Editors Choice

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

MD Anderson contends that Plaintiff engaged in self-help discovery by unlawfully taking the Reports in order to use them against MD Anderson.

Explosive Allegations: Texas Charges Tami Craft-Demming with Theft, Unlawful Weaponization, and Breach of Confidentiality in MD Anderson Case

JULY 14, 2023

Failed Campaign by Tamika Tami Craft for Texas 14th Appeals Court (2020)

Can You Trust this newly elected Harris County District Judge?

The State of Texas raised serious allegations against Tami Craft-Demming, including theft, misappropriation, unlawful weaponization, breach of confidentiality, and potentially fraud. The allegations stem from a lawsuit filed by MD Anderson in 2018 in Harris County District Court, which was later transferred to the Houston Division of the Southern District Federal Courts.

Although the lawsuit was “settled,” disturbing revelations emerged during the proceedings. It was discovered that Tami Craft-Demming had stolen documents from MD Anderson, which contained highly sensitive personnel and patient information.

Representing MD Anderson, the Texas Attorney General’s Office alleges that these files were deliberately stolen with the intent to unlawfully use them as a weapon during litigation, suggesting a premeditated act of bribery and extortion to force an early and favorable financial settlement.

In summary, the stolen documents were unlawfully appropriated, breached confidentiality obligations, and involved fraudulent practices.

Craft-Demming v. MD Anderson Cancer Center

(4:18-cv-03296)

