Criminal Complaint Filed Against Contractor that Filed Fraudulent $113,914.11 Lien Claim
Thomas C. Mowdy
Major, U.S. Army (Ret.)
1805 Carey Avenue, Taylor, TX 76574
(512) 565-1035 - firstname.lastname@example.org
March 11, 2015
SUBJECT: Class A Misdemeanor Criminal Complaint - John W Hughes, Violation of Texas Penal Code 32.49
Dear Chief Fluke:
This letter is filed as a criminal misdemeanor complaint of violation of Texas Penal Code 32.49 by John W. Hughes, last known address 5040 N. Illinois St., Indianapolis, IN 46208-2612.
I. Introduction and Background
The criminal complaint presented in this document is against John W. Hughes and the fraudulent lien claim Hughes filed on the homestead property located at 1805 Carey Avenue, Taylor TX, 76574 belonging to Thomas C. Mowdy Jr. The following background and circumstances are material to understanding the detail and nature of the criminal complaint.
In order to present the evidence of the criminal complaint, the exhibits referenced in this letter maintain the same exhibit numbers as used in my letter of February 25, 2015. All exhibits and case documents are contained in the electronic flash drive enclosed with the reference February 25, 2015, letter. In addition, a copy of this complaint has been posted on my www.TomMowdy.com web site with embedded exhibit links.
On November 12, 2010, Plaintiff John Hughes d/b/a Hughes Amalgamated filed a lien claim asserting Defendant Mowdy owed Hughes $113,914.11, for repairs to Mowdy's fire damaged homestead, Exhibit "1". (Note: The Exhibit "1" hyperlinked document is 86 MB and may take time to download.)
Hughes's based his claim on the 119 page, Exhibit "1", lien claim document that Hughes swore, by affidavit, was the contract for the work performed. Hughes's affidavit is dated November 12, 2010, and was filed with the Exhibit "1", lien claim. The 119 page document, that Hughes claimed was the contract, was actually a fraudulent "bill" that contained duplicate charges and charges for materials not provided and work not performed.
Hughes did not file the true and correct written contract which had become missing from Mowdy's temporary apartment where Hughes had full access for maintenance. Mowdy, and Mowdy's insurance company, Exhibit "2", had both refused to pay Hughes's demand for duplicate and false charges contained within the Exhibit "1" fraudulent document.
Mowdy did not owe Hughes, Exhibit "14". Hughes was overpaid. Mowdy had paid subcontractors, that Hughes refused to pay, and Mowdy purchased materials to the extent that Hughes was over compensated by at least $27,000 more than the maximum allowed by the true and correct, Exhibit "3" written contract. With cancelled check evidence, Exhibit "14", Mowdy contended that Hughes was overpaid according to the cost plus and maximum payment terms of the missing true and correct August 18, 2009 contract.
Mowdy refused Hughes's fraudulent demands and made multiple requests, under provisions of Texas Property Code, for Hughes to produce the true and correct contract and provide a statement of work performed, Exhibits "58", "25", and "24". Mowdy requested an audit, Exhibit "12". Mowdy made all these requests more than 10 months before Hughes filed suit. Hughes disregarded Mowdy's multiple certified requests for the missing contract, the sworn statement of work, and Mowdy's January 19, 2011, request for audit, Exhibit "12".
Hughes refused to produce the true and correct contract. Waiting until October 5, 2011, Hughes then filed suit, Exhibit "173", claiming that there was no written contract terms under a Quantum Meruit cause of action. The lien claim and lawsuit were both filed in official proceedings with the fraudulent 119 page billing document that Hughes swore was the contract. Hughes's suit included Hughes's fraudulent, sworn and verified, "Suit On Account" claiming Mowdy owed the $113,914.11 for specific materials and work listed, Exhibit "1".
Hughes claimed payment for materials and work not provided, payment in excess of the true and correct contract terms, what would be substantial attorney fees, and sought to fix a lien on Mowdy's homestead and force the sale of the home to pay Hughes the$113,914.11 and attorney fees.
Fortunately, Mowdy found a backup copy of the missing written contract. Then, as a pro-se litigant, Mowdy denied all Hughes's claims, proved by cancelled checks that Hughes had been overpaid, and countered with 16 counter claims including breach of contract, common fraud, fraudulent lien claim, deceptive trade, negligence, and mental anguish.
Mowdy found the missing contract, on a stored backup memory, and notified Hughes's attorney on November 2, 2011, Exhibit "61". Hughes, after learning Mowdy could produce the contract, then filed a copy of the true and correct contract with the Williamson County Clerk, on November 22, 2011, Exhibit "3".
Hughes filed a new affidavit, contradicting his previous sworn affidavit, now swearing a two page written contract document was the true and correct contract. (See Hughes's conflicting affidavits Exhibit "1", and Exhibit "3").
Hughes filed the true and correct contract on a date after Mowdy found and revealed the true and correct contract. Hughes previously refused a legal requirement to produce the true and correct contract when demanding payment, Exhibits "58", "25", and "24".
Hughes, after learning Mowdy produced the real contract, then failed to meet discovery requirements, in 277th District Court, and failed to appear for deposition, Exhibit "7".
Mowdy motioned for a "No Evidence Summary Judgment", Exhibit "131". However, one day before Mowdy's scheduled a no evidence hearing, Hughes motioned for arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the contract Hughes previously concealed. (See Exhibit "335", Mowdy's 3rd Amended Counterclaim" for details and circumstances of the concealed contract.)
