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
56 Forsyth St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Hon. Dianne Feinstein
Senate Judiciary Committee
152 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Via Email; email@example.com
FOR THE ATTN OF THE CHIEF JUDGE;
BY ECF FILING DUE TO PANDEMIC
Dear Chief Judge Pryor,
JUDICIAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SENIOR KENNETH MARRA, S.D. FL.
We refer to this courts’ Judicial Conduct and Disibility rules page on your website. 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…”
On July 29th, 2020 the Committee of the Judiciary held a remote hearing 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.
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 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. 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. 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. 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.”
?Intervenors appeal to CA11 after Judge Marra denies intervention as a right or permissively. Intervenors argue if permissively, they should be allowed access to SEALED docs. Judge Jill Pryor denies Motion to Disqualify. Two weeks later SEALS docs. ? @VolokhC #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/YycCyyIpDX
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) March 7, 2020
What is the Noah’s Ark Doctrine? @TheFlaBar @flcourts @GACourts @blaw @ReutersLegal @MotherJones @HuffPostPol @Ocwen_Help @CFPB @CFPB_Watch @illinoiscourts @SupremeCourt_TX @JudgeDillard @atlblog @HoustonChron @TexasLawyer @cnn @ABCPolitics @SCOTUSblog https://t.co/ft6GU0pYwS pic.twitter.com/dgpO2eFofW
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) March 7, 2020