Proselytization of KMW

In 1922 the attitudes towards African-Americans were still such that an article in "The Paper Lantern" was headlined "Versatile Darkies to ComeFriday."  [See page 3 after click]  Since 1922 those same attitudes still linger and are given expression through the proselytization of those looked upon as "Versatile Darkies."

Regardless of ethnic background, those that complete the requirements of obtaining a law degree, and passing the bar exam should not risk said status due to unethical acts they have taken an oath not to partake in.  But it appears that as long as you have those that will conceal your unethical acts and or train you in the proper execution of said acts, one will gladly yield to such proselytization.

Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams can not deny that she was made aware of the judicial misconduct that was being exacted through her courtroom.  On Aug. 17, 2009, I wrote this judge a letter addressing the same.  This handwritten letter was received by U.S.M.J. Karen Williams on Aug. 18, 2009.  (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See II @ page 15)

On 7/01/2009, Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen Bartus, stood before judge Karen Williams and agreed that she would contact me on the status of NJ State Trooper Mark Kosko.  She was ordered to contact me by 7/9/2009.  Either Ms. Bartus was lying or their statements were prearranged, because as she stood there Ms. Bartus had to know that she intended to go on vacation the following week, unless that was a lie as well.  At any rate when I addressed this with judge Williams and made it know she was powerless in controlling what is supposed to be her courtroom.  (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See II @ page 16)

Within the above letter I sent judge Karen Williams that "yes you will have a choice for the Atlantic City Casino Industry through Harrah's, will ask that you not expose the conspiracy between the Casinos' and the Atlantic City Municipal Court to effect discriminatory denial of access to public accommodations."  (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See II @ page 17)

On Dec. 14, 2009 I guess judge Karen Williams had to prove to her masters that she would be a  "good judicial niggard" and tell me on the record that I only mailed her 2 copies of the "Third Amended Complaint" and I assumed that she would file it.  In their arena I had to compose my self but here I can tell you that I had to "put her ass in check" ebonically speaking. I had to tell her that "No, I did not assume anything but expected you to follow FRCVP 5 (d) (2) (B), which concerns filing of papers to a judge and says: "to a judge who agrees to accept if for filing and who must then note the filing date on the paper and promptly send it to the clerk."  Judge Williams and her new band of cohorts makes it appear that this rule was not violated by the clerks stamping the document received on 8/18/2009, " Case 1:08-cv-02407-NLH-KMW   Document 32-2   Filed 08/18/09 Page 1 of 70 PageID: 530."

However, the above is a lie that is proven and revealed in the wrongdoers haste.  You see the Third Amended Complaint contained 78 pages.  The cohorts manipulated the clerk stamp to reflect their 70 page version. In a later posting I will detail the math revealing this lie, but for now look at the obvious. On 12/14/2009 judge Williams said on the record that I only mailed her "Two" copies, one of which she would give to her court clerk, whom would meet me at the clerks office so that the "Third Amended Complaint" could be filed.

The cove letter to judge Karen Williams say that I mailed her (1) Original, (2) Copies of the original, (2) Copies in a manilla envelope w/285 forms for Kosko and Haag.  Lets see, this "versatile darkie" say "1+2+2=5."  Do you agree? The United States Postal Service said that this mailing weighed 4lbs 15.70 oz.  The United States Postal Service said that the one copy that I mailed to DAG, Kathleen Bartus weighed 1lbs 10.00 oz.  The USPS furthers says that the "Two" copies that I mailed to Harrah's Hotel and Casinos' attorney Christopher C. Mauro, weighed 2lbs 2.80 oz.  (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See II @ page 19) Hmm? I think that the only versatility judge Williams reveals is her proclivity to being proselytized.

U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams is free to make her own choices, this is still the United States of America, even though she has a code of ethics to follow. Yet unlike the college newspaper in 1922 stating that "Versatile Darkies to Come Friday," the honorable sorority of Alpha Kappa Alpha made a press release headed "U.S.Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams to Give Keynote Address at the SocialJustice and Human Rights Symposium."  The above behavior is not that of one concerned about social justice and human rights, it judicial misconduct.  Let us pray that she did not imbue her listeners at the symposium with the doctrines she practice in her courtroom.

P.S.  Now you and the friends can also join my "Pro Se HQ Group" at    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prosehq, or click "Yahoo Groups join Now" on left.

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

Hickson v Acme Justice Corporation

On May 15, 2006, Earl Hickson was kidnapped by New Jersey State Trooper Mark Kosko, badge #4540.  It appears that New Jersey State Trooper's are under the protection of the "Acme Justice Corporation."

After spending 10 days in the Atlantic County Justice Facility, never once appearing before a judge in reference to the so called warrant for "violation of probation" that trooper Mark Kosko arrested me for on 5/15/2006, it appears that the Atlantic County Justice Facility is under the protection of the "Acme Justice Corporation."  (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See @ page 1)  The documents  "Acme Justice Corporation" don't want you to see, are a copy of NJ's Promis/Gavel, which reveals that I was arrested for a violation of probation and released on 5/25/2006.

