Acting vs. Reacting II

Thank you for joining in my posts on Acting vs. Reacting.  This is the second post in the series.  Within the first article "Acting vs.Reacting" I shared the definitions of the terms: (1) act, (2) react, (3) reaction, and (4) acting. 

If you are just joining us on this topic please click the preceding link, so that you will understand the context that these terms are used throughout this discussion of Acting vs. Reacting.

 In this article I submit that Judges Noel L. Hillman, Karen M. Williams, Christopher C. Mauro and DAG, Kathleen M. Bartus are pretending to be moral judicial officer, when the facts are to the contrary.

For our Courts to serve those within its jurisdiction, all judicial officers of that court should take action (MOVE), conduct themselves (BEHAVE), and perform the specific function of the due administration of justice (SERVE), in accordance with the law.

When the judicial officers of a court comply with the above, the public it serves can have confidence in said court.  If a judicial officer is found to "act" contrary to the above, he or she is not upholding their oath to uphold the highest law of the United States of America, the Constitution of the United States of America.

 Those familiar with this blog know that I have filed a motion seeking the recusal of judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams.  For those that aren't aware of this fact, or forgot it, you can review this fact at: "Absolute Immunity via Recusal."

Judge Noel L. Hillman, wanting to present the appearance that he is "just," did issue a hearing date of February 21, 2012, to render a decision on the motion seeking his recusal.  The physical evidence supports this act of Hillman's.  But, what is hidden is the fact that said act was nothing but Hillman's "reaction" to conceal his perfidy to uphold his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. (I guess such behavior is to be expected from one following in the footsteps of one of his former defendants. See "Abramoff Should Be Flattered.")

 The act of setting the date of Feb. 21, 2012 was made 33 minutes after the motion was filed.  How many lawyers out there can say that they normally receive such a speedy response from a judge. (I'll wait...)  Not to many huh? You'd have to be standing in front of the judge to get a response that quick, even then, you'll have to pray he doesn't call a recess, or it's not to close to lunch.

If judge Hillman writes that he will "take action (MOVE)" on 2/21/2012, why is it that as of April 17, 2012, there is no physical evidence that he has moved on this motion?  Do you agree that justice delayed is justice denied?  Well it was written that the motion to recuse would be moved upon on 2/21/2012.  Yes, that's what was written and it's not what was done. Hence, Noel L. Hillman was acting.

 He was presented with the stimulus, and 54 days after the purported hearing date there is no response. Hmm?  But wait, the plot thickens, or should I say the (JSHIT) deepens. I will reveal further facts that show this judges lack of integrity.  Said lack of integrity going beyond his proselytization of Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams. (See Proselytization of KMW)

Without an answer to the motion to recuse himself, judge Noel L. Hillman is pretending to serve as a U.S. District Judge, when in fact he is not doing so, and he is not just running a little behind on conducting the business of the Court.   Do you agree?

Thank you for viewing, and please join me for the next post.

Gaming Oracle!

Absolute Immunity via Recusal (part three)

The "Specific Facts and Reasons for Belief that Judges are Biased or Prejudiced" begin with averment number five of the "28 U.S.C.A. §1746 Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams," and proceeds through averment twenty eight of Earl Hickson and Markland Grants motion.  [Scroll to page 3 after clicking link]

 A basis in law is set forth within the document itself when the plaintiffs say: "Unlike U.S.D.J. Stephen C. Robinson, who claimed not to know of five relevant facts in Levine v. Gerson, 334 F. Supp 2d 376, 377, judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams cannot deny that they individually and collectively knew the following:" 

If a so-called-impartial judge will state for the world to see that a plaintiff lacks "personal knowledge" to make his claims he damn well will claim that his interest in the matter is not direct.  For those not trained in the law let me briefly explain that I had to research all of the possible "outs" these judges would attempt, understand these out's and eliminate them with undeniable facts.  Hence each averment is drafted so that the judges must either admit or deny the statement, and if denied provide evidence in support of said denial.  That's only fair right, don't I do the same here within?

