Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Acting vs. Reacting II

Thank you for joining in my posts on Acting vs. Reacting.  This is the second post in the series.  Within the first article "Acting vs.Reacting" I shared the definitions of the terms: (1) act, (2) react, (3) reaction, and (4) acting. 

If you are just joining us on this topic please click the preceding link, so that you will understand the context that these terms are used throughout this discussion of Acting vs. Reacting.
 In this article I submit that Judges Noel L. Hillman, Karen M. Williams, Christopher C. Mauro and DAG, Kathleen M. Bartus are pretending to be moral judicial officer, when the facts are to the contrary.

For our Courts to serve those within its jurisdiction, all judicial officers of that court should take action (MOVE), conduct themselves (BEHAVE), and perform the specific function of the due administration of justice (SERVE), in accordance with the law.

When the judicial officers of a court comply with the above, the public it serves can have confidence in said court.  If a judicial officer is found to "act" contrary to the above, he or she is not upholding their oath to uphold the highest law of the United States of America, the Constitution of the United States of America.
 Those familiar with this blog know that I have filed a motion seeking the recusal of judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams.  For those that aren't aware of this fact, or forgot it, you can review this fact at: "Absolute Immunity via Recusal."

Judge Noel L. Hillman, wanting to present the appearance that he is "just," did issue a hearing date of February 21, 2012, to render a decision on the motion seeking his recusal.  The physical evidence supports this act of Hillman's.  But, what is hidden is the fact that said act was nothing but Hillman's "reaction" to conceal his perfidy to uphold his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. (I guess such behavior is to be expected from one following in the footsteps of one of his former defendants. See "Abramoff Should Be Flattered.")
 The act of setting the date of Feb. 21, 2012 was made 33 minutes after the motion was filed.  How many lawyers out there can say that they normally receive such a speedy response from a judge. (I'll wait...)  Not to many huh? You'd have to be standing in front of the judge to get a response that quick, even then, you'll have to pray he doesn't call a recess, or it's not to close to lunch.

If judge Hillman writes that he will "take action (MOVE)" on 2/21/2012, why is it that as of April 17, 2012, there is no physical evidence that he has moved on this motion?  Do you agree that justice delayed is justice denied?  Well it was written that the motion to recuse would be moved upon on 2/21/2012.  Yes, that's what was written and it's not what was done. Hence, Noel L. Hillman was acting.
 He was presented with the stimulus, and 54 days after the purported hearing date there is no response. Hmm?  But wait, the plot thickens, or should I say the (JSHIT) deepens. I will reveal further facts that show this judges lack of integrity.  Said lack of integrity going beyond his proselytization of Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams. (See Proselytization of KMW)
Without an answer to the motion to recuse himself, judge Noel L. Hillman is pretending to serve as a U.S. District Judge, when in fact he is not doing so, and he is not just running a little behind on conducting the business of the Court.   Do you agree?

Thank you for viewing, and please join me for the next post.
Gaming Oracle!

No comments:

Post a Comment