Evidence Shows "Official Oppression" in Williamson County
Travis County District Attorney
ATTN: Sandra Avila Ramirez
P.O. Box 1748
Austin, TX 78767
March 26, 2015 Delivery via: Email and USPS letter
SUBJECT: Mowdy - Criminal Complaints Wilco DA, District and County Clerks
I received your certified letter dated February 18, 2015, Exhibit "363", indicating there is insufficient evidence to support my criminal complaint against the Williamson County District Attorney, District Clerk and County Clerk.
The purpose of this response is to provide you additional evidence in support of my complaint.
My complaint is that the named individuals violated Texas Penal Code 39.03, specifically:
§ 39.03. OFFICIAL OPPRESSION. (a) A public servant
acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful;
(b) For purposes of this section, a public servant acts
under color of his office or employment if he acts or purports to act in an official capacity or takes advantage of such actual or purported capacity.
So, to clarify my complaint, it is not that the lien claim was presumed fraudulent, it is that the lien claim was "unlawful" and the named individuals knew the lien claim was unlawful and by intentional exercise of their authority and in violation of Texas law, they all subjected my wife and I to that unlawful lien claim.
This letter presents you with proof that the lien claim was unlawful at the time it was filed, and that Jana Duty, Lisa David, and Nancy Rister knew and failed to act when having knowledge of that criminal violation of Texas law. Each of the named individuals had a sworn duty and obligation to observe Texas law and not violate the law by subjecting my wife and I to the unlawful lien claim filed by John W. Hughes and his lawyer Robert W. Loree.
- The Unlawful Lien Claim: Texas Penal Code, sec. 32.49 establishes that a lien claim that is fraudulent, as described by Government Code Section 51.901(c), is unlawful and the refusal by a claimant to remove such a lien claim is a crime punishable as a Class A Misdemeanor.
Texas Penal Code, Sec. 32.49 REFUSAL TO EXECUTE RELEASE OF FRAUDULENT LIEN OR CLAIM. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to defraud or harm another, the person:
(1) owns, holds, or is the beneficiary of a purported lien or claim asserted against real or personal property or an interest in real or personal property that is fraudulent, as described by Section 51.901(c), Government Code; and
(2) not later than the 21st day after the date of receipt of actual or written notice sent by either certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the person's last known address, or by telephonic document transfer to the recipient's current telecopier number, requesting the execution of a release of the fraudulent lien or claim, refuses to execute the release on the request of:
(A) the obligor or debtor; or
(B) any person who owns any interest in the real or personal property described in the document or instrument that is the basis for the lien or claim.
(b) A person who fails to execute a release of the purported lien or claim within the period prescribed by Subsection (a)(2) is presumed to have had the intent to harm or defraud another.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Jana Duty was aware that the lien claim was unlawful and fraudulent according to Texas Penal Code under the provisions of Texas Government Code 51.901(c) and that I made requests, to the lien claimant, under the provisions of Sec 32.49 for removal of the lien claim. My Texas Penal Code 32.49 requests were made on November 1, 2011, "Exhibit 56", January 8, 2012, "Exhibit 57", April 19, 2014, "Exhibit 351", and April 24, 2014, "Exhibit 352". The lien claimant, Hughes, did not respond whatsoever and thereby violated Texas Penal Code 32.49.
Texas Penal Code Sec. 32.49 clearly establishes that a lien claim in violation of Texas Government Code 51.901(c) is unlawful and it is a Class A Misdemeanor crime to refuse to remove such a lien claim when requested by the property owner. Since the crime was committed against a senior citizen, the crime classification is elevated to a felony.
Jana Duty, Lisa David, and Nancy Rister were made aware that the claim was unlawful, Exhibit "22", Exhibit "35", and Exhibit "65". (Note: The exhibit references within those letter exhibits have been changed since the letters were written.) Yet, by refusing to act according to their authority, Texas law, and their sworn obligations, they each intentionally elected to subject my wife and I to the unlawful lien claim against our homestead.
- Government Code 51.901(c): On May 8, 2013, Arbitrator Matthew J. Sullivan determined and published facts that proved the lien claim filed by Hughes was fraudulent as described by Texas Government Code 51.901(c), Exhibit "331". On September 9, 2014, the Williamson County 277th District Court confirmed the arbitrator's facts, Exhibit "358".
In addition to the court confirmed facts related to Code 51.901(c), Exhibit "331", the arbitrator determined the document Hughes claimed was the contract was not the contract and could not be part of the contract, and Hughes did not allow "proper offsets and adjustments" totaling the $113,914.11 amount claimed. Jana Duty knew, by undeniable evidence, Exhibit "17", and Exhibit "35", that the lien claim was unlawful when it was filed because it included charges for services and materials that were not provided and perjury had been committed by conflicting statements filed with the lien claim, Exhibit "1", and Exhibit "3".
After the lien claim was filed, November 12, 2010, Jana Duty was made fully aware, through a forensic examination report paid for by the Williamson County Attorney's office, that the lien claim included a false sworn suit on account claim for service and materials that were not provided, Exhibit "17", Exhibit "20", and Exhibit "35". Specifically, that claimant Hughes and his lawyer both swore Hughes repaired broken concrete twice and, by a sworn suit on account, charged the homeowner twice for that service, Exhibit "1", but actually never repaired the concrete whatsoever.
Jana Duty was provided undeniable forensic evidence as shown in Exhibit "17", and Exhibit "22". Jana Duty knew the sworn statements of the lien claimant and his lawyer, who certified the false service claims, were false, Exhibit "20", Jana Duty knew perjury had been committed and the lien claim was thereby unlawful.
Exhibit "51", is the MLAW Consultants / Engineers invoice for the forensic examination which determined the concrete labor and material were not provided. The forensic proof was created based on my deceptive trade complaint to the Taylor Police Department. The invoice was inappropriately sent to my address. The Williamson County Attorney's office paid the bill, was provided undeniable evidence of an unlawful lien claim, but, ignored the crime.
Jana Duty had forensic proof that Texas Deceptive Trade laws were violated, that perjury had been committed, and had a sworn duty to act on that knowledge. Knowing the concrete billing was false, Jana Duty knew the lien claim sworn suit on account and monetary claims were false and the lien claim was unlawful for reasons in addition to 51.901(c). Jana Duty knew the documents that were filed contained false information and that a felony had been committed when those documents were filed with the county and district clerks.
So, in addition to the lien claim being unlawful, according to Code 51.901(c) and TX Penal Code 32.49, Jana Duty had evidence and knowledge the lien claim was unlawful for many other reasons. Jana Duty refused her sworn obligations on multiple occasions and in doing so, subjected my wife and I, Williamson County citizens, to an unlawful lien.
The acts of Jana Duty, Nancy Rister, and Lisa David were official oppression in violation of Texas Penal Code 39.03. Their crimes were committed against a senior citizen war veteran from November 12, 2010, until the lien was removed on September 9, 2014.
I am disappointed that your investigation was conducted without the slightest communication with me or my wife concerning our criminal complaints. It clearly indicates your investigation was not conducted with an unbiased approach and respect and concern for Texas law.
I would appreciate a sincere effort and communication regarding this additional evidence concerning my criminal complaint. I would also like to know the status of the other complaints I filed with your office against John W. Hughes, Robert W. Loree, and Matthew J. Sullivan.
Thomas C. Mowdy Major, U.S. Army (Ret.)