On May 30, 2006, Earl Hickson appeared before Atlantic City Municipal Court Judge Bruce Weeks on the charge of  2C: 20-3A.  (See Document AcmeDon't Want You to See @ page 2)  This complaint was signed by State Trooper Mark Kosko, who should have known that claiming credits left on an abandoned slot machine in an Atlantic City Casino is not a crime.  Not only did his (Mark Kosko's) agency, the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, approve the passing of NJAC 19:45-1.37C (b) , (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See @ page 47), but New Jersey's Code of Criminal Justice 2C: 39-9 plainly states: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any activity authorized by the "Casino Control Act."  See Document Acme Don't Want You to See @ page 22

The above could explain why Mark Kosko never appeared before Judge Bruce Weeks, even though the Atlantic City Municipal Prosecutors Office feigned to have been attempting to reach him throughout the proceedings.  In the end the subterfuge whereby Judge Bruce Weeks, Mark Kosko and Harrah's Hotel and Casino were attempting to hold an unlawful "eviction trial" in violation of Knight v Margate and Uston v Resorts,  was thwarted by pro se litigant Earl Hickson and the abuse of process ended, and the case was dismissed on 7/26/2007. (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See @ bottom of page2, w/in yellow highlighted area)

After further legal research I uncovered the means whereby the "Acme Justice Corporation" provides protection to the Atlantic City Casinos.  To make this injustice known I filed a timely civil action within the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Camden, NJ.  This civil action, No. 08cv02407 NLH, would reveal how far up the judicial ladder the "Acme Justice Corporation's" influence went, as well as revealing one of its "CEO'S" Noel L. Hillman standing on verge of "blowing-up" the machination.

In the judicial arena it appears that the "Acme Justice Corporations" chief product is JSHIT.  Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics are used to frustrate and take out the uninformed pro se litigants, as well as granting a gratia status to members of the "good ole boy's and girl's network."  This product allows these good ole boy's and girl's the luxury of becoming "Judicial Niggards," what else would one call lazy, willfully ignorant judicial officer?  But, it appears the "Acme Justice Corporation does not appreciate it when the pot call's the kettle "black," so to speak, or calls them as they are seen. (See Documents Acme Don't Want You to See II @ page 2, paragraph 3, wherein I did just that.)

The Acme Justice Corporation's (JSHIT) products are also used in the proselytization of newly selected U.S. Magistrate Judges.  I will show this by facts and documents revealing how Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams is being proselytized.  Like "O-B-Wan," I asked Judge Williams not to turn to the "dark-side," but she ignored my pleas, as shown within the court records.  (See Document Acme Don't Want You to See II @ page 17)

Earl Hickson, now a/k/a thecasinogamingoracle, utilizes all of my God given blessings to remove the protections and machinations of the "Acme Justice Corporation."  I will need your help, for (JSHIT) operates and is powered by "STEALTH."  Once revealed and placed in the open this power is like a vampire and cannot function in the light.  Pull the plug on (JSHIT) by removing "STEALTH," then and only then,  can "Judicial Hubristic Injustice Tactics" be seen.  But if we can see these judges that practice treason, by their being at war with the Constitution of the United States of America, these judges can be removed and the "Acme Justice Corporation" will be put out of business.

TheCasinoGamingOracle, Thanks you for your support.

P.S.  Now you and the friends can also join my "Pro Se HQ Group" at    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prosehq, or click "Yahoo Groups join Now" on left.

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

Corruption Confuses Counting

Christopher C. Mauro's haste into his corrupt undertaking causes miscounting, which reveals the cohorts misconduct.  Within his Brief in Support of Vance Thompson, Anna Haag, and Marina Associates Motion forSummary Judgment, under the heading "Procedural History", on page 2 of 15, Christopher Mauro says: "Subsequently, on February 2, 2009 plaintiff amended his complaint to add as individual defendants Security Shift Manager Alexander Lovas, Security Officer Vance Thompson, SurveilVance Officer Anna Haag-Greene, Josh Lecthblau, Mark Kosko, and George Morton Esq.  (Plaintiffs Amended complaint annexed hereto as Exhibit "E")."

Now, before you start saying, "this guy claims some fine member of the bar can't count, when he can't even illustrate." Houston!  We seem to have technical difficulties in the illustration department... Please stand by...

Thank you Houston, ok where was I?  The record within the U.S. Dist. Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden, does not even support these lies.  On page 8 of the copy of the courts docket sheet as of 8/31/11 you will see that docket item 13, evidences the filing on 2/2/2009 of: "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against SECURITY OFFICER THOMPSON, SURVEILLANCE OFFICER ANN, JOSH LECHTBLAU, HARRAH'S HOTEL AND CASINO, ALEXANDER, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, STATE OF NJ DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT, M. KOSKO, GEORGE MORTON, ESQ, filed by EARL D. HICKSON.(nf, ) (Entered: 02/03/2009)." (See DKT. SHEET 8/31/11, scroll to page 8, see item [13])

Christopher C. Mauro makes a knowing misrepresentation to the court.   Leaving out and or just designating that his purported clients answered an amended complaint as opposed to "Second Amended Complaint" is a bold faced lie.  Doesn't Dkt. Item [4] on page 7  of the 8/31/11 copy of the docket sheet say: "AMENDED COMPLAINT against HARRAH'S HOTEL AND CASINO, ALEXANDER, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, STATE OF NJ DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT, M. KOSKO, GEORGE MORTON, ESQ, filed by EARL D. HICKSON.(tp ) (Entered: 09/17/2008)."  Does this not evidence that I filed the first amendment to the complaint on 9/12/2008?

Christopher C. Mauro, of the law firm of Camacho Mauro and Mulholland, further states on page 2 of 15 of his Brief in Support of Vance Thompson, Anna Haag, and Marina Associates Motion, that: "Marina Associates interposed an answer to the amended complaint for Security Officer Vance Thompson and Harrah's Hotel on June 4, 2009.  (Vance Thompson and Marina Associates answers to plaintiffs amended complaint annexed hereto as Exhibit "F").

