Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards (part 2)

As promised from "Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards" I have returned to share more case law that Judge Noel L. Hillman thumbs his nose to, and or is willfully ignorant of.

In the above post we looked at the 1989 case of U.S. v. Furst 886 F.2d 558.  Here, lets take a look at the 1976 case that was decided on September 1, 1976, Mims v. Sharp, 541 F. 2d 415, 416.  Within that case at page 416 Judge Gibson wrote:

"That fourth contention is that in ruling on appellants' motion to disqualify himself the district judge applied the wrong legal standard under 28 U.S.C. § 144. We agree, and conclude that all proceedings from December 10, 1974, the date of the § 144 motion, must be vacated and the case returned to the district court for reassignment to a different judge."
 I'll trust that if there are any lawyer out there that disagree with my understanding of this case, they will comment in correction below.  I understand the above case to say that after properly applying the standards under 28 U.S.C. § 144, the above court agreed with the petitioner and held the all proceedings from 12/10/1974, the date that the § 144 motion was filed, must be vacated.  The above court further said that because the judge misapplied § 144 the case would be returned to the district court and reassigned to a different judge.

How many remember that in the 12th paragraph of "Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards" I referred to Judge Hillman's March 28, 2012, opinion as invalid?   All those trained in the law, please correct me if I'm wrong.  If I filed my recusal motion on January 18, 2012, seeking the recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams from civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304, Judge Noel L. Hillman should not have proceeded and further in civil action 08-cv-02407, correct?

Well lets see, the cover letter that I shared with everyone substantiates that I was at the clerks desk on 1/18/2012. I discussed this fact in detail within the post entitled "Hickson vs. Hillman's & Williams' (JSHIT)." That post also has a direct link to a copy of the cover letter also.  But…

There will be some nay-sayer's that will say that there is one key element that's missing, and that would be the appearance that the motion for recusal was filed in regards to civil action 11-cv-06304. Well lets take a closer look, because correct me if I'm wrong again but Noel L. Hillman was put on notice that I was requesting his recusal in both cases.
 How about I save you some time and tell you that averment #27 of the Motion for Recusal reads:

 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.

If there are still some that must see things for themselves because they only believe half of what they hear, well they can click the following link and scroll down to page 9 to see averment #27 at the top of the page.
 I had a very long day, just as many of you have either ahead of you or behind you as well, but there is another case I'd like to share with you so please return and view this show stopper.

About to bump my head on the keyboard, but thanks for viewing,
Gaming Oracle! ZZZzzzzz!


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

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

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

  4. Excellent post! Love online gaming but have gotten to a point where I really need to cut back.


  5. This blog is really a great source of information for me. Thank you for sharing such a useful content.
    gaming casino

  6. I am new at this but thank you for opening my eyes that I need to start educating myself on the law in order to set myself free from the NYC Family Court Industrial Complex which has held me hostage for the pass 6 years without a trial while denying me normal visitation.