LIT COMMENTARY & UPDATE
APR 19, 2024
It’s the swop shop as Conrell Hadley retains Eric Rhodes and their argument for reinstating a case dismissed with prejudice is certainly interesting… LIT’s reached out for comment.
Free rentin’ (by delinquent owner)https://t.co/KM0S2bzZqI pic.twitter.com/VAYREafmGx
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 2, 2024
LIT COMMENTARY
Feb 12, 2024
On Friday, Feb. 9, 2024, LIT released a tweet which states; Coming up on LIT: Shocking facts and case studies on the current criminal activity endorsed by the US Gov for implementation by Federal Judges and Wall Street’s Creditor Rights lawyers. Truth that will shake American homeowners to the core. Stay tuned. #TruthRevealed #USJustice
This published foreclosure case is part of the live reporting and investigation, which is explained, in part, below:
LIT’s inquiry delves into the prevailing standards governing foreclosures, Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs), Injunctions, evictions, and appeals. Drawing from rigorous analysis of factual case studies and a wealth of data amassed over years of investigation, LIT’s insights are prominently featured on this legal blog, LawsInTexas.com.
The initial confusion stemming from the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, wherein the US Government, hand in hand with the judiciary, orchestrated the mass seizure of millions of homes, is a focal point of LIT’s examination.
LIT refrains from extensively elaborating on the myriad frauds that transpired initially, such as lender application fraud and predatory lending which resulted in the financial crisis, and thus leading to counterfeit assignments, robo-signing, document falsification, perjury, and the unlawful actions of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) in foreclosing on homesteads.
Instead, LIT steers the discussion toward the avarice evident within the legal profession and the complicit role of the judiciary in perpetuating fraud in real estate and title deed matters, beyond the scandals within their own administration.
LIT’s live reporting and investigation is published in real-time, as it probes into the motivations driving the US Government’s directive for the judiciary to adopt predatory practices in the latter part of 2023 and throughout 2024—an inquiry to which LIT claims to hold the key answers.
In the ongoing saga of foreclosure proceedings the close circle of foreclosure defense lawyers along with the creditor rights attorney’s and the judges in both state and federal court, have protected Conrell Hadley’s main homestead from foreclosure as a sign of their power against prosecution.
The state issued TRO to halt the July 2023 auction of the property has never been upgraded to a temporary injunction in state court. As the TRO has well and truly expired and it appears that US Bank was never served by DeLaRogue for Hadley Conrell, the lender/mortgage servicer could relist for foreclosure, based on the latest actions LIT is witnessing in Texas state courts.
Despite US Bank clearly having notice of the state court action to stop the foreclosure, they have not relisted the homestead.
Notably, on Jan 17, 2024 Conrell’s lawyer sought dismissal with prejudice. This non-suit DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE to refiling was signed by Harris County District Judge Kyle Carter.
LIT avers this filing by Delarue was at the instruction of the judiciary, in order to keep a green light at the State Bar of Texas website and to avoid any sanctions.
One anticipates a foreclosure listing soon, and the fact the judiciary have refrained on any movement for Conrell Hadley’s smaller second homestead, LIT avers they are extending an olive branch to Hadley and ensuring he has a roof over his head for the time-being.
Top of the morn’ @MidFirst in OK
Y’all been busy since our Dec 2023 update and working with the Outlaws n’ Bandits to cover up their crimes and kickbacks to “Friends of the Court”. https://t.co/Fr3eKlzacz
Ain’t that so true @USAO_SDTX @TheJusticeDept @FBIHouston @statebaroftexas— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 12, 2024
202339943 –
HADLEY, CONRELL vs. U.S. BANK, N.A.
JUN 29, 2023
Jun 29, JUL 15, SEP 9 15, 20, OCT 18, NOV 14, 2023
APR. 19, 2024
Last time LIT updated or visited this article
Notice of Submission (to reinstate case)
ORDER SIGNED SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEY OF RECORD
Plaintiff, Conrell Hadley, referred to hereinafter by name or as “Plaintiff”, asks the Court to reinstate this case on its docket, under the authority of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a.
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff sued Defendant, U.S. Bank (“Defendant”) for, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud, and relating to certain real property located in Harris County, Texas.
2. On January 17, 2024, the Court signed an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Nonsuit With Prejudice, filed by Plaintiff’s previous attorney. (“Motion”).
3. Plaintiff was not aware of the Motion being filed.
LIT: THAT’S BECAUSE THERE’S NO MOTION ON THE DOCKET, JUST THE NON-SUIT.
4. Indeed, despite making several attempts to contact his previous counsel, Plaintiff only discovered the filing of the Motion after he engaged in his independent search of the Court records.
5. Plaintiff never approved of the Motion and would not have approved if properly advised by his previous counsel.
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
6. A court should grant a motion to reinstate if the plaintiff’s failure to appear at a
trial or hearing was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, but was the result of a mistake or an accident or can otherwise be reasonably explained.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3); Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr. Co., 913 S.W.2d 467, 468 (Tex. 1995); Melton v. Ryander, 727 S.W.2d 299, 301–02 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
A party’s failure to appear is not intentional or due to conscious indifference within the meaning of Rule 165a merely because it is deliberate.
Smith, 913 S.W.2d at 468.
To support a dismissal, the failure to appear must be without adequate justification. Id.
Proof of such justification—accident, mistake, or other reasonable explanation—negates the intent or conscious indifference for which reinstatement can be denied.
Id.; Bank One v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81, 84 (Tex. 1992).
7. The Court should reinstate this case because the filing of the Motion was done without Plaintiff’s consent or knowledge.
