JSHIT: Corruptions Acrimonious Acronym

Regardless of what you may call it, "Corruption," "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics," or "JSHIT" it will still be "Wrong," as in "a wrong."  Fighting it is an up-hill battle and it can be like the  Raymond J Johnson Jr. dilemma?

"JSHIT: Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics," previously posted, defined and or put in context this acronyms usage here at the Casino Gaming Oracle.  Think of it as a word describing corruption with "Flava" so to speak.  For most of the "brotha's" on lock down already, the term will bring back memories of when they were going back and forth to court and they would always return saying, "you know, the judge on some bullshit."

 The bad news is the entire system on that same bullshit, so today I thought I would share with you, others interpretations and experiences of the same (JSHIT).  They, "tends-ta" call it corruption, though.  Guess they on some candor towards the tribunal bullshit. Anyway…

Dale M. Baranoski's "New Jersey and Corruption, Perfect Together!" says:

"Ok, here is the problem New Jersey and its corruption.  Too many acronyms representing too many so-called anti-corruption offices and agencies that are intentionally ineffective.  For example there are the SCI (State Commission of Investigation), the OGI (Office of Governmental Integrity), the OIA (Office of Intergovernmental Affairs), the AG (Attorney General), the IG (Inspector General), and the PAO (Public Advocate's Office) and even the OAE (Office of Attorney Ethics) just to name a few…

From within, as a trained, veteran criminal investigator and as a corruption victim, I have been to each and every of these so called "corruption" agencies and provided sound proof of crimes by public officials (police, prosecutors, judges and politicians), and each and every one proved it can be diverted from the more powerfully connected.  Only the poorly disconnected or those out of favor will ever find themselves in hot water.  When irrefutable proof can be de-factualized (from my own dictionary) despite the existence of evidence from the vaults of the corrupt public officials themselves, then law and justice are simply to elusive concepts no-existence within the boundaries of NJ."

If I get the chance to meet Judge Noel L. Hillman myself, I will have to introduce Mr. Baranoski to him also, so that Hillman can tell him (Baranoski) that he too lacks the personal knowledge to make his claims.  But, "good ole boy" Hillman would run into a problem, as soon as he (Hillman) would attempt to explain to Baranoski that he is just not satisfied with his superiors rulings, Hillman would again be met with resistance to his attempted proselytization.  One, Dale Baranoski, displays courage by forthrightly naming those he deems guilty, and two, Judge Hillman would be talking to a Westampton Police Department Sergeant that speaks with his God given boldness when he proclaims:

"Sometimes all it takes is one man to step up and do the right thing. In my battle against this corruption, I have never shirked my responsibility to combat crime. Never has my integrity or honesty been impeached. After having exhausted all remedies to bring those responsible to justice, I have elected in exposing them, and a legal system in decay that allows such criminality to be managed through it."

If one were to go to Mr. Baranoski's website at http://southjerseyjustice.com/ and click "other victims" they won't find the names Earl Hickson of Markland Grant.  They will be able to read other stories resounding in "JSHIT" though.   Such as the "Victim Pasquarelli" matter wherein a judge had been served with a foreclosure notice by the "victim," yet the judge refused to recuse himself. Hmm?  Sounds like JSHIT  to me folks, but check it out for yourselves.   You know how I do, I just provide the facts, and let you be the judge.  But don't be surprised when you visit Mr. Baranoski's site, because he has documentary proofs too folks. Hmm? [Sounds like JSHIT with proofs.]

I'm starting to see why they (the United States) didn't want to allow African-Americans to be able to testify in a Court of law.  If you know you'll be exacting so much "JSHIT" against people you couldn't possibly allow them to get on the stand and tell it.  Hmm, that may further explain why the term "feeble minded" was coined, and intended to label those that now had a right to, and would be able tell it on the stand, and who know a jury might believe that shit.  Hmm, hence maybe doubt could be instilled in "feeble minded" testimony. 

