Appellate Judges

A Petition for Review is Submitted to the Eleventh Circuit to Address Whiteout Opinions with So Many Lies

The Judicial Council has an opportunity to correct not only a manifest injustice, but perversion of justice. It should do so and reverse the Chief Judges’ erroneous order and proceed with a special committee investigation.

Petition for Review: Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 11-20- 90113


We, John and Joanna Burke hereby petition the judicial council for review of the erroneous order of dismissal. First, we address the template- driven, standard “merits-based” dismissal of our judicial complaint utilized by this court, which omits our evidence and actual facts:

“Any allegation that calls into question the correctness of an official decision or procedural ruling of a judge – without more – is merits-related.” – Eleventh Cir. Response dismissing complaint by Chief Judge William Pryor (“CJ”).

Relying upon ‘textualism’, e.g. the textual wording and meaning of the word “more” we can confirm – without hesitation – in our responses there has always been “more”1.

However, the CJ inexcusably excludes (“more”) all references we made in respect of the Greens, who were in litigation in the same federal courthouse as ourselves in S.D. Tex., Houston Division.

The “more” in this complaint – our detailed facts and irrefutable evidence including written legal conclusions by Judge Marra in written order(s) have been snubbed by the CJ:

“The Greens obtaining access to documents denied to the Burkes is most certainly defined as – ‘more’. Additionally, it is evidence of judicial bias and as such, a qualifying complaint per the ‘Breyer Report’2.”

1 Google search; Definitions from Oxford Languages for “define “more””. Result: determiner: “a greater or additional amount or degree of.” pronoun: “a greater or additional amount of something.”
2 “The Breyer Report” (Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, A Report to the Chief Justice, Stephen Breyer, Chair, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States (2006)); A-6 Failure to inquire about claims of a judge’s bias toward a litigant, p. 50, Standard 3., 21, and 25 “that the judge ruled against the complainant…because the judge doesn’t like the complainant personally, is not merits-related.” The CJ’s dismissal without further investigation of judicial bias is a material error.

As stated repeatedly in our complaint and in our appeal before this court, the Greens obtained evidence from the exact same case which we motioned to intervene, namely the CFPB v. Ocwen lawsuit in S.D. Fl. court.

Yet, despite our hard-to-miss evidence and facts, in his parting and curt dismissal of our judicial complaint the CJ states:

“Apart from the decisions or procedural rulings that Complainants challenge, they provide no credible facts or evidence in support of their claims that the Subject Judge lied, was biased against them, colluded with others, or otherwise engaged in misconduct.”

This is fictitious. It is irrefutable

(i) Judge Marra wrote his clearly worded order denying the Burkes intervention when the facts and the law proved otherwise (Greens case)

(ii) the Burkes were correct to conclude in their judicial complaint… “As such, the Burkes hold Judge Marra’s assertions to be false, untruthful and for the purposes of this judicial complaint, personal and pervasive bias against these pro se elderly citizens from Texas.”…

(iii) it is clear from the filings into the Houston docket (the Greens case) and submitted on appeal to this court, that Greens lawyer provided counsel for Ocwen in Texas the contact information for Ocwen’s counsel in the Florida case in order to expedite the release of documents to the Greens.

“A copy of the CFPB Complaint, Docket sheet, and contact information for Ocwen’s counsel in the CFPB litigation has been provided to Mr. Curran3, Ocwen’s counsel in this adversary proceeding.”4

Yet, these dishonest lawyers and law firm failed to disclose this crucial evidence to us at any time from that date (Jan. 1, 2019) forward and egregiously maintained a position where they committed perjury in the lower court5 and on appeal and

3 Charles Royal Curran, Settle Pou,, Texas Bar I.D. 24076334, Southern District No. 1241722 3333 Lee Parkway, Eighth Floor, Dallas, TX 75219, Tel: (214) 203-3300.
4 See Green v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICIANG, LLC AS SERVICER FOR DEUTSCH (18-03351), United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas. Doc 9, p.5.
5 One example is Ocwen’s counsel, Ms. Catalina Azuero of Goodwin Procter, LLP. She has filed into the lower case docket in Florida at least 79 times From Feb 22, 2018 to July 28, 2020. Ms. Azuero filed and signed the joint perjurious motion from Ocwen and the CFPB objecting to our intervention.

Owen’s Easter Basket of Omissions and Whiteouts re Ocwen Loan Servicing et al.

The Burkes filed their Petition for Rehearing en banc to allow all the active judges who are not recused and able to participate, an opportunity to cast their Vote.

Protected: Owen’s Easter Basket of Omissions and Whiteouts re Hopkins Law et al

A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo review of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3).

The Judicial Easter Egg Hunt: Owen’s Easter Basket and the Perversion of Justice.

We’re not privy to which Quarter Back clerk was assigned to draft the consolidated opinion but we can say emphatically it is villainous by design.

Continue Reading

This article has moved to


A Petition for Review is Submitted to the Eleventh Circuit to Address Whiteout Opinions with So Many Lies
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top