Appearance of Justice w/ Aroma of J.S.H.I.T, But!

(Atlantic City, NJ)-

Oh, I get by with a little help from my friends, Mmm, gonna try with a little help from my friends.  No I can't call upon the Beatles for help, but you can get the full lyrics to "With A Little Help From My Friends" at www.Sing365.com.  No,  I'll be needing the help of a few that know about a judge's ethical duty to report misconduct by other judges and lawyers.

Though not known by me personally, I can claim to have friends that understand when a judge turns his back on his oath to uphold his position and the Constitution of the United States of America.  One such person would be Leslie W. Abramson, Prof. of Law, University of Louisville.  The others are, Judith A. McMorrow, Prof. of Law, Boston College Law School, Jackie A. Gardina, Vermont Law School and Salvatore Ricciardone, Boston College--Lynch School of Education.

Again, not being an attorney myself, I can only give you my opinion that the above named individuals are experts and or well studied, but I'll let you be the judge.  Now, if you have been keeping up with this blog you understand that I have made some very strong allegations of judicial misconduct that should be reported.  But by whom?  I thought that Judge Noel L. Hillman upon receiving a deposition replete with errors, would report, or at a minimum sanction Harrah's Hotel and Casinos' attorney Christopher C. Mauro.

The above turned out not to be the case, for even after I brought the false statements to judge Hillmans attention, he still couched his opinion on this deposition. (See 4th ¶ of Dkt_Item_47)  So in an effort to obtain justice I filed the second complaint, along with Markland Grant, wherein Ms. Fedaczynsky would now be able to, in her own word, state the truth about the deposition actually transpiring in Hackensack, New Jersey, as purported by Harrah's Hotel and Casinos' attorney Christopher C. Mauro.  Said answers would come by way of answer s to averments (# 44 through #47) of the second complaint. (Click Second Complaint in "Source Links to the right see #44-47 @ pg.16 and 17)

The above is something enquiring minds should want to know, not taking away anything from the National Enquirer at http://www.nationalenquirer.com/, but one would think that judicial misconduct is a matter of public concern.  Again,  you be the judge.  But do you want too?  Leslie Abramson, says within "The Judge's Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its Effect on Judicial Independence," 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 751, 780 that : "Moreover, when a judge reports another judge or a lawyer, even one widely regarded as acting unethically, others may "blame" the notifying judge, whose status may diminish more than that of the reported offender.  Understandably, what judge would want the reputation of a snitch?"   Stand with me, I have judged by the law, now I'm snitching.

If you fail to believe me I can ask that you partake of a "homework assignment," those that have friends that are lawyers, ask that lawyer if he or she has read the allegations set forth within thecasinogamingoracle.blogspot.com?  Please, those of you in the state of New Jersey, I can save you some time and effort because the answer will be "No," even if said lawyer has read the blog. Why?  They must remain willfully ignorant due to the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.3.  You should know how this works by now, if not watch the movie "Lincoln Lawyer" which hits the nail on the head.

My other three friends, Judith McMorrow, Jackie Gardina, and Salvatore Ricciardone, collaborated on "Judicial Attitudes Toward Confronting Attorney Misconduct: A View From the Reported  Decisions," 32 Hofstra Law Review 1425.  The second paragraph at page 1426 of this article states: "It is important to understand how judges construct their role in regulating attorney conduct because judges are the primary regulators of litigation conduct.  While much of  the litigation action occurs outside the courtroom, judges set the norms for that out-of-court litigation conduct through the signals that they send and the sanctions they impose for conduct that occurs during pretrial conferences, discovery motions, and other pre-and post trial activity."