The record within the U.S. Dist. Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden, tries to  support these lies.  If one can sort through the subterfuge of entries designed to appear "just", when in fact they are the offerings of a co-conspirator within the Clerks Office, one will note docket item [26].   Anyone with experience in dealing with the "Clerk of Court" knows that when a clerk makes an entry onto the docket he or she enters his or her initials to identify the docket items clerk "poster" so to speak.  Doesn't docket item [26] reveal that a phantom clerk, on 6/05/2009 entered: " ANSWER to Amended Complaint, CROSSCLAIM against M. KOSKO, JOSH LECHTBLAU, GEORGE MORTON, ESQ by HARRAH'S HOTEL AND CASINO, SECURITY OFFICER THOMPSON.(MAURO, CHRISTOPHER) (Entered: 06/05/2009)."  (See DKT. SHEET 8/31/11, scroll to page 10, see item [26])

Before I get longwinded again, please stay with me for the sum total of Mauro's count.   Before I do that, I'll let you in on the major lie that these bandits attempt to conceal.  Are you sitting down?   Did Christopher C. Mauro of the law firm of Camacho Mauro and Mulholland, not say that on June 4, 2009, answers were filed for Security Officer Vance Thompson and Harrah's Hotel?   Go back double check page 2 of 15 of his Brief in Support of Vance Thompson, Anna Haag, and Marina Associates Motion for Summary, I'm not going anywhere, I'll wait…

Now look at the paragraph proceeding the one above, doesn’t it say that the phantom clerk filed "Answers to Amended Complaint?"  This is where I want to start cursing and acting niggardly, like my judicial counterparts.  Why?  I have in my possession an [FN] "Answer to Second Amended Complaint" from Christopher C. Mauro, of the law firm of Camacho Mauro and Mulholland, in which lying-ass Mr. Mauro signs on behalf of "Christopher C. Mauro, Esq. (CCM-7660), Vance Armstrong, Marina Associates d/b/a Harrah's Casino Hotel Atlantic City."  The handwriting that you will see on the copy is mine, you will also note the hole to the left, as this is an accurate and true copy from my loose-leaf binder files.  However, note the dates on the second and third pages. Note what Gloria Zapata swears to, that she served "Answer to Second Amended Complaint." I guess the [FN] clerk smokes the same shit as the rest of them, but please don't let them blow that smoke in your eyes, cause I got my butt cheeks tight, and I'm not taking smoke up my rear-end.  (See 3 page photo of Ans. To Second Amended Complaint)

Lastly, good ole boy, Christopher C. Mauro says: "Thereafter, plaintiff amended his complaint twice more and an amended answer was interposed on behalf of Vance Thompson, Anna Haag and Marina Associates on February 2, 2010." You see I told you the bog can't count. If you answer a "Second Amended Complaint" and you claim that the plaintiff makes two more amendments, well the last time I checked the book on "Amended Complaint Counting for Dummies" says: Second Amended Complaint + Two More= Fourth Amended Complaint as the one at issue. Not!  This pro se litigant at the penalty of perjury and to the world says that: I Earl Hickson, have not, nor do I see the need to file a "Fourth Amendment" to civil action 08-cv-02407 (NLH-KMW). Oh, if you missed it above, who the F#%k is Vance Armstrong?  Judge Noel L. Hillman knows this to be a lie, but that’s the network for you.

Houston! Houston! They have a problem, Please stay tuned...TheCasinoGamingOracle!

P.S.  Now you and the friends can also join my "Pro Se HQ Group" at    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prosehq, or click "Yahoo Groups join Now" on left.

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

Answers Disputed = Issues for Trial II

(Atlantic City, NJ)-  Within Answers Disputed =Issues for Trial I introduced you to (JSHIT #7), wherein Harrah's Hotel and Casino's attorney Christopher C. Mauro of the law firm Camacho Mauro and Mulholland, did set forth distorted information to U.S. Dist. Judge Noel L. Hillman.

A look at EarlHickson v Marina Associates reveals that judge Hillman couched his opinion upon  Christopher C. Mauro's lies.  This is what happens when you have friends in high places that will turn their backs on their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, as Hillman would have to do to in granting Harrah's Hotel and Casino an undue advantage, and in further violation of the State of New Jersey's Constitution.

Within his Brief in Support of Vance Thompson, Anna Haag, and MarinaAssociates Motion for Summary Judgment  @ page 2 of 15 Christopher Mauro says: "Subsequently on Feb. 2, 2009, plaintiff amended his complaint to add as individual defendants Security Shift Manager Alexander Lovas, Security Officer Vance Thompson, SurveilVance Officer Anna Haag-Greene, Josh Lectblau, Mark Kosko, and George Morton Esq.

Why, you ask, what's wrong with him saying that?  For one that would mean that those parties were not included in the original filing, which is not true.  Look at the "Original Complaint," and the docket sheet reveals the real reason he lies.  You see on 12/17/2008 the recording of the "initial conference" will verify that the service of Alexander Lovas was settled before then magistrate judge Joel Schneider. (See Dkt. Item 12 on page9)  I brought to his attention that it was my job to give the U.S. Marshal's enough information to identify the defendant, the service of a Harrah's Hotel and Casino Security Supervisor named "Alexander" on 9/23/2008 reveals that my information was sufficient. (See Dkt. Item 6 on page 9)

So, no it was not as Christopher Mauro says, the second amendment to the complaint was not to add these people but to have the document conform to the evidence and newly learned facts.  You check it out, who do you believe, me or an attorney that can't even count straight, as I will reveal and prove in my next posting. (Again to be continued…)

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

A Guiding Hand

(Atlantic City, NJ)- Awful as race prejudice, lawlessness and ignorance are, we can fight time if we frankly face them and dare name them and tell the truth; but if we continually dodge and

 cloud the issue, and say the half truth because the whole stings and shames; if we do this,

 we invite catastrophe.    Let us then in all charity but unflinching firmness set our faces

 against all statesmanship that looks in such directions.

