About Me

Name:Mackinents
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Kentucky Derby Presents Jim Crow and Uncle Tom

On this day of days, the legendary first Saturday in May, the moisture that flowed from the heavens was not rain, but instead, the tears of all the souls who have lost their lives in the battle for equality of the races, those who were lynched, maimed, and slaughtered, fighting for what is theirs according to the laws of God, according to the constitution of this country.

Jim Crow, wearing a hangman’s noose in lieu of the traditional neck tie, which went unnoticed, I might add, took time off from eliminating cruising in the West End, to attend the run for the roses, and flex his muscles.

He was proud of his kingdom which flourished in the state of Kentucky, his accomplishments in the state of Kentucky were quite prominent, one only need look west of 18th street and Broadway, and in Hardin county, to understand his joy. Yes, in Kentucky, Jim Crow is alive and well so well that even the tears of martyrs cannot wash away the blood of the fallen, on this first Saturday in May. He sanctioned this gathering because it served his purpose, as his stratagem was to make My old Kentucky home to appear not as the plantation it is, but instead, an equal opportunity gathering.

Jim Crow, being in a partying mood, shook hands with Uncle Tom, who was in attendance, in the guise of African American, not American Americans, African American celebrities who grinned for the camera, tap dancing while clothed in the best that money can buy.

There was the retired quarterback who would be back next year, the short light skinned crooner, the actress, all basking in grandeur, and extolling the greatness of southern hospitality, and how well they were being treated. Do these people know that the West end exists?? Money only changes your social status, it won’t change your color.

There is a great deal more to Louisville that the hotels, the airport and Churchill Downs. But in the other hand, Jim Crow had rolled out the red carpet for them, why should they care about the plight of those who have to live here after the party??

Unbeknownst to the Mayor of Louisville, and the African American Police chief who has no cultural ties to the West End, in a divine act of reckoning, there was cruising on Broadway last night, the spirit of Martin Luther King, wearing the Emancipation Proclamation and mounted upon Eight Belles, cruised Broadway, followed by the spirits of slain civil rights workers, as James Brown performed on the roof of the Galt House, singing “Say it loud, I’m Black and I’m proud”, Jim Crow and Uncle Tom partied down below…….

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tale of a Criminal Nuisance

Both state and federal constitutions guarantee equal protection of the laws to all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, somehow the state of Kentucky, Radcliff to be exact, located in notorious Hardin county, has not been enlightened to this fact. Law enforcement and public officials refuse to investigate the enclosed Complaint, even though it originates from a Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Kentucky Commission on Human Rights, in reference to violations of the Fair Housing Act...
 
 
 

                                        COMPLAINT

 

 

 

Complainant Barry C. Drake, 100 Navaho Crt.#3, Radcliff, Ky. 40160, files this complaint of Criminal Activity Nuisance against Pin Oaks Acquisitions, 1584 West Lincoln Trail, Radcliff, Ky. 40160 in accordance with Radcliff City Ordinance Sec 13-1(a)(b)(e)(f).

On or about the first week in November 2007, a new tenant moved across the hall from Complainant, a Caucasian female, who appeared to live alone, however, she was observed engaging in the following activities:

(1) Daily, approximately 5-10 males would visit her during all hours of the day and night, wearing hooded sweatshirts in warm weather, which covered their faces.

(2) Upon entering the building, the individuals would use the front door to block Complainant’s view of their appearance, they would also cut off the light in the entrance at night, so that their identities could not be viewed. In essence, their behavior was of a highly suspicious nature, and they all wore combinations of blue and white, the same colors of a nationally known street gang. These individuals utilized both the front and rear entrance on a 24/7 basis, to handle their constant flow of people, going in and out. Some of the males would spend the night, others would speedily come and go.

(3) Within a few days, this obviously criminal operation, had taken over Complainant’s building of residence, as though they owned the building, wantonly endangering his existence, and disturbing the peace of the normally quiet environment.

(4) Several vehicles related to the activity festering in the building, would enter the complex continuously both day and night, they would conceal their license plates by parking at odd angles, and moving when observed, they would either enter the female’s residence, or she would get into their vehicle, leave-or go behind one of the adjacent buildings.