Thank goodness the Levine decision was not a long drawn out opinion. I was able to find that within Levine v. Gerson, 334 F. Supp 2d 376, 377 the court held: "§ 455 (a) provides that a judge shall "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Courts have held recusal to be appropriate when a judge "expresses a personal bias concerning the outcome of the case at issue." United States v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811, 815 (2d Cir.1992), citing United States v. Diaz, 797 F.2d 99, 100 (2d Cir.1986). Additionally, recusal is warranted when a judge has a "direct personal or fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case."

 From the above we see that the court held three things, (1) § 455(a) provides that a judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, (2) recusal to be appropriate when a judge "expresses a personal bias concerning the outcome of the case at issue, and (3) recusal is warranted when a judge has a "direct personal or fiduciary interest in the outcome of the case. In a nutshell we are told when a judge shall, when it is appropriate, and when recusal is warranted.

One quick note on the above is needed so that all can see and understand its interpretation as I have.  As previously stated within "Earl Hickson v Marina Associates," "Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 57.2. Criteria for classifying as mandatory or directory", holds: "The question whether a statutory provision has a mandatory or directory character is one of statutory construction.  To determine whether a statute is mandatory or directory, effect must be given the entire statute, its nature and object, and the consequences that would follow from each construction.  The same criteria applicable to decisions of other kinds of issues of statutory construction apply, i.e. the intent of the legislature or the manifested meaning of the statute.  For example, "Shall" is considered presumptively mandatory unless there is something in the context of the character of the legislation which requires it to be looked at differently."

Each averment of the motion that is not denied and supported with evidence in support of such a denial will bring into question theses judges impartiality, as will the sum total of the averments, create the same question of impartiality.  The mutilation, removal, and destruction of documents filed in the court, the willful failure to seal summonses issued by the court, and the judges clearly being shown not to take mandatory judicial notice of controlling NJ laws supports a reason for the judges to outwardly express, by their actions a personal interest that the matter not proceed as it risks revealing their personal interest, misconduct and treason. That's right "treason," when a judge goes to war against the Constitution of the United States of America that's treason, especially considering that a judge within the U.S. District Court has taken an oath to uphold said constitution.  A reasonable person could further see that there is a risk of said judge being removed from the court and appropriately disbarred, which is clearly worthy of being personal in nature as now the all might dollar comes into play.

 Now having a solid foundation laid, and praying that you all are with me, lets see what these judges are asked to admit or deny, and the basis in law that supports each fact.  We will do this in the next part, as I have already became long-winded.

I thank you for your time, stay tuned and tell a friend or two,

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.

Absolute Immunity via Recusal (part two)

Earl Hickson and Markland Grant are plaintiff's in civil action 11-cv-06304, within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, vicinage.  U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams, judges of the court in which this action was commenced, is now pending, and before whom it proceeded, have a personal bias and prejudice against the above named plaintiff’s and in favor of Harrah’s Hotel and Casino, Caesars Atlantic City Hotel and Casino, Christopher C. Mauro, Russell L. Lichtenstein, Kathleen M Bartus, and the other defendants named in this action.

As always, I want you to know the basis in law upon which I stand, and in this instance Patterson v Mobile Oil Corp., 335 F.3d 476, 484 says: "When considering a claim under § 455(a), we must consider "whether a reasonable and objective person, knowing all of the facts, would harbor doubts concerning the judge's impartiality." In re Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 121 F.3d 163, 165 (5th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). This is because the goal of this provision is to "avoid even the appearance of partiality." Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, recusal may be required even though the judge is not actually partial. In re Cont'l Airlines Corp., 901 F.2d 1259, 1262 (5th Cir.1990)."

I am asking that  you be the judge, you are reasonable right?  I am providing you with the facts, right?  Once you have these facts, please take a seat, and ask yourself "have these fact's lead me to believe that these two judges are not being impartial to these plaintiff's?"

