Appellate Circuit

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.

LIT COMMENTARY

AUG 9, 2021

New lawsuit filed by elder Burkes confirms the judicial machinery has reached the very lowest depths of depravity.

New Lawsuit Filed in S.D. Tex. Court to Set Aside Void Judgment(s) by Fifth Cir.

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

COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiffs Joanna & John Burke (“Plaintiffs”) file this complaint, an equitable action with one purpose; to vacate void judgment[s] on the basis of fraud.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs, John Burke and Joanna Burke are residents in Harris County, Texas, and as such reside in the Southern District of Texas.

Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) is a Texas Foreign Limited-Liability Company (LLC). Ocwen can be served with process by making service upon its registered agent, Corporation Service Company dba CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218.

Defendant Hopkins Law, PLLC is a Texas professional limited liability company having its principal place of business in Austin, Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Mark D Hopkins, Registered Agent Address is; 3809 Juniper Trace, Suite 101, Austin, TX 78738 USA.  Mark D Hopkins is a member and director and has his domicile in Austin, Texas. The company’s tax filing status is listed as In Existence and its File Number is 32057539499.

Defendant Mark Daniel Hopkins is an individual having his domicile in Austin, Texas and may be served at his business address, 3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110, Austin, Texas 78734-2692, or his place of residence, 3 THE HILLS DR, THE HILLS, TX 78738-1537  or wherever he may be found.

Defendant Shelley Luan Hopkins is an individual having her domicile in Austin, Texas and may be served at her business address, 3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110, Austin, Texas 78734-2692, or her place of residence, 3 THE HILLS DR, THE HILLS, TX 78738-1537 or wherever she may be found.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

The Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because it involves questions of federal law and secondly because it is the correct court which may resolve this complaint when fraud is involved. See Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 558 (2nd Cir. 1988); “Relief from a final judgment may also be obtained at any time by way of an independent action to set aside a judgment for `fraud upon the court .'” ; Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., 35 F. Supp. 2d 487, 491 (D.S.C. 1998) “Furthermore, the proper forum in which to assert that a party has perpetrated a “fraud on the court ” is the court which allegedly was a victim of that fraud.”; Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1337-38 (5th Cir. 1978). “A fraud-on-the-court claim is “not subject to any time limitation.””.

PREAMBLE

This preamble provides readers with a condensed summary of the complaint and key issues. On August 4, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unlawfully disposed of the Plaintiffs now consolidated appeals, namely; Burke v. Ocwen, Civil Action H-18-4544 (S.D. Tex.) and Burke v. Hopkins, Civil Action H-18-4543 (S.D. Tex.). The Plaintiffs complain the judgment(s) and mandate issued (Exhibit A) in relation to the Appeal and the two District Court cases  are fraudulent and void.

Critical to that conclusion is the actions of the Clerk’s at the Fifth Circuit. The dispute arose after the Fifth Circuit Clerk’s office refused a Proposed Sufficient Petition for Rehearing En Banc timely submitted by the Plaintiffs.[1]

[1] PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2], backdated docket entry April 13, 2021 (the date of the original filing by the Burkes).

Three Clerks (co-conspirators) would be embroiled in the unconscionable scheme which would subsequently play out, namely (a) Jann Wynne (“Wynne”), who refused to accept the Plaintiffs now Proposed Sufficient Petition and instead, added a new deficiency – the missing ‘Statement of Facts’. The Plaintiffs objected. This would turn out to be the second time the Plaintiffs were reminded in 2021 of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 by the Clerks at the Fifth Circuit. After a few emails, on April 22, 2021 at 3:49 pm, Wynne refused to discuss the dispute regarding the ‘Statement of Facts” any further with Plaintiff Joanna Burke and responded as per the email screenshot below, in relevant part, stating a motion would be required ‘to accept it in present form…” The Burkes responded via Motion.2

[2] OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 file petition in present form [9557920-2]. (Apr. 23, 2021).

And (b) Rebecca Leto (“Leto”), who entered later in the proceedings with her letter (Exhibit C) stating that the Plaintiffs Petition was accepted as Proposed Sufficient, had been ‘uploaded’ as a result, and all that was required was the March 30, 2021, original Opinion of the Court (Exhibit B) in the consolidated appeal; and (c) Christina Gardner (“Gardner”). The main co-conspirator is Christina Gardner, with knowledge and in bad faith, entered her own fraudulent Motion[3] upon which the Fifth Circuit entered its judgment, one procured by  the co-conspirators, the Clerks and 3-Panel of assigned Judges, who implemented this unconscionable scheme while acting as officers for the court.

See; Cadle Co. v. Moore (In re Moore), 739 F.3d 724, 733 n.15 (5th Cir. 2014) (“In short, the decisive factor in Fierro for our analysis of fraud on the court was the imputation of knowledge (and resultant bad faith), not simply whether a nondisclosure was at issue.”).

[3] A copy of which is on the docket for the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (19-20267); attached as Exhibit D and viewable online at https://2dobermans.com/woof/3q.

Christina A. Gardner, Fifth Circuit Case Management Clerk

Christina Gardner is an experienced clerk. Certainly, the Plaintiffs recognize her from their prior appeals and past correspondence from the Fifth Circuit, starting from around the year 2015. For nefarious reasons she can only explain herself, Gardner would file an “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration”, in a docket text entry (Exhibit D), under her own volition. In other words, without a valid submitted motion from the Appellants in the case, the Burkes, and as prescribed in law, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.

This is even more bizarre, because during the course of the appeal(s), the Burkes were in fact confronted with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 by Gardner herself in an email addressed to Mrs. Joanna Burke, date-stamped January 8, 2021 at 8:05 AM; “A motion seeking leave to be exempt from submitting papers is required. We cannot process an email request. Please submit a motion in CM/ECF.”

The rule is clear, only litigants can file Motions, nobody else. Gardner vetoed that rule and in doing so, abused her authority. That, however, does not end the conversation regarding the purpose of the Motion.

Restating, the Plaintiffs have explained Gardner filed a void Motion (Exhibit D), but even assuming the Plaintiffs had filed the same Motion, it would ordinarily have been rejected (no action taken) by the Clerk’s office.

This is because the Motion she backdated to July 8 (from July 9, 2021) (Exhibit D) would quizzically be a “repeat” Motion – one which had already been Reconsidered and previously denied by the 3-panel of judges, on June 21, 2021. The Fifth Circuit’s own copy of FRAP and IOP (Internal Operating Procedures)[4] do not allow for repetitive Motions for Reconsideration by a 3-panel;

[4] See https://2dobermans.com/woof/3r

So, either way, Gardner’s Motion (Exhibit D) is corruptly void and the Plaintiffs painstakingly detailed this to the Court in subsequent legal Motion(s) as detailed herein.

However, on August 4, 2021, the Fifth Circuit 3-panel ‘denied’ Gardner’s Motion (Exhibit D) and by so doing, tendered to the Plaintiffs and this District Court, to whom it expeditiously transmitted the judgment(s), that the appellate judges and court were completely satisfied that Gardner’s void Motion was both legal and appropriate to end the Plaintiffs now consolidated appeal by issuing a final order,  judgment(s) and  accompanying mandate (Exhibit A);

That notion is erroneous in law. Clearly, the judgment(s) issued on the back of Gardner’s controlling Motion (Exhibit D) are void and this Court must set aside the judgment(s).

That aside, it makes a mockery of the law, the judiciary and is indicative of the continuous acts of fraud and unconscionable schemes perpetrated by officers of the court, markedly channeled at these law-abiding elder citizens and Plaintiffs.

FACTS

Plaintiffs are facing a wrongful foreclosure in a legal dispute which has, as appellate Judge Jolly would say, become an “unrelenting battle”.[5]

A Fraud Perpetrated by Officers of the Court

The significant and distressing difference, however, is that the Burkes battle is not just with the opposing parties, but with the judicial machinery itself and the personalities therein.

See; Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir. 1989); “The narrow concept should “embrace only the species of fraud which does or attempts to, defile the court itself , or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.”Kerwit Medical Products, 616 F.2d at 837 (quoting 7 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 60.33 at 511 (1971 ed.)).”

The Two Underlying Lawsuits Which Were Consolidated on Appeal

In order to prevent a miscarriage of justice and stop foreclosure, the Plaintiffs brought two independent lawsuits before the state court, who assigned the cases to two separate state judges.

