Dark Money

Outlaw Judge Tami Craft Grants TRO Bond At Dec. 28, 2023 Hearing Against AVT Title Services, et al

The judicial misconduct continues as Wiseman obtains TRO against AVT Title Services denied 24 hrs earlier to pro se 85-yr-old Joanna Burke.

OUTLAW JUDGE TAMI CRAFT SELF-RECUSES AFTER VIOLATING EVERY TEXAS LAW, RULE AND CIVIL PROCEDURE

JAN 25, 2023

On Dec. 11, 2023, LIT’s founder, Mark Burke, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Tamika Craft-Demming, aka Tami Craft.

She had 3 days to decide – mandatory rule. Craft failed to do anything, rather blanking the motion. Thereafter, she went on a tirade of retaliatory acts.

First, the court refused to accept the filing, claiming the exhibits had to be renamed. Mark refused, citing to prior examples of naming convention for exhibits accepted by the court. The court would then rename all exhibits as “Exhibit”.

Then on Dec. 27, 2023 she’d be the assigned ancillary judge for party Joanna Burke in her request for a TRO in case; 202386973 – BURKE, JOANNA vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (Court 011). At the oral hearing she DENIED the TRO without reason, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the TRO. See signed ORDER denying TRO, dated Dec. 27, 2023.

Next, on submission dayJan. 8, 2024, Mark intervened in the matter;  202366239 – IDEA 247 INC vs. EPPS, RAYMOND (A/K/A RAY EPPS) (Court 189) and the court would GRANT Idea’s motion to STRIKE the INTERVENTION, despite the objections and request for hearings which were also blanked by the court. The order was signed at 3.35 pm.

Also, at 1.16 pm earlier that day, the court – in the case 202311266 – KRUCKEMEYER, ROBERT J vs. BLOGGER INC D/B/A LAWIN TEXAS.COM (Court 189) – would email Mark falsely claiming “The courts do not have a record of a Proposed Order for the following setting. Please file one or contact the court if there is one on file.”. This was a ruse and Mark wittingly chose to ignore the premeditated invite to respond.

As detailed below, today, Jan. 23, 2023, the court and Outlaw Craft would contradict their own rule by holding the hearing (no proposed order, no hearing) and 3 minutes later stating it was PASSED. Shortly thereafter, it is clear from the online docket, Craft would then enter her self recusal – once her trail of destruction was complete.

Let it be known, this is only the beginning, Outlaw Craft, not the end of your ongoing relationship with Mark Burke and LIT.

See; Barnhill v. Agnew, No. 12-12-00080-CV, at *2 (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2013)

(“When a party files a motion to recuse a trial judge, the responding judge, regardless of whether the motion complies with the requisites of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, must, within three business days after the motion is filed (1) sign and file with the clerk an order of recusal or (2) sign and file with the clerk an order referring the motion to the regional presiding judge.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1).

Failure to comply with the rule renders void any actions taken subsequent to the violation. 

In re A.R.,236 S.W.3d 460, 477 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).”)

Notably, no email from the Court advising of this sua sponte recusal

Absent from the Docket as at Jan. 23 - An Order re Self-Recusal by Outlaw Tami Craft

In Foreclosure, Your Attorney Can Be Counsel or Trustee, But Not Both

 EXCEPT IN THE BANANA REPUBLIC KNOWN AS TEXAS (LIT COMMENT)

by: Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

OCT 20, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 17, 2024

FIVE YEARS AGO, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AMENDED THE FORECLOSURE STATUTE TO PROHIBIT AN ATTORNEY WHO SERVES AS TRUSTEE OR SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE FROM REPRESENTING THE NOTEHOLDER OR THE BORROWER DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING.

In the old days, lenders often could rely on counsel simultaneously to conduct the foreclosure and represent their interests.

These days, a non-judicial foreclosure under the power-of-sale provision in a deed of trust requires two parties — a substitute trustee and lender’s counsel.

If there was any doubt about the new law, a recent decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals invalidated a foreclosure because the lender’s counsel also acted as trustee.

The Court of Appeals held that a trustee must be neutral and can’t also serve as counsel for the lender.

In 2014, Mickey, Wayne, and Sally Simmons refinanced a mortgage with the Groces.  Attorney Matthews closed the loan for the Groces.  Two years later, the Simmonses fell behind on their payments, and Matthews sent them a demand letter as counsel for the Groces. When the Simmonses failed to reinstate their loan, Matthews commenced a foreclosure special proceeding, filing a notice of hearing and other foreclosure pleadings that he signed as “Trustee.”  (Matthews was the original trustee under the deeds of trust.)  The Yadkin County Clerk of Court entered an order allowing a foreclosure sale.  Matthews, as Trustee, held the foreclosure sale, where the Groces placed the highest bid.  Matthews, as Trustee, then tendered a Trustee’s Deed to the Groces.

One year later, the Simmonses moved the court to set aside the foreclosure sale.  The Clerk denied the motion.  The Simmonses appealed.  The Court of Appeals held that the Clerk had abused her discretion and failed to follow the law, and directed the lower court to set aside the foreclosure.

The Court of Appeals held that Matthews committed errors of form and substance.  As to form, he did not include the statutorily-required statement of neutrality in the notice of foreclosure hearing. The trustee is a fiduciary to both the lender and the borrower.  He or she may not advocate for either side during the foreclosure hearing and must use diligence and fairness in conducting the sale.   It’s easy to understand why Matthews didn’t include the statement – he couldn’t make it because he wasn’t neutral.  He was also serving as counsel for the lender and had sent demand letters to the Simmonses.

