Harris County Criminal Magistrate Judge Sharon Chu aka Muharib’s Bad Faith Bankruptcy Dismissed

Sharon Chu, Texas Lawyer and current spouse to fellow Texas Lawyer Anthony Muharib are in financial strife related to the Muharib family Bail Bond businesses.

This has led to the formal indictment of Sheba Muharib in federal court in mid-July 2024.

Sheba Muharib, the head of the now-defunct Aable Bail Bonds was arrested as part of a massive pre-dawn federal bust that targeted her and a few others. Federal Magistrate judge set her bail at an unsecured amount of $50,000, which allowed her to be released without having to put down any cash. Instead, she promised to return to court for her proceedings.

But here’s the twist: Muharib’s alleged involvement revolves around a bail bond scheme.  The FBI executed this operation after a two-year investigation, and they’ve got a whopping 50 people in custody related to this case.

Now, if things don’t go her way, Muharib could face up to five years in prison and a hefty fine of $250,000 upon conviction.

Sheba Muharib isn’t the only one in the family mix. Her brothers are part of this saga too. While she and one of her brothers lost their ability to write bonds, another brother—Wisam Muharib—retained his license.

We’re not finished. Based on related litigation, the “Bond business” also involves Sharon Chu.

On June 11, 2024, prior to the raid and arrest of his sister, Anthony Muharib filed for divorce. We’re doubtful as to the authenticity of that divorce proceeding. Since filing, it has percolated in Harris County District Court, and notably, only nine days later husband and wife Anthony Muharib and Sharon Chu filed for bankruptcy on the same day, June 20, 2024.

In this update to our earlier articles about the Muharibs’, we’ve discovered that Sharon Chu became a one year “magistrate judge” in state court, effective January 2024 – well before the raid in July. Is this a conflict of interest?

Certainly, there’s much more to the relationships the Muharib family hold with Harris County and Fort Bend government agencies which we’ve touched on in X posts.

Order/Courtroom Minutes.

Dismissal with prejudice-180 days.

Related to document 22.

(njc7) (Entered: 09/10/2024)

What are the duties of a Harris County Criminal Law Hearing Officer?

Application

In a remarkable turnaround, Chu’s finances allow the case to be dismissed without prejudice according to foreclosure mill Jack O’Boyle and her husband’s Range Rover appears to be still parked in the Ivanhoe St. driveway.

Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal to Federal Court

Exhibit A

First Original Answer of Defendant Capital Fund I LLC

TO THE HONORABLE COURT

COMES NOW Defendant CAPITAL FUND REIT LLC and respectfully files this Emergency Motion to Cancel Lis Pendens. In support thereof, CAPITAL FUND REIT LLC, respectfully shows the following:

I.                   INTRODUCTION

1.                    Plaintiff’s lawsuit is little more than an improper attempt to contest the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s property by way of a business purpose Note and Deed of Trust.

II.                SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS

2.                  TORRIN   WILLIAMS   AS    MANAGER   FOR    FARMHOUSE    REALTY

1 While Void, the Lis Pendens Williams recorded in the real property records is impacting closing and selling of the Property following foreclosure. In order to facilitate this closing and sale, and due to the nature of this proceeding and the Void Lis Pendens, Movant respectfully requests expedited consideration of this Motion.

PARTNERS LLC, as Grantor, executed a Deed of Trust dated 07/16/20021 to secure payment of loan issued by CAPITAL FUND I, LLC, as Lender, in the original principal sum of $350,000.00 and secured by the real property identified by street address as 5657 FLACK DR, HOUSTON, TX 77081 (the “Subject Property”). (Exhibit 1).

LIT: CURRENTLY FOR SALE ON HAR FOR 60 DAYS AS AT APR 4, 2024

3.                  The Loan was a business purpose Loan and expressly provides that it is no way to be considered a “Consumer Loan.”

(Exhibit 1; Pg. 11 of 12).

4.                  Thereafter the Deed of Trust was assigned to Capital Fund REIT, LLC.

(Exhibit 2).

The Loan went into default and Jack O’Boyle & Associates, PLLC (“JOA”) as foreclosure counsel noticed to be auctioned at a foreclosure sale to be held on 04/04/2023.

(Exhibit 3).

5.                  On 04/04/2023 CAPITAL FUND REIT, LLC purchased the Subject Property at a non-judicial foreclosure sale.

(Exhibit 4).

202326308 – WILLIAMS, TORRIN vs. CAPITAL FUND 1 (Court 164, JUDGE C. ELLIOTT THORNTON) – Filed 04/27/2023 – removed to federal court 05/08/2023

Following its purchase of the Subject Property, CAPITAL FUND REIT, LLC further retained the law firm Jack O’Boyle & Associates, PLLC (“JOA”) to institute forcible detainer proceedings on its behalf.