We should also remember that the decisional case law of Levine v Gerson, 334 F.Supp. 2d 376, says: "Unlike a § 455 disqualification, which may be invoked by a motion of a party or by the judge sua sponte, § 144 is triggered by an affidavit of a party, which affidavit must be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record. Pursuant to § 144, a district judge must recuse himself if the affidavit states that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice either for or against one of the parties, and provides facts and reasons supporting the statement that the prejudice or bias exists."

On page 3 of the "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," we see at the very top of the page that it says: " Earl D. Hickson and Markland K. Grant, in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 1746, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that:" Whereby the averment's are declared and now the signing of the same by the plaintiff's meet's the same requirements of an affidavit.  [See (What is 28 USCA § 1746) to better understand how declaration under penalty of perjury meets the standard of an affidavit].

The above covers all the requirements and brings us to the "Specific Facts and Reasons for Belief that Judges are Biased or Prejudiced," which are set forth within averments #5 through #29, and will be covered in the following subparts to "Absolute Immunity via Recusal."  Please be sure to join me in the next posting as it will start to get juicy, but sad that these two judges cannot deny the fact's to come.

I Thank you as always, and ask you to tell a friend or two,

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

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.

Absolute Immunity via Recusal (part one)

(Atlantic City, NJ)- " Absolute Immunity via Recusal" post #48 was an introduction to the overall matter of Earl Hickson's and Markland Grant's motion for recusal of Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams.  The time has come for you to be introduced to the "Motion" itself, and it's accompanying "Brief in Support."

Trusting that everyone is up to speed, have read the previous post's that documented the filing of Hickson and Grant's "28 U.S.C.A. § 1746Declaration of Bias or Prejudice and Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams," and "Brief in Support of Motion for Recusal of U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams." If you are just joining us please click each document, as to familiarize yourself with it.  Each part of "Absolute Immunity via Recusal" will cove a different section of the motion and its accompanying brief, but there are some of you that may want to have the whole picture in your mind's.

On page 4 of the 24 page Brief you will find the "Introduction," which sums-up the procedure, and  statutory laws Hickson and Grant must follow to recuse Judges Noel Hillman and Karen Williams. The "Introduction" says: "When a party seeks to disqualify a judge for personal bias or prejudice under 28 U.S.C.A. § 144, the judge must examine the affidavit or declaration and accompanying certificate to determine whether they are timely and legally sufficient.  Only if the documents meet strict scrutiny does disqualification become mandatory.  If the affidavit or declaration is presented in time and in proper form, the court must take as true the facts set out in the affidavit or declaration.  Only questions of law are presented and there can be no dispute about the truth or falsity of the allegations of the affidavit or declaration."

To these two pro se litigants the firs sentence, "When a party seeks to disqualify a judge for personal bias or prejudice under U.S.C.A. § 144, the judge must examine the affidavit or declaration and accompanying certificate to determine whether they are timely and legally sufficient."  The most important phrase of the sentence is "the judge must examine."  Are you struck with the thought that "Damn the judge must decide to remove him or her self?"

 Well folks U.S.C.A. § 144 is statutory law and there is no way around it, so Judge Noel L. Hillman has the first shot at removing himself from this matter. A-ha?  But the ultimate question is, should he have been presiding on this matter in the first place?  Within post 28, "A Judge Should be Placed Before 3 Cannons for Ignoring Canon 3" I addressed this issue by stating: "Why is Judge Noel L. Hillman presiding over civil action 11-cv-06304 when the complaint cites him as an non-party coconspirator?  Judge Hillman's name appears in the complaint some 46 times, and not due to honorable actions, ministerial acts or the carrying out of his judicial duties.  This Judge is cited for turning his back on the due administration of the law."

