LIT COMMENTARY
DEC 23, 2023
“Under the second Lugar prong, a private party can be deemed a state actor if he or she is a “joint participant” with a state official in the offending enterprise. Id. at 931, 102 S.Ct. 2744.
To establish that the attorneys were joint participants in Judge Lambert’s alleged offending enterprise, Ballard is required to demonstrate that the attorneys and the judge knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy, in this instance, the operation of the debtor’s prison. See Dennis, 449 U.S. at 28, 101 S.Ct. 183.
Upon review of the allegations pleaded in Ballard’s complaint, we again find that his complaint sufficiently alleges facts that, if true, demonstrate that Judge Lambert and the attorneys conspired to violate Ballard’s due process rights.“
Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 519 (5th Cir. 2005)
“Ballard argues that Judge Lambert “abuse[d] her power in complete absence of subject matter jurisdiction to run a Debtors Prison” and that the attorneys acted jointly with her to do so.
With respect to survival of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), we find that Ballard’s allegations are sufficient to meet the requirements of the two-part Lugar test for establishing state action.”
Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 519 (5th Cir. 2005)
Foreclosure: $318k plus interest starting Jul 31, 2019 and atty fees etc.
The order includes legal description of property, amount of foreclosure to be recovered and other mandated legal requirements.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-02428
| Bondyopadhyay et al v. The BDF Group Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison Cause: 88:8888 Other Statutory Actions |
Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Date Terminated: 06/29/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay | represented by | Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay P.O. Box 591216 Houston, TX 77259-1216 832-758-6514 PRO SE |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Madhuri Bondyopadhyay | represented by | Madhuri Bondyopadhyay P.O. Box 591216 Houston, Tx 77259-1216 832-758-6514 PRO SE |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP Beneficiary-owner of(CWABS 2007-SEA2) |
represented by | Mark Daniel Hopkins Hopkins Law, PLLC 3 Lakeway Centre Ct. Suite 110 Austin, TX 78734 512-600-4320 Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDShelley L. Hopkins Hopkins Law, PLLC 3 Lakeway Centre Ct. Suite 110 Austin, TX 78734 512-600-4320 Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Michael John Burns | represented by | Jonathan Caleb Smith Padgett Law Group 546 Silicon Drive, Suite 103 Southlake, TX 76092 850-422-2520 Fax: 850-422-2567 Email: jonathan.smith@padgettlawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Nathan Milliron | represented by | C Ed Harrell Hughes Watters Askanase LLP Total Plaza 1201 Louisiana 28th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713-590-4200 Fax: 713-590-4230 Email: eharrell@hwallp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 02/15/2023 | 57 | Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Bondyopadhyay re: Case Related Information, filed. (DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 02/16/2023) |
| 02/21/2023 | 59 | Plaintiff’s Case Management Summary by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed.(DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 02/23/2023) |
| 02/21/2023 | 60 | Plaintiff’s Case Management Summary by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed.(DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 02/23/2023) |
| 02/22/2023 | 58 | Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. STATUS CONFERENCE held on 2/22/2023. The Court will take Defendants motions to dismiss under advisement. Plaintiffs may respond to Defendants motions to dismiss on or before March 7, 2023. Defendants pre-motion conference requests Dkt. 41 ; Dkt. 51 ; Dkt. 54 are TERMINATED as moot. Plaintiffs motions related to discovery Dkt. 6 ; Dkt. 15 ; Dkt. 18 ; Dkt. 22 ; Dkt. 26 ; Dkt. 37 are DENIED without prejudice to being reasserted after the Court rules on Defendants motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs motions requesting a preliminary injunction hearing and a preliminary injunction Dkt. 3 ; Dkt. 5 ; Dkt. 8 are DENIED for the reasons stated on the record. Appearances: Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhya. Mark Daniel Hopkins, Jonathan Caleb Smith, C Ed Harrell.(ERO: yes), filed.(bthomas, 4) (Entered: 02/22/2023) |
| 03/01/2023 | 61 | REPLY Brief, filed by Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay. (BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 03/01/2023) |
| 03/03/2023 | 62 | PLAINTIFF’S Reply BRIEF (Part 2 of 3) by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed.(TerriHanniable, 4) (Entered: 03/06/2023) |
| 03/07/2023 | 63 | THE PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF (Part 3 of 3 Parts), filed by Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay. (JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 03/07/2023) |
| 03/10/2023 | 64 | MOTION for Special Leave to File Response. by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/31/2023. (KimberlyPicota, 4) (Entered: 03/11/2023) |
| 03/21/2023 | 65 | Mail Returned Undeliverable as to Madhuri Bondyopadhyay re: 56 Terminate Deadlines and Hearings, Clerk’s Notice (FORM), filed. (HeatherCarr, 4) (Entered: 03/21/2023) |
| 03/27/2023 | 66 | NOTICE of Change of Address by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay. Address changed and document 65 Mail Returned Undeliverable re-noticed., filed. (JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 03/27/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 12/23/2023 05:16:56 |
In the realm of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), such as CWABS 2007-SEA2, a beneficiary-owner is typically an entity that has a financial interest in the cash flows generated by the underlying mortgage loans.
