Time Doesn't Matter in NJ District Court

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, that is, is so hubristic that time doesn't really matter there and here's quick proof.

We discussed the (JSHIT) the Clerk of the Court in the above court in the above court utilize within my post entitled "Clerk ofCourt can Rubber Stamp or Initiate (JSHIT)."  Guess what folks, it's still the practice of the day there.

 Anyone filing a document there will tell you that it's always "8:30" in Camden.  I was just there on Friday, July 27, to file my motion for a jury trial, and this practice was further revealed. Not all of my viewers know that I'm back on my job, making injustice known, but maybe some of them picked up this fact within the copy of the letter that I wrote to Judge Hillman. (See SwimmingWith the So Called Judicial Sharks)

On the third page of the above cover letter I submitted to the Clerk of the court, I wrote, "As my last filing was scheduled within 33 min. of me leaving your office please tend to this matter in the same, and acknowledge by return of "Notice of Filing," and a copy of the docket sheet for 08cv02407." 

Amazingly federal rule of civil procedure 5 (d) (4) Acceptance by the Clerk, was adhered to and the clerk did not refuse to file my paper, even though the court is presenting that the case is closed.  Don't believe me?  Look at the photo of page 15 of the docket sheet below.  Docket entry 80 says: "ORDERED that the Clerk shall Close the file…"

 Back up speedy, we were talking about the time clock thing remember.  Well take a look in the bottom right hand corner and you will see that the computer stamp says that this document was printed at 12:57PM.  I didn't quite get the fast 33 min. attention I got before but considering that I left Atlantic City on the 10:10AM bus, arrived in Camden a little after 11AM, was able to walk back to the Camden bus terminal and catch the 11:35 AM bus back to Atlantic City, and by the time I got off the bus my motion was filed.

 Back up again speedy, you might have missed it.  The Clerk of the Court stamped the cover letter as "RECEIVED JUL 27 2012 AT 8:30,"  at the penalty of perjury I'm telling you that I didn't leave to go to the court till 10:10AM, so how did my paper get stamped at 8:30AM, before I got there, Hmm.  Some one is pulling your chain or the judicial officer must be playing with their "ding-a-lings" instead of doing there ministerial duties with integrity.

But you be the Judge, I'll start putting together some shocking misconduct that you'll have to look at the documents and judge for yourselves.  So practice with this one, take your time, look over the documentary evidence, but hurry up...and I'll do the same with exposing the real Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams.

 If time matters to you, please take a few minutes to share this with a friend or two.  It's your judicial system too, time does matter, and it's time that you judge the judges.

Thank you for viewing,

The Casino Gaming Oracle

P.S. I will be re-posting the above document so they will be larger, promise it'll be worth the wait!

Here Comes the Judge

Hear ye, Hear ye, this court of internet justice is now in session, the Honorable (Insert your Name) presiding.

Why, should I be the judge you may be asking?

1. Because those following this blog know that I often ask you to be the judge of the facts and documents I present.

2. The internet will be the down-fall of many-a-corrupt judicial officers.

3. Many of the Judges now sitting on the bench have become so hubristic that they are taking the law into their own hands.

4. Lawyers appearing before the above judges are cowering in fear, rather than reporting the judicial misconduct they witness, or they acquiesce to the misconduct in hopes of gaining a favor or leverage at some later date.
5. No one wants a world full of "good ole boys and girls."

6. There is no injustice until someone makes it known, but unless that one the injustice is revealed to has power, the injustice will continue, unless those that know grow in numbers and demand change.

Judge Noel L. Hillman's hubris has grown to that level.  Imagine a United States District Judge stating that a litigant lacks personal knowledge to make a claim.  Imagine that litigant is representing himself, and after spending ten days in a county jail, defending false charges whereby they are terminated in his favor, and then doing a year of legal research to learn how to present documentary evidence attached to a complaint, whereby said complaint demanded a trial by jury and could not be dismissed as frivolous. (See Consciousness of the Conundrum I've Created)

In the 1970's when the song above was made, the United States District Courts were blessed with truly honorable judges.  Judges that would not just voice their opinions but apply the law.  Not only would the apply the law without bias but they would set the stage to end the oppression of those oppressed by the law.

 Judge Noel L. Hillman attempts to take us back to that day and age. I didn't bop into his court thinking that he would be my savior, nor did I crawl into his courtroom pleading with a race card as my standing.  Nor did I enter the court through the back or side door, no, I was not niggardly, I studied the law and expected it to be applied equally and where established, I expected it to be judicially noticed.