PRAYER
8. For these reasons, the parties ask the Court to set this motion for reinstatement and, after reviewing, grant the motion and reinstate this case on the docket. The Parties also pray for general relief.
Respectfully submitted,
The Rhodes Law Firm, p.c.,
/S/ Eric L. Rhodes
By: Eric L. Rhodes SBN: 24025611
6588 Corporate Dr., Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77036
Telephone: (832)404-2552
Facsimile: (832)404-2554
eric@rhodeslawwins.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 16, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsels of record pursuant to the TRCP 21a:
/S/ Eric L. Rhodes
While the case percolates, it is clear the lawsuit is over before it started.
DCA Generic Letter – Nov. 20, 2023 deadline.
While the case percolates, it is clear the lawsuit is over before it started.
DCA Generic Letter – Nov. 20, 2023 deadline.
While the case percolates, it is clear the lawsuit is over before it started.
We cannot say it’s new….but bookmark for updates anyway.
Troubled Texas Title Queen Rachel Luna’s Newest Lawyer is None Other than Bandit Erick DeLaRogue – Laws In Texas https://t.co/9GixTpOjPV
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) June 30, 2023
CANYON SHORE PROPERTY
Hadley purchased 4835 CANYON SHORE DR HUMBLE TX 77396 on June 28, 2006 for around $329k. He ran into trouble in repayin’ this $3k per month mortgage as well, filing the first lawsuit in Harris County District Court via his then attorney, Ray Shackelford.
This first suit, styled HADLEY, CONRELL vs. AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, 201207380 (2012-2013) would be dismissed for want of prosecution on March 13, 2013.
The second suit, styled HADLEY, CONRELL vs. AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY, 201411041 (2014), file by – you guessed it – Shackelford, fizzled too.
FOX MESA LANE PROPERTY
Hadley’s HELOC [secured] loan of $72K was recorded in October 2004 (per 5th Cir. opinion in 2021) against his now second [rental] home at 6908 FOX MESA LANE, HUMBLE, TX 77338.
In effect, from 1 July 2006 – 1 Oct 2022 Hadley has has the opportunity to generate rental income on the Fox HOA property. He also had an obligation to advise the mortgage servicer, who would most likely have increased his mortgage rate and require updated loan paperwork, etc. Whether Hadley disclosed this to the lender, or on his annual tax returns is unknown.
According to the 5th Circuit summary, he defaulted on those payments ($536 p.m.) and “Defendants first sent him a notice of acceleration of the loan on July 15, 2010”, meaning he defaulted before that date. LIT research shows that he actually stopped paying sometime in 2009 (per plaintiff’s own complaint, filed by Houston attorney Ray L. Shackelford).
HADLEY, CONRELL vs. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, 201683270 (2016 – 2017), would be the lawsuit removed to federal court, as noted by the Fifth Circuit in their 2021 opinion.
However, this was actually his second lawsuit.
The first lawsuit would be in 2012, styled HADLEY, CORNELL vs. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICINGS L P and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 201223108.
Undeterred, Hadley finally dumped lawyer Ray Shackelton and retained Jeffrey Jackson for the third lawsuit, styled HADLEY, CONRELL vs. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON (F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK) AS TRUSTEE, 202038392.
Despite res judicata seeping all over the pleadings (again, per 5th Cir. Opinion), Jackson knew he’d not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit on behalf of his new client. And he was correct.
Indeed, the 5th Cir. conveniently omitted the first lawsuit from their summary.
These facts duly recorded, and despite not paying on his note for 13 years, the 5th Circuit did not write in their 2021 Opinion words to the same effect as they illuminated against the elder, pro se Burkes (Hadley is age 60 at the time of this article);
“Given nearly a decade of free living by the Burkes, there is no injustice in allowing that foreclosure to proceed.”
Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Burke, 902 F.3d 548, 552 (5th Cir. 2018). Judge W. Eugene Davis is a recurring panel member in the Burke’s appeals and he’s also on Hadley’s 2021 appeal. Hadley’s Opinion is different, in-so-much as it is completely devoid of any threats, warnings or inexcusable remarks.
RUSTY ANCHOR (LAND)
In another Ray Shackelford filing in Harris County District Court, submitted June 3, 2016 and styled HADLEY, CONRELL vs. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, 201637306 (2016-2017), re purchase of undeveloped land at 18826 RUSTY ANCHOR CT HUMBLE TX 77346, was subject to litigation by Hadley. Here, the complaint alleges the loss of the land to a foreclosure resulted in a claim for damages, etc. There was a suggestion of Bankruptcy, which is listed below, but the court did not dispose of this lawsuit (Judge Ursula Hall, that’s expected).
Conrell Hadley Hands the Baton to Bandit Lawyer Eric Rhodes in Back-to-Back Lawsuit
Neither Conrell Hadley nor his attorney’s face any sanctions and hence Eric Rhodes is comfortable representing Hadley.
Conrell Hadley and Bandit Lawyer Erick DeLaRogue Team Up to Extend Foreclosure to Year 14+
Despite many baseless lawsuits, neither Hadley nor his attorney’s faced any sanctions and hence Erick DeLaRue reckons he is also untouchable.
After 13 Years, Conrell Hadley Faces Expedited Foreclosure On His Rental Home in Humble
Despite multiple lawsuits, neither Conrell Hadley, nor his foreclosure defense attorney’s faced any sanctions.
Denia
August 3, 2023 at 5:21 am
WHY HAS JL SADICK NOT BEEN ARRESTED