Thursday, March 15, 2012

Authentic Document? (JSHIT!) I'LL SAY.

Smiling faces do tell lies, and boy oh boy do I have proofs that one good ole boy has stabbed himself with his own pen.

In my last post, which is entitled "Agent of Change," I highlighted "undisputedly authentic document," and promised that we would discuss this later.  Well that time has come, and there is nothing better than when a liar substantiates his own lies.  Now I have solid documentary proof that Judge Noel L. Hillman is a liar (especially as it relates to civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304) and at a minimum, outwardly hypocritical as revealed by his own writings as I will share with you herein, so that you may concur or disagree. Fair enough?
 The fifth paragraph of "Agent of Change" introduced my supporters to "civil action 09-5617, Jackson v. Grondolsky, Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 2011."  This opinion was written by Judge Noel L. Hillman on December 23, 2011.  Please keep in mind that since his 9/27/2010 opinion within 08-cv-02407 I have been doing all to show that this judge is utilizing "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic's"  (JSHIT) to exact his personal interpretations of the law.  Now I will show that once revealed he is now attempting to try and appear to be on the up-and-up.  I think they (the judicial system) call it "the appearance of justice".

Before we begin, we also need to establish that Jackson v. Grondolsky was in fact written by Judge Noel L. Hillman, which is clear once one view said fact within the opinion itself.  Go ahead click the link see here it says: "Opinion Noel L. Hillman, District Judge," I'll wait…

Okay we've got that out of the way, next.  Let us solidly establish that the citing by this judge is actually found within the above opinion at section IV ANALYSIS, and within the seventh paragraph of this section.  This way all can find it when they click the link, scroll down to that section, and count down to the seventh paragraph and find:

"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)."

Every one with me so far?  Okay, one more thing we have to establish, and that is the fact that this judge shows that he is a hypocrite when he cites the above, yet when one looks to his September 27, 2010 opinion in Hickson v. Marina Associates, one will not find the word exhibit written once.  Now you can click the link, copy the case, paste it to a word processing program with "word search" capabilities to verify this fact.  Or, you can take my word for it, and trust me.   I'll attest to this fact under penalty of perjury, but if you must go ahead I'll be here...
 Now since I make the strong statement that this judge is a hypocrite, I'd better have some strong proofs other than the lack of the word "exhibit" being missing from his opinion, right?  Well you know how I do.  I'll let you be the judge because as you can see above, judge Hillman writes with his own hand that he knows of case law that says: "An exception to the general rule on considering matters extraneous to the pleadings permits "the Court [to] consider (1) exhibits attached to the complaint."  Well did I attach exhibits to the complaint?  Let's see.

You be the judge, click this link where you will find a true copy of the "Third Amended Complaint," the same as the copy Judge Noel L. Hillman and the "Liars for Hire" received, and you be the judge as to the attachment of "Exhibit A" through "Exhibit Q" at pages 43 through 78 respectively. Go ahead click away I'll wait…
 By now all of the professional lawyers out there are saying, "but what about undisputedly authentic document," where were you going with that one Gaming Oracle?"  Hey thanks for asking, I have no idea why they call lawyers sharks, for picking up on that, I say you guy's are sharp.  But, you still won't catch me attempting to brush their teeth or diving into courtroom waters with an open cut on my ass, that's asking to be eaten alive by those patrolling said waters.

If I may tread over the line of long-windedness, let me "splain." [little flava for the non-attorneys.]  Again we have to look at Judge Hillmans opinion of 9/27/2010, one clicking the link will find upon scrolling down to, "2. Section 1983 Claims Alleging Malicious Prosecution, False Arrest/Imprisonment, and Abuse of Process Against State Defendants," at the 8th paragraph of that section they will find that Judge Noel L. Hillman relied upon a deposition by stating:

"During her deposition, Fedaczynsky testified that she had won over a hundred dollars on the slot machine and while she went to tell her husband, 371*371 Hickson took the money from the machine and walked away."

Now this is where the lawyers could help us out, because if they truly acted like top predators, and devoured those practicing injustice they would confirm what I am setting forth here. But… So now I am left to show you that this deposition was in dispute and Judge Noel L. Hillman knew it was in dispute, and now that civil action 11-cv-06304 is on the record he cannot allow [now party] Ms. Fedaczynsky to answer a complaint that would show that said deposition never took place on July 9, 2009 in Hackensack, NJ.  [All starting to come together huh?]