These cases would be unlawfully removed to the federal District Court, Houston Division by the opposing parties counsel, who avoided service for the firm and disregarded email[s] from the Plaintiffs in order that the lawyer[s] at Hopkins Law, PLLC, could; (i) remove the cases to federal court, and; (ii) represent themselves pro se.

[5] “This unrelenting battle between the Brownings and the Holloways, which began in 1979, is a familiar fray to this court. It has been marched up the hill to us several times before. We march it back down once again.” Browning v. Navarro, 826 F.2d 335, 337 (5th Cir. 1987).

The subsequent District Court and Appellate Court judgment[s], as issued on August 4, 2021, are those which Plaintiffs seek to correct with this independent, equity lawsuit.

This Complaint Revolves Around a Question of Law[lessness]

One of the arguments in law upon which Plaintiffs’ rely; “The judgment against [the Burkes] can be said to be procured by fraud only if fraud can be defined to include corrupt abuse of the judicial process.” See Browning v. Navarro, 826 F.2d 335, 342-43 (5th Cir. 1987).

The judgment[s] and mandate issued and dated August 4, 2021[6] in the consolidated appeal discussed herein by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, along with the two copies of the said judgment submitted and entered in this District Court in the two related lawsuits, namely case numbers 4:18-cv-4543/4544  were procured by fraud.

The lawless judgment[s] and mandate issued on August 4 (Exhibit A) and now available on all court dockets are void and should be vacated forthwith as they carry no legal substance.

Qualifying as Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic in Nature, This Complaint is a Direct Attack

Hazel-Atlas allows a judgment to be attacked on the basis of intrinsic fraud that results from corrupt conduct by officers of the court. In any event, it is clear to us from these cases that in this…proceeding, the genre of fraud alleged here, that is, the corrupt abuse of the judicial process, can serve as a basis to collaterally attack the …court judgment.” See Browning v. Navarro, 826 F.2d 335, 344-45 (5th Cir. 1987).

It is prudent to mention the legal approach behind this pro se lawsuit. Extract from; The Value of The Distinction Between Direct and Collateral Attacks on Judgments, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 66: 526 (https://2dobermans.com/woof/3k)

“The criteria which courts have evolved for identifying direct and collateral attacks have led to unsound results. Under existing law, the ability of a party to question defects in a prior judgment depends upon the skill [of his lawyer] in following illogical procedural steps.”

“…if the complaining party initially brings an independent action to set aside the prior judgment and later brings a separate suit [to quiet title to the property], his action will fit within the definition of a direct attack and he will avoid the limitations which would be applicable to the other methods of proceeding. See; Moyes v. Moyes, 60 Idaho 601, 94 P.2d 7K (1939)(citing *at  610, 94 P.2d at 786).

[6] A copy of which is on the docket for each of the lower court numbers 4:18-cv-4543 and 4544 at the Southern District; attached as Exhibit A and viewable online at https://2dobermans.com/woof/3l.

This lawsuit is a direct attack to set aside the judgment[s] as described above related to the two independent lawsuits which the Plaintiffs brought before this District Court.

BURKE V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

Plaintiffs sued Ocwen in state court and the case would be removed to S.D. Federal Court, Houston Division over the objections of the Plaintiffs.  The case would be parachuted into Senior United States District Judge Hittner’s chambers once more, despite the claimed ‘blind draw’ system employed by the court. Judge Hittner’s new Magistrate Judge was former public defender Peter Bray.

In the Fifth Circuit’s March 2021 void Opinion, Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021), they summarized the case as; Plaintiffs charged Ocwen with claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition, and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) (collectively, the “Collection Claims”). The Burkes also alleged that Ocwen violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“RESPA”).

Ocwen moved to dismiss the Burkes’ Collection Claims on res judicata grounds and to dismiss the RESPA claim for failure to state a claim.

Ruling on the motions before it, the district court granted Ocwen’s motion to dismiss the Collection Claims, concluding that the predicates for application of res judicata were satisfied.  Deutsche Bank, as the loan holder, and Ocwen, as the loan servicer, were in privity for purposes of res judicata, the court found.  Further, the Collection Claims against Ocwen arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the earlier litigation against Deutsche Bank because both concern the loan and foreclosure on the Plaintiffs home.

The court also concluded that the Burkes did not adequately plead a claim under RESPA. Subsequently, the court invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and dismissed the cause without prejudice for want of prosecution. The court also denied the Burkes motion to remand.

The Plaintiffs dispute these facts altogether, as transcribed above from the Fifth Circuit’s subsequent consolidated opinion of March 30, 2021 (Exhibit B). See; Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021).

BURKE V. MARK HOPKINS, SHELLEY HOPKINS & HOPKINS LAW, PLLC

Similar to the Ocwen case, Plaintiffs sued Hopkins  in state court (different judges were assigned in the state court, unlike the federal court) and the case would be removed to S.D. Federal Court, Houston Division over the objections of the Plaintiffs.  The case would be parachuted into Senior United States District Judge Hittner’s (“Hittner”) chambers once more, despite the claimed ‘blind draw’ system employed by the court. Hittner’s new Magistrate Judge was former public defender Peter Bray (“Bray”).

Again, reciting from the Fifth Circuit Opinion, Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021); Contemporaneous with the filing of their suit against Ocwen, the Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, sued the Attorney Defendants in Texas state court. The Attorney Defendants removed the case to federal court, and the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which the district court denied. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Attorney Defendants’ conduct during the foreclosure litigation constituted fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and violated the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code § 392.001 et seq. (“TDCA”), and the FDCPA.  The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district judge dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim.  The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and dismissed the case with prejudice.

The plaintiffs dispute these facts altogether, as transcribed above from the Fifth Circuit’s subsequent consolidated opinion of March 30, 2021 (Exhibit B).

FIFTH CIRCUIT APPEALS

The two cases would be appealed.  Ocwen was first, with a notice of appeal recorded by the Fifth circuit on April 22, 2019 followed  approximately a year later by the Plaintiffs appeal re Hopkins. The notice of appeal recorded by the Fifth Circuit on April 17, 2020.

In each appeal, separate and independent 3-panels were assigned. The Ocwen panel comprised of judges Higginbotham (motion judge), Southwick and Willett. The Hopkins 3-panel comprised of judges Clement (motion judge), Higginson and Elrod.

However, as part of the unconscionable scheme by the judicial machinery installed at the Fifth Circuit, these panels would be unlawfully disbanded and replaced by a hand-selected panel by Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen (“Owen”) of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The new panel comprised of judges Owen, Dennis (motion judge) and Davis.

Relevant to this case and the unconscionable scheme and fraud by the officers of the court, would be the judicial complaint (Exhibit E) against Senior United States District Judge David Hittner, Houston Division, S.D. Tex., filed with the current Chief Judge [Owen] by the Plaintiffs.[7]

On 10 November, 2020, Owen dismissed the Plaintiffs judicial complaint (Exhibit F). That would not have been a remarkable event, however, but for the pugnacious nature of the dismissal, which is very relevant to this complaint. First, Owen’s summary of the complaint in her order, dated Sunday, November 8, 2021 (Exhibit F), dismissing the judicial complaint against Hittner (Exhibit E) was factually erroneous and materially so. At the time of this lawsuit, she has refused to correct the summary.  Second, Owen threatened the Plaintiffs.

[7] A judicial complaint was originally filed by email against Hittner on March 27, 2020. See; https://2dobermans.com/woof/3m. After a few months with no response to the emailed complaint, the Plaintiffs asked for a status update, only to be told it appeared the email was not received at the court due to a ‘technical glitch’. The Burkes resubmitted and on June 11, acknowledged by Ms Shelley E. Saltzman, Legal Analyst for Circuit Mediation and Judicial Support Office.  The judicial complaint would be referenced as; Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 05-20-90128.

Third, reading the snippet screenshot above, she did not believe the Burkes arguments calling the complaint “conclusory” and “frivolous” – and which is actually soaked in verifiable, factual events during the District Court proceedings –  so how could she possibly be impartial on the Burkes consolidated appeal panel, or appear to be so? The Plaintiffs maintain the position she is biased, could not be impartial, and should not have been part of the newly constructed 3-panel. And the Plaintiffs are not alone in that view – see attorney Tom Goldstein, a SCOTUS goliath, in his own words; Extract from Exhibit G;

“Plainly, a rule that expressly permitted judges to call dibs on class action cases, or ask the clerk’s office for preferential assignment to antitrust cases, would be intolerable.” To “perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). An essential part of the public perception and reality of judicial impartiality arises from the fact that judges are assigned, rather than allowed to select, their cases. The public may reasonably suspect “judges [who] sometimes gain access to a panel” do so “in order to affect the outcome of a case.” J. Robert Brown, Jr. & Allison Herren Lee, Neutral Assignment of Judges at the Court of Appeals, 78 TEX. L. REV. 1037, 1066 (2000). Indeed, the public would be justified in assuming that a judge who selects a particular case based on its subject matter will often bring to the case an atypically strong set of preconceived views about the proper disposition of the case. See; Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation, 14-1122 (Pet. Denied) https://2dobermans.com/woof/2y.”

