WILCO ATTORNEY HOBBS LIED ABOUT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
Note: This release contains some embedded links to an on-line library. The larger documents may not link well and will need to be "downloaded" for complete viewing.
WILCO ATTORNEY HOBBS LIED ABOUT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
Williamson County Attorney, Doyle Hobbs, lied about facts concerning a criminal investigation in Williamson County.
Tom Mowdy, from Taylor, TX., filed a Class A misdemeanor criminal complaint with the Taylor Police Department against John W. Hughes, a well connected construction contractor who refused to remove a fraudulent $113,914.11 lien claim on Mowdy's homestead property.
Mowdy, a senior citizen and Vietnam veteran, was forced to spend over $8,000, in legal fees, to obtain a civil court order which confirmed and removed Hughes's false lien claim.
Mowdy complained Hughes violated Texas Penal Code 32.49 which makes it a Class A Misdemeanor crime if a fraudulent lien claim, as defined by Texas Government Code 51.901c, is not removed within 21 days after the owner requests the claimant remove the fraudulent claim.
Mowdy requested Hughes remove the fraudulent lien claim on four separate dates, November 1, 2011, "Exhibit 56", January 8, 2012, "Exhibit 57", April 19, 2014, "Exhibit 351", and April 24, 2014, "Exhibit 352". Hughes, did not respond whatsoever to any of the requests, and thereby violated Texas Penal Code 32.49. Mowdy made the criminal complaint against Hughes on March 11, 2015.
Texas Government Code 51.901(c)(2)(B) states a lien claim is fraudulent if it "is not created by implied or express consent or agreement" of the owner.
Hobbs responded to Mowdy's Texas Penal Code 32.49 violation complaint with the following statement:
"In short, there is not enough evidence to indicate Mr. Hughes had any criminal intent to commit the offense alleged under Section 32.49 Texas Penal Code or support the claim that the lien was fraudulent as defined by Section 51.901(c) Texas Government Code. There was a genuine dispute concerning the nature of the work performed, breach of contract, and money owed. The claims and counter-claims between Mr. Mowdy and Mr. Hughes are civil and not criminal in nature. Therefore, the best forum to resolve these disputes is through a civil lawsuit in civil court. Mr. Mowdy has been afforded due process in Cause No. 11-1064-C277 in which a final order disposing of all claims between the parties has been entered. As such, the County Attorney's Office will not pursue a criminal charge against Mr. Hughes under Section 32.49 Texas Penal Code."
County Attorney Hobbs is lying about the evidence and is attempting to cover up crimes, that Mowdy reported, by implying the criminal matter was settled in civil court. Hughes, and his lawyer, tried to fraudulently use the civil court system to take legal control of the Mowdy's home and sell it to pay for Hughes's false claims.
Hobbs is a lawyer and knows criminal matters are not addressed in civil court actions. Hobbs knows the civil due process showed that crimes were committed. The civil matter has been settled, but, that is completely separate from the crimes committed and each citizen must ask why Hobbs wants to ignore false sworn statements filed in court and serious property crimes against a senior citizen in Williamson County?
False claims can be made against any property owner in the county and ignoring such crimes encourages the corrupt. When the false claim was filed, Mowdy could not find a lawyer who wanted less than a $35,000 down payment to handle the case. Each warned it could go to $200,000 in legal expenses and it was doubtful Mowdy would ever get that back. So, Mowdy acted as his own lawyer and proved, in civil court, the $113,914.11 claim was false.
Not every property owner has the time or background that would allow self defense. Wilco citizens need truth and good law enforcement to ensure they don't become victims. For some reason, Hobbs does not want to fulfill that need.
There is overwhelming and undeniable evidence, proven in civil court, that crimes were committed and Hughes had criminal intent and the lien claim was in violation of Texas Government Code 51.901(c).
On the matter of criminal intent, County Attorney Hobbs knows the Taylor Police Department investigated Mowdy's complaint in 2012, and determined the contractor, Hughes, did not perform the $113,914.11 work Hughes claimed in the sworn affidavit filed with the fraudulent lien claim. Specifically, the Taylor Police Department reported to the Williamson County Attorney that forensic facts show Hughes charged Mowdy twice for concrete that had never been replaced whatsoever. That is a crime.