Based on the gang related colors they wore, and based on their boldly infiltrating the building by secretly moving in with the female neighbor, compounded by their suspicious behavior, Complainant contacted the Radcliff Police, and reported the activity to the head of the Gang Crimes Unit, who confirmed that a vehicle identified by Complainant was the property of a known gang member, confirming that gang related activity was in progress, a point of interest to law enforcement, which initiated an immediate investigation.. Based on information supplied by Complainant, it was determined that his neighbor was wanted by law enforcement due to outstanding warrants, a fact that Complainant’s Landlord would have encountered, had he run background checks on perspective tenants, it was foreseeable that something was going to happen, with a wanted criminal as his neighbor.

Following his conference with the Police, Complainant contacted his Landlord and informed him of the suspected criminal activity being perpetrated on his property. The Landlord’s response was one of wanton, malicious, reckless indifference, he said “don’t tell me, tell the Police”…His indifference to the situation, wantonly created a substantial danger of death or serious injury to Complainant , in violation of KRS 508.060.

At this point the Landlord, once he had knowledge of the ongoing criminal activity, and failed to handle the situation, he was knowingly providing an opportunity for the commission of crimes, in fact, aiding the criminal activity to flourish, in violation of KRS 506.080, criminal facilitation.

On or about the second Saturday in January, Complainant’s storage room was broken into and several items were stolen, however, the crime was not discovered until Monday morning when Complainant returned to his apartment. He immediately reported the crime and initiated an investigation by the Police. Two hours later, Complainant answered a knock at his door, it was the Police, they were there to arrest his neighbor who was not opening her door, after being assured that she was there, they arrested her on outstanding warrants, she was lodged in jail.

Following this episode, Complainant, once again informed his Landlord of criminal activity on his property in the form of the storage room break-in. The Landlord’s response was one of wanton, malicious, reckless indifference, he said “don’t tell me, tell the Police”…

 

Secondly, in 2007, on or about the end of August or the beginning of September, Complainant observed new neighbors moving into the apartment above him, within 48 hours based on endless traffic coming in and out of the building 24/7, it was obvious that a criminal operation was in progress.

Complainant informed his Landlord of the operation when he personally viewed a drug deal boldly going down directly in front of the building and in front of his residence, one of the residents from upstairs, had a plastic baggie in his hand, passing to a female in a parked vehicle, informing her that he could “get anything she wanted”, she then took the baggie, handed him money and left the area, he then turned around-looked at Complainant-and walked back into the building.

Instead of handling the situation, the Landlord informed Complainant as to what a “nice guy” the new tenant was, totally unaware that two couples lived there, not just one, and refusing to acknowledge the ongoing criminal enterprise flourishing on his property. Approximately two weeks later two cars containing 5-7 individuals, wearing clothing reflecting the same colors, caused a verbal altercation with the new tenant, they left the building screaming and cursing, disturbing the peace, only to return later and resume their argument, this time they were armed with baseball bats and smashed holes in the ceiling, the wall across from Complainant and broke the glass in the entrance door, three feet from his door, at least one of them had a firearm arm tucked down the back of his pants. The new tenant ran downstairs shouting “everything’s ok, the Police have been called”, a statement which was fictitious because the Police never came.

Complainant documented this incident with the Police, and complained to an Officer early the next morning, out of view in the parking lot, they discussed the drug operation.

Later that morning, Complainant heard a door being kicked in upstairs, and objects being moved, he then viewed the upstairs tenant being led away in handcuffs, and put in a patrol car.

Complainant informed his Landlord of the proceedings, enlightening him to the fact that his tenant WAS a drug dealer and was met with total indifference.

Furthermore, a well known drug dealer is currently residing in building 101 Navaho Court, he often frequents Complainant’s neighbor’s apartment, increasing suspicious traffic in the building on a constant basis.

He also brazenly and boldly, does business outside in the open, with cell phone in hand, he services drive through customers.

Complainant had to endure heavy traffic to and from his neighbor’s apartment this past weekend, people were constantly knocking on his neighbor’s door, entering and exiting quickly.

Confirmation and verification of the known dealer’s activities can be acquired from Sgt. Slack of the Gang Crimes Unit.

