Bail Bond Co. Owner: Sheba Muharib’s Egregious Perjury in Application for Federal Public Defender

Sheba Muharib files a motion and financial statement under the penalty of perjury – on a criminal indictment remember – and she’s lyin’ like a sailor.

First, she owns more than one home.

Second, she’s got a job as CEO of Aable Financial Group, Inc, and a private lawyer retained to represent her in the Harris County District Court litigation.

We could go on….read the supporting facts herein.

She should be re-arrested and bond revoked. Remember, that’s been her business for many, many years, she knows the criminal laws and rules inside out.

As such, there is no excuses for the egregious perjury committed by Sheba Muharib in her criminal case.

PLAINITFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO REMOVE FROM THE COURTS’ DOCKET DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXPUNGE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND JUDGE J. MCFARLAND’S COURT PROCEDURE RULES

The plaintiffs SHEBA D. MUHARIB and AABLE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., by their attorney Charles A. Whittier, bring this motion REPLY to have the defendants, CENTRA 417 SAN JACINTO PARTNERS, LLC, CENTRA CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND DAVID HECHT’S, Motion to Expunge Notice of Lis Pendens removed from the court’s docket due to the failure of their attorney Mr. Richard A. Battaglia to hold a conference on the motion with Mr. Whittier prior to its filing, in violation of presiding Judge Jaclanel McFarland’s Court Procedures and Harris County District Court Civil Trial Rules, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.3.6.

In the alternative, the plaintiffs’ request an order extending their time in which to file their response to a date on or after September 30, 2024.

I.            Battaglia Does Not Deny Failing to Confer with Plaintiffs’ Counsel or Failing to File a Notice of Conference

Mr. Battaglia filed his motion to expunge on August 5, 2024, demanding an oral hearing set for October 14, 2024. (See Exhibit A).

This filing was in violation of Judge McFarland’s procedures in that oral argument hearings must be requested first and then appointed by the court; furthermore, oral hearings are not to be granted where no response has been filed.

In fact, no Notice of Submission was filed with Mr. Battaglia’s motion, and Mr. Battaglia failed to hold a conference with Mr. Whittier prior to submitting his motion. He also failed to file a Certificate of Conference with his Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens.

Mr. Whittier held a conference with Mr. Battaglia via email correspondence, on August 16, 2024, informing him of the situation outlined above and inquiring whether he was going to file a Notice of Submission, since he had not made a request for an oral hearing according to Judge McFarland’s procedures.

Mr. Whittier also asked Mr. Battaglia if he was going to submit a Notice of Submission, that it be dated after September 2, 2024.

Mr. Whittier explained to Mr. Battaglia that he (Mr. Whittier) had only just regained the electricity and Internet connectivity to his office that was lost as a result of Hurricane Beryl and that he was, therefore, trying to catch up with law office deadlines and client emergencies, and that the request for an extension via the conference was sincerely needed, and requested as a professional courtesy.

Mr. Battaglia in his reply does not deny that he refused to agree to an extension date and instead later filed his Notice of Submission with a return date of September 2, 2024.

The plaintiffs file the emails between Mr. Whittier and Mr. Battaglia in support of their assertions made above, attached as Exhibit A.

II.            IN CONCLUSION

The plaintiffs have shown by the circumstances set out above and Exhibit A, that the defendants in filing their present motion to expunge the plaintiffs’ notice of lis pendens have, unquestionably, failed to follow the procedures of this court and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in several ways:

1) by filing without a Notice of Submission; 2) by failing to conference with opposing counsel before filing and thereafter failing to file a Certificate of Conference with their motion; and 3) by filing a Notice of Oral Hearing without the court’s permission.

Therefore, these circumstances compel this court by its own rules to remove the defendants’ motion from the court’s docket.

In the alternative, should the court not be disposed to remove the defendants’ motion from the docket, the plaintiffs’ should be given adequate time to respond to the motion by being granted an extension of time under Tex. R. Civ. P. r.5., to file their response on a date on or after September 30, 2024.

Houston, Texas September 9, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

Charles A. Whittier
Whittier Law Group, PLLC
Texas Bar No. 24136155
charles@whittierlaw.international
1000 Main Street (Suite 2300)
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: 917-699-9197

ATTORNEY FOR ALL PLAINTIFFS