Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McCormack v. Hollenbach

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

January 29, 2019

PAUL RICHARD MCCORMACK Plaintiff
v.
TODD HOLLENBACH IV, et al. Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          REBECCA GRADY JENNINGS, DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         Petitioner Paul Richard McCormack initiated this pro se action proceeding in forma pauperis. In the complaint caption, he writes the following three statute numbers: 18 U.S.C. § 241; 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1); and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon review, this action must be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.

         I.

         The complaint caption lists Defendants as “METRO Judge Todd Hollenbach IV or METRO Judge Sean Delahanty.” The caption also states, “WHEREAS the Defendant has not honored his Oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of Kentucky”; “WHEREAS the Defendant has violated the Constitution of the United States Article IV [2], and the Constitution of Kentucky Section 10”; “WHEREAS the Defendant has violated the Constitution of the United States Amendment XIV Section 1”; “WHEREAS the Defendant has violated the Federal Rules of Procedure [FRCP-4]”; “WHEREAS the Defendant has ignored Federal Case CHICAGO MOTOR COACH vs. chicago 169 n.e.22 HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. page 74”; and “WHEREAS defendant has violated ‘AFFIDAVIT OF SUI JURIS STATUS' Filed in Jefferson County, KY Apr 07, 1998 Document No; 1998049738.” Next to each of these statements, Plaintiff states monetary amounts, which total $50, 000.

         The complaint next states as follows:

         NOTE: All this documentation has been given to the court either personaly, or via U.S. Mail.

         Other documentation has been given to the court as examples of rulers and what they did to improve their governing the people in their realm!

         Bible references has been given to the court to show violations of Bible Commandments!

         On the next page, Plaintiff lists two additional Defendants - Louisville Metro Police Officers Brandon Clark and Joshua Risinger. Under their names, Plaintiff states, “WHEREAS: Defendant Clark is accused of STALKING: under cover of darkness”; “WHEREAS: the defendants have not honored their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of Kentucky”; and “WHEREAS: the defendants have violated the Constitution of the United States, Amendment VI, and the Kentucky Constitution, Sectiion 10. vehicle seized value June 2018.” Plaintiff again lists dollar amounts after each statement, totaling $42, 000.

         Plaintiff next quotes statutes 18 U.S.C. § 241; 28 U.S.C. § 1746; and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He then quotes the oaths of office under the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and quotes various United States constitutional amendments and Kentucky constitutional provisions.

         Plaintiff attaches a six-page document captioned as an “ ‘AFFIDAVIT OF SUI JURIS STATE, RIGHT TO TRAVEL” which includes a stamp indicating that it was recorded in the Jefferson County Clerk's Office on April 7, 1998.

         Subsequent to the complaint, Plaintiff filed several documents. He filed a summons naming as Defendant “Public Defender Que Christian” (DN 9).

         Plaintiff also filed a letter in which he states that he is enclosing his “updated charge against the defendant in this case” (DN 10). The letter states that “you will notice that the total amouont is quite diferent than originally claimed. That is because there has been more daus accumulated since I originally filed this case in your court.” The letter also states, “I have been to court for 14 months already, and now scheduled to be in court again on January 04, 2019! I do not know what the reason for all of this is? Maybe [] IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY? [] Or the person, or persons who make these decisions?” The attached document revises the dollar amounts claimed by Plaintiff in his complaint.

         Plaintiff filed another letter in which he states, “Today, I was at local court again. There was supposed to be a jury trial - - but, alas, that did not happen. Again. This is the second there was supposed to be a jury” (DN 11). He continues, “Also, the judge, Sean Delahanty, and the court appointed Public Defender, Que Christian, both claimed ‘Conflict of Interest.'” He states, “Is the Federal Court going to claim ‘Conflict of Interest'??? [] This is the third (3) year since this situation began, due to the police ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.