Swimming With the So Called Judicial Sharks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Casino Gaming Oracle

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

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

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

"That fourth contention is that in ruling on appellants' motion to disqualify himself the district judge applied the wrong legal standard under 28 U.S.C. § 144. We agree, and conclude that all proceedings from December 10, 1974, the date of the § 144 motion, must be vacated and the case returned to the district court for reassignment to a different judge."

 I'll trust that if there are any lawyer out there that disagree with my understanding of this case, they will comment in correction below.  I understand the above case to say that after properly applying the standards under 28 U.S.C. § 144, the above court agreed with the petitioner and held the all proceedings from 12/10/1974, the date that the § 144 motion was filed, must be vacated.  The above court further said that because the judge misapplied § 144 the case would be returned to the district court and reassigned to a different judge.

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

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

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

 How about I save you some time and tell you that averment #27 of the Motion for Recusal reads:

 Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams cannot deny that the above averments #5

through #26 unless supported by substantial evidence to the contrary, support and offer

valid grounds for their recusal from civil action’s 1:11-cv-06304 and 1:08-cv-02407.

If there are still some that must see things for themselves because they only believe half of what they hear, well they can click the following link and scroll down to page 9 to see averment #27 at the top of the page.

 I had a very long day, just as many of you have either ahead of you or behind you as well, but there is another case I'd like to share with you so please return and view this show stopper.

About to bump my head on the keyboard, but thanks for viewing,

Gaming Oracle! ZZZzzzzz!

Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards

Can Judge Noel L. Hillman claim that the case law I shared with you in "Acting v. Reacting III" only applies to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures?  By now you know how I do, so here's what the case law within Judge Hillman's Third Circuit says.  You be the judge.

 The key issue stated within  Riga v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline 224 S.W.3d 795 that I pointed out to you within "Acting v. Reacting III" was the settling of the fact that:

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(c) requires a judge who declines to recuse to forward the recusal motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. Judge Fowler did this. However, Rule 186a(c) further requires that the trial judge may make no further orders and take no further action prior to a hearing on the forwarded motion. The only exception provided by the Rule is if the further order states good cause for ruling notwithstanding the pending recusal motion.

Guess what folks, I'm going to be waiting again, because the above case law say that: (1) Judge Noel L. Hillman should have sent my motion for recusal to the Chief Judge of his Court, (2) he was required to make no further orders and take no further action in 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304 prior to a hearing on the forwarded motion, and (3) the only exception to the above Texas Rule of Civil Procedure is if the further order states good cause for rulings notwithstanding the pending recusal motion.

 But, before you go running of to see if the above was done by Judge Hillman we have to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples as the old saying goes.  Let's not forget that the above is Texas Rules.  So, what is the standard followed within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals?  Well…

On September 22, 1989, the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, said within United States v. Furst that it was remanding the case back to the district court for reassignment to a different district judge.  See last sentence of "Opinion of the Court" U.S. v. Furst 886 F.2d 558, 561 (1989).

 Please don't yawn yet, or just say "yeah-yeah-yeah, they remanded it so what was the remand based on and how is it applicable here?"  Well here's how.  One reading further into U.S. v. Furst, at page 583 will find that the court said:

As a result of the extent to which the district court confirmed the underlying facts upon which the recusal motion relied, we need not resolve the issue of whether a judge need accept as true the allegations presented in a motion for disqualification under section 455 which asserts a basis as to which section 144 is applicable and which includes an affidavit sufficient under section 144. It is sufficient that we state that where the basic underlying facts as set forth in the affidavit supporting a recusal application are not in dispute, the district court should not minutely examine the movant's characterization of them, and weigh the court's memory of what happened against that of the affiant. We think it simply inappropriate in the circumstances here for the court to have made a credibility assessment of itself. Consequently, we hold that the district judge improperly considered the truth of the asserted grounds for his recusal.