There were many other false charges, but, the unrepaired cracks in the concrete were "solid" and undeniable evidence that the claim was false and a crime had been committed. Specifically, that Hughes filed the lien claim with a sworn statement that he repaired the concrete when he did not. That is also undeniable perjury, and it is a deceptive trade crime. Hobbs knows Hughes wanted to take the Mowdy's retirement home to pay for the $113,914.11 false work and material claims against a senior citizen and Vietnam war veteran. That was clearly stated in the law suit Hughes filed.
Texas Business and Commerce Code 17.46 b(22), makes it a crime to demand payment for service or material that has not been provided. Hobbs was aware Hughes did not repair the concrete and Hobbs knows Hughes filed a fraudulent document in two official proceedings, a lien claim and a lawsuit, claiming payment for the work that was never performed.
County Attorney Hobbs, was provided forensic evidence from MLAW Engineering laboratories proving the concrete Hughes charged Mowdy for replacing had actually never been replaced, Exhibit "20". The County Attorney requested the forensic examination. The County Attorney knew Hughes's lien claim was unlawful the moment the MLAW forensic evidence was received, and did nothing.
Hobbs was also provided photographic proof through insurance claim photos. (The photo exhibit is a large file and may need to be downloaded to view in full.) The photos show the original concrete damage before the repair claim. More photos, of the unique damage, were then taken after Hughes filed a sworn affidavit that he repaired the concrete. The second set of photos, which also include a newspaper dated after Hughes claimed he repaired the concrete, show the concrete has never been repaired. The concrete is still unrepaired today.
Hobbs was provided the forensic evidence from MLAW and the photographs proving the false concrete repair claim. Such a false claim, by Hughes, clearly indicates intent to financially harm the Mowdys because it demands money payment for repairs that were not performed. And, the demand was made under the legal threat of taking and selling the Mowdy's home for the false claims.
The forensic evidence and photos prove the Williamson County Attorney was knowingly subjecting the Mowdys to an unlawful lien claim because Hobbs knew the lien claim was based on false claims. Hobbs refused his legal duty and authority to act to prevent an unlawful lien claim to be made against anyone in Williamson County.
On the matter of intent to harm, Hobbs knows Texas Penal Code 32.49 includes, as part of the law, that the criminal element of "intent to harm" is automatic if the fraudulent lien claim is not removed within 21 days of the request. Hughes received four separate certified requests, November 1, 2011, "Exhibit 56", January 8, 2012, "Exhibit 57", April 19, 2014, "Exhibit 351", and April 24, 2014, "Exhibit 352", to remove the lien and ignored all four. Hobbs knew, by law, that Hughes intended to harm the Mowdys and did nothing.
Hobbs is lying when he says there is no evidence of a crime or intent. Hobbs knows the concrete was never replaced by Hughes and Hobbs knows Hughes deliberately charged Mowdy for repairing the concrete and never withdrew that false claim.
The false concrete repair claim is "concrete evidence" that within the false $113,914.11 claim there were other duplicate charges and charges for work that was not provided. For example, within the lien claim, the Mowdys were charged twice for $12,000 kitchen granite and for $55,000 wood floors Hughes did not provide. Hobbs knows the charges for $113,914.11 were fraudulent and intentional and the facts were proven in legal arbitration which was confirmed by the 277th District Court.
With respect to Texas Government Code 51.901(c), the evidence is stunningly clear based on legal facts determined through arbitration and confirmed by the 277th District Court. The document Hughes filed with his lien claim and swore was the contract, is not the contract Hughes purported it to be, it is dated after the true and correct contract, it is not signed by anyone, it has no written terms, and it therefore could not have the Mowdy's implicit or explicit agreement. The court confirmed, by the arbitrator's finding #21, that any such document must have the signatures of both Tom and Joanna Mowdy to be part of the true and correct contract.
The stunning evidence is that by Hughes's own sworn affidavit, he swears a different document is the real contract. That sworn statement, by Hughes himself, means the lien claim document he filed is not the contractual agreement Hughes purported it to be and that Hughes's November 12, 2010, affidavit is false. (Note: the false lien claim document is a large file and might need to be downloaded for complete viewing.) County Attorney Hobbs needs no further evidence, that the document is fraudulent under 51.901c, other than Hughes's own sworn conflicting statements.
