Distressed and Sick Homeowner Kristana Dunn’s Emotionally Spent and Preyin’ Christians Pounce

For Sale: $170k as at Tuesday, Feb 13, 2024

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-03829

Date Filed	#	Docket Text
01/31/2024	20	ORDER OF DISMISSAL – ORDERED that the 19 Joint STIPULATION of Dismissal is GRANTED. ORDERED. that all of Plaintiff’s claims, that she has asserted in this cause against Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ORDERED that all relief not granted herein is DENIED. Costs are taxed against the party incurring the same. This order constitutes a final judgment in that it finally disposes of all parties and all claims in this cause…*** Case terminated on 1/31/23. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(SheilaRAnderson, 4) (Entered: 01/31/2024)
02/09/2024	21	REPLY to 17 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Mark Stephen Burke. (DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2024)
02/09/2024	22	PROPOSED ORDER re: 15 MOTION To Intervene as Plaintiff, filed.(DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2024)
02/09/2024	23	Letter from M. Burke re: Filings, filed. (DarleneHansen, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2024)

Mail delayed by USPS finally delivered.

QUALIFICATIONS TO WORK AS A PRIVATE HOME THEFT ENTITY APPROVED BY @TheJusticeDept

1. Prolific Con Artists
2. Criminal Record e.g. forgery and fraud
3. Experience in Real Estate Fraud
4. Connections to Greedy HAR Realtors
5. Access to Bandit Lawyers
6. Friends of the Court pic.twitter.com/31yth0AQiE

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) January 31, 2024

ON THE JOB SKILLS NECESSARY TO STEAL DISTRESSED HOMEOWNERS PROPERTY APPROVED BY DOJ

1. Empathy to Gain Trust from Emotionally Distressed Homeowners.
2. Acquire blank forms signed by homeowners to be used later to file fraudulent deeds and fake law suits.
3. Experts at Evictions. pic.twitter.com/vnZVtNo8E5

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) January 31, 2024

Stipulation of Dismissal

Good afternoon,

Subject: Follow-Up: Status of My Intervenor Case

I am reaching out to follow up on my previous email dated Jan. 3, 2024. Unfortunately, I have not received a response from the U.S. Trustee Program thus far.

To provide further context, I have attached a copy of the pleading filed in my intervenor case, as previously discussed. This document specifically references the complaint in question.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could update me on the current status of the investigation. Additionally, if there is any way I can assist further or provide additional information, please let me know

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark Burke

I am reaching out to follow up on my previous email dated Jan. 3, 2024. Unfortunately, I have not received a response from the U.S. Trustee Program thus far.

To provide further context, I have attached a copy of the pleading filed in my intervenor case, as previously discussed. This document specifically references the complaint in question.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could update me on the current status of the investigation. Additionally, if there is any way I can assist further or provide additional information, please let me know.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Mark Burke

Good morning,

Urgent: Reporting Widespread Mortgage Fraud and Corruption in Texas State and Federal Courts

My name is Mark Stephen Burke (“Mark Burke”) and I am the owner of media businesses with over 20 years of experience. After perusing your U.S. Trustee Program | ‘Bankruptcy Foreclosure’ Or ‘Mortgage Rescue’ Scams (justice.gov)  website, I am writing to bring to your attention a pressing issue involving mortgage fraud and corruption in Texas state and federal courts, a matter that not only affects countless homeowners but also directly impacts my residence and the well-being of my elderly parent.

Having extensively investigated this type of fraud since the launch of LawsinTexas.com in 2020, I possess a comprehensive dossier of cases, both past and present, demonstrating clear instances of fraud. I am submitting this email as formal notice of the mortgage fraud epidemic, with the hope that it prompts a thorough investigation and necessary actions to rectify the situation.

One specific case that warrants your review is a mortgage rescue scam involving mortgage servicer PHH Mortgage Corporation and their legal representation, Mackie Wolf. The case originated in Texas state court and has been moved to S.D. Texas federal court, where it is currently under the jurisdiction of Judge Sim Lake and Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan.

I have taken steps to intervene in the case, presenting arguments and evidence available on the court docket at PACER or courtlistener.com (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67869687/dunn-v-phh-mortgage-corporation/). Furthermore, I have published articles on lawsintexas.com, providing updates and insights into this specific case (https://lawsintexas.com/distressed-and-sick-homeowner-kristana-dunns-emotionally-spent-and-preyin-christians-pounce/).

