Appellate Circuit

A Dear Bill Letter. We Know Your Game. Signed, We the People.

The Delays Acknowledging and Processing our Judicial Complaint is Obvious. Judge Marra is primed to dismiss the lower court action and resign.


The Burkes have received a response by snail mail from Lyin’ Bill Pryor of the 11th Circuit. The petition for review is next. It would have been nice if they actually included the enclosures to the rules as they stated, but none were found in the sealed envelope, just a letter and lyin’ order of dismissal to match the whiteout opinion and rejection of the Burke’s en banc rehearing request.

How do I seek review of the circuit chief judge’s dismissal or conclusion of my complaint?

If the circuit chief judge dismisses or concludes your complaint, you will receive a copy of the order and you will be notified of your right to have the circuit judicial council, consisting of circuit and district judges, (or national court, if applicable) review that order.

You must petition the judicial council within 42 days from the date of the circuit chief judge’s order. DEADLINE FOR THIS PETITION FOR REVIEW 42 calendar days after Wednesday, January 27, 2021 is Wednesday, March 10, 2021.  If you do not make a timely request for such review, the circuit chief judge’s order will be the final action on your complaint.

Your petition for review must be addressed to the circuit clerk or circuit executive, as required under the Rules and any applicable local rules, in an envelope marked “Misconduct Petition” or “Disability Petition.” The name of the judge must not be shown on the envelope. Your petition for review should be legible, and preferably typewritten, and should begin with “I hereby petition the judicial council for review of . . . .” It should state the reasons why the petition should be granted, and it must be signed.

Any subsequent judicial conduct or disability complaint challenging the correctness of the circuit chief judge’s decision to dismiss or conclude your original complaint will be dismissed as challenging the correctness of the circuit chief judge’s determination to dismiss your complaint.

LIT’s Flamin’ Hot Revelations About Lyndell Leroy “Lynn” Price of The Turkey Leg Hut

Lyndell Price has shot to celebrity status in H-Town and this Bad Boy seems to have the Judiciary and Police Wipin’ Criminal Records

On Return from the 8th Cir., Chief Judge Beth Phillips Denies Motion for Sanctions by Texas Attorney

The Chief Judge: Should it be established that Mycroft have engaged in the misconduct described, the Court will respond quite harshly.

Judge Removed for Bias and Allowing Conversion of Courtroom Conference Without Due Notice

Comparing the Honorable Eighth Cir. opinion with the Judicial Outlaws at the Fifth Cir. and Eleventh Cir. shows not all Judges lie and cheat.


When the judiciary and the State Bars and affiliated organizations work together to deny the people their legal and constitutional rights, y’all need to call them out or face the consequences of inaction. The following letter shows the level of corruption internally is extreme in the judiciary and the people need to know. Please read, comment, share, subscribe and donate.

August 6, 2020

The Honorable William Pryor
United States Court of Appeals
Eleventh Circuit
56 Forsyth St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303


Hon. Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Senate Judiciary Committee
152 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510

Via Email;

Update: Nominee Aileen Mercedes Cannon Confirmed as Judge on 12th Nov., 2020, to replace Lyin’ Judge Kenneth A. Marra, S.D. Fl.  Democratic Senator Feinstein Votes Yea and Shows Her True Political Colors – and that’s Not for Democracy nor We The People.


Dear Chief Judge Pryor,


 We refer to this courts’ Judicial Conduct and Disibility rules page on your website.[1] After review of the rules, we filed a judicial complaint against Judge Marra. A summary of our attempts to find out the status of the above judicial complaint is outlined below along with relevant proceedings and events for your review and consideration;

Due to the national/international pandemic, we filed a complaint against Judge Marra into the appeal case no. 19-13015 on June 9th, 2020. We provided a letter asking that the filing be transmitted to the correct person and/or department for processing. We did not receive any type of acknowledgment from the person(s) / department reviewing the complaint.

On July 2nd, 2020, we followed up with a letter addressed for the Attn of: Circuit Mediation and Judicial Support Office, which was also filed by ECF into case no. 19-13015. Again, we asked that this complaint be directed to the [correct] person or department for processing. No reply or acknowledgment has been received.

On July 13th, in the lower court case, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. (9:17-cv-80495), District Court, S.D. Florida Judge Marra entered and order removing case from trial calendar re: Status conference held on 7/10/20. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/13/2020.

