May 26 San Jose, CA Shooter Samuel Cassidy. While detained in 2016, he told officials of his angry background. He killed 8 at the San Jose railway shooting. (PBS Newshour, May 27, 2021) His suicide is the same MO of the jihad killings in the Middle East, the same as most mass shootings in the U.S. It is critical that the shooter dies to shut down the trail of evidence to Gov'mt operatives. Americans must demand audits of FBI & Dept of Justice transactions, and others.
[Updates of] CASE 08-C-7390, Cobble v. Louisville Violation Office
SUMMARY: Louisville Violation Office - LVO (marketed as the PARC OnStreet) improperly require citizens to pay their parking tickets prior to allowing hearings on those tickets. This ordinance, Louisville Metrio Code Ordinance (LMCO) § 72.126, is in violation of the presumption of innocence doctrine. A person should be allowed a hearing prior to any penalty.
§ 72.126 also gives the option of placing-up a bond on tickets prior to a hearing. This, too, is unlawful, because a bond is applicable only when a contract is agreed upon. The request for hearing directly implies innocence, and thus a contract has not been agreed-to.
Below are updates on the developments in this ongoing saga, that's unnecessarily costing taxpayer dollars. Irv Maze's office, in collaboration with the Jefferson Co. District Court, have continuously obstructed prosecution of these basic constitutional issues. Yet, PARC ONStreet has acquiesced in "legal admission" of the allegations that Daniel Cobble has brought before the Court, that § 72.126 should be repealed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
August 19, 2008 Tuesday
Believe or not, Judge Kevin Delahanty removed / returned both of my Aug. 15 pleadings from the court record. Please see his Aug. 18, '08 order, below, with my two court-stamped originals signed in blue ink.
Removing documents from the court records is a felony under KRS 519.060, not to mention conspiracy, obstruction-of-justice and collusion.
Delahanty's order denying my Motion-for-reconsideration and remanding County Attorney Warner's Motion-for-sanctions against me was prepared by Warner, himself. This means that Warner initiated the disposal of his own motion to avoid having to answer the issues in my 8/15/08 Response. This is conspiracy with Delahanty to the max. Of course, we deal with these shenanigans from these officials all the time.
August 15, 2008 Friday
August 5, 2008 Monday
I filed a Response to Assist. County Attorney William T. Warner's Aug. 5, '08 Motion for sanctions against me. In referring to my July 25, '08 Motion for reconsideration, Warner says that I'm trying to bully the court and that I only want things my way. But moreover, he does not give over any credible legal issues to support that claim. The stalling in this case only costs taxpayers more money.
My single-page Response simply asks him if he has answered my legal issues, and that he cannot complain if he will not follow the due process of law by responding to my issues. On June 13 and 27, '08, he was commanded in court to respond to my Complaint by Chief Judge Bartholomew. But he has refused to do so, as though he does not have to answer to a lowly pro/se litigant.
August 15, 2008 Friday
August 4, 2008 Tuesday
I filed a Reply to William T. Warner's Aug. 4, '08 Response to to my Motion for reconsideration for the reversal of Judge Kevin Delahanty's unlawful dismissal order.
Recall that on July 18, '08, Delahanty dismissed my June 27, '08 Complaint (Amended Action) out-of-hand by conducting a hearing with Warner but without my presence, and without allowing me to file a Response to Warner's Motion to dismiss the Complaint. You can read Warner's Motion for yourself that he is not applying actual law to his arguments. My one-page Reply shows where he does not even address my fundamental issues of law.
My Motion for reconsideration was directed to Chief Judge Judith K. Bartholomew to reverse Delahanty's order.
July 25, 2008, Friday
I filed a Motion-for-reconsideration and to intervene for Chief Judge Bartholomew 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.)
July 18, 2008, Friday
At the 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
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
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 Petition 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. However, it does not request an injunction, but calls for a declaration that § 72.126 is unconstitutional.
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 issues in the Motion from Maze, but she required his office to Answer Cobble's Petition.
Cobble's injunction would stop PARC OnStreet from requiring people to pay their parking tickets prior to a hearing, as well as stop the ridiculous option of putting-up bonds for 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 his rights in another action.)
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.
April 15, 2008, Tuesday
Louisville's parking ticket agency, PARC Onstreet, has re-scheduled my May 1st hearing. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 30, '08. Recall that the agency is no longer requiring me to pay the parking tickets prior to the hearing (see the April 2, '08 update, below). You are invited to attend as a witness to this hearing.