But I did not get the above, so now this is where you come in.  Check my circles on "G+," note the gradual increase of "+1's" at this blog site, it should tell you something. It should tell you that those in the know, know, and they are drawn to the truth.  Why, because for some it is a truth that they dare not speak of.

 They earn their living as lawyers, they have to enter courtrooms where "good ole boys and girls" rule, and if word got out that they were partial to a pro se litigant spitting the truth, there could be hell to pay, by said "good ole boys and girls" cutting the hell out of their paychecks, and or God forbid "blacklisting" them.

 Not only do these "good ole boys" swim around like great white sharks, flaunting "top predator" appearances, while being cloaked with absolute immunity, which bolsters their punk bitch mentalities so that they may proselytize there weaker underlings and bring them into the fold. (See Proselytization of KMW)

This venue will change the above.  This venue gives you the power to be the judge. Listen to Pigmeat, listen to the words, hear their inner meaning.  After listening, take a minute to think, then decide what you will do to combat injustice, and restore integrity to our courts. Here Comes the Real Judges!

 Thank You, and please, start by sharing this blog with two or three friends.

The Casino Gaming Oracle

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

Exposing The Judicial Niggard's

Before we go any further, and you delve into reading this blog post I wrote: I hope you don't mind, but let me clear my throat, and or make a few things clear.

So that no one takes immediate offense to this posts title let me define the context of its meaning.  I have already established that I am African-American, and just because of my skin tone, I am not the first pot to call the kettle black, so to speak.

But when one is stingy, miserly, and stubborn in the due administration of the law, I must call it as I see it.  Niggardly administration of the law, that's what I am talking about here folks.  And in this second round, nothing will change.  As always I will strive to present my averments based on facts and the law.

Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines "niggardly" as: "1.   grudgingly mean about spending or granting." When one references this source a photo of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and or District Judge Noel L. Hillman and U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams, will not be found. But…

One has been chosen to expose these "Judicial Niggard's," relay the facts ,and proof's so that John and Jane Q. Public may form their own opinions based upon said facts and the application of the law.

Please, if I may, I can not for the life within me determine how a word as defined above has transcended to become an epithet and or label of scorn to the African-American Community.  How could one race bearing the scars of the whip, be said to grudgingly grant his or her labor, or be mean when calling the whip-cracker, "Cracker?"  Yet to remove some of the pain of the lashes  of the whip and of the cutting of the tongue, this African-American community converts it into a coveted term that when used within the community can depending upon tone, relate dissatisfaction, to expressions of endearment. i.e. "Earl, that's my nigga."

Okay, thank you for letting me put that out there, back to the "Judicial Niggards."  Ask any lawyer and they will tell you that no judge has the hubris to openly tell an African-American lawyer, "Nigger please."  In the context of, "you can't possible expect me to rule according to your argument, when the "good ole boy's" say otherwise.

This is the situation we face in civil action 08-cv-02407.  Judge Noel L. Hillman and his band of judicial niggard's have hubris "out-the-ass" but instead of having the balls to stand on the law they will hide behind Hillman's and William's absolute immunity, plus pray that no Honorable judicial officer reads between the lines of their (JSHIT) to see that they are technically saying "Nigger Please," as I requested that they have the balls to do within my cover letter to Judge Williams dated 8/17/2009.  [See Dkt #32, averment #6 @ page 1-2]

The cove letter to Judge Williams should have alerted this band that plaintiff Hickson was not niggardly in any way shape or application of the word.   I now proceed in that same vein to share with you how I have come to the firm conclusion that I am dealing with a band of Judicial Niggard's hell bent on their practice of Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics, which depend upon the age old legal maxim: "Ab assuetis non fit injuria."  Which translates to: "no injury is done by things long acquiesces in."

Hence, I will not acquiesce in niggardly behavior.  I will expose those that have a proclivity towards being judicial niggard's, and I will further share all the facts and law's that I base my averments upon.  No "Bud" but here we go…

Within the next series of post I will share with you my basis in fact and law as to how Judge's Noel L. Hillman, Karen M. Williams, and their two "liars for hire," Christopher C. Mauro and DAG, Kathleen M. Bartus exhibit and reveal what can only be inferred as proclivities towards being "judicially niggardly."

Basis in law: U.S.C.S Fed. Civ. Rule 56, Interpretive Note 334.--Judgment subject to revision modification or vacation, holds:

"Partial summary judgment is not final judgment, but is pre-trial adjudication that certain issues are established for trial, and district court retains jurisdiction to modify Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) order at any time. Alberty-Velez v Corporacion de P.R. para la Difusion Publica (2004, CA1 Puerto Rico) 361 F3d 1, 93 BNA FEP Cas 550."