As a result, the Plaintiffs would file a Motion to Disqualify[8] Owen (Exhibit G), accepted on July 3, 2021, (and which explains the events described here in detail) and while the Petition for Rehearing En Banc dispute was still ongoing. In short, Owen could not possibly be an impartial judge after her scathing opinion in the Hittner complaint, a complaint which revolved around the now consolidated appeal at the Fifth Circuit.  Furthermore, she disbanded the existing PANLOG panels, assigned herself to the new panel and as such, the ‘appearance of impropriety’ should have resulted in automatic recusal. Alas that did not happen.

[8] See Docket Entry; Document: 00515925157, July 3, 2021, 19-20267, 5th Cir., Exhibit G.

Judicial immunity allows judges to judge themselves, and on July 7, 2021, she would swiftly deny the Motion in a one sentence response.[1]

On August 4, 2021 a void judgment and mandate (Exhibit A) was released, cementing the original Opinion of the Court (Exhibit B) which was issued on March 30  (and then held in abeyance while the Plaintiffs Petition was being processed).

The Plaintiffs reserved their rights when the court released its initial opinion, as it was completely error-laden and inaccurate. The Plaintiffs timely filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on April 13, 2021.[2]

This Petition would become a mini case of its own due to the Court Clerk’s and Motion Judge’s improper orders. The events, docket entries and timeline are summarized as follows;

On April 13, 2021, the Burkes’ filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On April 13, 2021, the Court notified the Burkes that the Petition was insufficient and needed to be corrected.

On April 23, 2021, the Burkes then filed a Motion for Other Relief requesting the Court accept the Petition as filed without the Statement of Facts or alternatively requesting an extension of time to amend the Petition and waive the paper copies requirement.

On May 5, 2021, the Court ordered that the Burkes’ request to omit the Statement of Facts in the Petition was denied, the extension of time to submit a sufficient Petition was granted (until May 15, 2021), and the Burkes’ request to waive the paper copy requirement was denied as unnecessary.

On May 12, 2021, the Burkes filed a motion to extend the time for rehearing until May 26, 2021.

On May 14, 2021, the Court took no action on the Burkes filing, on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order, claiming the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court.

On May 17, 2021 the Court advised 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.

On May 28, 2021, the Court released an Order denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing.

On May 28, 2021, the Burkes filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the May 5, 2021Court Order denying Motion for authorization to omit the Statement of Facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On June 8, 2021, the Burkes then filed a Renewed Motion for Reconsideration, after which the Court notified the parties that it would take no action on the Renewed Motion as there was already a Motion for Reconsideration pending.

On June 21, 2021, the Court denied the Burkes Motion for Reconsideration.

[9] COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. The following transaction was entered on 07/07/2021 at 2:40:21 PM CDT and filed on 07/07/2021.

[10] PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2], backdated docket entry April 13, 2021 (the date of the original filing by the Burkes).

On June 29, 2021, Clerk Rebecca L. Leto sent a letter[11] and also made a court docket entry, which has been ‘backdated’ by the Court to April 13, 2021, and includes the following docket text;  “PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] .

On July 3, 2021, the Burkes filed a Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla Owen (Exhibit G).

On July 7, 2021, Judge Owen denies the Motion to Disqualify.

On July 8, 2021, the Burkes filed a Motion to Clarify the Order issued 29 June, 2021, ‘backdated’ to 13 April, 2021 with Proposed Sufficient Brief ‘uploaded’. Only the Order of 30 march, 2021 was required to be emailed by the Burkes to the Fifth Circuit Clerk in order to make the Proposed Brief Sufficient (void of any deficiencies).

On July 9, 2021 Clerk Christina Gardner called John Burke re Motion to Clarify (8 July) and later that day entered an “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration” herself, (Exhibit D) which is incontestably void.[12] Note; Gardner’s unlawful entry on 9 July is ‘backdated’ to 8 July, the date of the Burkes Motion to Clarify. Filing this ‘textual (docket entry only) Motion for the Burkes is not only bizarre, it’s corruptly unlawful.[13]

On July 8, 2021 the Burkes file a Motion for Extension of Time to file Rehearing on the basis of the Motion to Clarify.

[11] See copy of Ms. Leto’s letter online at https://2dobermans.com/woof/3p. It is also included as Exhibit C.

[12] See Bass v. Hoagland, 172 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1949); “Concluding that default judgment was void on due process grounds where defendant filed an answer, but did not receive notice of the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.” Here, the Burkes were bypassed entirely by the Clerk and who proceeded to file a motion improperly in the Burkes name.

[13] See U.S. v. Wilson, 118 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 1997); “We have held that the term “corruptly,” …forbids acts committed with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit either for oneself or for another. See Bostian, 59 F.3d at 479; United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275, 1277-79 (4th Cir. 1993). The acts themselves need not be illegal.”

On July 8, 2021, the Burkes file a Motion for Sanctions against Mark and Shelley Hopkins; “The Burkes seek ‘non-monetary’ sanctions as pro se litigants. They civilly ask this court to refer both Mr. and Mrs. Hopkins to the State Bar of Texas for their continued and repetitive [mis]conduct and suspend these attorneys from appearing before this court for a period of one year. See; S. v. Garza-Espinoza, C.R. No. M-08-4986M, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2008).”

On July 18, 2021, the Burkes file a Motion to Correct Opinion, wherein the Fifth Circuit had previously denied the Burkes Waiver of the Statement of Facts – in light of Clerk Leto’s Proposed Sufficient Brief Letter (Exhibit C) (accepting the Petition without the Statement of Facts).

On July 19, 2021, Hopkins objects to Burkes Motion for Sanctions.

On July 19, 2021, Hopkins objects to Fifth Circuit Clerk Christina Gardner’s “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration” (Exhibit D), an unlawful and void document with no legal validity.

On July 28, 2021 the Burkes file a Motion to Strike Hopkins Response to Burkes Motion for Sanctions and Other Relief.

On July 28, 2021 the Burkes file a Motion to Strike Hopkins response to “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration” (Exhibit D) (Christina Gardner’s entry) as Void ab Initio.

On August 4, 2021 the court would issue its bizarre, yet unequivocally unlawful and void Judgment with associated Mandate (Exhibit A), by relying upon an illegal “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration”

and without allowing the Plaintiffs to file their Petition for Rehearing En Banc by improperly striking the same.

Violation of Due Process

This is a clear and unambiguous violation of due process, which both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution demands.

The Burkes hold a Legally Protectable Interest in their Property  Liberty and Freedom which has been unlawfully infringed upon

The above applies to their personal residence; “In Texas, homestead rights are sacrosanct.” See; Matter of McDaniel, 70 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 1995).

The Fraud Clearly Includes Corrupt Abuse of the Judicial Process

Judicially, the backdating and manipulation of motions and orders cannot prevail, it is an abuse and unconstitutional; See Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 245-46 (2d Cir. 2001) “Finally, it is worth noting that Fed.R.Civ.P. 79(a) mandates that “[a]ll papers filed with the clerk, all process issued and returns made thereon, all appearances, orders, verdicts, and judgments shall be entered chronologically in the civil docket on the folio assigned to the action.” (emphasis added). “Chronological” is defined as “arranged in or according to the order of time.” See Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 204 (10th ed. 1995). In this case, and apparently in all other similar cases, the district court “arranged” the notice of appeal and extension motion not in the “order of time,” but rather, “back-dated” the extension motion. A district court’s violation of binding Rules of Civil Procedure can also constitute an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Long Island Lighting Co. v. Barbash, 779 F.2d 793, 795 (2d Cir. 1985) (finding that district court abused its discretion when it “unduly limited” discovery allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).”