                                                 --W.E.B. DuBois

Once more this Holiday Season found me under huge stress from my battles within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 08-cv-02407 (NLH-KMW).  This year instead of passing out from the stress and getting fourteen staples in my head I am able to tell you, the readers of this blog, the truth.

After suffering the injury above on Dec. 26, 2010, which happen during a severe snow storm in Atlantic City, New Jersey, I've come to know my task, and that God will not allow me to die before the truth is known.  You see after coming too from fainting,  I was awakened to find myself in a pool of blood, I was treated by the paramedic and further I was given the strength and wherewithal to walk to the ambulance, which could not reach my residence due to the amount of snowfall. God is good all the time!

A year later, I embark to face prejudice, lawlessness, and ignorance knowing that I have Gods protection and guiding hand to name the lawless-ones and tell you the truth.  I understand that without His guiding hand, when my body went limp and I lost all consciousness, someone had to take hold of my body.  The last I remember is flushing the toilet and turning to wash my hands at the sink.  I had to pass out and fall to my left, and how I didn't hit the metal door hinge instead of busting the door panel through to the  frame, only God knows, or should I say saw to it.

Grateful to be alive, this coming New Year I will name for you the lawless one's.  Harrah's Hotel and Casino Atlantic City, New Jersey.  Their attorney Christopher C. Mauro of the law firm Camacho Mauro and Mulholland.  New Jersey State Trooper Mark Kosko, Badge# 4540, my kidnapper of May 15, 2006.  His attorney, State of New Jersey, Deputy Attorney General Kathleen Bartus. United States Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, the Federal Courts newest trainee folding to a paycheck and learning to ignore oppression, even to those share her same black skin tone. Last but not least the "Ring Leader", cloaked in judicial immunity and dawning the black robe of judicial oppression, and perpetuating all forms of Judicial Stealth Hubristic Injustice Tactic's as we are coming to know them, none other than U.S. Dist. Judge Noel L. Hillman.

Please stay with me.  I know that there are those out there with the power to say or do something but fear has you struck.  So again, I'm not asking you to step out on faith, just tell a friend, and then tell that friend to tell a friend. That's how we will make injustice known.  Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, once said. Until my next post, in which we will examine the actual answers filed in this matter, I wish each and every viewer a safe, healthy, and prosperous New Year.

Thank You, The Casino Gaming Oracle

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

$$_Atlantic City Casinos Forces (JSHIT) Up Judicial Mountain

 (Atlantic City, NJ)- But for Judge Bruce Weeks violation of Knight v Margate and New Jersey's Conflict of Interest Laws, U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman would not be forced to try and conceal their ruse whereby, Atlantic City Casinos' unlawfully bar and evict patrons from the casinos.

As presented in "$_Atlantic City Casinos influence throughout the State of NJ" Knight v Margate, 86 N.J. 374, prohibits an Atlantic City Municipal Court Judge from dealing in matters of the Atlantic City Casinos'.  That posting further revealed that NJAC19:48-1.5 (a) (2) say that it is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of New Jersey to excluding such person from a casino.  As you can see the Atlantic City Municipal Court further violates the Casino Control Act and Uston v Resorts stating that "The Commission alone has the authority to exclude patrons based upon their strategies for playing licensed casino games. Any common law right Resorts may have had to exclude Uston for these reasons is abrogated by the act."

Now you can see that the City of Atlantic City is helping the (JSHIT) to be pushed up the judicial mountain as the Atlantic City Council addressed documents that Judge Noel L Hillman claims to have dismissed on November 30, 2011.   One might say well if you filed a complaint naming Bruce Weeks as a party to the complaint the City of Atlantic City was supposed to notice the complaint. Please do not be fooled by their Judicial Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT).

On November 17, 2011 Bruce Weeks did receive a copy of civil action 11-cv-06304, and a Request for Waiver of Summons.  Delivery was confirmed online by the United States Postal Service. (Click to see copy of Track and Confirm Notice) One week and six days after Bruce Weeks receives the complaint non-party co-conspirator Noel Hillman writes Order claiming to dismiss the action. (See Opinion dated and signed by non-party co-conspirator Hillman on 11/30/2011)

Twenty days after Bruce Weeks received the complaint the City of Atlantic City placed it on the City Council's Final Agenda.  This act takes place exactly seven days after Hillmans purported dismissal of a case he can not preside over. Hmm?  But I am not surprised because they all knew that the other defendants waiver of Summons were dated November 4, 2011 (See bottom Track and Confirm Notice to Mouro) and they were required to return this waiver within 30 days from that date, so what do they do, of course they ask the judge that knows he's sitting on the case fraudulently, to buy them some time with an a gratia dismissal. Hmm?  Smell like (JSHIT)#6 to me. What do you think?

P.S.  Now you and the friends can also join my "Pro Se HQ Group" at    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prosehq, or click "Yahoo Groups join Now" on left.