Thus, our remaining inquiry is whether the allegations were "legally sufficient" for recusal. Here we are satisfied that the allegations of the motion and affidavit for disqualification were sufficient to have required recusal, as taking the allegations as true, the judge's impartiality, though only in sentencing, might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). According to the attorney's affidavit, the judge made it clear that he was anxious for a guilty plea and would award a longer sentence to be served in unpleasant circumstances, following a conviction trial. Thus, it was reasonable to conclude, taking the attorney's affidavit as true, that the judge's attitude as to sentence was based at least to some degree on the fact that the case had to be tried, an exercise which the judge seemed anxious to avoid.

There you have it folks, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1989 that, (1)  it is inappropriate for the court  make a credibility assessment of itself, (2) within this Circuit a motion to recuse is guided by the procedures of 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, (3) these two statutes say that a recusal motion and it's supporting affidavit that contain legally sufficient allegations are to be taken as true, especially when they are not disputed.

 69 day's after February 21, 2012, Judge Noel L. Hillman has not disputed the allegations of the motion for his recusal.  Yet on March 28, 2012, with a motion seeking his recusal from civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304, and further proceedings forthcoming within the two civil actions, Judge Hillman did exhibit "willful ignorance" towards the above case law, which is from his own United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

 Okay, now you may refer back to "All-In-All Its Just More JSHIT OnThe Wall" where I shared a link to Judge Hillman's March 28, 2012, invalid opinion.  Now you should have a firm grasp as to why that post was entitled more JSHIT on the wall.  But, if you listened to the included song, which says "we don't need no education," you should agree with me that Judge Noel L. Hillman does need an education.  Why? Because we don't need no dark JSHIT in our courtrooms.

But wait, there's more.  Okay-Okay, I know this is a bit much so I'll continue with more case law that Judge Hillman thumbs his nose to in my next post.  May I ask that, if you agree with the facts that I'm setting forth, will you invite a friend or two to join us? We need all the help and support we can get, because Judge Noel L. Hillman has clearly bumped his head!

 Thank you so much for viewing,

Gaming Oracle!

Abramoff Should Be Flattered

We all know the phrase, "Imitation is the highest form of flattery," well Jack Abramoff is beaming right about now, because his old nemesis, former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Public Integrity Section, Noel L. Hillman, and now a United States District Judge, has taken his (Abramoff's) tactic's directly into the courts.

You see Mr. Abramoff found a way to have "obscure language" written into the laws to benefit his clients.  This language was so obscure the lawmakers presenting the bills would be able to claim not knowing that it was in there, and or  what it meant.  Hey!  I'm just the messenger, because like you I deem that "willful ignorance" at a minimum, but that’s what they did and do.

 Yeah, yeah-- who am I to make such claims.  How about you getting it straight from the horses mouth so to speak.  CBS News "60 Minutes" did a show with Mr. Abramoff and now there is a clip out from this show entitled Abramoff's "perfect" tactic, in which Mr. Abramoff can be seen doing all to keep from bursting into laughter while detailing the above tactic.  You know how I do by now, so go ahead click the link, I'll wait the clip is 50 seconds…

Okay, you're back, educated and ready to follow me on this one right? Not!  That's not how I do, I share the facts, and basis in law then you become the judge. Never forget that.

Near the end of the above video you can hear Mr. Abramoff say that the lawmakers don't read what's in the bills. Hmm?  So what are they being paid for?  Oh, my bad, they are elected so that they can go to Washington to collect bribes.  But back to Noel L. Hillman and how he has adopted this tactic.

