Skip to main content
#
 


Blog Updates of Pro'se Litigant, Daniel Cobble

July 25, 2008, Friday
I filed a Motion-for-reconsideration and to intervene for the Chief Judge to overturn the July 18, '08 unlawful order of Judge Kevin Delahanty. The Chief Judge is Judith K. Bartholomew, as she is the original judge that ordered LVO to Answer my June 27, '08 Complaint.

My 7/25/08 Motion also threatens to file a quo warranto against Judge Delahanty and Assist. County Attorney William T. Warner (representing LVO), for their removal from office. The motion explains how I was again subjected to the courts' motion-judgment scam, for the third time. Can you believe that?

Some of you may recall that the motion-judgment scam was first identified in my lawsuit against the Courier-Journal, in Louisville. This is where the opposing attorney files a motion that is granted by the judge before you even have an opportunity to respond. Oftentimes, the opposing attorney does not send you a copy of his motion, so that you never even knew that he filed it. This is outright denial of due process of law, fraud and obstruction-of-justice. (Also, see my Jan. 25, '08 letter to KY Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott. He promised an investigation, but did not do it.)


July 18, 2008, Friday
This is regarding my PARC OnStreet case. At the 7/18/08 hearing, Judge Bartholomew was replaced at the bench by Judge Kevin Delahanty. I got to court five minutes after 11 a.m. (start time). Assist. County Attorney William T. Warner for PARC OnStreet was leaving as I entered, he told me that the case had already been called (I usually have to wait at least 15 minutes before being called). I proceeded to Delahanty's clerk, but the judge interrupted me.

At that point Warner returned and Judge Delahanty started justifying why he denied my Complaint. He would not allow me to speak. He had denied my Complaint on Warner's July 10, '08 Motion to dismiss, without receiving my July 18, '08 Response (just filed before coming to court). He cut me off whenever I tried to speak.

This was an abject denial of my right to due process. My Response twice iterated that Judge Bartholomew's twice stated in court (June 13 & 27) that Mr. Warner must Answer my Complaint, as well as the other matters already specified in the most recent updates, below.


July 10, 2008, Thursday
Regarding my PARC OnStreet case, Assist. County Attorney William T. Warner filed a motion to dismiss my June 27, '08 Complaint. His motion is improper by continuing to make false statements. His motion side-stepped my constitutional issues of whether Louisville Metro Code Ordinance (LCMO) 72.126 is unconstitutional.

Warner scheduled his motion for motion-hour in court (Jefferson Co. District Court) for Friday, July18, '08.


June 27, 2008, Friday
Regarding my PARC OnStreet case, I showed-up at the next hearing, in front of Judge Judith K. Bartholomew, but William T. Warner, for Irv Maze, was not present. I informed the judge that I had already filed my June 27, '08 Complaint as an amended action from my May 14, '08 Motion for injunction. She affirmed once again that Maze's office must Answer the Complaint.

The wording for the 6/27/08 Complaint is virtually the same as the 5/14/08 Petition.


June 13, 2008, Friday,
June 7, 2008, Saturday,
Irv Maze's office responded to Cobble's May 14, '08 Petition for Injunction with their June 6, '08 falsified Motion to dismiss the injunction. At the June 13, '08 hearing, Judge Judith K. Bartholomew (Jefferson Co. District Court) upheld the fraudulent Motion from Maze.

Cobble's injunction would stop PARC OnStreet from requiring people to pay their parking tickets prior to a hearing, as well as stop the terrible requirement of bonding tickets.

Each falsified item by Irv Maze is identified for the public. (In the interest of full disclosure, Cobble has a Feb. 6, '08 tort claim filed against Judge Bartholomew for denying rights in another action.)


June 13, 2008, Friday
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), I was forced to file a quo warranto against the trial judge, Joseph K. McKinley, Jr, for his removal from office by Congress. The quo warranto was necessary, because Judge McKinley insists upon denying my rights.

He is forcing me to reveal personal information that's not relevant to the case. And he wants me to acknowledge, for trial, the prior talks about settlement of the case. Of course, Judge McKinley is well aware of both of these legal doctrines, but he is violating them, anyway.

I believe that McKinley's insistence is due to his primary intent to cover-up the interstate product liability fraud that's being perpetrated by VCF.

Also, see my March 11, Feb. 19, and Feb. 27, 2008 updates. And see my March 20, 22, 31, April 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, '08, and May 1, 14, 15, 2008 updates, below.


June 5, 2008, Thursday
Regarding my lawsuit against the Courier-Journal newspaer (C-J), I filed a quo warranto against Jefferson Co. Circuit Judge, Mary M. Shaw. Recall that that judge so-called dismissed my case without even issuing a mandate on my pending commercial lien against C-J. Since that lien is still unresolved, technically, the case is still open until a mandate is issued by a court. Judge Shaw refused to do her ministerial duty to issue that mandate.

