Judge Lies to Cover Lies, (JSHIT #8)

Please don't pre-judge me to be disrespectful when I say that a judge lies to cover lies, but I have to call it as I see it.  Pro se litigants face enough prejudice in courts due to their pro se "status," so please allow me to continue giving you the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then you can judge for yourselves.

Previously within "JSHIT #8, Have Judge That Will Lie!" I gave you the facts and showed you the documents relating to the filing of the "Third Amended Complaint" in civil action 08cv02407.  You were also given the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that stated when and how a paper is filed with the court.  So, based on the facts and the law, was the "Third Amended Complaint" filed on 8/18/2009?

Yes, as you saw when you clicked the link this document was stamped filed by the clerk of the court on 8/18/2009 as document [32], which is further reflected by the courts docket sheet showing the same.  But now we must remember that we have a judge that knows he cannot make a ruling on a document that is supported by documentary proofs attached as exhibits, so a plan had to be devised to correct his understudy's mistake in following the rules correctly.

Again, knowing that the complaint was supported by strong proofs, Judge Noel L. Hillman and his band of cohorts took from 8/18/2009 through 11/02/2009 to devise their plan.  After coming up with this plan Judge Karen Williams was called upon to issue an Order stating that I had 20 days to re-file a document that was already filed on 8/18/2009.  [See Order granting32 Motion on the docket sheet by scrolling to page 11.]

Since I smell some "JSHIT," let's see what the law has to say on the matter, because it's obvious that we have to take it further than FRCVP 5, when dealing with this band of wrongdoers.  Dean v. Veterans Admin. Regional Office, 943F. 2d 667, 671 says:

See also Rodgers v. Bowen, 790 F.2d 1550, 1552 (11th Cir.1986) ("[A] complaint is `filed' for statute of limitations purposes when it is `in the actual or constructive possession of the clerk,' regardless of the untimely payment of the required filing fee.") (citations omitted); Robinson v. City of Fairfield, 750 F.2d 1507, 1511 (11th Cir.1985) (the filing of legal and factual nature of claim along with application for appointment of counsel and for authority to commence action without prepayment of costs constitutes the filing of a complaint).

 These judicial officers must be "smoking the good shit," they have to be high on something if the docket shows the complaint in the possession of the clerk, the document itself clearly says as seen on the Notice of Motion: "Case 1:08-cv-02407-NLH-KMW Document 32 Filed 08/18/09 page 1 of 7 Page ID: 519."  Go ahead check it, I'll wait...one thousand one...one thousand two…

Okay, you're back.  Please excuse me but after seeing that you'll understand why I am upset.  How can lying ass Judge Noel L. Hillman have the hubris to write sentence number four, stating:

Sentence #4- That same month, he filed his Motion for Summary Judgment.

America, lets him write this "JSHIT" other lawyers and judges accept this "JSHIT," and start citing the "JSHIT," and the next thing you know we have bad judge made law.  As a pro se litigant I am held to the same rules of court and rules of professional conduct.  Let me boldly state that I hereby proclaim "NOT ON MY [FN] WATCH!"

 Of course he has to state sentence four as he does, this liar knew they were going to put on their "Broadway level" performance of Dec. 14, 2009, wherein "Ms. Proselytization" would attempt to indoctrinate me into this school of thought. NOT!  Later on I will show you how DAG for the State of New Jersey, Kathleen Bartus did submit the documents they would use to over expose and remove 8 pages from my complaint.  Folks federal statutory law calls that tampering with, destruction, and mutilation of documents filed within a Court of the United States of America.

Any wonder why as you read this on 3/8/2012, lying ass Hillman's ruling on the motion to recuse himself from civil action 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304 is 16 days past due from the 2/21/2012 hearing date. The "JSHIT" stinks something awful, and someone needs to get off the "judicial pot."

See, on Dec. 14, 2009, before court commenced I filed the Motion for Summary Judgment at 10:41 AM.  You can see at the link that the clerk of the court stamped it "Received 10:41 AM," and then it was stamped within the system: "Case 1:08-cv-02407-NLH-KMW Document 39 Filed 12/14/09."  Bad news is, further research has shown me that this practice of "twice filing" might just be worthy of another form of "JSHIT."  You check it out, go to google scholar, in the search box, type "filed twice," and watch the page results fill to the max, Hmm???

 I'll close here, but thanks for coming back each day.  Oh before I forget, I got to thinking, what about all those with everyday questions on the law?  Well I've created a page on Facebook that all can join to ask, discuss, and share their experiences with the law.  You can make posts and all sort's of things, many will probably know how to use this page better than I do, but my pledge will be to get the best answers and keep the conversations going. I will just ask that it stays law related, so please tell as many friends as you can and lets all be friends at 1lol-LaymenOnLaw at http://www.facebook.com/1lolLaymenOnLaw.  I figured others might enjoy saying "this one layman on the law says, or has found."  Again, this community page is open to all laypersons, lawyers, and all in between. See you there!

Thank You,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!