LIT COMMENTARY
OCT 27, 2024
A pro se, law-abiding Texas resident and elder widow is wrongfully held accountable as a federal court litigant. She has sought the expertise of Texas academia to support her simple legal argument that the federal court is improperly asserting jurisdiction in retaliation against her. This has been part of her long battle to live peacefully in her home without fear of further harassment. To date, her requests for assistance have been disregarded. LIT is investigating four Texas law professors and the institutions they represent to uncover more about this situation.
The key question for the four law professors is:-
“I am seeking your expertise to confirm whether my pro se plaintiff’s interpretation of federal bankruptcy law, as it applies to removed state cases, is correct. I am attaching my motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which presents the argument made (pdf). The key argument simply points to the precedential 2012 general order that mandates automatic transfer by the district court to the bankruptcy court, in conflict with the ‘related to’ argument presented by the court.”
After receiving no responses, Joanna Burke followed up politely. Only one professor, Angela Littwin of the University of Texas, replied. Her opening sentence was astonishing:-
“I do not have the expertise to comment on this matter.”
This is particularly surprising given that her resume states:-
“Angela Littwin is an expert on bankruptcy, consumer law, and commercial law.”
In her response to Professor Littwin, Joanna Burke included a video from the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reinforce her position that the court lacks jurisdiction.
The resumes of these law professors reveal close ties to the judiciary, raising concerns about their independence and impartiality, as evidenced by their lack of candor and enthusiasm in responding to Joanna Burke’s inquiries.
While they claim to be civil rights lawyers dedicated to representing underrepresented groups, their actions suggest that this commitment is selective and politically motivated, calling into question their true dedication to equity and justice for all.
LIT offers this reminder—not a Chinese proverb or a Churchill quote, but a statement from the judiciary itself:-
“[a] federal court may act as a judicial pioneer when interpreting the United States Constitution and federal law . . . [i]n a diversity case, however, federal courts may not engage in judicial activism. Federalism concerns require that we permit state courts to decide whether and to what extent they will expand state common law. . . . Our role is to apply the current law of the jurisdiction, and leave it undisturbed.
Leo v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., 37 F.3d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 1994).
This principle directly applies to Joanna Burke’s case, which should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to Texas state court as mandated by law. Furthermore, the orders from the federal court are void, meaning no post-dismissal actions can be taken on the remaining motions, particularly the motion to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant and impose pre-filing restrictions. LIT recognizes that this is a key reason the case was unlawfully removed, as evidenced by the subsequent premeditated and void orders issued by Judge Werlein, Jr.
THE LAW PROFESSORS & THEIR RESPECTIVE TEXAS UNIVERSITIES
OCT 27, 2024
“Service with a Smile”
President’s Message from the Summer 2024 issue of The Federal Lawyer
I love this old Chinese proverb:
“If you want happiness for an hour, take a nap. If you want happiness for a day, go fishing. If you want happiness for a year, inherit a fortune. If you want happiness for a lifetime, help somebody.”
Dozens of modern scientific studies back this up — those who provide volunteer service have “less depression, less anxiety, higher self-esteem, higher life satisfaction, greater happiness and greater sense of meaning in life.”
They also enjoy better physical health, so those who serve others not only live happier, they may even live longer.[i]
Visits to other DC memorials brought to mind quotes about service, like this wisdom from Dr. King:
“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: ‘What are you doing for others?’”
Abraham Lincoln put it this way:
“To ease another’s heartache is to forget one’s own.”
The desire to serve is what motivated many of us to become lawyers—an opportunity to serve those who need an advocate.
The FBA provides a platform for such service. In fact, the FBA’s mission is service-focused.
We “strengthen the federal legal system and administration of justice by serving the interests and the needs of the federal practitioner, both public and private, the federal judiciary and the public they serve.”
I love that our mission statement encourages us to serve the interests and needs of our federal judiciary to better allow our judges to serve the public. FBA practitioners fulfill that role in many ways, from high quality CLE featuring federal judges to lobbying Congress on behalf of the judiciary on matters like judicial funding, adequate judgeships and judicial security.
Judges throughout the country provide countless hours of public service, some of those hours doubtlessly more enjoyable than others. Increasingly, it is becoming an often thankless and even sometimes dangerous occupation, leading the FBA to prioritize judicial security as one of our top government relations priorities. Yet judges continue to serve. Our judicial system, our constitutional system of government, needs them. They are mandatory public servants.
Judicial service can take many forms. In recent decades, hundreds of judges, both state and federal, have devoted their time and their boundless energy to specialty courts. Specialty courts, such as Veteran’s Courts, Mental Health Courts and Drug Courts, are often judge-initiated and require additional work outside of managing an often-heavy caseload.
In some ways, specialty courts represent judges doing pro bono work to help those who often need the help the most yet are the most challenging to help because of their circumstances.
Winston Churchill said,
“We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.”
My FBA experience has been filled with people making a life by what they give. I feel so privileged to be part of the Federal Bar Association because of the service opportunities I have been provided. I look forward to continuing to serve with you for years to come.
[i] M. Merschel, “Help Others, Help Yourself? Why Volunteering Can Be Good for You” American Heart Association News (April 14, 2023).
Re: Follow-Up on Bankruptcy Law Inquiry and Request for Reference
Thu Oct 24, 2024 at 10.24 am CST
Dear Professor Littwin,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate your suggestion regarding the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center.
I chose to reach out to you specifically because I believe your expertise and background make you well-suited to assist with my situation.
As a law professor based in Texas, I feel you have a unique perspective that could greatly benefit my case, especially given my long-term residency in Harris County.
Your extensive experience, from your education at Harvard to your work on bankruptcy and consumer protection, is impressive. Additionally, your eligibility to practice before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals speaks to your qualifications in this area.
The matter I’m dealing with is of utmost importance, as it directly involves my homestead. I believe that the issues I raised are fundamental to bankruptcy law.
I would like to draw your attention to a Federal Judicial Center training video that supports my position: FJC Training Video.
Given this context, I respectfully ask you to reconsider your initial assessment of your expertise in this matter.
Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your response.
Best regards,
Joanna Burke
joanna@2dobermans.com
“You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”
― Margaret Thatcher
Re: Follow-Up on Bankruptcy Law Inquiry and Request for Reference
Wed Oct 23, 2024 at 4.16 pm CST
Dear Joanna,
I do not have the expertise to comment on this matter. But I am on the board of the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center. You can apply for help from NCBRC at www.ncbrc.org.
Best,
Angela Littwin
Ronald D. Krist Professor of Law
University of Texas, Austin
(512) 232-5561
Follow-Up on Bankruptcy Law Inquiry and Request for Reference
Wed Oct 23, 2024 at 4.59 am CST
Dear Professor Littwin,
I know this is a busy time of year, so I wanted to follow up on my previous email regarding my interpretation of federal bankruptcy law as it relates to my case. Your expertise would be invaluable in confirming whether my argument regarding the automatic transfer to bankruptcy court aligns with the relevant precedents.
Additionally, I would appreciate it if you might consider providing a letter of reference or an amicus brief for my ongoing federal court case. Given the approaching deadline, a response by November 1, 2024, would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you once again for your time and support.
Warm regards,
Joanna Burke
email: joanna@2dobermans.com
“You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”
― Margaret Thatcher
Mackie Wolf’s sham auction listing every month continues…re Tami Taha aka Christian Consultants of Texas.
Notably, the same is also happenin’ with Tiffany Milan Investments, LLC, a case we’ve been watching closely but haven’t published at this time.https://t.co/S8QFFLeUVt
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 24, 2024
Bankruptcy Law: Request for Confirmation and Reference
Tue Oct 15, 2024 at 3.43 pm CST
Dear Professor Littwin
I am seeking your expertise to confirm whether my pro se plaintiff’s interpretation of federal bankruptcy law, as it applies to removed state cases, is correct. I am attaching my motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction which presents the argument made (pdf). The key argument simply points to the precedential 2012 general order that mandates automatic transfer by the district court to the bankruptcy court, in conflict with the ‘related to’ argument presented by the court.