As of Jan. 2, 2024, objections to my intervention were due, and while the defendants responded, they failed to address my arguments adequately, constituting a waiver. I will be promptly responding to their objections. Notably, the plaintiff, Kristana Dunn, did not respond, further highlighting the questionable nature of the proceedings.

The entity Epiphany Properties LLC, also known as Christian Consultants of Texas (“CCTX”), owned by Kevin Pawlowski, is at the center of this scam. Despite the property being confirmed as empty on their website (https://www.epiphany.properties/), Epiphany continues to impersonate Kristana Dunn in both Texas state and federal courts. This fraudulent activity includes attempting to sell the property for $175k, while an original mortgage of $99k still exists in Kristana Dunn’s name, making it a clear case of mortgage fraud.

It is crucial to note that Epiphany has no standing to sue or sell the home without the approval of the mortgage servicer and/or lender/investor. The TREC agreement lacks credibility and is not a legitimate document. Despite this, the defendants, particularly their counsel Mark Cronenwett and Nick Frame of Mackie Wolf, are fully aware of the fraud, as is the court. Unfortunately, the case has been allowed to persist, even benefiting from a state court TRO, despite my vocal efforts on my website and social media to expose such rampant fraud in Texas.

On a personal note, I am currently facing eviction from my own home due to the fraudulent actions of PHH and Mackie Wolf. They recently attempted to expedite the foreclosure sale of my elder mother’s property on Jan. 2, 2024, despite ongoing litigation which should have served as an automatic injunction against such actions. Mackie Wolf’s role as substitute trustee in this illegal non-judicial foreclosure is deeply troubling.

I understand the importance of brevity in this introductory email, and I encourage you to peruse LawsinTexas.com for additional information and results related to the named parties. This case is not isolated but part of a broader pattern that demands immediate attention and intervention to protect the public from further scandalous and corrupt acts.

I appreciate your time and attention to this matter and look forward to the possibility of further discussing these issues with you.

Sincerely,

Mark Burke
Justice Seeker
Laws In Texas
#restoretx

“A party’s lack of standing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and renders subsequent trial court action void.”

Intervenor, Mark Stephen Burke has standing and interest to pursue intervention as a non-party. However, Plaintiff(s) lack standing – In re K. J., No. 12-23-00128-CV, at *2 (Tex. App. Aug. 23, 2023).

Intervenor Mark Stephen Burke

Mark intervenes as the owner of Blogger Inc., a non-profit, and a private individual facing illegal foreclosure of his residence. He wears two hats, advocating for civil rights through his non-profit and defending his property as a tenant.

Defendants

PHH Ocwen and their counsel responded to Mark’s motion, but their rambling response lacks substance, waiving objections.

Mark highlights their history of deception, referencing their recent failed attempt to snap-remove a wrongful foreclosure complaint in Regina Nachael Howell Foster v. Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. (4:23-cv-00800), District Court, N.D. Texas, per final court order, Nov. 28, 2023, and PHH’s censure by S.D. Texas Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur in PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Johnson, Civil Action 4:20-cv-01968 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 23, 2021),

“I didn’t get any motion to allow you to vary from the proof of claim form. I got a motion to allow you to amend the proof of claim to something that is false. That’s despicable. It’s denied.” – transcript doc no. 2, 7/22/2020.

Plaintiff(s)

Kristana Dunn appears as the distressed homeowner, but the property is vacant, marketed by Epiphany Properties LLC.

The lawsuit is a fraudulent scheme by Kevin Pawlowski, Susan Casias, Epiphany, and lawyer Jason LeBoeuf.

Epiphany lacks standing, and Dunn did not file the lawsuit, nor is she actively contributing to the ongoing litigation.

Texas lawyer David Medearis has also filed a complaint against these individuals, terming them as “con artists” in a recent state court amended petition with supporting exhibits filed on 7/13/2023 in Harris County District Court,

202322179 – NGUYEN, MAI-LINH vs. CHRISTIAN CONSULTANTS OF TEXAS LLC (Court 270),

where Pawlowski, Casias, and LeBoeuf are representing, as David asserts, alter ego CCTX.