ON APRIL 7, 2023 – This eviction suit was filed in the Harris County Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 5, Place 1 under Case Number 235100157881 and against TORRIN WILLIAMS AS MANAGER FOR FARMHOUSE REALTY PARTNERS LLC and/or ALL OCCUPANTS of the Subject Property.

(Exhibit 4).

6.                  The Justice Court’s judgment in this forcible detainer action was then appealed to the County Court at Law to be tried de novo.

(Exhibit 5).

Jun 9, 2023: Capital Fund Reit, LLC vs Torrin Williams, All Occupants 1205916: Judge Jim Kovach, Civil Court at Law No. 2

A trial was held before the presiding HARRIS County Court on 9/12/2023 and upon conclusion thereof the Presiding Judge entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and awarding to it possession of the Subject Property.

(Exhibit 5).

202360438 – WILLIAMS, TORRIN vs. CAPITAL FUND 1 LLC (Court 189, TAMIKA CRAFT-DEMMING) Filed 09/06/2023 – removed to federal court 09/18/2023

7.                  In response WILLIAMS filed the instant suit complaining of the foreclosure and a non-compliant and ineffective Lis Pendens.

(Exhibit 6).

This Lis Pendens is void and should be expunged by this Court.

202408720 – WILLIAMS, TORRIN vs. CAPITAL FUND 1 LLC (Court 129, JUDGE MICHAEL GOMEZ) Filed – 02/09/2024

III.             DEFENDANT MOVES TO EXPUNGE THE LIS PENDENS

8.                  Plaintiff’s entire lawsuit seems to be nothing more than an insincere attempt to prevent the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property. Having not prevented the foreclosure sale and then being a party to the post-foreclosure eviction matter, the Plaintiff improperly filed a Lis Pendens whose sole purpose is to cloud title.

Plaintiff’s Lis Pendens is void and improper for the reasons explained below and should be expunged by this Court.

A.                 LEGAL STAND FOR CREATING AND EXPUNGING A LIS PENDENS

9.             A Lis Pendens is a notice of litigation, placed in the real property records, asserting an interest in the property, and notifying third parties that ownership of the property is disputed.

In re Miller, 433 S.W.3d 82, 84 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding).

The doctrine is codified in Property Code section 12.007(a).

10.              The notice must contain certain information, including the style and cause number of the proceedings, the court in which it is pending, the names of the parties, identification of the kind of proceedings, and a description of the property affected.

Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 12.007(b).

In re Rescue Concepts, Inc., 498 S.W.3d 190, 193 (Tex. App. 2016).

11.              A notice of Lis Pendens may be expunged, however, if certain procedures are followed and the trial court determines that the party filing the notice either (1) has not pleaded a real-property claim or (2) has not demonstrated the probable validity of the claim. Id.

B.                 PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

i.                    Plaintiff did not name all the parties and failed to correctly identify the underling proceeding as required by the Rules

12.              The Lis Pendens did not name all parties to the lawsuit as required by Texas Property Code Section 12.007(b), did not name the case number or identify fully the correct Court.

Additionally, the Lis Pendens names two parties not a party to the suit – the Justice Court Judge and County Court Judge who presided over the post-foreclosure forcible detainer suit filed against Plaintiff and/or All Occupants of the Property.

ii.                  Plaintiff did not send copy to parties

13.              The Plaintiff did not send a copy of the Lis Pendens to Defendants as required by Texas Property Code Section 12.007(d).2

14.              If a party fails to comply with the requirements for establishing a valid Lis Pendens, then the party against whom the Lis Pendens was filed may have it expunged. See Texas Property Code 12.0071(c).3

C.                PLAINTIFF DID NOT PLEAD A REAL PROPERTY CLAIM

15.              Texas Property Code Section 12.0071 (c) requires that a trial court “shall” expunge a Lis Pendens if the pleading on which the notice is based does not have a real property claim. Id.

16.              Plaintiff’s original petition lists alleged cause of action under 18 U.S.C. 241, 18 U.S.C. 242, Violation of the IRS Code and Deprivation of Rights.

17.              The petition does not address the elements of the Plaintiff’s purported property claim, nor does it adduce facts in support of the purported claim. Conclusory statements, even if

2 “(d) Not later than the third day after the date a person files a notice for record under this section, the person must serve a copy of the notice on each party to the action who has an interest in the real property affected by the notice.” Tex. Prop. Code §12.007 (d).

3  “A trial court “shall” expunge the Lis Pendens if: (1) the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim; (2) the claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim; or (3) the person who filed the notice for record did not serve a copy of the notice on each party entitled to a copy under Section 12.007(d).” Tex. Prop. Code § 12.0071(c).

sworn, “are insufficient to establish the existence of a fact.”