But what now, above we have the son of a respected former "Chief of Police," that came up through the ranks to be a "Sergeant" himself, and now he is publicly claiming to be a victim of "Corruption," as he calls it.  Is he "feeble minded" or just lacking of personal knowledge.  Hey, Judge Noel L. Hillman, help us out here, the African-American and the White-American's are both crying "JSHIT." 

 All this writer can say is, "Candor dies slowly, as this man (Baranoski), for what ever reasons calls what he has experienced "corruption."  I would have to assume that it was his lack of a better description that caused him to call in that."  But just as RaymondJ. Johnson Jr. would rant if you called him "Johnson," he (Baranoski) doesn't have to call it corruption any more for he can call it "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics," or he can call it "JSHIT," but he doesn't have to call it "corruption."  Get all the facts, check out his website, and then ask him yourselves, and I'll bet you he will still call it "WRONG."

"You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it."  Malcolm X

Thank You,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

JSHIT: Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics

For those that don't know "Jack" about "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics-[JSHIT]," here's the low down dirty-dirty facts on this hidden practice that obstructs justice, denies equal protection of the laws of the United States of America, and circumvents meaningful access to its courts in violation of the highest law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.

Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines as follows:

• Judicial-  Relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice or the judiciary, or judicial processes.
• Stealthy-  Slow, deliberate, and secret in action or character.
• Hubristic-  Exaggerated pride of self-confidence.
• Injustice-  Absence of justice: violation of right or of the rights of another, an unjust act.
• Tactic-  A device for accomplishing an end.

The above gives one a dictionary's definition of the acronym.  While working on this blog I coined the acronym and this lead to the birth of  "Acronymically Speaking 101," wherein (JSHIT) was one of the first to make the list. [Side note: you can submit your acronyms to as101byoggo@gmail.com or by comment @as101byoggo.blogspot.com]

As the acronym pertains to this subject matter, the best definitions are contained within the individual postings that first presents the "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic," and they are as follows:

Casino Gaming Oracle defines each (JSHIT) at:

• JSHIT #1-  @ "Earl Hickson v Marina Associates, The Complaint"

• JSHIT #2-  @ "Hickson v Marina Associates (JSHIT #2)"
• JSHIT #3-  @ "(JSHIT #3) and Other Third-Party Practice"
• JSHIT #4-  @ "Attached by Law and Ignored by Will"

• JSHIT #5-  @ "A Gratia--Ex Gratia--Aah JSHIT"

• JSHIT #6-  @ "Atlantic City Casinos Influence Throughout the State of NJ"
• JSHIT #7-  @ "Answers Disputing Allegations=Issues for Trial"

After the giving of a few moments of your time, by clicking the links above, you will be a "Jack" of all revealed "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic's," and no matter if you're going into a court of law on your own (pro-se), as the Gaming Oracle has, or if you have an attorney, you are now armed with the facts to protect your Constitutional Rights of equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the courts of these United States of America.

Please tell a friend or two so that they may become "New Jacks" to (JSHIT), and all of you may join the Gaming Oracle in this fight against injustice.  Don't forget there is no injustice until someone makes it know.

Thank you,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Corroboration via The Legal Papers (part III)

Now the clock begins to tick, and we shall know if Judge Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams will recuse themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407.  I have shared with you in a previous post that Judge Noel L. Hillman pounced upon the recusal motion within 33 minutes of its filing to set the date for hearing on 2/21/2012.  [See second paragraph of "Absolute Immunity via Recusal"]

On May 15, 2012, civil action 08-cv-02407 will become four years old, and during that period this writer has never receive such a quick response from the court, as was the case of receiving the notice that the recusal motion would be heard on 2/21/2012.  It would appear to follow that Judge Noel L. Hillman would act with the same speed in rendering his opinion, would it not?  Hence, this writer should be receiving some (JSHIT) in the mail today, 2/22/2012 and John and Jane Q. Public should have access to the same via the internet on Friday 2/24/2012, right, or its another case of justice delayed is justice denied, HMM?

