Do public trust employees participate in the obstruction of justice?

Can Homeowners’ Association re-define the term common area to include co-owners single-family dwelling (private property) a part of common area assessment?  The Castilian Village Townhouse Association located in East Houston (Woodforest) was afforded this privileged with the sanction of the court system in Houston, Texas (Harris County).   This association under the direction of Mike Hughes, owner of JDH Management Property Association, and its attorney, Dennis McQueen (Pagel, Davis & Hill, P.C) has filed fraudulent and vague civil lawsuits (2000-29272 and 802908) alleging non-payment of maintenance fees while knowing that the fee in question is connected to the illegal insuring of private property.  A few board members committed the crime of forgery in that Aletha Ray’s property along with the other co-owners lot was insured without her knowledge, signature, and authorization and without the steps outlined in the Texas Property Code (201, 204 & 206) and the Deed Restrictions (170-39-1622 to 170-39-1636).  Even though this association has absolutely no authority to include Ray’s private property as part of the common area assessment, the courts agreed with the Plaintiff in spite of Ray’s evidence and ignored the contractual law as outlined in the deed restrictions and the property codes.   Ray along with other co-owners filed a complaint with the Texas Insurance Board against Pasadena Insurance Agency concerning this illegal transaction in 1999 and this case was transferred to the Attorney General Office in 2000 and to no avail.

 According to the research done by Texas Homeowners Association Group organized by Harvella Jones, homeowners in Texas are fighting against the corruption of management companies, attorneys and the court system.  There is an increasing number of management property associations filing lawsuit to foreclose on homeowners’ property because many of them have political ties and are in the business of purchasing foreclosed property.  The filing of these fraudulent lawsuits is becoming a “cash cow” at the expense of innocent homeowners and this practice is spreading to other cities.

  In both cases, Ray has faced disparate treatment from public trust employees in that the following has occurred:

1. In case number 2000-29272, Aletha Ray filed a Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment in that the Plaintiff failed to prove its case.  The presiding judge ignored the motion even though the Plaintiff did not respond as required by law.

2. In case number 2000-29272, a trial by judge was set without Ray’s participation, and Ray received a phone call at her place of employment from the clerk in Judge Tony Lindsay’s court two hours before the predetermined time, which is a violation of the local rules in  that Ray should have received written notice from the court.

3.       In spite of the evidence proving that CVTA violated the deed restrictions, did not properly amend the restrictions in the manner described, within the contractual boundaries, the courts ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, placing Ray’s homeownership in serious jeopardy of foreclosure and extorting money from Ray in an effort to maintain homeownership.

4. Ray filed an Appeal (2000-29272) and requested Judge Tony Lindsay’s Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Law.  The judge never provided this information to Ray.  The case was transferred to the Court of Appeal in Waco, Texas.  Ray was prevented from perfecting her appeal.  As a result, Ray lost her case. 

5. In case #802908, the plaintiff failed to file proof that supports its assertions of non-payment and failed to file responses as required to Ray’s motions--Motion to Dismiss and  Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment.

6. The courts ignored Ray’s proof of payment in defense of supporting the non-payment of maintenance fees assertion made on behalf of the plaintiff, yet the judges (Tony Lindsay and Gary Block) ignored the receipt of payments and the deed restrictions concerning the definition of common area and private property.

7. In case #802908, Aletha Ray paid for subpoena service for her witness list (co-Owners in the Castilian Village Townhouse subdivision), and the clerk refused to provide this service even though her checks were cashed.

8. Judge Gary Block granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment even though Ray filed her proof (cancelled checks, copy of deed restrictions, copy of Texas Property code, affidavits and other relevant information to disprove the assertion of nonpayment). Ironically, Ray filed a No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment, and Judge Block ignored this motion.  This collaboration prevented Ray from having a trial by jury and from winning her case one-week before the trial.

9. Ray paid for the records to be sent to the 1st Court of Appeal; however, the clerk refused to send the files she requested and paid for. Rather, she sent the files that supported the  Plaintiff’s position at Ray’s expense.

10. The judges (Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Alcala) in the 1st Court of Appeal failed to consider Ray’s evidence that disprove the claims of the Plaintiff and agreed with the trial court’s ruling. This solicited partnership created the dream team against Ray.   

11. The clerk at the 1st Court of Appeal denied the Motion for Rehearing without an  explanation in April 2006.  The check for this motion has not been cashed.   

 Ray has filed a Petition For Review (Case # 06-0495) with the Texas Supreme Court in June 2006 and hopes that this court will grant her petition based upon the facts and not politics and disparate treatment. Again, the Plaintiff refuses to respond to Ray’s defenses and has requested that the clerk of this court contacts him for further explanation of this wavier. 

CVTA cannot prove its case and does not have a response.  Rather, it has relied upon the assistance of the courts and the suppression of relevant evidence. The courts have ignored the charges of forgery in connection to the insuring of private property, did not require the Association to clarify its lawsuit concerning non-payment of maintenance fees even though Ray filed copies of her cancelled checks, and did not show proof that the amendments to the restrictions have been properly filed.  Rather, Ray has been disadvantaged by the inner workings of these public trust employees.