Lenoir v. Marino, 469 S.W.3d 669, 686 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2015), aff’d, Marino v. Lenoir, No. 15-0610, 526 S.W.3d 403, 2017 WL 1553095 (Tex. Apr. 28, 2017).

A statement is conclusory if it provides no facts to support its conclusion.

Lenoir 469 S.W.3d at 686.

18.              Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to plead a cognizable property claim cannot be cured because the relief the relief Plaintiff sought has subsequently been rendered moot by the 3/07/2023 foreclosure sale.

D.                PLAINTIFF DID NOT ESTABLISH VALIDITY OF CLAIM

19.              The court still must expunge even if the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s claim is a real property claim.

20.              Texas Property Code section 12.0071(c) requires the trial court to order a notice of Lis Pendens expunged if the court determines that the claimant fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.

While the trial court may determine the sufficiency of the evidence, it has no discretion if the claimant provides no evidence.

21.              All of Plaintiff’s allegations that can any in way be connected to a real property claim, are predicated on Defendants allegedly failing to have the requisite authority to foreclosure and allegedly failing to provide Plaintiff with the predicate foreclosure notices.

22.              Here, the Plaintiff has submitted no evidence that proves the probable validity of its purported real property claim by the preponderance of the evidence standard required by the Texas Property Code.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proof.

IV.             CONCLUSION & PRAYER

The Notice of Lis Pendens filed by WILLIAMS in the real property records of HARRIS County, Texas at Instrument Doc# RP-2024-51113 is void and should be immediately cancelled by the Court.

Accordingly, Defendant herein respectfully request that the Court immediately cancel the Notice of Lis Pendens attached to this motion as Exhibit 6.

Respectfully Submitted,

JACK O’BOYLE & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Travis H. Gray

Travis H. Gray
Texas Bar No. 24044965
S.D. Bar No. 1115733
P.O. Box 815369
Dallas, TX 75381
P: 972.247-0653
F: 972.247-0642
travis@jackoboyle.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CAPITAL FUND REIT, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true, correct and complete copy of the foregoing document has been served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on April 4, 2024 to:

Torrin Williams 5657 Flack Drive
Houston, TX 77081 P:832.690.8470
E: legal@farmhouserealtypartners.com
Plaintiff, Pro Se

/s/ Travis H. Gray

Travis H. Gray

NOTICE OF APPEAL (REHEARING)

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Today, this 5th Day of April 2024, the Defendant gives Notice of Appeal of judge’s ruling .

The Plaintiff CAPITAL FUND REIT, LLC currently stands accused wrongful foreclosure.

U.S. Court (Civil Action 4:23-cv-03491) challenging title to subject property.

1. The Panel of Justices’ of this court’s decision to dismiss appellant’s appeal on the grounds that the subject of the appeal has become moot is in error.

The Panel of Justices has failed to acknowledge the beginning fact that The Plaintiff misrepresented themselves as legitimate Texas company. Capital Fund neglected to register with Texas Secretary of State, and Texas Business Organizations Code (“BOC”) requires foreign entities to file an application for registration with the Texas secretary of state if the entity is “transacting business”

In Texas. An LLC, foreign or domestic, must register with Secretary of State in order for the entity to avail itself of rights and privileges including the right to sue.

TX Bus & Com Code § 71.101, 71.103. (a) A person’s failure to comply with this chapter does not impair the validity of any contract or act by the party or prevent the party from defending any action or proceeding in any Court of this state, but the party may not maintain in a court of this state an action or proceeding arising out of a contract or act § 71.20

2. The Panel of Justices are in error in the matter of supersedeas.

The plaintiff did not set a supersedeas as they were well aware that it is NOT applicable in this case. This only applies when a suit for owed or back Rents.

This suit was for property possession only, which makes supersedeas not applicable.

3.   The Panel of Justices has chosen to ignore the fact that the Plaintiff willingly chose to violate federal law when they moved forward on the sale of the property while Chapter 7 Bankruptcy was in place.

4. This Panel of Justices are in error when deciding that these matters have become moot.

The above are vital issues to consider that this Panel of Justices have chosen to ignore, or at minimum failed to at least consider.

It seems to just be easier to call something moot instead of upholding the law.

This Court Lack Jurisdiction and subject matter which does not allow for the court to make decisions regarding Possession when title is at issue.

Therefore, defendant has moved for appeal to The Texas Supreme Court.

Defendant request appeal to The Texas Supreme Court. Defendant is in search of Justices that will uphold their oath and written Texas law, as all lower courts have decided to pick and choose which laws to follow at their own convenience at the cost of defendants well being.

Torrin Williams