Those well studied say that judges are the primary regulators and set the norms of their courtrooms.  In my opinion, it plain that Judge Noel L. Hillman is saying to Harrah's Hotel and Casino,  "go ahead, what ever your liar for hire gives me, I'll figure a way to use it to make it appear that justice is being done. Besides I'm the "Damn Judge" and its my law to be administered, all I have to do is pit a licensed attorney against some pro se black man."  Well it is time to let the world see some of the things going on in this mans mind, and that’s why the second complaint begins with the quotation from Mark Twain--“What a wee little part of a person’s life are his acts and his words!  His real life is led in his head, and is known to none but himself.” But, as I will show you it is Judge Noel L. Hillman that lacks the personal knowledge that his acts reveal what's going on in his mind as evidenced by the writings of his hand, within his various opinions in this case and others which I will ask you to judge.

"Oh, I'll get by with a little help from my friends, Mmm, gonna try with a little help from my friends."  So, what do you say friend?  Until next time Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming!

TheCasinoGamingOracle

P.S.  Now you and the friends can also join my "Pro Se HQ Group" at    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prosehq, or click "Yahoo Groups join Now" on left.

Black History Month 2012 reigns in and all still do not have equal protection of the laws and meaningful access to the Courts of these United States of America.

A Matter of Deformation

(Atlantic City, NJ)

Defamation as defined by Blacks Law Dictionary: "The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person • If the alleged defamation involves a matter of public concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statement's falsity and the defendant's fault.

I posit that a representation to the world that its ok to profile and kidnap an individual as long as a casino and a state trooper can manufacture false document to conceal injustice is a deformation.  On September 27, 2010 Judge Noel L. Hillman did just that by way of his opinion, wherein he conceals the documentary proofs that substantiate my kidnapping.

This blog reveals the other side of the coin or should I say the concealed documents that tell the truth and reveal why Judge Hillman will not let civil action 08cv02704 proceed to trial. I'd like to thank all those that have viewed this blog and pray that you continue to follow this injustice.

My main reason for posting this side note is due to the fact that there is now a venue being offered wherein lawyers can learn to protect themselves from deformation, but who will protect the little guys, the pro se litigants and those unable to afford a paid attorney. You can view this forum being offered at

http://westlegaledcenter.com/program_guide/course_detail.jsf?courseId=42690122

Thank you, Happy and Knowledgeable Gaming! TheCasinoGamingOracle

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.

A Gratia--Ex Gratia--Aah JSHIT

A gratia: from grace or favor: as a matter of indulgence, not of right. (Blacks Law Dictionary)  Ex gratia: as a favor: not compelled by legal right. (Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary)  Aah JSHIT: to exclaim in amazement, joy or surprise the JSHIT that’s really going down.  (Gaming Oracle definition 2011)

Judge Noel L. Hillman having taken an oath to uphold the integrity and independence of the court and the constitution of the United States of America, now either by a gratia, ex gratia, or just plain old Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics, has caused there to be a "Fraud Upon the Court."  Oop's my bad "Fraud by the Court"

In the third paragraph of  A3 Canon Firing Squad I briefly cited NJ Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1.  For this post lets delve into this Canon a bit deeper, as we will want the full context and power of this canon when we fire it.   So let's begin to be on the "READY."

Canon 1.  A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.  The canon further holds: "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.  A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.  The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective."

Let us "take aim" through the cross-hairs of the facts.  But herein lies the problem, because Hillman has the power to use his position to conceal the facts from you. As far as I know, I do not share lineage with "Nostradamus", but I predict that the internet will be the downfall of many a resistant and hubristic judge.  Since time immemorial judges have lavished in their ability to write opinions suited to their needs.

They even have devices that are custom made for this practice, one is called the "unpublished opinion."   According to NJ Rule of Court 1:36-3 Unpublished Opinions, "No unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding upon any court. Except for appellate opinions not approved for publication that have been reported in an authorized administrative law reporter, and except to the extent required by res judicata, collateral estoppel, the single controversy doctrine or any other similar principle of law, no unpublished opinion shall be cited by any court.