 Today, while we await our response lets take a look at what another legal paper has to say about a judges recusal.  "HISTORY OF AND PROBLEMS WITH THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK, by Richard E. Flamm," at page (10/13) states:

"It has been said that the net effect of the 1974 amendments to § 455

was  to “liberalize greatly the scope of [judicial] disqualification in the

federal courts,”65 and in some ways, that may be true.  But the amended

statute was not without its own problems.  For one thing, as one federal

district court  judge tersely noted, “[i]t  is not so easy as the Congress and

the Court of Appeals seem to think it is to determine what ‘a reasonable

person knowing all the relevant facts’ would think about anything, much

less about the impartiality of a judge.”66  Another problem is that, while the

1974 amendments to § 455 supposedly displaced the “duty to sit” concept

with a rule requiring judges to resolve any doubts about whether

disqualification was warranted in favor of disqualification, a spate of recent

federal court decisions have affirmed preamendment case law holding that

a federal judge is as obligated to sit when the facts do not give fair support

to a charge of prejudgment, as the judge is to recuse when the facts warrant

such action.

Yet another problem is that federal judges who are  called upon to

decide disqualification motions are under no obligation to explain their

rationale, either for recusing themselves or for declining to do so.  This is

problematic because, while federal judges do recuse themselves in many

situations, a judge who does so rarely writes an opinion explaining why.  In

contrast, judges who decline to disqualify themselves often write lengthy

opinions explaining their reasoning."

 Having no doubt that we will get the latter of the above, I have taken the liberty to share with you the real reason why these judges are pursuing their course of action, and that is because they know that all it takes is one of the litigants in 11-cv-06304 to say that she was not at a deposition on July 22, 2010, and this band of cohorts entire gig is wrecked, do you agree? [See 10th paragraph of "A gratia--ExGratia--Aah JSHIT" and the 4th paragraph of "Appearance of Justice w/ Aroma of J.S.H.I.T, But!"]

Thank You for waiting with me,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Aggregating Further Showings of Bias

In my previous post I started a detailed analysis of averment [16] of my "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," and it's supporting "Brief."  If you are just joining me or missed that posting please refer back to it by clicking its title here. [Details of A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All]

I will now show you why I do not hesitate in telling you that Judge Noel L. Hillman is not fit to sit on the bench in this case or any other case involving a pro se litigant.  Judge Noel L. Hillman, on the surface appears to be a follower of the old school rapper "D-Nice," for he presents an attitude that he will be "taking out you suckers and you don't know how I did it."  Well bad news for Hillman would be that there is a genre call "battle rapping," and when a participant feel's that he has an opponent crushed because his shit is weak, he or she will end the round by telling the opponent he of she is "easy."

Please click to post 28 "A Judge Should be Placed Before 3 Cannons forIgnoring Canon 3," where you will see that I have previously warned that judges will, "find phrases within written case law to support their purported administration of justice, all the while knowing that said citing’s are not made using the full context of said decisional case law."  I will now show you how Judge Noel L. Hillman has done the same, in his effort to make an appearance of the due administration of justice, please do not be fooled.

The second paragraph of averment [16], and object of our analysis today holds:

"You further state at Hickson v. Marina Associates, et al., 743 F.Supp.2d 362, footnote [11], that: “The Court may consider Kosko's investigation report as part of the record. See Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290, 1294 (3d Cir.1994) (holding that "the district court exercised sound discretion in admitting for consideration" an unsworn police report). Although Hickson disagrees with the conclusions drawn therein, the report essentially repeats facts already alleged or established in the case, i.e., Fedaczynsky's allegations and Hickson's outstanding warrant, and serves principally to show Kosko's awareness of those facts—regardless of their ultimate veracity— at the time when the events of this case were still unfolding.” No other words other than “Bullshit” can fully explain a reasonable person’s reaction to the true facts. "

I may be wrong, and please feel free to correct me if I am, but to apply decisional case law one must understand the full context of the case one is citing.  Ok you lawyers and law students out there help me out here.  Now, those that follow this blog know that I will give you all the facts so that you can make your own reasonable determination. So, lets take a look at what Clark v. Clabaugh, 20 F.3d 1290,1294 really holds.  The above sentence that Hillman "jacks" is contained within the following:

Clabaugh, 20 F.3d1290,1294

"Before deciding whether the evidence suggests a genuine issue of material fact as to 42 U.S.C. § 1986 liability such as to warrant vacatur of the district court's summary judgment order, we must decide first the propriety of the district court's consideration of the PSP Report. The plaintiffs relied virtually exclusively on this report to support the existence of genuine issues of material fact. The plaintiffs did not submit affidavits in opposition to the motion, but did submit the sworn deposition of Pennsylvania State Police Captain Ronald Rostalski properly authenticating the PSP Report. The plaintiffs also submitted excerpts from their own deposition testimony.

We are quite satisfied that the district court exercised sound discretion in admitting for consideration the PSP Report, which is indeed unsworn, authored by an investigator who did not have personal knowledge, and which contains opinion based on hearsay. We note that affidavits in support of summary judgment can be opposed by any admissible evidence, including that contained in "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c) (emphasis added). Rule 56(e) further indicates that the adverse parties' response may be in the form of "affidavits or as otherwise provided in [Rule 56] . . ." (emphasis added). Thus, while Rule 56(e) makes clear that the appellants were required to submit more than mere allegations in their pleadings to oppose the movants' properly supported summary judgment motions, the evidence submitted showing a material factual issue for trial need not have been in the form of an opposing affidavit, as the defendants contend. Hence it was not incumbent upon the plaintiffs under Rule 56 to submit counter-affidavits, albeit such affidavits could have enhanced the strength of their arguments."

As shown above the reviewing court said that: "Before deciding whether the evidence suggests a genuine issue of material fact...we must decide first the propriety of the district court's consideration of the PSP Report."  The court proceed to show the factors it relied on, which were, as seen above:

• plaintiffs relied virtually exclusively on this report to support the existence of genuine issues of material fact.

• plaintiffs did not submit affidavits in opposition to the motion.
• did submit the sworn deposition of Pennsylvania State Police Captain Ronald Rostalski properly authenticating the PSP Report.

• plaintiffs also submitted excerpts from their own deposition testimony.

 From the very first complaint that Earl Hickson filed in civil action 08-cv-02407 he never relied on any report of Mark Kosko, one reason could be because he didn't have it, and a second reason is the fact that he relied upon his on good memory of the events he experienced.

Did plaintiff Hickson submit affidavits in support of his motion for summary judgment? Well you be the judge. One having a copy of the prevailing "Third Amended Complaint" finds that the certification on page 42 reads:

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other court, arbitration or administrative proceeding.  I further certify that all statements are based on fact and based on prevailing law and all copies of exhibits are accurate and true copies of said documents.  I verify this complaint and certify that it is based upon the first hand knowledge of Earl D. Hickson and at the risk of sanctions and or perjury I pray that the defendants are judged based upon their ability to show my averments to not be based in fact or law and not. I further pray that the trier of the facts see through all attempts as misrepresentation of facts and avoidance of the law and grant a just adjudication of this matter to set forth new law to be followed within the State of New Jersey and guide other jurisdiction to eliminate the Constitutional violations stated here within.

When one files a motion for summary judgment one must include a certification with said motion, and certification statements #37 and #38, found on page 9 of Earl Hickson's certification holds:

37. I make this Certification with the intention and understanding that same shall be relied upon by a Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, in evaluating whether to enter an Order granting summary judgment on behalf of plaintiff Earl D. Hickson, setting forth that the court has found defendants Harrah’s Hotel and Casino, Security Officer Vance Thompson, Josh Lechtblau, and George Morton liable to plaintiff for damages and the only remaining issue to be tried by the jury is the amount of damages.

38. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

On March 26, 2010 Earl Hickson did sign his "Renewed/Supplemental" Motion for Summary Judgment," by stating:

CERTIFICATION

I certify that all statements are based on fact and based on prevailing law and all copies of exhibits are accurate and true copies of said documents.  I certify that it is based upon the first hand knowledge of Earl D. Hickson and at the risk of sanctions and or perjury I pray that the defendants are judged based upon their ability to show my averments to not be based in fact or law. I further pray that the trier of the facts see through all attempts as misrepresentation of facts and avoidance of the law and grant a just adjudication of this matter to set forth new law to be followed within the State of New Jersey and guide other jurisdictions to eliminate the Constitutional violations stated here within.

As established within "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (part II)," Judge Noel L. Hillman said that these were the prevailing documents in the case. So, why have I drifted into being so long-winded here, Judge Hillman is "EASY," but I want you to know how I'm taking this sucker out, ebonically speaking that is. Please stay with me on this, just a few more paragraphs, OK?

All of Earl Hickson's document were submitted under penalty of perjury, pursuant of 28 USC § 1746, which holds:

28 USCS § 1746. Unsworn declarations

 Whenever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writhing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

In civil action 08-cv-02407 there was only one valid deposition taken, and that was the deposition of the plaintiff, Earl Hickson.  Christopher C. Mauro claims to have taken another deposition, but Judge Noel L. Hillman knows that did not occur, and it is part of the reason he chose to sit on 11-cv-06304, and attempt to dismiss that case in an effort to prevent that truth from being revealed. [EASY]

 To drive my point home, and or put a wooden stake through this vampire's heart, the case law above that Hillman "jacks" clearly says that the report of the State Trooper was authenticated by a sworn deposition, please will someone ask Judge Noel L. Hillman where's the [FN] sworn deposition of Mark Kosko, or any other named party in the complaint for that matter. [EASY]

The case law above, is the opinion of the Third Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Judge Hillman's unethical courtroom, and makes their decision mandatory pursuant to the doctrine of "stare decisis."  The lawyers and law students out there know there should be hell to pay when an attorney misrepresents decisional case law, as held within the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Judge Noel L. Hillman has just been shown to not be a professional, [EASY], do you agree?

Thank you oh so much for all your time,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Liar-Liar

Answer Genesis/Revelations of the Defendants (Part II)

This posting may turn out to be a revelation more to those already in the legal field, as they will have PACER accounts and be able to use these accounts to verify what I'm saying.  However I will not leave the others by the wayside, so I will do my best to give you access as well.

Let's kick that horse again, he's not dead! Docket item #11, which should be on the docket sheet stating: "SCHEDULING ORDER: In-Person Status Conference set for 4/17/2009 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider.  Pretrial Factual Discovery extended to 4/30/2009. Dispositive Motions due by 5/29/2009., Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 12/17/2008.  (nf,) (Entered: 12/18/2008).," is missing in action.

Those with a PACER account will be able to go to U.S. Dist. Court for District of NJ, enter the case number (08cv02407 NLH-KMW) and find that dkt. #11 has been removed. Again this is in violation of 18 USCS §2071.  Those without PACER accounts can look to the two docket sheets in the "source links," and  the copy of Magistrate Schneider's Order, which is also in the "source links."  (See Dkt_Item_11 in the "Source Links" to the right)

At the "initial conference" as designated by the law under FRCVP 16, but in this instance it was nothing but a "go see."  Let's go see if this guy has an attorney, cause no pro se litigant could put together such a complaint. NOT!  I didn't write no song bout it, just packed my shit and showed up by my damn self, because that's all there was and will ever be.  Wait, I can't say that because I know better, when I turn to my right or left, I can feel God's presence surrounding me.  Hence this be the real reason like "Hammer" said, they "Can't touch this."

With my "Rule 26 (a) (1) Initial Disclosures" at the ready, my copy of New Jersey Rules Of Court (Federal), and two witnesses, I counter-bopped my ass into the belly of the beast.  Upon entering the court room I walked past George Morton, who was sitting at the back of the courtroom, alone awaiting the proceedings.  Christopher Mauro was at the defendants table and the clerk of the court did present us with the courts sign in sheet.  Hence now as I write this, and having gained more understanding, I see why Mr. Morton stayed at the back of the courtroom and didn't want to join Mauro at the defendant's table.

