Skip to main content
#
 


[Updates of] The Notorious Motion Judgment Scams
Involved in Various Cases

SUMMARY:The opposing attorney files a motion that is promptly granted by the judge before you have a chance to respond. Oftentimes, as seen below, the attorney does not serve you with a copy of his motion / pleading. This fraud and obstruction-of-justice has been perpetrated by some of the most highly respected law firms in Louisville, including, Morgan & Pottinger, PSC, Mapother & Mapother, and Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Sept. 17, 2008, Wednesday
I sent my second "adjusted" letter to Sheriff John Aubrey, demanding that he remove Judge Shaw from office for criminal prosecution in accordance with the allegations of my May 6, '08 quo warranto. (These adjusted letters are being submitted to Sheriff Aubrey after the KY. Court of Appeals refused to process the quo warranto. Sheriff Aubrey was given a copy of the quo warranto when Judge Shaw was first served on 5/6/08, along with subsequent follow-up letters. See these letters at the Updates on Judge Shaw's Quo Warranto.)


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, for the third time, subjected to the courts' motion-judgment scam. 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.)


April 16, 2008, Wednesday #1
In my In my administrative claim against Judge Judith K. Bartholomew, I ended-up serving a quo warranto upon the chairman of the KY Board of Claims, Billy Goodman. Chairman Goodman so-called dismissed my claim without even requiring the respondents (feasors), represented by the Attorney General's office (Jack Conway), to respond to my enumerated allegations, for this was denial of my due process by fraud and color-of-law. You cannot dismiss a claim; it can only be denied based on lawfully disputed evidence.

Recall that Judge Bartholomew committed fraud to dismiss my lawsuit against Stock Yards Bank. For a full background on this action, see updates on the motion-judgment scam: March 20, March 3, Feb. 25, Feb. 8, and Feb. 6, '08.

The quo warranto is one of the six prerogative writs based in common-law (such as habeas corpus, writ-of-mandamus, etc.). Created by King Edward I in 1278 (England), today, it has developed into a person's right to directly challenge the illegal action of a governmental official. If the official cannot legally dispute allegations of impropriety, then he / she must be removed from office by law-enforcement. You may not know about quo warrantos, because this powerful right is kept from the public by governmental officials and the media. (See more at Wikipedia.)


March 20, 2008, Thursday #2
I sent a bi-letter w/ seven ATTACHMENTS to Governor Steve Beshear and Will T. Scott of the KY Supreme Court. This time I requested a grand jury investigation into the motion-judgment scam / racket. (Also see discovery of the racket.)

Recall that a group of us requested an investigation from Gov. Beshear on Feb. 12, '08. In fact, Justice Scott pledged an investigation, but it has not occurred.

I felt compelled to request a grand jury investigation due to the three unlawful correspondences that I recently received from the KY Court of Appeals, KY Attorneys General (Spec. Investigations Unit), and the attorney (officer-of-the-court) that represents Stock Yards Bank (in my lawsuit in Jefferson Co. District Court).

I have posted those three correspondences with the bi-letters (one is an illegal notice for final adjudication), so that you may begin to study this "additional" basis for a criminal investigation. For, that which is being perpetrated is woefully illegal. The Letter to the Governor should be posted within a day or two. Thanks!



March 3, 2008, Monday #1
Judge Mary M. Shaw ignored my Jan. 25, '08 motion for reconsideration for ratifying my administrative judgment against COURIER-JOURNAL, INC. (also see 1/25/08 update, below). I have responded by sending a special letter to the KY Court of Appeals. (I wonder how much Judge Shaw is being paid to continue to violate the law. Should we request a criminal investigation into her bank accounts? For that matter, why not for the entire lot of judges in Jefferson County?)

Typically, this would be a matter for appeal. But the problem is that Judge Shaw did not honor the original contract of adjudicating the case in exchange for my filing fee. My commercial lien is left without a mandate.

In addition, I believe that the speed of the timely judgments in the motion-judgment scams are planned so that the dejected litigants will quickly pay the $165.00 fee of their appeals. Then their appeals are systematically denied, too. Mannn, what a racket, huh . . . ?


February 27, 2008, Wednesday #3
I received a letter from the Veterans Administration, that falsely states that I applied for benefits. When I inquired, they told me that a red flag has been placed in my file for investigation. I believe that it may be due to my current lawsuits against the Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY) and the feds, and exposure of the motion-judgment scam.


February 25, 2008, Monday
Five of us, members from the Juris-dictionary Club, accompanied Cindy to a hearing in Jefferson Co. District Court. Cindy is a newcomer to the club. (For the interest of privacy her real name is not disclosed.)

She is being brought to court by the notorious law firm, Mapother & Mapother. In fact, we are investigating this law firm for credit card scams in the courts. They charge people with credit card debt without proof of contracts. When, club member, Don Fitzgerald, was caught-up in their racket, Judge Steve Mershon conducted the motion-judgment scam with Mapother & Mapother, to prevent Don from responding as the defendant. (Also, see the Feb. 6, '08 update, below.)

We believe that another aspect of this scam is the fee for appeals. This is suspected, because the initial court judgments are so swift (they take your breath away), and then you have to pay the $165.00 to file for appeal to keep your case alive.

Cindy seemed gratified that she had this level of support. In fact, the judge gave her a 2-month continuance to prepare for Mapother & Mapother, of which I don't think she would have gotten if we were not there.


February 8, 2008, Friday #1
KY Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott is the first official to respond to my Jan. 25, '08 letters (see update, below) that requests an investigation into the motion-judgment racket.

His initiation of a review (investigation) through the Administrative Office of the Courts is met with skepticism. My follow-up letter asks for a serious and balanced review that would examine evidence and statements from injured parties.


February 6, 2008 , Wednesday
I filed an administrative tort claim against Judge Judith K. Bartholomew for fraudulently dismissing my case against Stock Yards Bank & Trust Co. Recall from my January 25 update that my Motion-for-reconsideration is pending to reverse that illegal order. Also see my January 7 update, when we began to discover that the motion-judgment scam / racket is a racketeering operation going-on in Kentucky.

In the scam, high-powered attorneys are really weak-necked weasels. They are filing Motions-to-dismiss, but they do not serve copies of their motions to opposing parties (usually pro'se litigants). Then, the judges dismiss these cases without the opposing litigants knowing what happened until much later.

The first two pages and Exhibit #1 of my claim are scanned-in, so you can see how it is set up.