JSHIT #5

Ok--Wait for it--Wait for it!   Judge Noel L. Hillman after reading the first complaint filed against Harrah's Hotel and Casino realized that they needed a favor so that they would not join the ranks of casinos' held liable for violating their patron's civil and constitutional rights. So what did he do, as I will set forth in more detail in a later posting, he did accept Harrah's Hotel and Casinos' attorney submission of a deposition that purports to be that of Sharon Fedaczynsky. (See [12]During her deposition, Fedaczynsky)

I am alleging that this deposition never took place.  The first reason being that it was supposedly taken in Hackensack New Jersey, in blatant violation of a stipulation that was entered and agreed to by myself, George Morton, and Harrah's Hotel and Casino's attorney Christopher C. Mauro.  This stipulation, which the tape recording of the 12/17/2008 proceedings will reflect, that the parties agreed that all depositions would be held at a conference room or some other office or space at Harrah's Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

The above stipulation was violated and to make a long story short here Judge Hillman's opinion of September 27, 2010 is anchored in this deposition, even though the caption page states that it is the subject of a matter before the "Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden" not the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden vicinage. (SEE Exhibit W attached to 2nd Complaint @ pg 155)

I say that a United States District judge accepting a bogus deposition, writing an opinion couched in said deposition, has indulged and or granted a favor to Harrah's Hotel and Casino by going along with the submissions of false testimony from a manufactured deposition.  Then when I sought to prove my point and filed a separate action wherein Christopher C. Mauro and Sharon Fedaczynsky would have to answer for themselves, again judge Noel L. Hillman steps in to run interference.

Judge Noel L. Hillman knowing that there was now a well pleaded 61 page complaint, supported by 174 pages of documentary exhibits, making the total complaint 235 pages in length pursuant to FRCVP 10 (c). (See Attached byLaw and Ignored by Will) Now in his latest attempt to clean up (JSHIT) or their shit, Hillman now says that a complaint wherein Sharon Fedaczynsky and Christopher C. Mauro would have to answer and tell the truth about this deposition.   Judge Noel L. Hillman posits that he is presiding over this matter and regardless of the fact that he is a material witness and named as a coconspirator  he is dismissing civil action 11-cv-06304. I say it appears we have J.S.H.I.T. #5, you be the judge.

Please, go back to the fourth paragraph above, read it, look at the documents then FIRE ONE!

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.

A 3 Canon Firing Squad

Yes Stating that a judge should be placed before 3 cannons is a "play upon words."  Please, in these days and times I wish no man such a fate, but the homonyms aide in making my point.  The actual cannons that will be fired are the three Judicial Canon's of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

New Jersey Rules of Court, Appendix to Part I, Code of Judicial Conduct, Note, states: "The following Code of Judicial Conduct of the American Bar Association, as amended by the New Jersey Supreme Court, replaces the Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association."

The above goes on to state: "Canon 1.  A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary, Canon 2.  A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities, and the last that we will be concerned with is, Canon 3.  A Judge Should Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently."

My goal within the next series of post will be to show you that Judge Noel L. Hillman has manifest conduct outside the bounds of these three canon's.  We will have to be mindful that there are three sub-parts to Canon 2 and Canon 3 (a) has ten subsections, Canon 3 (b) has four subsection with the third part having its own sub-parts (a through c), Canon 3 (c) has three subsection with various sub-parts and lastly there is Canon 3 (d).  Whew that was a lot huh?

All States have not adopted the same Codes of Judicial Conduct and one must check the States Rules which usually are promulgated by that States Supreme Court, and these rules usually hold for the federal district courts in that jurisdiction.  You can find an example of this in a great article on the subject at "Law You Can Use, Why Judges Sometimes Need toStep Aside."

The above article that I link you to opens with a fantastic sentence that is relevant here, so I quote: "If you are a party to a trial in a court of law, you hope and expect that your case will be considered and judged impartially. And of course an impartial trial requires an impartial judge." Silly me, I placed hope in the Federal Court under that assumption, but it turns out as I am setting before you now.  Please join me as I walk you though Judge Hillman's latest opinion and show you the facts that support the firing of the above Judicial canons.

