Our Criminal Complaint

This post contains the criminal complaint we filed with the Harris County Sherriff's Office and with the Harris County District Attorney. The information in the complaint overlaps with what is described in other posts of this blog. However, for good bookkeeping we are including the entire complaint as it was filed with the authorities. The exhibits of the complaint can be accessed at this LINK.

Harris County Sheriff’s Office            via email: SheriffGonzalez@sheriff.hctx.net
1200 Baker Street                                via CMRRR
Houston, Texas 77002

Harris County District Attorney     via email: da@dao.hctx.net
1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600     via CMRRR
Houston, Texas 77002-1923

To whom it may concern:

Please allow this correspondence to serve as a formal complaint against Jean Pierre and Yolande Convert of 15926 Fleetwood Oaks Drive, Houston, Texas 77079, for violations of the Texas Penal Code, committed against the District Courts of Harris County, Texas. Included in these Penal Code Violations are Felony and Misdemeanor violations of the law. The Converts’ attorneys have also committed fraud upon the court, of which will also be detailed below. Edmund and June Muehlner do hereby make these statements of their own volition; based upon personal knowledge.

Violated sections of the Texas Penal Code alleged include, but are not limited to, the following:

Section 37.02 – PERJURY – Class A misdemeanor

Section 37.03 – AGGRAVATED PERJURY – felony of the third degree

Section 37.08 – FALSE REPORT TO PEACE OFFICER – Class B misdemeanor

Complainant:

Edmund and June Muehlner of 15930 Fleetwood Oaks Drive, Houston, Texas 77079

Complainee:

Jean Pierre and Yolande Convert of 15926 Fleetwood Oaks Drive, Houston, Texas 77079

Bradley Hoover of Bradley W. Hoover, P.C., 937 E. Mulberry Street, Angleton, Texas 77515

Nicole Perdue of Perdue and Kidd, 777 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 450, Houston, Texas 77056

Mathew Probstfeld of Probstfeld & Associates, 515 Park Grove Drive, Suite 102, Katy, Texas 77450

BACKGROUND

This complaint centers around a property dispute between neighbors, the Converts and the Muehlners. Said dispute was litigated (Cause No. 2018-61583) before the Honorable Beau Miller of the 190th Judicial District Court and judgement was rendered in favor of the Converts; the Converts were granted property of which their pool equipment is located on as well as an expanded property boundary. The property in which the pool equipment is located was disputed by the Muehlners as they contend that said equipment resides on their property. The Honorable Beau Miller granted said property to the Converts via adverse possession. The Muehlners do believe and assert that said adverse possession was granted based upon incorrect and knowingly false testimony, pleadings, and documents provided by the Converts. After the rendering of judgment, the Muehlners came across new information that irrefutably displays perjury by the Converts. The Muehlners also contend that the Converts have filed false reports with law enforcement in an effort to bolster their case.

VIOLATIONS

SECTION 37.02 - PERJURY
SECTION 37.03 - AGGRAVATED PERJURY
SECTION 37.08 - FALSE REPORT TO PEACE OFFICER

The Converts have intentionally and knowingly violated Sections 37.02, 37.03, and 37.08 of the Texas Penal Code in a concerted effort to sway the Courts to grant them possession of property not rightfully theirs. The aforementioned statutes read as follows:

Sec. 37.02. PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement’s meaning:

(1) He makes a false statement under oath or sweats to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath; or

(2) He makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice
and Remedies Code.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Sec. 37.03. AGGRAVTED PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:

(1) Is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and

(2) Is material.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

Sec. 37.08. FALSE REPORT TO A PEACE OFFICER, FEDERAL SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE, CORRECTIONS OFFICER, OR JAILER. (a) a person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive, he knowingly makes a false statement that is material to a criminal investigation and makes the statement to:

(1) A peace officer or federal special investigator conducting the investigation; (c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

On or about the date of September 10, 2018, the Muehlners filed suit against the Converts. (EXHIBIT C) On or about the date of October 15, 2018, Jean Pierre and Yolande Convert filed a counterclaim against the Muehlners that includes false information. (EXHIBIT D) In this counterclaim, the Converts assert that a “true and correct” deed is included as an exhibit. However, the deed included has a clear scrivener’s error that was previously brought to the Court’s attention in the Muehlner’s Original Petition. Mr. Convert went so far as to testify in his deposition that he had knowledge of the error since 2012, when a surveyor, Mathew Probstfeld, told him about said error and noted said error on a survey drawing. (EXHIBIT E) (EXHIBIT F) Despite the Convert’s knowledge of the error, they continued to submit pleadings from October 2018 to October 2019 asserting a “true and correct” deed. (EXHIBIT G) Such actions by the Converts display undeniable perjury and as such, warrant investigation.