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

Atlantic City Casino Gaming Revenue (Declining) Corruption (Increasing)

(Atlantic City, NJ)

"Atlantic Citygaming revenue will continue to fall through 2015," according to article by Donald Wittkowski, staff writer for the Press of Atlantic City.  I posit that the decline in gaming revenue has spawned an increase in corruption.

Lets look at the driving forces of casino gaming, and to do this one can not deny that said force is greed.  In Atlantic City "greed" is the second most powerful "will" only being topped by the "will to live."  In the city of Atlantic City, Atlantic Avenue divides the street addresses between "North" and "South." Greed draws the line one block to the south, at Pacific Avenue.

A tourist wishing to enter Atlantic City to cause some of that "Tourist Mayhem" the Atlantic City Municipal Courts website speaks of has three choices of entry.  They either take the Atlantic City Expressway, Route 30 (the White Horse pike), or Route 40 (the Black Horse pike).  The same holds true upon their exit, unless they have become the victim of "losing mayhem" and wish to go out differently.  In that case the route of choice has historically been jumping off one of the casino parking garages higher levels, onto the hard concrete of the sidewalk.

The above is odd when all routes entering Atlantic City must end one block pass Pacific Avenue, as there is no place left to go because the Atlantic Ocean causes a "Dead End."  Some ask why take a leap of the parking garage when you could choose to walk to Europe in an attempt to change your luck and get the same effect as the garage jump.  But one would have to be a very, very strong swimmer.  Plus the will to live would have to kick in and motivate your swim kick so you could make it.

If one looks at the current conditions of the Atlantic City casinos' it is clear that the ground-work has been laid for the spread of the corrupt influence to Atlantic City casinos.  The original Casino Control Act stated that there should always be a member of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission on the gaming floor of every Atlantic City casino. (See Insurance Open-Insurance Closed)  As this writer has shown you in the posting just cited, one can not go into an  Atlantic City casino and find "The Casino Control Commission."

Not to worry folks, you're not missing to much by the absence of the Casino Control Commission from the gaming floors of Atlantic City casinos.  I challenge those that have gotten satisfaction from the lodging of a complaint to this entity to leave a comment below.  Further when the "Gaming Laws" were drafted all unclaimed casino vouchers would have been subject to the states "escheat laws."  Briefly this law required the casino to deposit said funds with the state, wait five years and if said funds were not claimed the casino and the state could split these funds.

Every now and then these gaming law makers and or "Control Commissions" must make it appear that they are protecting the public interest. Take the article: "NJfines Atlantic City casinos for cheaters, robbers, scammers and kid boozers," which makes it appear that the State of New Jersey is on the casinos ass.  But then the truth comes out when another article: "New casinolegislation costs 115 gaming inspectors their jobs," reveals that the door has been opened for corruption to walk right in, because the so called "watch dogs" and or "protectors of the public interest" are gone. Legally, I might add, by repeal of the very law that required their presence in the first place. Ms. Franklin, the "Queen of Soul" should have titled her song "who's fooling who."

From the darkness must come the light.  I am just your messenger, you have to act upon my agitation. Its like I state within "Appearance of Justice w/ Aroma of J.S.H.I.T, But!" I can get by with a little help from my friends, even if they just tell another friend and he or she becomes part of the number of page viewers of this blog that have read what's going on.

Thank You! TheCasinoGamingOracle!

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

$_Atlantic City Casinos Influence Throughout the State of NJ

(Atlantic City, NJ)

Atlantic City Casinos have a huge influence throughout the State of New Jersey.  Said influence is not just confined to the lower part of the state, but southern NJ is where it takes root, sprouts, and spreads its corrupt influence upward from local government and even through the courts located in the state.

Starting on the local level means that one must look at the city within which the casinos' are located, and that would be the City of Atlantic City.  Atlantic City Municipal Court Director, Alison Kaufman comments on that courts webpage that: "This is a busy court with a lot going on."  The site further lists Bruce Weeks as the Chief Judge for the court and says that the types of cases coming before the court are: "Rash Driving, Drunken Driving. Also Tourist Mayhem. And do not forget the casino problems."

Why would the City of Atlantic City publish that its Municipal Court is involved with "Casino problems?" This statement appears to this writer to be contrary to the holdings of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Within Knight v. Margate 86 N.J. 374, 383, the Supreme Court of NJ held: "

In 1980 the Legislature extended the ethical restrictions applicable to casino operations to persons other than commission and division members and employees. This enactment amended the Conflicts of Interest Law and imposed limitations upon dealings between high level government officials and casino licensees or  applicants. L. 1980, c. 79.  Specifically, Section 2(a) of the statute covered the following individuals:

... State officers or employees subject to disclosure by law or executive order; special State officers and employees; the Governor; any member of the Legislature or Judiciary; any member of the governing body, or the municipal attorney of a municipality wherein a casino is located; any member of or attorney for the planning board or zoning board of adjustment of a municipality wherein a casino is located, or any professional planner regularly employed by the planning board or zoning board of adjustment. (emphasis added)

Under this provision, for the first time, the Conflicts of Interest Law was applied to "any member of the ... Judiciary." Chapter 79 was replaced by L. 1981, c. 142, on May 14, 1981. Under the terms of the most recent amendment the application of the conflicts law to the judiciary is limited to "any ... full time member of the Judiciary" and to "the municipal judge ... of a municipality wherein a casino is located."