Noel L. Hillman assumed that we the public are like the above lawmakers and would not read his opinions nor be able to see the "obscure language" tucked away within its footnotes.  Again I must refer to a nursery rhyme, "along came a spider and sat down beside her and…"

 I'm that spider, because now that I have read Hillman's opinion and exposed it within the following posts: Agent of Change, JSHIT #8, Have Judge That Will Lie!, and A gratia--Ex Gratia--Aah JSHIT, just to cite a few, Hillman has gone silent.  As of this writing his response to my recusal motion is 32 days past due.   My most appreciated and loyal viewers know the afore postings and have seen there offerings, but for those unfamiliar, or those needing to refresh, go ahead click away I'll wait…

This is a culture folks, a training so to speak.  Judge Noel L. Hillman is attempting to proselytize us into thinking that Mark Kosko did not kidnap me on May 15, 2006.  He got to one African-American by the name of Karen M. William, but just so happens she's a Magistrate Judge being tutored by him. (Yeah right, you know I don't mean that especially after posting Proselytization of KMW.)

 In closing, again don't believe me, view the facts then judge for yourselves. Yes I have another CBS 60 Minute clip for you entitled "Culture of corruption," which should help you form your own opinions.  I'll be back with more, so you go ahead and check out this minute and a half clip at your leisure, but join me again to continue this revelation.

Thank you,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Cebull #1, Hillman #195 (Bush Appointments) part: 2

Within "Cebull #1, Hillman #195 (Bush Appointments)" I introduced you to the fact that former President George W. Bush's first nomination to a United States District Court was Richard F. Cebull.  By now we are familiar with what the recent events have revealed about this first draft pick so to speak.

The headline above also includes the former president's 195th appointment, Noel L. Hillman.  Some will say that any further postings by me on this judge would just be pouring salt on his open wounds.  I beg to differ, for injustice is like a wart, left untreated it hardens and grows.

Bush's first pick was caught disseminating racially offensive emails to his, as I term "good ole boy's and girl's network."  Bush's 195th pick is a little bit more sneaky and appears to be a bit more sophisticated.  In past postings I have shared with you several instances of this judges "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic's" (JSHIT).  For those just joining in, here are a few by title:

• Low Down, Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal (Shame)

• Got Proofs--Need Judges

• Hickson vs. Hillman's & Williams' (JSHIT)

• Aiding and Abetting From the Bench

My main reason for bring these two judges to your attention, is to show you how their hubris has allowed them to become careless to the point of exposing themselves.  The first pick never expected the joke, as he now calls it, to be released to the public. Hmm? Maybe one of his own became offended by this so called joke and spawned his exposure. Hmm?

 Be fore warned I will get long-winded here, but please stay with me, and I will show you how judicial corruption festers within the courts.  I say festers because, if you were to ask any lawyer, he or she would confirm that this bunch take an oath to be self-governed by their own morals, and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Trust me they don't tend to tell on each other until one really pisses-off another one then (JSHIT) hits the fan and the newspapers.

Judge Noel L. Hillman, like any other lawyer, took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.  President George W. Bush nominated him to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  This man was not nominated and seated on the bench to be New Jersey's Casino industry's gatekeeper, and or insurance policy against liability under section 1983. But…

This man, Noel L. Hillman restricts equal protection of the laws by becoming a treasonous "liar" just as the "liars for hire" he conspires with, that are hired by Harrah's Hotel and Casino Atlantic City.  If you will indulge me and give me your time I will show you by his own hand, as he wrote the opinion now before the public and fronting as decisional law.

Hickson v Marina Associates, 743 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010) has been released for all to see.  But the lies and violations of the law are well hidden by this judge. Lets take a look like we have not done in the past.  One clicking the link to this opinion will find that page 367 hold:

"In May 2008, Hickson filed his original complaint in this Court. Subsequently, he amended his complaint multiple times. Hickson finally filed his third amended complaint in December 2009. That same month, he filed his Motion for Summary Judgment. In March 2010, he submitted a "Renewed/Supplemental" Motion for Summary Judgment. The Casino defendants and the State defendants cross-moved for summary judgment in April 2010, respectively.[4]"

Note that the above paragraph concludes with the reference to footnote [4].  I will show you what footnote [4] says here:

[4] Most recently, on August 25, 2010, Hickson filed a verified complaint and "Order to Show Cause with Preliminary Injunction." The submission appears to reiterate the allegations and arguments already propounded by Hickson in his complaints, his "Brief in Support of Complaint," his motions for summary judgment, and his oppositions to defendants' motions. It is worth noting, however, that the operative complaint in this case remains Hickson's third amended complaint. Nevertheless, this latest submission does not alter the Court's conclusions in this Opinion. The Court further stresses that, even accepting Hickson's averments as if they were set forth in an affidavit, only those facts to which Hickson has personal knowledge may be considered as true. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(1) ("A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated."); Mosley v. City of Pittsburgh Pub. Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 2948519, at *1, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81174, at *4 (W.D.Pa. Sept. 8, 2009) (explaining that "[s]tatements in affidavits made only on belief or on information and belief may not be considered in support of or in opposition to summary judgment" and that "courts routinely grant motions to strike affidavits that are based upon `belief' or `information and belief,' or which contain conclusory language, vague assertions, gross speculation and inferences" (citation omitted)).

Now, if you will stay with me on this, and I hate to come across as if I'm begging you too, but I promise that from the paragraph above, which ends with the reference to footnote [4], I will show you what a liar this judge is and how he blatantly ignores the Constitution, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The first lie to show you is easy, because we have covered that issue in detail in a past posting. That lie is in reference to the filing of the "Third Amended Complaint" in civil action 08-cv-02407, which was filed on August 18, 2009.  You can click this link to "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (part II)," and you will learn the details of the filing of this complaint.

I've asked for a lot, so I'll close this post and continue next time.  If you are reading this post on 3/6/2012, be further advised that Judge Noel L. Hillman's response to the motion to recuse himself, that you will also see when you click the above link, is now 14 day's over due.  Please get all the facts, tell a friend or two and join me right here later.

Thank You,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Consciousness of the Conundrum I've Created

An intricate and difficult problem; is but one definition of the word  conundrum.  Please do not misinterpret the title above, for I believe in my task, but this posting will acknowledge and address those that may view me as the problem.

I am only a problem, if and when those that subscribe to the "good ole boy's and girl's" mentality are asked their opinions or broach the subject of this blog or civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304.

Hence, conflict may have been the more appropriate word to use in the title, but again, I don't see that being the case from a moral standpoint.  What I see, as an outsider looking into our judicial system, is a situation wherein "dirt" rules.  How much "dirt" one possess over his or her opponent, how many times one knows of a judges violations of the rules appear to control which side wins or looses a case.

 Moreover the above appears to substantiate the fact that nowadays most cases are settled.  Why?  Well as I see it, a settlement allows for the lawyers and judges to maintain their dirt on one another, and no dirty laundry has to washed on the record.  I've have termed this "the sweeping under a judicial rug." [More on that later]

What I really wanted to discuss with you is my own conundrum.  To make injustice known, I need the support of all those that believe that there has been one in the first place.  Who would be in the best position to say if injustice has reared its ugly head?  Yes, those studied in the law.  Law students, lawyers, law professors, and any judicial officers with legal training. BUT…

 Think about it, if you were in law school right now, would you put your legal career on the line by siding with a pro se litigants campaign to expose judicial misconduct, denial of equal protection of the laws and denial of meaningful access to the court's.  Of course not unless your goal was to become a legal malpractice attorney.

 Think once more, this time you're an attorney, you've done your time in law school, you've passed the bar, and you are actually practicing law.  Again, unless you’re a legal malpractice attorney looking to put a notch on your belt you won't side with the exposure of judicial misconduct.  There's no pay check coming to you if the unethical judges, lawyers and other judicial officers are exposed.  Most importantly you can't risk supporting a pro se litigant that you are more that likely to hold a prejudice against, and even if he appears to have a valid issue there is a chance that he has missed something, so why stick your neck out, right?

I think we all understand where I'm coming from right now.  I've put this issue off for quite some time now.  I must admit that I feared making enemies of those in the best position to support me.  But due to the huge support I have received from the legal community I will move forward.  I understand that there are many out there in the legal profession that take interest, and know what I set forth is true.