Williamson County Attorney Hobbs knows the Mowdy's never made any form of agreement to pay for work that was not performed or material that was not provided. Hobbs knows that, by confirmed court findings, the true and correct contract requires any additions to the original contract to be signed by both the contractor and Mowdy, (Arbitrator fact finding #21). Hobbs knows Hughes's lien claim contract had no signatures whatsoever and was dated after the true and correct contract date.
Hobbs knows the Mowdy's did not agree, in any manner, to the document Hughes claimed was the contract for the work and filed to substantiate Hughes's claim. Hobbs knows the fraudulent contract was in violation of Texas Property Code 53.254. Hobbs knows Hughes's lien claim was therefore in violation of Texas Government Code 51.901(c).
Hobbs knows that Hughes and his lawyer both made false sworn affidavits and statements and perjured themselves and committed crimes by filing false documents in official proceedings. Hobbs knows the document Hughes claimed to be the contract had no signatures, did not add up, contained duplicate and false charges amounting to at least $113,914.11, and were all dated after the real contract was signed. By Texas law, because the document had no signatures, and no agreement by the Mowdys, it was legally presumed to be fraudulent when it was filed with the county clerk.
Hobbs knows all of Hughes's $113,914.11 claims made under sworn oath, were determined to be unjust and false by legal arbitration, facts 50 and 51, and then were confirmed as such by the Williamson County 277th District Court. Hobbs knows it was determined that Hughes willfully breached the contract by falsely claiming payment for $113,914.11.
All of Hughes's actions to make Mowdy pay $113,914.11 were intentional and deliberate, and fraudulent. Hobbs was given undeniable evidence and knows Mowdy made multiple requests to Hughes for audits and review. Hobbs knows Mowdy made multiple requests under Texas laws for Hughes to provide a list of work performed, November 1, 2011, "Exhibit 56", January 8, 2012, "Exhibit 57", April 19, 2014, "Exhibit 351", and April 24, 2014, "Exhibit 352".
Hobbs knows each of those certified requests were made under Texas property law and required Hughes to produce the contract and complete an affidavit of work performed. Yet, Hughes refused those requests and persisted in his efforts to make the Mowdys pay $113,914.11 for work and materials that Hughes had not provided. Why would Hughes avoid a sworn affidavit of work performed when he was claiming Mowdy owed him for the work?
Hobbs knows Hughes's first sworn statement, dated November 12, 2010, was a false affidavit which Hughes contradicted with a second sworn affidavit, dated November 16, 2012, identifying a different two page document as the real contract. County Attorney Hobbs has ignored these two conflicting sworn affidavits which are, by State law, perjury.
Hobbs knows all these things about intent, harm, agreement, and false statements by Hughes can be proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Yet, when Mowdy made a criminal complaint that Hughes violated Texas Penal Code 32.49, Hobbs responded claiming there was no intent by Hughes to falsely claim Mowdy owed $113,914.11, and that somehow, the Mowdys agreed to be charged for work and materials that were never provided and made such agreement after that work was falsely claimed to have been performed.
Hobbs cannot reconcile facts with his investigation statement. Hobbs cannot reconcile his knowledge, that Hughes and his lawyer knowingly filed a fraudulent document in court, with the statement that there was no criminal intent.
The fact that Hughes charged Mowdy over $5,000 for concrete but, never performed the work makes the filing of the claim document alone a crime. Hughes filed a claim with a document charging $113,914.11 and identified, by sworn affidavit, that he performed the work and the false document was the "contract" when it was not the contract.
Neither Mowdy or his wife agreed in any form, at any time, with the document that Hughes filed and Hobbs knows that fact was determined to be true by the results of the arbitration and the 277th District Court confirmation. The document Hughes filed does not have implicit or explicit agreement of the owner and is automatically presumed fraudulent by Texas law and is fraudulent under Texas Government Code 51.901c.
What Hobbs will not address is why he would want to claim the Mowdys would have agreed to a (see finding of fact #51) "sworn suit on account" document that does not have their signatures, is not a written contract, does not add up to any amount stated by any affidavit, does not have a total amount, is dated after the true and correct contract, is falsely claimed by sworn affidavit to be the contract and later contradicted by the same person in another sworn affidavit, and includes claims and charges for work that, proven in civil court, was not performed and materials that were not provided.