As to substance, the Court of Appeals pointed to the law that took effect in 2017.  It clearly states: “An attorney who serves as the trustee or substitute trustee shall not represent either the noteholders or the interests of the borrower while initiating a foreclosure proceeding.”  It was indisputable that Matthews was doing double-duty as trustee and counsel for the noteholders.

This was an unforced error by Matthews and the Groces.  It appears from the facts they had the right to foreclose.  Perhaps they were nostalgic for the old ways when counsel routinely wore two hats during foreclosure.  The dual role was efficient, cost-effective, and fine for many foreclosures.  If the foreclosure was uncontested, or if the borrower attended hearings solely to seek a continuance (i.e., to provide time to refinance the debt), a lawyer could serve this dual role without violating his ethical obligations or his fiduciary duty.

But those days are over, and the Groces – almost three years after the foreclosure sale – now will need to start from scratch.  If they sold the property since then, they will have a real mess on their hands.  The takeaway for noteholders is to follow the law and not try to save money by having your counsel serve as trustee. Retain an independent substitute trustee and pay for their services.

Urban Row Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association

(4:24-cv-00021)

District Court, S.D. Texas

JAN 3, 2024 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 17, 2024
JAN 17, FEB 18, 2024

The Catholic Bandit Mark Cronenwett for the Wolves removes the case as representing BOTH US Bank (Trustee) and AVT (Substitute Trustee) as well.

The same day as dismissal with prejudice, home is listed on HAR

The real property records for the home show Kevin Zarate transfer the home to Urban with a note for $360,500 with RFLF 4 LLC on Nov. 1, 2022.

Less than 24 hrs after LIT called out corrupt Mackie Wolf and the Catholic Bandit Cronenwett, this happened:

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to an agreement reached between the parties, Plaintiff Urban Row Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust (“Defendant”), according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(c) and 41(a)(1)(ii), file this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice and show:

Plaintiff and Defendant respectfully request that the Court sign an order of voluntary dismissal as to the above-referenced action ordering:

  1. That this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal is granted; and
  2. That all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in this action are dismissed with prejudice; and
  3. That each party is to bear its respective costs and attorney’s

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate as provided above and pray that the Court sign an order granting such stipulation. Plaintiff and Defendant request all other relief to which they are entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Supplement

Removed to federal court

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:24-cv-00021

Urban Row Holdings, LLC v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association et al
Assigned to: Judge Andrew S Hanen

Case in other court:  269th District Court of Harris County, Texas, 23-88045

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

Date Filed: 01/03/2024
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 290 Real Property: Other
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Urban Row Holdings, LLC represented by Bruce W Akerly
Akerly Law PLLC
2785 Rockbrook Drive
Suite 201
Lewisville, TX 75067
469-444-1878
Fax: 469-444-1801
Email: bakerly@akerlylaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
U.S. Bank Trust National Association
as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust
represented by Mark Douglas Cronenwett
Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.
14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Ste. 900
Dallas, TX 75254
214-635-2650
Fax: 214-635-2686
Email: mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
AVT Title Services, LLC
Defendant
RF Mortgage Services Corporation

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
01/03/2024 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXSDC-31005031) filed by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2024)
01/03/2024 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee of Grove Funding I Trust, filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 01/03/2024)
01/04/2024 3 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 3/21/2024 at 10:30 AM by video before Magistrate Judge Peter Bray. (Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 01/04/2024)
01/05/2024 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Urban Row Holdings, LLC, filed.(Akerly, Bruce) (Entered: 01/05/2024)
01/05/2024 5 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Urban Row Holdings, LLC, filed.(Akerly, Bruce) (Entered: 01/05/2024)
01/11/2024 6 SUPPLEMENT to 1 Notice of Removal by U.S. Bank Trust National Association, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 01/11/2024)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
01/17/2024 14:58:23

202388045 –

URBAN ROW HOLDINGS LLC vs. U S BANK TRUST NA, AVT TITLE SERVICES, ET AL

(Court 269)

 

DEC 27, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 2, 2024
JAN 2, 2024

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

At the TRO hearing, the appointed ancillary judge was Tami Craft. The plaintiff is Robert Wiseman of Wiseman Homes, and related entity here, Urban Row Group. Defendants include AVT Title Services, LLC. Most of the docket is sealed, including petition, affidavit etc., in violation of Texas laws. Judge Craft granted the TRO.

American Express National Bank vs Robert Wiseman,Urban Row Holdings. LLC. ($55K debt collection)

1206080

JUN 13, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JAN 2, 2024
DEC 29, 2023

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

Outlaw Tamika Craft Grants Dismissal of Defamation Case Based on Long Arm Statute

Bernadette Rivera is an out-of state defendant and has never been a resident of Texas. Defendant does not own property or business in Texas.

Harris County Judge Tami Craft Caught Defaming a Lawyer in Good Standing With State Bar of Texas

Texas Lawyer “Andy Taylor is a real clown and I will forever recuse myself from ALL cases that he files…He’s a disgrace to the entire Bar”.

She’s Cancerous: Why Outlaw State Judge Tami Craft Should Be Disqualified and Removed from the Bench

Judge Tami Craft’s colorful past and present conduct is disqualifying in nature according to the rules of judicial conduct.

Outlaw Judge Tami Craft Grants TRO Bond At Dec. 28, 2023 Hearing Against AVT Title Services, et al
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top