Additionally, I would greatly appreciate it if you would consider providing a letter of reference or amicus for my ongoing federal court case. Given the time-sensitive nature of this matter, a response by November 1, 2024, would be invaluable.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Joanna Burke
email: joanna@2dobermans.com
“You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”
― Margaret Thatcher
Resume: Angela K. Littwin
University of Texas School of Law
727 East Dean Keeton St., Austin, TX 78704
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW, Austin, TX 2008-present
Ronald D. Krist Professor of Law, 2017-present Professor of Law, 2012-present
Assistant Professor of Law, 2008-2012
Teach Bankruptcy, Secured Credit, and a seminar on credit cards. Conduct empirical research on topics related to bankruptcy, commercial law, and consumer law.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, Cambridge, MA 2005-2008
Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law
Wrote academic articles and conducted empirical research on the impact of credit practices on women and low-income families.
Taught first-year law students legal research and writing.
EDUCATION
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, J.D., cum laude
BROWN UNIVERSITY, B.A. in English, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
RESEARCH GRANTS
National Science Foundation Law & Social Sciences Program.
Awarded $400,000 to conduct a study of coerced debt, with Adrienne Adams and Angie Kennedy, Michigan State University.
This project will be the first in-depth study of coerced debt. It will address fundamental questions about how coerced debt operates in abusive relationships, how victims seek and attain legal help for coerced debt, and coerced debt’s effects on women’s recovery from an abusive relationship.
This study will use a sequential mixed- method longitudinal design to collect data from a sample of women recently divorced from an abusive partner.
The researchers will use public divorce records to recruit a sample of 180 women Texas (120 women with coerced debt and a comparison group of 60 without).
The researchers will collect quantitative data through in-person interviews with the full sample and qualitative follow-up interviews with a smaller subset of women with coerced debt.
The research will run from September 2019 to August 2022.
National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Education Endowment.
Awarded $9,255 to conduct a study of consumers being sued by debt collectors, with Pamela Foohey at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
The goal is to survey them about their understanding of and feelings about bankruptcy in order to understand whether they have the knowledge to file for bankruptcy strategically and the extent to which they consider bankruptcy stigmatizing.
PUBLICATIONS
Published:
The Frequency, Nature, and Effects of Coerced Debt Among a National Sample of Women Seeking Help for Intimate Partner Violence, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN (with Adrienne Adams and McKenzie Javorka).
Low-Income, Low-Asset Debtors in the United States Bankruptcy System, International Insolvency Review, Special Edition.
Local Legal Culture from R2D2 to Big Data, 96 TEXAS LAW REVIEW 1353-1376 (2018) (with Robert Lawless).
Adapting to BAPCPA, 90 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 183-234 (2016).
Examination as a Method of Consumer Protection, 87 TEMPLE LAW REVIEW 807-873 (2015) (with Jean Braucher).
Why Process Complaints? Then and Now, 87 TEMPLE LAW REVIEW 895-946 (2015).
Escaping Battered Credit: A Proposal for Repairing Credit Reports Damaged by Domestic Violence, 161 UNIV. OF PENN. L. REV. 363-429 (2013).
Coerced Debt: The Role of Domestic Violence in Consumer Credit, 100 CALIF. L. REV. 951-1026 (2012).
The Do-It-Yourself Mirage: Complexity in the Bankruptcy System, in BROKE: HOW DEBT BANKRUPTS THE MIDDLE CLASS, 157-174 (Katherine Porter ed., 2012) (Stanford University Press).
Book selected for publication via peer review that included review of my
The Affordability Paradox: How Consumer Bankruptcy’s Greatest Weakness May Account for its Surprising Success, 52 WILLIAM & MARY L. REV. 1933-2023 (2011).
Testing the Substitution Hypothesis: Would Credit Card Regulation Force Low-Income Borrowers Into Less Desirable Lending Alternatives?, 2009 ILL. L. REV. 403-456 (2009).
Robert M. Lawless, Angela K. Littwin, Katherine M. Porter, John A. E. Pottow, Deborah K. Thorne & Elizabeth Warren, Interpreting Data: A Reply to Professor Pardo, 83 AM. BANKR. L.J. 47-62 (2009).
Refereed journal
Robert M. Lawless, Angela K. Littwin, Katherine M. Porter, John A. E. Pottow, Deborah K. Thorne, & Elizabeth Warren, Did Bankruptcy Reform Fail? An Empirical Study of Consumer Debtors, 82 AM. BANKR. L.J. 349-406 (2008).
Refereed journal
Article won Editors’ Prize, 2009
Beyond Usury: A Study of Credit Card Use and Preference Among Low-Income Consumers, 86 Texas L. Rev 451-506 (2008).
Article selected for additional commentary for publication’s Internet supplement, See Also.
Commentary NOT available at:
http://www.texaslrev.com/seealso?field_volume_value=86.
Lisa A. Goodman, Amanda Bohlig, Angela Littwin, Sarah R. Weintraub, Autumn Green, Joy Walker, Lucie White & Nancy Ryan,
Transforming the Mental Health Care Practitioner into Social Justice Agent: A Case Example of a Multi-Level Empowerment Intervention for Low-Income Women with Depression, in PROMOTING SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH MENTAL HEALTH PRACTICE, 265-290 (Aldarondo, Etiony, ed, 2007).
Publication for Law Review Internet Supplement
A Comment on Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims, 87 TEXAS L. REV. SEE ALSO 1 (2009).
NOT Available at: http://www.texaslrev.com/seealso/volume-87/porter/a-comment-on-misbehavior-and-mistake-in-mortgage-bankruptcy-claims.html.
“Homeowners—backed up by lawyers, policymakers, and news reporters—assume that bankruptcy functions according to the official rules and, by following these rules, that bankruptcy provides a realistic opportunity for families to save their homes. The data revealed in this Article suggest, however, that mortgage companies often disobey the law and that the legal system does not substantiate the amounts that lenders assert that consumers owe. These problems can cripple a family’s efforts to save its home and undermine policies of sustainable homeownership.”
GRANTS and EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Co-Principal Investigator, Debt as a Control Tactic in Abusive Marriages 2019-2022
We received $400,000 of funding from the NSF in the fall of 2019.
The quantitative data will be used to investigate:
1) the types and amounts of coerced debt incurred in victims’ names, tactics abuser use to incur it, and how victims learn of fraud;
2) differences between abusive relationships with and without coerced debt;
3) the extent to which help for coerced debt is available, accessible, and acceptable through divorce and debtor-creditor law;
and
4) the extent of coerced debt’s economic effects in the three months after an abusive relationship ends.
Additionally, the researchers will conduct in-depth follow-up qualitative interviews with a subsample of up to 40 victims of coerced debt.
The qualitative data will be used to gain a deeper, more nuanced understanding of how victims of coerced debt experience it in the broader context of abuse, facilitators of and barriers to attaining help through the divorce system, and the process by which coerced debt shapes victims’ lives.
In addition to publishing scholarship, the researchers will disseminate the findings to policy makers, service providers, and attorneys with the goal of ensuring that interventions to address coerced debt are evidence-based
Principal Investigator, Credit Abuse Project 2010-2011
Designed and implemented a preliminary, qualitative study in which I interviewed fifty-five professionals in the domestic violence field about the credit problems experienced by their clients. Resulted in the discovery of coerced debt, a phenomenon in which batterers in abusive relationships steal their victims’ credit through fraud and coercion.
Co-Principal Investigator, Consumer Bankruptcy Project, IV 2006-2010
The Consumer Bankruptcy Project (CBP) has been the leading national survey on consumer bankruptcy for the past thirty years. The project has produced nationally recognized models of family financial insecurity and has resulted in the publication of four books and more than three dozen articles.
Principal Investigator, Domestic Violence Project, a sub-project of the CBP. Worked with a psychologist consultant to develop an interview protocol to assess rates of domestic violence among women in bankruptcy.
Organized and supervised data collection and data coding. Analyzed quantitative data to find that female victims and survivors of domestic violence are overrepresented in bankruptcy as compared to the general U.S. population.
Co-Principal Investigator, Consumer Bankruptcy Project, IV. With other co-PIs, conducted a national, randomized survey of consumers who filed bankruptcy in February and March of 2007.
