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!

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!

Authentic Document? (JSHIT!) I'LL SAY.

Smiling faces do tell lies, and boy oh boy do I have proofs that one good ole boy has stabbed himself with his own pen.

In my last post, which is entitled "Agent of Change," I highlighted "undisputedly authentic document," and promised that we would discuss this later.  Well that time has come, and there is nothing better than when a liar substantiates his own lies.  Now I have solid documentary proof that Judge Noel L. Hillman is a liar (especially as it relates to civil actions 08-cv-02407 and 11-cv-06304) and at a minimum, outwardly hypocritical as revealed by his own writings as I will share with you herein, so that you may concur or disagree. Fair enough?

 The fifth paragraph of "Agent of Change" introduced my supporters to "civil action 09-5617, Jackson v. Grondolsky, Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 2011."  This opinion was written by Judge Noel L. Hillman on December 23, 2011.  Please keep in mind that since his 9/27/2010 opinion within 08-cv-02407 I have been doing all to show that this judge is utilizing "Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactic's"  (JSHIT) to exact his personal interpretations of the law.  Now I will show that once revealed he is now attempting to try and appear to be on the up-and-up.  I think they (the judicial system) call it "the appearance of justice".

Before we begin, we also need to establish that Jackson v. Grondolsky was in fact written by Judge Noel L. Hillman, which is clear once one view said fact within the opinion itself.  Go ahead click the link see here it says: "Opinion Noel L. Hillman, District Judge," I'll wait…

Okay we've got that out of the way, next.  Let us solidly establish that the citing by this judge is actually found within the above opinion at section IV ANALYSIS, and within the seventh paragraph of this section.  This way all can find it when they click the link, scroll down to that section, and count down to the seventh paragraph and find:

"An exception to the general rule on considering matters extraneous to the pleadings permits "the Court [to] consider (1) exhibits attached to the complaint, (2) matters of public record, and (3) all documents that are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." D.G. v. Somerset Hills School Dist., 559 F. Supp. 2d 484, 491 (D.N.J. 2008); see also M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania, 388 F. App'x 156, 162 (3d Cir. 2010) ("In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it is well-established that a court should `consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, and documents that form the basis of a claim.'") (citation omitted). Additionally, "a court may [also] consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document." Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)."

Every one with me so far?  Okay, one more thing we have to establish, and that is the fact that this judge shows that he is a hypocrite when he cites the above, yet when one looks to his September 27, 2010 opinion in Hickson v. Marina Associates, one will not find the word exhibit written once.  Now you can click the link, copy the case, paste it to a word processing program with "word search" capabilities to verify this fact.  Or, you can take my word for it, and trust me.   I'll attest to this fact under penalty of perjury, but if you must go ahead I'll be here...

 Now since I make the strong statement that this judge is a hypocrite, I'd better have some strong proofs other than the lack of the word "exhibit" being missing from his opinion, right?  Well you know how I do.  I'll let you be the judge because as you can see above, judge Hillman writes with his own hand that he knows of case law that says: "An exception to the general rule on considering matters extraneous to the pleadings permits "the Court [to] consider (1) exhibits attached to the complaint."  Well did I attach exhibits to the complaint?  Let's see.

You be the judge, click this link where you will find a true copy of the "Third Amended Complaint," the same as the copy Judge Noel L. Hillman and the "Liars for Hire" received, and you be the judge as to the attachment of "Exhibit A" through "Exhibit Q" at pages 43 through 78 respectively. Go ahead click away I'll wait…

 By now all of the professional lawyers out there are saying, "but what about undisputedly authentic document," where were you going with that one Gaming Oracle?"  Hey thanks for asking, I have no idea why they call lawyers sharks, for picking up on that, I say you guy's are sharp.  But, you still won't catch me attempting to brush their teeth or diving into courtroom waters with an open cut on my ass, that's asking to be eaten alive by those patrolling said waters.