Hobbs wants to say all these crimes were settled in civil court and it is all over and done with. Hobbs wants to ignore that this is really about crime and corruption. The evidence indicates Williamson County Attorney Doyle Hobbs is lying about an investigation to protect his friends.
A key to understanding why Hughes would file a fraudulent document is that the real contract became missing from the Mowdy apartment while work was in progress on the homestead. Hughes was the maintenance provider for the apartment and had full access while Mowdy and his wife were gone for extended periods.
The contract became missing from the Mowdy's apartment and computer. Then Hughes filed the fraudulent document, claiming it was the contract, while refusing multiple requests to produce the true and correct contract and provide a list of work performed. He was able to do that until, after months, the Mowdy's found a back-up computer copy of the missing real contract, in their storage locker, and presented it in the civil case. Then, Hughes's case fell apart.
Before Mowdy found the true and correct contract, Hughes refused multiple requests for Hughes to provide a copy of the real contract. Hobbs was aware that Hughes concealed the true and correct contract until Mowdy found and presented it in the civil court case. Only after Mowdy presented the true and correct contract did Hughes file an affidavit changing his testimony. His two sworn affidavits are in conflict, which is an automatic crime under Texas law. And, Hobbs knows, the law says when there are conflicting sworn statements, it is a crime, and it does not matter which one is false.
Before filing his civil claim, with a false contract, Hughes had the opportunity to confirm Mowdy could not challenge his false document with a copy of the true and correct contract. Mowdy, a newcomer to Taylor, was solicited by Ted Hejl, the long time Taylor City Attorney concerning Hughes's claim. Hejl knew Mowdy had lien claim problems with Hughes. Hejl indicated, for weeks, he might be able to help Mowdy.
When Mowdy contacted and told Hejl, that Mowdy could not find a copy of the contract, Ted Hejl immediately advised Mowdy that Hughes had a record of being Hejl's client, Exhibit "80". On December 6, 2010, Ted Hejl excused himself after obtaining information that Mowdy could not find a copy of the true and correct contract.
Hughes, Hejl's former client, then refused three certified requests from Mowdy to produce the contract, December 14, 2010, December 28, 2010, and January 7, 2011. So, only after Mowdy confirmed to Ted Hejl, that the true and correct contract could not be found, did Hughes and his lawyer refuse to produce the true and correct contract and then they filed the lawsuit in civil court with a fraudulent contract.
Hughes lived in Taylor for 30 years and was well known by Ted Hejl. It is hard to understand how Ted Hejl could have forgotten that Hughes was his client. Hejl and County Attorney Hobbs have known each other for a very long time and work together frequently. Hughes's brother, a local investment manager, is married to the daughter of a local banker who has done legal business with Hejl for years. I doubt anyone in the money business wants a relative with a criminal record of making false claims and statements.
Hobbs is lying when he says there is no evidence indicating Hughes's intent to commit a crime and that the false contract document does not meet the requirements of 51.901c. For some reason, Hobbs is suppressing material facts about a criminal case involving $113,914.11, and an attempt to falsely take the homestead of a senior war veteran.
There is ample reason to believe that Hughes might have a lot to say if he were prosecuted. There is ample reason to believe that County Attorney Hobbs does not want anyone to hear what Hughes might say. Hughes clearly has a political connection and all Hobbs's actions indicate Hobbs is providing protection to a well connected citizen.
The facts presented in this article corroborate the massive justice system corruption in Williamson County, Texas. Hobbs's actions send a message to the citizens of Williamson County. When the County Attorney is willing to ignore friends breaking the law, filing fraudulent documents in court, making false claims, and putting a law abiding family through years of hell to defend unjust claims against their home, the message is that corruption is the standard in Williamson County.
There are two revealing question to ask about this matter:
1. Why was all of Hughes's $113,914.11 sworn true claim determined to be false and attributed, in civil court, to Hughes's refusal to provide "just offsets and credits?"
2. Did the $113.914.11 claim include a false charge for any service or material that was not actually provided?
The answers to the above questions have already been proven. The answer is that the false claims were deliberate, sworn by Hughes and his lawyer, filed in the Williamson County justice system, and they knew that none of it was true. That indicates a lot of crimes happened.
There is blatant evidence of crime and intent and when that is ignored by our elected law enforcement officials it is a threat to every citizen in the county. Williamson County citizens need to completely overhaul the justice system leadership and get rid of corrupt county officials like Doyle Hobbs.