The research consisted of three major components:
(1) a written questionnaire (n=2521, response rate=50.7%);
(2) a follow-up telephone interview modules (n=1032, response rate=40.9% of survey participants);
(3) coding of bankruptcy court records (n=2621, which included all survey participants and 100 non-responders as a response-bias check)
Co-PIs: David U. Himmelstein, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Melissa B. Jacoby, Graham Kenan Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; Robert Lawless, Professor, University of Illinois College of Law; Katherine M. Porter, Professor, University of California, Irvine, College of Law; John A. E. Pottow, Professor, University of Michigan Law School; Teresa A. Sullivan, now President, University of Virginia; Deborah K. Thorne, Professor, Ohio University, Department of Sociology & Anthropology; Elizabeth Warren, then Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law, Harvard Law School; Steffie Woolhandler, Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
Funders included;
the American Association of Retired Persons,
the Robert Wood Johnson,
the Harvard Law School,
the University of Michigan Office of Vice President for Research,
and
the University of Michigan Law School.
Principal Investigator, Credit Usage Study 2005-2007
Designed and implemented a qualitative and quantitative research project studying low-income women’s experiences with credit cards.
Developed interview protocol and interviewed fifty-two low-income women in the Boston area.
Created coding manual and supervised three law student and eight undergraduate coders.
Analyzed data using qualitative content-analysis methods.
Fifth Circuit Judge Haynes n’ “Trappin’ Lawyers” n’ Lawyers Escapin’ Debt using Usury Laws
PRESENTATIONS
Jay Westbrook Bankruptcy Conf., UT November 2021
Presented new data from NSF study on coerced debt.
American College of Bankruptcy Educational Panel October 2021
Presented new data from NSF study on coerced debt.
Coerced Debt Summit, Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice, UC Berkeley September 2021
Was keynote speaker for first summit on coerced debt. With Adrienne Adams.
National Bankruptcy Conference August 2021
Invited to present analysis of The Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2020
Central District of North Carolina Bankruptcy Bar CLE April 2019
Presented The Frequency, Nature, and Effects of Coerced Debt and Local Legal Culture from R2D2 to Big Data.
National Creditor Bar Association October 2018
Presented The Frequency, Nature, and Effects of Coerced Debt
American Bankruptcy Institute Southeast Conference July 2018
Presented one-third of the case law update and Local Legal Culture from R2D2 to Big Data
National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees Annual Meeting June 2018
Presented The Frequency, Nature, and Effects of Coerced Debt and Local Legal Culture from R2D2 to Big Data
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys April 2018
Presented Local Legal Culture from R2D2 to Big Data
American Bankruptcy Institute Southeast Conference July 2017
Presented The Frequency, Nature, and Effects of Coerced Debt and give the case law update
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys Annual Meeting May 2017
Invited to present the case law update.
Duke Symposium on Household Finance September 2016
Presented Examination as a Method
South Carolina Legal Services’ Constitution Day September 2016
Presented research on and strategies for addressing coerced debt (with Adrienne Adams). We were the keynote speakers.
Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association June 2016
Presented at “conference within a conference” on Household Finance
Teaching Consumer Law Conference May 2016
Presented Why Process Complaints? and Examination as a Method of Consumer Protection
American College of Bankruptcy Annual Meeting March 2016
Presented research on coerced debt
National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges Annual Meeting September 2015
NCBJ Academic Symposium BAPCPA at 10
Presented Adapting to BAPCPA
Jean Braucher Symposium: Celebrating the Work and Influence of Professor Braucher April 2015
Presented Examination as a Method of Consumer Protection at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Austin Bankruptcy Lawyers’ Association Meeting February 2015
Presented Why Process Complaints? Then and Now
Young Bankruptcy Scholars’ Work-in-Progress Workshop November 2014
Hosted by the American Bankruptcy Institute & Brooklyn Law School
Invited to present An Initial Quantitative Look at Coerced Debt (co-authored with Adrienne Adams).
Jay L. Westbrook Bankruptcy Conference November 2014
Invited to present Recent Developments in Student Loans.
The (Un)quiet Realist: Building and Reflecting on the Contributions of Bill Whitford / Temple Law Review Symposium October 2014
Invited to present a substantive article using the work of honoree Bill Whitford, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Wisconsin Law School.
Article titled: Why Process Complaints? Then and Now.
Texas Council on Family Violence (TCFV) Statewide Conference September 2014
Invited to present recent coerced debt research findings to audience of domestic violence advocates and attorneys.
Presented with Adrienne Adams.
Significantly revised materials from previous presentation of these data.
South Carolina Legal Services Webinar September 2014
Created and presented three-hour webinar for consumer and family attorneys at South Carolina Legal Services.
With Adrienne Adams.
Texas Council on Family Violence Economic Justice Summit June 2014
Invited to present recent coerced debt research findings to audience of domestic violence advocates.
Presented with Adrienne Adams. Significantly revised materials from previous presentation of these data.
Poverty Law Conference, State Bar of Texas April 2014
Holistic Advocacy for the Long Term Stability of Domestic Violence Survivors. Invited to present at CLE session.
Presented with Krista DelGallo, Policy Manager, TCFV and Carla Sanchez-Adams, Staff Attorney, Texas Rio-Grande Legal Services.
Housing & Consumer Law Task Force Meeting.
Invited to present coerced debt research findings for local consumer and housing attorneys.
Presented with Krista DelGallo, Policy Manager, TCFV.
Jay L. Westbrook Bankruptcy Conference November 2013
Present on Recent Developments Panel and presented Recent Developments in Empirical Consumer Bankruptcy Scholarship.
Annual Review of Insolvency Law Conference, Montreal, Canada February 2013
Invited to present Escaping Battered Credit: A Proposal for Repairing Credit Reports Damaged by Domestic Violence.
Jay L. Westbrook Bankruptcy Conference November 2012
Presented Escaping Battered Credit: A Proposal for Repairing Credit Reports Damaged by Domestic Violence.
University of Texas School of Law Bankruptcy Continuing Legal Education Conference August 2012
Collaborated with bankruptcy judge to present the annual review of Texas bankruptcy cases.
Presentation to the University of Texas School of Law Foundation Trustees May 2012
Gave invited presentation of my research on domestic violence and consumer credit at a luncheon during the Foundation Trustees’ spring meeting.
National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys April 2012
Invited to present The Affordability Paradox: How Consumer Bankruptcy’s Greatest Weakness May Account for its Surprising Success.
Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights’ 2012 Symposium March 2012
Moderated student journal symposium.
American Constitution Society Consumer Financial Protection Event March 2012
Gave invited presentation for student-organized event centered on my research on credit cards.
Conference on Empirical Legal Studies November 2011
Selected through peer review to present Coerced Debt: The Role of Domestic Violence in Consumer
Presentation at a Trustee Spouses’ Luncheon November 2010
Gave invited presentation of my research on domestic violence and consumer credit.
University of Houston Law Center, Center for Consumer Law May 2010
Invited to present at conference Teaching Consumer Law on panel entitled The Consumer Debt/Credit Crisis.
National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges’ American Bar Association Panel October 2009
Invited to present on panel entitled “Effectively Assisting Pro Se Filers – A View from the Bench.”
ABA Consumer Protection Conference at Georgetown University Law Center June 2009
Invited to present on panel entitled Consumer Protection in Financial Transactions: The Need for a Financial Products Safety Commission.
Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association May 2009
Invited to present at “conference within a conference” on Empirical Law & Entrepreneurship.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, Community Affairs Research Conference April 2009
Selected to present Beyond Usury: A Study of Credit Card Use and Preference Among Low-Income Consumers.
The 2009 conference was entitled, Innovative Financial Services for the Underserved: Opportunities and Outcomes.
University of Texas-Harvard Joint Conference on Commercial Law Realities March 2009
Selected to present research from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project at invitation-only conference for junior scholars in commercial law. Hosted jointly by Harvard Law School and University of Texas Law School.
Jay L. Westbrook Bankruptcy Conference November 2008
Invited to present “Did Bankruptcy Reform Fail? An Empirical Study of Consumer Debtors at conference for Texas bankruptcy professionals.”
University of Texas-Harvard Joint Conference on Commercial Law Realities February 2008
Selected to present an overview of the Bankruptcy Internet Data Project at invitation-only conference for junior scholars in commercial law. Hosted jointly by Harvard Law School and University of Texas Law School.
Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association July 2007
Presented Beyond Usury: A Study of Credit Card Use and Preference Among Low-Income
Consumers at Humboldt University, Berlin.
