Thursday, April 26, 2012

All-In-All Its Just More JSHIT On The Wall

Pause music below before clicking.

Day 65, and Noel L. Hillman has yet to move on motion that he recuse himself from civil action 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304. Yet he has slung more JSHIT on the walls of justice, and at some point the people must demand that this injustice be stopped.

Let's look at the facts. Keep in mind that what I state here within this blog does not constitute facts unless I can substantiate said facts with proof's to support them. Hence, whenever I make a claim in this blog a try to support my claim with some form of evidence, just like I've done in the civil actions I'm sharing with you.
I shared with you via "Absolute Immunity via Recusal" that a "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams" was filed with the Court.  That post has a direct link to the document, and hopefully all that follow this blog have clicked this link to confirm that this is a fact.  If not, by now you know the drill, click the link to the post now...I'll wait.

Fact, averment #27 of the above Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams states:

 Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams cannot deny that the above averments #5
through #26 unless supported by substantial evidence to the contrary, support and offer
valid grounds for their recusal from civil action’s 1:11-cv-06304 and 1:08-cv-02407.

You be the judge, has the court been given notice that the plaintiff's are seeking the recusal of these judges from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407? With that set forth, and considering the fact that we are not face-to-face, let me tell you that I have not received any document stating that the motion was given to the chief judge, nor some 65 days after February 21, 2012 have I received anything from judge Noel L. Hillman.

Within "Acting vs. Reacting III" I shared with you that there was a cat to be let out of the bag.  To keep my word, and to try and be as brief as possible, I'm getting to that here, but first I'd like to make sure that all understand that what I am revealing is based upon solid facts.  Said facts have further support in being grounded in decisional and statutory laws and rules.
 When I state the obvious, many will bemoan that I am relating the law of separate jurisdictions, and guess what they will be correct.  In rebuttal I will direct their attention to the fact that there is a concept called "stare decisis" and our court strive to prevent a conflict within the "circuits" of the various United States District Courts.  Any one beg to differ?

In "Acting vs. Reacting III" we saw that In Riga v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline 224 S.W.3d 795 (2007), that court said:


The record establishes that Judge Fowler was aware that a second motion to recuse was pending when he signed the March 1, 2006 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(c) requires a judge who declines to recuse to forward the recusal motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. Judge Fowler did this. However, Rule 186a(c) further requires that the trial judge may make no further orders and take no further action prior to a hearing on the forwarded motion. The only exception provided by the Rule is if the further order states good cause for ruling notwithstanding the pending recusal motion. Here, the order granting the plea to the jurisdiction does not refer in any way to the pending recusal 798*798 motion, much less state good cause for why the order was signed when the recusal motion was pending. Accordingly, the March 1, 2006 order is "void" because it was signed in violation of Rule 18a.

Judge Noel L. Hillman, being the most unethical, and exhibiting the most niggardly application of law, has now set for in black-and-white, proof that he further disregards creating conflict within the circuits, and he is determined to protect Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Atlantic City, from liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
After he was clearly given notice that he was be asked to recuse himself he does not forward the motion to the chief judge, and he proceeds to write an order in a case that he is being requested that he remove himself from.

You were given the facts as to the motion to recuse, and just above I shared with you the law that gives further support to these facts. Now let me share with you the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman on March 28, 2012 did write another Order and Opinion in civil action 08-cv-02407.  And yes, he does have the "HUBRIS" to publish this invalid Opinion for the world to see at Hickson v. MARINA ASSOCIATES, Dist. Court, D.New Jersey 2012.

At this juncture lets rest in knowing that this fact exists.  I've shared with you what the law says when a judge is asked to recuse himself.  I've told you that this judge said that he would move on the Motion to Recuse on 2/21/2012.  Yet, now as of this posting, some 65 day's past due, I do not have that ruling to share with you. But…
 Lastly, let me share this with all that are not aware of what the law says in relation to a judges handling of the courts business.  Those versed and studied in the law will know that:



  • RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness
 A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial
office fairly and impartially.
  • RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including
administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.
  • RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct
(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
 (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other
interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or
 (C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression
that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
  • RULE 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a
proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, should have the right to be heard according to law. Hmm? Judge Noel L. Hillman exhibits behavior that clearly says these [FN] rules do not apply to his court.  Well, I beg to differ Judge Hillman, and I will proceed to show that you are sling more JSHIT against the walls of justice.

As always, I thank each and every viewer, please tell a friend or two, and if my point is clear send a message to these judges with a simple +1.  Yes, a simple +1 adds up to tell these judges and others that you know what's going on.

Thank You,
Casino Gaming Oracle!

1 comment:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.