At page 397 of Knight v. Margate the court cuts through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo and states: "In our disposition of this appeal we have decided that the ethical restrictions of the New Jersey Conflicts of Interest Law, as amended, L. 1981, c. 142, apply to the judiciary, including judges of the municipal courts (with some limitations as to those who are part time), and that the law as applicable to all judges is not unconstitutional." This decisional case law tells this writer that no Municipal Court judge especially an Atlantic City Municipal Court judge, should not have any dealings with matters related to a casino.

You might be say "what's your point?"  In an earlier post I shared with you the holdings of Uston v.Resorts, wherein one learns that the exclusion of patrons from an Atlantic City Casino is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Casino Control Commission or a Superior Court of the State of New Jersey. This fact is given a basis in law by New Jersey Administrative Code 19:48-1.5 Procedure for Entry of Name, which relates to the listing of persons excluded for a casino, and specifically states at NJAC 19:48-1.5 (a) (2): "Upon receipt of an order of the Superior Court of New Jersey excluding such person from all casino hotel facilities.  The Commission shall consider such action forthwith upon receipt of the court order, with at least 15 days notice to the Division and to such person by certified mail at his or her last known address."

JSHIT #6

Ms. Kaufman and judge Weeks clearly step beyond their jurisdiction when that court issues documents telling a patron that he or she is barred from an Atlantic City casino. How do I do?  Don't I back up my averments with facts and law?  If you'd like to see a copy of one of these unlawful evictions you can view the one issued to Markland Grant by clicking here.

Within the above I have let you know about the "goings on" within the Atlantic City Municipal court.  I will ask you to keep close watch on this blog because the corruption is starting to spread out and I have no idea what's on the minds of the individuals I am telling you about.  I do know that as of December 7, 2011, the City Council of the City of Atlantic City was put on notice as to the civil action filed by me and Mr. Grant.  Again, I have proof, as you can see from the City of Atlantic City's Final Council Meeting Agenda.  Now one can begin to see the hubris with which this band of cohorts operate.  I'm telling you the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT) just won't stop, so now we have JSHIT #6

So being a marked man I'm am careful when I cross the street now-a-days, as I know my adversaries wish that I'm hit by a bus, but like I said I'm carful.  But if you don't hear from me, please ask the City of Atlantic City, the Deputy Attorney Generals Office for the State of New Jersey or Judge Noel L. Hillman where's Hickson and Grant? 

Till later Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle!

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

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

Attached by Law and Ignored by Will

(If your judge starts acting up, then you tell your friends)

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes, so say decisional case law.  Isn't it amazing how some things just fall in place. Yesterday we saw a U.S. District Judge state that he was not given enough to make a ruling and that large NY financial institutions should not be allowed to settle cases without admitting or denying liability.  So this judge said  that the case would proceed to trial. (See How Real Judges Do in archives to left.)

That was an Honorable Judge within the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, here in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals jurisdiction, where I am litigating my case it's a whole different ball game.  My original and third amended complaints contained exhibits attached to and referenced within the complaint, as you can verify by clicking the "Source Links" and then clicking on the "3rd Amended Complaint." 

The above accurate copy of the complaint reveals averments #1 through 112 and a search of this document would reveal that the word "Exhibit" appears 17 times.  Mind you this is just averments #1 through 112, as I am saving the individual counts for later and I sought not to over-whelm you with the entire document.  For those that completed their homework, they found my statement to be true that there is no reference to a single exhibit of mine in Judge Hillman's Sept. 27, 2010 opinion.

Those that have read the opinion should find that this opinion is not in line with decisional case law, Washington v. Grace, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25906, holding: "District Court's order dismissing plaintiffs amended 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 10 was vacated because amended complaint provided defendants with "fair notice" of plaintiff's claims as it set forth constitutional violations at issue, matched violations with specific defendants, and described facts supporting claims and dates on which alleged violations occurred."  Have I done the same in the part of the complaint that I present to you?

Most will agree that I have, and for those not sure, those doubts will fade as we paddle up this creek.  Luckily I'll be supplying you with sure-paddles because we all know by now that we are attempting to navigate up (J.S.H.I.T.) CREEK.  However, I must be related to "old man river" cause I'm going to keep rolling right along.

You see I have the tide of law on my side.  I attached exhibits "A through Z" to the complaint and the averments of the complaint directed the trier of the fact's attention to each exhibit. Any opinion devoid of the word exhibit can only have one inference and that would be that the exhibits were willfully ignored.  Oh yes, my more attentive reader's and those partaking of the homework assignments have noted that Hillman refers to photos but the word exhibit does not appear in his document. Go ahead check.  Do you actual think that I would risk losing you by making a false statement or being up this creek without a paddle so to speak. NOT!

  Wait, hold on, I feel another tide of law about to come.  Yes, all my lawyer followers out there check the "Interpretive Notes" for FRCVP 10, at note 19. Exhibits, you'll find United States ex rel. Riley v.  St. Lukes Episcopal Hosp.  355 F.3d 370 (2004, CA5 Tex) holding: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes; therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of complaint for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P 12 (b) (6) motion."

If the above decisional case law says that it is not error to consider exhibits attached to a complaint, then what happens if one does not consider exhibits attached to a complaint, is that an error, a strike or a foul ball?   -wait for it-  It's (J.S.H.I.T. #4) I tell ya.  Confused, wrote a song bout it, here's how it go: "everybody go hotel, motel, holla-day inn, I said if your judge starts acting up, then you tell you friends."

Ok friends, till next time Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! You know who it is, TheCasinoGamingOracle

How Real Judges Do!