Those that have read post 27, "Just-Us (Noel L. Hillman's LittleRascals) vs. Justice (E. Hickson & M. Grant)" are aware of what the "AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY JUDICIARY 10 (2003) (JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY)," said when it stated: "[And so, when it comes to the judiciary, the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct (some variation of which has been adopted by virtually every state judicial system and the federal courts) declares that judges “shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the judges activities,” and adds that judges “shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”]"

As a member of the public, would you have confidence in the integrity and independence of a court wherein it is shown that a U.S. District Judge and a U.S. Magistrate Judge are attempting to conceal the mutilation, removal and destruction of documents on their courts docket?  Would you have confidence in the integrity and independence of a court that is shown to be aiding in the concealment of such judicial misconduct?

That's what this blog is all about.  Informing you, of this misconduct, because Judge Noel L. Hillman is attempting to pull the wool over you eyes.  But I want you to know that decisional case law puts the matter in your hands and gives you the power to decide. For example the United States District Court, D. Colorado, Garcia v Berkshire Life Ins., case no. 04-cv-01619-LTB-BNB, holds: "As a general rule, recusal is required when "a reasonable person armed with the relevant facts would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." Maez v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph, Inc., 54 F.3d 1488, 1508 (10th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Pearson, 203 F.3d 1243, 1264 (10th Cir.)(ruling that a judge should recuse himself from a case when his or her participation in the case creates an appearance of impropriety). The standard under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is an objective one, requiring recusal only "if a reasonable person, knowing all the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality." United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993)."

 You be the judge, and I will provide you with all the facts for you to base your decision.  You will see and can see the 29 questions that Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams must answer to come to their conclusion of stepping down from this matter, or hiding behind their absolute immunity and standing on the lies.  I offer you the opportunity to decide before 2/21/2010 what they should do.  Do you agree with me that they will have the choice of Recusal or hiding behind "Absolute Immunity?"

Till next post, Thank you 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.

Absolute Immunity via Recusal

On or before February 21, 2012, U.S.D.J. Noel L. Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams may retain their "Absolute Immunity" by recusing themselves from civil actions 11-cv-06304 and 08-cv-02407, which are before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden vicinage.

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. NoelL. 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!

As this blog has strived to document and show, this band of judicial officers within this particular court do all within their power to present the appearance of doing justice.  There is a huge difference between the due administration of justice and the appearance of doing justice.   The posting to come will educate you the viewer of these differences by showing you the allegations made, and the evidence in support, then based upon the judges response you will be able to decide for yourselves.  Are these two judges administering justice, or just attempting to make there actions appear to met-out justice.

Those that have read "Hickson vs. Hillman's & Williams' (JSHIT)" have seen the cover letter to the Clerk of the Court, which evidences the filing of the above "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." [Link to 1/18/2012 Cover Letter to Clerk of Court]

There is one other document you will need to make your decision as to the "honorability" of these two judge, and that document is the 24 page "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF U.S.D.J. Noel L.Hillman and U.S.M.J. Karen M. Williams." Some of you out there in the blogosphere are lawyer and law students versed in the law, and you may want to read each document all at once, please by all means go right ahead.

I will dissect the 29 averments of the motion and combine each with the supporting argument and basis in law from the brief, in a series of postings to follow, which will be headed under the same heading as above, but further designated with the proper "part heading." Hence we will begin with "Absolute Immunity via Recusal (Part One).

Please join me and ask your friends to follow as well.  Follow to see if Judges Noel Hillman and Karen Williams will admit or deny the 29 averments of the motion.  If they deny any of these averment, will they be able to present to you evidence to support such a denial? Will they be able to present you with persuasive decisional case law that gives a legal basis to their denials?

Before I take up too much of you time today, and get long winded please keep this in mind as we discuss this motion.  The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Taverasv Resorts International Hotel, Inc. 07-4555(RMB) held: "Under § 455(a), "any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). In other words, section 455(a) requires disqualification if there is a reasonable factual basis for doubting the Judge's impartiality." Venuto v. Witco Corp., 809 F.Supp. 3, 4 (D.N.J. 1992)(Rodriguez, J.)(quotingUnited States v. Nobel, 696 F.2d 231, 235 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1118 (1983)."

Till next time, and 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.