsky's allegations and Hickson's outstanding warrant, and serves principally to show Kosko's awareness of those facts—regardless of their ultimate veracity— at the time when the events of this case were still unfolding.” No other words other than “Bullshit” can fully explain a reasonable person’s reaction to the true facts.
Civil action 1:11-cv-06304 would require that Kathleen Bartus answers as to why she, a Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, could not come up with the warrant purportedly issued by Judge Connors, in box #37 of the same report that you said the court accepted above. [After clicking link scroll to page 2] You know that Ms. Bartus cannot explain away that her presentation to the court of a warrant for the arrest of Earl Hickson is signed by Judge Garofolo is contrary to the police report your court says it accepts judge Hillman.
Truth told you are covering for them because you can see that the warrant could never have existed, like I told Kosko on [FN] May 15, 2006. But when it comes time for her to stand on her own, answer and refute 1:11-cv-06304 exhibit attachments (S) through (T) at pages 129 through 144 showing the lie, what do you do judge Hillman, but cosign the (JSHIT). You are running out of room with which to leave your dignity in tact judge Hillman. Just Stop!
Let’s put the icing on the cake, Earl Hickson will do this, you Judge Noel L. Hillman get a copy of the so called proceedings held before Judge Isman on any day in May of 2006, with a verifiable representation of my voice conducting my presentation before this judge and I will bow-out gracefully. NOT! This can't happen, I was just [FN] with you, cause you and I both know that I never went before Judge Isman, and my constitutional rights were violated, right? OH, my bad you wanna keep that on the DL. (That down low) What you know as concealed, and or what a reasonable jury could find, but for your “bent of mind” for Mauro and Bartus huh, judge Hillman.
According to State v. Brown, NJ: Supreme Court 2011, 14 A.3d 26, 32 “The warrant requirement provides citizens with protection from unreasonable arrests by having a neutral magistrate determine probable cause before an arrest is made. State v. Henry, 133N.J. 104, 110, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 984, 114 S. Ct. 486, 126 L. Ed. 2d 436 (1993); see also Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S.10, 14, 68 S. Ct. 367, 369, 92 L. Ed. 436, 440 (1948). Without a warrant, the State has the burden of proving the overall reasonableness of an arrest. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1379, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639, 650 (1980); State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328, 337-38 (2010). I could not find an exception that stated “Without a warrant the State has the burden of proving the overall reasonableness of an arrest, unless the state has favoritism from the Federal Bench.”
Until said exception above is produced the reasonable people must presume that you are evidencing bias or prejudice Judge Hillman.
The above is yet another key averment that deserves further detailed analysis so that you the viewer can have a full grasp of the facts. After gaining said facts you will be in a much better position to make you own reasonable conclusions, so I will provide said detail within the next posting. To be continued…
Until next time and as always, thank you for your time, and please tell a friend or two.
The Casino Gaming Oracle!