I could not forgo the opportunity to bring to your attention what happens when a U.S. District Judge meets his obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

I applaud U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff's setting a trial date in the case before him.  One clicking the "Source Link" to the right "Bloomberg.com" will find the article titled "Citi Settlement With SEC Rejected by Judge."  I applaud Bloomberg. Com for brining this article to the public as it outlines what a U.S. District Judge should do when he is not given sufficient facts upon which he can make a ruling.

The article further points out that Judge Jed Rakoff has criticized the SEC's practice of letting big financial corporations settle without admitting or denying liability. Why, do I applaud these actions you ask?  First and far-most, because they are just and in line with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Secondly, because I am dealing with a judge of a different opinion. 

This very posting falls smack dab in the middle of my presentation of U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman's action that are on the opposite end of what Judge Jed Rakoff has done by his actions, that being following the Rules of Procedure. I invite all tuning into this short posting to subscribe an keep abreast of what a U.S. District Judge shouldn't do. I set forth my basis in fact and law just as I'm doing here. Not only do I make the averment that I applaud the article but I'm giving you a direct link to this article so that you may draw your own opinions.

The above is the same method I am using in the presentation of Hickson v Marina Associates, civil action 08cv02407(NLH) (KMW), being litigated within the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden. Thank you for stopping by, TheCasinoGamingOracle

DNJ Third-Party Practice

Their Version of Third-Party Practice

Although I set forth FRCVP 14 in my last posting, it is worth repeating here because we will need a clear understanding of this rule if we are to understand the hanky-panky that’s going on. I use hanky-panky to show that at times I can demonstrate tendencies to have candor towards the tribunal, in conformity with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  By the way when you are appearing in a pro se capacity the rules apply to you as well.  I met a prominent lawyer in the law library that I frequent and he told me that most attorney's hate going against a pro se litigant because the court allows us to break the rules. I laughed and you're starting to know why, right?

FRCVP 14 Third-Party Practice, (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party, (1) Timing of the Summons and Complaint, holds: "A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a non-party who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.  But the third-party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 10 days after serving its original answers."

I'm going some where with this so please, stay with me.  On Oct. 14, 2008 docket item #7, ANSWER to Complaint, was filed by attorney Christopher Mauro, on behalf of Harrah's Hotel and Casino. (See page 9 @ Dkt_Sheet_as of_8_31_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right) 

On the same page of the Docket Sheet above you will note that 10 days after filing the original answers for his client Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Mr. Mauro has not effected service of a Third-Party summons and complaint on anyone. The courts docket clearly shows: 10/14/2008 Answer filed by Harrah's, 10/17/2008 Order filed by Magistrate Judge Schneider setting the "Initial Conference" for 12/17/2008, and the next entry to be made on the courts docket was docket item #19, Reply and Objection to the Sufficiency of Defendants Answers, filed by me Earl Hickson.

Christopher Mauro, knew or should have known that his purported "cross-claim" against State of New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) was contrary to FRCVP 13 Counterclaim and Cross-claim. Mauro further knew, should have known, or should not have relied upon the judges allowing him to proceed on a cross-claim against a person or agency that was not a co-party to civil action 08cv02407 (NLH).

The caption page of the complaint clearly sets forth the parties to the action.  There is further evidence as to the parties by my plain statement found at the bottom of the caption page of the complaint. (See "Source Links" to the right "3rd Amended Complaint")  I have shown you that it is a fact that Harrah's Hotel and Casino's original answers were filed on Oct. 14, 2008.  The facts further substantiate that on Oct. 24, 2008 Harrah's, by way of Christopher Mauro, did not file a summons and complaint to make the Division of Gaming Enforcement a party to civil action 08cv02407(NLH)

We have discussed FRCVP 14, which tells us when a defending party may bring in a third-party.  In previous paragraphs we've seen that Rule 14 was not followed to the letter.  I have made the averment that Christopher Mauro knew, should have known or depended upon the judges allowing his so-called cross-claim to proceed contrary to the rule that plainly states that a pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party. 

Christopher Mauro's cross-claim against the N.J. DGE is not valid because that entity is not a co-party to the complaint.  My basis in law for this position is FRCVP 13 (g) Counterclaim Against a Co-party, holding: "A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action or of a counterclaim or if the claim relates to any property that is the subject matter of the original action.  The counter-claim may include a claim that the co-party is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant."

FRCVP 13 (h) Joining Additional Parties, clearly states that: "Rules 19 and 20 govern the addition of a person as a party to a counter-claim or crass-claim."  I posit that Judge Hillman's Opinion of Sept. 27, 2010 is devoid of reference to FRCVP 13, 14, 19, or 20.  Go ahead search it and see for yourself, its in the link list as "Earl Hickson v Marina Associates. (Tick-tock-tick-tock)

Not!  In my opinion here's why.  The cohorts wanted to and needed to refer to defendant Letchblau, Kosko and Morton as the "State" defendants as to allow the judge to bring in the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (To be Continued)

Till then, I thank you for stopping by, I hope that you will subscribe to this blog, tell your friends  and continue to experience Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming.  TheCasinoGamingOracle

New Third-Party Practice

(J.S.H.I.T. #3) and Other Third-Party Practice

Yes, I have disclaimed being a lawyer.  I must admit, growing up, becoming one was fourth on my list of what I wanted to be.

Let's begin to delve into the complaint I filled May 15, 2008. The events causing this action occurred on May 15, 2006 at Harrah's Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City New Jersey.  Yes, I did take full advantage of New Jersey's two year statute of limitations for the filing of a section 1983 claim. Trust me, it was time well spent too.  During that time I had to determine the parties I would hold liable for my false arrest, kidnapping and violation of my civil and constitutional rights.