Lastly, today let me share with you a case that I remember by its citation which sort of tells us that it gives the people "natural gas."  The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit said:

Gavin v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 613 F.2d,482,484 (1980)

"Summary judgment is inappropriate if there remains in the case a genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)."

Man! Do I have some genuine issues of material facts to show and tell, so please stay tuned for part two, where I will set before you the documentary proof's that the above wrongdoer's are operating contrary to the law.

 So please continue to tell a friend or two about this cause. They don't have to be lawyers or law students, just those concerned about their Constitutional Rights and the integrity of their Court's and it's judicial officers.  Oh and I won't tell "who let the dogs out."

Thank you for viewing, and I hope you appreciate the time that I was away researching and would have it no other way.  He's Baaaack!

Gaming Oracle!

Appreciating Those Viewing the First 100

I just wanted to take the time to say thank you to each and every viewer of The Casino Gaming Oracle.  This post marks a milestone, it is the 100th post of this blog site.

My much appreciated loyal viewers know that I strive to thank each of you for viewing this blog.  From day one this blog has been my vehicle to make the corruption and injustice exacted in Southern New Jersey known.

 Trust me, it is not easy getting the word out on injustice these days, especially on this venue.  With all the competition for you viewership, I'm thankful to have made it this far.  Just look at the name of the blog.  Who would expect to read about legal matters, or injustice from a site named the casino gaming oracle?

According to all the so called laws of blogging this blog should not be relevant, but your continued support tells a story to the contrary.  With this 100th post and over 7200 page views the word is spreading.  Yeah, the law does not appeal to many.  I mean with all of the Stumbling, Pinning, and Insta-this, and Digging-that going on it's a wonder I get 10 views per post.

 But, as the numbers are showing, there are some of you that care about this subject matter.  To all the lawyers and other judicial officers that support me, thank you, because I know and understand the particular circumstances that you face in expressing any agreement you may have with the concepts and truth's I'm setting forth.  Yet I must say that if I were a lawyer I would do all to protect my profession and acknowledge the truth when I see it.

 To date the most popular post are:

• Hickson v Acme Justice Corporation- this is overall introductory post as to what this civil action is all about.  A great place to get up to speed in the corruption and the acronym (JSHIT) is also introduced. For those that didn't get it, I titled this post because our judge in this matter is just like the coyote, all his "Acme (JSHIT)" fails.

• Absolute Immunity Via Recusal- In this post I introduce you to the motion for recusal by which the judges could have saved their absolute immunity, but now that as of 5/7/2012 said ruling on the motion is 76 days past due the 2/21/2012 hearing date, it would appear that we have proof of further violation of my Constitutional Rights.
• All-In-All It's Just More JSHIT on the Wall- In this post I asked the question: You be the judge, has the court been given notice that the plaintiff's are seeking the recusal of these judges from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407? After linking to my proofs this posts blasted it's way to the 3rd most popular post, while being one of the youngest post on the list.

• Analysis of Third Circuit Case Law on Recusal Standards-  The youngest post on the list is part two of "All-In-All" above.  It begins to support my allegations with case law showing that Judge Hillman has no regard for his position.

• JSHIT #8, Have Judge That Will Lie!-  The first sentence and the title of the blog says it all. Not only do I make the claim but I back it up too.

• Proselytization of KMW- If there was on post that I would hope the world could see it would be this one, why? First of all you have a new African-American, female judge yielding to the "Good ole Boy's Network." Enough said, why, because as a judge gender, and race should not come into play, but then to fold under pressure is unforgivable. Then this judge had the nerve to go out and give a seminar on Human Rights to a sorority of African-American women that should be able to look up to her.

 Please continue to tune in as these civil actions are still on-going and the resolution is not around the corner.  I do have actions to take and I will see justice done. I will further need all the help I can get from you, my viewers.  Please continue to tell a friend or two and lawyers, if you must, have a friend comment for you but do comment, and if you are not a lawyer and just have a question, please ask it and I will do my best to answer it for you.

Thank You one and all,

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!

All-In-All Its Just More JSHIT On The Wall

Pause music below before clicking.

Day 65, and Noel L. Hillman has yet to move on motion that he recuse himself from civil action 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304. Yet he has slung more JSHIT on the walls of justice, and at some point the people must demand that this injustice be stopped.