On or about the date of October 25, 2019, Yolande Convert was deposed. During this deposition, Mrs. Convert knowingly and intentionally made false statements. In said deposition, Mrs. Convert stated that she did not dig a trench on the disputed property, however, submitted photographic and video evidence shows that she did, in fact, dig a trench. (EXHIBIT H) (EXHIBIT I).

On or about the date of October 25, 2019, Jean Pierre Convert was deposed. During this deposition, Mr. Convert made statements contradictory to his sworn testimony during the trial. In said deposition, Mr. Convert stated that he did not believe that he owned the disputed property, however, at the trial he reneges this assertion, stating instead that he does own the disputed property. (EXHIBIT J) (EXHIBIT K).

On or about the date of June 22, 2020, the Converts filed a false police report (EXHIBIT L) alleging criminal mischief by Mr. Muehlner. The Converts also filed an affidavit alleging that, “Mr. Muehlner had slowly approached our house late at night or after midnight.” The Converts went so far as to call for an Emergency Court Meeting , in which the Court found no wrongdoing by Mr. Muehlner as Mr. Muehlner never committed the alleged offenses. Such a blatantly false report warrants an investigation.

During the trial on or about October 16, 2020, Jean Pierre Convert intentionally and knowingly stated under oath that his pool equipment has been in its very location since 1981 and that the only modifications or changes made was the replacement of the pump motor. (EXHIBIT M) The Court ordered a post-trial survey to be done by B&B Surveying Company. B&B Surveying Company then submitted said survey along with photographs of the equipment. (EXHIBIT N) From the survey and photographs, the Muehlners discovered the serial numbers for the pool pump. The Muehlners subsequently inquired as to the manufacture date of this pump and determined that the pump was not manufactured until 2017. Further, the Muehlners were notified that the pool cleaner booster pump was not manufactured prior to 2017. (EXHIBIT O) The PVC piping also show a manufacturing stamp of 2012. This is irrefutable evidence that Jean Pierre Convert knew his statement was false and misleading as the equipment has clearly been moved and replaced. It is the belief of the Muehlners that these statements were paramount to the Court’s judgment in favor of the Converts and as such, should be investigated.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY ATTORNEY

"Since attorney are officers of the court, their conduct, if dishonesty, would constitute fraud on the court.” H.K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 536 F.2d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir. 1976) The Muehlners assert that by and through Mr. Bradley Hoover’s and Ms. Nicole Perdue’s statements and filings to the Court, fraud upon the court has been committed. Mr. Hoover and Ms. Perdue, counselors for the Converts, have committed said fraud via perjurious statements and filings. “Perjury in which an attorney participates may be considered fraud on the court sufficient to relieve a party from a prior judgment.” cf. Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250 (1944).

On page 8 of the Appellees’ Brief (EXHIBIT P), counsel states that “The Muehlners did not raise the metal fence or its placement in their pleadings or during trial.” This is wholly false as can be seen on pages 8 and 18 of the trial transcript (EXHIBIT Q), whereas counsel for the Muehlners explicitly states, “in addition to what wooden fence, it’s also a steel – steel fence as well, and I believe belongs to the defendants solely.” Counsel had clear and indisputable knowledge that the iron fence was a material point of contention between parties and had been addressed before yet still made these false statements. Such can be seen clearly through counsel’s previous filings of Finding of Facts (EXHIBIT R), whereas counsel’s own heading mentions the iron fence, and a previously filed letter from the Converts’ former counsel in which the iron fence is mentioned multiple times. (EXHIBIT S) Due to the false statements of counsel, the Appellate Court mistakenly determined that the iron fence was not subject of the litigation (EXHIBIT T), when in fact, the entire lawsuit was based on the entire boundary line; not just a specific section of the boundary line. (EXHIBIT C)