And since Judge Shaw has not responded to my affidavit in the quo warranto, the allegations therein must hold as true before the law. So, I sent a follow-up letter to Sheriff John Aubrey to have Judge Shaw removed from the bench of the Jefferson Co. Circuit Court.


June 3, 2008, Tuesday
This update regards my Feb. 6, '08 administrative tort claim against Jefferson Co. District Court Judge, Judith K. Bartholomew, and the consequential April 16, '08 quo warranto served upon Billy Goodman, Chairman of the KY Board of Claims. On June 3, '08, I sent my second verifiable letter to Sheriff Steve Clark of Franklin Co (Frankfort, KY) requesting that Chairman Goodman be removed from office, pursuant to the unanswered criminal allegations in that quo warranto. My first follow-up letter to Sheriff Clark was sent on May 20, '08 .

The quo warranto is based on the Mar. 24, '08 fraudulent dismissal order of Chairman Goodman.


May 29, 2008, Thursday
May 27, 2008, Tuesday
May 23, 2008, Friday
In my Jan. 26, '08 federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I asked local U.S. Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller to provide validation that he was actually retained by Defendant Dept. of Treasury. I believed that he was perpetrating a fraud, that he was not retained by Treasury. However, his May 27, '08 response letter refused to provide any such validation, but he misrepresents my request by falsely stating that I requested that he file an "Appearance of Counsel" (a formal notification to the court that he was retained by the defendant). I have a right to know who retained him, as I don't have to take his word for his claim. (Please refer to May 28, '08 update, below.)

With his 5/27/08 letter refusing to validate his purported client, Dept. of Treasury, I sent him a May 29, '08 follow-up letter to repeat my request for him to validate that client. But he did not respond to that second request. So, in my June 5, '08 Objection to Judge Thapar's May 28, '08 Order granting the extension, I informed him that Miller's pleadings cannot be recognized by the court. Judge Thapar has not addressed that legal premise that is undisputed my Miller.


May 13, 2008, Monday, Late entries
May 12, 2008, Tuesday
Regarding my Jan. 26, '08 federal lawsuit from the injuries I suffered after my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I sent May 12, '08 update letters to the major media outlets in Louisville. They are WHAS News 11, WAVE News 3, WDRB Fox News, WLKY News 32, the Associated Press in Louisville, The Louisville Defender, LEO Magazine, and the Courier-Journal.

A copy of each of these letters were filed by separate May 13, '08 Notices in the lawsuit (case 3:08-cv-123-T), to keep the court aware and for the public record. So, only the notice w/ letter to WHAS News is posted, here, as an example. I felt that these updates to the media were necessary, because they did not treat my case truthfully after the tarring. (They would not even interview me during the 2006 media frenzy.) So the 5/12/08 update-letters place them on notice to "do the right thing," this time. . .to tell the public the truth.

Some of you are aware of my administrative judgment and commercial lien against the Courier-Journal (C-J). C-J has admitted, by default, to committing slander, liable and defamation-of-character during the media frenzy immediately after the tarring. Also, see the related quo warranto filed against Jefferson Co. Circuit Judge Mary M. Shaw. -- Well, I don't want to deal with that situation, again. So, I hope that the public notices and letters will help.


May 28, 2008, Wednesday
May 21, 2008, Wednesday
May 19, 2008, Monday
In my Jan. 26, '08 federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, Louisville's Assist. U.S. Attorney Brady Miller filed a very suspicious May 19, '08 Motion for extension for responding to the lawsuit. He did not even file an "Appearance of Counsel" prior to that motion. He just came-out from nowhere, 110 days after I filed the lawsuit.

My May 21, '08 Response attempted to convince Judge Amul R. Thapar that the Extension was improper, since it was ten days past my May 9, '08 Notice-of-Default. But the court granted it, anyway. If Brady is running a scam (of which I think he is), then Judge Thapar must bear the responsibility for granting the motion.

I explained that the motion is a desperate attempt to prevent payment of the claim. My response explained to Judge Thapar that Chief U.S. Attorney David L. Huber (of Louisville) has motives for obstructing proper adjudication of the case. These include that 1) Huber initiated the fabricated indictment in the courthouse tarring matter. And 2), currently he is covering-up the interstate product liability fraud that's being perpetrated by Value City Funiture.