As a result, this lawsuit is critical, in order that the Court may set aside the void judgment and mandate (Exhibit A) as the law conclusively demands.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

Judge James Ho recently wrote for the panel in Glen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 20-10903, at *1 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (“”The Founders recognized that the protection of private property is indispensable to the promotion of individual freedom. As John Adams tersely put it, ‘[p]roperty must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.'” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S.Ct. 2063, 2071 (2021) (quoting Discourses on Davila, in 6 Works of John Adams 280 (C. Adams ed. 1851)). ”)  The Plaintiffs firmly believe the Fifth Circuit are the antithesis of this statement.

Seizure of Papers

 The Fifth Circuit violated the Fourth Amendment when it seized the Plaintiffs personal legal papers, specifically the Motion to Clarify and without authority in law, determined the said Motion to be moot. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 62 (1992).

Seizure of Persons

Immediately thereafter, the Fifth Circuit Clerk Christina A. Gardner continued to violate the Fourth Amendment when she submitted a text only docket entry, labeling it as an “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration” (Exhibit D), in effect seizing the Plaintiffs personas unlawfully to submit a Motion which the Plaintiffs never authorized nor could they authorize, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7, and to which they immediately objected. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 62 (1992).

Seizure of Property

Relying upon this unlawful, text only docket entry labeled “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration” and over the objections submitted by formal motion, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7,[14]  the Fifth Circuit issued a judgment and mandate (Exhibit A), which, if left unchallenged, allows for the unlawful search and seizure of the Plaintiffs main residence at 46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood, Texas, 77339 and any personal property, papers and effects therein by local sheriff[s] and related agencies and private entities, trustees, and/or their agents. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 62 (1992) (“The [Fourth] Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” ”).

[14] See; Long ex rel. Purvis v. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) “Filing a motion is the proper method [to request leave to amend a complaint]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1) provides that “[a]n application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought.” (emphasis added).

THE FOURTEENTH & FIFTH AMENDMENT

The Plaintiffs have been denied a ‘fair process’ and the ‘heightened protection’ that due process of law should afford citizens like the Burkes as a direct result of the August 4, 2021, void judgment by the Fifth Circuit (Exhibit A).

See Littlefield v. Forney Independent School Dist, 268 F.3d 275, 287-88 (5th Cir. 2001); The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from depriving persons “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. As the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed: “We have long recognized that the Amendment’s Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, `guarantees more than fair process .’ The Clause also includes a substantive component that `provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.'” Troxel v. Granville,530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (plurality opinion) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S. 702, 719, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)).

COUNT I:

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDGMENT AND MANDATE IS VOID

The Fifth Circuit released their original opinion and mandate on March 30, 2021 (Exhibit B). The Burkes timely filed for a Motion for Rehearing En Banc which recalled the mandate. On August 4, 2021, the court released a final order, judgment(s) and mandate (Exhibit A), which are clearly void.

As detailed, the appellate court relied upon an “Opposed Motion for Reconsideration” as documented (text only) on the court docket by Fifth Circuit Clerk Christina A. Gardner (Exhibit D). That is quite simply, prohibited, unauthorized and unlawful.[1] This was raised with the court by the Plaintiffs in motion filings which are not itemized in the court’s Aug. 4, 2021 order because they know it’s void.

See Ex Parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); ” Tipton v. Thaler, 354 F. App’x 138, 142 (5th Cir. 2009).“ “A void judgment is a nullity from the beginning  and is attended by none of the consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever because it does not affect, impair, or create legal rights.”

[15] The Burkes have only found one other instance which is similar. In W.D. Tex., Judge Albright’s chambers called foreclosure mill Mackie Wolf and asked them to submit a motion for attorney fees in a pro se proceeding.  This was hidden behind the paywall at PACER, so nobody would know unless they read attorney Mark Cronenwett’s affidavit under the penalty of perjury, confirming the facts. Judge Albrights’ acts are also unlawful. See; Wilmington Savings Funds Society, FSB v. Owens, (6:18-cv-00235), District Court, W.D. Texas, Doc. 13, Dec. 5, 2018, Motion for Attorney Fees; MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND DECLARATION OF FORECLOSURE MILL LAWYER MARK CRONENWETT FOR MACKIE WOLF, DALLAS, TEXAS (SEE #2); 2. On December 4, 2018, the Court clerk called the office of Plaintiff’s counsel asking counsel to file a Motion for Attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to this request, Plaintiff files this Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

The Court Has Not Correctly Disposed of the Pending Motion(s)

Secondly, in the Courts Order, dated 4 August, 2021, they state;

The Plaintiffs never filed a motion to stay for the reasons denied. The actual reasons for the stay, verbatim; “The Burkes request (a) The court stay the consolidated case until the above cases are resolved and (b) The Burkes are given the same legal courtesy as provided to the above counsel and allowed to supplement the case after the court resolves the CFPB and Collins appeals, but before they decide the Burkes Petition for Rehearing En Banc.” Thus, the court has not disposed of the ‘expressly’ stated motion(s).

COUNT II:

THE DISTRICT  COURT JUDGMENT IN HOPKINS IS VOID

In addition to Count I, Plaintiffs had already reserved their rights after the Fifth Circuits’ discriminatory March 30 Order (Exhibit B), wherein the court knowingly did not mention key arguments presented by the Burkes which  were both timely and meritorious.

On appeal, this included the [still] unanswered facts (i) Senior Judge Hittner did not perform a ‘de novo’ review of the magistrate judge’s M&R and; (ii) cancelled a scheduled pre-trial hearing and entered final judgment without the opportunity to be heard, during the pandemic, an ultra vires act. Both these facts make the lower court judgment in the Hopkins case void ab initio. (Note; The Plaintiffs merely wish to restate the issues on appeal, this is not a new claim.) See Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86; Frank v. Mangum, 237 US 309. – Tumey v. Ohio, 273 US 510, 511 (1927); “When a state deprives  a person of liberty or  property through a hearing held under statutes and circumstances which necessarily interfere with the course of justice, it deprives him of liberty and property without due process of law.”

COUNT III:

 THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT IN OCWEN IS VOID

In addition to Count I,  Plaintiffs in Burke v. Ocwen, Civil Action H-18-4544 (S.D. Tex.) had already reserved their rights after the Fifth Circuits’ discriminatory March 30 Order (Exhibit B), wherein the court knowingly did not mention key arguments presented by the Burkes which  were both timely and meritorious. The result is the judgment is void. (Note; The Plaintiffs merely wish to restate the issues on appeal, this is not a new claim.)

COUNT IV:

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION REQUIRES THIS NEW CASE

“Evidence of judicial corruption requires reversal regardless of the other facts of the particular case. The denial of the petitioner’s right to an impartial judge or judges is a constitutional error which affects the integrity of the judicial process. A new trial is the only remedy. See Bobo, 814 S.W.2d at 358.” State v. Benson, 973 S.W.2d 202, 207 (Tenn. 1998).

In the instant cases both at the District Court[16] and on appeal, the Plaintiffs have been subjected to judicial corruption and fraud by officers of the court, an unconscionable scheme[17] resulting in mental anguish, pain, suffering and financial hardship to the elder and infirm Burkes.  It also puts their residential homestead in complete jeopardy and requires the Plaintiffs to file this new lawsuit.

[16] Note; The Plaintiffs merely wish to restate the issues on appeal which included a review of the District Court cases. That stated and for the avoidance of doubt, this is not a new claim. The sole purpose of this legal action is to void the judgment(s) dated 4 August, 2021.