District Court, S.D. Texas

SEP 14, 2018 – MAR 2, 2020
JUL 14, 2023

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

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

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:18-cv-03296

Craft-Demming v. MD Anderson Cancer Center
Assigned to: Judge George C Hanks, Jr

Case in other court:  80 District Court Harris County, 18-42393

Cause: 28:1441 Petition for Removal – Employment Discrim

Date Filed: 09/14/2018
Date Terminated: 12/03/2019
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 751 Labor: Family and Medical Leave Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Tamika Craft-Demming represented by Ellen Sprovach
Kennard Law, P.C.
5120 Woodway Drive
Suite 10010
Houston, TX 77056
United Sta
7137420900
Email: sprovache@gmail.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
MD Anderson Cancer Center represented by Summer Rayne Lee
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
512-396-2866
Email: summer.lee@oag.texas.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/14/2018 1 NOTICE of Removal by MD Anderson Cancer Center (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0541-20878326), filed. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit State Court Docket Sheet, # 3 Exhibit Index of Documents Filed in State Court, # 4 Exhibit Documents filed in State Court, # 5 Exhibit List of Counsel)(Lee, Summer) Payment information added on 9/17/2018 (ltien, 4). (Entered: 09/14/2018)
09/24/2018 2 NOTICE of Vacation Dates by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
09/28/2018 3 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 11/16/2018 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4) (Entered: 09/28/2018)
10/02/2018 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
10/02/2018 5 Certificate of Service in Removed Action by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
10/22/2018 6 MOTION to Dismiss on the Pleadings by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
11/06/2018 7 JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 11/06/2018)
11/13/2018 8 RESPONSE in Opposition to 6 MOTION to Dismiss on the Pleadings, filed by Tamika Craft-Demming. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Sprovach, Ellen) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
11/13/2018 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All Defendants filed by Tamika Craft-Demming.(Sprovach, Ellen) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
11/16/2018 10 MINUTE ENTRY ORDER: Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference held. Appearances: Melissa Fuller for Plaintiff. Summer Rayne Lee. Ct Reporter: K. Miller. (Answer due by 1/11/2019.) (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
11/16/2018 11 DOCKET CONTROL ORDER. Amended Pleadings due by 2/15/2019. Joinder of Parties due by 2/15/2019. Pltf Expert Report due by 3/15/2019. Deft Expert Report due by 4/26/2019. Discovery due by 7/26/2019. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 8/2/2019. Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/6/2019. Docket Call set for 9/13/2019 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
01/11/2019 12 ANSWER to 9 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
02/07/2019 13 Opposed MOTION to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Proposed Order)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
02/11/2019 14 NOTICE to Withdraw Opposed Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures re: 13 Opposed MOTION to Compel Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
03/21/2019 15 NOTICE of Vacation by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 03/21/2019)
08/02/2019 16 MOTION In Limine by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/23/2019. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
08/05/2019 17 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of Joint Pretrial Order Deadline, Docket Call, and Trial by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/26/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 08/05/2019)
08/05/2019 18 ORDER granting 17 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of Joint Pretrial Order Deadline, Docket Call, and Trial (Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/31/2019. Docket Call set for 11/8/2019 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake.) (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4) (Entered: 08/05/2019)
09/03/2019 19 NOTICE of Reassignment to Judge George C Hanks, Jr, pursuant to Special Order No. 2019-3. Deadlines in scheduling orders remain in effect, and all court settings are vacated. Judge Sim Lake no longer assigned to the case. Parties notified, filed. (ndiaz, 4) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
09/06/2019 20 REQUEST for pre-motion conference, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
09/24/2019 21 NOTICE of Setting as to 20 REQUEST for pre-motion conference. Parties notified. Pre-Motion Conference set for 10/11/2019 at 03:00 PM by telephone before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. Dial In: 713-250-5746, Conference ID: 45746#, Password: 42657#.(jegonzalez, 3) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
09/25/2019 22 NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Pre-Motion Conference by telephone set for 10/11/2019 at 03:00 PM in by telephone before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
10/07/2019 23 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of Telephonic Pre-Motion Conference by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
10/08/2019 24 ORDER Granting 23 Unopposed MOTION for Continuance of Telephonic Pre-Motion Conference ( Telephonic Pre-Motion Conference is reset to 10/17/2019 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Judge George C Hanks Jr)(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(jguajardo, 4) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
10/17/2019 25 RESPONSE to 20 REQUEST for pre-motion conference , filed by Tamika Craft-Demming. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Sprovach, Ellen) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
10/17/2019 26 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. PRE-MOTION CONFERENCE and Motion for Summary Judgment held on 10/17/2019. Defendant’s request to file its motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for an extension of the page limit on itsmotion for summary judgment (Dkt. 20) is GRANTED.The parties are ORDERED to submit to mediation by November 8, 2019.Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment will bedue within 21 days after the mediator declares settlement negotiations to beat an impasse.The parties are ORDERED to file a joint status letter regarding the discoverydispute raised in Defendant’s pre-motion conference letter (Dkt. 20) by closeof business on Tuesday, October 22, 2019. Appearances: For Plaintiff: Ellen Sprovach; For Defendant: Summer Rayne Lee.(ERO:J. Olsen) (Law Clerk: B. Zubay), filed.(olindor, 4) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
10/22/2019 27 STATUS REPORT by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
10/25/2019 28 NOTICE of Setting as to 27 Status Report. Parties notified. Discovery Hearing set for 10/28/2019 at 11:00 AM by telephone before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (jegonzalez, 3) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
10/28/2019 29 RESPONSE in Opposition, filed by Tamika Craft-Demming. (Sprovach, Ellen) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
10/28/2019 30 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. DISCOVERY HEARING held on 10/28/2019. Parties joint protective order due by 11/1/2019 Appearances: Ellen Sprovach, Summer Rayne Lee.(Digital # 11:23 – 12:00)(ERO:Yes), filed.(SusanGram, 3) (Entered: 10/30/2019)
11/01/2019 31 Joint PROPOSED ORDER Joint Protective Order, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
11/04/2019 32 NOTICE of Vacation Dates by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
11/04/2019 33 JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER (Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(SusanGram, 3) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
11/04/2019 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 11/04/2019)
11/06/2019 35 APPENDIX re: 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 11/06/2019)
12/03/2019 36 NOTICE of Settlement by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
12/03/2019 37 Joint REQUEST for pre-motion conference, filed.(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
12/03/2019 38 CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL 36 Notice of Settlement. Case terminated on December 3, 2019. Deadline to reinstate: February 3, 2020(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr). Terminated pending motion(s)DENIED AS MOOT : Dkt 16 MOTION In Limine,Dkt. 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Dkt 37 Joint REQUEST for pre-motion conference. Parties notified.(jegonzalez, 4) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
01/09/2020 39 **DISREGARD-DOCKETED IN ERROR** NOTICE of Setting as to 37 Joint REQUEST for pre-motion conference. Parties notified. Pre-Motion Conference set for 1/15/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (SusanGram, 3) Modified on 1/9/2020 (SusanGram, 3). (Entered: 01/09/2020)
01/09/2020 40 NOTICE of Setting as to 37 Joint REQUEST for pre-motion conference. Parties notified. Pre-Motion Conference set for 1/16/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (SusanGram, 3) (Entered: 01/09/2020)
01/14/2020 41 Joint MOTION for Continuance of Pre-Motion Conference by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/4/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion for Continuance)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 01/14/2020)
01/15/2020 42 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Continuance Pre-Motion Conference set for 1/27/2020 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Judge George C Hanks Jr.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(SusanGram, 3) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
01/17/2020 43 NOTICE of Resetting *TIME CHANGE ONLY* as to 42 Order on Motion for Continuance. Parties notified. Pre-Motion Conference set for 1/27/2020 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 600 in Houston before Judge George C Hanks Jr, filed. (jegonzalez, 4) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
01/23/2020 44 STIPULATION of Dismissal Joint by Tamika Craft-Demming, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sprovach, Ellen) (Entered: 01/23/2020)
01/24/2020 45 ORDER granting 44 Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and Joint Stipulation of Dismissal.(Signed by Judge George C Hanks, Jr) Parties notified.(SusanGram, 3) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
01/26/2020 46 STATUS REPORT by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Lee, Summer) (Entered: 01/26/2020)
01/26/2020 47 SEALED EXHIBITS A (EEO Reports) re: 46 Status Report by MD Anderson Cancer Center, filed. (Lee, Summer) (Entered: 01/26/2020)
01/27/2020 49 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. Proceedings held on 1/27/2020 granting 37 Joint REQUEST for pre-motion conference. Plaintiff notified the Court that the documents were shredded, pursuant to the parties agreement, as stated on the record. MD Anderson will retain documents for two years as stated on the record. Appearances: Ellen Sprovach, Summer Rayne Lee.(Digital # 12:04-12:38)(ERO:Yes), filed.(SusanGram, 3) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
01/28/2020 48 AO 435 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by MD Anderson/Summer R. Lee for Transcript of Pre-Motion Conference on 1/27/2020 before Judge Hanks. Ordinary (30 days) turnaround requested. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Veritext Legal Solutions, filed. (Lee, Summer) Electronically forwarded to Veritext on January 29. Estimated completion date is February 29. Modified on 1/29/2020 (JenniferOlson, 4). (Entered: 01/28/2020)
02/28/2020 50 TRANSCRIPT re: Motion held on 1/27/20 before Judge George C Hanks, Jr. Court Reporter/Transcriber Veritext. Ordering Party Texas Office of Attorney General Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/28/2020., filed. (VeritextLegalSolutions, ) (Entered: 02/28/2020)
03/02/2020 51 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript as to 50 Transcript. Party notified, filed. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 03/02/2020)

 


 

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
07/13/2023 17:13:35

201842393 –

CRAFT-DEMMING, TAMIKA vs. MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER

(Court 080)

JUN 25, 2018
JUL 14, 2023

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

Case removed to federal court.

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

Texas Appellate Justice Ken Molberg: Statute of Limitations Suspended During Litigation and Appeal

That differs when you are in Federal Court on Appeal. It didn’t stop PHH and Mark Cronenwett from filing for nonjudicial foreclosure.

Justice in the Wild West: One Fearless Widow’s Battle for Truth and Honor in the Federal Courthouse

The Texas Struggle: Defying Northern Banking Giants and Their Bounty Hunting Lawyers to Protect Her Home from Rustlers and Thieves

Including the How: Addressing the Missing Piece in Quoting Fraud with Specificity

In Plaintiff’s prior response, under section F. Burke Fails to Assert a Claim for Fraud, the How element was inadvertently omitted.

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Lopez: I Don’t Read Words Into Statutes. I Read What They Say and I Follow It

Texas Supreme Court Justice Blacklock: Why should the court give the lender rights it didn’t bargain for to get paid?

A Wild West Blunder: PHH’s Hired Bounty Hunters at Hopkins Law Deliver a Cockamamie Response

Gunsmoke and Legal Misfires: PHH’s Reply Misses the Mark. Hopkins Law’s Cockamamie Response Turns Legal Logic into High Noon Nonsense.

Texas Law Professors on Bankruptcy and Civil Rights Won’t Confront Premeditated Judicial Misconduct

Three lauded Texas University law schools employ these academics. Despite their resumes centered on civil rights, they refuse to defend them.

Second Quick-Fire Ruling by Federal Magistrate Judge Challenges Integrity of Her Own Scheduling Order

Uneven Treatment: Judge Allows Longer Response Time for Opposing Party and their Counsel Despite Previous Restrictions on Pro Se Plaintiff.

The Kings Mill “Racetrack” Lawsuit: Kingwood HOA and Ethel McCormick Settle Wrongful Death Claims

Residents of the Kings Mill subdivision have alerted the HOA for years of the dangers Kings Mill Lane, also known as the “Racetrack.

Quick-Fire Ruling by Federal Magistrate Judge Challenges Integrity of Her Own Scheduling Order

Uneven Treatment: Judge Allows Longer Response Time for Opposing Party and their Counsel Despite Previous Restrictions on Pro Se Plaintiff.

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

Leave a Reply

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

To Top