Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Impeach Judge Dale Tillery!!!!

On August 4, 2014 he ordered a final summary judgment against the Breitlings, a senior couple from
Sachse, Texas whove owned their home for 32 years. Mr. Breitling is an honorably retired Dallas police
officer of 33 years; and prior to becoming a police officer he served our country in the Navy and in the
Marines. The Breitlings, never defaulted on their mortgage. They fell victim to D. Andrew Andy Beal and
his sham companies, MGC Mortgage Inc. and LNV Corporation.
Judge Tillery never even read the Breitlings responses to LNVs petition and motions. He refused to
acknowledge any of their pleadings or review any of their claims. He ruled in favor of LNV in direct conflict
with legal precedence and rule of law. Read the Breitlings motion to vacate void judgment:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237267078/LNV-vs-Breitlings-Breitlings-Motion-to-Vacate-Void-Judgment
Andy Beal, his attorneys or his associates may have bribed Judge Tillery to push through a motion for a
summary judgment on Beals LNV Corporations in Rem non-judicial foreclosure petition. We wont know
until authorities complete an investigation into Tillery and his activities.
An In Rem action is typically used when the owner of the property is unknown and it is vacant. Beals
attorneys actually implied that this was the case in their petition. They knew this was not true. They also
knew that the Brietlings had been plaintiffs for nearly four years in litigation with Beals MGC Mortgage
where a different judge in a different district court had already made findings of fact and conclusions of
law that impacted LNVs standing to foreclose.
Since Beals corporations were not prevailing in the other district court and since his attorneys prepared a
deceptive petition for Tillerys court one cant help but wonder whether Beal and his attorneys knew they
could either easily hoodwink Dale Tillery or that hed give them a favorable ruling for money or other
gifts or incentives.
Even if Beal, his attorneys or his associates did not bribe Judge Tillery, he still denied the Breitlings their
Constitutional right to due process and equal protection of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. He admitted he never saw the Breitlings answer to LNVs petition for In Rem foreclosure.
He never reviewed any of their pleadings, never heard or considered any of their arguments or reviewed
any of their evidence; i.e. they were denied due process and deprived of their property as a result.
Dont think this cant happen to you. It can as long as judges like Tillery sit on the bench. And as long as
aggressive multi Billionaires like Andy Beal continue to think they are above the law.
You can read about what happened at these links:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237271089/LNV-vs-Breitlings-Breitlings-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-ofSouthgate-and-Bemont
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237271082/LNV-vs-Breitlings-Breitlings-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-BealSwitched-Note
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237271080/LNV-vs-Breitlings-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-SOS-Records
https://www.scribd.com/doc/237271086/LNV-vs-Breitlings-Breitlings-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-ofLorraine-Criminal-Indictment

Check Back Often for Updates!!!!


Read more about Judge Tillery on the following pages and learn why we suspect he is open to bribery

http://www.gavelbangers.com/judges/texas/trial-level/tillery/dale

Hon. Dale B. Tillery

Ratings
#1 clerk or other courthouse employee
Sunday, June 2, 2013 - 02:45

He is arrogant and yells and is never present for work. He needs to be voted out. He gives good rulings
only to attorneys that have given money and lunches and taken him put for drinks. This is one man who
forgot who he works for, that is us the people. Help get him removed. Vote against him in the primary and
vote for, the democrats running against him.

http://pushjunction.com/press_releases/district-judge-dale-tillery-is-investigated-for-six-broad-categories-ofelection-law-violation

