Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Agent of Change

With other things in the works I will show you that when one stands his or her ground in a court of law he or she can be an agent of change.

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