FIRST AMENDED OPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE INITIAL BRIEF
MAR 9, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: MAR 9, 2023
MARCH 8, 2023
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
(SUA SPONTE ORDER TO DENY TIME TO REPLY INCLUDING A 3 JUDGE ORDER ISSUED)
Before King, Jones, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s opposed motion to transfer this appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is DENIED.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has processed the recently widowed, elder Appellant’s appeal, assigned the appellate case number and noticed March 20, 2023 as the deadline for submission of the Appellant’s Brief.
On February 17, 2023, Appellant, Joanna Burke, requested this appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the “interests of justice”.
On February 23, 2023, Appellees submitted a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Appellant’s request for venue transfer which this court has granted and extended until March 6, 2023.
On February 27, 2023, Appellant requested this court extend the briefing schedule for a period of ninety days for the reasons set out in the above motion(s) along with the fact Appellant cannot possibly prepare the opening brief until venue is decided. Why? Briefs are limited by word-count and the argument presented will be structured based on whether Appellant is addressing the “judicial machinery itself” which directly caused the harm, namely this Circuit, or whether Appellant is addressing an independent Circuit Court which is not familiar with the history and facts of the underlying litigation.
On March 6, 2023 Appellees submitted their response with objections to the venue transfer.
On March 7, 2023 Appellant requested a copy of the Electronic Record on Appeal from the Court, PACER and/or opposing counsel via direct email at 0732 hrs, as the download link was not available online to Appellant.
On March 8, 2023, at 0103 hrs, Appellant submitted a response to the ECF/Filing Permissions requesting the Electronic Record on Appeal for the purposes provided: “No response has been received and Appellant herein requests a copy of the Electronic Record on Appeal (“ROA”) in order to timely respond to the RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark Daniel Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins on March 6, 2023, and for any other pleadings, replies and/or responses which require the ROA.”.
On March 8, 2023, at 0942 hrs, the following response from the court was received; “DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the reply to motion for electronic filing permissions and email notifications received from Appellant Mrs. Joanna Burke because Appellant is simply requesting a copy of the electronic record on appeal. Pro Se filers must request the record from the district court. [22-20504] (SDH)”.
On March 8, 2023, at 1107 hrs, Appellant filed a new DKT-13 form for a copy of the Electronic Record on Appeal with S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
On March 8, 2023, at 1114 hrs, Appellant, as instructed, filed a copy of the new DKT-13 form with this court.
On March 8, 2023, at 1154 hrs, this court issued a sua sponte 3-panel unpublished order, without allowing Appellant the opportunity to reply to the baseless arguments made by Appellees within 7 days, as allowed under FRAP and RULES and INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT (Nov. 2022 edition): “UNPUBLISHED ORDER Before King, Jones, and Smith, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s opposed motion to transfer this appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is DENIED.”.
This morning, March 9, 2023, and in light of the aforementioned, Appellant herein amends the time requested to file the initial brief for reasoning provided, shortening the time requested from 90 days to 30 days and thus extending the current court deadline from March 20, 2023 to April 19, 2023, and so justice may be served.
See; Dennett v. Hogan, 414 U.S. 12 (1973) (“ He [a disbarred attorney convicted of securities fraud] later filed with a judge of the Court of Appeals a pro se request for extension of time in which to submit his brief on appeal. This was granted.”).
CONCLUSION
This motion for an extension of thirty days until Wednesday, April 19, 2023 should be GRANTED.
Respectfully submitted,
Lender Application Fraud: Homeowners Pay The Price Due to Judicial Corruption and Gov. Interference. https://t.co/S5afTgTaWI
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 9, 2023
MARCH 9, 2023
The court has granted an extension of time to and including April 19, 2023 for filing appellant’s brief in this case.
Wild West Hired Guns Misfire: PHH ONITY’s Cooked-Up n’ Cockamamie Arguments Implode
Judge Werlein recused in July and hence ONITY’s argument is frivolous, and their motion for summary judgment violates court procedures.
Southern District Court in Houston: Addressing the Missing USPS Express Mail with Specificity
All non-attorney pro se litigants must deliver or mail filings to the Clerk’s Office, as per SD TX Guidelines for Litigants Without Lawyers.
Texas Appellate Justice Ken Molberg: Statute of Limitations Suspended During Litigation and Appeal
That differs when you are in Federal Court on Appeal. It didn’t stop PHH and Mark Cronenwett from filing for nonjudicial foreclosure.
Texas Rustlers: Corralling Calculated Legal Bandits and Villainous Practices by Courtroom Outlaws
Behind Closed Doors: The Coordinated Efforts of Legal Bandits and Complicit Courts to Deprive Homeowners of Their Rights and Property.
Justice in the Wild West: One Fearless Widow’s Battle for Truth and Honor in the Federal Courthouse
The Texas Struggle: Defying Northern Banking Giants and Their Bounty Hunting Lawyers to Protect Her Home from Rustlers and Thieves
Including the How: Addressing the Missing Piece in Quoting Fraud with Specificity
In Plaintiff’s prior response, under section F. Burke Fails to Assert a Claim for Fraud, the How element was inadvertently omitted.
Federal Bankruptcy Judge Lopez: I Don’t Read Words Into Statutes. I Read What They Say and I Follow It
Texas Supreme Court Justice Blacklock: Why should the court give the lender rights it didn’t bargain for to get paid?
A Wild West Blunder: PHH’s Hired Bounty Hunters at Hopkins Law Deliver a Cockamamie Response
Gunsmoke and Legal Misfires: PHH’s Reply Misses the Mark. Hopkins Law’s Cockamamie Response Turns Legal Logic into High Noon Nonsense.
Texas Law Professors on Bankruptcy and Civil Rights Won’t Confront Premeditated Judicial Misconduct
Three lauded Texas University law schools employ these academics. Despite their resumes centered on civil rights, they refuse to defend them.
Second Quick-Fire Ruling by Federal Magistrate Judge Challenges Integrity of Her Own Scheduling Order
Uneven Treatment: Judge Allows Longer Response Time for Opposing Party and their Counsel Despite Previous Restrictions on Pro Se Plaintiff.
Quick-Fire Ruling by Federal Magistrate Judge Challenges Integrity of Her Own Scheduling Order
Uneven Treatment: Judge Allows Longer Response Time for Opposing Party and their Counsel Despite Previous Restrictions on Pro Se Plaintiff.
Federal Court Bailouts: The Troubling Connection Between PHH Mortgage Corp. and Judicial Corruption
The Southern District of Texas Houston Division’s Federal Court Scandals mount as this case presents a further example of Judicial Activism.
