Swimming With the So Called Judicial Sharks

Now I'm really back!  In my last post "Exposing The Judicial Niggard's," I had to ruffle a few feathers, and put a few drops of blood in the water to keep the so called "Sharks" and or my adversaries guessing as to my next move.

Yes, the battle within Judge Noel L. Hillmans court continues within civil action 08-cv-02407, Hickson v. Harrah's.  And now that I have filed my Rule 38 Motion for a Trial by Jury as to the 202 issue within the complaint, as put in issue by me making 202 allegations within the complaint and all defendants denying each and every allegation, hence pursuant to prevailing law, this matter should have been assigned a trial date.

But as you are seeing through this blog, Judge Noel L. Hillman and his two "liars of  hire" are hell bent upon depriving me of this right preserved by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 So, how will these sharks swim around Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38? I have many theories, of which I will share with you, but fist, allow me to set the stage. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(a), the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has published a list of "Motion Day's" for 2012.  To have a motion heard on August 20, 2012, one must meet the "Initial filing deadline" of July 27, 2012.

 As to reduce the odds of more tampering with the document I file with the court, I did on Friday, July 27, 2012 submit to the clerk of the court, on a "CD" containing pdf formatted versions of:

1. Notice of Motion for Trial by Jury Pursuant to FRCVP 38 and Recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 455.
2. Motion for Trial by Jury Pursuant to FRCVP 38 and Recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 455.
3. Brief of Plaintiff Earl D. Hickson in Support of Motion for Trial by Jury, Pursuant to FRCVP RULE 38, and Recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144 and 28 U.S.C.A. § 455.

Will the court respond as quickly as it did to my first recusal motion, as I shared with you previously within the third paragraph of "Day43 and Still No Response."  Only time will tell, but I'll let you know if I receive a notice from the court in the mail today.

I will be asking that you share this blog with as many people as you can, as the integrity of the courts are of concern to all.  I mean no disrespect to all of the ethical judicial officers out there, that do their all to maintain there integrity, uphold their oath's, and preserve the "public trust" expected of their profession, but when rogue so called "top predators" attempt to feed upon the weak, I must make this injustice know.

 As you will see, I have found that it's not the practice of law causes lawyers to be associated with being sharks, no, it's the failure to apply and follow the law that makes them sharks.  Why? Those familiar with this blog already know of the hubris this writer feels that these so called sharks exhibit.  Well now that the feeding frenzy has begun let me share with you some of what a Judge and two liars for hire have and will do, due to their "Great White Shark" mentality.

I have all the documents ready to share with you, and I hope each and every one of my readers rejoins and supports my efforts. So please tell two or three friends that the Gaming Oracle is back and boy does he have some (JSHIT) to tell.

Thank you for rejoining me and its great to be back!

The Casino Gaming Oracle