Let me thank them for their support, and further acknowledge to them that I will respect their wish to remain anonymous. I'm placed in the same conundrum as Frederick Douglass, wherein he could not name those that aided him in learning to read. He feared that retaliation would befall them.  Yet as the writer of the preface of his book stated: "Mr. Douglass has frankly disclosed the place of his birth, the names of those who claimed ownership in his body and soul, and the names also of those who committed the crimes which he has alleged against them.  His statements therefore, may easily be disproved, if they are untrue." [See page 12 of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an AmericanSlave, by Frederick Douglass]

The same holds true for any averments I have made, and as we can see no one has stepped up to disprove me, nor has any one taken up my offers that I be corrected upon the finding of a false allegation or the passing on of misinformation.  I ask the same herein, if the above is not true, the comment box below is open to all.

Most importantly I want everyone to see that the above is why we are still waiting for a decision from Judge Noel L. Hillman, as to his recusal.  Think, for one last time, this time you are a United States District Judge, do you want to admit that a man you claimed and or attempted to portray as "lacking personal knowledge," has caused you to admit that you have violated the law by presiding over a case that could further expose you’re a gratia favors, violations of the federal rules of civil procedure, attempted indoctrination of a newly appointed African-American female Magistrate Judge, failure to sanction clear violations of FRCVP 11, failure to consider complaints in their entirety, willfully ignorance of  exhibits attached to complaints, and plainly shown that your do not uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?

 Houston, we do have a problem but it's not with the messenger.

Thank you, one and all please continue to tell a friend or two.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

There's more...to be continued...

Judges Recalcitrance Denies Justice & Delays Injustice

Within the posting entitled "Absolute Immunity via Recusal," I shared with you that: "Earl Hickson and Markland Grant have filed a ten page "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.  (What is 28 USCA § 1746)  Within 33 minutes of receiving the motion, amazingly the court was able to docket a hearing date of 2/21/2012. The average person would be impressed and say "wow what an efficient and speedy bunch of judicial officer." Not!"

February 21, 2012, was nine days ago today, March 1, 2012.  I can only guess that Judge Noel L. Hillman has finally decided to follow decisional case law in civil action 11-cv-06304, by conforming to Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F. 3d 412,425 holding: "While justice delayed may be justice denied, prompt injustice is not the answer." Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Smith, 676 F.2d 1023, 1040 n. 43 (5th Cir.1982) (emphasis added)."

 By delaying any action on the plaintiff's motion that he (Judge Noel L. Hillman) and Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams recuse themselves, this judge further exhibits an affinity to recognize that the holdings of Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 US 800 are applicable, when this case holds: "A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was "clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice." Arizona v.California, supra, at 618, n. 8 (citation omitted)."

Please, do not allow yourselves to think like the plaintiff's for as you know Judge Noel L. Hillman say's that "Hickson lacks personal knowledge," and now so do you.  You see Judge Hillman appears to follow the words of Carter G. Woodson, "The Mis-Education of the Negro" at page 3/94 where he states: "The mere imparting of information is not education."

Now I don't know about you, but I took offence to his attack on my intellect, as my great-grandmother instilled in me early that I was not to grow up to be a fool.  Yet his (Judge Noel L. Hillman's) delay, whether it be out of prudence, stubbornness, or recalcitrance, his two opinions attempting to dismiss two valid and well pleaded civil actions make him to appear to be the oxymoron.  [You catch my drift and of that you have personal knowledge]

I've always had personal knowledge of the phrase "A hard head makes a soft ass," could it be that the word recalcitrance was just two big of a word for African-American parents to tell their children.  Then again they would have had to put it in the proper context and we would have something to the effect of, "a recalcitrant ass has a hard head." Hmm?

So, here we are nine days after the "oxymoronic" judge has failed to deliver "prompt injustice" and or continues to delay justice by his repentance and stepping down from all matters involving Earl Hickson and Markland Grant.