Let's look at the facts. Keep in mind that what I state here within this blog does not constitute facts unless I can substantiate said facts with proof's to support them. Hence, whenever I make a claim in this blog a try to support my claim with some form of evidence, just like I've done in the civil actions I'm sharing with you.

I shared with you via "Absolute Immunity via Recusal" that a "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" was filed with the Court.  That post has a direct link to the document, and hopefully all that follow this blog have clicked this link to confirm that this is a fact.  If not, by now you know the drill, click the link to the post now...I'll wait.

Fact, averment #27 of the above Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams states:

 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.

You be the judge, has the court been given notice that the plaintiff's are seeking the recusal of these judges from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407? With that set forth, and considering the fact that we are not face-to-face, let me tell you that I have not received any document stating that the motion was given to the chief judge, nor some 65 days after February 21, 2012 have I received anything from judge Noel L. Hillman.

Within "Acting vs. Reacting III" I shared with you that there was a cat to be let out of the bag.  To keep my word, and to try and be as brief as possible, I'm getting to that here, but first I'd like to make sure that all understand that what I am revealing is based upon solid facts.  Said facts have further support in being grounded in decisional and statutory laws and rules.

 When I state the obvious, many will bemoan that I am relating the law of separate jurisdictions, and guess what they will be correct.  In rebuttal I will direct their attention to the fact that there is a concept called "stare decisis" and our court strive to prevent a conflict within the "circuits" of the various United States District Courts.  Any one beg to differ?

In "Acting vs. Reacting III" we saw that In Riga v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline 224 S.W.3d 795 (2007), that court said:

Discussion

The record establishes that Judge Fowler was aware that a second motion to recuse was pending when he signed the March 1, 2006 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction. 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. Here, the order granting the plea to the jurisdiction does not refer in any way to the pending recusal 798*798 motion, much less state good cause for why the order was signed when the recusal motion was pending. Accordingly, the March 1, 2006 order is "void" because it was signed in violation of Rule 18a.

Judge Noel L. Hillman, being the most unethical, and exhibiting the most niggardly application of law, has now set for in black-and-white, proof that he further disregards creating conflict within the circuits, and he is determined to protect Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Atlantic City, from liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

After he was clearly given notice that he was be asked to recuse himself he does not forward the motion to the chief judge, and he proceeds to write an order in a case that he is being requested that he remove himself from.

You were given the facts as to the motion to recuse, and just above I shared with you the law that gives further support to these facts. Now let me share with you the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman on March 28, 2012 did write another Order and Opinion in civil action 08-cv-02407.  And yes, he does have the "HUBRIS" to publish this invalid Opinion for the world to see at Hickson v. MARINA ASSOCIATES, Dist. Court, D.New Jersey 2012.

At this juncture lets rest in knowing that this fact exists.  I've shared with you what the law says when a judge is asked to recuse himself.  I've told you that this judge said that he would move on the Motion to Recuse on 2/21/2012.  Yet, now as of this posting, some 65 day's past due, I do not have that ruling to share with you. But…

 Lastly, let me share this with all that are not aware of what the law says in relation to a judges handling of the courts business.  Those versed and studied in the law will know that:

ABA MODEL CODE OF JUDICIALCONDUCT, Canon 2

A JUDGE SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY,

COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.

• RULE 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness

 A judge shall uphold and apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial

office fairly and impartially.

• RULE 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including

administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

• RULE 2.4 External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.

 (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other

interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or

judgment.

 (C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression

that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

• RULE 2.6 Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a

proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, should have the right to be heard according to law. Hmm? Judge Noel L. Hillman exhibits behavior that clearly says these [FN] rules do not apply to his court.  Well, I beg to differ Judge Hillman, and I will proceed to show that you are sling more JSHIT against the walls of justice.

As always, I thank each and every viewer, please tell a friend or two, and if my point is clear send a message to these judges with a simple +1.  Yes, a simple +1 adds up to tell these judges and others that you know what's going on.

Thank You,

Casino Gaming Oracle!

Acting vs. Reacting III

Another One of "Bush's Boy's" Reveal Bull-JSHIT

Judge Craig Fowler was appointed by Governor George Bush after winning an election for District Judge of the 255th Judicial District of Dallas County.  He took the bench on May 1, 1998.  Not to worry folks, just another "good ole boy, never meaning no harm," nor intending to be honorable as the facts reveal.

 For those of you not clear on why I refer to this judge as one of Bush's boy's, you'll have to see "Cebull #1, Hillman #195 (Bush Appointments)."  Go ahead click it, I'll wait, you know I always do...