On page 16 of the Appellees’ Brief (EXHIBIT U), counsel states that “The Muehlners have known about the Converts’ pool and the placement of their pool equipment since at least November 2007 when the wood fence was removed and replaced with the currently existing wood fence.” This is also wholly false. The Muehlners have testified via sworn affidavit that was submitted to the Court, that they were not home at the time of the fence installation and therefore could not have seen or possessed knowledge of the placement of the pool equipment. (EXHIBIT V) Further, the Muehlners assert that as the pool equipment was not manufactured until after 2007, they could not possibly have seen said equipment. Due to said false statement, the Appellate Court mistakenly determined that the Muehlners had knowledge of the location of the pool equipment and thus granted adverse possession.

Counsel, having based their testimonies, statements, and filings on the false assertions of their clients, the Converts, have rendered the Courts incapable of impropriety. As such, the Converts have committed fraud upon the court as well, as through their testimony, the Courts came to their judgments. “It is thus fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function-thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.” Bulloch v. United States, 721 F.2d 713, 718 (10th Cir. 1983)

The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, in their Memorandum Opinion (EXHIBIT W), determined that “whether the pool equipment remained in the same place on the property, thus adversely possessing the land underneath it, is a question of credibility of the witnesses.” The Appellate Court also determined that, “Mr. Convert was the only witness at trial to testify regarding the location of the pool equipment.” As such, it is irrefutable that the Courts’ judgment was based upon Mr. Convert’s testimony and as his testimony was demonstrably false, he consequently committed fraud upon the court.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY SURVEYOR

Licensed land surveyors have a statutory obligation to the public as displayed through Sections 138.51, 138.55, 138.63 of the Texas Administrative Code as well as the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct for the Texas Society of Professional Surveyors. Acting as an expert witness for the Court, by and through the submitted surveys and testimony, professional surveyors are held to a higher standard. The aforementioned statutes read as follows:

Section 138.51. General Practice.

(a) The practice of the land surveying profession is essential to the orderly use of our physical environment, and the technical work resultant thereof has important effects on the welfare, property, economy, and security of the public; therefore, the practice of professional land surveying shall be conducted with the highest degree of ethical standards.

Section 138.55. Surveyors Shall Protect the Public.

(a) Surveyors shall be entrusted to protect the health, safety, property, and welfare of the public in the practice of their profession.

(b) Surveyors shall not perform any surveying function which, when measured by generally accepted surveying standards or procedures, is reasonably likely to result in the endangerment of lives, health, safety, property, or welfare of the public.

Section 138.63. Surveyors’ Responsibility to the Profession.

(d) Surveyors should strive to promote responsibility, commitment, and ethics both in the educations and practice phases of surveying. They should attempt to enhance society’s awareness of surveyors’ responsibilities to the public and encourage the communication of these principles of ethical conduct among surveyors.

The Muehlners do believe that Mr. Mathew Probstfeld has committed fraud upon the court and thus violated his statutory and ethical obligations to the public. Mr. Probstfeld originally drafted a survey of the Converts’ property, pursuant to employment by the Converts, on or about the date of March 20, 2012 (EXHIBIT X). Said survey was verified by Mr. Probstfeld on or about the date of July 7, 2017 (EXHIBIT Y).

Mr. Deward Bowles of B&B Surveying Company originally completed a survey of the Muehlners’ property, pursuant to employment by the Muehlners, on or about the date of July 31, 2017. (EXHIBIT Z) Said survey includes the disputed boundary. Mr. Bowles does not note the location of the disputed pool equipment, but addresses this in a letter to the Honorable Beau Miller dated December 3, 2020 (EXHIBIT A2), in which he states, “Land Surveyor would have been required to locate said pool equipment as part of the specifications for the survey he originally performed for the Muehlners. Said pool equipment appears to be new, for the most part.” Mr. Bowles goes so far as to mention, “Land Surveyor believes this pool equipment was not at its current location at the time he originally performed the survey of the Muehlners’ property.” Based upon the statements by Mr. Bowles to the Court and the lack of notation of the pool equipment by Mr. Bowles in its current location, the Muehlners assert that it appears the pool equipment has not always been in its current location as the Converts have testified to.