[17] See Cadle Co. v. Moore (In re Moore), 739 F.3d 724, 733 n.15 (5th Cir. 2014) “for the proposition that fraud on the court is established only with “an unconscionable plan or scheme … designed to improperly influence the court in its discretion,””

REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF & PRAYER

Plaintiffs, John Burke and Joanna Burke, prays for the following relief;

(1) the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judgment as issued on 4 August, 2021, in the now consolidated case; Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021) is set aside, is deemed null and void and not binding on the parties; and

(2) the Fifth Circuit Judgment as transmitted to the Clerk of the District Court at the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, in the case styled; Burke v. Ocwen, Civil Action H-18-4544 (S.D. Tex.) is vacated and set aside, deemed null and void and not binding on the parties, and;

(3) the Fifth Circuit Judgment as transmitted to the Clerk of the District Court at the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, in the case styled; Burke v. Hopkins, Civil Action H-18-4543 (S.D. Tex.) is vacated and set aside, deemed null and void and not binding on the parties, and;

(4) This request for equitable relief is made subject to and without waiver of the Plaintiffs rights, and;

(5) The Plaintiffs are allowed, as necessary, to Amend their Complaint freely and without discrimination, and;

(6) The Plaintiffs are allowed to file by CM/ECF during these proceedings as pro se litigants who are competently trained in  court e-filing and this request should also be granted due to the pandemic, and;

(7) The Rule 16 Initial Pretrial Conference is for the purposes of discussing the case, including any pending motions and the Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan, rather than a ‘proof of life’ attendance and calendar event, as required by the rules and in law, and;

(8) The court will invoke the ‘blind draw’ system and not hand-select the assigned Judge or return the complaint to Judge Hittner, and;

(9) Plaintiffs further request all such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which they are justly entitled.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 9th day of August, 2021.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

We, Joanna Burke and John Burke hereby certify that on August 9, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served to the Southern District Court, Houston division, via email to Houston_Operations@txs.uscourts.gov in compliance with the Southern District Court website and which is the listed email for Houston cases during a pandemic. And we also served copies to the following parties via  the emails listed below, who are legal counsel and/or parties for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Mark D. Hopkins and Shelley L. Hopkins.

Mr. Mark Hopkins; mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Mrs. Shelley Hopkins, shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com

Attorneys/Defendants
Hopkins Law PLLC
3 Lakeway Centre Ct.,
Suite 110, Austin,
Texas 78734

The Inequity of Texas Law When Chief Judges are Literally Bedding Down Together is Criminal

Supreme Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Priscilla Owen to Marry. Recent opinions from Certified Questions in Doubt.

Trappin’ Lawyers and a Debt Dispute Has Sparks Flyin’ in Federal Court.

Senior Judge Sam Sparks acted with improper personal hostility toward counsel throughout the proceedings in this and similar cases.

Unmasked: A Judicial Complaint Against “The Brain Surgeon” Will Be Dismissed Without a Glance

Fix the Court’s letter is naive when addressing the judges on this panel. Roth clearly shows a lack of experience with the Ochlocracy at CA5.

From: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 1:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: COMPLAINT FOR FILING
To: Darlene Hansen <darlene_hansen@txs.uscourts.gov>, Jason Marchand <jason_marchand@txs.uscourts.gov>, TXSDdb_Houston_Operation <Houston_Operation@txs.uscourts.gov>, <Houston_Operations@txs.uscourts.gov>, <postmaster@uscourts.gov>

Good afternoon,

Please find response communication from Ms. Love, USDC SDTX, the financial services division.

As you are aware, per this court’s website and instructions, the Burkes filed via email, a duly completed cover sheet, complaint, exhibits and payment form. All criteria necessary to officially lodge a complaint. (And we attach the same again to this email with our cover letter to the court re the same).

Whilst we appreciate the court is busy and there may be remote working for some staff, we do feel the necessary time has elapsed and we should have received email acknowledgment of our complaint, along with case number, case manager and judge details, so that we may proceed without delay.

We look forward to receiving your response in this regard.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Sincerely,
Joanna Burke

 


 

From: Financial_Services_Group <Financial_Services_Group@txs.uscourts.gov>
Date: Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Subject: RE: COMPLAINT FOR FILING
To: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>

Good Morning,

I do not show a new case being opened for Burke vs Ocwen, the last case with that title was a 2018 case 4-18-cv-4544, this case is still open and the presiding judge is Judge Hittner, his case manager is Ellen Alexander.

Thanks,

Kristy Love
USDC SDTX

From: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 8:29 AM
Subject: COMPLAINT FOR FILING
To: <Houston_Operations@txs.uscourts.gov>

Good morning

New Complaint; Burke v Ocwen et al (Aug 9., 2021)

Please find attached complaint for filing as per enclosed cover letter with enclosures. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out by responding to this email.

Thank you,

Sincerely
Joanna Burke

—————————-

From: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: COMPLAINT FOR FILING
To: <Houston_Operations@txs.uscourts.gov>, Heather Carr <Heather_Carr@txs.uscourts.gov>, Financial_Services_Group <financial_services_group@txs.uscourts.gov>

Good afternoon,

Further to our email early this morning, could you please supply the new case number for the filed complaint and confirm payment has been received? Finally could you supply the name of the case manager and judges’ chambers where we can confirm permissions to file on CM/ECF?

Thanking you in advance for your earliest response.

Sincerely,
J&J Burke
kajongwe@gmail.com

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
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