I presented Christopher Mauro with my Rule 26 disclosures and initial request for discovery. I stated on the record "let the record reflect that I am giving defense counsel said disclosures." For those thinking of going pro se, don't forget this, any physical acts you do in court state "let the record reflect" what ever your doing.  But also remember that if you follow in Harrah's lawyers footsteps you man not want to let the record reflect that you are lying.

Bold statement you say?  Well on Dec. 17, 2008 Christopher Mauro stood before a judge and stated that he had mailed me a copy of the surveillance video.  Well let's see, the court proceedings started on time at 10:30 AM and were over before Noon.  Hence any attorney making a statement that something was in the mail is implying that said act has taken place, right or wrong?  Well by the time I made my "Third Amended Complaint" I was able to show the court that Mauro is a liar.  The postage meter on the envelope use to send me the CD is clearly stamped 1PM 12/17/2008. (See "TCGO_Exhibit O,"  in your "source links" on the right)

My only guess is that after attending the "go see" he called the office and told them that it looked like "Houston we have a problem, mail the tapes, this is not the cake walk we were expecting." Little did he know that eventually he's going to have to say "Houston, I can't hold it, she's breaking up-abort-abort-abort."  They (Harrah's) will wonder why, and in the back ground you'll hear the song bout it by "Dire Straits" "the mans to big... the mans to strong."  Snow covers over your screen, then fades to black.  But wait!  "Next on H.B.O" NOT!

Till Next time, Happy and Knowledgeable gaming, TheCasinoGamingOrcle!

Same blog time, same blog channel : )

Answer Genesis/Revelations of the Defendants

Are the Answers In?

As we move along in civil action 08cv02407 (NLH) (KMW) within the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, we now come to the shocking answers offered by the defendants in the case.  Keep one thing in mind as we proceed, that being the fact that these are the revelations of the defendants attorney's, as evidenced by said answers not being directly signed by a named party.

Tell you what, lets take a look at what the law says in reference to answering a complaint first.  We would have to begin with FRCVP 7 Pleadings Allowed: Form of Motions and Other Papers.  In doing so, we find that FRCVP 7 (a) holds: "Pleadings- Only these pleadings are allowed: (1) a complaint; (2) an answer to a complaint; (3) an answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim; (4) an answer to a cross-claim; (5) a third-party complaint; (6) and answer to a third-party complaint; and (7) if the court orders one, a reply to an answer.

Pursuant to FRCVP 7 (a) (1), stating that one of the allowed pleadings is a complaint.  The court's record evidenced by copy of its docket sheet substantiates that this rule was complied with and met by me when I filed a complaint on 5/15/2008.  This document became Court docket item #1.   (See page 8 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

Pursuant to FRCVP 7 (a) (2), stating that one of the allowed pleadings is an answer to a complaint, Harrah's Hotel and Casino did file it's answers to the complaint.  This document filed on 10/14/2008 became court docket item #7.   (See page 8 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

On 11/18/2008, after receiving the above answers from Harrah's, I did timely file my Reply and Objection to the sufficiency of Defendants Answers. Said fact is evidenced by the court's docket sheet containing docket item #9.  (See page 9 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

Appears, wait a minute, I dislike that word.  Why?   In my opinion when a judge uses that word be prepared to duck, because the J.S.H.I.T is about to hit the fan.  Any judge sitting on the bench now a days will be old enough to remember the song that went, "Is you is or is you ain't my baby."   The singer of that song, way back when, didn't ask are you appearing to be my baby?  He wanted to know cut and dry-- either you is or you ain't.  Now a days we say "don't front."

So the record shows that I filed a complaint and Harrah's Hotel and Casino answered.  But wait what about the other defendant?  Those of you versed in the law asked this question awhile back I hope, and those not as well versed should be catching on by now.   Do I have to break out the ruler?   That's right, one defendant has answered to this point and according to the documentary proof before us on the courts docket sheet we are about to go to an initial conference.

