Another Word of Thanks!

(Atlantic City, NJ)- On this Thursday, January 26, 2012, Casino Gaming Oracle @http://thecasinogamingoracle.blogspot.com would like to thank the many viewer's that have visited my blog, wherein I am chronicling the injustice being exacted in Southern New Jersey.

During the ten days that I was in the Atlantic County jail I was never arraigned on any charge, and on May 25, 2006 I was, as unbelievable as it sounds, thrown out of the county jail.   This is when the real "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics" (JSHIT), really kick in, after all there are a lot of Constitutional Rights violations to be covered up.  This continues do to lack of knowledge by the public at large.  [See Hickson v Acme Justice Corporation]

 This is where you the viewers of this blog come in.   Today I was blessed to view a blog at jeffbullas.com, headed "5 Powerful Steps to Build a 6-Figure Blog."  A person in my shoes would welcome a 6-figure blog, but lets get one thing clear, and that is the fact that I am so thank-full and appreciative of the "4-figure" status of this blog, as it stands today.  Why?

As you can see from the postings within this blog I am fighting those that have the power to project the appearance of duly administering justice.  They have the power to manipulate the courts records, over expose documents filed with the court, and create falsehood's to the point where a 78 page document now stand's at 70 pages.  [See Proselytizationof KMW]

When judges of a United States District Court ratifies and partakes of such conduct it becomes a matter of public interest, again that’s where you come in.  When all of the allegations of the complaint's filed have been denied and there are issues for a jury to decide, but the judge does all within his power to keep the matter from a jury, that’s where you come in.  When the law says that the standard to determine when a judge should recuse him of herself, is that of a reasonable person armed with all of the relevant facts of the matter, that’s where you come in.  [See Absolute Immunity via Recusal (part two)]

To the 1805 page viewers as of 12:11PM on 1/26/2012, thank you.  To the one follower as of the same date and time thank you.  I further thank the 343 followers of the Gaming Oracle on twitter.com.  But please, keep this in mind, our judicial system is designed so that a jury of 6 decides a case brought before them.  You are most appreciated because one in my situation requires a 6-figure jury just to get to the normal six person jury.  I'm asking that you be the judge of the judges so that we know our system works.

  So, continue to stand with me.  Tell two friends, and tell them to tell two friends, and we can move this mountain.  Voice your opinions via comments, re-tweet my postings on twitter, subscribe in the subscription box to the right above, and most importantly those with more knowledge than I, correct me if you see an error, and affirm what you see as a truth. This is your case just as much it is mine.  The public must protect its right to have confidence in its judicial officials, and those in the legal profession have an obligation to protect the integrity of this profession.  Are You In?

 Thank you one and all,

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.

Any Thing You Say Can and Will be Used Against You.

Especially if a judge has to save his or her own ass.

What happens if you enter a settlement conference in a judges chambers, that judge makes threatening statements to you in an effort to force you into a settlement?

Just so happens such an incident was set forth within positive case law.  Garcia v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company ofAmerica, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64457, at pages [*13] to [*14] says:

"Several times during that settlement conference, Magistrate Boland told Plaintiff, Mr. Silvern [plaintiff's counsel] and me directly (and, according to Mr. Silvern, also told Mr. Silvern in separate "side" meetings) that Plaintiff faced the probable dismissal of her case after the Motions Hearing scheduled the following day if she refused to accept a settlement of the case that day that would require her to relinquish her Berkshire  Life "Limited Edition" Executive Income Replacement policy rights. . . .

Plaintiff was very emotional and cried often during the settlement conference in response to Magistrate Boland's threats regarding the dismissal her case unless she agreed to settle and forfeit her disability policy rights to lifetime benefits. . . . Magistrate Boland continued to urge her to forfeit the lifetime benefits guaranteed to her by the Berkshire policy in order to avoid dismissal of her case, remarkably using the following metaphor to support his argument: "When you are in bed with snakes, get out of bed." Even so, to the obvious chagrin of Magistrate Boland, Plaintiff insisted that the dismissal of her case was not justifiable and that she would not agree to the forfeiture of her lifetime rights under the policy. Thus, no settlement was reached."

So, if we take the above as being true, and again there is decisional case law supporting that facts alleged in an affidavit supporting a claim of "bias or prejudice" must be accepted as  true.  United States v. Burger, 964 F.2d 1065, 1070 says: "Under § 144, the affidavits filed in support of recusal are strictly construed against the affiant and there is a substantial burden on the moving party to demonstrate that the judge is not impartial.  Conclusions, rumors, beliefs and opinions are not sufficient to form a basis for disqualification.  Under § 455, the test is "whether a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." Id. Moreover, "[t]here is as much obligation for a judge not to recuse when there is no occasion for him to do so as there is for him to do so when there is." 

Okay, we now appear to have a situation where the judge has put his of her foot in his or her mouth and an attorney has had the courage to tell the truth.  So how will such a judge get out of such a conundrum?  Well, once more we have to turn to positive case law as of Jan 13, 2012. 