04/22/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 74.67 KB
PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 04/22/2019 01:34 PM]
04/22/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 127.77 KB
COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT received from Ebonee Mathis. [19-20267] (Ebonee S. Mathis ) [Entered: 04/22/2019 02:54 PM]
05/02/2019 FEE PAID by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 05/02/2019 02:14 PM]
05/02/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 208.46 KB
INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [9043617-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 05/17/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 05/02/2019 02:20 PM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 59.74 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 11:23 AM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 59.95 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Shelley Luan Hopkins for Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 11:26 AM]
05/03/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/03/2019 02:59 PM]
05/03/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Mark D. Hopkins for party(s) Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., in case 19-20267 [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/03/2019 03:00 PM]
05/08/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 211.67 KB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for leave to file electronically as a pro se party [9048328-2]. Date of service: 05/06/2019 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: Did not conference with the opposing side and the motion does not have a certificate of compliance. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 05/20/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/08/2019 03:10 PM]
05/08/2019  Open Restricted Document
6 pg, 155.52 KB
LETTER OF ADVISEMENT. Reason: Advising appellants they must file a transcript order form as stated in our letter of 5/2/2019. If one is not filed, the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/08/2019 03:20 PM]
05/14/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 171.25 KB
TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. DETAILS: Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 02/06/2019. Transcript Order ddl satisfied. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 12:30 PM]
05/14/2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Est. Completion Dt: 05/17/2019, Dt. Fin Arrangements Made: 04/19/2019, Dt. Trans. to be Filed: 05/17/2019, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 02/06/2019. Transcript Due/Court Reporter Discount Date is 05/17/2019 for Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 12:31 PM]
05/28/2019 TRANSCRIPT FILED IN DISTRICT COURT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 05/17/2019 Transcript Due/Court Reporter Discount Date canceled [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/28/2019 07:28 AM]
05/28/2019 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:18-CV-4544. Electronic ROA due on 06/03/2019. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/28/2019 07:28 AM]
05/30/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.23 KB
CLERK ORDER granting appellants’ Motion for leave for pro se to file electronically filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9048328-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/30/2019 10:58 AM]
06/05/2019 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (PAC) [Entered: 06/05/2019 01:31 PM]
06/05/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 126.08 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/15/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267] (PAC) [Entered: 06/05/2019 01:31 PM]
07/14/2019  Open Document
81 pg, 822.22 KB
SUFFICIENT APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0
Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 07/30/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief due on 07/29/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke.. Record Excerpts due on 07/29/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Appellee’s Brief due on 08/13/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/14/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/14/2019 02:50 PM]
07/14/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 256.93 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. John Burke for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/14/2019 02:57 PM]
07/15/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 75.34 KB
Party Mr. John Burke is advised that pro se parties do not file appearance forms. [19-20267] (LBM) [Entered: 07/15/2019 09:46 AM]
07/17/2019  Open Restricted Document
78 pg, 745 KB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9096817-2] Brief has been deemed insufficient. Corrections required: Caption to be corrected, table of authorities to be added to the table of content, identify the standard of review, incorrect ROA nimber on page 28. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief deadline updated to 08/02/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9096817-2] Date of service: 07/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/17/2019 10:21 AM]
07/17/2019  Open Document
48 pg, 2.22 MB
SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. # of Copies Provided: 0 Sufficient Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 07/30/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Record Excerpts NOT Sufficient as they require caption to be corrected, all documents in the table of content to have ROA numbers. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Sufficient Record Excerpts due on 08/02/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/17/2019 10:23 AM]
07/23/2019  Open Restricted Document
78 pg, 631.69 KB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9096817-2] Date of service: 07/23/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/23/2019 04:49 PM]
07/23/2019  Open Restricted Document
43 pg, 2.03 MB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9099430-2] Date of service: 07/23/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/23/2019 04:51 PM]
07/25/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 74.09 KB
LEVEL 1 EXTENSION REQUESTED by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. for filing Brief of Appellee until 08/28/2019 [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/25/2019 03:49 PM]
07/25/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 478.94 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Supplemental Appendix received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because Must file a motion to supplement the record on appeal with these documents. Filed incorrectly on our docket. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/25/2019 03:52 PM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 385.34 KB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to supplement the record on appeal with With evidence of the emails between the Court Reporter, SDTX Staff and Joanna Burke as identified on pages 57 of the Burkes Brief [9106497-2]. Date of service: 07/26/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/26/2019 01:31 AM]
07/26/2019 EXTENSION RECEIVED for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. Extension Denied Reason: Motion Required. Must filed using the motion filed event not the ecf ext rqst event. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/26/2019 07:55 AM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 73.99 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. to extend time to file brief of appellee until 08/28/2019 [9106661-2]. Date of service: 07/26/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellants Burke, Burke [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/26/2019 09:35 AM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 79.92 KB
CLERK ORDER granting appellee’s opposed motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [9106661-2] Appellee’s Brief due on 08/28/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/26/2019 10:34 AM]
07/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.94 KB
CLERK ORDER denying appellant’s Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9106497-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/29/2019 08:33 AM]
07/29/2019 Paper copies of Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (CMB) [Entered: 08/01/2019 12:27 PM]
07/29/2019 Paper copies of Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (CMB) [Entered: 08/01/2019 12:37 PM]
08/28/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 494.6 KB
APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 09/18/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Paper Copies of Brief due on 09/03/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. Date of service: 08/28/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 08/28/2019 12:52 PM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 195.19 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Extension Request received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because this document must be filed as a motion using the motion filed event and not the attorney extension request event [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 08/29/2019 07:56 AM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
5 pg, 104.79 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to extend time to file reply brief until 10/02/2019 [9132646-2]. Date of service: 08/29/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/29/2019 08:12 AM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 87.9 KB
CLERK ORDER granting in part appllants’ opposed Motion to extend time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9132646-2] Reply Brief deadline updated to 09/25/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 08/29/2019 12:37 PM]
08/30/2019 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (MRW) [Entered: 08/30/2019 02:11 PM]
09/18/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 193.8 KB
FED. R. APP. P. 44 Notice of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statute filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: FED. R. APP. P. 44 Notice of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statute filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of Service: 09/18/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/18/2019 04:13 AM]
09/19/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 125.99 KB
OPPOSED MOTION to stay further proceedings in this court for 90 days . Reason: awaiting a final rule or adjudication on the constitional challenges, to suspend briefing notice dated 06/05/2019 [9148078-3]. Date of service: 09/19/2019 Response/Opposition due on 09/30/2019. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: Constitutional Challenge(s), to extend time to file reply brief until 03/18/2020 [9148078-3]. Date of service: 09/19/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/19/2019 06:46 AM]
09/25/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 617.61 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Reply Brief received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because FIled incorrectly on the docket as a Rule 28(i) letter. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 09/27/2019 09:43 AM]
09/27/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 623.12 KB
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 Reply Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 10/07/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 09/27/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/27/2019 10:57 PM]
10/07/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 90.67 KB
Paper copies of Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes They require: durable gray covers # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied.. Sufficient Paper Copies of Brief due on 10/15/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (MRW) [Entered: 10/07/2019 01:31 PM]
10/11/2019 Paper copies of Reply Brief [9161773-2] received as sufficient. Sufficient Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 10/18/2019 11:10 AM]
10/19/2019  Open Document
8 pg, 165.47 KB
OPPOSED MOTION alternative request to stay case for a period of no less than nine (9) months, (which equates to the anticipated timeline for a decision in the Selia Law case before the US Supreme Court) [9170890-3]. Date of service: 10/19/2019 [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court Selia Law Case #19-7 re CFPB Constitutionality Question and Dodd-Frank Act Question. Date of service: 10/19/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/19/2019 08:57 PM]
10/25/2019  Open Document
10 pg, 149.25 KB
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [9176007-1] to the Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9170890-2], Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-2], Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-3], Letter filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke, Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9146872-2] Date of Service: 10/25/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 10/25/2019 01:12 PM]
10/27/2019  Open Document
64 pg, 2.78 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for leave to file a supplement to Response/Opposition [9176007-2], Letter [9146872-2] [9176432-2], to supplement the record on appeal with two exhibits as uploaded here [9176432-3] and INCORPORATED RESPONSE to the Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9106497-2] Date of service: 10/27/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/27/2019 07:19 PM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 163.45 KB
REPLY filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9176855-1] to the Response/Opposition filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 [9176007-2]. Date of Service: 10/27/2019. [19-20267] (INCORPORATED IN MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD) (DMS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 11:24 AM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 119.88 KB
COURT ORDER denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-2]; denying Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-3] [19-20267] (AS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 12:29 PM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.51 KB
CLERK ORDER denying appellant’s opposed Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9176432-3] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 02:01 PM]
11/07/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 264.69 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/28/2019 [9185202-2]. Date of service: 11/07/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/07/2019 11:07 AM]
11/10/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 312.79 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke for reconsideration of the 10/28/2019 clerk order denying Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellants in 19-20267 [9176432-3] [9186922-2]. Date of service: 11/10/2019 [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/28/2019 [9186922-2]. Date of service: 11/10/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/10/2019 01:42 PM]
11/13/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 103.34 KB
COURT ORDER – A member of this panel previously denied appellants’ opposed motion to stay case in Fifth Circuit awaiting a final rule or adjudication on the constitutional challenges. The panel has considered appellants’ motion for reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
[9185202-2] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/13/2019 03:10 PM]
11/13/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 746.24 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion entitled, “Appellants motion for reconsideration RE Constitutional Challenges” received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in light of the 11/13/19 court order already denying a motion for reconsideration, as to that prior motion [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 09:26 AM]
11/14/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 339.56 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the entitled, “Appellants notice regarding attorney general Barr’s constitutional…..”, which was filed as a motion for clarification of an order dated 11/13/19, received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because the document is not requesting any relief. It indicates it is a “notice”. The event will be deleted. [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 10:38 AM]
11/15/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 117.11 KB
COURT ORDER – IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s opposed motion to stay the case until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the United States Supreme Court is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellants’ opposed alternative request to stay the case for period of no less than nine (9) months, (which equates to the anticipated timeline for a decision in the Selia Law case before the United States Supreme Court) is DENIED AS MOOT. [9170890-2]; [9170890-3] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 09:06 AM]
11/17/2019  Open Document
21 pg, 278.38 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the 11/15/2019 court order denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9148078-2], Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9148078-3] [9191242-2]. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 11/15/2019 [9191242-2]. Date of service: 11/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/17/2019 09:27 PM]
11/18/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 118.51 KB
COURT ORDER filed: On October 28, 2019, the clerk denied pro se appellants’ opposed motion to supplement the record with a pleading and exhibits. Upon consideration of pro se appellants’ motion for reconsideration, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. [9186922-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 11/18/2019 02:21 PM]
12/19/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 85.38 KB
COURT ORDER FILED: A member of this panel previously denied appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration of appellants’ opposed motion to stay the case until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the United States Supreme Court and appellants’ opposed alternative request to stay the case for period of no less than (9) months. The panel has considered appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. [9191242-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 12/19/2019 03:14 PM]
02/03/2020  Open Document
509 pg, 18.21 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Brief and Record Excerpts received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because The brief and record excerpts are entitled In the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The case number on both documents is 19-13015, with a lower court number 9:17-CV-80495. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 02/06/2020 12:05 PM]
02/10/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 132.17 KB
LETTER filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke Date of Service: 02/10/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 02/10/2020 09:10 AM]
07/05/2020  Open Document
17 pg, 282.51 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay the case 5cca; or stay case for a period of no less than 4 months [9348363-2]. Date of service: 07/05/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/05/2020 09:23 PM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
77 pg, 1.09 MB
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT of opposed motion to stay further proceedings in this court….. [9348363-2] filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 07/07/2020 10:29 AM]
07/08/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 117 KB
COURT ORDER denying opposed motion to stay the case in this court filed by pro se appellants; denying the alternative opposed motion of pro se appellants to stay the case for a period of no less than 4 months [9348363-2] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 07/08/2020 08:28 AM]
09/04/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 1 MB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for judicial notice [9394044-2]. Date of service: 09/04/2020 [19-20267] (CAG) [Entered: 09/08/2020 08:59 AM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
13 pg, 225.24 KB
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [19-20267; 20-20209 Affirmed] Judge: PRO, Judge: WED, Judge: JLD. Mandate issue date is 04/21/2021; denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394044-2] in 19-20267, denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394017-2] in 20-20209 [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:01 PM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 74.3 KB
JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: appellants. [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:06 PM]
04/13/2021  Open Document
70 pg, 1.23 MB
PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: 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
25 pg, 972.38 KB
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
3 pg, 127.24 KB
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
7 pg, 229.11 KB
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
8 pg, 309.14 KB
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
35 pg, 627.82 KB
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
3 pg, 124.48 KB
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
7 pg, 231.34 KB
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
8 pg, 257.92 KB
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
3 pg, 138.34 KB
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]
06/28/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 175.28 KB
MOTION to stay issuance of the mandate [9607360-2]. Date of service: 06/28/2021 [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 to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court and this Court’s All American and Collins cases.. Date of service: 06/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 06/28/2021 08:36 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB
COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]
General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 20-20209 Docketed: 04/17/2020
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3290 Other Property Actions
Burke v. Hopkins
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-4543
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/15/2020      04/15/2020
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Mark D. Hopkins
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Pro Se]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734
Shelley Hopkins
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
[COR NTC Pro Se]
(see above)
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)