Moreover, numerous other cases have been filed by and against both Epiphany and CCTX, revealing the extensive nature of this ongoing fraudulent activity within Texas courts.

Assumed Short Sale Stance

Epiphany has no legal standing in any purported short sale process, and their involvement is illegal. Mark emphasizes the absurdity of allowing known fraudsters to continue these actions in court.

Key Issues

Mark, as Intervenor, has standing and a real interest in these proceedings. The real homeowner, Dunn, is not the filer, and the case is part of an ongoing scam by Epiphany, CCTX, and their counsel.

Mark underlines the defendants’ track record of deception, emphasizing the recent failed attempt to snap-remove a wrongful foreclosure complaint and PHH’s censure by Judge Marvin Isgur.

Additionally, Mark filed a formal complaint with the US Trustee Program (US Department of Justice) on Jan. 3, 2024, exposing the fraudulent activities of the plaintiffs, and alleged conspiracy with the remaining parties.

Legal Authority

Mark’s intervention aligns with legal precedents like Franciscan All., Inc. v. Azar, 414 F. Supp. 3d 928, 936 (N.D. Tex. 2019) (“Legally Protectable Interest”), supporting his non-profit and private individual interests:

“Motions to intervene are judged under the liberal pleading standard, and all “allegations are accepted as true.”

He further draws attention to Hooker v. Dallas Independent School District, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-1289-D, emphasizing his fundamental liberty interest in his property.

Additionally, the doctrine of “unclean hands” is pertinent in this case, as Mark contends that the plaintiffs have engaged in fraudulent activities and a potential conspiracy.

The application of “unclean hands” is supported by cases such as Compaq Computer Corp. v. Procom Tech., Inc., 908 F. Supp. 1409, 1428 (S.D. Tex. 1995), emphasizing the importance of equitable relief being denied to parties involved in wrongdoing.

Intervention Elements

As previously mentioned, and acknowledged by all parties in these proceedings, Mark has fulfilled all necessary conditions to intervene, including demonstrating a valid interest, taking timely action, and establishing a clear need for intervention, especially in light of the fraudulent actions of the plaintiffs.

The inadequacy of representation by the existing parties further justifies Mark’s intervention.

His arguments are substantiated by evidence of damages incurred as a non-party, supported by pertinent legal references. This fortifies his case for seeking fair and just resolutions, commonly known as equitable relief.

Conclusion

Defendants’ objections to Mark’s intervention lack substance, and Mark’s intervention meets the necessary requisite to grant intervention.

Alternatively, as the entire case is based on a fraudulent premise, it warrants dismissal and further investigation by the relevant authorities.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this day, 5th of January, 2024

Mark Stephen Burke

Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH” or “Defendant”) files Response to Mark Stephen Burke’s Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff and Memorandum of Law in Support and respectfully show as follows:

I.       SUMMARY

Current Suit

1.                  On September 29, 2023, Kristana Dunn (“Plaintiff”) filed Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Injunctive Relief (“Petition”) in Cause No. 2023-67359 in the 190th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, styled Kristana Dunn v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (the “State Court Action”).

2.                  This instant suit relates to foreclosure proceedings on the real property located at 9311 Cold River Court, Humble, Texas 77396 (the “Subject Property”), pursuant to a mortgage secured by the Subject Property. (See Petition at ¶6). In the Petition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has not cooperated with her in allowing her to sell the Property. (See Petition at ¶¶14-16).

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action:

(1) for breach of contract;

(2) tortious interference with contract;

(3) violation of the Texas Debt Collection Act;

and

(4) breach of duty of cooperation

(See Petition at ¶¶18-32).

For these alleged wrongs, Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order enjoining PHH from proceeding with foreclosure.

(See Petition at ¶¶35-39).

Plaintiff also seeks actual damages in an unspecified amount. Id. at Prayer.

3.                  On October 10, 2023, this action was removed to this Court. [ECF Doc. No. 1].

4.                  On December 12, 2023, Mark Stephen Burke (“Movant”) filed his Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff and Memorandum of Law in Support (“Motion”). [ECF Doc. No. 15].

Previous Litigation Surrounding Movant’s Property

5.                  There has been a history of litigation dating back to 2011 surrounding the foreclosure of the property located at 46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood, Texas 77339, (“Movant’s Property) completely unrelated to the Subject Property in the present suit.