 

 

I hereby certify under penalty that the above Complaint is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__

Barry C. Drake

100 Navaho Court #3

Radcliff, Ky. 40160

270-352-3058

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Foreclosure by Countrywide

 Having been a victim of Countrywide, I observe their downfall with much interest. The enclosed Court document illustrates a portion of the torment suffered by one who was merely seeking to live his alive as best he could.


COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT

CASE NO. 06-CI-00339

 

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. PLAINTIFF

VS.

BARRY C. DRAKE , et al. DEFENDANT

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

 

Comes the Defendant/Cross-Claimant, Barry C. Drake pro se, in accordance with CR 41.02(1)(2), and in accordance with CR 56.01, with a Motion For Summary Judgement, as there is no triable issue of fact, nor any dispute as to the real facts of this case, based on the following:

(1) Barry C. Drake signed the loan agreement with America’s Wholesale Lender based on coercion tactics utilized by the lender when it verbalized to him that “he would be able to re-finance in a ‘few months’, acquire more money, and a better loan situation”, which turned out to be false, as Defendant’s loan was then sold to Plaintiff, thereby rendering the’ promise of refinancing‘, to be false and deceptive.

Predatory lending refers to unconscionable lending practices that take advantage of vulnerable borrowers, such as the elderly or unsophisticated. The term also refers to the practice of convincing borrowers to agree to unfair and abusive loan terms. Such loans could take place either through outright deception or through aggressive sales tactics, taking advantage of borrowers' lack of understanding of extremely complicated transactions.

One lending tactic that is generally considered to be "predatory" is making a secured loan, such as home or car loans, with the expectation that the borrower will not repay the loan (i.e. default), and therefore the lender acquires title to the home or car in a foreclosure sale.

The typical case is where the monthly payment exceeds 50% or even 75% the borrower's after-tax income, or the borrowers income is irregular. While the borrower may be unaware their default is statistically probable, the lender should be aware of this and not make such loans.

(2) The aforementioned loan which required payments of approximately $352.00 per month is in violation of ‘predatory lending’ laws as Defendant is disabled and earns less than $700.00 a month which far exceeds a 45% debt to earning ratio, a fact which Plaintiff’s employees informed Defendant about. Upon attempting to re-finance with Countrywide, Defendant was asked, “where did you get such a loan”? In essence, Plaintiff purchased a loan which violated the Law of Frauds, and became a willing conspirator, firmly ensconced in an action which was void from it’s inception due to it’s being criminal. Plaintiff failed to mention these facts in his Complaint, just as he failed to mention that Defendant filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission and HUD in January 2006, in reference to these matters.

The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 States “Creditors may not:

make loans based on the collateral value of your property without regard to your ability to repay the loan”..

Violations of the ‘Consumer Fraud Act‘, and the ‘Truth In Lending Act’ were perpetrated as well, in this conspiracy of criminal libel and predatory lending.

The FTC advised Barry C. Drake to demand that Plaintiff ‘rescind’ his loan, which he did, and advised Plaintiff of the extreme emotional distress his criminal actions were causing Defendant to endure, as he has a severe anxiety disorder which had been fully exacerbated due to the acts of criminality perpetrated by Plaintiff and his associates. Plaintiff subsequently refused to rescind the loan, and being aware of Barry C. Drake’s constitutional rights to seek satisfaction in the courts, knowing full well that he could not afford legal representation, sought to utilize intentional Abuse of Process as a means to accomplish his criminal acquisition of the property, as he had no legal cause of action, and wantonly and willfully obstruct justice. KRS 294.220(2)(b) states that it is illegal to engage in fraudulent practices, and KRS 367.381(2) states “no loan broker shall mislead creditors“. A fundemental breach or a repudiatory breach of contract occurred when the original lender failed to honor a bargained for exchange, terminated the loan contract prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of the loan. Were these facts not true, Plaintiff would have mentioned these events, but instead, he sought to criminally slander and defame Barry C. Drake’s character by withholding and suppressing relevant evidence , in an attempt to steal the property, therefore rendering his court actions to be constitutionally criminal, and void, due to KRS258.335, which prohibits concealment of facts.