In this case, BDF is responsible for receiving the payments from the homeowners (mortgagors) and distributing them to the investors who hold securities backed by those mortgages.
In simpler terms, the beneficiary-owner of CWABS 2007-SEA2 would be the party entitled to receive the benefits, including cash flows and payments, from the mortgage-backed security.
In this specific case, Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, is serving as the beneficiary-owner or representing the interests of the beneficiary-owner in relation to BONYM CWABS 2007-SEA2.
SAME BANDITS. DIFFERENT RESULTS.
2023 CASE: “Due to an “OVERSIGHT” of THE SHACK not being registered in the ECF system, THE CATHOLIC BANDIT was unable to complete service initially.”
2020 CASE: No Guest Appearance by THE SHACK ever filed (Pro Hac Vice) despite appearance. #TWO pic.twitter.com/c6Gl32eIUV
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) December 15, 2023
“Private attorneys may be liable under § 1983 if they have conspired with a state official.”
Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3, 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988).
Bondyopadhyay v. The BDF Group
(4:22-cv-02428)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge George Hanks Jr
JUL 22, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUL 23, 2022
FEB 11, DEC 23, 2023
Get ready for the gavel folks…
“Private attorneys . . . are generally not state actors” and, accordingly, generally cannot be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights unless they conspired with a state official.
Uresti v. Reyes, 506 Fed., App’x 328, 329 (5th Cir. 2013).
ORDER denying 69 Motion for Reconsideration;
granting 70 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Rule 59(e) motion.
(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.
(ByronThomas, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2023)
FINAL JUDGMENT.
Case terminated on 6/29/2023.
(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr)
Parties notified.
(bthomas, 4) (Entered: 06/29/2023)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 35 & 38 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM;
granting 64 MOTION for Leave to File Response.
Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(bthomas, 4)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-02428
| Bondyopadhyay et al v. The BDF Group Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Referred to: Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison Cause: 88:8888 Other Statutory Actions |
Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Date Terminated: 06/29/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 06/29/2023 | 68 | FINAL JUDGMENT. Case terminated on 6/29/2023. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(bthomas, 4) (Entered: 06/29/2023) |
| 06/29/2023 | 69 | MOTION for Reconsideration of 67 Memorandum and Opinion, 68 Final Judgment by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/20/2023. (bthomas, 4) (Entered: 06/30/2023) |
| 09/06/2023 | 70 | Plaintiff’s MOTION for Leave to File the following response for judicial attention of the honorable district judge in support of the motion for reconsideration of the judgment filed on June 29. 2023 by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/27/2023. (AaronJackson, 4) (Entered: 09/06/2023) |
| 09/25/2023 | 71 | ORDER denying 69 Motion for Reconsideration; granting 70 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Rule 59(e) motion. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(ByronThomas, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2023) |
| 09/28/2023 | 72 | MOTION for Leave to File the following Response by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/19/2023. (MarcelleLaBee, 4) (Entered: 09/29/2023) |
| 10/02/2023 | 73 | MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Reopen Case by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/23/2023. (HeatherCarr, 4) (Entered: 10/03/2023) |
| 10/05/2023 | 74 | Plaintiff’s MOTION Under Rule 59 to Reopen the case by Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/26/2023. (AaronJackson, 4) Modified on 10/6/2023 (ClaudiaGutierrez, 4). (Entered: 10/05/2023) |
| 10/30/2023 | 75 | MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Plaintiff’s Submission under F.R. Civ. P Rule 59 by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/20/2023. (ByronThomas, 4) (Entered: 10/31/2023) |
| 10/31/2023 | 76 | ORDER. Pending before the Court are four motions filed by Plaintiffs Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay and Madhuri Bondyopadhyay. Two of those motions request leave to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, one is a motion to reopen the case under Rule 59, and one is a motion for additional time to complete a motion under Rule 59. All four motions (Dkt. 72 ; Dkt. 73 ; Dkt. 74 ; Dkt. 75 ) are DENIED. (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified. (ByronThomas, 4) (Entered: 10/31/2023) |
| 11/09/2023 | 77 | MOTION for Leave to File A New Affidavit by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/30/2023. (DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 11/13/2023) |
| 11/13/2023 | 78 | AFFIDAVIT of Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay and Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, filed. (MarcelleLaBee, 4) (Entered: 11/15/2023) |
| 12/01/2023 | 79 | AFFIDAVIT of Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay and Madhuri Bondyopadhyay regarding service to defendants, filed.(AkeitaMichael, 4) (Entered: 12/01/2023) |
| 12/06/2023 | 80 | RETURN of Service Executed as to Johnathan Caleb Smith/Mark and Shelley Hopkins on 12/1/2023 re: Affidavit, filed.(DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 12/06/2023) |
| 12/11/2023 | 81 | MOTION for Leave to File by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/2/2024. (BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 12/12/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 12/22/2023 18:01:31 |
OCT 12, 2022
It’s obvious after reviewing the docket, BDF Law Group are not waiving service and that Bondyopadhyay now have just over a week to get the citation issued and served.
ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 10/26/2022 at 09:00 AM in by video before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison
(Judge George C Hanks, Jr)
Parties notified.
(BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2022)
Sold June 24, 2022
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-02428
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Bondyopadhyay et al v. The BDF Group Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Cause: 88:8888 Other Statutory Actions |
Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/04/2022 | 4 | Inclusion Of An Affected Party In This Case by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed.(JosephWells, 4) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/04/2022 | 5 | Proof Of Defendant’s Written Admission Of Committing Three Federal Offenses and MOTION for Interim Injunction by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/25/2022. (JosephWells, 4) (Entered: 08/04/2022) |
| 08/08/2022 | 6 | MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/29/2022. (hlerma, 4) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
| 08/10/2022 | 7 | PROOF OF SERVICE by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed.(BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2022) |
| 08/18/2022 | 8 | MOTION for interim injunction by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/8/2022. (hlerma, 4) (Entered: 08/18/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/18/2022 15:24:51 |
MOTION for an Immediate Interim Injunction Hearing by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/22/2022.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-02428
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Bondyopadhyay et al v. The BDF Group Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Cause: 88:8888 Other Statutory Actions |
Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/22/2022 | 1 |
COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, Madhuri Bondyopadhyay. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2022) |
| 07/22/2022 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 10/26/2022 at 09:00 AM in by video before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison(Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2022) |
| 08/01/2022 | 3 | MOTION for an Immediate Interim Injunction Hearing by Madhuri Bondyopadhyay, Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/22/2022. (JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 08/01/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 08/02/2022 07:16:52 |
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:22-cv-02428
Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP
| Bondyopadhyay et al v. The BDF Group Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr Cause: 88:8888 Other Statutory Actions |
Date Filed: 07/22/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay | represented by | Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay 14418 Oak Chase Drive Houston, TX 77062 832-758-6514 PRO SE |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Madhuri Bondyopadhyay | represented by | Madhuri Bondyopadhyay 14418 Oak Chase Drive Houston, Tx 77062 832-758-6514 PRO SE |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| The BDF Group Beneficiary-owner of(CWABS 2007-SEA2) |
||
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/22/2022 | 1 | COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Probir Kumar Bondyopadhyay, Madhuri Bondyopadhyay. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2022) |
| 07/22/2022 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 10/26/2022 at 09:00 AM in by video before Magistrate Judge Andrew M Edison(Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/22/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 07/23/2022 13:41:30 |
Garrison would succumb, unsurprisingly.
A Cowboy Lawyer Called Clark is Harassin’ and Intimidatin’ Judge Tanya Garrison to Violate Texas Finance Code 392.101 and Grant his unlawful Writ for Garnishment. Will she succumb?https://t.co/1GhmECmzP9@statebaroftexas @tedcruz @JohnCornyn @GregAbbott_TX @Public_Justice #Texas pic.twitter.com/gnnuLHkDdE
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 7, 2022
BDF Hopkins Response Deemed Legally Incompetent by Burke in Reply in Support of Rule 59(e) Motion
If the law and Const. is applied correctly by an impartial judiciary who follow the rule of law it should have no difficulty vacating judgment
The Bounty Hunters, BDF Hopkins Response to Rule 59(e) Motion Re Burke
Burke v PHH Ocwen, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Mark Hopkins and Shelley Hopkins before Bent Judge Al Bennett, SDTX, Houston.
Texas Federal Chief Judge Refuses to Label 18 Year Pro Se’s as Vexatious Litigants
This is the Pro Se’s ninth lawsuit involving the foreclosure of the Property and third lawsuit against the Attorney Defendant Barrett Daffin.
Judge Garrison’s Vexatious Litigant Orders
Eva Morales Sued by DBNTCO and Endures Bottom Feeder Foreclosure Mill Legal Shenanigans
LIT let this latest case percolate in the draft section and what happened on May 2, 2024 was expected, the case would be nonsuited by DBNTCO.
Banks Foreclosure Mill Law Firm Galloway Stops Harris County Home Auction Claiming Clouded Title
Director of foreclosure mill Galloway, and creditor rights lawyer to Wall Street mortgage lenders, he claims his clients are clouding titles.
Washington Conspiracy: The Perjury and Title Deed Fraud by De Pasquale and Bandit Lawyer Clay Vilt Continues
LIT’s ongoing series investigating the Judiciary’s conspiracy with Vilt, De Pasquale and CCTX, Epiphany Properties continues.