Also, recall that my "key" legal basis at the hearing is that I should not be required to pay the parking fees, because the city and state governments are violating their presumptive contract with me by consistently violating my rights. Thus far, Government has refused to protect me. Any contract is violated when not carried-out in good faith.
Other updates on this issue was posted on Jan. 28, Feb. 14, and March 10, '08.
April 2, 2008, Wednesday
Louisville's parking ticket agency, PARC Onstreet, has scheduled a May 1st hearing without at-first requiring me to pay the parking tickets. Apparently, Review Coordinator, Libby Ewing, agrees with my March 6 and 17, '08 arguments (updates) that it is unconstitutional to require upfront payment prior to a hearing. Upfront payment violates the longstanding legal doctrine of "the presumption of innocence" prior to being penalized.
My "key" legal basis at the hearing is that I should not be required to pay the parking fees, because the city and state governments are violating their presumptive contract with me by consistently violating my rights. Thus far, Government has refused to protect me. Any contract is violated when not carried-out in good faith.
Other updates on this issue was posted on Jan. 28, Feb. 14, and March 10, '08.
March 17, 2008, Monday #2
Well, true to my word from the March 10 update, below, I apologized to Ms. Ewing for my implying that a city ordinance does not exist for requiring bonds for parking tickets. Ms. Ewing sent me the ordinance, § 72.126. However, the Constitutional / legal issues regarding PARC OnStreet's parking tickets still remain.
In my March 17, '08 letter to Ms. Ewing, I explain that bonds for this purpose are improper, in violation of the 8th Amendment, and otherwise serve no purpose, because contracts are not involved. In total, I provide 3 distinct legal premises. That letter combines with my Feb. 14, '08 letter as a legal challenge to the PARC OnStreet city agency. Recall that my 2/14/08 letter introduced the agency's violation of the presumption of innocence doctrine.
(My first letter to PARC OnStreet was on Jan. 28, '08, to request a hearing.)
March 10, 2008, Monday
Recall from my March 6, '08 update on PARC OnStreet, Administrator Ewing is requiring that I post a bond on the parking tickets prior to me receiving hearing.
On March 6, I challenged the existence of such an absurd ordinance. Yet, low-and-behold, Ms. Ewing sent me the ordinance. I now owe her an apology, but still, my issues-of-law remains the same. I will submit a letter challenging the bond matter. (Also, see my Feb. 14 and Jan. 28 updates for a more thorough background on this yet another unconstitutional issue.)
March 6, 2008, Thursday #3
This time, PARC OnStreet is taking matters too far by requiring that I post a bond on the parking tickets, prior to me receiving a hearing. So, instinctively, I asked for the city ordinance that requires such a bond. If such an ordinance does not exist, then Admin. Coordinator, Libby Ewing is committing fraud.
The tragedy is that, like too many government officials, Ms. Ewing simply cannot admit that she is wrong. So she makes matters worse by telling more lies, regarding a bond. She cannot "rise-up" to her humanity, as her pride keeps her functioning as a tyrant. Louisvillians should be outraged at this illegal process of law. Shame on you, Mayor Abramson.
March 6, 2008, Thursday #1
At the 7th & Broadway parking meters, today, I paid $0.25 for 5 minutes, as oppose to the usual $0.25 for 20 minutes. I could not believe it until I realized that Mayor Jerry Abramson is at it again with PARC OnStreet, increasing taxes and fees where he can.
You may review the Jan. '28 and Feb. 28, 08 updates on PARC Onstreet, to see how due process is denied in the hearing process to retain parking ticket revenues.
February 14, 2008 , Thursday
Recall from my Jan. 28, '08 update (also see below) that I requested a hearing for the three parking tickets that PARC OnStreet is trying to collect-on. Well, a letter from Review Coordinator, Libby Ewing, states that I must pay the fines prior to attending a hearing on the matter. This, of course, is violation of the well established legal dotrine, the presumption of innocence, before penalty.
I asked Ms. Ewing to correct her procedures that denies due process, that people have a right to hearings prior to exacting penalties. This is just another example of how Mayor Jerry Abramson uses his authority to increase revenues in any way he can (another recent example was his proposed library tax that was voted down by voters).
January 28, 2008, Monday
I responded to the "notorious" PARK OnStreet letter regarding three parking tickets. I requested a hearing in citing that I should not have to pay parking fines, because Louisville has not honored its "contractural" responsibilities as government to me as citizen .
This will be an opportunity to begin oral presentation of my case to Government, that it is not functioning on legal grounds, and that it lacks jurisdiction over [a] citizen for that reason. I am not opposed to paying taxes / fines. But Government cannot lawfully justify taxing me while simultaneously denying my rights, and otherwise harms me.