So that no one takes immediate offense to this posts title let me define the context of its meaning. I have already established that I am African-American, and just because of my skin tone, I am not the first pot to call the kettle black, so to speak.
But when one is stingy, miserly, and stubborn in the due administration of the law, I must call it as I see it. Niggardly administration of the law, that's what I am talking about here folks. And in this second round, nothing will change. As always I will strive to present my averments based on facts and the law.
Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines "niggardly" as: "1. grudgingly mean about spending or granting." When one references this source a photo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and or District Judge Noel L. Hillman and U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, will not be found. But…
One has been chosen to expose these "Judicial Niggard's," relay the facts ,and proof's so that John and Jane Q. Public may form their own opinions based upon said facts and the application of the law.
Please, if I may, I can not for the life within me determine how a word as defined above has transcended to become an epithet and or label of scorn to the African-American Community. How could one race bearing the scars of the whip, be said to grudgingly grant his or her labor, or be mean when calling the whip-cracker, "Cracker?" Yet to remove some of the pain of the lashes of the whip and of the cutting of the tongue, this African-American community converts it into a coveted term that when used within the community can depending upon tone, relate dissatisfaction, to expressions of endearment. i.e. "Earl, that's my nigga."
Okay, thank you for letting me put that out there, back to the "Judicial Niggards." Ask any lawyer and they will tell you that no judge has the hubris to openly tell an African-American lawyer, "Nigger please." In the context of, "you can't possible expect me to rule according to your argument, when the "good ole boy's" say otherwise.
This is the situation we face in civil action 08-cv-02407. Judge Noel L. Hillman and his band of judicial niggard's have hubris "out-the-ass" but instead of having the balls to stand on the law they will hide behind Hillman's and William's absolute immunity, plus pray that no Honorable judicial officer reads between the lines of their (JSHIT) to see that they are technically saying "Nigger Please," as I requested that they have the balls to do within my cover letter to Judge Williams dated 8/17/2009. [See Dkt #32, averment #6 @ page 1-2]
The cove letter to Judge Williams should have alerted this band that plaintiff Hickson was not niggardly in any way shape or application of the word. I now proceed in that same vein to share with you how I have come to the firm conclusion that I am dealing with a band of Judicial Niggard's hell bent on their practice of Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics, which depend upon the age old legal maxim: "Ab assuetis non fit injuria." Which translates to: "no injury is done by things long acquiesces in."
Hence, I will not acquiesce in niggardly behavior. I will expose those that have a proclivity towards being judicial niggard's, and I will further share all the facts and law's that I base my averments upon. No "Bud" but here we go…
Within the next series of post I will share with you my basis in fact and law as to how Judge's Noel L. Hillman, Karen M. Williams, and their two "liars for hire," Christopher C. Mauro and DAG, Kathleen M. Bartus exhibit and reveal what can only be inferred as proclivities towards being "judicially niggardly."
Basis in law: U.S.C.S Fed. Civ. Rule 56, Interpretive Note 334.--Judgment subject to revision modification or vacation, holds:
"Partial summary judgment is not final judgment, but is pre-trial adjudication that certain issues are established for trial, and district court retains jurisdiction to modify Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) order at any time. Alberty-Velez v Corporacion de P.R. para la Difusion Publica (2004, CA1 Puerto Rico) 361 F3d 1, 93 BNA FEP Cas 550."
Lastly, today let me share with you a case that I remember by its citation which sort of tells us that it gives the people "natural gas." The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said:
Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 613 F.2d,482,484 (1980)
"Summary judgment is inappropriate if there remains in the case a genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)."
Man! Do I have some genuine issues of material facts to show and tell, so please stay tuned for part two, where I will set before you the documentary proof's that the above wrongdoer's are operating contrary to the law.
So please continue to tell a friend or two about this cause. They don't have to be lawyers or law students, just those concerned about their Constitutional Rights and the integrity of their Court's and it's judicial officers. Oh and I won't tell "who let the dogs out."
Thank you for viewing, and I hope you appreciate the time that I was away researching and would have it no other way. He's Baaaack!