Some will have time
to read Judge Noel L. Hillmans September 27, 2010, Opinion in civil action
08-cv-02407 in it's entirety, and some will rely on my word. For this posting you will have to decide for
yourselves, which path you shall take.
The aforementioned opinion is reported as Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010), and you can read the full
case by clicking the link.
Those that have been
following this blog know that it was spawned due to the misconduct needed, and
unethical judicial misconduct exacted within the above opinion. A lot has taken place since September 27,
2010, and there is presently a motion before the court for Judge Noel L.
Hillman and Karen M. Williams to recuse themselves from this matter, which is
now on March 14, 2012, some 22 day over due from the purported hearing date of
2/21/2012.
Good ole boy network
member Noel L. Hillman does appear to have learned from his experience in
dealing with this pro se litigant. He
has further exhibited behavior that tends to show that he appears to no longer
under-estimate pro se litigant or he recognizes the power of the venue you are
viewing now. I say this because Hillman
has issued an opinion that supports this belief.
On December 23,
2011, he wrote an opinion in civil action 09-5617, Jackson v. Grondolsky, Dist.
Court, D. New Jersey 2011, wherein he tries to reduce the (JSHIT) exacted upon
pro se litigants. Yet thankfully this opinion also clearly show what this judge
knew or should have known on September 27, 2010, but for some unknown reason
failed to apply in that matter.
This blog came
online during the second week of November 2011, and all of the other filings
involved in both of the cases referenced in this blog were filed. Hence, Hillman was on notice as to most of
the (JSHIT) that he should shy away from as I was beginning to expose it. Not to mention the fact that the court
records were reflecting the same.
In the posting
entitled "Bent of Mind Leads to Straight Injustice"
I showed you averment 17 of civil action 11-cv-06304 wherein it is shown that
if one searched Hillman's opinion of 9/27/2010 for the word exhibit, he of she
would get a return of zero matches for that search.
Fast forward to
12/23/2011, and run the same search for the term "exhibit" within
Jackson v. Grondolsky, and you will find that Judge Noel L. Hillman is a bit
more reluctant and less hubristic at willfully omitting citations to the
exhibits presented to him. Hence "Agent of Change."
But...Let's look
closer at the case and see what a liar and unethical judge we are
dealing with. This man clearly shows that he is aware of the proper standard he
should have followed. There is no other excuse,
now that he has show that he knew that his failure to consider the exhibits
attached to 08-02407 was required, and the lack of mention of the word exhibit
within his ruling in that matter, can be construed as nothing less than willful
ignorance.
Please, don't take
my word for it, see "IV ANALYSIS"
within Jackson v. Grondolsky where he
states:
"Pursuant to Rule 12(d), "[i]f, on a motion under
Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not
excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment
under Rule 56." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(d).
An exception to the general rule on considering
matters extraneous to the pleadings permits "the Court
[to] consider (1) exhibits attached to
the complaint, (2) matters of public record, and (3) all documents that
are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint without
converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." D.G. v. Somerset Hills School Dist., 559 F. Supp. 2d
484, 491 (D.N.J. 2008); see
also M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App'x
156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) ("In
reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is well-established that a court should
`consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits
attached to the complaint,
matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.'")
(citation omitted). Additionally, "a court may
[also] consider an undisputedly authentic document
that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the
plaintiff's claims are based on the document." Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus.,
Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)."
So if any one out
there knows Judge Noel L. Hillman, maybe you can ask him why the double
standard, and then you can come back and tell us what is going on. Till then I say he in on that (JSHIT) and if
you look above I have set in bold "undisputedly authentic document,"
which we will discuss tomorrow.
You too are an agent
of change. Your support and views of
this blog will help to eliminate this injustice and make our judicial officers
think twice before practicing Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT).
Thank You, and I
appreciate it each time you tell a friend or two to join in the fight.
Agent, Gaming
Oracle, Over and Out!
No comments:
Post a Comment