Skip to main content
#
 


[Updates of] Relative Circumstances of the John Yuen Trial
IPL v. John Yuen, Jefferson Co. District Court

This being John Yuen's first pro'se courtroom litigation, he made some apparent mistakes. Louisville's Inspection, Permits and Licensing Dept. (IPL) criminally tried Mr. Yuen for neglecting his real properties. However, his painful experience was well worth me setting through his trial.

IPL is quite lacking in recognizing the rights of Louisvillians. Its primary objective is, apparently, to raise revenues for the city by charging fines at the first chance. Disadvantaged property owners are routinely pressured into needless debt. IPL's other unlawful weapon is to trump-up justifications to condemn real property, to acquire for the city's use. Mayor Abramson should be ashamed of himself.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
August 23, 2008, Sunday
Patriot John Yuen came across this Jan. 2003 Employee Reprimand Report issued by IPL. It verifies what our court cases and litigation has already revealed, that IPL operates a quota system for inspections.

Whereby, IPL's priority is for generating revenue, and not for improving neighborhoods.


February 18, 2008, Monday (Late Entry)
On Feb. 12 and 13 (last week), I attended the trial of John Yuen. Mr. Yuen was charged with violating several of Metro Louisville's housing codes on two of his rental properties. He represented himself in the two "joint cases," against Metro's Inspections, Permits and Licenses Dept. (IPL).

It was difficult to determine the facts in the case for two reasons. First, due to violations of due process that the County Attorney and IPL committed against Mr. Yuen, [we] reasonably presumed that the government was not presenting facts for the jury. (For example, he was only given 24-hour notice for trial.) And second, Mr. Yuen struggled with "isolating for the jury" those fundamental violations.

However, that trial experience yielded several revelations of illegalities about IPL's housing inspection process, and how property owners are duped into paying unnecessary fines.


January 10, 2008,Thursday
In my lawsuit against Value City Furniture (VCF, Case #03:06cv-631-M), I sent by verifiable mail a letter-of-notice to the U.S. Magistrate and District Court Judge effectively 30 days to resolve the issue of me being harassed by the VCF's attorney, Michael P. Reilly. The situation has arisen to unbearable conditions, to the point where litigation has become almost impossible.

My family's plight-of-pain is due to the Court refusing to grant my motion for sanctions that would stop the shenanigans of Mr. Reilly. My letter informs the Court that if it does not resolve the problem within 30 days, I will withdraw from the case and promptly file the necessary administrative tort claims (a more "efficient" legal process). The Court and Mr. Reilly are committing denial of due process, harassment and obstruction of justice. Mr. Reilly and VCF have even committed perjury.


January 7, 2008, Monday
I learned, today, that Pro'se John Yuen was also scammed by the Jefferson Co. Circuit Court, its court clerk, and attorneys for Stock Yards Bank (See reference Dec. 29 update, below). Like the cases of Don Fitzgerald and myself, these officers-of-the-court scheduled a hearing without informing Mr. Yuen. Then, the court ruled against him in the case.

These are matters of fraud, conspiracy, obstruction-of-justice, and complicity that must be reported to Kentucky's new Attorneys General, Jack Conway, and the FBI.