Thank You for waiting with me,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Bad Law-Law Bad, Yet They Follow

Law based upon fraud upon the court is bad law.  Judicial officer's perpetrating fraud upon the court is worse than bad law and they make the law look bad for the system itself is bad, hence the law is bad.  But, even when a court, or should I say a judge, writes bad law that is followed by other judges, said law spreads and makes all law bad.

 Thanks to my trip to the law library today I can show you better than I can tell you.  By now everyone knows that I am talking about Judge Noel L. Hillman's opinion of Sept, 27, 2010, reported as  Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F.Supp.2d 362.  The first time that I read this opinion folks, my first impression was I can not allow this to stand, (1) it is contrary to the law (2) it say's that it's okay to kidnap African-Americans (3) there are those within this courts jurisdiction that will not be blessed to understand this as I have been blessed and lastly, it has my name on it.

If Judge Noel L. Hillman and Earl D. Hickson are to be forever joined by this opinion let the world know the truth, as I am sharing through this blog.  Today folks I came across another of my fears, and it sets the stage for your concern as well.  If you allow your court judges to act as I am showing you how Noel L. Hillman acts, this will be the results.  Today I shepardized "Hickson v. Marina Associates, 743 F. Supp. 2d 362, and as of2/23/2012 this case has been cited by six other cases, plus it is referenced within the UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE 42 USCS § 1981, under interpretive note "153. Miscellaneous," at page 117 stating:

"Arrestee failed to establish 42 USCS § 1981 claims arising from alleged deprivation of casino credits that arrestee was accused of stealing but claimed were abandoned; there were insufficient allegations that arrestee was deprived of protected right on basis of race. Hickson v Marina Assocs. (2010, DC NJ) 743 F Supp 2d 362."

For those not versed in the law, the above is important folks.  It is a statutory provision of the United States of American, showing that it (the U.S.A.) is reporting the holdings of Judge Noel L. Hillman. Yet you are seeing what said opinion is base upon. If no one say's a damn thing Judge Noel L. Hillman's opinion will keep being cited till it becomes law of the land.

All within my age group remember the Saturday morning song on how a bill becomes a law?  Well folks, judge made law doesn't go through the same process, this (JSHIT)  of Hillman's is being pushed up the hill.  One of the most important reasons to stop it to me is…

 If said decision was based upon fraud and a judges willful ignorance of his oath to uphold the constitution of the United States, that amounts to treason.  If other judges follow this opinion and lawyers cite it they in turn are treasonous, but they have the "Lincoln Lawyer" excuse of willful ignorance so to speak, I must add that because they do have an obligation to investigate the case law they recite.

Again, for those in my age group that listened to "R & B," here's a scenario that would be perfect for the song "Things that make you go Hmm."  What if, some conscientious judicial officer were involved in this case from the start, and saw what was going on, or what if one is reading this blog and learns of the facts and reports them to the "FBI," and they in-turn perform an investigation which corroborates my allegations, and ethic's committee or board looks at Hillman's writings and determine that he is treasonous.

 Then what happens to Hickson v Marina Assocs. (2010, DC NJ) 743 F Supp 2d 362?  Does Karen M. Williams get to show her true color's and not say that's why she loves me, but "oops brotha, my bad?"  What about Deputy Attorney General Kathleen M. Bartus, does the State of New Jersey continue to employ her, opp's my bad, for she is up in age, I meant do they retire her ass with full pension?  Will they do the same for Mark Kosko the NJ State Trooper, Bartus filed the un-executed warrants with the court for,  that Hillman couched his opinion on.  Lets not forget the ring leader Christopher C. Mauro, will he continue to work and have offices in Princeton, NJ, yet mail shit from NY, will he further continue to submit bogus depositions to U.S. District Courts that are captioned for NJ Superior Courts. Hmm?