May 21, 2008, Wednesday
May 15, 2008, Thursday
Regarding my April 21, '08 quo warranto served upon Phyllis J. Pyles, Director of the DoJ Tort Branch in Washington, D.C., I sent a follow-up letter to Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, requesting that Ms. Pyles be "promptly" removed from office. This is because she has "acquiesced" in "legal admission" of the allegations and evidence presented in the quo warranto.

The quo warranto is related to my May 26, '06 tarring of the federal courthouse and my May 14, '07 tort claim for the injuries I sustained while being jailed on an illegal indictment. Ms. Pyles sent me an April 15, '08-dated illegal letter-of-dismissal of my tort claim, to create a "color-of-law issue" in court for my Feb. 26, '08-filed lawsuit. (Yeah, I know it's complicated, but I have to get it onto the public record.)

A first-page copy of the quo warranto is attached for Director Mueller's ready-reference. And a copy of the letter to Director Mueller was filed by May 21, '08- Notice in the 2/26/08 lawsuit.


June 5, 2008, Thursday
May 20, 2008, Tuesday, #2
May 2, 2008, Friday

Regarding my Feb. 6, '08 administrative tort claim (BC -08-108) against Jefferson Co. District Court Judge, Judith K. Bartholomew, I have begun the process of "perfecting" that claim, pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code and Kentucky statutes. This includes submitting to the to the KY. Board of Claims a Notice of Default, at least three invoices of the claimed amount, and an Affidavit of Non-response" from a disinterested third party.

The process of perfecting begins when the "feasors" (opposing / offending parties) are in "legal admission" of the claim. Acquiescence is the same as being in "legal admission" of a claim.

In the interest of full disclosure, on April 16, '08 I served a quo warranto upon the Chairman of the KY. Board of Claims, Billy Goodman, for obstruction of justice and refusing to process my claim. The quo warranto is seeking his removal from office and criminal prosecution.


May 20, 2008, Tuesday, #1
Regarding my Feb. 6, '08 administrative tort claim against Jefferson Co. District Court Judge, Judith K. Bartholomew, and the consequential April 16, '08 quo warranto served upon Billy Goodman, Chairman of the KY Board of Claims, I sent a verifiable letter / reminder to Sheriff Steve Clark of Franklin Co. That follow-up letter reminds Sheriff Clark that Chairman Goodman must be removed from office, pursuant to the unanswered criminal allegations in the quo warranto.

The quo warranto is based on the Mar. 24, '08 fraudulent dismissal order of Chairman Goodman.


May 15, 2008, Friday, #2
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), VCF's attorney, Michael P. Reilly, has continued to file pleadings, and Magistrate E. Robert Goebel has continued to issue discovery orders. However, with the current impasse and my pending Petition for Evidentiary Hearing, I cannot respond to those court filings. I continue to wait for Chief Judge, John G. Heyburn, II, to grant the hearing for resolutions in this matter.

Also, see my March 11, Feb. 19, and Feb. 27, 2008 updates. And see my March 20, 22, 31, April 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, '08, and May 1, 14, 15, 2008 updates, below.


May 15, 2008, Friday, #1
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), I sent a letter-of-notice to Chris P. O'Bryan, a partner of the law firm of the attorney (Michael P. Reilly) for VCF, O'Bryan, Brown & Toner, PLLC. The purpose of the letter was to place the law firm on formal "Notice" of its acceptance of Mr. Reilly's unlawful behavior, and thus the firm may be held liable for his actions.

I had also hoped that the O'Bryan et. al would withdraw from the case after receiving the notice. But as of yet, they have'nt.


May 14, 2008, Thursday, #2
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), I filed a petition for evidentiary hearing with the Chief Judge, John G. Heyburn, II. This was necessary, because the trial court, U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., does not dispute the evidence of my Mar. 31, '08 Petition for Grand Jury Investigation (and April 25, '08 Supplemental Petition). Yet, despite the criminal evidence against VCF's attorney, Michael P. Reilly, and Magistrate Judge E. Robert Goebel, Judge McKinley refuses to remove them from the case.

The case has become unworkable, because Judge McKinley and Magistrate Goebel continues to accept the circular arguments of Mr. Reilly's pleadings that don't make legal sense. In the bigger picture, these officials are covering-up the interstate product liability fraud that's being perpetrated by VCF. Customers continue to be scammed by that fraud.

Thereby, since Judge McKinley denied me an evidentiary hearing (by order on April 25, '08), I must seek a hearing from the chief judge. (Historically, the courts don't like to allow hearings for pro'ses, because that's when the truth and evidence become confirmed by the court record.) If Chief Judge Heyburn denies the hearing, then we have a situation of pervasive cover-up by the courts. My Petition informed him that I cannot anymore action in this case until a resolution is issued by evidentiary hearing.



