BDF Hopkins Response Deemed Legally Incompetent by Burke in Reply in Support of Rule 59(e) Motion

Burke v. Ocwen et al

S.D. Tex., 9 Aug., 2021 (4:21-cv-2591)

The Void Judgment Case has been assigned to US District Judge Al Bennett

OCT 8, 2022

Reply No. 1:

The correct decision would have been not to respond to the Rule 59(e) Motion by Plaintiff as Defendants do not have standing and never did have standing to file the 12(c) motions, as they admitted to having no knowledge of the facts critical to this case.

Doc. 54-1, p.5, 19.

It is a question of law for the court to decide on its own.

Magna Equities II, LLC v. Heartland Bank, CIVIL ACTION No. H-17-1479, at *9-10 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2018).

The Bounty Hunters, BDF Hopkins Response to Rule 59(e) Motion Re Burke https://t.co/yCcgQXk0Ld

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 8, 2022

Reply No. 2:

Undeterred by their legal incompetence, it is clear and obvious Defendants purposefully cherry-picked their responses in order to evade and distort the law and facts before them in this case.

By abandoning the VL, they hope to avoid the issues raised by Plaintiff, particularly in relation to [10-day] notice and a hearing, which is mandatory in law, Doc. 54-1, p.36-37

(Defendants also elected to whiteout Judge McBryde’s Exhibit A, in their response, Doc. 58, p.4, No. 10).

The judgment of this court was consolidated by combining and deciding all 3 of Defendants motions in one sua sponte court Order.

Based on this alone, it was legal err not to provide notice and a hearing before issuing the void sua sponte Order, and commands vacating the Order.

Reply No. 3:

Buried in footnote 1, Doc. 58, p.4 in part, Defendants state on the record;

“Burke was afforded due process with as she filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit addressing the issue and she was heard on the same”.

That synopsis is patently false, as detailed in Doc 54-1, p.16;

“This includes the question of jurisdiction lost by the Fifth Circuit after the fraudulent filing by Clerk Christina Gardner, who seized Plaintiffs’ document and then impersonated Plaintiffs’ to file a fraudulent duplicative motion for reconsideration which was unlawfully backdated.”

In this footnote snippet, Defendants

(i) unlawfully inject themselves into facts where they admit to having no knowledge,

(ii) do not address the question of jurisdiction lost, and

(iii) the true facts confirm due process was not afforded to the Plaintiff[s].

The Defendants contradict themselves, as they agree with Plaintiffs argument in this respect, the judgment by the 5th Cir. is void, citing to ‘Brumfiled’, which should read ‘Brumfield’ in the same footnote.

Reply No. 4:

The Defendants attempts to manipulate the Sinesterra case law is absurd

Doc. 58, p.4, No. 9.

This court cited the case, without verifying its conclusion and is accountable in law for that oversight.

Plaintiff performed due diligence and Sinesterra mirrors verbatim the facts and the reasoning of this court’s Order, the material difference is this court erroneously failed to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction.

““We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Sinesterra’s complaint on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Sinesterra’s unauthorized independent action in equity.”

As such;

“The only judgment this court could correctly enter: dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, due to lack of jurisdiction.””

Doc. 54-1, p.21-22.

Reply No. 5:

The Defendants response in relation to the 3 methods of attacking a judgment is moot.

As explained above and Plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion, the Fifth Circuit lost jurisdiction after the fraudulent acts of Clerk Christina Gardner.

All acts performed and executed by the appellate court and 3-panel thereafter are without jurisdiction and the judgment is void, not voidable, citing Doc.54-1, p.17.

Reply No. 6:

The noticeable lack of case citations in Defendants restricted and strained response determines their responses are without legal merit.

For example, the Defendants do not cite any case law pertaining to;

(i) How they had legal standing to file the two JOTP motions, “PHH’s and Attorney Defendant’s request for Rule 12(c) dismissal relief” Doc. 58, p.2, No. 5,

(ii) In response to the 10-day notice and hearing requirement, Doc. 58, p.4, No. 10 and;

(iii) How Clerk Gardner, by submitting a fraudulent, duplicative motion (which was denied) is allowed in law or per IOP / local rules, Doc 58, p.3, No. 7.

DESPITE FORECLOSURE GRANTED TO THE LENDER AND MACKIE WOLF (see Corrected Opinion), IN DEC. 2021, BATES IS STILL THE HOMEOWNER IN A CASE WHERE BATES IS DEFENDED BY ERICK “DELAROGUE” DELARUE https://t.co/PcFBkmMpmM

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 5, 2022

Reply No. 7:

Shelley Hopkins and Attorney Defendants do not counter or deny the Plaintiffs allegations related to the collusion and perjured affidavit as detailed in Doc.54-1, Legal Err #8, thus admitting these facts.

Conclusion:

The Defendants response is a strategic and calculated distraction which offers no sound legal substance or value and should be discounted during this court’s reconsideration.

The court should focus on Plaintiffs eight manifest errors of law and fact, and if the law and the Constitution is applied correctly by an impartial judiciary who follow the rule of law, it should have no difficulty in vacating the judgment as requested by the Plaintiff in Doc. 54 and herein.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 8th day of October, 2022.

s/ Joanna Burke