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

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

JAN 23, 2023

DEFENDANT’s VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE TAMI CRAFT AKA TAMIKA CRAFT-DEMMING

DEC 11, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 11, 2023

“No woman is allowed to be a judge in [her] own cause, because [her] interest would certainly bias [her] judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt [her] integrity.”

The Federalist No. 10, at 79 (James Madison), cited by then Supreme Court Justice Don Willett, in Patel v. Tex. Dep’t of Licensing, 469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015), currently a sitting 5th Circuit Judge.

Tami Craft, also known as Tamika Craft-Demming, boasts extensive experience in the legal community, having served as a private lawyer,  judge-appointed arbitrator, and special commissioner in state courts over many years.

In 2022, she successfully ran for a judgeship and assumed her position on the bench at Court 189 at the beginning of this year.[1]

In re Karnes Heffner, No. 02-21-00419-CV, at *13 (Tex. App. June 8, 2023) the appellate court stated;

“Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a provides that a party can move to recuse or disqualify a judge who is sitting in a case.

Tex. R. Civ .P. 18a(a).

Appellant did not file a motion to recuse or disqualify the trial judge.

“The procedural requirements for recusal are mandatory and failure to file a proper motion will result in waiver of the recusal issue on appeal.” ”

Mark Stephen Burke (“Mark”) herein files his formal motion to disqualify Judge Tami Craft.

FACTS

Pro Se Plaintiff’s Short-lived Appearance by Counsel

When Robert “Bob” Kruckemeyer and his legally non-existent law firm initiated legal proceedings against Mark Burke and his media entity, Blogger Inc., the case fell under the jurisdiction of Judge Craft.

It was during the early stages of these proceedings when former Texas Bar President and personal injury attorney Randall “Randy” Sorrels and his law firm appeared for Bob.

It is known that Bob and Randy maintain a close personal relationship, so much so that Bob lists Randy as one of his references on his resume.

Mark questioned the authenticity of Bob’s appointment, as it was evident the record and the timeline indicated that Bob was filing all of Randy’s alleged pleadings and furthermore, at no point was Randy formally lead counsel in these proceedings.

The Secret Relationship Uncovered

Mark, acting as a diligent investigator, uncovered not only a close relationship between Bob and Randy but also a significant connection between Randy and Judge Craft.

This relationship extended beyond the confines  of Court 189, as Randy was found defending a family member of Judge Craft, purportedly her son, in an auto-accident case.

See; 202266491 – DEMMING, JHALEN vs. ROAD MONSTER EXPRESS LLC (D/B/A HUSAM HUSANI) (Court 127, Judge Ravi Sandill).

Furthermore, Randy was involved in assisting Judge Craft in her own auto-accident case, where her purported mother, Pamela Craft, served as a co-plaintiff.

See; 201972692 – CRAFT, PAMELA vs. AUTO CLUB MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Court 164, JUDGE THORNTON);

“As Judge Tami Craft and Pamela Craft’s Auto Accident Case Collapsed, In Stepped Randy Sorrels With an Offer”, published on LIT, May 25, 2023.

Adding to the complexity, records show that Randy’s law firm made a contribution of $789.18 to Judge Craft’s judicial campaign fund on August 3, 2022.

“Attorney Randy Sorrels and his Client, Felon Jhalen Demming Walk Into His Mom’s Court in Harris County: Randy Sorrels also appeared for opposing side in auto case involving the Judge, Tamika Craft Demming and her Mother – but only to aid Judge”, Aug. 21, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “SORRELS CLIENTS CRAFT AND DEMMING”).

The interconnections between the parties involved raise sufficient questions about the impartiality and fairness of the legal proceedings in this case to mandate disqualification.

TCPA Statute: Judge Craft Not Protected by Judicial Immunity

Texas laws and rules provide near absolute judicial immunity to Judges related to their performance from the bench related to civil proceedings.

However, there are instances where judicial immunity can be pierced.

Here, Judge Craft refused to provide a date for Mark’s first TCPA hearing within the statutory timeline.

Mark made many formal requests and cited recent appellate authority in support of his claim that Judge Craft had a duty to provide an oral hearing date within the allowed statutory timeframe.

Mark is a litigant and has no authority to command a judge to act within the statutory guidelines permitted.

This violation of Mark’s constitutional right to due process is a not protected by judicial immunity.