One tending to take my word could click to " A gratia--Ex Gratia--Aah JSHIT," scroll down to (JSHIT #5)  and read how I had questioned said deposition.  Then I could further bolster the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman knew that I disputed the authenticity of this document by showing you a document filed with the court before he rendered his opinion, how would that sit?

Well lets take a look at civil action 08-cv-02407 docket item [47main], which is my "SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Scheduled for hearing on February 1, 2010."  Upon clicking the link and either scrolling to page 4 or clicking page four in the left side of the document one will find that I set forth the following to Judge Noel L. Hillman within this document:

"Upon my receipt of copy of the above Response in Opposition for Summary Judgment, on Saturday January 23, 2010 I did come to see why Mr. Mauro refused to give me a copy of the purported deposition taken from Ms. Fedaczynsky on July 9, 2009.  This transcript is a fraud filed within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that clearly states on its face that it was to be filed within the “SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF CAMDEN.”  It further claims to be the “Deposition of SHARON FEDACZYNSKY, taken by the Defendant, pursuant to Subpoena, held at the Bergen County Bar Association of 15 Bergen Street, Hackensack, New Jersey, before Tracy Cook, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary of the State of New Jersey.
Page three line three of the above says:  SHARON FEDACZYNSKY, 131 Orchard Street, Garfield, New Jersey 07026, having first been duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was examined and testified as follow:.  The State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Revenues, NEW JERSEY NOTARY PUBLIC MANUAL, (section) What is a Notary Public holds:
A Notary Public is a public officer who serves as an impartial witness to the signing of documents and to the acknowledgment of signatures on documents.  A Notary Public may also administer oaths and affirmations.
A duly appointed New Jersey Notary Public is authorized to perform notary services throughout the State of New Jersey.
This document was not the target for the case at bar for the above document filed by unethical attorney Christopher C. Mauro was intended to support the case of Eric Hickson.  See (Attachment #2).  The document further evidences this by holding on page three line three: “Mr. Hickson, Eric Hickson, the plaintiff in this case is representing himself.  If I am in fact in an honorable court an honorable judge will follow the rules of professional conduct and report said fraud by Mr. Mauro, if not the court will proceed to admit said fraudulent document into the record and deny me my right to the holdings of FRCVP 28, which say that the deposition shall be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or of the place where the examination is held…  Until Mr. Mauro produces the Notary Public’s New Jersey State license number the above filed deposition of Ms. Fedaczynsky is nothing more than a fraud and proof of Harrah’s continued willful and wanton misconduct, attempts to mislead a Federal Court of law and effort to avoid liability for its actions of May 15, 2006 upon which this action is couched."

Please note the stamp from the clerk of the court at the top of the document when you click the link, as this confirms that this document was filed as docket item [47], and it was filed on 02/02/2010.  So now you can see that some 7 months and 25 days before 9/27/2010, Judge Noel L. Hillman knew that plaintiff Earl Hickson disputed the authenticity of the purported deposition attached to the defendants motion, and what did he do?  Well as Richard Pryor would say "you're looking at the symptoms."

So now knowing that I would seek justice and reveal this (JSHIT), Judge Hillman did consider cleaning up his act, or should I say, attempt to wipe his ass clean, thereby trying to remove all indications of his court's bowel movements reflecting a proclivity towards (JSHIT). As a Bugs Bunny Cartoon character would say, "you said that?," while pointing to words on the screen below, and as I point to the afore sentence.  Yes, I said that and Judge Noel L. Hillman's actions support the same, and his further refusal to recuse himself from these matters reflect that he knows he and Karen M. Williams are caught red handed, or should I say with "judicial misconduct (JSHIT) skid marks" left in their drawers. This goes beyond having your hand in the cookie jar folks, there will be no licking of the fingers here.
 Well the above depends, no pun intended, but can you imagine the size of the "depends" that will be needed when this shit hits the fan?  Well if that happens I guess I'll be left quoting another one of my favorite comedians, Dave Chappelle, when he said that he hunted down a crack-head that stole a candy bar out of his car and upon finding the guy with chocolate around his mouth the crack-head said, "this ain't chocolate that's do-doo baby."  Well I'll be saying Judge Hillman's opinion is not based upon authentic documents, that's (JSHIT) baby.
 On the real, I didn't crack not one smile while writing this to share it with you, because I am not lying, but you be the judge baby.  Share it with a friend or two and see if they reach the same conclusion, I'll wait, because I have nothing but time as Hillman is now some 23 days late with his response to my motion for recusal due on 2/21/2012.  That's some more (JSHIT) for you baby!

Thanks, for hanging in here with me, and all your views and support.
The Casino Gaming Oracle!

No comments:

Post a Comment