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.

A Judge Should be Placed Before 3 Cannons for Ignoring Canon 3?

Why is Judge Noel L. Hillman presiding over civil action 11-cv-06304 when the complaint cites him as a 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.

Over confidence has led him to make public, his and his cohorts efforts to protect Harrah's Hotel and Casino, Caesars Hotel and Casino Atlantic City from answering before a jury as to their liability pursuant to Section 1983.  Knowing that his fellow cohorts have fumbled the ball several times, Judge Hillman now attempts to dismiss a well pleaded claim of "Fraud upon the Court" and "Denial of Equal Access to the Court."

Within the "Continuing Objects and or Goals of This Civil Conspiracy" at (I) on page 9, the complaint states: "I.  Utilization of Judge Noel L. Hillman’s and Robert B. Kugler’s positions whereby they [the judges] can willfully ignore applicable New Jersey laws and regulations that regulate New Jersey casinos, find phrases within written case law to support their purported administration of justice, all the while knowing that said citing’s are not made using the full context of said decisional case law.  Yet the judges being able to conceal their affinities for New Jersey casinos and the State itself , would bear the cross of allowing misconduct within their courts, accept forged documents, ignore clear issue of facts, ignore relevant and controlling facts such as the formation of aleatory contracts, abandonment and judicial notice of persuasive decisional law and relevant statutes of New Jersey’s Casino Control Act and New Jersey’s Administrative Code (Title 19) relating to the regulation of New Jersey casinos."

Averment # 77 of the complaint on page 22 states: "77.  All the answering defendants must admit that Hillman and Kugler exhibit two approaches at administering justice.  Hillman does not require the filing of a Notice of Appearance by defense counsel, while Kugler will allow phantom clerks of the court to enter Notice of Appearances by two attorney’s purporting to represent one in the same defendant."

If the above two averments do not make it plain that Judge Hillman is a co-coconspirator who is now attempting to cover the gangs tracks, the First Count of the complaint spells it out.  Averment # 116 on page 30 clearly states: "116.   Kathleen M. Bartus, Vincent J. Rizzo, Jr., Bruce Weeks, Non-party co-conspirators Judge Noel L. Hillman, Judge Robert B. Kugler, Judge Joel Schneider, Deputy Clerk of the Court Nick Fanelle, Clerk of the Court and or judicial officer “TH” and other phantom clerks of the court that fail to enter their initials on the docket are State actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983."  That’s my basis in fact, so what does the law say?

The Supreme Court of the United States has set forth the history on when a judge should or should not sit.  Liteky et al.  v. UnitedStates, 510 U.S. 540, 544, holds: "Required judicial recusal for bias did not exist in England at the time of Blackstone. 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries. Since 1792, federal statutes have compelled district judges to recuse themselves when they have an interest in the suit, or have been counsel to a party. See Act of May 8, 1792, ch. 36, § 11,1 Stat. 278. In 1821, the basis of recusal was expanded to include all judicial relationship or connection with a party that would in the judge's opinion make it improper to sit. Act of Mar. 3, 1821, ch. 51, 3 Stat. 643. Not until 1911, however, was a provision enacted requiring district-judge recusal for bias in general." This history was cited in 1994.

After citing the above Liteky v. U.S. supra. @ 546-547, holds:

"To understand the arguments pro and con it is necessary to appreciate the major changes in prior law effected by the revision of § 455 in 1974.

Before 1974, § 455 was nothing more than the then-current version of the 1821 prohibition against a judge's presiding who has an interest in the case or a relationship to a party. It read, quite simply:

"Any justice or judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any case in which he has a substantial interest, has been of counsel, is or has been a material witness, or is so related to or connected with any party or his attorney as to render it improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein." 28 U. S. C. § 455 (1970 ed.).

