Why Judge Has to Lie to Cover Lies!
This post may open the eyes of many pro se litigants. When these floodgates open there may be a need to review many so-called judicial decisions. I say "so-called" because when I see the word judicial involved I wand to think of honor and justice, but when a judge has to lie to cover for the "appearance of justice" he is setting forth, and that appearance of justice is the actual lie causing the second lie, justice has not be done.
America, and the world at large, let it be known that the American Judicial System is perpetuating the above lie by selling the citizens of the United States of America on acceptance of the appearance of justice. I believe this to be a fact, and you all know what I always say by now, you must have a basis in fact and law.
Funny, but in doing my research to substantiate the above position, I was able to find a Supreme Court decision that hit the nail on the head. This case that I will reveal to you squarely talks about my exact situation with Judge Noel L. Hillman and it further preaches the acceptance of, or should I say, the satisfaction with just the appearance of justice. The case I'm referring to is Offutt v. United States, 348 US 11 - Supreme Court 1954, page 14 holds:
"Of course personal attacks or innuendos by a lawyer against a judge, with a view to provoking him, only aggravate what may be an obstruction to the trial. The vital point is that in sitting in judgment on such a misbehaving lawyer the judge should not himself give vent to personal spleen or respond to a personal grievance. These are subtle matters, for they concern the ingredients of what constitutes justice. Therefore, justice must satisfy the appearance of justice."
I don't buy it, you shouldn't buy it. This was not just something that was peddled in 1954, no it continued forth. (See "Google Scholar search"appearance of justice" results 1-10, wherein the above case is first, followed by nine others, with only one not containing the bold type phrase above "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.") The first page of the search gives results from 1954 through 1994, and if one restricted the search to cases from 2010, they would find the citing of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, which holds:
Earp v. Cullen, 623 F. 3d 1065, 1071-72
"In his opening brief, Earp requested that, upon remand, we reassign the case to a different judge. In the absence of personal bias, we assign a case to a new judge on remand only in "unusual circumstances." United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 777, 780 (9th Cir.1986). To make a determination that unusual circumstances exist, we consider whether: (1) "the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected"; (2) "reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice"; and (3) "reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving *1072 the appearance of fairness." Id. (quoting United States v. Arnett, 628 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.1979))."
By now I am loosing the laymen out there am I not? Said laypersons are saying: "and what has all of the above have to do with the price of tea in China?" Please give me a minute and I'll bring this all together, but first I must make sure that at least all of my "rocket scientist" that minored in law are with me. They should see the correlation just from the underlining in the cases cited above. But...Just in case no one gets it I'll explain, because the layperson's are right, because the above has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. This is all about the sweeping of "JSHIT" under a judicial rug, and the animosity against pro se litigants.
With your permission, (your continued reading that is) I'd like to get this in within this one posting, so I may push the limits a bit, and be just a little long-winded. [We still Cool?]
If a lawyer were to have the courage to attack a judge, the courts say that this just may present an obstruction during a trial. [Look 5 ¶'s above, the Supreme Court said this: "Of course personal attacks or innuendos by a lawyer against a judge, with a view to provoking him, only aggravate what may be an obstruction to the trial."] Some may be sick of my past postings and tweets, and some may be under the false impression that I am trying to provoke judge Noel L. Hillman. NOT! A commentator on the documentary "Eyes on the Prize" said that "snakes don't kill themselves." Guess what this gentleman was talking about the courts.
I agree with the commentator above, but my Brooklyn, NY upbringing has taught me that punks won't fight, and further experience suggests that those that perpetuate and started the use of "race" tend not to admit when they are wrong, and they further try to indoctrinate those they feel inferior into a mentality of admitting guilt even though innocent. [We all no the situation I am referring to, just go to any U.S. Courthouse and you'll see it, a judge, a prosecutor, a public pretender, an African-American, and its time to play "Lets Make a Deal."]
Let that same African-American, or any other citizen, or person within that courts jurisdiction request that they be granted pro se status. They state their qualifications, knowledge and experience supporting, or should I say denying the judges attempts at proving inability to do the same (represent one-self that is). All hell breaks loose, the air gets thick enough to cut with a knife. That’s JSHIT filling the room folks, because the judge, prosecutor, and the public pretender already know the bullshit going on. Now they have to find out how much this guy knows, and I'm not talking about the facts of the case folks. The facts of the case give those representing him of her self the greatest advantage. The court knows that, so they have to find out does this guy know that. Then they have to (the court) get the answer to the all important question, how much law does this guy know, and can we train his ass otherwise because we tend not to know the shit (the law) ourselves, so we practice JSHIT.
The next question the court has to answer is, how much courage does this person have? The best way to find that out is to offer them door #1. Calm down, its not the big deal, but the sweet deal. This is a like a first date, the court can't go kissing-up on this person this early, plus if they give away too much in open court they appear to be kissing this persons ass.
Well if pro se contestant passes up on door #1, gives judge Bob back all the dollars to buy the car, and states that they want justice instead, then what? Well for one some one has to clean up the donkey shit left behind door #2 that they had waiting for that ass. [The ass left the shit folks, some may not know that a donkey was a usual "zonk" prize on Lets Make A Deal.]
Now our pro se litigant must do the same as a contestant on the Price is Right. Yes the show changes, why? Well for one this person turned down the sweet deal and now to get a prize his or her ass has to perform for the audience, jump through some hoops, and or learn how the game is played. Starting to see the animosity growing?
That's right see, if a person can present the facts of a case and stand on the law as well they might just win. But if they win no so-called judicial officer not working for the "State" gets a paycheck. The public pretender doesn't get to show the good ole boy's that he's willing to play along with the system, whereby he's not concerned with his client, no this poor sap's not paying the public pretender the "State" is. If he, the PP wants to move up he has to play the game so he has no concern with his so-called clients [FN] Civil and Constitutional Rights, he needs to move up to fatten that paycheck.
Now just imagine what happens if all of the above is documented and some pro se litigant catches all of the above in their lies, tags and reveals what JSHIT is, and tell the public and the world at large. Well folks you should have been able to guess it by now, you don't have to imagine a thing. You're witnessing it folks, you've read it throughout the postings of this blog.
The above tells you how the judicial officers come to be so full of hubris, yet many lack courage, and would rather yield to peer pressure and a paycheck than uphold their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and see that all a treated equally and receive equal protection of the laws and have meaningful access to the court. A lawyer is a persons first line of meaningful access to the court, especially if he or she is not trained in, or understands the law.
Now that I have uncovered and exposed Judge Noel L. Hillman, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, Christopher C. Mauro, Esq., DAG for the State of NJ Kathleen Bartus, and their host of cohorts, who's mad? Who do you think is really not pleased? What's so fucked up is the law says that I'm right. That's why I'm standing on it, at some point, and or some level of the judicial system or in the court of public opinion these criminals will have to be convicted.
Upon the conviction of the above individuals I pray that they harbor no animosity against me, but seek atonement for their sins, repent and move on with their live, God knows that what I plan to do with mine.
Thank You for your time and God bless,
The Casino Gaming Oracle!