The above referenced initial conference is the result of an Order by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, entered on the courts docket as docket item #8 on 10/17/2008. But if I may keep you a little longer, please note that docket item #10 reveals that defendant George Morton was served and his answers to the complaint are due in the court by 12/15/2008.  Oh Goodie.  Not! Are you forgetting that Mr. Morton did come to the conference on 12/17/2008.

We already established that because Mr. Morton did submit to the courts jurisdiction the cohorts had to resort to removing docket item #11 which was Judge Schneider's Order evidencing this fact. (See J.S.H.I.T.#2 in archives to the left) There are some key issue to reveal to you as to what took place at the initial conference, and I will do that in the next posting.

Thank You for joining me, Big Shout Out to #1 follower Boo!

Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle (aka OGGO)

P.S. Check out Acronymically Speaking 101, spawned by JSHIT at

http://as101byoggo.blogspot.com/2011/11/list-of-submission-11302011.html

Hickson v. Marina Associates (J.S.H.I.T. #2)

Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic- #2

In the last posting you were introduced to the complaint I filed seeking redress of the violation of my civil and constitutional rights. Before we can delve into the crux of the complaint itself, I must impart Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic #2.

The first tactic could be called "the with-holding of jurisdiction" by improper service of process. By my reading and understanding of the law, said law being FRCVP 4, which states that a valid summons must be signed and bear the seal of the court. Please, by way of comment, have I stated a fact evidenced by the document on the record and further shown the basis in law supporting said fact?

No one inform this writer that he should've jumped over the counter at the clerks office, and ensured that the summons the clerk would be forwarding to the U.S. Marshal for service, had the seal of the court on them. The court will not tell a pro se litigant that FRCVP 4 requires that the seal be on each summons, but the court knows that it can dismiss the case if this occurs. My basis in law for this statement is FRCVP 4 Interpretive Note 38 Defects in form of summons, Unpublished Opinions, holding: "Unpublished: Defect was merely technical flaw that did not prejudice rights of putative defendant where plaintiff did not select wrong defendant, but technically mislabeled correct defendant, and, in fact, putative defendant invited use of this nomenclature and its subsequent use by plaintiff in commencing adversary proceeding; correct defendant had been sued, putative defendant was not prejudice by improper naming, and summons and complaint sufficiently alerted it that it was being sued; therefore, case was characterized as one of mislabeling as oppose to naming wrong defendant. Scient, Inc. v AFCO (In re Scient, Inc.) (2007, BC SD NY) 2007 Bankr LEXIS 634."

From all that I have been able to decipher from reading past Hillman cases this ploy could be a part of his modus-operandi as most of the cases that come before him appear to end in settlements versus a jury verdict. I have determined that upon settlement of a case all of the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics can be swept under a rug and or the record will appear to support the "J.S.H.I.T." exactors actions, especially if said methods are exacted upon a pro-se litigant or party represented by an attorney down with the program.  Maybe they look at it as that attorney will be paid, yet the court's way of meting-out justice will remain intact.

Be aware those of you anticipating going to court representing yourselves, because the good ole boy's and girl's network have other "J.S.H.I.T." maneuvers, such as redacting the courts docket to conceal any slip-up's on the part of one of their team.  Case in point, on December 17, 2008, defendant George Morton, a codefendant in 08cv02407, did appear at the "Initial Conference," held pursuant to FRCVP 16. There was a skit on the "Dave Chappell Show" where to character would say, "Wrote a song bout it, here's how it go." Well I promised that each time I made and allegation I would support it.  So, "I made an averment bout it, here's what I got to show."

Reading the law, said law being United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Local Civil Rule, (LCVR) 5.2 (17) stating: "A person may retrieve information from the Electronic Filing System at the court's Internet site, ecf.n.njd.uscourts.gov, by obtaining a PACER login and password.  With the exception of social security cases, a person who has PACER access may retrieve docket sheets and documents in civil and criminal cases." That was the best move that I made in protecting my rights, but I cannot take the credit for it was God's blessing of understanding that lead me to and allowed me to understand and act upon what this law said. And like "Indiana Jones" had to make a decision while being chased and coming to a huge abyss, with seemingly no way to get across, yet remembering Bible scripture wherein it says that one must step out on faith.  I wasn't faced with the same peril but I did have faith in God's guidance and He has not, nor do I think He would fail me.  So armed with His word and the blessing of understanding He grants me, "Here I Stand."