The Muehlners contend that Mr. Probstfeld submitted a fraudulent document to the Court in an effort to conceal the encroachment of the Converts’ iron fence onto the Muehlners’ property. The Court did not request Mr. Probstfeld to submit a drawing of the boundary line and per the parties’ stipulation and agreement during trial, the B&B Survey was agreed as the correct survey of the disputed boundary line, not including the six foot adversely possessed area at the rear of the properties. Mr. Probstfeld’s survey from 2012 shows a 0.2 foot encroachment of the iron fence onto the Muehlners’ property, yet his 2021 survey conceals said encroachment. As nothing had changed in the lawsuit, there existed no reason for Mr. Probstfeld to alter his survey to be different than his earlier one, and ultimately different that the agreed B&B Survey. (EXHIBIT B2) It appears that the only reason that Mr. Probstfeld would have drawn and submitted said altered drawing, is to give his client, the Converts, more land along the section of their iron fence and to conceal the encroachment of the iron fence onto the Muehlners’ property. Mr. Probstfeld altered his surveys in an intentional manner to benefit the Converts. As the judgment by the Court was based upon and included the alleged altered survey, it is the belief of the Muehlners that Mr. Probstfeld has knowingly mislead the Court and thus committed fraud upon the Court.

CONCLUSION

Due to the nature of the alleged offenses, this complaint has been sent to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office as well as the Harris County Sheriff’s Office in an effort to properly initiate an investigation into the egregious acts committed by the Converts, their counsel, and Mr. Probstfeld. As such and due to the preponderance of the submitted evidence, the Muehlners do respectfully request such an investigation be initiated and do hereby also request to be kept updated on the status of said investigation.

Please note, due to the large volume and size of documents such as transcripts, said documents have not been included in their entirety, instead opting for segments or sections of the applicable documents. Verifiable certifications and court-stamped pages will be included to prove validity of submitted documents. The entirety of all submitted evidence is available upon request and will be promptly provided for further inspection.

EXHIBIT LIST

All exhibits were filed and/or included in Cause No. 2018-61583 and/or the affiliated appellate case.

EXHIBIT A – Police report filed by Yolande Convert dated 7/31/2017

EXHIBIT B – Time stamped Kwik Car receipt from June Muehlner

EXHIBIT C – Muehlner Original Petition

EXHIBIT D – Convert Original Counterclaim

EXHIBIT E – Jean Pierre Convert deposition transcript dated 10/25/2019

EXHIBIT F – Probstfeld & Associates Survey dated 3/20/2012

EXHIBIT G – Convert First Amended Counterclaim

EXHIBIT H – Photograph of Yolande Convert digging trench

EXHIBIT I – Yolande Convert deposition transcript dated 10/25/2019

EXHIBIT J – Jean Pierre Convert deposition transcript dated 10/25/2019

EXHIBIT K – Trial transcript

EXHIBIT L – Jean Pierre Convert Declaration

EXHIBIT M – Trial transcript

EXHIBIT N – Post-trial B&B survey and photographs of Convert pool equipment

EXHIBIT O – PDF copy of email between Edmund Muehlner and manufacturer of pool pump equipment – photo from said email included

EXHIBIT P – Page 8 of Appellees’ Brief filed with the Court

EXHIBIT Q – Page 18 of trial transcript

EXHIBIT R – Findings of Facts filed with the Court

EXHIBIT S – Correspondence from Converts’ former counsel, DeLange, Hudspeth, McConnel & Tibbets, dated June 4, 2012

EXHIBIT T – Page 23 of Appellate Court Memorandum Opinion 

EXHIBIT U – Page 16 of Appellees’ Brief

EXHIBIT V – Sworn affidavit of Edmund and June Muehlner – not home during fence construction in 2007

EXHIBIT W – Page 14 of Appellate Court Memorandum Opinion

EXHIBIT X – Probstfeld survey dated March 20, 2012

EXHIBIT Y – Probstfeld survey dated July 7, 2017

EXHIBIT Z – B&B survey dated July 31, 2017

EXHIBIT A2 – Letter to Judge Beau Miller from Deward Bowles of B&B Surveying company dated December 3, 2020

EXHIBIT B2 – Probstfeld survey dated December 3, 2020 and slide containing B&B Survey (2017), Probstfeld Survey 92012), and New Altered Probstfeld Survey (2021)

The exhibits of the complaint can be accessed at this LINK.