_____________

No. 19-20267
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

04/17/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 76.47 KB
PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/17/2020 01:51 PM]
04/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 82.2 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Mark D. Hopkins for Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 04/21/2020 11:18 AM]
04/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 82.39 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Shelley Luan Hopkins for Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [20-20209] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 04/21/2020 11:21 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209, Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209, Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:51 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209, Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209, Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:52 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:54 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:55 AM]
04/24/2020 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process after monitoring for motion to alter or amend judgment (#72). [9300045-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/24/2020 06:24 AM]
05/14/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 59.12 KB
DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 05/01/2020 denying motion to alter or amend judgment (#72). [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/14/2020 05:57 AM]
05/14/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 117.82 KB
UPDATED CASE PROCESSING NOTICE sent. Fee due 05/29/2020. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/14/2020 05:59 AM]
05/28/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 253.57 KB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for leave to file electronically as a pro se parties [9323502-2]. Date of service: 03/28/2020 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:04 PM]
05/29/2020 FEE PAID by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. Fee deadline satisfied [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:09 PM]
05/29/2020 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:18-CV-4543. Electronic ROA due on 06/15/2020. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:10 PM]
06/01/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.54 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion for leave for pro se to file electronically filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9323502-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/01/2020 10:26 AM]
06/03/2020 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (CMB) [Entered: 06/03/2020 11:44 AM]
06/03/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 116.79 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/13/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CMB) [Entered: 06/03/2020 11:46 AM]
06/04/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 76.87 KB
CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209. Update: caption does not include full middle name as indicated on the district court docket sheet. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/04/2020 10:05 AM]
06/05/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.12 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the request for status on judicial complaint filed as OPPOSED MOTION for clarification received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because judicial complaints are not handled within appeals. To find out the status of a judicial complaint, appellants should contact Circuit Mediation.. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/05/2020 07:06 AM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
113 pg, 2.65 MB
OPPOSED JOINT MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to stay further proceedings in this court.. Response/Opposition due on 07/16/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay case in 5cca [9348413-2]. Date of service: 07/06/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/06/2020 08:31 AM]
07/07/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 74.13 KB
CLERK ORDER denying opposed motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9348413-2] [20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 07/07/2020 03:57 PM]
07/10/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 153.63 KB
OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 07/07/2020 clerk order denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9348413-2] [9352577-2]. Date of service: 07/10/2020. Response/Opposition due on 07/20/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 07/07/2020 [9352577-2]. Date of service: 07/10/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/10/2020 10:14 AM]
07/13/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 108.41 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ motion for reconsideration [9352577-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/13/2020 12:23 PM]
07/13/2020  Open Restricted Document
41 pg, 512.8 KB
STRICKEN IN LIGHT OF THE COURT ORDER OF 07/16/20.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke. Brief NOT Sufficient as it requires a Certificate of Interested Parties, summary of argument, standard of review, argument, the certificate of service is out of order, and Record Excerpts are required.
SEE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Record Excerpts due on 07/29/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Sufficient Brief due on 07/29/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/13/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/13/2020 09:19 PM]
07/14/2020  Open Document
7 pg, 135.31 KB
MOTION to strike Appellants’ brief brief [9354874-2] and to place brief under seal [9354874-3]. Date of service: 07/14/2020. Appellants’ brief is under temporary seal. Response/Opposition due on 07/24/2020. [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to strike Appellants’ Brief brief [9354874-2]. Date of service: 07/14/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/14/2020 01:04 PM]
07/16/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 109.18 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellees’ motion to strike portions of the Appellants’ brief that refer to materials outside of the record [9354874-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees’ motion to file Appellants’ brief under seal is DENIED AS MOOT [9354874-3]. Striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9354311-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 04:51 PM]
07/16/2020 COURT ACTION striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9354311-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:07 PM]
07/16/2020 BRIEFING SUSPENDED – portions stricken from appellant’s brief; establishing new briefing schedule.. Record Excerpts deadline canceled. Sufficient brief deadline canceled. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:10 PM]
07/16/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 102.67 KB
BRIEFING RESUMED. Appellants’ brief must be refiled omitting references to material outside of the record on appeal. A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/30/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Record Excerpts due on 07/30/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:13 PM]
07/27/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 263.65 KB
OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 07/16/2020 court order granting Motion to strike brief [9354874-2], and place brief under seal filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9354874-3] [9363300-2]. Date of service: 07/27/2020. Response/Opposition due on 08/06/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 07/16/2020 [9363300-2]. Date of service: 07/27/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/27/2020 12:35 AM]
07/29/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 137.04 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration [9363300-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/29/2020 02:03 PM]
07/30/2020  Open Restricted Document
51 pg, 418.86 KB
THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN IN LIGHT OF THE COURT ORDER OF 08/04/2020.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Paper copies are not required at this time. Appellee’s Brief due on 08/31/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/30/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/30/2020 07:02 PM]
07/30/2020  Open Document
81 pg, 2.37 MB
RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Paper copies are not required at this time. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/30/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/30/2020 07:03 PM]
07/31/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 145.66 KB
MOTION to strike Appellant’s brief brief [9368451-2], to place brief under seal [9368451-3]. Date of service: 07/31/2020 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to strike Appellants’ Amended Brief brief [9368451-2]. Date of service: 07/31/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/31/2020 04:01 PM]
08/02/2020  Open Document
19 pg, 927.77 KB
SUFFICIENT OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. Date of service: 08/03/2020. Document is insufficient for the following reasons: all motions must state that the movant has contacted or attempted to contact all other parties and must indicate whether an opposition will be filed. 5th Cir. R. 27.4. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 08/07/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. Date of service: 08/02/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/02/2020 08:04 PM]
08/02/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 278.53 KB
SUFFICIENT OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke for a copy of the original complaint filed by Mr. Jim Harrington against Judge Clement and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett replaced Judge Clement on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (5th Cir. 2019). [9368628-2]. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke a copy of the original complaint filed by Mr. Jim Harrington against Judge Clement and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett replaced Judge Clement on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (5th Cir. 2019) [9368628-2]. Date of service: 08/03/2020. Document is insufficient for the following reasons: all motions must state that the movant has contacted or attempted to contact all other parties and must indicate whether an opposition will be filed. 5th Cir. R. 27.4. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 08/07/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for clarification of the Order dated 07/29/2020. Date of service: 08/02/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/02/2020 08:08 PM]
08/04/2020 The Motion for extraordinary relief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9368628-2], Motion to strike document filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9368627-2] has been made sufficient. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Rpl deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 09:59 AM]
08/04/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 141.42 KB
COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellees’ opposed motion to strike Appellant’s amended brief [9368451-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellees’ opposed motion to place Appellants’ brief under seal is GRANTED [9368451-3]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion to strike Appellees’ opposed motion to strike Appellants’ brief is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion for a copy of a judicial complaint and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett was on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (2019), is DENIED [9368627-2] [9368628-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 03:13 PM]
08/04/2020 COURT ACTION striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9367572-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 03:19 PM]
08/05/2020 BRIEFING SUSPENDED – portions striken from appellants’ brief; estabilishing new briefing schedule. E/Res’s Brief deadline canceled [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/05/2020 05:34 AM]
08/05/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 101.36 KB
BRIEFING RESUMED. Appellants’ brief must be refiled ommitting references to material outside of the record on appeal. A/Pet’s Brief Due on 08/19/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/05/2020 05:36 AM]
08/13/2020  Open Document
11 pg, 188.59 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 08/04/2020 [9377524-2]. Date of service: 08/13/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/13/2020 05:24 PM]
08/18/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 143.67 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ Motion for reconsideration [9377524-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/18/2020 09:48 AM]
08/19/2020  Open Document
67 pg, 475.11 KB
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke.
A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Appellee’s Brief due on 09/18/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 08/19/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/19/2020 03:41 PM]
09/04/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 1.01 MB
MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for judicial notice [9394017-2]. Date of service: 09/04/2020 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 09/08/2020 08:43 AM]
09/08/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 122.02 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to extend time to file brief of appellee until 10/02/2020 [9394501-2]. Date of service: 09/08/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 09/08/2020 01:02 PM]
09/10/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.3 KB
CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [9394501-2] Appellee’s Brief due on 10/02/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 09/10/2020 08:18 AM]
10/02/2020  Open Document
42 pg, 377.75 KB
APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 10/23/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. and Ms. Shelley Hopkins. Date of service: 10/02/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 10/02/2020 03:23 PM]
10/05/2020  Open Document
16 pg, 212.34 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Appellees’ brief [9413904-2]. Date of service: 10/05/2020 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to strike Appellees Brief filed Friday, 2nd October, 2020 brief [9413904-2]. Date of service: 10/05/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/05/2020 12:07 PM]
10/06/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 137.48 KB
COURT ORDER DENYING appellants’ opposed motion to strike appellees’ brief [9413904-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/06/2020 01:40 PM]
10/07/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 141.46 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to extend time to file reply brief until 11/06/2020 [9416112-2]. Date of service: 10/07/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/07/2020 12:32 PM]
10/07/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 215.29 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for extension entitled “motion to strike” received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because motion was corrected and refiled. Removing “motion to strike” from the docket. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:20 PM]
10/08/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 73.44 KB
CLERK ORDER denying Motion to extend time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9416112-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/08/2020 04:24 PM]
10/15/2020  Open Document
9 pg, 177.16 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/08/2020 [9422323-2]. Date of service: 10/15/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/15/2020 06:03 PM]
10/16/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 76.45 KB
CLERK ORDER granting motion for reconsideration filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9422323-2]; extending time to file reply brief [9422808-2] Reply Brief deadline updated to 11/06/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:37 AM]
11/06/2020  Open Document
38 pg, 344.81 KB
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED
Reply Brief deadline satisfied [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 11/06/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/06/2020 04:38 PM]
01/07/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 91.2 KB
PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9381578-2], Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9367573-2], Appellee Brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9413256-2], Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9437996-2]. Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/12/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke and Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 01/12/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 01/07/2021 11:35 AM]
01/08/2021  Open Document
16 pg, 687.15 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke waive paper copies requirement for appellant’s brief, record excerpts, and reply brief [9478154-2]. Date of service: 01/11/2021 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to waive requirement to file record excerpts [9478154-2], to waive requirement to file Appellee’s brief [9478154-3]. Date of service: 01/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 01/08/2021 12:00 PM]
01/11/2021 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 01/12/2021 08:56 AM]
02/11/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 76.24 KB
CLERK ORDER denying as moot the motion to waive paper copies requirement filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9478154-2]. The Clerk’s Office has printed the paper copies required. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 02/11/2021 09:42 AM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
13 pg, 225.24 KB
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [19-20267; 20-20209 Affirmed] Judge: PRO, Judge: WED, Judge: JLD. Mandate issue date is 04/21/2021; denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394044-2] in 19-20267, denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394017-2] in 20-20209 [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:01 PM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 74.3 KB
JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: appellants. [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:06 PM]
04/13/2021  Open Document
70 pg, 1.23 MB
PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: 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
25 pg, 972.38 KB
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
3 pg, 127.24 KB
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
7 pg, 229.11 KB
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
8 pg, 309.14 KB
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
35 pg, 627.82 KB
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
3 pg, 124.48 KB
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
7 pg, 231.34 KB
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
8 pg, 257.92 KB
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
3 pg, 138.34 KB
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]
06/28/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 175.28 KB
MOTION to stay issuance of the mandate [9607360-2]. Date of service: 06/28/2021 [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 to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court and this Court’s All American and Collins cases.. Date of service: 06/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 06/28/2021 08:36 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB
COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]
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)
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