On July 27th, Law360 reported; “Don’t Give Ocwen An Early Win, Regulators Tell Fla. Judge Law360 (July 27, 2020, 5:37 PM EDT) — State and federal regulators urged a Florida federal judge Friday not to grant an early win to Ocwen Financial in enforcement litigation it faces…”[2] 

On July 29th, 2020 the Committee of the Judiciary held a remote hearing[3] of five judicial nominees. One of those was nominees is Aileen Mercedes Cannon – who has been nominated to Be United States District Judge For The Southern District Of Florida and designated to replace ‘retiring’ Senior Judge Kenneth Marra.

As a result of the [mis]conduct by the judge and the lawyers in the stated case(s), we filed State Bar complaints against named Goodwin Procter lawyers. These lawyers are counsel for Ocwen in both the lower court case and our appeal currently at this court. It should be noted that in these complaints, we addressed the ‘hot potato’ cases in Illinois and Georgia federal courts, where Goodwin Procter and the lawyers herein were also guilty of misconduct, including a conflict of interest, collusion and conspiracy, bad faith conduct, dishonesty etc.[4]

Thomas Hefferon; filed with the Virginia State Bar. This was e-filed on June 8th, 2020. In a rapid response the Bar declined the complaint for reasons which are in direct conflict with the Bars’ own rules. We advised them of the same in an email response dated June 11th. The Bar replied on June 29th and we replied the same day, copying the United States Senate Committee On Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and as at the date of this filing, no response has been received.

Matthew Sheldon; filed with the Virginia State Bar. This was e-filed on June 8th, 2020. See a. above for the status of this complaint.

Sabrina Rose-Smith; filed with the DC Bar. This was e-filed on June 15th, 2020. On August 4th, a letter was received from the DC Bar, rejecting our complaint and summarizing ‘We will not interfere with the court’s decision in this matter by investigating the facts you allege.’ We responded, citing our reasons the DC Bar is in direct conflict with the Bars’ own rules and copying the United States Senate Committee On Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. As at the date of this filing, no response has been received.

Catalina Azuero; filed with the Florida Bar. This was e-filed on June 18th, 2020 and assigned a case reference number 21-112 by email on July 6th. On July 9th, a letter was sent via USPS mail signed by Mr Wilhelm and wherein he stated that efiled complaints were not acceptable during the pandemic. This letter was received at the end of the month due to the postal service delays. We responded via email on August 4th asking that our case be processed for reasons cited and which were pandemic related. A response is pending.

We Are Extremely Concerned Citizens

The complaint against Judge Kenneth Marra is particularly serious. Judge Marra colluded and conspired with both opposing counsel to deny us intervention. As detailed in the complaint, the Greens, also from Texas, gained access to the documents in the lower court case and in direct contradiction of Judge Marra’s own statement in his Order (Doc. 411);

“In addition to the grounds stated in the Court’s Order Denying Intervention (ECF No. 375), the Court notes that intervention is not permitted to allow a party to seek or obtain evidence for other litigation as asserted by the proposed Intervenors. (See ECF No. 408 at 4).”

Then we have the Goodwin Procter lawyers not only committing perjury in both the lower court case and again on appeal (19-13015), these same lawyers are willfully breaching ethical rules again (as outlined above and in the complaints) in the ‘hot potato’ cases in Illinois and Georgia in order to ‘win the case’ at any and all costs, which included a conflict of interest[5] and behavior unbecoming of a lawyer. A review of the docket in all the above-mentioned cases show the same lawyers are still active on the cases up to this very day.

The Delays Acknowledging and Processing our Judicial Complaint is Obvious

Judge Marra appears primed to dismiss the lower court action based on the recent docket activity and relying on the Law360 article, which has leaked that the decision in this case favors Ocwen. The case will be dismissed via summary judgment by a bias judge and without a trial before a jury.

The Smart Bet is the Complaint Will Be Dismissed After Marra Resigns

Judge Marra should not be officiating this case while our complaint is pending.[6] From the summary provided above, it is widely accepted that Judge Marra will dismiss the case around the time the Senate confirms Aileen Cannon as judge.[7] This, in turn, will allow Senior Judge Marra to retire immediately. Cannon will step into his position and this court will be able to dismiss the complaint against the judge because he has retired.[8] Our complaint file will be closed.

 The Bars’ Mischief is Transparent

In unison, the State Bars’ have schemed to shield biglaw firm Goodwin Procter and their lawyers. To date the Bars’ have provided letters of dismissal or delay which are quite frankly, absurd.