Nor is it moot for harmless error as a result of Mark’s renewed TCPA motion, as Bob seeks at least $25,000 in attorney fees as a sanction for the alleged delay in these proceedings due to the TCPA motion.

Judge Craft’s Many Unsuccessful Lawsuits

In a published 2020 article by the Houston Chronicle discussing Tami Craft’s appellate judicial campaign, the journalist stated “Tamika “Tami” Craft has been in court far more often handling her own cases”, endorsing her opponent;

(EXHIBIT “HOUSTON CHRONICLE CRAFT ARTICLE”).

When reviewing Judge Craft’s pre-bench litigious history in both state and federal court, she failed to muster a solitary victory in her personal lawsuits.

It was during one of these proceedings, and with the assistance of recent State Bar of Texas President Randy Sorrels, Judge Craft would abandon her active auto-accident case in this courthouse.

Allegations of Theft, Bribery and Extortion

The [removed] federal case was alarming.

It appears that she departed from her own practice and  legal profession for a position with MD Anderson Cancer Center, however, that working relationship was soon tarnished, and she sued the hospital.

As the hospital is government and tax-payer funded, the Texas Attorney General’s Office stepped in, and their allegations were shocking.

See; Craft-Demming v. MD Anderson Cancer Center (4:18-cv-03296) District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge George C. Hanks, Jr.;

“The State of Texas Accuse Judge Tamika Craft of Engaging in Bribery and Extortion of MD Anderson”, July 14, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “CRAFT’s THEFT, BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION”).

Judge Tami Craft Challenges Relationships

A review of her online personal life proves she’s filed divorce from her husband, not once but at least twice, the most recent divorce proceedings ending very recently, indicating she’s even willing to terminate the closest of companions to retain her own authority.

See; 202280126 – CRAFT-DEMMING, TAMIKA vs. DEMMING, MARCUS (Court 312, Judge Teresa Waldrop); Dismissed for want of prosecution on March 13, 2023.

The divorce decree is recorded with the Harris County Clerk’s Office, file no. RP-2023-346063, docketed on Sep. 8, 2023.

What is notable about this latest divorce timeline is on June 21, 2023, there’s a $10 conveyance of title to property in the joint names of Tamika Craft-Demming and Marcus Demming, RP-2023-231303.

The events of this transaction are documented on LIT; “Fire Sale: Judge Tamika Craft and Marcus Demming Purchase Kingwood Property for $10 Bucks per Cash Deed” July 14, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “FIRE SALE TEN BUCKS”).

Notably absent from Harris County property records is a transfer of ownership to a sole name as related to this property since the Sep. 8, 2023 divorce decree.

Judge Craft is Conflict-Prone

Judge Tami Craft’s persona confirms that when hired as an employee, those relationships have quickly soured.

As the evidence and litigation history reveals, there is the MD Anderson case, followed shortly thereafter by  another; 202076880 – CRAFT-DEMMING, TAMIKA vs. MCKENNEY MCCLELLAND PLLC (Court 334).

The complaint reveals Tami Craft was hired Nov. 11, 2019. She was terminated by the law firm on Feb. 7,  2020, less than three months later.

As a result, she  retaliated and sued her former law firm for discrimination.

Court records indicate she never prevails in her personal lawsuits.

These facts are documented on Mark’s legal blog at LawsinTexas.com and in exhibits presented with this motion.

Obviously, given Judge Craft’s online persona and her orders to-date in these proceedings, Mark’s position is compromised by Judge Craft, including her conflicts of interest, statutory and due process violations in this case.

Combined with her alleged fraudulent and criminal behavior as revealed in past litigation and real estate dealings, her disqualification is necessary for Mark to receive judicial fairness and an opportunity to be heard in these proceedings.

She’s Shown Bias and Prevented Mark from Being Heard

Mark will be unable to obtain a fair and impartial hearing or tribunal before Judge Craft.

Despite Mark raising these issues repeatedly in pleadings, alleging that Judge Craft was “constitutionally disqualified”, Judge Tami Craft has elected not to self-recuse.

Based on the irrefutable evidence and facts presented, Judge Craft’s refusal to remove herself from these proceedings is unethical and unconstitutional.

Taken individually or as a whole, there is more than sufficient evidence confirming the appearance of bias, and which mandates disqualification of Judge Craft.

Judge Craft’s Persona Not Suitable for the Bench

Judge Craft’s past and present personal life is riddled with legal and judicial opinions claiming, amongst many allegations, theft of highly sensitive and private hospital records

(which is equivalent to the alleged acts by former President Donald Trump, who on trial in federal court in Florida, facing 40 charges)

fraud, bribery, and much more.

Her online persona is deemed domineering, retaliatory and intemperate.

Since her appointment to the bench, it appears her personal life continues to be in complete turmoil, which can only impact her ability to govern from the bench.

Illustratively, there’s a Protective order issued against Ms. Johnson on August 4, 2023 upon filing by Judge Craft and sealed from the public in civil proceeding 202345700 – CRAFT DEMMING, TAMIKA vs. JOHNSON, NATASHA SHEREE (Court 280).

It is more than fair to say that Judge Tami Craft’s colorful past and present conduct is disqualifying in nature, according to the rules of judicial conduct.

Plaintiff Highlights LIT’s Articles about Judge Tami Craft

In Bob’s pleadings for his now cancelled hearing for temporary injunctive relief, he willfully incorporated articles about Judge Craft and in his response, Mark stated;

“In Paragraph 24 of the Second Amended Petition, Bob’s hostility towards the Defendants becomes evident as he references three articles involving Judge Craft, attempting to loosely associate them with his own persona.

This deliberate and misleading effort to prompt the court to surpass the scope of requested injunctive relief is both premeditated and deceptive.

A comprehensive review of the articles, alongside the case docket, clarifies the motive behind LIT’s publication.

As an investigative blog, it substantiates the alleged conflict of interest involving Bob’s lead counsel and friend, Randy Sorrels.

The articles reveal Randy’s representation of Judge Craft’s son in a Harris County District Court case and his unauthorized involvement in another case with Judge Craft, including a family member, likely her mother, Pamela Craft, as a co-plaintiff.

The conflict of interest, coupled with donations to Judge Craft, is evident, and this objection has been previously raised by the media Defendants.

The inclusion of these articles by Bob as grounds for removal from LIT’s blog is made in bad faith, especially considering the prior pleadings addressing this objection.

Notably, Randy has chosen to withdraw as lead counsel following this investigation, although the sincerity of this decision is questioned by the Defendants based on facts presented in earlier pleadings.

In summary, none of the articles are pertinent to the injunctive relief sought.”.

In Mark’s extensive online investigations, it becomes evident that Judge Craft faced unique criminal allegations directed at her by the State of Texas in her MD Anderson discrimination litigation, a situation unparalleled among judges scrutinized by LIT.

A review of her remaining legal disputes also reaffirms an uncommon legal predicament which sets her apart from the majority of judges under LIT’s investigation:

judges typically lack such a scandalous public record of lawsuits documenting clear, obvious, and ongoing personal turmoil.

These distinctive circumstances give rise to significant concerns regarding Tami Craft, also known as Tamika Craft-Demming, and her suitability to maintain a position on the bench, when combined with her well-recognized combative personality.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

“The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one’s freedoms is to choose one’s attitude in any given circumstance.”

― Viktor E. Frankl

Ex Parte Communications

Definition: Ex parte communications refer to conversations or interactions that occur between parties involved in a legal proceeding with a decision-making authority, such as a judge, without the presence or knowledge of the other parties involved in the case.

These communications typically take place outside of formal court hearings and involve one party presenting information, arguments, or evidence to the decision-maker without the opposing party being present or having an opportunity to respond.

The term is commonly used in the legal context, and the idea behind restricting ex parte communications is to ensure fairness and transparency in legal proceedings.

All parties in a case are generally entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, and ex parte communications may be seen as potentially prejudicial or one-sided.

Application: In these proceedings, Judge Craft, without disclosure and before Mark uncovered it, maintained an ex parte relationship with Randy Sorrels during his appearance in these proceedings.

This is equal to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s non-disclosure of his relationship with Harlan Crow, or the thousands of cases federal judges decided, whilst they had shareholdings in one side of the table’s company before them.

After intense media attention and investigative reporting which included articles on LIT, the public outrage was overwhelming.

“Billionaire Harlan Crow Invests In Texas Property, Politics and Bells”, Jan. 25, 2022, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “BILLIONAIRE HARLAN CROW”);

“In Light of All the Judicial Misconduct Now Publicly Documented, Will Judicial Immunity Be Repealed?”, Oct. 8, 2021, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IMMUNITY”).

This prompted congress to insist on new ethics codes, discussions on term limits, and reduction of judicial immunity.

In short, a return to how the framers initially intended before the many amendments which have been introduced: amendments which made immunity “absolute” and absurd, allowing judges to behave maliciously and corruptly from the bench.

However, despite enactment, federal judges are visibly violating the new rules as applied to them, as witnessed recently in more published articles on LIT;

“Corrupt Federal Judges are Now Handing Cases to Judicial Colleagues to Affirm” Oct. 24, 2021, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “CORRUPT FEDERAL JUDGES”);

“Legal Anarchy Unfolds in Minnesota as Federal Judges Brush Aside Federal Rules or Laws Applicable to Them”, Sep. 7, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “LEGAL ANARCHY MN”);

“Financial Crimes: High-Powered Lawyers and Federal Judges Collude to Silence Uninvited Intervenor”, Oct. 21, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT  “FINANCIAL CRIMES FEDERAL CHIEF BK JUDGE”).

Returning to the case here, once Mark uncovered the non-disclosed relationships between Judge Craft and Randy Sorrels, he formally requested the judge self-recuse.

The judge did not self-recuse or rebut the allegations[2].

See; Carrillo, Matter of, 542 S.W.2d 105, 109 (Tex. 1976);

“We find that the preponderance of the evidence shows that Judge Carrillo was so involved …that he should have recused himself voluntarily.”

In retaliation, Judge Craft signed an order “substituting” ex State Bar of Texas President Randy Sorrels from the case, despite the blatant conflict of interest.

See; ORDER SIGNED SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEY OF RECORD, Nov. 2, 2023, Image no. 111135955.

Furthermore, Mark pointed out that Randy was never formally proffered as lead counsel as detailed in his “Motion to Disqualify Randall O. Sorrels of Sorrels Law as Lead Counsel for Plaintiff”, Aug. 21, Image No. 109838421.

In Mark’s motion, he presented the judge with the laws and rules pertaining to disqualification, judicial conduct and ethical canons;

“Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b(a); In this context, the focus here is on the judge’s association with counsel and her family.

See; TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (As amended by the Supreme Court of Texas through January 21, 2022);

In this context, the focus here is on the judge’s association with counsel and her family. See; TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT (As amended by the Supreme Court of Texas through January 21, 2022).”.

The judge was not moved by the motion.

As detailed, Randy followed up on Mark’s motion to disqualify with his own “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel” on Aug. 24, Image No. 109902313, which would be granted by court order.

There is no doubt Randy’s decision to withdraw was in part due to Mark’s reminder in his pleading that Randy’s former law firm successfully represented the Burke family in another civil matter.

However, Randy must have obtained his former law firm’s client list, as he would violate privacy rules and the CAN-SPAM Act when he emailed John Burke without consent, alerting him of the creation of Sorrel Law, as published on LIT;

Sorrels Law Violates Email CAN-SPAM Act. Secondly, Did Abraham Watkins Approve Use of Their Client List?, March 4, 2021, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “CAN-SPAM-SORRELS”).

Additionally, there’s the fact Randy’s law firm made a contribution of $789.18 to Judge Craft’s judicial campaign fund on August 3, 2022.

Mark recognizes that opinions have stated this is not reason alone to disqualify a judge.

State v. Aktiengesellschaft, No. 21-0130, at *1 (Tex. Nov. 18, 2022)

(“Texas courts have similarly concluded that a single campaign contribution to a judge, in the absence of other compounding factors, does not present an “appearance of bias and prejudice” that would rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

See Texaco, 729 S.W.2d at 844-45. 19”).

Yet the Texaco authority was discounted by Judge Marc W. Brown, who was invited to preside over the Ken Paxton impeachment proceedings, withdrawing from the assignment after a single $250 contribution he made towards former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman’s campaign to unseat Paxton, and to ensure there were “no distractions or allegations of favoritism or personal bias”, as detailed in Mark’s motion.

This also defies Hon. Dan Hinde’s decision to deny Mark Burke’s case against Judge Reeder and Judge Marc Hinde’s wife, Susan Brown[3], the administrative judge who preposterously assigned Hon. Dan Hinde as judge, and  who acted as private counsel in her own defense of the severed proceedings;

202268307A – BURKE, MARK vs. REEDER, LAUREN HONORABLE THE (Court 234),

dismissing the case with prejudice.

It was a staged and schemed tribunal which defied the basic tenets of the rule of law.

These tenets collectively contribute to the rule of law, creating a framework that supports a just and orderly society where laws are respected and applied consistently.

None of these tenets have been endorsed or implemented by the judiciary in Mark’s proceedings and the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion is controlling, which does support Caperton, in effect  admitting Mark’s arguments constitute[d] valid reasoning for disqualification;

State v. Aktiengesellschaft, No. 21-0130, at *1 (Tex. Nov. 18, 2022)

(“Blankenship, by contrast, was under no duty to support Justice Benjamin’s campaign. His participation in assisting Justice Benjamin in winning election to the West Virginia court was voluntary.

In the Court’s view, Blankenship’s participation reasonably could be perceived as having been motivated by his personal financial interest in having the Massey judgment reversed.

See Caperton, 556 U.S. at 886.”).

The same applies here.

Summation: Judge Craft should never have signed the order or presided over the matter, even if Randy was departing from the case.

As the appearance of bias was overwhelming, at a minimum she should have requested the case be reassigned to another district judge.

Mark contends the current signed orders by Judge Craft are legally void.

And, as Mark has already shown, Judge Tami Craft’s disposition and persona rejects everyone who questions her decision-making and authority.

She wholeheartedly believes she is above the law, and with good reason considering the absolute protections afforded judges.

However, this perceived notion is diminishing every day as judges realize public approval and trust in the judiciary is at a record low and change is being enacted, albeit at an excruciating slow pace.

Moreover, even though Randy hastily withdrew from the case following Mark’s unsettling revelation and written objections, Mark insists that the judge remains constitutionally disqualified.

According to Mark, Randy’s sudden appearance was a direct consequence of fraud and conspiracy orchestrated by both Bob and Randy, allegations extensively outlined in Mark’s objections and pleadings on the official docket.

This is supported In re Chacon, 138 S.W.3d 86, 96 (Tex. 2004), a case involving the removal of a county judge from the bench.

The opinion refers to Tex. Code. Jud. Cond. Canon 2 B:-

“A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment.

A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

In re Chacon, the judge would challenge the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s allegations as based on circumstantial evidence and similar, which would be rejected;

“The evidence detailed above is factually sufficient to support the Commission’s conclusion that Respondent [judge] willfully and persistently allowed her improper relationship with Reyna and Sandoval [in these proceedings, Randy] to influence her judgment in the performance of her duties.”

In re Chacon also cited;

“[a] judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”

TEX.CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canon 3(B)(5), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G app. B (Vernon Supp.2003).”.

Texas law is both instructive and binding.

It confirms Judge Craft unethically and unconstitutionally maintained her role as judge in these proceedings and used her position to influence her decision to sign an order involving Randy, despite their intimate relationship.

Judge Tami Craft’s orders are void and her position disqualified, at a minimum, in these proceedings.

The Current TCPA Statute and Judicial Immunity

Facts: On July 28, 2023, “Mark filed his Motion for Emergency Hearing on TCPA Motion to Dismiss as Filed on May 30, 2023” wherein it expressed, in part, reliance upon In re Dror, No. 14-22-00646-CV, at *5 (Tex. App. Oct. 5, 2022).

The court failed to schedule an oral hearing and let the clock run out of time on Mark’s motion(s).

Application: In re Dror, the resolution was obtained by Mandamus relief.

Mark contends this option is voluntary and does not excuse a judge from performing her duties from the bench.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, Sec. 1.

Similarly, the Texas Constitution states that “[a]ll free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights. . . .”

TEX. CONST. art. I, Sec. 3.

Due Course of Law: The due process guarantee of the Texas Constitution, provides as follows:

No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

TEX. CONST. art. I, Sec. 19.

This section is the “traditional due process guarantee,” corresponding to the due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

See Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d at 664.

Both the federal and state due process clauses originated as a guarantee of procedural fairness.

TEX. CONST. art. I, Sec. 19 interpretative commentary.

American courts, however, have long imparted a substantive meaning to the language as well.

When legislation goes beyond the proper sphere of government activity, “any life, liberty or property limited by such a law is taken without due process because the Constitution never granted the government the ability to pass such a law.”

2 R. Rotunda, Treatise on Constitutional Law 14.

Summation: Mark, relying upon the constitution as cited, avers due process and procedural fairness has been violated.

Judicial immunity does not apply to such constitutional violations and Judge Tami Craft’s disqualification is mandatory.

Any court orders signed are deemed void: a nullity as determined in Union Pacific Resources Co.;

Gulf Maritime Warehouse Co. v. Towers, 858 S.W.2d 556, 559 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1993, writ denied);

Monroe v. Blackmon, 946 S.W.2d 533 (Tex. App. 1997);

republished on LIT,

“Identical Rules Apply in Recusal of a Judge in Texas State Court or Federal Court”, Aug. 22, 2021, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “IDENTICAL RULES”).

Denial of Hearings and Due Process

Facts with Authorities: In one of his first acts, Mark submitted a plea to the jurisdiction and standing, requesting the court sua sponte determine it had jurisdiction, after supplemental briefing and a hearing.

See; In re Abbott, 601 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2020) (discussing standing, or lack thereof);

Jones v. Bartlett, 189 S.W. 1107, 1109 (Tex. Civ. App. 1916)

(“”It is a plain and undeniable principle that, to give any binding effect to the proceedings of a court, it must have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the cause or subject-matter. The want of jurisdiction makes the judgment utterly void and unavailable for any purpose.””).

The court remain unmoved until Judge Craft signed her first order in July of 2023, in effect asserting the court had jurisdiction and no standing issues were present.

The other denials of due process and hearing(s) have been covered in the ex parte communications section above and are incorporated herein.

Summation: In support, Mark relies upon the arguments,  authorities and content provided. A more specific argument and authority section is not required here.

Bob’s Scheme to Incite Judge Craft to Rule Against Defendant

Bob listed 3 of LIT’s articles about Judge Craft in his response to the TCPA and where he requested the judge grant $25k in a discretionary sanctions award, by way of attorney fees and payable to a pro se lawyer.

In Johnson v. Tepper, No. 07-23-00146-CV, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 7, 2023)  it was reaffirmed that “Texas recognizes an absolute privilege to communications made as part of a judicial proceeding, citing to Shell Oil Co. v. Writt, 464 S.W.3d 650, 655 (Tex. 2015).”.

Bob’s arguments were crafted with the intention of provoking or arousing negative feelings in the judge against the defendant.

Bob has read all of LIT’s articles, so he’s fully aware of Judge Craft’s online persona and combative personality.

His actions were premeditated and inciteful.

CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Judges may be removed from a particular case either because they are constitutionally disqualified, TEX. CONST. art. V, § 11 or because they are recused under rules promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court. TEX.R. CIV. P. 18b.

Union Pacific Authority

If a judge is disqualified under the Constitution or subject to disqualification under Texas Government Code § 74.053(d), she is absolutely without jurisdiction in the case, and any order or judgment rendered by her is void, without effect, and subject to collateral attack.

In re Union Pacific Resources Co.;

Gulf Maritime Warehouse Co. v. Towers, 858 S.W.2d 556, 559 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1993, writ denied)

(citing Disqualification and Recusal of Judges, 17 ST. MARY’S L. J at 601–02).

TX Constitution

The Texas Constitution disqualifies a trial judge from sitting “in any case wherein [s]he may be interested.”

TEX. CONST. art. V, § 11.

A judge cannot of any party to a lawsuit she is then going to adjudicate.

Judicial Canon: Bias, Prejudice and Personal Interest

Pursuant to the Judicial Canon 3(C):

“A judge should disqualify [her]himself in a proceeding in which his[her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including, but not limited to, instances where:

“(a) S/He has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

“(b) S/He served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom s/he previously practiced law served during such association as lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

“(c) S/He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his[her] household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party to the proceedings, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

Judicial Canon: Ex Parte Communications

Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits ex parte communications by a judge pursuant to the judge’s obligation to provide “every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.”

The fact of ex parte communications can support a reasonable questioning of a judge’s impartiality.

See, e.g. Duffey v. State, 2014 WL 685560 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.), which was reversed and remanded when trial judge listened, without comment, to concerns of townspeople in brief meeting with judge following news report of plea agreement;

Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 210 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref’d)

(“The trial judge’s ex parte communications with the prosecutor suggest there was, at a minimum, a ‘chumminess’ between the prosecutor and the trial court from which the jury could interpret that the trial court was ‘taking sides.’”).

TX Const. Article V, Sec. 11: Constitutional Disqualification

Defendant also presents this motion to disqualify Judge Tami Craft under Article V, Section 11, of the Constitution of Texas which is referred to by Texas courts as “constitutional disqualification” motions.

Article V, Section 11, is broader than the United States Constitution and disqualifies judges where the judge has any interest in the case.

Our Constitution provides, Section 11, Art. 5, Vernon’s Ann. St.,

‘No judge shall sit in any case wherein [s]he may be interested.’

Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing body or officer.

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

The Texas Constitution requires no less.

Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App.2006).

The ex-parte communications were not simply “[e]xpressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger” toward Plaintiff or their counsel.

See Abdygapparova v. State of Texas, 243 S.W.3d 191 (Ct.App.—San Antonio 2007, writ refused). Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147.

In other words,  the author is emphasizing that the nature of these communications goes beyond what might be considered normal expressions of frustration by a judge and the proponent must show a “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Mark’s allegations meet these requirements.

The non-disclosure by either the Plaintiff, counsel, or the court of the  relationship between the judge and counsel, after Randy Sorrels appeared as alleged lead counsel for pro se Plaintiff, Bob Kruckemeyer – these actions were examples, inter alia, of the trial court conducting an ex parte communication which excluded the Defendant.

As such, they extended beyond the realm of courtroom administration and etiquette, for which the trial court has control, and became strong evidence of bias and partiality.

As other courts have held, in such a case the Judge must be disqualified.

Structural Error

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a violation of the right to an impartial judge is a structural error that defies harm analysis.

Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991);

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23 & n. 8, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967);

Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927);

see also Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)

(acknowledging structural errors recognized by Arizona).

An Impartial Judge

The “presence on the bench of a judge who is not impartial” deprives a litigant basic protections and infects the entire trial process from beginning to end.

Arizona, 499 U.S. at 309–10, 111 S.Ct. 1246;

see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999).

3 Reasons to Disqualify Judge Tami Craft

In Texas, a judge may also be removed from presiding over a cause of action for the following reasons:

(1) S/he is disqualified under Article V, Section 11, of the Constitution of Texas;

(2) Her/his conduct violates Due Process;

(3) S/he is disqualified under Rule 18 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Tami Craft Should be Disqualified

For the detailed and persuasive reasoning provided in this motion, Judge Tami Craft must be disqualified from this case.

In the Texas adversarial system, the judge is a neutral arbiter between the advocates; she is the instructor in the law to the jury, but she is not involved in the fray.

The advocates have the task of producing the evidence, arguing its significance, and pointing out the logical inferences that flow from that evidence.

“The adversary theory … maintains that the devotion of the participants, judge, juror and advocate, each to a single function, leads to the fairest and most efficient resolution of the dispute.”  

Rule 18a Disqualification.

TRCP Demands Disqualification

Defendant also incorporates by reference the above facts and moves to disqualify Judge Craft under Rule 18b(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Similarly, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b(1)(b) requires a judge to disqualify herself from any case in which he may have “an interest in the subject matter in controversy.”

However, the term “interest” is ambiguous and thus far, courts have suggested that this “interest” must be a “pecuniary interest” in the proceedings before the court.

Here, Mark avers the pecuniary interest for Judge Craft is confirmed by her relationship with Randy, which extends to Randy’s financial donation from his law firm, as well as aiding Judge Craft and her immediate family in active personal lawsuits before Harris County District Court  as detailed in this motion.

This was discussed earlier when citing the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Aktiengesellschaft, No. 21-0130 (Tex. Nov. 18, 2022), citing  Caperton as well as Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927),

In Tumey,  there was a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as a result of the Mayor holding a pecuniary stake. The Tumey court concluded:

“No matter what the evidence was against him, he had the right to have an impartial judge.

He seasonably raised the objection and was entitled to halt the trial because of the disqualification of the judge, which existed both because of his direct pecuniary interest in the outcome, and because of his official motive to convict and to graduate the fine to help the financial needs of the village.

There were thus presented at the outset both features of the disqualification.”

The same model  in Tumey applies to these proceedings and constitutes “structural error”, which would be subject to automatic reversal.

Judicial Canons

Judicial Canon 3(B)(5) states;

“A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.”

Canon 3(B)(8) states, in part;

“A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.”

The Right to be Heard

Similarly, Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution of Texas affords a defendant the right to be heard.

The Fifth Amendment

Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Due Process) and/or Article I, Section 19, of the Constitution of Texas (due course of law), the above constitutes grounds for disqualification of Judge Tami Craft:

(1) where a judge has an interest in the case,

or;

(2) where a judge acted as a “one woman grand-jury” to both charge conduct and preside over case.

See Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 2259–2264, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009).

Judge Craft meets the grounds for disqualification.

Judge Tami Craft’s Theft of Reports from MD Anderson

The theft, bribery and extortion allegations as presented by the Attorney General on behalf of MD Anderson could warrant not only removal from these proceedings, but removal from the bench;

Matter of Carrillo, 542 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.1976)

(removing judge for conduct occurring prior to election);

In re Henson, 913 So. 2d 579, 593 (Fla. 2005) they opined;

“We have previously removed judges despite strong character evidence or an unblemished judicial record when their misconduct was fundamentally inconsistent with the responsibilities of judicial office or struck at the heart of judicial integrity.”;

and also

“Finding removal appropriate because “the respect of the public [is] essential to [the judiciary’s] mission as the third branch of government”:

The amendment expanded the jurisdiction of the JQC by granting it authority to investigate offenses by judges occurring prior to their present term of office (as far back as November 1, 1966).”.

See; LIT’s investigative articles questioning the integrity of Judge Craft before and after appointment to the bench;

“Judge Tamika Craft In Private Practice: LIT Reviews Past Case Involving Fallacious Quitclaim Deeds”, October 11, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “FALLACIOUS DEEDS”);

“What’s the Real Relationship Between Convicted Felon Ms Hollywood Niyoka Campbell and Judge Tami Craft?” July 24, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “FELON CAMPBELL AND CRAFT’S RELATIONSHIP”);

“Fire Sale: Judge Tamika Craft and Marcus Demming Purchase Kingwood Property for $10 Bucks per Cash Deed”, July 14, 2023, LawsinTexas.com;

(EXHIBIT “FIRE SALE TEN BUCKS”).

The numerous court orders and documents reviewed and published on LIT confirm Judge Craft’s criminal acts,  and wholly support her removal from the bench as described in personal lawsuits and during her representation of clients while in private practice.

Indeed, Mark alleges this behavior has carried on since her appointment to the bench, as supported by the irrefutable facts and evidence presented.

THIS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY IS TIMELY

There is no time set within which a disqualification motion must be filed, and this issue can be raised for the first time on appeal or collateral attack.

See Williams v. State, 492 S.W.2d 522, 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973).

VERIFIED DECLARATION [OATH]

In closing, I, Mark Stephen Burke, as Defendant with due authority and competency, and as a presiding resident of Kingwood in the livable forest of Harris County, Texas, born on June 20, 1967 in Harare, Zimbabwe, and currently holding a valid British Passport and U.S. Permanent Residency Card (last 3 digits are 529), a valid State of Texas Driver License (last 3 digits are 949), and a Social Security Card (last 3 digits are 162), do solemnly declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

This verified declaration includes and applies to the named exhibits, and is made under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which holds significant weight in legal precedent, as evident in ACI Design Build Contractors Inc. v. Loadholt, 605 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App. 2020), McMahan v. Izen, No. 01-20-00233-CV, at *15-17 (Tex. App. Sep. 2, 2021), and In re Whitfield, No. 03-21-00170-CR, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2021).

CONCLUSION

The Defendant has provided full reasoning in this motion with relevant authority provided.

This includes the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

This means that a judge must follow procedural fairness and impartiality when presiding over a case, and that a party has the right to a fair and impartial hearing.

Similarly, Article I, Section 19, of the Texas Constitution provides for the right to due course of law and a fair trial.

This includes the right to an impartial judge who is not biased or prejudiced in the case.

Both the federal and Texas constitutions allow for the disqualification of a judge who is biased or prejudiced in a case.

This can be done through various means, such as recusal or disqualification motions filed by parties to the case or by the judge themselves.

The disqualification process is meant to ensure that judges are impartial and unbiased when presiding over a case, and that parties receive a fair and just outcome.

Here, the Defendant reminded Judge Craft several times of her own ethical obligation to self-recuse, which she blanked or discounted by way of her court orders.

Judge Craft meets the high threshold to be constitutionally disqualified.

As such, and for the reasons stated in this motion, including the facts of the case as detailed in the Plaintiff’s verified declaration, Plaintiff prays the Court GRANT the Motion to Disqualify Judge Tami Craft aka Tamika Craft-Demming, transfers this case to another qualified judge, reset the docket control order so the new judge may reconsider the courts past orders, grant Plaintiff’s costs incurred in this matter and for such other and further relief at law or in equity to which Plaintiffs may be justly entitled.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 11th day of December, 2023.

A flight list who needs the flight list? The list is beginning to expose itself! pic.twitter.com/cllYSo5Vhc

— Luca 1 (@lucaforsure) November 22, 2023