(3) The City of Radcliff, has a responsibility to make known the fact that there are no delinquent taxes nor a lien against Barry C. Drake’s property, pursuant to KRS 382.65, their attempt to seek a judgment for future taxes, exemplifies the fact that they are firmly ensconced in this conspiracy of defamation and unlawful theft-due to the fact that they don’t require judgments against other residents for future taxes, so why discriminate against Barry C. Drake. Radcliff simply wants a share, irregardless if the actions which bring about it’s share, be criminal or not.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is of fraudulent intent, based on the following:

(1) Abuse of process, misuse of the public right of access to the courts. There is no valid cause of action.

(2) Vexatious litigation-this action was brought as an illegal act of retaliation, meant solely to harass or subdue Barry C. Drake’s rights.

(3) Negligent infliction of emotional distress, an intentional act, brought on by extreme and dangerous conduct, because this type of conduct goes beyond the standards of civilized decency, and are utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

(4) Countrywide, along with America’s Wholesale Lender(the originator of the fraudulent loan), are association in fact enterprises, both utilized the mail and telephone wires to concoct and perpetuate this conspiracy in an interstate fashion, seeking to illegally acquire property and sell it, and utilize the funds to repeat similar purposes, where as the City of Radcliff sought it’s share, as well. The attorneys who represent these individuals are guilty of “aiding and abetting”. "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

It is a material and relevant fact that Plaintiff’s Complaint is fraudulent, based on malicious defamation, conspiracy, suppression of relevant facts and evidence, predatory lending, and unlawful theft. The City of Radcliff is enjoined in this conspiracy due to it’s failure to act in accordance with KRS 382.365, an error which allowed Plaintiff to maliciously refer to Defendant as a ‘delinquent taxpayer’, in a criminally slanderous and libel fashion. "Each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id. In order to defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rely on his pleadings but must present some evidence on every material issue for which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

Barry C. Drake prays for the following relief:

(1) To dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint due to it’s being fraudulent and retaliatory, and declare the subject loan to be void, and order Plaintiff to immediately rescind said loan.

(2) Act in accordance with KRS 26a.080 and place this complaint of criminal actions in the hands of it he proper disciplinary officials, as required by law.

(3) Joint and several liability.

(4) 2.5 million dollars in compensatory damages.

(5) 7.5 million dollars in punitive damages.

(6) Relief in the form of writs and orders to protect Barry C. Drake’s property.

(7) Any other damages that this court deems proper due to the intentional destruction of his quality of life and the damage to his health and personal reputation, as civil suits are published and countless people have knowledge of it.

CR 13.03 COUNTERCLAIM EXCEEDING OPPOSING CLAIM

A counterclaim may or may not diminish or defeat the recovery sought by the opposing party. It may claim relief exceeding in amount or different in kind from that sought in the pleading of the opposing party.

 

I certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was this 5th day of April, 2006, forwarded to the following:

Mark N. Dierks

Michael A. Pike

Clarise Sartin is informed as well.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry C. Drake

100 Navaho Crt. #3

Radcliff, Ky. 40160

 
Tags: Countrywide  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Love Is Strange

Lovers unknowingly searching for each other, crossed paths at the intersection of fantasy and dream land, each cognizant of the other, but neither one had any idea of what was going down, once their spirits met. As the wonders of an internet romance came to fruition, through the miracle that is e-mail, their spirits entwined and became as one. Intoxicated by the passion that flowed from their fingers thru their keyboards and into each others hearts, and libidos, they both found the emotional bliss, both had been seeking for decades, in a matter of timeless hours.
He found in her, all the qualities lacking in many past lovers, her invisible embrace offered him the emotional sanctuary he had sought his entire adult life. He could sense her lips kissing and sharing their sweetness in a manner most men craved but would never find. Her succulent body, thru his imagination, clung to him in an extreme carnal fashion, and brought forth mind blowing ectasy, which seemed endless.
She found in him, a combination that all past lovers lacked, as she too could feel his invisible lips feeding upon her hungry body in such a fashion that she gave herself to him totally and completely, in both his mind and hers. She found in him the fulfillment her womanhood had been seeking, forevermore.
Two strangers sharing a miraculous romantic encounter in cyberspace, blossomed into a modern day Romeo and Juliet, their hearts and spirits connected and joined in such a manner that it mattered not, that they hadn't visualized each other in the physical sense, due to love being the epitome of spiritual union, only that their hearts had formed a perfect, eternal union. Love is strange.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »