The State of Texas Accuse Judge Tamika Craft of Engaging in Bribery and Extortion of MD Anderson

Dear Hon. George C. Hanks, Jr:

Pursuant to your request, please accept the following as Defendant The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center’s (“Defendant” or “MD Anderson”) status letter regarding the disposition of the EEO HR Regulations Open Case Log Reports.

Counsel for MD Anderson attempted to confer with counsel for Plaintiff Tamika Craft-Demming regarding the disposition of the EEO HR Regulations Open Case Log Reports on January 22-23, 24, 2020.

On January 24, 2020, counsel for both parties reached a tentative solution regarding the disposition of the reports, but they were not able to finalize an agreement due to the unavailability of counsel for Plaintiff.

Accordingly, counsel for the undersigned will be required to travel from Austin to Houston to attend the hearing scheduled for Monday, January 27, 2020, at an unnecessary expense to the State. Since an agreement has not been finalized, the undersigned counsel will not include it herein.

Plaintiff’s contention:

Plaintiff’s prior position on the disposition of the reports was that Plaintiff’s counsel has a duty to retain court documents pursuant to the State Bar (Dkt. 27). Plaintiff’s counsel contended that she would retain any such documents for a period of years and ultimately have them destroyed in the ordinary course of business (Dkt. 27).

Defendant’s contention:

MD Anderson respectfully requests the Court to order counsel for Plaintiff to destroy all originals and copies of the EEO HR Regulations Open Case Log Reports that Plaintiff unlawfully took from MD Anderson beyond the scope and duration of her employment.

These reports were produced by Plaintiff in discovery as bates-numbered documents “CRAFT DEMMING 000149-213.”

These reports were designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the Joint Protective Order (Dkt. 33).

The reports contain the names of MD Anderson employees, the status and details of their EEO case, and work to be performed on the case.

See Exhibit A (copy of EEO HR Regulations Open Case Log Reports filed under seal).

Pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Joint Protective Order, “[d]esignated material shall not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the litigation of this action.”

The Parties have since settled all issues and the Court has granted the Order to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice (Dkt. 45).

Pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Joint Protective Order, “[u]pon termination of this action, all Designated Material and copies thereof shall be returned promptly (and in no event later than forty-five (45) days after entry of final judgment, returned to the producing party, or certified as destroyed to counsel of record for the party that produced the Designated Material, or, in the case of deposition testimony regarding designated exhibits, counsel of record for the Designating Person.

Alternatively, the receiving party shall provide to the Designating Person a certification that all such materials have been destroyed.”

Although Plaintiff produced the EEO HR Regulations Open Case Log Reports to MD Anderson, the confidential reports are the property of MD Anderson and similar to paragraph 17, the Court should order that all originals and copies shall be

(1) promptly returned to MD Anderson no later than 45 days after entry of final judgment;

or

(2) counsel for Plaintiff shall certify that all originals and copies have been destroyed.

MD Anderson contends that Plaintiff engaged in self-help discovery by unlawfully taking the EEO HR Regulations Open Case Log Reports in order to use them in her discrimination litigation against MD Anderson.

Plaintiff had no reason to have personal possession of these reports outside her official duties as an EEO and HR Regulations Specialist.

Nor possession of reports that were produced after she had already gone on leave on July 15, 2016.

Yet, Plaintiff was in possession of reports dated as recently as March 29, 2017.

See Exhibit A.

The reports were taken in violation of MD Anderson’s confidentiality policies. Specifically, MD Anderson Institutional Policy #ADM0264 and #ADM0389.

See Exhibit B (MD Anderson policies).

Pursuant to policy, it is a violation to possess employee data outside the completion of official duties. Such information may only be removed from MD Anderson facilities as required for official duties.

All such material or reproductions must be immediately returned when the task requiring removal from MD Anderson is completed or upon termination of employment.

Plaintiff was notified that her position had been selected for elimination under a reduction in workforce on January 5, 2017, with an effective date of March 6, 2017.

Additionally, MD Anderson contends that some of the individuals identified in the reports may also be patients at MD Anderson.

It is a violation of policy for unauthorized persons to possess protected health information, which is regarded as confidential information.

The reports also contain the referral notification numbers, case id numbers, report numbers, and EEOC charge numbers that can be linked with each of the individuals identified within the reports, which is considered confidential information.

Moreover, the reports contain sensitive information regarding the names of complainants, respondents, and witnesses regarding employment matters, which MD Anderson policy requires special precautions to prevent disclosure that might harm or embarrass a patient, employee, or the institution. MD Anderson policy requires all workforce members to conform to the Disposal of Confidential and/or Sensitive Information Policy (UTMDACC Institutional Policy #ADM0389) to avoid disciplinary action up to and including dismissal (Disciplinary Action Policy (UTMDACC Institutional Policy # ADM0256)).

The confidential information contained in the reports can only be released with approval through the Public Information Act governance process or through MD Anderson’s Human Resources Operations Department.

Plaintiff did not obtain approval prior to taking personal possession of the reports. Plaintiff’s counsel is under no obligation to retain these confidential reports that Plaintiff unlawfully took from MD Anderson.

MD Anderson policy provides that such information should be disclosed only to individuals who have a business need to know.

Plaintiff’s counsel is not one of these individuals. This matter is further complicated by the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel now has access to personal information regarding potential clients that she could use for her own business purposes.

Should Plaintiff’s counsel need to retain anything for compliance with the State Bar, which she has not shown, she may retain an inventory generally identifying the documents returned with no personal identifiable information.

Respectfully submitted,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
JEFFREY C. MATEER
First Assistant Attorney General
DARREN L. MCCARTY
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
THOMAS A. ALBRIGHT
Chief, General Litigation Division

_/s/ Summer R. Lee___________________
SUMMER R. LEE
Assistant Attorney General
Texas Bar No. 24046283
Southern District No. 1840348
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
(512) 475-4031 | FAX: (512) 320-0667
summer.lee@oag.texas.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Case removed to federal court.

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 day – Jan. 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.).”)