LIT COMMENTARY
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN TEXAS AND THE UNITED STATES
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.
Returning to this published foreclosure case, Texas homeowner Veronica Maple purchased her current residence in 2009.
In 2022, she was arrested in Operation Lone Star for trafficking $222k in laundered money for the Mexican cartel. She was arrested, jailed, released and never indicted or charged with a crime.
Instead, her defense lawyer and the Mexican cartel agreed to forfeit the drug-money, less $6.5k which the DOJ agreed to in order that her defense lawyer earned his high commission in fees.
Recently, she was notified that her own home would be on the auction block on the first Tuesday in October, 2023. She retained counsel and they filed in Sept. to stop foreclosure and obtained a $1,500 bond and TRO.
Foreclosure mill lawyers Hirsch removed the case to federal court where is was quickly agreed to dismiss the case – notably without prejudice. Texas creditor rights lawyer Michael Hord is not known to be so generous. If a homeowner wants to dismiss when its been removed, its normally WITH prejudice to refiling.
That leads LIT to make the assumption that either
(i) she’s going to pay the debt owed to Deutsche Bank from dirty money which that German Bank is well-known it cleans regularly for criminal organizations
and/or
(ii) Chief Judge Randy Crane advises Hirsch and Hord who he’s dealin’ with in this case
and/or
(iii) they’ve reached a “mutual settlement” – certainly post judgment, Hord’s not rushed to foreclose as the property is not listed for foreclosure at the time of publishing this article.
It’s also of note, we could not locate a mugshot for Veronica Mafle pertaining to her arrest in 2022. Veronica Mafle is named on Hidalgo CAD as owner of several properties, none of which LIT assumes were purchased with any dirty cartel money, of course.
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 pic.twitter.com/3TBxGtLIgm
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 9, 2024
Mafle v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee,
in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank
(7:23-cv-00347)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Chief Judge Randy Crane
OCT 9, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 11, 2024
FEB 11, 2024
NO FORECLOSURE AUCTION LISTED FOR MAFLE’S HOME IN EITHER FEBRUARY OR MARCH OF 2024 AND VERONICA MAFLE WAS NEVER CRIMINALLY CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME BY THE STATE OF TEXAS RELATED TO HER MONEY TRAFFICKING ARREST
Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005- WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank National Trust Company (“Trustee” or “Defendant”) hereby removes this case from Cause No. C-4070-23-M filed in the 476th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division.
Defendant denies deny the claims and damages alleged in Plaintiff’s Original Petition and file this Notice of Removal without waiving any claims, defenses, exceptions, or obligations that may exist in their favor in state or federal court.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On or September 29, 2023 Plaintiff Veronica Mafle (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing her Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, (the “Complaint”), Cause No. C-4070-23-M filed in the 476th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas (the “State Court Action”).
See Exhibit C-1.
2. The State Court Action was filed for purposes of delaying a scheduled foreclosure sale on real property that serves as collateral for a first lien mortgage held by Defendant. See Exhibit C-1. Plaintiff obtained an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order on October 2, 2023.
See Exhibit C-2.
3. Defendant filed its Answer in the State Court Action on October 9, 2023.
See Exhibit C-6.
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Notice of Removal is timely filed within thirty (30) days of Defendants’ first receipt of the initial state court pleading.1
II. PLEADINGS AND NOTICE TO STATE COURT
5. True and correct copies of all pleadings, process, orders and other filings in the State Court Action are being filed along with this Notice of Removal as required by 28 U.S.C.
§1446(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1446(d), written notice of this removal is being served on Plaintiff and filed in the State Court Action.
III. BASIS FOR REMOVAL
6. This action is within the original jurisdiction of the United States District Court based on diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Furthermore, venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division, under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a) because the state court where the State Court Action has been pending is located in this district.
IV. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
A. Citizenship of the Parties.
7. This civil action also involves a controversy between citizens of different states.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas in that she was residing and domiciled in Texas at all material times.2
8. Defendant, Trustee is not a citizen of Texas. When determining citizenship of a trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, it is the citizenship of the trustee which controls, not
1 Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. Nippon Tel. & Tel. Corp., 478 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir. 2007).
2 See Complaint at ¶ 3.
the citizenship of the beneficiaries of the trust.3
9. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is the trustee of the subject traditional trust and is now and was at the commencement of this action and all intervening times, a national banking association that has its principal office in California, as stated in its charter.
Therefore, as a national banking association organized under the laws of the United States, Deutsche Bank and thus Trustee are citizens of California for diversity purposes.4
10. Since Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and Defendant is a citizen of a state other than Texas, there is complete diversity of citizenship among the parties.5
B. Amount in Controversy.
11. This case places an amount in controversy that exceeds the $75,000 threshold. A party may remove an action from state court to federal court if the action is one over which the federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction.6
Such jurisdiction exists as long as the parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.7
12. When ascertaining the amount in controversy in the context of a motion to remand, district courts query whether a plaintiff’s state court petition, as it existed at the time of removal, alleged damages in excess of the statutory minimum.8
If the petition does not allege a specific amount of damages, the removing party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
The removing party satisfies this burden if the court finds it “facially apparent” that the plaintiff’s claimed damages likely exceed $75,000.00.9
3 Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 464, 100 S. Ct. 1779, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980).
4 28 U.S.C. § 1348; Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 307 (2006).
5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1).
6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
7 See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
8 See S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 492 (5th Cir.1996).
9 Allen v. R & H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir.1995).
13. In this instance, Plaintiff’s Complaint makes it apparent that Plaintiff’s claimed damages exceed $75,000.00 given that Plaintiff seeks to stop Trustee from foreclosing on property located at 1008 Ragland St. Mission, Texas 78572 (the “Property”).10
The value of the Property exceeds $75,000.00.