Garcia v. BerkshireLife Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64457 at pages [*18] through [*20], wherein this judge back-pedals, and uses the plaintiff's own misguided statements against her, by stating in the opinion that:

Significantly, the settlement conference at which all of these threats and improper statements are alleged to have been made occurred on October 30, 2007. However, no mention of the asserted improprieties was made during the evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Sanctions which occurred on November 14, 2007, see Transcript of Proceedings, November 14, 2007 [Doc. # 301, filed 12/13/2007] (the "Trans. 11/14/2007"); no mention of them is made in the plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation filed December 26, 2007, Plaintiff's Objections [Doc. # 304]; no mention of them is made in Plaintiff's Cross-Motion to Amend Findings filed January 22, 2008 [Doc. # 314]; no mention of them is made in the Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Order filed June 9, 2008 [Doc. # 358] (the "Rule 60(b) Motion"), filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); and no mention of them is made in the plaintiff's Opening Brief filed in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 27, 2008 [Cir. Doc. # XXXXXXXXXXX].

To the contrary, the plaintiff testified in November 2007, at the hearing on the Motion for Sanctions, as follows:

Q (By Mr. Silvern [plaintiff's counsel]) Is there anything else you'd like to tell the Court regarding this motion for sanctions and your opposition to it?

A (By the plaintiff) Yes. I would like to say that—that a person that I trust very much gave me some wisdom that says when a person is in bed with serpents, you should get out of bed.  And the allegations and the attacks to me, upon me, by the defense when they know—and they're based on their own experts—the extent of my disability admittedly is an act of—of just of serpents.

Trans. 11/14/2007 at p. 15 line 23 through p. 16 line 7.

Mr. Nobel in his affidavit quotes me as telling the plaintiff at the settlement conference that "[w]hen you are in bed with snakes, get out of bed." Nobel Aff. [Doc. # 431] at p. 10, ¶5.  Although the statement now is used as a basis to seek my disqualification, at the time of the events in question, rather than being a basis for criticism, the plaintiff indicated that she trusted me "very much" and characterized the statement as "wisdom."

At the risk of perjury I declare that the copy I made of the above from a computer having access to Lexis does not read the same.  First the copy I have shows the statements of J.M. Nobel, who says in the affidavit that he was co-counsel for the plaintiff.  Secondly the copy that I have gives the docket number as [Cir. Doc. #01011987255], not as it appears above, [Cir. Doc. # XXXXXXXXXXX].  Now this could be due to the making it available on the internet or some other factor, but the deletion of Mr. Nobel's statement shows this writer that something is being hidden.  The judge wants us to believe that this plaintiff trusted her and took the judges statements as wisdom.

 What's the learning? Watch what you say, where you say what you said, and in what context you say it? Huh, What?  Okay, I was [FN] with you, but here's some wisdom for real, "Never call a judge "Your Honor" till he or she proves to be honorable.  But, How will you know?  That's why we are here so you can be the judge...think about it.  I am putting something special together for you that will knock you socks off, stay with me, leave comments, and tell more friends.

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.

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.

Answers Disputing Allegations = Issues for Trial?

(Atlantic City, NJ)-  I filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment" and it was denied. Harrah's Hotel and Casino by way of its attorney filed a "Motion Summed-Up in Lies" and it was granted. Lets take a look at the facts. You can't run from the truth I was always told.

Previously we touched on the answers that were filed by the defendants within civil action 08cv02407 NLH-KMW, in the posting titled Answer Genesis/Revelations of theDefendants.  It is now time for a more detailed analysis of the answers and other documents purporting to support Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Atlantic City's a gratia summary judgment.  By going into the details one can see that Judge Noel L. Hillmans opinion of September 27, 2010 is based on lies and his willingness to be "willfully ignorant" to the truth's I will show you.

JSHIT #7

JSHIT #7 is revealed by Harrah's Hotel and Casinos attorney Christopher C. Mauro's, as the court would say, "misrepresentation," and here I say "straight-up lies," as here I am not subject to "candor towards the [FN] tribunal." OH YES, I'm pissed and God has told me I don't have to be cute, as I can boldly speak the truth, and so that more of you keep interest in the truth I will "kick-it" with flavor. (you feel me?)

Like Das EFX said on their album Straight Up Sewaside, Check it Out, "I'm in the house with the books, so yo take a look." FRCVP Rule 3 plainly say that: "A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court." Christopher C. Mauro attempts to distort the facts and have the record appear that my complaint was not timely and that I filed amendment to the complaint which would yield the complaint at issue the "Fourth Amended Complaint" which does not exist.

You be the judge here is a copy of his "Brief in Support of Vance Thompson,Anna Haag, and Marina Associates Motion for Summary Judgment." On page 2 Mauro says: "Plaintiff commenced suit against Harrah's Hotel and Casino on May 28, 2008. (Plaintiff's summons and complained annexed hereto as Exhibit "C").  (JSHIT) Check it out y-all!  FRCVP says what?  You can't put your (JSHIT) out there and then try to cure it by pointing to a fact that, yes a summons was issued on May 28, 2008, but the ultimate fact remains that the action commenced on May 15, 2008.  Petty you might say but do you homework on statute of limitations and you will see that the lawless-ones are setting up the record to appear clean when the (JSHIT) gets flushed. (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.