Cause No. DC-14-04053

LNV CORPORATION,

ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

v.

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

SAMUEL G. BREITLING,

JO ANN BREITLING,

GMAC MORTGAGE, INC.,

NORTHWEST MORTGAGE, INC.,

PINNACLE REALTY ADVISORS, INC.,

and PALISADES ACQUISITION V, LLC

Defendants. 134TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO RECUSE AND TO DISQUALIFY

JUDGE DALE TILLERY

To the attention of the Honorable Presiding Judge Mary Murthy of the 134th

District Court

Now comes defendants Samuel G. and JoAnn S. Breitling and motion this court under

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b to recuse Judge Dale Tillery from reviewing our

Motion to Vacate Void Order for Summary Judgment Favoring LNV and from hearing

any other matters pertaining to this case.

GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18b states: A judge must recuse in any proceeding in

which: (1) the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned; (2) the judge has a

personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party.

FILEDDALLAS COUNTY

8/18/2014 10:42:08 PMGARY FITZSIMMONS

DISTRICT CLERK

Judge Dale Tillery has demonstrated such actions that his impartiality might reasonably

be questioned, and this is amply explained with specificity in our Motion to Vacate Void

Order for Summary Judgment Favoring LNV.

Judge Tillery has demonstrated such a blatant bias and total disregard for the rule of law

in his granting of LNVs summary judgment in this matter that any reasonable person

who witnessed how Judge Tillery behaved toward me in his courtroom on August 4,

2014 and how he arbitrarily denied all our motions and moved to grant LNV a summary

judgment allowing them to move forward and deprive us of our property after he

admitted he had not seen or reviewed our answers and motions which we had timely filed

with the court; when he could therefore have not make any attempt to address our claims

or review our evidence; when he failed to permit us to make any argument in our own

behalf or in any other way be heard by the court; when he accepted as true, statements

made by counsel Jeffrey B. Hardaway while he denied us any opportunity to challenge

such statements; when he knew LNV had the burden of proof yet he acted against the

mandates of law and took as true all evidence favorable to the movant (LNV) while he

ignored and completely disregarded all evidence favorable to us, the nonmovants;

wherefore any reasonable person who witnessed this would conclude that Judge Tillerys

conduct must have either been criminally induced by the acceptance of a bribe or that

Judge Tillery must have allowed some prior relationship with Daniel Andrew Beal, LNV

or its counsel Hardaway or his employer Codilis & Stawiarski to influence his judicial

conduct or judgment. No reasonable person would conclude that Judge Tillerys conduct

was impartial.

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS

Any reasonable person would also conclude that Judge Tillery blatantly and intentionally

violated our right to due process under the Texas Constitution and our rights to

due process and equal protection of the law under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

From the Texas Municipal Courts Education Center: One of the guiding principles of

the American system of jurisprudence is the idea of an independent and neutral judiciary.

In order to ensure the aims of justice and to protect the integrity of the judicial system, all

judges must understand the law governing (1) disqualification and (2) recusal. While the

terms disqualification and recusal are used interchangeably, such use is a grievous error.

If a judge is disqualified under the constitution, he or she is absolutely without

jurisdiction in the case, and any judgment rendered by him or her is void, without effect,

and subject to collateral attack. The failure of a judge to recuse when recusal is

appropriate can constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Failure to recuse

may rise to the level of disqualification when it impacts a litigants right to due process.

Again exactly how Judge Tillery violated our Constitutional rights to due process is

amply explained with specificity in our Motion to Vacate Void Order for Summary

Judgment Favoring LNV which provides memorandum of law in its support. We

beseech the Honorable Judge Mary Murthy to read our Motion to Vacate Void Order for

Summary Judgment Favoring LNV so as to understand the full extent of Judge Tillerys

judicial misconduct and his violations of his oath to protect our Constitution. Judge

Tillery has committed fraud upon the court by the court. He has defiled the judicial

office and violated public trust and confidence in our legal system. He has no jurisdiction

to review this motion.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)

stated that "when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal

Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and

he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his

person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to

him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.

WHEREFORE we pray Judge Mary Murthy grant our Motion to Recuse and Disqualify

Judge Dale Tillery. We further pray that an investigation into whether Judge Tillery

accepted a bribe or was otherwise influenced by financial incentive; and if he is found to

have done so that he criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

______________________________ ______________________________

JoAnn S Breitling Samuel G. Breitling

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Made by fax and by certified mail to attorneys for plaintiffs

Jeffrey B. Hardaway

Robert L. Negrin

Mary M. Speidel

650 N. Sam Houston Pkwy.Ste 450

Houston, Texas 77060

Fax 281-925-5300