07/18/2021  Open Document
24 pg, 407.13 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to correct opinion. [9621392-2]. Date of service: 07/18/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/18/2021 06:55 PM]
07/19/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 233.92 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because there is no recourse for reconsideration of a denial of motion to recuse or disqualify a Judge. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/19/2021 12:57 PM]
07/19/2021  Open Document
15 pg, 509.18 KB
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION [9622148-1] to the Motion for sanctions in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9615009-2]. Date of Service: 07/19/2021. [19-20267, 20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [9622148-1] to the Motion filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9615009-2] Date of Service: 07/19/2021 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267, 20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/19/2021 03:44 PM]
07/19/2021  Open Document
9 pg, 202.23 KB
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION [9622209-1] to the Motion for reconsideration in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9614189-2] Date of Service: 07/19/2021. [19-20267, 20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [9622209-1] to the Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9614189-2] Date of Service: 07/19/2021 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267, 20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/19/2021 04:12 PM]
07/28/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 771.32 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to strike Response/Opposition filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267, Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [9622148-2] [9629458-2], for sanctions against MARK HOPKINS, SHELLEY HOPKINS. Date of service: 07/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/28/2021 12:40 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB
COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB
OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 06/21/2021 court order denying motion for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 order denying motion for authorization to omit the Statement of facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc and file petition in present form. No action is taken on Appellants’ request for clarification of clerk’s office procedure as unnecessary – procedure was explained to Mr. Burke telephonically. Appellants may use the pro_se@ca5.uscourts.gov email as an alternative, if necessary [9557920-3], [9557920-2] [9614189-2]. Response/Opposition due on 07/19/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION for clarification of the Order dated 06/21/2021 denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9585172-2]. Response/Opposition due on 07/19/2021. [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 clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
9 pg, 259.83 KB
OPPOSED MOTION for sanctions against Mark Daniel Hopkins and Shelley Luan Hopkins. Response/Opposition due on 07/19/2021. [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 sanctions against Mark Daniel Hopkins and Shelley Luan Hopkins. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 08:29 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
6 pg, 229.63 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to extend the time to file a rehearing until 07/23/2021 [9615010-2]. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 08:37 PM]
07/18/2021  Open Document
24 pg, 407.13 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to correct opinion. [9621392-2]. Date of service: 07/18/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/18/2021 06:55 PM]
07/19/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 233.92 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because there is no recourse for reconsideration of a denial of motion to recuse or disqualify a Judge. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/19/2021 12:57 PM]
07/19/2021  Open Document
15 pg, 509.18 KB
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION [9622148-1] to the Motion for sanctions in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9615009-2]. Date of Service: 07/19/2021. [19-20267, 20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [9622148-1] to the Motion filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9615009-2] Date of Service: 07/19/2021 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267, 20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/19/2021 03:44 PM]
07/19/2021  Open Document
9 pg, 202.23 KB
RESPONSE/OPPOSITION [9622209-1] to the Motion for reconsideration in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9614189-2] Date of Service: 07/19/2021. [19-20267, 20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [9622209-1] to the Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9614189-2] Date of Service: 07/19/2021 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267, 20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/19/2021 04:12 PM]
07/28/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 771.32 KB
OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to strike Response/Opposition filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267, Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [9622148-2] [9629458-2], for sanctions against MARK HOPKINS, SHELLEY HOPKINS. Date of service: 07/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/28/2021 12:40 PM]

From: Melissa Morgan <Melissa_Morgan@txs.uscourts.gov>
Date: Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:28 PM
Subject: New Complaint
To: KAJONGWE@GMAIL.COM <KAJONGWE@gmail.com>
Cc: Darlene Hansen <Darlene_Hansen@txs.uscourts.gov>, Heather Carr <Heather_Carr@txs.uscourts.gov>

Good Afternoon Mrs. Burke,

This case has now been opened. Your case number is 4:21cv2591 and randomly assigned to Judge Bennett. Your payment was processed and the receipt a long with the notice of filing will be placed in the mail today. Thank you!

Melissa Morgan

A Fifth Circuit Clerk Corruptly Impersonating Appellants Induces Finality of Appeal
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Judson Witham

    September 18, 2021 at 7:08 am

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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