I digress, so, back to substantiating the facts of Dec. 17, 2008. Each time those of you that will appear in court pro se, remember that a record of said appearance will or should I say, should be kept. First by the court sign-in sheet the judges clerk will have you and your adversaries sign before the court proceedings begin.  Then whatever takes place during the proceeding will be recorded on tape and if the judge gives the parties any directives or if any stipulations or agreements are made the judge will or should set them forth within a "scheduling order."

The events, or some of them, that took place on 12/17/2008 within 08cv02407, were written within the scheduling order of Judge Joel Schneider. (See Dkt_Sheet_as of_4_09_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).  On page 9 one will see that docket entry 11 says: "SCHEDULING ORDER: In Person Status Conference set for 4/17/2009 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider…" However, realizing that Mr. Morton's in person appearance should not be evidenced as the court has jurisdiction over a person appearing before it and entering a stipulation the cohorts had to redact this Order from appearing on the docket. (See page 9 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).

One reviewing the two docket sheets above will note that on 4/09/11 the docket item appeared, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Then on 8/31/11 the docket items appeared, 9, 10, 12 and so on, with number eleven redacted. Yet there is a docket item 11. (See Dkt_Item_11 in the "Source Links" to the right).  But why you might ask? Well there's law bout it, here's how it go." Orange Theatre Corporation v. Rayherstz amusement Corporation et al., 139 F. 2d 871, 874 at [HN3] holds: "We think that the Rules of Civil Procedure call for the use of similar restraint on the part of the federal courts in the exercise of their power over a defendant who has voluntarily appeared to defend an action against him but who desires also to raise a jurisdictional defense.  Under Civil Procedure Rule 12 such a defendant is expressly given the right, at his option, to assert by motion before answer or in his answer itself a jurisdictional defense such as the lack of jurisdiction over his person.  The rule states that "No defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion."  If he chooses to assert the defense in his answer, rather than by motion, he must include with it all other defenses of every kind, meritorious as well as jurisdictional, which are available to him."

Not! Morton could not avail himself of that case laws holding because as one can see the docket sheet clearly shows at docket item 10 that the court stated within that entry that: "

SUMMONS Returned Executed by EARL D. HICKSON. GEORGE MORTON, ESQ served on 11/24/2008, answer due 12/15/2008. (nf, ) (Entered: 12/01/2008)." Knowing that the court would be on some Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactical, "B" you know what, Morton bopped into the court on 12/17/2008, two days after his answers to the complaint were due.  Yeah they got that off, as I had know way of knowing then that the good ole boys were just sizing me up.  But remember God is on my side, and trust me on this same point lightening will strike.

Once lightening will strike because the record clearly show that Judge Joel Schneider said within docket item 11, that they try to conceal from you says: "This Scheduling Order confirms the directives given to counsel at the scheduling conference pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on December 17, 2008; and the Court noting the following appearances:   Pro Se Plaintiff Earl D. Hickson, appearing; Defendant George Morton, Esquire, appearing; and

Christopher Mauro, Esquire, appearing on behalf of the defendant Harrah's." (See Dkt_Item_11 in the "Source Links" to the right)

Homework, just to see if you're with me, check the docket sheet and verify if Morton's answers were not filed until 6/30/2009.  Do you know the docket item number of his answer?  If you do your catching on quickly and your on your way to making a good showing if you have to go up against such jokers. So, as we see, that due to Morton's appearance, before calling on the aide of Deputy Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, Kathleen M. Bartus, the court was forced into a situation wherein a violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2071.

I'm going to close on that note, using 18 U.S.C.S. § 2071 as a cliffhanger so to speak. I told you this was deep. Until next time Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming from TheCasinoGamingOracle!