The Honorable Alfred H. Bennett succinctly summarized the history of litigation in the previous suit1 as follows:

This case has an eleven-year litigation history that began in 2011 when Deutsche Bank Nation Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) sued pro se Plaintiffs Joanna and John Burke (“Plaintiffs” or “the Burkes”) for judicial foreclosure of Plaintiffs’ property commonly known as 46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood, Texas 77339 (the “Property”), based on Plaintiffs’ failure to make payments on their Texas Home Equity Note. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burke et al, Civil Action No. 4:11-CV-01658 (“Burke 1”). After United States Magistrate Judge Smith found Deutsche Bank’s assignment to be invalid, Deutsche Bank appealed to the Fifth Circuit, who reversed and remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Deutsche Bank met the remaining requirements to foreclose under Texas law. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, 655 F. App’x 251, 255 (5th Cir. 2016). When Judge Smith found in favor of Plaintiffs on remand,Deutsche Bank once again appealed. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, 902 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 2018). In September 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank on its foreclosure claim, noting that “[g]iven nearly a decade of free living by the Burkes, there is no injustice in allowing that foreclosure to proceed.” Id. at 552.

Unhappy with the outcome in Burke I, Plaintiffs filed two suits in state court two months later: one against Ocwen Loan Services LLC (“Ocwen”), the servicer of Plaintiffs’ loan, and another against Deutsche Bank’s attorneys during Burke I: Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, and Hopkins Law, PLLC (the “Attorney Defendants”). Both cases were removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Burke et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-4544 (“Burke II”) and Burke et al v. Hopkins et al, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-4543 (“Burke III”). Soon thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari for Burke I, which the United States Supreme Court denied. Doc. #17 at 4. Around the same time, Plaintiffs filed three Motions to Intervene and one Renewed Motion to Intervene in three unrelated lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the District of Kansas, Southern District of Florida, and Northern District of Illinois, each of which involved  Ocwen  or  Deutsche  Bank. Id. at  3  n.4,  6-7.  All four motions were denied, with one ruling affirmed on appeal and another currently pending on appeal before the Eleventh Circuit. Id.

1 Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180610 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 29, 2022)

6.                  Movant’s current attempt to insert himself into a case completely unrelated to his Property and his perceived grievances against Ocwen and/or PHH is completely unfounded and his Motion to Intervene should be denied.

II.       ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

7.                  Movant seeks intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). See Motion at p. 5. “Intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) is proper when:

(1) the motion to intervene is timely;

(2) the potential intervener asserts an interest that is related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy in the case into which she seeks to intervene;

(3) the disposition of that case may impair or impede the potential intervener’s ability to protect her interest;

and

(4) the existing parties do not adequately represent the potential intervener’s interest.” Saldano v. Roach, 363 F.3d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 2004).

“In the absence of any of these elements, intervention as of right must be denied.”

Graham v. Evangeline Par. Sch. Bd., 132 F. App’x 507, 511 (5th Cir. 2005).

The movant “bears the burden of establishing its right to intervene” under Rule 24.

Brumfield v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339, 341 (5th Cir. 2014).

8.                  Permissive intervention is “wholly discretionary with the [district] court . . . even though . . . the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied.”

New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 470–71 (5th Cir. 1984).

Before granting permissive intervention, the court should determine “‘whether the intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by other parties.’”

Id. at 472.

Permissive intervention is not appropriate if it will “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)

A. Movant has no interest in subject litigation.

9.                  An applicant to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) must have a “direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings.”

Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Whether an applicant has a legally protectable interest in the main action “turns on whether the intervenor has a stake in the matter that goes beyond a generalized preference that the case come out a certain way.

So, an intervenor fails to show a sufficient interest when he seeks to intervene solely for ideological, economic, or precedential reasons; that would-be intervenor merely prefers one outcome to the other.”

Id. (emphasis in original).

“[I]ntervention is improper where the intervenor does not itself possess the only substantive legal right it seeks to assert in the action.

New Orleans Pub. Serv., 732 F.2d at 466.

“[C]ourts have found that asserted interests are not sufficient to justify intervention when … the interest asserted was too contingent, speculative, or remote from the subject of the case.”