If I may tread over the line of long-windedness, let me "splain." [little flava for the non-attorneys.]  Again we have to look at Judge Hillmans opinion of 9/27/2010, one clicking the link will find upon scrolling down to, "2. Section 1983 Claims Alleging Malicious Prosecution, False Arrest/Imprisonment, and Abuse of Process Against State Defendants," at the 8th paragraph of that section they will find that Judge Noel L. Hillman relied upon a deposition by stating:

"During her deposition, Fedaczynsky testified that she had won over a hundred dollars on the slot machine and while she went to tell her husband, 371*371 Hickson took the money from the machine and walked away."

Now this is where the lawyers could help us out, because if they truly acted like top predators, and devoured those practicing injustice they would confirm what I am setting forth here. But… So now I am left to show you that this deposition was in dispute and Judge Noel L. Hillman knew it was in dispute, and now that civil action 11-cv-06304 is on the record he cannot allow [now party] Ms. Fedaczynsky to answer a complaint that would show that said deposition never took place on July 9, 2009 in Hackensack, NJ.  [All starting to come together huh?]

One tending to take my word could click to " A gratia--Ex Gratia--Aah JSHIT," scroll down to (JSHIT #5)  and read how I had questioned said deposition.  Then I could further bolster the fact that Judge Noel L. Hillman knew that I disputed the authenticity of this document by showing you a document filed with the court before he rendered his opinion, how would that sit?

Well lets take a look at civil action 08-cv-02407 docket item [47main], which is my "SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Scheduled for hearing on February 1, 2010."  Upon clicking the link and either scrolling to page 4 or clicking page four in the left side of the document one will find that I set forth the following to Judge Noel L. Hillman within this document:

"Upon my receipt of copy of the above Response in Opposition for Summary Judgment, on Saturday January 23, 2010 I did come to see why Mr. Mauro refused to give me a copy of the purported deposition taken from Ms. Fedaczynsky on July 9, 2009.  This transcript is a fraud filed within the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that clearly states on its face that it was to be filed within the “SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF CAMDEN.”  It further claims to be the “Deposition of SHARON FEDACZYNSKY, taken by the Defendant, pursuant to Subpoena, held at the Bergen County Bar Association of 15 Bergen Street, Hackensack, New Jersey, before Tracy Cook, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary of the State of New Jersey.

Page three line three of the above says:  SHARON FEDACZYNSKY, 131 Orchard Street, Garfield, New Jersey 07026, having first been duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was examined and testified as follow:.  The State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Revenues, NEW JERSEY NOTARY PUBLIC MANUAL, (section) What is a Notary Public holds:

A Notary Public is a public officer who serves as an impartial witness to the signing of documents and to the acknowledgment of signatures on documents.  A Notary Public may also administer oaths and affirmations.

A duly appointed New Jersey Notary Public is authorized to perform notary services throughout the State of New Jersey.

This document was not the target for the case at bar for the above document filed by unethical attorney Christopher C. Mauro was intended to support the case of Eric Hickson.  See (Attachment #2).  The document further evidences this by holding on page three line three: “Mr. Hickson, Eric Hickson, the plaintiff in this case is representing himself.  If I am in fact in an honorable court an honorable judge will follow the rules of professional conduct and report said fraud by Mr. Mauro, if not the court will proceed to admit said fraudulent document into the record and deny me my right to the holdings of FRCVP 28, which say that the deposition shall be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or of the place where the examination is held…  Until Mr. Mauro produces the Notary Public’s New Jersey State license number the above filed deposition of Ms. Fedaczynsky is nothing more than a fraud and proof of Harrah’s continued willful and wanton misconduct, attempts to mislead a Federal Court of law and effort to avoid liability for its actions of May 15, 2006 upon which this action is couched."

Please note the stamp from the clerk of the court at the top of the document when you click the link, as this confirms that this document was filed as docket item [47], and it was filed on 02/02/2010.  So now you can see that some 7 months and 25 days before 9/27/2010, Judge Noel L. Hillman knew that plaintiff Earl Hickson disputed the authenticity of the purported deposition attached to the defendants motion, and what did he do?  Well as Richard Pryor would say "you're looking at the symptoms."