May 14, 2008, , Thursday, #1
I filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction against the Louisville Violation Office (LVO, also marketed as PARC Onstreet). LVO is the Metro Louisville agency that hands-out and manages parking violations around the city.

Some of you are already familiar with this case. LVO is requiring people to post a bond for their tickets, or pay the fine, prior to receiving a hearing. It violates the due process doctrine of the presumption of innocence, as well as the Eighth Amendment by requiring the bonding of tickets where no contract is involved. Though it is only about parking tickets, as you can see, this still concerns the city violating the Kentucky and U.S. Constitutions without answering for it. I.e., LVO does not deny my allegations, and yet the city is still imposing 72.126 on citizens.

LVO's Libby Ewing (Administrative Review Coordinator) received the Petition on May 15. It requests the Jefferson Co. District Court to prevent Metro Louisville from implementing ordinance 72.126 any further.


May 9, 2008, Friday
In my federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I filed a Notice-of-default against Defendants Dept. of Justice (DoJ) and Dept. of Treasury having a no showing upon the court. Thus, the court is required by law to promptly rule in my favor of my state claims, hands down.

My notice also informs the court of my 10-day Window for Settlement Offer. This extends my offer to settle the case for a much less amount than the original claim. However, it also informs the court that Defendants must pay the original claim if the case is not "disposed-of" past that 10 days.

Recall that a Quo Warranto has been served on Defendant's Phyllis J. Plyes, head of the DoJ's Tort Branch.


May 6, 2008, Thursday
Regarding my lawsuit against the Courier-Journal, I filed a quo warranto against Jefferson Co. Circuit Judge, Mary M. Shaw. Recall that that judge so-called dismissed my case without even issuing a mandate on my pending commercial lien against C-J. Since that lien is still unresolved, technically, the case is still open until a mandate is issued by a court.

Like I told you, officials here in Louisville (and many parts of Kentucky) simply do not follow the law. That is why the middle-class in this state is diminishing faster than in most other states (reported in April '08 by national news).

A copy of that quo warranto was sent by certified mail to Jefferson Co. Sheriff, Col. John Audbrey.


May 1, 2008, Thursday, #2
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), I filed a motion to compel VCF to provide the contact information of the manufacturer of the furniture that I purchased. VCF's attorney, Michael P. Reilly, has promised to provide the info, but he has not.

His refusal has raised further suspicions about VCF and American Signature's activities.

Also, see my March 11, Feb. 19, and Feb. 27, '08 updates. And see my March 20, 22, 31, April 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, and May 1, '08 (#1) updates, below.


May 1, 2008, Thursday, #1
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), I filed two motions to compel depositions of board members on the American Signature, Inc.'s board of directors. Respectively, I need to question the board members that oversee the supplier and retail operations. Since both motions are worded essentially the same, I only posted the motion for the supplier.

The matters are directly related to the April 3, '08 deposition of VCF's general store manager at Dixie Hwy in Louisville. The April 21, '08 press identifies the three ways that VCF and American Signature are scamming its customers. Deposing the two boards of directors would "cut through the chase" in confirming the warranty and supplier arrangements practiced by VCF.

Also, see my March 11, Feb. 19, and Feb. 27, '08 updates. And see my March 20, 22, 31, and April 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, '08 updates, below.


April 29, 2008, Tuesday, #2
April 25, 2008, Friday, #2
April 19, 2008, Saturday, #2
February 29, 2008, Friday
In my federal lawsuit regarding injuries from my May 26, '06 courthouse tarring, I have thus far received three recusal orders from judges removing themselves from that case. Naturally, it begs the question of Why? . . . . Despite their criminal violations during the trial of the courthouse tarring, I suspect that they still are trying to avoid following the law.

Why is it so difficult for our governmental officials to follow the law? Why is it so difficult for judges to allow citizens to prevail in law, as is what they are paid for? I have posted these orders so you can examine them yourself.


May 10, 2008, Saturday
April 29, 2008, Tuesday, #1
Regarding my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF), in lieu of my March 31 Petition
and April 25, '08 Supplemental Petition for Grand Jury investigation into VCF's interstate product liability fraud, I filed a April 29, '08 petition for further claims for damages. This is due to my being scammed by VCF in these areas of the warranty and transaction of the sale.

VCF's attorney, Michael P. Reilly, then filed his May 9, '08 Response to my 4/29/08 petition. I only posted one page of his eight-page response, because that pleading is more of same of his other pleadings. He evades and colors the issues to seek the court's favor. However, I have identified enough of his shenanigans on the record that the court would criminally implicate itself if it continues to protect Reilly and VCF.

(Also, see my March 11, Feb. 19, and Feb. 27, '08 updates. Also, see my March 20, 22, 31, and April 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, '08 updates, below.)