University of Texas-Harvard Joint Conference on Commercial Law Realities April 2007
Selected to present Testing the Substitution Hypothesis: Would Credit Card Regulation Force Low-Income Borrowers Into Less Desirable Lending Alternatives? at invitation-only conference for junior scholars in commercial law.
Hosted jointly by Harvard Law School and University of Texas Law School.
Jay Lawrence Westbrook is the Benno C. Schmidt Chair of Business Law at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law. One of the nation’s most distinguished scholars in the field of bankruptcy, he has been a pioneer in this area in two respects: empirical research and international comparative studies.
ADMINISTRATIVE AND COMMITTEE SERVICE
Budget Committee 2013-present
Member, University of Texas School of Law
Colloquium Committee
Member, University of Texas School of Law
2012-2013
Planning Committee, Jay L. Westbrook Bankruptcy Conference
Member, University of Texas School of Law
2012-present
Standards and Rules Committee
Member, University of Texas School of Law
2011-2012
Information Technology Committee
Member, University of Texas School of Law
2010-2011
Parental-Leave Policy Committee
Member, University of Texas School of Law
2010-2011
Appointments Committee
Member, Entry-Level Hiring Subcommittee, University of Texas School of Law
2009-2010
Dual Degree Committee
Member, University of Texas School of Law
2008-2009
ACADEMIC-RELATED PROFESSIONAL AND PUBLIC SERVICE
Fellow, American College of Bankruptcy 2018-present
Selected to join honorary society of bankruptcy professionals and academics.
National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center 2015– present
Board member.
Participate in telephone conference call every six weeks.
Offer advice to other Board members and Project Director.
Texas Coalition on Coerced Debt 2018-present
Board member. TCCD is a coalition of Texas-based attorneys, advocates, policymakers, financial professionals, and law enforcement who are interested in promoting identity theft protections for survivors of family violence.
American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission on Consumer Bankruptcy 2017-2018
Member of Committee on Chapter 13. Working group leader on select issues. Develop and review proposals to reform the consumer bankruptcy system.
Shakespeare and the Law 2011-2019
Facilitate a collaboration between University of Texas Department of English and School of Law. Introduce performances and moderate panels on Shakespeare plays and their relationship to the law. Program is on hold due to the pandemic.
Peer Reviewed Article for University of New South Wales Law Journal September 2014
Training, Family Abuse Center Financial Empowerment Group August 2014
Created and presented 30-minute training on credit reporting for women at a Waco domestic violence shelter.
American College of Bankruptcy-Funded Video with South Carolina Legal Services July-August 2014
Drafted, memorized and presented script for 15-minute coerced debt video for domestic violence victims.
Peer Reviewed Article for Law & Society Review May 2014
Opinion Piece for Bloomberg News May 2010
Banks Move Faster Than Congress on Loopholes, May 10, 2010.
Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=au2dkonlwlFY.
Governmental Citation of Research: Federal Reserve Board May 2008
Cited by the Federal Reserve in its Proposed Rule for requiring banks to allow customers to opt out of checking-account overdraft protection. Proposed Rules, Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 97, May 19, 2008, 28739 at 28743, n. 12. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms/formsreview/RegDD_20080519_ifr.pdf.
Academic Blog 2006-2010
Credit Slips at www.creditslips.org.
Wrote for academic blog on credit and bankruptcy issues.
The other authors at the time of my participation were: Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law School; Robert Lawless, University of Illinois School of Law; Katie Porter, University of Iowa School of Law; John Pottow, University of Michigan School of Law; and Deborah Thorne, Ohio University, Department of Sociology & Anthropology.
LEGAL and POLICY EXPERIENCE
ROAD, Cambridge, MA 2003-2005
Founder and Project Director of ROAD (Reaching Out About Depression), a model for community organizing with low-income women and novel approach to welfare reform.
Established a program in which low-income women write and teach workshops on depression, economic status, and social action for other low-income women in the community.
Raised over $175,000 in grant funding for project.
Supervised law student and psychology graduate student volunteers.
Judicial Clerkship: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Miami, FL 2002-2003
Chambers of the Honorable Rosemary Barkett.
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE
Member of the Texas Bar 2019-present
Member of the Massachusetts Bar 2002-present
VERIFIED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
OCT 3, 2024
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
In Bank One Texas, Nat. Assoc. v. U.S., 157 F.3d 397, 403 (5th Cir. 1998), the court emphasized that “granting summary judgment is an inappropriate way to effect a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
This case involves a void lien and time-barred attempts at non-judicial foreclosure by Defendants, raising critical questions about this court’s jurisdiction—issues that have not been formally addressed despite their importance.
Plaintiff Joanna Burke has consistently brought these jurisdictional matters to the court’s attention, as evidenced by her “Motion to Strike PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Declare Her a Vexatious Litigant”
(Doc. 14, April 30, 2024; EXHIBIT DBVEXSTRIKE-DLOJ) and “RESPONSE to Opposed MOTION for Clarification” (Doc. 10, April 10, 2024 EXHIBIT DBREPLYCLARIFYDOC10-DLOJ).
Instead of addressing these fundamental jurisdictional concerns, the court has directed Defendants to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, failing to resolve the core question of jurisdiction, even discounting the Plaintiff raising jurisdiction once more in her “Verified REPLY to 10-Day Show Cause Order” (Doc. 22, June 27, 2024; EXHIBIT DBSHOWCAUSEDOC22-DLOJ).
Judge Werlein self-recused shortly thereafter.
This ongoing oversight necessitates this specific motion, as the court must first confront the critical issues of its authority in this matter.
CHECKING JURISDICTION: LEGAL AUTHORITIES
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), defenses such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction must be raised in responsive pleadings or by motion.
Jurisdiction is assessed at the time of removal (Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 733).
If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action (Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455).
Courts cannot grant equitable exceptions to jurisdictional rules (Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. __, __) and jurisdictional objections may be raised at any time (Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, 583 U.S. 17, __).
Furthermore, courts must enforce jurisdictional rules sua sponte, regardless of forfeiture or waiver by litigants (Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, No. 21-1436, at *7).
Renewing a jurisdictional objection necessitates a review of the case history and pleadings, alongside relevant court orders..
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS
The following proceedings are listed for reference.
Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:24-cv-00897), District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr / Judge Charles Eskridge – Snap Removed State Case in Violation of Automatic Stay by Hopkins for PHH (“Removed State Case”);
Joanna Burke (24-30885),United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Jeffrey Norman, March 1, 2024 (“Burke BK II”);
Burke v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (24-03056), United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, March 29, 2024 (“Burke BK II Adv.”).
GENERAL ORDERS RELEVANT TO PROCEEDINGS
2011-12, In the Matter of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction
“In the Matter of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction, General Order No. 2011-12”
GACP Fin. Co. v. Keystone Oilfield Fabrication (In re BJ Servs.),
No. 20-33627, at *4 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2023)
2012-06, In Re: Order of Reference to Bankruptcy Judges
“The dispute has been referred to the Bankruptcy Court under General Order 2012-6.”
Zaza Energy LLC v. C&J Spec-Rent Servs. (In re CJ Holding Co.),
No. 16-33590, at *11 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 17, 2024)
2024-4, Amended Division of Work Order (Effective Apr. 22, 2024)
“22. Senior Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. A. Retains the cases presently on his docket; B. Receives 3.11% of all cases filed in the Houston Division, except: (1) Bankruptcy Appeals (Nature of Suit 422); (2) Bankruptcy Withdrawal of Reference (Nature of Suit 423)…”.
“By the Debtor” Cases Halted by Federal District Judges During Automatic Stay
Assigned Judge Werlein, Jr. also rejected Defendants novel arguments in a similarly removed state case when he affirmed the automatic bankruptcy stay for then 88-year-old Greta Ketty Santos (deceased) in;
(1) Santos v. Cit Bank, N.A. (4:19-cv-01348), District Court, S.D. Texas, Dec 6, 2021 (Doc. 47);
(2) Schluter v. U.S. Bank Trust National Association (4:23-cv-00858) District Court, S.D. Texas, May 15, 2023;
(3) Wyatt v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:22-cv-02069) District Court, S.D. Texas, July 29, 2022;
(4) Loza v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (7:22-cv-00010) District Court, S.D. Texas, May 10, 2022;
(5) Conner v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (4:20-cv-02128)District Court, S.D. Texas, June 22, 2020;
(6) Baughman v. Idaho Housing and Finance Association (4:18-cv-02919) District Court, S.D. Texas, Oct 24, 2018;
(7) Lang v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (4:17-cv-02625) District Court, S.D. Texas, June 18, 2018;
(8) Johnson v. U.S. Bank National Association (1:17-cv-00950) District Court, W.D. Texas, Nov. 7, 2017 and:
(9) Grant v. Cornerstone Mortgage Company (4:16-cv-00223) District Court, N.D. Texas, Oct. 28, 2016.