Okay, since we're all up to speed, let's proceed.  I bring your attention to another one of Bush's fine appointments because judge Fowler was involved in a case that will show us exactly why Presidential appointment #195, Noel L. Hillman, is reacting as shown in the two civil actions that I am sharing with you in this blog.

This is going to take a minute or two, so plan accordingly.  In Riga v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline 224 S.W.3d 795 (2007), we find the following:

Background

The Commission brought a disciplinary action against Riga, alleging that Riga violated provisions of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and that Riga assisted Easton, his legal assistant, in the unauthorized practice of law. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 3.02, the supreme court appointed the Honorable Craig Fowler, judge of the 255th District Court of Dallas County, to preside over the disciplinary action. Easton filed a plea in intervention, bringing claims against Pamela Halliburton, the Commission's lawyer, and Suzanne Ross, a member of one of the State Bar's grievance committees. Riga filed counterclaims against the State Bar of Texas, the Commission, and Halliburton, seeking monetary 797*797 damages under title 42, United States Code, section 1983 and sanctions under state law. Easton later filed a motion to recuse Judge Fowler.

The State Bar, the Commission, Halliburton, and Ross filed a plea to the jurisdiction in which they argued (1) that Judge Fowler's appointment order did not authorize him to preside over any parties or claims other than the disciplinary action brought by the Commission against Riga and (2) that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over parties and claims outside the disciplinary action. Before taking action on the motion to recuse, Judge Fowler granted the plea to the jurisdiction on May 25, 2005. That order was not appealed.

In November 2005, Judge Fowler referred Easton's motion to recuse to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region, who later denied the motion. Acting in "an abundance of caution" after the denial of the motion to recuse, the State Bar, the Commission, Halliburton, and Ross asked the district court to reconsider its plea to the jurisdiction. Before the district court signed a second order on March 1, 2006 granting the plea to the jurisdiction, Riga and Easton on February 20, 2006 filed another motion to recuse Judge Fowler. The district court's March 1, 2006 order does not mention the pending recusal motion, but in a separate order on March 1, 2006, the district court referred the recusal motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial region. The record does not reflect the ultimate disposition of the recusal motion.

I must get this off my chest right away, did you notice how the court referred to the Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics (JSHIT), as "acting in an abundance of caution."  The judge writing the opinion substantiates the existence of (JSHIT) by that statement, huh?  But that's to be expected, we all act with an abundance of caution when treading through a pasture replete with cow dung. (You know "BS")

 But here's where Judge Fowler really fowls-up.  You see in the very next section of the opinion the above judge show's us why his colleague is not honorable, because he is caught red handed and this judge has no way to tip-toe around this pile of you know what.   224 S.W.3d 795 (2007), goes on to state:

Discussion

The record establishes that Judge Fowler was aware that a second motion to recuse was pending when he signed the March 1, 2006 order granting the plea to the jurisdiction. 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. Here, the order granting the plea to the jurisdiction does not refer in any way to the pending recusal 798*798 motion, much less state good cause for why the order was signed when the recusal motion was pending. Accordingly, the March 1, 2006 order is "void" because it was signed in violation of Rule 18a.

The judge writing the opinion above tell us that according to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure judges refusing to recuse themselves must forward the recusal motion to the presiding judge.  But note that even this judge attempts to soften the blow by saying that "Fowler did this."   Yeah but after the fact.  Oh, that's just an example of that obscure language that Abramoff warned us about, and now we see how the "Bush boy's" utilize this tactic.  (Those not familiar with the Abramoff "obscure language" revelation, go to "Abramoff Should Be Flattered.")

So, by now we all should know why judge Noel L. Hillman's ruling on the motion that he and Magistrate Karen M. Williams recuse themselves has not hit google scholar, nor this writers mail box.  The decisional case law above further reveals the reaction that Judge Hillman will make, yes we can see what they got cooking. 

 Those following this blog early on know that I usually post every day, and lately I have fell-off, why?  Because, as you can see I've been busy doing my research to make sure that judge Noel L. Hillman's latest (JSHIT) Order is void, as was the case in the matter before one of his boy's, Craig Fowler.  Yes, you guessed it I have the "BS" in hand and you don't want to miss this folks.

Please join me next time when I let another documentary cat out of the bag.

 Thank you for viewing and please share at will, a lot of careers could be saved from turning to the "Dark Side." We don't need more judges thinking that the (JSHIT) is with them. You are the force, the people must strike back.

O-B-1-Gaming Oracle!