Appellate Circuit

A 5th Circuit 3-Panel Reconsideration of Single Judge James Dennis’s Order is Necessary

The Local Rule 27.1.1 allows fourteen days to submit a motion for reconsideration of a single judge’s order.

LIT UPDATE

JUNE 21, 2021

The Fifth Circuit New Bias 3-Panel, including the Chief of Mischief Judge Priscilla Owen, deny the Burkes motion. Now that’s a statement of fact.

DENNIS, JAMES L.

Judge James L Dennis

was born January 9, 1936 (Capricorn)

Age: 85

OWEN, PRISCILLA R.

Judge Priscilla Richman Owen

was born October 4, 1954 (Libra)

Age: 66

DAVIS, W. EUGENE

Judge William Eugene Davis

was born August, 1936

Age: 84

Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Davis and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:

A member of this panel previously DENIED pro se appellants’ motion for authorization to omit the [ambiguous local rule re] Statement of Facts requirement in pro se appellants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc. The panel has considered appellants’ motion for reconsideration.

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

LIT UPDATE

JUNE 8, 2021

The Fifth Circuit replied to the Burkes renewed motion with a cover letter which notices the Burkes that they’ve changed the Pro Se rules in June 2021 as a personal vendetta against the elder litigants.

The Burkes have communicated via email for a lengthy period of time and the court accepted those communications. Now the appellate court has made another sweeping change to the rules for no good cause, but they forget LIT are always data hungry and the meta data on the new rules (PDF) confirms the mercenary tactics.

Watch the short video below for a detailed explanation.

JUNE 7, 2021

The Burkes filed  a renewed motion for reconsideration of a single judges order tonight after waiting all day for the court to reply via email, which it did not. It is shown below.

LIT COMMENTARY

This is a follow up on the last article (or many) about the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re the Burkes case[s]. Today the Burkes responded to the last order issued by Judge James Dennis, for the court. Below is the motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration of a single judge’s order by the 3-panel.

Date: Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:04 PM

From: <cmecf_caseprocessing@ca5.uscourts.gov>
Date: Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:04 PM
Subject: 19-20267 Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing “Unfiled Document”
To: <kajongwe@gmail.com>

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 05/19/2021 at 1:50:57 PM CDT and filed on 05/14/2021

Case Name: Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
Case Number: 19-20267
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:

DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW)

Date: Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:01 PM (Memorial Day Weekend)

From: <cmecf_caseprocessing@ca5.uscourts.gov>
Date: Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:01 PM
Subject: 19-20267 Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing “Non Dispositive Court Order denying extend time to file rehearing”
To: <kajongwe@gmail.com>

***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL AS IT ORIGINATES FROM AN UNATTENDED EMAIL ADDRESS.

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Notice of Docket Activity

The following transaction was entered on 05/28/2021 at 2:56:44 PM CDT and filed on 05/28/2021

Case Name: Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
Case Number: 19-20267
Document(s): Document(s)

Docket Text:

COURT ORDER denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9572022-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW)

A Fifth Circuit Clerk Corruptly Impersonating Appellants Induces Finality of Appeal

Fifth Circuit Clerk Gardner, with knowledge and in bad faith, entered her own fraudulent Motion upon which the 5th Cir. entered its judgment.

The Ultimate in Corrupt Opinions. Fifth Circuit Issue Mandate Based on 5th Circuit Clerks Motion.

The Burkes now have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Elder Abuse in Texas Federal Courts. It’s now a valid Criminal Complaint.

Strike II – You Can’t Have a Fifth Circuit Clerk Filing Your Motions, That’s Void Ab Initio

The Burkes file a motion to strike Hopkins Law’s response as the motion they are objecting to is void ab initio. It was unlawfully filed.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 19-20267 Docketed: 04/22/2019
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3220 Foreclosure
Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:18-CV-4544
     Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/18/2019      04/18/2019

04/13/2021 Open Document PETITION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Mandate issue date canceled.. Sufficient Rehearing due on 04/26/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: case caption must match our case caption exactly; statement of facts; copy of the court’s opinion [19-20267, 20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2]. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/13/2021 07:27 PM]
04/23/2021 Open Document OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 file petition in present form [9557920-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2] [9549894-2] [9557920-4], alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for leave to file petition in present form [9549894-2] [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/23/2021 12:00 PM]
05/05/2021 Open Document COURT ORDER denying motion to file Petition for Rehearing En Banc in present form, to omit the Statement of Facts requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-2], denying as unnecessary motion to waive the paper requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-3]; granting alternative motion to extend time to return a sufficient Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10 days from the date of this order, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-4] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/05/2021 07:57 AM]
05/12/2021 Open Document OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to extend the time to file a rehearing until 05/26/2021 [9572022-2]. Date of service: 05/12/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 05/12/2021 08:44 AM]
05/14/2021 Open Document DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/19/2021 01:50 PM]
05/17/2021 Open Document DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Proposed sufficient rehearing en banc received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because It is a duplicative filing, as the rehearing should be emailed, not re-filed. Additionally, it still remains insufficent as it does not have a copy of the court’s opinion. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CCR) [Entered: 05/17/2021 03:52 PM]
05/28/2021 Open Document COURT ORDER denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9572022-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 02:56 PM]
05/28/2021 Open Document MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 court order denying Motion for authorization to omit the Statement of Facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9557920-2] [9585172-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 03:07 PM]
06/08/2021 Open Document DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because A motion for reconsideration is already pending [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 06/08/2021 09:04 AM]
06/21/2021 Open Document COURT ORDER denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9585172-2] in 19-20267 [19-20267, 20-20209] (RLL) [Entered: 06/21/2021 03:33 PM]
A 5th Circuit 3-Panel Reconsideration of Single Judge James Dennis’s Order is Necessary
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top