Bear  Ranch,  LLC  v.  HeartBrand  Beef,  Inc.,  286  F.R.D.  313,  316  (S.D.  Tex.2012) (collecting cases).

10.              Movant fails to articulate what his interest is in the present case.

Movant is not a party to the loan agreement and claims no interest in the Subject Property.

See Motion, generally.

He vaguely asserts that his “interests are intricately tied to the exposed title deed fraud and predatory lending practices affecting vulnerable and distressed homeowners.”

See Motion at p. 5.

Movant further states the threat of foreclosure to his home office located at 46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood, Texas 77339 implicates his business, possessions, civil liberty, and constitutional rights, but fails to explain how the present litigation concerning the foreclosure of the property located at 9311 Cold River Court, Humble, Texas 77396 has any connection to the threat of foreclosure to his own home.

The disposition of the present suit will in no way impair or impede Movant’s ability to litigate or protect his interests in his own home.

11.              Because Movant has failed to show an interest in the suit, his motion to intervene should be denied.

The Court is incapable of determining whether the movant’s right to protect that interest may be impeded by the disposition of this action when the movant fails to assert an interest related to the property at issue in the present suit.

See Howse v. S/V “Canada Goose I”, 641 F.2d 317, 322 (5th Cir. 1981)

(“In the absence of some interest in the main action, the remaining considerations of practical harm and adequacy of representation become irrelevant.”);

Martinez v. United States, DR: 05-CA-055-VRG, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51643, 2005 WL 8155760 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2005).

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant requests that this Court enter an order denying the Motion to Intervene and for all other relief, in law and in equity, to which Defendant is entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By:  /s/ Nicholas M. Frame

MARK D. CRONENWETT
Attorney in Charge
Texas Bar No. 00787303
Southern District Bar No. 21340
mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

NICHOLAS M. FRAME
Of Counsel
Texas Bar No. 24093448
Southern District Bar No. 3121681
nframe@mwzmlaw.com

MACKIE, WOLF, ZIENTZ & MANN, PC
14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900
Dallas, Texas 75254
Telephone: (214) 635-2650
Facsimile: (214) 635-2686

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Good morning Ms. Anderson

This email is notification that your NextGen CM/ECF electronic filing registration has been processed.  You may check your E-Filing Status by visiting the “Manage My Account” section of the PACER web site and selecting “Check E-File Status” option from the “Maintenance” tab or use this link, https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pscof/manage/efileStatus.jsf.

Account Number: 3521323
Court: TEXAS SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT
Date/Time Submitted: 12/13/2023 09:11:28 CST
Transaction ID: 43501
Request: Registration
Transaction Status: Rejected
Comment: Non-attorney e-filing accounts for the Southern District of Texas District Court are created only following the order of a district judge.

NOTE: Please do not reply to this message.  This is an automated message sent from an unmonitored mailbox.  If you have questions or comments, please email them to houston_operation@txs.uscourts.gov.

Recorded Lis Pendens

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-03829

RECAP Actions

Good morning Ms. Anderson

I am following up on my last email below which remains unanswered. I would be obliged if you could respond to this email.

Thank you,
Mark Burke

Good morning Ms. Anderson

I sent the court my motion to intervene per the attached copy letter with enclosures. This relates to the case;

Dunn v. PHH Mortgage Corporation
(4:23-cv-03829)
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Sim Lake

According to USPS, it should have arrived on Monday, but I have not seen any movement in the docket to suggest you have received it at your office.

Hence, I am attaching a signed copy of the filing for your perusal and attention.

Please let me know when this will be filed on the docket and my request for ecf/pacer privileges activated.

If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you.

MARK STEPHEN BURKE’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Introduction

Proposed Intervenor, Mark Stephen Burke, contends that intervention is justified in this matter, aligning his interests with the ongoing litigation. The removed Federal Court proceedings involve a dispute between Ms. Kristina Dunn, allegedly retained and represented by Texas lawyer Jason Leboeuf of LeBoeuf Law Firm, PLLC, and PHH Mortgage Corporation, represented by Texas lawyers Mark Cronenwett and Nicholas “Nick” Frame of Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann P.C. These legal proceedings aim to safeguard Dunn’s residence from foreclosure, with the additional objective of facilitating a transaction wherein a non-party, Epiphany Properties, LLC, is purportedly set to acquire the property for $93,000, backed by a nominal earnest sum of $100. The state court has granted injunctive relief in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), effectively halting the scheduled foreclosure sale.