See Exhibit D.
14. The value of the Property according to the Hidalgo County Appraisal District is no less than $273,564.00 for the tax year of 2023.
See Exhibit D.
15. Federal jurisdiction can be established by facts alleged in the petition for removal that support a conclusion that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.11
“In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.”12
Plaintiff seeks relief which if successful would preclude enforcement of the contractual loan obligations and Trustee’s right to foreclose on the Property.
16. “[W]hen the validity of a contract or a right to property is called into question in its entirety, the value of the property controls the amount in controversy.”13
“[T]he amount in controversy, in an action for declaratory or injunctive relief, is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented.”14 Also, where a party seeks to quiet title or undo a foreclosure, the object of the litigation is the property at issue and the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the property.15
The value of the subject property in this instance for diversity purposes is no less than $273,564.00 per the records of the Hidalgo County Appraisal District for
10 See Complaint at ¶¶22-31 and Prayer.
11 Menendez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 364 Fed. Appx. 62, 66, 2010 WL 445470, 2 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (citing Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas, Inc., 351 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir. 2003)).
12 Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347, 97 S. Ct. 2434, 53 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1977).
13 Waller v. Prof’l Ins. Corp., 296 F.2d 545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 1961).
14 Webb v. Investacorp, Inc., 89 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 1996), citing Leininger v. Leininger, 705 F.2d 727 (5th Cir. 1983).
15 See Berry v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 2009 WL 2868224, at *2 (S.D. Tex. August 27, 2009).
2023.
See Exhibit D. The value of the Property in this instance satisfies the jurisdictional amount of $75,000.00 for diversity purposes.
V. JURY DEMAND
18. Plaintiff has made no known jury demand in the State Court Action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant asks the Court to remove this suit to the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Michael F. Hord Jr.
Michael F. Hord Jr.
(Lead Counsel)
Texas Bar No. 00784294
Federal I.D. No. 16035
Eric C. Mettenbrink
(Attorney to be Noticed)
Texas Bar No. 24043819
Federal I.D. No. 569887
HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C.
1415 Louisiana, 36th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002-2772
Telephone 713-220-9182
Facsimile 713-223-9319
Email: mhord@hirschwest.com
Email: emettenbrink@hirschwest.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 9th day of October 2023, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Removal was forwarded as follows:
Juan G. Ramos, Jr.
Juan Ramos Law Group
4415 N. McColl Road McAllen,
Texas 78504 Via ECF and E-Mail
/s/ Michael F. Hord Jr.
Michael F. Hord Jr.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (McAllen)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 7:23-cv-00347
| Mafle v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank Assigned to: Chief Judge Randy Crane Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
Date Filed: 10/09/2023 Date Terminated: 12/01/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Veronica Mafle | represented by | Juan G. Ramos , Jr. Juan Ramos Law Group, PLLC 4415 N McColl Road McAllen, TX 78504 956-630-7670 Fax: 956-630-7567 Email: frontdesk@jramoslawgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank | represented by | Michael F Hord , Jr Hirsch Westheimer PC 1415 Louisiana 36th Floor Houston, TX 77002-2772 713-220-9182 Fax: 713-223-9319 Email: mhord@hirschwest.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDEric Craig Mettenbrink Hirsch and Westheimer 1415 Louisiana 36th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713-223-5181 Fax: 713-223-9319 Email: emettenbrink@hirschwest.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 10/09/2023 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ATXSDC-30630861) filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit C-1, # 5 Exhibit C-2, # 6 Exhibit C-3, # 7 Exhibit C-4, # 8 Exhibit C-5, # 9 Exhibit C-6, # 10 Exhibit D, # 11 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2023) |
| 10/09/2023 | 2 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank, filed.(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 10/09/2023) |
| 10/10/2023 | 3 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 12/6/2023 at 09:30 AM before Chief Judge Randy Crane (by Chief Judge Randy Crane) Parties notified.(KarenLLopez, 7) (Entered: 10/10/2023) |
| 11/30/2023 | 4 | STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee, in trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL3, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL3 improperly named as Deutsch Bank, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Hord, Michael) (Entered: 11/30/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 02/11/2024 09:44:27 |
Here’s one AWOL delivery @USPSHelp pic.twitter.com/QgRvtg1OWN
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) February 8, 2024
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS
VERONICA MAFLE AND HER TWO HUNDRED TWENTY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($222,220.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
MAR 7 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: FEB 11, 2024
FEB 11, 2024
VERONICA MAFLE WAS NEVER CRIMINALLY CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME BY THE STATE OF TEXAS RELATED TO HER MONEY TRAFFICKING ARREST AND ATTEMPTING TO TRANSPORT $222K TO THE MEXICAN CARTEL (NARCOTIC MONEY LAUNDERING)
As Safe As Auschwitz: The Nazi German Deutsche Bank’s Greatest Coup In American History
US Gov. partners with Home Thievin’ Nazi German Deutsche Bank, which stores in excess of 21 million homeowners legal documents.
We’re Talkin’ Clerks and Impartiality. One Judge is Talkin’ at the ABA about Nazi Judges
The Clerk has denied the Burkes’ first request for an extension of time in this case. The decision is unfair, based on the history of the Clerks’ decisions on motions relative to time.
OCWEN Financial’s Current and Past Financial Scandals; A History of Fraud, Corruption and Support of US Government. Now Ask Yourselves Why is Donald Trump’s Cabinet is Full of Bankers and NonBank Directors and Foreclosure Kings Who Evicted Citizens and Homeowners Illegally for Financial Greed?
The CFPB filed a proposed court order requiring Ocwen Financial Corporation to provide $2 billion in principal reduction to underwater borrowers. CFPB, State Authorities Order Ocwen to Provide $2 Billion in Relief to Homeowners for Servicing Wrongs.