DISTRICT JUDGE DALE TILLERY IS INVESTIGATED FOR


SIX BROAD CATEGORIES OF ELECTION LAW VIOLATION
Texas Ethics Advisory Board
HUNTSVILLE, TX, 7 Jul 2012
In an official response to a Sworn Complaint, the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) has notified 134th
District Court Judge Dale Tillery (D-Garland, TX) he is being investigated for multiple campaign finance
violations. (See the attached TEC investigation letter and sworn complaint.)
The Sworn Complaint alleges Tillery, over the past two years accepted a labor union contribution, made
unlawful contributions to a candidate/officeholder and political committees, converted campaign funds to
personal use, failed to fully disclose contributors' principal occupations, job titles, and employers/law
firms, failed to fully disclose the sources of political contributions, failed to fully disclose the recipients
and purposes of political expenditures, and filed several otherwise incomplete reports, with contribution
and loan balances indicating undisclosed campaign contributions and/or expenditures.
The complaint also notes Tillery shows a serious contribution balance discrepancy of $13,064.33.
Mr. Alvin Schleiske, a well-known Woodlands TEA party supporter, filed the complaint after noticing
Judge Tillerys alleged campaign finance violations.
Texas Election Code provides that if Tillery received a contribution from a labor union, that is a third
degree felony offense. He is also subject to a civil penalty of up to three times the contribution amount for
making illegal contributions out of his campaign funds. If Tillery converted political contributions to
personal use, he would be civilly liable to the State for the converted amount plus reasonable court costs.
Because of their serious nature, the TEC will process the allegations against Tillery as Category 2
violations. He must formally respond to the TEC by July 19, or face a separate violation and civil penalty.
Officeholders with more serious allegations are allowed more time to respond to the TEC.
Tillery signed his campaign finance reports under the penalty of perjury, and bears the responsibility for
checking the report accuracy and fully disclosing the information required by state law.
Making a false, material, perjurious statement during or in connection with an official Texas Ethics
Commission proceeding constitutes aggravated perjury, a felony of the third degree.
Mr. Schleiske sent the Sworn Complaint to the Texas Ethics Advisory Board (TEAB) for further review.
In a statement to the TEAB about the Tillery complaint, Mr. Schleiske wrote, Judge Tillery has
flagrantly broken the law he is bound by the Texas Constitution to uphold. He is a judge. I find it
astonishing he would be so in your face with his anticsand where did that $13,000 go? The Texas
Ethics Advisory Board is a peer reviewer and consultant regarding Campaign Finance Reports.
Schleiske and the TEAB are members of a large group of citizen-taxpayers in suburban Houston and
surrounding counties who conduct statewide audits of progressive candidates, officeholders and political
action committees who have long been contributing to the runaway growth of government and the loss of
constitutional authority.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20110914-dallas-county-judges-desire-touse-civilian-bailiff-prompts-concerns-from-other-judges.ece

Dallas County judges desire to use civilian bailiff prompts concerns from other
judges
Home > News > Community News > Dallas > Dallas Headlines

Dallas County judges desire to use civilian bailiff prompts concerns from other
judges
By KEVIN KRAUSE
Staff Writer
kkrause@dallasnews.com
Published: 14 September 2011 10:10 PM - Updated: 14 September 2011 10:33 PM
A Dallas County family court judges decision to use a civilian bailiff instead of a sheriffs deputy has led
to a heated debate about the balance between government efficiencies and courtroom safety.
Judge Lynn Cherry, of the 301st Family District Court, is asking county commissioners to allow for a
full-time civil court clerk to be the bailiff in her court instead of the part-time sheriffs deputy she uses.
The other courts are staffed with sheriffs bailiffs, who are sworn peace officers.
Cherry said her clerk is a retired Highland Park police officer and reserve police officer with extensive
law enforcement and military experience. He is also her current bailiff but will resign from the Sheriffs
Department to become a civilian clerk, she said.
Cherry wants him to be allowed to continue carrying a firearm in court. But county officials say the
district attorneys office will have to look into that since only county law enforcement officers are
authorized to carry firearms inside county courthouses.
The proposed change, which is scheduled for a vote next week, will save the county $11,575 per year, the
county budget office said. Entry-level deputy bailiffs are paid $58,439 annually while civilians are paid
$46,864, county officials said.
But Cherry said the real benefit will be in having the same bailiff in her court at all times. That hasnt
happened, she said, since Sheriff Lupe Valdez replaced full-time bailiffs in the George Allen civil
courthouse with part-timers in January to try to save money and improve efficiency. Since the change,
part-time bailiffs often have had to be replaced in the middle of court proceedings, creating disruptions,
Cherry said.
Cherry said her bailiff sometimes has to be replaced in the middle of a trial because he cant work more
than 38 hours a week.
She said she wants a bailiff whom she knows and understands. She called the current system very
problematic and unsafe.
County Budget Director Ryan Brown said Tuesday that no one is asking the rest of the judges to use
civilian bailiffs. Its the judges choice, he said.
But Judge Denise Garcia, of the 303rd Family District Court, told commissioners recently that Cherry did
not inform the other family court judges of her proposal and that they oppose it.