We do not have an email for Chief Judge Pryor and hence the need to efile into our current appeal. We sincerely hope our letter is directed expeditiously to your inbox for review.

We thank you for your time and consideration.

As always, stay safe and God Bless.


s/ Joanna & John Burke

Joanna Burke & John Burke

46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, TX, 77339
Tel: (281) 812-9591
Fax: (866) 705-5076

The Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Against U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth (October 21, 2016);

The Committee considered whether impeachment and conviction after retirement would affect a judge’s annuity under 28 U.S.C. § 371(a). The text of the Constitution (Article I, section 3, clause 7 states that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment” extends only to removal from office and disqualification from further office) and the statute (a judge who has retired under § 371(a) “shall” receive the annuity, with no stated exceptions) indicate that impeachment after retirement would not result in loss of the annuity. See also Johnson v. United States, 79 F.Supp. 208, 210-11 (Ct. Cl. 1948) (the statutory right to salary [now annuity] after retirement is a property right likely subject to the protection of the Fifth Amendment). The Council further finds that the likelihood that Judge Hudspeth will attain public office in the future is minimal, certainly not such as would warrant the significant additional expenditure and drain on judicial and Congressional resources that completing this proceeding and attempting impeachment would entail.”

[1] See

[2] See

[3] See


[4] We have included a copy of all our complaints for your perusal (judicial notice). The complaints provide all the necessary details about the ‘hot potato’ cases.

[5] See enclosed Matthew Sheldon complaint, p.7; Mr. Sheldon, represented the Bank in the Illinois case and he was grilled by Judge Bucklo. (See transcript from Dec. 5, 2019 hearing, which was submitted to Judge May in Georgia; Doc. 53.14, Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081-LMM) District Court, N.D. Georgia). Here’s a snippet; “I really don’t understand how you can represent them.” – “I do find it DISTURBING.”- Judge Bucklo.


[6] See Burkes judicial complaint; “As such, the Burkes hold Judge Marra’s assertions to be false, untruthful and for the purposes of this judicial complaint, personal and pervasive bias against these pro se elderly citizens from Texas. Judge Marra should be disqualified from the case.”

 [7] See PN1919;

[8] See sister court, Fifth Circuit; The Complaint of Judicial Misconduct Against U.S. District Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth (October 21, 2016);

“A judge who retires from office under § 371(a) is “no longer a judicial officer,” and is “no longer subject to the disciplinary procedures of Section 372(c) [now 28 U.S.C. § 351 et seq.] and the remedies they prescribe.” In re Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 91 F.3d 90, 91 (9th Cir. Judicial Council 1996), citing In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 10 F.3d 99, 100 (3d Cir. Judicial Council 1994); see also In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, No. 13-02 (Judicial Conference of the United States 2014) (noting that after Judge Boyce Martin’s retirement from office, the Second Circuit Judicial Council found that “the retirement was an intervening event that had made further proceedings unnecessary” per Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings Rule 20(b)(1)(B)).

In the light of Judge Hudspeth’s retirement from office, the Judicial Council is no longer able to impose any sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)(2)(A) or (B). Moreover, even assuming the allegations of the complaint are true, the Council concludes that they would not warrant recommending the extraordinary step of attempting the impeachment of a judge who is no longer on the bench.

Pursuant to the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings Rule 20(b)(1)(B), the Judicial Council concludes this proceeding because the intervening event of Judge Hudspeth’s retirement from office has made further action unnecessary.-

The Best Work by Congress So Far in 2021: The STOCK Act (for Judges)

It’s a start. The STOCK act is a sign of progress and that is worthy of a hat tip, but there’s still so much judicial ochlocracy to correct.

The Many Lyin’ Federal Judges Who Failed to Recuse Despite Conflicts Finally Being Questioned by Congress (2021)

LIT’s had this data for years but thanks to the much larger media outlets like Reuters and Wall Street Journal who have released detailed investigative reports.

Goodwin Law and PHH Ocwen are Writing Fiction in Their Selective Brief, Again

Goodwin have avoided all the main arguments raised by the pro se Burkes because they have no legal answer, so instead they prevaricate, a lot.

A Dear Bill Letter. We Know Your Game. Signed, We the People.
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Why Did Judge Jill A. Pryor Recuse - After Oral Argument - in this $826 Million Dollar Ponzi Scheme? -

Leave a Reply

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

To Top