LIT’s BREAKING NEWS STORY PART II COMING SOON
The decision to retain “related to” jurisdiction with concurrent proceedings, as determined by District Judge Werlein defies his own court’s precedent: General Order 2012-06 which mandates automatic transfer to Bankruptcy court. pic.twitter.com/nC01iFJRDj— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 8, 2024
ARGUMENT: DISTRICT COURT VS. BANKRUPTCY COURT JURISDICTION
In Texas, the usual process for removing a state court case to federal court—without any indication of bankruptcy—is to remove it to the federal district court. Examples include:.
Williams v. Fay Servicing, LLC (4:22-cv-02390) District Court, S.D. Texas where U.S. Bank Trust N.A. removed the case from the 269th Judicial District Court in Harris County, Texas (Shelley Hopkins, July 18, 2022);
Reagent Lonestar Group, LLC v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC. (5:24-cv-00947) District Court, W.D. Texas where Nationstar Mortgage removed the case (Shelley Hopkins, August 23, 2024).
However, when a case involves bankruptcy, it is typically removed directly to the bankruptcy court by either Plaintiff(s) or Defendant(s). For example:
7502 Harrisburg LLC v. Texas Funding Corporation (24-06004), United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas (January 24, 2024);
Choudhri v. National Bank of Kuwait, S.A.K.P., New York Branch (24-03120) United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas (June 7, 2024)”.
This is standard practice due to General Order 2012-06, which mandates the automatic transfer of such cases from district court to bankruptcy court in the Southern District of Texas.
General Order 2011-12 also details the authority of bankruptcy judges to issue final orders.
In this case, Defendants did not follow the standard process of removing to bankruptcy court as an adversary proceeding.
Instead, they removed it to federal district court—a clear example of forum shopping.
As noted in Doc. 9 (EXHIBIT DBREPLYDOC9-DLOJ),
“Forum shopping, also known as judge shopping, is a recognized issue in Texas courts.”
The district court should have immediately transferred the case to bankruptcy court per its own General Order 2012-06.
Instead, it retained the case, issuing a series of [void] orders asserting concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcy court, based on outdated legal references.
The Three Legal Authorities Cited in The Remand Order
In Judge Werlein’s Remand Order, three main cases were discussed based on the early pleadings; McMillan (cited by Defendants); In re Phillips, and; Sikes (cited by Plaintiff).
Defendants relied on McMillan (decided in 1993), which the district court adopted.
However, McMillan is outdated and no longer applicable to modern court rules and orders.
The case is nearly 30 years old and pre-dates current general orders, including General Order 2012-06, which mandates automatic transfer to bankruptcy court in relevant cases.
Had the general order been followed, the case would have been transferred to bankruptcy court, where Deutsche Bank National Trust Company had already appeared in Plaintiff’s voluntary Chapter 13 proceedings.
The Fifth Circuit has recognized that such appearances, in a bankruptcy context, are akin to debt collection activities,
(Matter of Continental Airlines, 928 F.2d 127, 129 (5th Cir. 1991) “The filing of a proof of claim is analogous to filing a complaint in a civil action, with the debtor’s objection acting as the answer.”).
This analogy reflects the typical process followed in bankruptcy courts, if rules and orders were properly applied—unlike in this case.
Plaintiff also cited In re Phillips and Sikes.
However, upon further inspection the Texas Supreme Court has disavowed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sikes, which held that certain actions were voidable.
The Texas Supreme Court clarified that such actions would be void, not voidable, casting doubt on the validity of the Sikes opinion.
Plaintiff Asserts Violation of Automatic Stay
In the Remand Order, Judge Werlein referenced two early pleadings filed by Plaintiff.
The cases of In re Phillips and Sikes were initially cited in her Emergency Motion to Remand (Doc. 5).
Defendants later introduced a novel argument, claiming that removal was permissible because the state case had been filed “by the debtor” (Plaintiff) rather than “against the debtor” (proceedings initiated by Defendants).
In response, Plaintiff clarified the application of these cases in her reply (Doc. 9; EXHIBIT DBREPLYDOC9-DLOJ), asserting that the automatic stay still applied.
“Related to” Jurisdiction
In the Remand Order, Judge Werlein makes an extended effort to separate claims and parties to support the argument that this division grants the district court “related to” jurisdiction over the State Removed Case.
This reasoning typically applies when determining subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal.
As the Fifth Circuit noted in LNY 5003, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 22-20573, at *5 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2023)
(“The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal. This includes consideration of “the claims in the state court petition as they existed at the time of removal.””).
However, Judge Werlein’s approach to splitting claims and parties undermines the cohesive nature of the case and distorts the proper jurisdictional analysis.
FINANCIAL CRISIS
“Federal and state regulators and prosecutors have determined that Deutsche Bank, Ocwen, and Homeward have engaged in systematic mortgage fraud and abuse for years, before, during and after all relevant times to the claims made in the lawsuit.” Texas Judge: 2024 pic.twitter.com/caKa5Nthuc— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 8, 2024
The Conflict: Jurisdictional Assessments
As discussed below, the district court’s analysis was rejected by former Chief Bankruptcy Judge David Jones in a case cited by Plaintiff in her reply:
Satterwhite v. Guerrero (In re Guerrero), CASE NO: 12-35341, at *5 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2013)
issued after General Order 2012-06.
Notably, the Remand Order relies on outdated cases from decades past to apply “related to” jurisdiction, which necessitates “splitting” the removed case.
This reliance on obsolete precedent undermines the relevance and applicability of the jurisdictional assessment.
Ex Parte Communications
It is important to note that this extensive theory necessitated ex parte communications via email between the judge and Defendants’ counsel.
This was disclosed to Plaintiff by Defendants’ counsel in an email on May 30, 2024, after the fact.
However, the disclosure did not include the documents provided by Defendants’ counsel to the judge or clarify whether this communication was supported by telephonic discussions.
Judge Werlein Relies Upon Arnold and Querner
In Judge Werlein’s Remand Order, he discusses Arnold v. Garlock, Inc., 278 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2001) (Doc. 18, p. 3-4) and; Matter of Querner, 7 F.3d 1199, 1201 (5th Cir. 1993) (Doc. 18, p. 5) to support the proposition of “related to” jurisdiction.
However, both cases are redundant given the superseding General Order issued in 2012.
Judge Werlein appears to use these cases to determine
(i) when Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy (March 1, 2024),
and
(ii) to confirm that the second complaint was the operative complaint at the time of bankruptcy.
The subsequent Remand Order, issued on June 17, 2024 (Doc. 18, pp. 3-5), noted the presence of new parties and a third amended complaint, along with Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment by the time the case was removed on March 12, 2024.
The court claimed this situation provided “related to” jurisdiction, but this legal theory raises both doubt and confusion.
The explanation of “related to” jurisdiction and its application to this “split-the-pleadings” theory seems incomplete in the Remand Order, leaving one to question its legal value or persuasive authority.
In reality, it lacks both.
Outdated Legal Authorities
The court’s argument relies on two ancient legal authorities, Arnold and Querner, which pre-date and undermine its own General Order 2012-06.
This order mandates that all cases are automatically transferred to the bankruptcy court, and it clearly states exceptions apply only to civil actions pending “before” a related bankruptcy petition is filed.
This exception does not apply in the current proceedings.
Plaintiff’s Argument
In her reply (Doc. 9; EXHIBIT DBREPLYDOC9-DLOJ), Plaintiff provided her own “related to” argument, referencing a removed state court case before former Chief Bankruptcy Judge David Jones (not the district court), which also addressed a similar scenario of “splitting” causes or pleadings during removal.