Don't fall into the trap of naming as a party the name you see on the outside of the buildings. Remember those of you contemplating representing yourselves, you're dealing most times with a corporation.  This corporation can have several names, d/b/a's, a/k/a's, and i/s/h/a's. Not finding out who or what's behind the sign can make your walk to court very brief.  Most casino's have revolving doors that you enter through, if you get the name wrong, the first thing they will plea to the judge is, and they will call him "You're Honor," he's not talking about my client, and the judge will give you a chance to find out who you're trying to sue, and if you fail to get it right your case will be dismissed for failure to properly name a party upon which relief may be granted and you've been spun out of court, just as if you were caught in a casino's revolving door.

From the above you can probably see why I took the time that I did.  I wanted to make sure that I named the proper parties, then I did my studying to make sure that my complaint was as free as possible from attack pursuant to FRCVP 12 Defenses and Objections.  More specifically FRCVP 12 (b) (1) through (7), which includes the subject broached in the above paragraph.  Ask any attorney and they will tell you about this matter, but I'm here to share with you the Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic's most will not tell you about.

Today, lets look at what is called the "Caption Page" of the complaint.  This is where you will find the Court wherein the action is taking place, the docket number of the case, the parties to the complaint and the title of the filing. This action holds that: Earl D. Hickson is the plaintiff and Marina Associates, d/b/a Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Alexander Lovas, Vance Thompson, Anna Haag, Josh Lechtblau, Mark Kosko and George Morton are the defendants. The document is titled as the Third Amendment to Complaint and Jury Demand.  At the bottom of the caption page I clearly stated: " Plaintiff, Earl D. Hickson, for his third amendment to his complaint, as timely filed on May 15, 2008.  Does here within claim against the above captioned defendants, individually, in their professional capacities, and as co-conspirators of Harrah’s Hotel and Casino and other official State Roe, States as Follows."

Why drag you through what appears to be miniscule details you might ask?  I herd that, and here's the answer to your question. I called myself making it plain that I was seeking relief from all the defendants in their individual and professional capacities and as co-conspirators of Harrah's Hotel and Casino. At no time did I name the State of New Jersey or any agency of said State.  Why? Because, during my research I learned of the complications of New Jersey's Tort Claims Act, plus the immunity of the State under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I also knew or learned that, if needed, I could add a third party pursuant to FRCVP 14 (b) When a Plaintiff May Bring in a Third Party, stating: " When a claim is asserted against a plaintiff, the plaintiff may bring in a third party if the rule would allow a defendant to do so."  Alas, but when  may a defendant do so, so that I may do so. (E-I-E-I-O again).

FRCVP 14 (a) When a Defending Party May Bring in a Third Party, (PAUSE-PAUSE, you still with me, this important and you need to get this one). FRCVP 14 (a) says: "A defending party may, as third-party plaintiff, serve a summons and complaint on a non party who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.  But the third party plaintiff must, by motion, obtain the court's leave if it files the third-party complaint more than 10 days after serving its original answers." OK, read that again before you go on to the next paragraph because if you understand what this rule says, when I'm done here, you'll also be able to know what "Mork" meant when he said "nan nu nan nu."

The above paragraph tells us that in order to bring in a party not listed on the caption page of the complaint someone already a party to the action must file a motion and get leave from the court. (For those not understanding the good ole boy's and girl's network that literally means begging the judge to allow you to do what the rule's say you can do, but then again the judge must keep the power, and on that farm there was some you know…)

You can take my word or you can peruse the entire docket sheet, either one, 4/09/11 of the copy from 8/31/11, to see if any defendant received an order from the court saying that they could add a party to the action. (See Dkt_Sheet_as of_4_09_2011 in the "Source Links" to the right).  (Go ahead I'll wait...Tick-Tock-Tick-Tock, TIMES UP! NOT!).   The truth is, its not there, right? Christopher Mauro is the attorney for Harrah's et al, and Kathleen Bartus is the attorney for Lechtblau, Kosko, and Morton and the docket sheet is devoid of a motion by either of them seeking to add the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement.  So how in the hell did the Division of Gaming Enforcement get added as a party, first without the proper motion being filed and secondly I plainly stated on the caption page that I was seeking redress in the named parties individual and professional capacity?

That's right we have (J.S.H.I.T. #3), the adding of parties to the action contrary to the rules of court, so as to make it appear that there may be an implication of the Eleventh Amendment. NOT!

The big question is who comes up with this stuff? The facts and laws should substantiate that this writer is not making (J.S.H.I.T) up.  If the Rules of Court say there should be a motion, followed by an Order granting leave, what's happening to "so it is written so it shall be done?" If the rules further state that said motion is filed 10 days after the party's original answers are filed it must get leave from the court, why haven't Bartus or Mauro been given this pass by their crony Judge Hillman or Judge Williams for that matter.  Clear case of  judges gone rogue in my opinion.  Hence I believe Dr. Ziad Akl, when he says that he fell victim to a conspiracy between a hospital, its attorney and a state court judge aimed at defeating him in court. (See "Source Link to the right click "Judges Gone Rouge" to link.)

Now we have (J.S.H.I.T. #3), that being the rewriting of  Third-Party Practice to fit the needs of these cohorts.  Sensing that you want to click over and check out Judges gone Rogue, I'll close here, but ya'll come back now, ya hear.  This ole boy got more to tell ya, till then Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle

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!