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