Judge Jones rejected this approach vehemently in Satterwhite v. Guerrero (In re Guerrero), CASE NO: 12-35341, at *5 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2013):
“Orion draws a distinction between the removal of causes of action and the removal of entire cases. Orion has been generally disfavored by reviewing courts. This Court finds Orion’s reasoning to be illogical.”.
Questionably, in Judge Werlein’s Remand Order (Doc. 9; EXHIBIT DBREPLYDOC9-DLOJ) was left to a footnote which disregarded Satterwhite and at the same time absurdly suggested “Plaintiff does not dispute this court’s jurisdiction over her claims against Defendants”.
“In summary, Plaintiff contends that the “related to” jurisdiction is intended for bankruptcy courts to utilize when addressing cases similar to those presented in Satterwhite.
The Third Circuit reinforced this view in Vertiv, Inc. v. Wayne Burt PTE, Ltd., 92 F.4th 169, 179 (3d Cir. 2024):
“Congress established ‘related to’ jurisdiction to grant bankruptcy courts comprehensive jurisdiction so they could deal efficiently and expeditiously with matters connected with the bankruptcy estate.”
Moreover, as noted in In re Resorts International, 372 F.3d 163, the “related to” jurisdiction reflects the broader universe of all proceedings sufficiently connected to the bankruptcy proceeding such that they would benefit from a bankruptcy judge’s expertise.
The Framework of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction
Bankruptcy courts have subject matter jurisdiction through 28 U.S.C. § 1334, which grants federal district courts jurisdiction over “all civil proceedings… related to” bankruptcy cases.
A proceeding relates to a bankruptcy case if “the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect” on the debtor’s estate (Bass v. Denney, 171 F.3d 1016, 1022 (5th Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted)).
“Related-to jurisdiction” includes “any litigation” that “could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or freedom of action or could influence the administration of the bankrupt estate” (Collins v. Sidharthan (In re KSRP, Ltd.), 809 F.3d 263, 266 (5th Cir. 2015)).
Notably, Collins is a post-2012 case that discusses related-to jurisdiction and the proper procedures for establishing it. In Collins, the bankruptcy judge lacked the parties’ consent to render a final judgment in the related proceeding as required by Stern v. Marshall, prompting the issuance of a report and recommendation to the district court.
In that report, the bankruptcy court founded its “related to” jurisdiction on cross-claims for indemnity and contribution.
Confusion in the Remand Order
The Remand Order’s reasoning creates significant uncertainty regarding the district court’s authority to oversee bankruptcy cases.
Judge Werlein’s interpretation defies the General Order of this court, in turn the rule of orderliness.
A recent opinion from Judge Kenneth Hoyt appears to have significantly influenced the Remand Order.
In Carnero G&P, LLC v. SN EF Maverick, LLC, 657 B.R. 202, 211 (S.D. Tex. 2024), Judge Hoyt emphasized:
A. Jurisdiction: “Jurisdiction is always first.” (Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021)).
Because this Court’s jurisdiction relies on the bankruptcy court’s, the Court must first verify that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction. A federal court may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining its jurisdiction.
However, the Remand Order does not adequately address how it overcomes the issue of “concurrent” jurisdiction—an inherently flawed proposition.
Instead, it claims that Plaintiff did not dispute jurisdiction, stopping at Doc. 9 (EXHIBIT DBREPLYDOC9-DLOJ ) and disregarding the legal arguments presented in all of Plaintiff’s subsequent pleadings prior to the issuance of the Remand Order.
Even if the court ignores Plaintiff’s pleadings, it is required to assert its own jurisdiction spontaneously.
A “federal court may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining its jurisdiction.”
Daves v. Dallas County, 64 F.4th 616, 623 (5th Cir. 2023) (en banc).
However, Judge Werlein’s Remand Order fails for the reasons provided herein and in supporting pleadings and exhibits which the court disregarded, which is
“nothing more than a drive-by jurisdictional ruling with no binding effect”;
as stated during a public exchange involving a Fifth Circuit panel consisting of Judges Haynes (dissenting), Willett, and Oldham, the majority asserted that jurisdiction requires clear examination in J.A. Masters Invs. v. Beltramini, No. 23-20292, at *5 (5th Cir. Sep. 9, 2024):
“We do not couch significant jurisdictional rulings in such oblique ways, and even if we did, our order granting the motion would amount to nothing more than a ‘drive-by jurisdictional ruling’ with no binding effect.”
Ultimately, after careful review of the Remand Order, Plaintiff maintains that the court’s reasoning is not just unreasonable; it has no binding effect in these proceedings.
The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to (i) retain the case and (ii) issue void orders.
The Impact of the District Court Retaining Removed Case
The question of whether a district court should retain a case that has been removed from state court extends beyond procedural considerations; it touches on fundamental principles of jurisdiction and the effective administration of justice.
The decision to retain jurisdiction, as articulated by Judge Werlein, contradicts the court’s own General Order 2012-06, which is based on outdated legal authorities.
This inconsistency highlights the significant challenges faced by pro se litigants in the Houston Division, as this order likely would not have been issued or even entertained had experienced law firm’s bankruptcy counsel been involved.
Both the governing law and the court’s own active General Order support Plaintiff’s argument.
Given these circumstances, this case should immediately be dismissed and remanded back to state court.
Judge Ewing Werlein’s Void Orders Sidestep Blackletter Law including Mandatory Court Rules and Procedures
In these proceedings, Judge Werlein’s five orders violated established legal authorities, as he lacked jurisdiction to enter them.
Consequently, these orders are void—a nullity in law. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff revisits the limited docket, which includes the full state court docket at the time of removal.
Plaintiff’s Federal Cases: Analyzing the Dockets & Legal Arguments
“The shotgun approach has its problems. Most obvious are preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction – what business does this Court have interfering with another District’s bankruptcy court managing its own case?”
– Camshaft Capital Mgmt. v. Apex Fund Servs. (Indiana), 1:24-cv-00713-JRS-MG, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 25, 2024)
When the state case was removed on March 12, 2024 Defendants submitted a civil docket sheet along with their removal notice and exhibits, incorporating all state court pleadings and filings at the time of removal.
This occurred 12 days after Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy, which she maintains violated the automatic stay (“Burke BKII”).
One day after the snap removal, on March 13, 2024 Plaintiff’s first action would be to file an “Emergency” Motion to Remand (Doc. 5), arguing only that the removal violated the automatic bankruptcy stay, while reserving her rights (docket date Mar. 19, 2024).
On March 29, 2024 Defendants violated the automatic stay again by filing an Opposed Motion to Clarify and/or Motion for Extension of Time in the district court case in response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, which had been filed in state court prior to removal (March 9, 2024).
On Apr. 5, 2024, Defendants’ response addressed Plaintiff’s single argument and introduced a novel theory for the first time: that the automatic stay did not apply to lawsuits commenced “by the debtor” but only to proceedings “against the debtor.”
Defendants also incorporated a reservation of rights and requested supplementary briefing as necessary in footnote 4, Doc. 8.
Two days later, in her reply brief dated Apr. 7, 2024, the Plaintiff challenged this novel theory while again reserving her rights for additional briefing based on the removal and additional jurisdictional arguments.
On the same day, Apr. 7, 2024, Plaintiff also responded to Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Clarify and/or Motion for Extension of Time.
By April 10, 2024, the remand motion was fully briefed and ripe for the court’s consideration.
CitiMortgage, represented by Bandit Texas Lawyer Shelley Hopkins, corruptly tried to bypass a clear grace period in a loan agreement, ignoring legal precedent. Fifth Cir. Judge Ho slammed their atextual plea, reminding her Citi was a repeat-offender: https://t.co/GqA8ulwcfr pic.twitter.com/d0MBguEikH
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 9, 2024
The Five Void Orders (Jun 17, 2024)
On June 17, 2024, Judge Werlein issued his first of five Orders, denying remand (the “Remand Order”).
This Order was released three months after Plaintiff presented her emergency motion seeking remand, partially due to a scheduled hearing on her motion for partial summary judgment in state court, set for Monday, April 15, 2024.
This delay contradicts Judge Werlein’s assurances in another proceeding before his court, where he stated,
“The undersigned judge* to whom this case was randomly assigned presently has no backlog of cases to be tried.” – Roy v. The Fay Law Group, P.A., 4:23-cv-03139, District Court, S.D. Texas, Doc. 22 (Feb. 21, 2024).