Mark, as the proprietor of Blogger Inc. and the legal blog LawsinTexas.com, is dedicated to investigative journalism, particularly focusing on legal matters of public concern. The ongoing series on related cases, including Dunn v PHH Mortgage Corporation, has been featured on LawsinTexas.com (https://lawsintexas.com/pr/2v2). These articles systematically reveal a troubling pattern of title deed fraud that disproportionately impacts vulnerable homeowners. Allegations of fraud and illicit activities by the Plaintiffs and their counsel are emphatically presented in these publications. Notably, the defendants, along with their legal representatives, are seemingly complicit in downplaying these fraudulent activities. This collaboration extends to both state and federal courts, creating an environment where deceptive legal proceedings, laden with perjury, are utilized to halt foreclosures. It is worth highlighting that the involved parties share legal counsel, forming a tight-knit community within the creditor rights and foreclosure defense vertical. Mark contends that the adverse publicity directed at all named parties and the court has triggered collusion and retaliation, especially within the small and interconnected network of legal professionals representing the involved parties. This retaliatory response has taken a particularly contemptible turn with the latest legal maneuver.

To comprehend the significance, a brief overview is necessary. Behind every business stands an owner, entwined with a personal life. In Mark’s case, his digital media businesses facilitate a home office, doubling as his residence, which has been embroiled in prolonged litigation due to a predatory loan. Legally owned by Joanna Burke, Mark’s mother, the property has hosted Mark’s home office since 2009. Currently, Joanna Burke pursues an active civil suit against PHH Mortgage Corporation in Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (0:23-cv-01119-WMW-DTS), District Court, D. Minnesota, currently under appeal to the 8th Circuit. Despite this effectively tolling any foreclosure notice or sale, the same defendants listed here have collectively defied the rule of law. Astonishingly, they have scheduled Mark’s home office for auction on January 2, 2024, disregarding the ongoing legal proceedings.

Intervention Under Civil Rule 24(a)(2)

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Proposed Intervenor must satisfy four essential requirements for intervention: timeliness, a necessary interest, impairment of that interest without intervention, and the inadequacy of protection absent intervention (Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2)).

Necessary Interest

Proposed Intervenor asserts a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation, a necessary condition for intervention (Ford v. City of Huntsville, 242 F.3d 235, 240 (5th Cir. 2001)). This interest, related to the subject of the action, is legally protectable even if not enforceable, as per Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562, 566 (5th Cir. 2016). Mark’s interests are intricately tied to the exposed title deed fraud and predatory lending practices affecting vulnerable and distressed homeowners. The imminent threat to his home office (residence) as a result of the latest conspiracy by and legal maneuver by the defendants directly implicates his business, possessions, civil liberty, and constitutional rights. The urgency of Mark’s proposed intervention is evident in the intertwined personal, business, and legal battles.

Timeliness of Intervention

Proposed Intervenor contends that the intervention is timely, considering the contextual nature of the timeliness inquiry (Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994)). This case, active for one and a half months, aligns with the commencement of discovery after Thanksgiving. Mark received formal notice of the scheduled foreclosure sale on Nov. 25.

Impairment of Interest Without Intervention

Failure to allow intervention would impair Mark’s substantial interests, given PHH’s premature actions in seeking foreclosure despite ongoing legal actions. Adequate representation is lacking, requiring intervention to safeguard Mark’s interests (Atlantis Dev. Corp. v. United States, 379 F.2d 818, 828-29 (5th Cir. 1967)).

Inadequacy of Protection Absent Intervention

Proposed Intervenor maintains that his interest cannot be adequately protected without intervention. Even if the existing parties have not colluded or taken an adverse position, representation remains plainly inadequate where the existing parties fails to diligently pursue the intervenor’s interests (International Mortgage & Inv. Corp. v. Von Clemm, 301 F.2d 857, 861 (2d Cir. 1962)). It is implausible that the involved parties would offer assistance or safeguard Mark, given their active conspiracy against him and his non-profit media enterprise. Their collaborative efforts aim to dismantle his home office, posing a severe threat to the viability of Mark’s business and his blog at LawsinTexas.com. Mark contends that this shared objective is apparent among the parties, the courts, and government agencies that have recently targeted him and his business pursuits.