Say the above could never happen huh? You nay-sayer, you.  You never heard of U.S. v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179, 183, holding:

"Magistrate Judge Mann learned of the forged Order sometime in the afternoon of June 17 or June 18, when the attorney for one of the investor-defendants called her chambers to say he had heard that she had issued a decision. On June 18, she signed an order stating that the forged Order was fraudulent, had not been issued by the court, and should not be relied on in any manner. See Order, Ryan Beck v. Fakih, No. 02 Civ. 4052 (E.D.N.Y. June 23, 2003) (Docket Entry No. 110). She also contacted the Second Circuit so that it would not rely on the forged Order for purposes of considering the mandamus application, and notified the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York of the forged Order. The United States Attorney's Office referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") for investigation."

I applaud Magistrate Judge Mann above as she had courage, she did not fold to injustice. She did not fold to the "good ole boy's and girl's" code, she knew wrong is wrong.  Now things should start to become a bit more clearer, and you should understand why Judge Hillman pounced upon the motion to recuse within 33 minutes, but now you also understand why said ruling is three days late and counting.  I have no doubt that the entire Courthouse in Camden knows what's going on, and they know they all f@#$-up.  [Summons' lacking Court Seals and all]  "Bad Law-Law bad that candor towards the tribunal. Good thing were not before them huh?

 One last thing, you should also see that if this blog is reaching those under and ethical duty, you now know why this blog gets zero comments, you guessed it, it's read in the confines of the "Lincoln," and what's read in the Lincoln, stays in the Lincoln. "Bad Lincoln Law-Lincoln Law Bad…

Thank you, have a great weekend, and please invite a friend or two to the Lincoln.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

About To "Pull Your Card" Judge Hillman

The Urban Dictionary at www.urbandictionary.com defines "pull your card" as: "2. pull your card- to call you out when you're bull shitting or lying."   When a United States District Judges gets caught bull shitting or lying he needs to have his or her card pulled.  Now, just because I resort to the Urban Dictionary, and or use what we think of as "Urban Terms," stay with me because I will do my best to tie this all together, and I pray that all will see why this approach is necessary.

My first premise is to eliminate the two variations of the law that Judge Noel L. Hillman attempts to perpetrate.  By his own hand he has set forth that the New Jersey Casino Control Act is applicable to the New Jersey Casino industry, and it is valid statutory law that he is aware of, as evidenced within the 8th paragraph of "Basis in Fact & Law For Recusal (part I)."

I have also shared with you that Judge Noel L. Hillman has refused to take mandatory judicial notice of valid persuasive case law, as set forth within the first two "bullet points" of the 10th paragraph of "Bent of Mind Leads to Straight Injustice."  I have further shown that this judge knew of and received the same documentary proofs,  that the State of New Jersey has not been able to produce a validly executed warrant signed by NJ State Trooper Mark Kosko, as set forth within "Details of A Non-Existing Warrant Tells All," at paragraph 4 (c).

 The above are just three key issues showing that Judge Noel L. Hillman is attempting to fool the public and proselytize this plaintiff, like he is doing to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.  Yet this plaintiff will not fall for this nor allow his (Judge Hillman's)  "self-serving" opinion of Sept. 27, 2010 stand, as it in essence says that it is okay for NJ State Trooper's to carry-out racial profiling on the casino floors of New Jersey's gaming halls.

No member of the public should accept this so called indoctrination into Judge Hillmans separatist administration of the law.  The excerpt from "The Mis-Education of the Negro, by Carter Godwin Woodson, Ph.D." at page 4, puts it best when it says:

"No systematic effort toward change has been possible, for, taught the same economics, history, philosophy, literature and religion which have established the present code of morals, the Negro's mind has been brought under the control of his oppressor. The problem of holding the Negro down, therefore, is easily solved. When you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his "proper place" and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. His education makes it necessary."