*Judge Werlein took Senior status over 18 years ago, which allows for a reduced docket (3.11%) and case selection.
Notably, excluding bankruptcy-related matters; See; General Order 2024-4 : Amended Division of Work Order (Effective Apr. 22, 2024) at No. 22., p. 5.
In his Remand Order, Judge Werlein asserted that this district court has jurisdiction over these proceedings, contradicting established legal principles and the court’s own General Orders.
Furthermore, the Order cherry-picked Plaintiff’s pleadings to her detriment.
Despite collecting motions and responses for three months and issuing five Orders on the same day, the court completely ignored Plaintiff’s renewed concerns regarding this court’s jurisdiction.
Specifically, the Remand Order only cites two of Plaintiff’s pleadings: the Emergency Motion to Remand (Doc. 5, docketed Mar. 19, 2024) and Plaintiff’s Reply to Response to Emergency Motion to Remand (Doc. 9, docketed Apr. 10, 2024; EXHIBIT DBREPLYDOC9-DLOJ).
It is important to remember that “Jurisdiction can be raised at any time….“.
See; Vita Equipose Equity Partners, LLC v. Tig Romspen U.S. Master Mortg., Civil Action 3:21-cv-00358, at *2 n.1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2024)
Vita is precisely the checks and balance Plaintiff sought to do during the three months of silence from the court.
For example, on April 30, 2024, Plaintiff submitted two motions to the district court, the first being Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff Joanna Burke a Vexatious Litigant (Doc. 14; EXHIBIT DBVEXSTRIKE-DLOJ), and MOTION for Extension of Time to respond to PHH Mortgage Corporation’s motion to declare plaintiff Joanna Burke as a vexatious litigant (Doc. 13).
As illustrated above, both motions begin by challenging this court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time stated:
“Plaintiff avers this court lacks jurisdiction and/or the case should be remanded.”
“Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created by waiver or consent.”
(Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 919 (5th Cir. 2001)).
A federal court has a duty to ensure proper subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of proceedings.
Ruhgras AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999)
(“Subject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative even at the highest level.”).” – Doc. 13, p. 3., and;
McDonal v. Abbott Labs., 408 F.3d 177, 182 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005)
(A “federal court may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”). – Doc. 13, p. 4.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (Doc. 14; EXHIBIT DBVEXSTRIKE-DLOJ) also presents compelling arguments, including:
Federal Judges and Automatic Stay:
Citing numerous cases where federal judges applied an automatic stay in cases initiated “by the debtor.”
Statute of Limitations:
Reasserting that the foreclosure judgment is time-barred and the power of sale has expired, supported by relevant legal authorities.
Although these pleadings were submitted well before the issuance of five judicial orders, none of Plaintiff’s well-researched arguments were considered in the Remand Order or related orders.
Plaintiff respectfully contends that, upon reviewing these motions, the newly assigned court (Judge Eskridge/Magistrate Judge Bryan) should recognize that the legal arguments presented invalidate all five orders issued by Judge Werlein, as they were rendered without proper subject matter jurisdiction.
These orders, issued by a judge who later recused himself, have caused significant harm.
In further support, Judge Werlein contradicted his own order in Santos, where he stayed a foreclosure case initiated “by the debtor,” which directly conflicts with his Remand Order (Doc. 18, p. 6-8).
In Santos v. Cit Bank, N.A., Judge Werlein upheld the automatic bankruptcy stay for 88-year-old Greta Ketty Santos (deceased)
(Santos v. Cit Bank, N.A. (4:19-cv-01348), District Court, S.D. Texas, Dec 6, 2021 (Doc. 47)).
Plaintiff also provided several other examples of federal district judges staying cases filed by debtors
(Doc. 14, p. 2; EXHIBIT DBVEXSTRIKE-DLOJ; and relisted in this response).
Concurrent Proceedings
Pro se Plaintiff Joanna Burke asserts that the state court proceedings were unlawfully removed to federal district court on March 12, 2024, by Defendants’ counsel, Mark and Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC.
This removal was procedurally incorrect.
First, the removal violated the automatic stay imposed by bankruptcy law.
This violation was later converted into a formal complaint in Plaintiff’s adversary proceedings, providing this court with the full case history and supporting legal arguments, as outlined in Burke BK II Adv.
Second, even if removal was proper, the case should have been removed to the bankruptcy court as an adversary proceeding related to Joanna Burke’s bankruptcy, filed on March 1, 2024.
Notably, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was already represented in the bankruptcy case by attorney Kathryn Dahlin of Codilis & Moody, who appeared on March 8, 2024 (Doc. 13, Burke BKII).
Ms. Dahlin had previously represented both Deutsche Bank and PHH Mortgage Corporation in similar proceedings
(Veronica Saenz (22-20164)).
Per General Order 2012-06, listed on this court’s website, this district court should have automatically transferred the case to the bankruptcy court.
Transfer in such situations is standard practice, as illustrated by
Diogu v. Lakeland W. Capital 41, LLC (Civil Action 4:22-CV-3299, S.D. Tex. May 23, 2023),
where claims related to bankruptcy were transferred to the bankruptcy court pursuant to General Order 2012-06.
Additionally, in In re Odonata Ltd. (22-10946 MEW, Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2024), the SDNY district court followed a similar standing order, underscoring the frequency of such transfers nationwide.
Given these precedents, the district court should have transferred the improperly removed case to the bankruptcy court as required.
Violations of the Automatic Bankruptcy Stay
The proper procedure for addressing violations of the automatic stay is through an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court, making it mandatory for this case to be transferred to bankruptcy court.
In Rojas v. Gomez (In re Rojas), No. 18-31127-MVL13 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. June 5, 2024), the court outlined the requirements for a debtor to bring an action under Section 362(k) for violating the automatic stay. The debtor must prove:
1. The defendant knew of the existence of the stay;
2. The defendant’s actions were intentional; and
3. The defendant’s actions violated the stay (In re Chesnut, 422 F.3d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 2005)).
In Joanna Burke’s case, all three elements are met, as she filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court (Burke BK II Adv.) to address the violation.
This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over these Proceedings
Jurisdiction can be raised at any time.
As stated in United States v. Willis, 76 F.4th 467, 479 (5th Cir. 2023):
“Jurisdiction is the power to say what the law is… Acting without jurisdiction is, by definition, ultra vires.”
(cited in Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, Doc. 10, Jun. 24, 2024, Burke v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 24-03056, United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas).
Further, “A federal court must presume it lacks jurisdiction unless proven otherwise,” with the burden of proof on the party asserting jurisdiction
(Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377).
Plaintiff asserts this court lacks jurisdiction, as outlined in this motion and prior pleadings. Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of the already-submitted documents and objections, which are supported by clear legal authority.
As noted in Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003):
“Judges are not required to hunt for hidden arguments.”
Here, no hunting is needed, as the pleadings are concise.
As Judge Charles Eskridge has stated:
“Many cases aren’t complex and don’t present large amounts in dispute.”
(Eskridge Court Procedures, p.7-8).
This case is one such example, and the jurisdictional issues are straightforward.
The Judgment of Foreclosure and the Power of Sale Has Expired
Defendants had four years from the entry of judgment by Judge David Hittner, issued on November 29, 2018 (Exhibit: DB2-MSJ), to initiate foreclosure.
They relied on this judgment in the substitute trustees’ notices of foreclosure sale.
However, by the time they filed their first non-judicial foreclosure and scheduled it for auction on January 2, 2024, the judgment had already expired
(Exhibit: DB1-MSJ).
As detailed in docket entry Doc. 22, June 27, 2024, titled
“Verified Reply to Show Cause Order” (EXHIBIT DBSHOWCAUSEDOC22-DLOJ),
the Order is void—a nullity in law.
In the July 11 Order, the District Judge refused to address jurisdiction (pages 3, 4, and 6) nor the contested void judgment, which was raised repeatedly in this single filing, in violation of the law.
Following this, the judge promptly recused himself, resulting in reassignment of the case.
At 85 years old, and with disabilities that significantly impact her daily life, Joanna Burke is enduring a prolonged and unnecessary legal battle.
Given the straightforward nature of this case and her limited life expectancy, it is profoundly unjust and inhumane to subject her to such relentless litigation.
Joanna, a law-abiding citizen who has peacefully called her home of over twenty years, deserves to live out her remaining years without facing further intimidation or threats.
It is essential that the court recognize her right to tranquility and safety in her own home, free from the undue stress of pre-filing injunctions and the looming threat of unlawful foreclosure.
Plaintiff concludes with this recent reminder in Van Deelen v. Jones, 4:23-CV-03729-AM, at *36 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2024):
“…he [Van Deelen] suffered injustice in [Chief Bankruptcy Judge David R.] Jones’s courtroom…Time and time again, the most powerful players in the bankruptcy system dismissed him as another crazed, vexatious litigant….
But this time, he was right…
Had the anonymous letter arrived in anyone else’s mailbox, perhaps Jones would still be on the bench, awarding millions of dollars to Kirkland and Jackson Walker….
The Court will not punish the Plaintiff for seeking to redress his grievances in a forum in which, for once, the deck is not stacked against him.”
DECLARATION
Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001 and “In lieu of a sworn affidavit, a litigant may submit an unsworn declaration as evidence against summary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746.”, I hereby provide my unsworn declaration. My name is Joanna Burke.., and I declare under penalty of perjury that all information herein is true and correct.
CONCLUSION
In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s verified motion should be GRANTED. A proposed order is provided.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 3rd day of October, 2024.
BREAKING NEWS REPORT FROM LIT COMING UP:
“Our Framers understood that government was inclined to advance its own interests, even to the point of ham-fisted bullying, which is precisely why the Constitution was written—to keep government on a leash, not We the People.” pic.twitter.com/qGLaIQCo8T— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 8, 2024
The ongoing fraud and corruption by PHH Mortgage Corporation, and their bandit counsel continues.
Notice of Criminal Activity by Officers of the Court in Grabner v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Attn: Judge Andrew Hanen (c/o Case Manager Rhonda Hawkins, and copying all counsel for transparency)
I am writing to bring to your attention concerning developments in the case of Grabner v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation (Case No: 4:24-cv-00915) currently before your court.
During a recent live-streamed session on X’s social media platform, hosted by LIT (Laws in Texas) concerning the aforementioned case and related matters, significant concerns regarding potential criminal activity by officers of the court have come to light. Specifically, it has been observed that the attorneys representing Freedom Mortgage Corporation, Bradley Conway and Dustin George, in their motion to dismiss, have neglected to address glaring evidence of real estate fraud and non-disclosure which contravenes the terms of the non-exempt property loan in question.
Of particular concern is the ongoing fraudulent and unethical conduct allegedly perpetrated by sanctioned Texas lawyer Robert Clarence Newark and his client Roderick Kagy, as evidenced by documents in the Harris County real property records, including a “JV” agreement between the homeowner(s) and Kagy, trading under the alias “My Fresh Start, LLC.”
Further details regarding these matters have been extensively covered in LIT articles, including the most recent publication titled;
“14 Years of Carnage and Corruption”
https://lawsintexas.com/pr/32x
Additionally, specific information regarding the Grabner case and its implications can be found in the article;
“It’s a Home Grab in Kingwood Texas”
https://lawsintexas.com/pr/2v4
It should be recognized that I, Mark Burke, as founder of Blogger Inc., and an investigative journalist, am actively documenting and providing updates on these instances of alleged fraud and unethical practices to both the courts and relevant government agencies, as well as to the media through my premier blog at LawsinTexas.com (LIT). Given the gravity of the situation, LIT asserts that this constitutes a criminal matter – as it reaches far beyond the current proceedings -warranting immediate attention, publication, and notification. Many of these associated cases are published on LIT. However, if you have any direct questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I respectfully request and urge the court consider this notice seriously and take appropriate action to ensure the integrity of the legal process. In the interim, LIT will ensure the public, press and government agencies are made aware of this complaint.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and acknowledgment of this formal written complaint by investigative journalist Mark Burke, on behalf of non-profit Blogger Inc., and it’s Texas-based blog at LawsinTexas.com.
Sincerely,
Mark Burke
Justice Seeker
Laws In Texas
#restoretx
Support LIT
At LawsInTexas.com (LIT), we’re not just a blog; we’re a fervent voice against judicial and legal corruption, not only in Texas but across the nation. Operating as a boutique non-profit, we incur substantial expenses to maintain our platform, yet we’ve chosen to remain accessible without paywalls. Why? Because we firmly believe that the more people we reach, the greater the impact in aiding those in need.
LIT delivers compelling articles, exposing corruption, while actively aiding citizens with their legal challenges by featuring their cases on our blog. The outcomes have been truly remarkable, and the positive feedback is a testament to our influence.
If you resonate with our dedication to purifying our judiciary and government, exposing ochlocracy and public corruption, we invite you to become a Valued Supporter. Your donation to LawsInTexas.com empowers us to keep the authentic stories flowing and ensures the Bandits and Outlaws stay on the run.
Whether you aspire to have your story published on LIT or simply align with our mission, your support is paramount. Join us in the battle against corruption and be a part of a movement that advocates for justice for all.
Cheers.
ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons.
Initial Conference set for 7/12/2024 at 02:30 PM in Room 11521 before Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr.
(Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr)
Parties notified.(DanielBerger, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2024)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:24-cv-00897
| Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive & Declaratory Relief |
Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Diversity |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 03/12/2024 | 1 | NOTICE OF REMOVAL from 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, case number 2023-86973 (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXSDC-31316463) filed by PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 03/12/2024) |
| 03/13/2024 | 2 | ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 7/12/2024 at 02:30 PM in Room 11521 before Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(DanielBerger, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2024) |
| 03/13/2024 | 3 | NOTICE to Pro Se Litigant of Case Opening. Party notified, filed. (DanielBerger, 4) (Entered: 03/13/2024) |
| 03/14/2024 | 4 | NOTICE of Appearance by Shelley L. Hopkins on behalf of PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/14/2024) |
| 03/19/2024 | 5 | Emergency MOTION to Remand integrating memorandum and brief in support by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/9/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (AaronJackson, 4) (Entered: 03/19/2024) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 03/20/2024 07:03:57 |
ORDER
The motion of appellant for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing is granted.
Appellant may have until June 14, 2024 to file a petition for rehearing.
No further extensions will be granted.
Electronically-filed petitions for rehearing must be received in the clerk’s office on or before the due date.
The three-day mailing grace under Fed.R.App.P. 26(c) does not apply to petitions for rehearing.
March 19, 2024
Order Entered at the Direction of the Court:
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
/s/ Michael E. Gans
Davis v. Galagaza
DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED
(4:19-cv-03119) District Court, S.D. Texas Judge Werlein to Judge Atlas
Case removed: Aug 20, 2019 – Case remanded: Sep 30, 2019
It is 41 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date.
Or 1 month, 10 days excluding the end date.
Hanson DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED.
(4:14-cv-00306), District Court, S.D. Texas
by MJ Smith Opinion affirmed byHittner.
Case removed: Feb 7, 2014 – remanded: May 23, 2014
It is 105 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date.
Or 3 months, 16 days excluding the end date.
Azhar v. Dalio Holdings I, LLC
DO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED.
District Court, S.D. Texas, Judge Hittner
Case removed: Jul 5, 2018 – remanded: Jan 24, 2019
It is 203 days from the start date to the end date, but not including the end date.
Or 6 months, 19 days excluding the end date.
Texas Judge: Y’all are Criminals
“Deutsche Bank is a fiduciary under Section 32.45, Texas Penal Code and OCWEN are attorneys-in-fact. As a result, the limitation on the amount of punitive damages set forth in Section 41.008, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not apply.” pic.twitter.com/QPJLIAhdvO— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 8, 2024
Ground Zero: All Federal Judges Disqualified from Minnesota Case Linked to Lawyer turned Judge
Shocking Twist in Legal Battle: All Judges Disqualified by Chief Judge of the Federal District of Minnesota Due to Black Robe Testimony.
Police Seizure of Cell Phone Unlawful but Seizure of Legal Papers by Court Clerk for Nefarious Reasons Allowed
4th Amendment protects people’s rights to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Lender Application Fraud: Homeowners Pay The Price Due to Judicial Corruption and Gov. Interference.
U.S. Attorney’s and investigative partners across the country are selectively committed to holding lenders accountable for liar loans.