So now knowing that I would seek justice and reveal this (JSHIT), Judge Hillman did consider cleaning up his act, or should I say, attempt to wipe his ass clean, thereby trying to remove all indications of his court's bowel movements reflecting a proclivity towards (JSHIT). As a Bugs Bunny Cartoon character would say, "you said that?," while pointing to words on the screen below, and as I point to the afore sentence.  Yes, I said that and Judge Noel L. Hillman's actions support the same, and his further refusal to recuse himself from these matters reflect that he knows he and Karen M. Williams are caught red handed, or should I say with "judicial misconduct (JSHIT) skid marks" left in their drawers. This goes beyond having your hand in the cookie jar folks, there will be no licking of the fingers here.

 Well the above depends, no pun intended, but can you imagine the size of the "depends" that will be needed when this shit hits the fan?  Well if that happens I guess I'll be left quoting another one of my favorite comedians, Dave Chappelle, when he said that he hunted down a crack-head that stole a candy bar out of his car and upon finding the guy with chocolate around his mouth the crack-head said, "this ain't chocolate that's do-doo baby."  Well I'll be saying Judge Hillman's opinion is not based upon authentic documents, that's (JSHIT) baby.

 On the real, I didn't crack not one smile while writing this to share it with you, because I am not lying, but you be the judge baby.  Share it with a friend or two and see if they reach the same conclusion, I'll wait, because I have nothing but time as Hillman is now some 23 days late with his response to my motion for recusal due on 2/21/2012.  That's some more (JSHIT) for you baby!

Thanks, for hanging in here with me, and all your views and support.

The Casino Gaming Oracle!

Corroboration via The Legal Papers (part II)

Continuing with the aide of my distinguished corroborators, Sample, Pozen, and Young, via their paper written for  The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law entitled: "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards," holding: "disqualification is prescribed when the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts."

Let's take a look at a few more evidentiary facts that these judges had knowledge of, and or feign the lack there of through "willful ignorance."  "Bent of Mind" Leads to Straight Injustice brought to your attention the holdings of Supreme Court decisional case law that plainly stated: “Second, courts must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice,"  Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S. Ct.2499, 2509.

Within an earlier post, "Aiding and Abetting From the Bench (partII)" I stated at "2 (c)" that: "As I will show later on, by some combination of the Judges and the "liars for hire," it took these band of cohorts some 4 months to mutilate this "Third Amended Complaint" to remove all attached exhibits presenting valid New Jersey statutes and regulations controlling the NJ Casinos."  That time has come folks, as I firmly believe that Judge Noel L. Hilllman will skirt this issue.

 So, lets sum up what we have so far. We have Supreme Court decisional case law that say that a complaint should be read in its entirety. Now we need the missing piece that will explain why  Judges Noel L. Hillman, Karen M. Williams, attorney's Christopher C. Mauro and Kathleen M. Bartus conspired to remove eight pages from the "Third Amended Complaint" of civil action 08-cv-02407. 

If a judge does not want to review a complaint in its entirety the fist thing he or she "damn well better do," is remove what he or she doesn't need or want reviewed, and that is what Judges Noel L. Hillman and Karen M. Williams are attempting here folks.  Those that have read my post "Attached by Law and Ignored by Will," are familiar with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 (c).  This rule says that exhibits attached to a pleading are part of the pleading. I'll say it for you...Hmm? Further as I revealed in paragraph seven of "Attached by Lawand Ignored by Will" the interpretive notes of this rule of civil procedure holds at note 19 that: "United States ex rel. Riley v. St. Lukes Episcopal Hosp.  355F.3d (2004, CA5 Tex) holding: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes; therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of complaint for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P 12 (b) (6) motion."