Once aggressors get into the area behind a courtroom, they can gain access to the other courts, Garcia
said. Were all tied together, she said.
Garcia told commissioners that a civilian bailiff cannot make arrests or process prisoners. She said that
family courts hear many volatile cases and that reducing security in one court renders all of us unsafe.
She also questioned the estimated savings from the move.
Commissioner John Wiley Price praised Cherry for her decision. Price has supported the idea of civilian
bailiffs since the beginning of the year.
She wants an opportunity to try. Let her try, Price said recently.
In January, Dale Tillery, the new judge of the 134th Civil District Court, offered to use a civilian bailiff in
a pilot program to save about $21,000 a year.
A group of judges told commissioners at the time that they opposed the change, saying citizen safety is
paramount in the courts.
The judges are still expressing opposition to civilian bailiffs.
Judge Martin Lowy, a civil court judge, told commissioners during a recent meeting that Cherry has the
right to run her court as she sees fit but that court bailiffs should operate as a team. He said he hasnt been
shown that Tillerys new bailiff is saving money.
We dont want to go in this direction, and we dont think its saving money, said Lowy, the local
administrative judge who speaks for all the judges and handles administrative duties such as
implementing rules.
County Judge Clay Jenkins said its important that the judges come together and communicate about
the matter even if they do not agree. He urged them to go to lunch together to work it out.
Commissioner Elba Garcia said she supports the move.
Sheriff Lupe Valdez has also voiced some concern about Cherrys decision. Valdez has told
commissioners that civilians dont have direct communication with her department and that she cant
respond as quickly to courtroom incidents.
Valdez said last week she wouldnt try to block Cherrys move as long as the judge agreed to sign a
liability waiver. Cherry and the sheriff have already signed an agreement, county officials say.

http://judgepedia.org/Dale_B._Tillery

Dale B. Tillery
Past position: Partner, Edwards & Tillery

Dale B. Tillery is a judge of the 134th District Court in Texas. He was elected in 2010 and his current term expires
in 2014.
2014
See also: Texas judicial elections, 2014
Tillery is running for re-election to the 134th District Court.
Primary: He ran unopposed in the Democratic primary on March 4, 2014.
General: He will be unopposed in the general election on November 4, 2014.[1][2]
2010

Tillery defeated David D. Kelton in a runoff election on April 13, 2010 receiving 67.6% of the vote.[3]
Tillery next defeated James M. Stanton in the general election, winning 50.53% of the vote.[4]
See also: Texas district court judicial elections, 2010

Career
Prior to joining the bench, Tillery gained experience as a partner at the law firm of Edwards & Tillery and
president of Tillery & Tillery. He also served as an elected representative in the Texas House of
Representatives from 1994 through 2000.[6]

Awards and associations


Dale Tillery has been certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in Civil Trial Law and
Personal Injury Law and has been admitted to practice law by the Texas Supreme Court, United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.[6]

http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/campaign-finance/filer/00026547-dale-b-tillery/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-05-25/highland-capital-wins-texas-court-ruling-ending-investors-suit
Bloomberg News

Highland Capital Wins Texas Case Ruling Ending Investor Suit (1)
By Andrew Harris and Thomas Korosec May 25, 2013
Highland Capital Management LP won a Texas court ruling ending a four-year-old lawsuit filed by investors
claiming they were misled about the health of two hedge funds that were later closed.

Dallas County Judge Dale Tillery granted Highlands motion in a ruling earlier this week, following
arguments April 19.
Having reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties and after conducting a hearing on the matter, the
court is of the opinion that defendants motion should be granted, the judge said in a two-page ruling.
Story: Litigation-Finance Firm Survives Chevron Debacle, Learns Lessons, and Thrives

LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC and other investor plaintiffs claimed in a 2009 complaint that
Dallas-based Highland misled investors by withholding requested information about the rate of
withdrawals before the firm began winding down Highland Credit Strategies Fund LP and Highland
Credit Strategies Fund Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged in court papers their redemption percentage of the funds liquidated value was
paltry. As of June 2008, LV Highland Credit Feeder Funds stake in Highland Credit Strategies Fund
LP had been valued at more than $40 million, according to the complaint. Six other plaintiffs held lesservalued stakes in the funds.
Our case is based on misconduct, Geoffrey Jarvis, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Tillery at the April
hearing. They lied to us. The plaintiff investors said they would have gotten out if theyd known the
true pace of redemptions that totaled $467 million, or 42 percent of one of the funds, in April 2008 alone.
Story: Apples Siri Gets Bruised in a Chinese Patent Fight

Seriously Flawed
This is a seriously flawed case based on things that dont exist, Highland lawyer Michael Aigen said in
court that day, contending there was no evidence of falsity or fraud. Highland personnel had expressed
vague opinions about the state of the fund, not specific incorrect information.
Thomas Becker, a spokesman for Highland, declined to comment. Jarvis didnt immediately reply to an email seeking comment after regular business hours.
The case is LV Highland Credit Feeder Fund LLC v. Highland Credit Strategies Fund LP, DC09-08521,
Dallas County, Texas District Court, 134th Judicial District (Dallas).
Story: Highway Guardrails Are Killing Drivers, Says Industry Insider

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew Harris in the Chicago federal courthouse at
aharris16@bloomberg.net; Tom Korosec in Dallas County Court in Texas at
tkorosec@texaswordworks.com.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net
Story: Pom Wins in the Supreme Court. Now it's Pom v. Coke, Round 2