Non-Party Damages

A home office undeniably holds significant importance, and any potential disruption, such as eviction, warrants protection—even if Mark is not directly involved in the foreclosure proceedings. Whether Mark has ownership in the property or is a party or obligor on the debt is irrelevant in the context of the standing inquiry. This principle is supported by legal precedents, such as Monroe (936 S.W.2d at 660), which established that standing to bring claims under the TDCA (Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act) extends beyond the “parties to the consumer transaction,” and Campbell (616 S.W.2d at 374), stating that “persons other than the debtor may maintain an action for violations of the TDCA.” As per the TDCA (Tex. Fin. Code § 392.403(a)(2)), “A person may sue for: actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of this chapter,” as cited from McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A., 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).  Mark can establish damages, including mental anguish resulting from this latest legal conspiracy and targeted harassment, leading to the unwarranted threat of foreclosure and planned eviction. As highlighted in McCaig, mortgage servicer PHH Mortgage Corporation violates the Texas Finance Code by asserting legal rights it does not possess, concluding that because Wells Fargo (the loan servicer) did not have a right to foreclose, then its threat of initiating foreclosure proceedings was actionable under the TDCA. Mark has met the necessary burden of proof, see; Williams v. Lakeview Load (sic) Servicing, LLC, Civil Action 4:20-CV-1900, at *49 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2023) (“Proof of an actual injury is a liability element of Plaintiffs’ TDCA claims).

Injunctive Relief

Additionally, and subject to the Proposed Intervenor’s motion being granted, Mark will seek emergency temporary and permanent injunctive relief to refrain PHH Mortgage Corporation from proceeding with the foreclosure sale. See; Marauder Corp. v. Beall, 301 S.W.3d 817, 820 (Tex. App. 2010) (“Under the statute, a person may sue for an injunction to “prevent or restrain” a violation of the TDCA. TEX. FIN. CODE ANN. § 392.403(a) (Vernon 2006).”).  This injunction would also cap his injuries and damages, benefiting all parties affected as Mark is likely to succeed on the merits.

Conclusion

Mark acknowledges the inherent challenges in seeking favorable consideration from this court. Nevertheless, with the recent amendments by the assigned Judge to curb premature motions to dismiss, there is a glimmer of optimism that not all Judges are predisposed to act maliciously or corruptly under the guise of judicial immunity. In light of this, Proposed Intervenor, Mark Stephen Burke—a recognized publisher of legal cases and matters of public concern—respectfully requests the court to grant leave for intervention, facilitating full participation as a party with rights and responsibilities. Alternatively, permissive intervention, at the court’s discretion, is recognized as a viable option. The inclusion of pertinent case law serves to emphasize the legal foundation for intervention in this case.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this day, 28th of November, 2023

Extension of time. pic.twitter.com/EUdGEOca2k

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) November 28, 2023

CLERKS NOTICE OF CANCELLATION –

Initial Conference set for 11/22/2023 at 3:00 PM before Judge Sim Lake is CANCELED.

Parties notified, filed. (SheilaRAnderson, 4) (Entered: 11/17/2023)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-03829

RECAP Actions

Judge Lake has recently started implementing this rule visibly in his foreclosure cases, which is good to see.

ORDER – Defendant, PHH Mortgage Corporation, has filed a 4 Motion to Dismiss. The motion seeks dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court’s normal practice is to allow only one dispositive motion per party, and the court sees no reason to make an exception in this case. The practice is especially appropriate in a case like this one where the moving party seeks to apply federal pleading standards to a state court petition. If PHH Mortgage Corporation’s motion to dismiss is denied, the court will therefore not allow it to file a motion for summary judgment. If PHH Mortgage Corporation wishes to withdraw the motion to dismiss, the court will enter a docket control order that includes a date for motions for summary judgment. The court requests that PHH Mortgage Corporation inform the court of its decision by November 3, 2023. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(SheilaRAnderson, 4) (Entered: 10/24/2023)

The Wolves withdrew their premature MTD.

Now let’s see who shows up for “Dunn” at the initial conf.

ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons.

Initial Conference set for 11/22/2023 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 9B before Judge Sim Lake.

(Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(SheilaRAnderson, 4) (Entered: 10/16/2023)

U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-03829