So why would two Federal Court judges violate Supreme Court decisional case law, a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and its interpretive notes containing further decisional case law? Lacking a better term and not beholden to [FN] "Candor Towards the Tribunal" I will tell you folks that these judges knew that attached to civil action 08-cv-02407 were valid [FN] "Statutory Laws."  Those of New Jersey's Casino Control Act and New Jersey Administrative Codes that regulate NJ casinos.

I could go into the math, that would show that I mailed Judge Karen M. Williams five copies of a 78 page "Third Amended Complaint," and that my receipt from the U.S. Postal Service supports the same.  I could go into the fact that this judge attempted to sell the cohorts lie on the record within a status conference at a U.S. District Court on 12/17/2010. I could further show you that Kathleen M. Bartus provided the copies used to manufacture the altered and mutilated copy of the "Third Amended Complaint" to civil action 08-cv-02407, but there are easier ways to prove my point folks.

Two paragraphs above decisional case law says: "Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 ( c ), exhibits attached to complaint are part of complaint for all purposes; therefor, it is not error to consider exhibits to be part of complaint." Regardless of the tricks attempted by these judges and attorney's, by law Judge Noel L. Hillman is accountable for the lack of one mention of the word "Exhibit" within his opinion of Sept. 27, 2010.  Still don't believe me, here is a link to the same on google scholar, search it for the word exhibit, I'll wait… [743 F.Supp.2d 362 (2010)]

By way of comment, maybe you the reader can help Judge Noel L. Hillman out of this conundrum, because the average reasonable person can but conclude that the complaint is not considered in its entirety if there is not one mention of an exhibit attached to the complaint.  Then there is the fact that there are numerous over-exposures of the attached exhibits that this judge fails to mention.  Tell you what, here is a link to accurate and true copies of pages 49 to 55, download and print them out for yourselves to see if they are not readable...I'll wait…[Accurate/True Copies of Pages 49 to 55]

Those of you out there in "BloggerLand" that have access to a "PACER ACCOUNT" can log on to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden, and view the record and compare the above pages to civil action 08-cv-02407.  Afterwards please come back and share your thoughts, I'm willing to bet that you will agree with my post "Low Down, Dirty-Dirty, Even Criminal(Shame)," as these band of cohorts have clearly violated another Federal Statute.  This time a criminal one, that being 18 USCS §2071 (a), stating "Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

But on this Feb. 21, 2012 one cohort will skirt being charged the above offense by claiming "Absolute Immunity" by way of Recusal, if you let him get away with it. Not knowing your stance I intend to stay on that ass though-out the day as this wrongdoer pounced on the motion in 33 min as shown within paragraph two of "Absolute Immunity via Recusal."  So lets see if we get the same speedy turn around, which would put a copy of his reply to the motion in my mailbox or online by 2/22/2012.

 But then again the experts (legal eagle's) say: "Likewise, while some jurisdictions encourage or require challenged judges to hold evidentiary hearings, most leave the decision of whether to do so entirely to the judge’s discretion.  With or without hearings, judges in most jurisdictions do not need to give a reasoned explanation for their recusal decisions.  In practice, judges have been much more likely to give reasons when they decline to recuse themselves." [See page 19(21/51) of  Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards]

Lastly, the writers of "Fair Courts: Setting Recusal Standards" state another reason that compels me to make this injustice know in this forum, and that is found on page 20(22/51), wherein they state: "Second, several of the current doctrines concerning recusal make it likely that disqualification provisions are under-enforced.  Allowing judges to decide challenges to their own impartiality is not a policy calculated to promote vigorous enforcement. Transferring

the motion to friendly colleagues on the same court, while an improvement over deciding

one’s own case, may not substantially improve the situation.  Moreover, the fact that judges

generally are required neither to hold hearings on the claim nor to give reasons for their

decisions makes it easy for them to reject even meritorious disqualification motions with

impunity."

 So now we wait, that's right "We" your rights are on the line as well, but rest assured for I will keep you posted and 2/22/2012 begins a new count down.

Thank you, as always!

The Casino Gaming Oracle!