Hughes did not request arbitration until after filing suit and after Mowdy found and presented the missing written contract. Hughes filed the law suit against Mowdy claiming Quantum Meruit before Mowdy revealed that Mowdy had found a copy of the true and correct written contract.
Quantum Meruit can only be a cause when there is no written contract. Hughes's actions clearly indicate he previously concealed the true and correct contract because he did not file it with the original lien claim or law suit, and then refused to produce the contract for a requested audit and after three certified requests. Hughes's actions were consistent with document concealment, a felony, and knowing that Mowdy did not have a copy.
With a clearly prejudicial ruling, the Judge Ken Anderson, 277th District Court granted Hughes's arbitration motion. Exhibit "137", Arbitration Order.
An arbitration clause did exist in the true and correct August 18, 2009, contract, Exhibit "3". It was a contract, created by Hughes's, with an arbitration clause. And although Hughes filed the lawsuit claiming Quantum Meruit, meaning Hughes's claim was based on no written contract, the court, made a ruling that helped Hughes's lawyer out of an impossible spot. The judge was Ken Anderson, the same judge who was convicted of falsely putting Michael Morton in prison for 25 years.
Hughes had already missed discovery and could not prove damages in the 277th District Court. Mowdy had filed for a Judicial Review of the fraudulent contract and a Motion for Summary Judgment. Since Hughes missed discovery, he could present no evidence of damage and could not introduce any evidence.
If Ken Anderson did not grant Hughes's request to arbitrate, then Anderson would have to rule on Mowdy's Summary Judgment and Judicial Review scheduled for the next day. Anderson knew Loree and Hughes could not overcome the missed discovery. But, Anderson took care of his friends, avoided the Judicial Review and No Evidence Summary Judgment hearing scheduled for the next day. Anderson ruled against Mowdy and granted Loree and Hughes the arbitration request.
The contract's arbitration clause specifically required the arbitration be conducted through AAA using AAA Construction Rules, Exhibit "3". The arbitration hearing was conducted in March 2013, and formally closed on April 8, 2013. On May 8, 2013, the Arbitrator issued an order denying all Plaintiff Hughes's claims and granting Defendant Mowdy breach of contract and one deceptive trade claim, Exhibit "331".
The arbitrator's findings determined that Hughes charged Mowdy for materials and services that Hughes did not provide and knowingly presented a sworn "Suit on Account" that did not allow for proper offsets and credits. Mowdy prevailed against all Plaintiff Hughes's claims and did not owe Hughes anything because all Hughes's claims and the documents he filed for his claim were fraudulent.
This complaint includes, but is not limited to:
II. Texas Penal Code 32.49: REFUSAL TO EXECUTE RELEASE OF FRAUDULENT LIEN OR CLAIM
Texas Penal Code 32.49 describes a refusal to execute the release of a fraudulent lien claim, as defined by Section 51.901, Texas Government Code, as a Class A Misdemeanor.
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.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 4, eff. May 21, 1997.
On November 12, 2010, "Exhibit 1", John W. Hughes identified Thomas C. Mowdy Jr. as an obligor or debtor and filed a fraudulent "Sworn on Account" $113,914.11 lien claim on Thomas C. Mowdy Jr.'s homestead located at 1805 Carey Avenue, Taylor, TX 76574. The document Hughes filed to substantiate Hughes's claim was a document described as fraudulent by Section 51.901(c) and later determined fraudulent in arbitration which was confirmed by 277th District court order dated September 9, 2014, "Exhibit 358". The document Hughes filed as a sworn affidavit was also contradicted by Hughes himself with a second sworn statement identifying another document as the contract. So, in addition to this complaint, Hughes also filed conflicting sworn affidavits which is a violation of Texas law.
Mowdy requested, by certified mail, to John W. Hughes for Hughes to remove the lien claim which was described as fraudulent by Texas Penal Code 32.49, and confirmed fraudulent by 277th District Court order on not less than four occasions by certified mail:
1. November 1, 2011, "Exhibit 56"
2. January 8, 2012, "Exhibit 57"
3. April 19, 2014, "Exhibit 351"
4. April 24, 2014, "Exhibit 352"
Hughes refused and ignored all Mowdy's requests to remove the fraudulent lien claim and caused harm to Mowdy. Under Texas law, such multiple refusals constitute an intent to harm. Mowdy was forced to hire legal representation at an $8,000 expense to obtain court confirmation and remove the fraudulent lien claim from Mowdy's homestead.
Hughes's criminal act wrongfully caused Mowdy extreme and undue stress from November 12, 2010, until September 9, 2014, when the fraudulent lien was removed by court order. Hughes violated Texas Penal Code 32.49 by refusing to remove the fraudulent lien claim and caused Mowdy significant financial and emotional duress. Mowdy is a senior citizen and U.S. Army war veteran.
As of this letter, two years has not elapsed since the two most recent requests were made by Mowdy to Hughes for removal of the fraudulent lien claim and therefore the statute of limitations for the misdemeanor crime has not expired.
I request you investigate and appropriately pursue my violation of Texas Penal Code 32.49 complaint against John W. Hughes.
Thomas C. Mowdy Major, U.S. Army (Ret.)