Citizens of this nation submit to the laws as they expect that the Constitution of the United States of America will grant them equal protection of the laws.  I, nor should you allow Judge Noel L. Hillman to control your thinking,  and hold you down when the laws are supposed to be written so that a person of average intellect can understand them.   Judge Hillman can not tell me that I can not stand on the law that says that if there are issues in dispute a jury should decide them.  All have seen that Harrah's Hotel and Casino, and the other defendants have denied each and every averment of the prevailing "Third Amended Complaint," as shown within "Answers Disputing Allegations = Issues for Trial," and "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench."

 When this nation reaches a point where there is liberty and justice for all, there will be no need for a so-called race card, nor will a judges card have to be pulled.   There will be an even meting of justice regardless of religion or race.  But until that day comes, actions such as those exhibited by Judge Noel L. Hillman make the discourse between the people harder to initiate, and our differences to be overcome.

Case in point, look at what the internet is accomplishing.  Never before has there been a venue wherein the most powerful group, the youth, can come together and discuss the differences  between the so-called races.  Take one posting I found on www.isitnormal.com.   There was one post titled "I hate the Way Black people Talk," which garnered numerous comment's, but visit this site,  and you will feel the outreach.  As an African-American I agreed with my fellow African-American commenters, and as an "Ole Head" I was proud of my younger brother's and sisters ability to express themselves and give a representation of our people that anyone could respect.

From the first day of writing this blog I have attempted to "Kick-it-wit Flava," so that all may take interest in learning the law as I have, and I am quite sure that there are members of all races, economic strata, and educational backgrounds that have nothing but respect for this blog, as I keep it 100, (that’s truthful for the totally detached), and the only card I am attempting to play is the trump card of equal justice for all.   Ask any law student or lawyer to confirm if this is a matter of public concern that I am bringing to light?  [Go ahead I'll wait...]

But, as the headline states, I will not hesitate, bite my tongue, tip-toe, nor lie when it comes to pulling this judges card.  Ask Judge Noel L. Hillman, and he will have to tell you that I have said  from day one that:

[Scroll to page 3 of Third Amended Complaint]

           Illegality normally seeks cover, but conspirators may act openly or not, as best suits their purpose.  Plaintiff will show that those involved herein operated under the guise of openness, to present an illusion of authority, to  conceal  the illegality of their constitutional and state statutory violations, as well as what can be labeled as criminal activity.

          The defendants objective was and still is the unlawful denial of access to public accommodations, taking and/or granting the casino industry an unfair advantage to the privileges granted by N.J.A.C. 19:45-1.37C, and concealment of the casino industries State issued license to commit theft through the use of laws drafted and designed with the intent to grant said unfair advantage and provide immunity to said casino licensee’s.

          To affect their customary scheme, the cohorts resort to:  Racial profiling; discrimination; false arrest; kidnapping; coercion; denial of access to the Courts and violation of the State of New Jersey Rules of Court.  The cohorts will also violate the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America by denying individuals their liberty; right to acquire and possess property; right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, equal protection of State and Federal laws and promulgating laws that are contrary to the United States Constitutional Amendment XIV Section 1.

Discipline may be needed for a secret conspiracy in order to keep it secret.  The thrust of conspiracy, however, is in the agreement for joint action, not in the method of accomplishing it.

          Scalesv. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 225 81S.  Ct. 1469, 2484 (1961).  The “General principle is that society having the power to punish dangerous behavior cannot be powerless against those who work to bring about the behavior.”  The band of cohorts operates contrary to this holding to instill a sense that one cannot oppose the casino industry and win.  This is only due to the industries hold on the economy of the State and its influence on the Judiciary of New Jersey in Atlantic County.

          It is not difficult to visualize conspirators whose basic ends are plainly illegal, but who color them in order to obtain needed support of others, innocent and well intentioned, by adding lawful and popular objects.

The above has been the introduction to my complaint from day one.  Today I ask you the viewer, will you utilize your power, or pretend to be powerless against those corrupting the court and destroying our confidence in its impartiality?  Race has noting to do with it from this side of the bench and once more the only card to be pulled is that of Judge Noel L. Hillman.

Thank You, Continue to tell a friend or two.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!