The 1974 revision made massive changes, so that § 455 now reads as follows:

547*547 "(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

"(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

"(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

"(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

"(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

"(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

"(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

"(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

"(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

"(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

"(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding."

Ready--Aim--Fire!  Fast forward to 1999, Russell v. The State.  Steele v. The State, 236 Ga. App. 645,651 holding: "But it is elementary that one may not be a witness and a judge in the same proceeding.  Collins v. State, 141 Ga. App. 121, 122-123.  And Canon 3 directs judges to "disqualify themselves in proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Canon 3 required the trial judge to disqualify himself in this case, if not sua sponte, then certainly when his impartiality was drawn into question during the hearing."

Please do not forget this last piece of decisional case law.  The Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey, stated IN THE MATTER OF OPINION No. 653 OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS, 132 N.J.124,132 holding: "In assessing the reasonable basis for the appearance of impropriety, the Court adopts the perspective of an informed citizen."

I'm not "Batman" but, citizen, you have been informed.  Should all three cannons be fired?  I thank you for your time and await your igniting comments.

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.

Got Proof's--Need Judges!

Just-Us (Noel L. Hillman's Little Rascals) vs. Justice (E. Hickson & M. Grant)

The allegation, as held on page 10 of the complaint avers: "Once all the afore mentioned, hired lawyers acting on behalf of, and for the benefit of Harrah's and Caesars, they concertedly would utilize the willful ignorance of judges Noel L. Hillman and Robert B. Kugler," are not bare but supported by documentary proofs that the "Just-Us" Klan don't want you, John and Jane Q Public to see.  Far be it from a new "Two live Crew of Two", the "Justice Crew (Hickson & Grant)" not to make injustice know.  You be the Judge!

This band of cohorts do not know the meaning of ethics, and they lay J.S.H.I.T. (Judicial Stealthy Hubristic Injustice Tactics) upon their oaths to uphold the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of New Jersey.  But now they have given me the proofs I need to come to you for "Supreme Tweet Justice", please follow along.  In my first complaint I filed an action for the violation of my civil and constitutional rights. Injustice lead to the filing of a second action for "Fraud Upon the Court" and "Denial of Access to the Court."  Now I can lay it before you.

How we do!  Over the course of this blog I've preached "Basis in fact and law." Hence the facts that you will need to form your own opinions are:

• The 2nd Complaint- "See Source Link" to the right "A_EDH_MKG_Orig_Complaint_2011_Redac.

• Exhibits Attached to Complaint- I would like to share these documents with all, but there are 174 pages of proofs, some of which cannot be redacted so I must limit access to those requesting a link by emailing such a request to TheCasinoGamingOracle@gmail.com "Request for link to Exhibits."
• Hillman Opinion 11/30/2011- "See Source Link" to the right "Hillman Opinion_11_30_11.

You know "How we do 2", those familiar with this blog site have come to know that I provide you with my basis in law as well.  I cite the Constitutions, Statutes, Regulations and all decisional case law upon which I feel supports my averments.  Not a law, but the American Bar Association said the following, which I will use as a spring-board to this issue, and they said:

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE 21ST CENTURY JUDICIARY 10 (2003) (JUSTICE IN JEOPARDY).

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.”

I feel ashamed that I'll be closing here, but I'm going to try and follow the rules of effective blogging, by limiting the length of my postings.  Please, sign up if you can, especially those in the legal field.  Yes I know pro se litigants and members of the bar got "BEEF" but judge my content. Also have the moxie to stand for what you believe don't hide in fear of the talk around the water cooler or the rumors that will float around chambers and the back hall of justice. If you need motivation read the article "Youngpeople on trial need people who care." Hey! If you need a further break, pass some time like I do at Acronymically Speaking 101 @ as101byogg.blogspot.com.

 Thank you, TheCasinoGamingOracle

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.