Executive Emergency Orders: LIT Reviews Southern District Federal Court’s Failure to EFile During COVID-19

Dear Ms Edwards. Your Latest Response is Repetitive and Still Usurpation.

It is Also Abhorrent Elder Abuse, Targeting 80+ [Disabled] Year Olds who are categorized as ‘Non-Prisoner’, Non-Attorney Citizens

For those of y’all who may be catching up, we are updating our earlier article about the Southern District of Texas Federal Courts abusing elder citizens. They take their money to file a lawsuit by email and then deny to file subsequent and timely motions in compliance with the ‘randomly assigned‘ Judge Bennett’s court procedures. This saga has been going on all week and LIT now provides an update.

Furthermore, we were kindly made aware from another subscriber – Harriet Nicholson who has a current case in N.D. Texas, that she is able to efile and indeed was able to efile without any problem as far back as 2013 in N.D. Tex.

The same appears true for W.D. Tex. See; “Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se , she has permission to file and receive documents in this case electronically.” Rosas v. Univ. of Tex. at San Antonio, CIVIL No. SA-18-CV-0536-DAE, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2018)

Not so in S.D. Tex. “Pro se litigants in the Southern District of Texas cannot file documents electronically without special permission and, instead, need to mail or deliver documents to the clerk’s office. ” Pena v. Lone Star Nat’l Bank, No. 18-40653, at *4 n.2 (5th Cir. May 28, 2020)

It’s very disconcerting that these people in authority at the judicial branch are paid by your tax dollars to abuse your rights without limitation. Judges who profess to follow the law of the doctrine yet allow federal courts in Texas to individually apply their own inconsistent interpretations on who can file a case electronically. We call ’em Outlaws in Dirty Black Robes.

As long as the people accept this appalling type of behavior by federal judges and their court staff, the judicial branch and the courts will continue to trample over y’all.

AUG 20, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 21, 2021

ORDERED that:

1. Governor Abbott has declared a state of disaster in all 254 counties in the State of Texas in response to the imminent threat of the COVID-19 pandemic. This Order is issued pursuant to Section 22.0035(b) of the Texas Government Code.

2. The Thirty-Eighth Emergency Order (Misc. Dkt. No. 21-9060) is renewed as amended.

3. Subject only to constitutional limitations, all courts in Texas may in any case, civil or criminal, without a participant’s consent:

a. except as provided in paragraph 4, modify or suspend any and all deadlines and procedures, whether prescribed by statute, rule, or order, for a stated period ending no later than October 1, 2021;

b. except as this Order provides otherwise, allow or require anyone involved in any hearing, deposition, or other proceeding of any kind—including but not limited to a party, attorney, witness, court reporter, grand juror, or petit juror—to participate remotely, such as by teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or other means;

c. consider as evidence sworn statements made out of court or sworn testimony given remotely, out of court, such as by teleconferencing, videoconferencing, or other means;

d. conduct proceedings away from the court’s usual location with reasonable notice and access to the participants and the public;

BURKE V. OCWEN ET AL
4:21-cv-2591 (10 Aug., 2021, S.D. Tex.)

This court is in violation of Gov. Abbott’s August 2021 EXECUTIVE ORDER GA-38 and silence is not an argument on the back of an unconstitutional email from Ms. Edwards.

“Moreover, temporarily enjoining the In-Person Requirements plainly promotes “the public interest in … safeguarding public health” because it aligns with the public health guidance to eliminate unnecessary travel and in-person contact. Pashby , 709 F.3d at 331.”

See https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20A34/151289/20200826115344506_20A-%20FDA%20v.%20ACOG%20Appendix%20FINAL%20a.pdf

For your information, we emailed a letter to the Fifth Circuit’s pro_se email (“By email only due to Pandemic: pro_se@ca5.uscourts.gov”) on 17 August, 2021 and they responded on 19 August, 2021, with a letter via email (Case: 19-20267 Document: 00515985014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2021).

We civilly anticipate the same courtesy here regarding our prior emails with documents attached.

Harris County has nearly half a million COVID-19 cases so as always, stay safe.

Sincerely

J&J Burke

e. require every participant in a proceeding to alert the court if the participant has, or knows of another participant who has:

(i) COVID-19 or a fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, sore throat, loss of taste or smell, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, or diarrhea;

or

(ii) recently been in close contact with a person who is confirmed to have COVID-19 or exhibiting the symptoms described above;

f. take any other reasonable action to avoid exposing court proceedings and participants to the threat of COVID-19.

Dear Sir or Madam

We have not received a reply from the documented S.D. Texas court emails as previously listed and included again here. Please note; we have received responses in the past from those operating these email addresses.

We now attach our response to the unconstitutional email from Ms Edwards, Case Mgr for Judge A H Bennett, S.D. Tex.

We anticipate a timely response.

Thank you and stay safe.

Sincerely,

J&J Burke

4. In any proceeding under Subtitle E, Title 5 of the Family Code, all deadlines and procedures must not be modified or suspended, unless permitted by statute, except the dismissal date may be extended as follows:

a. for any such proceeding that, on May 26, 2021, had a dismissal date that was previously modified under a prior Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, the court may extend the dismissal date for a stated period ending no later than December 1, 2021;

b. for any such proceeding that, on May 26, 2021, had been previously retained on the court’s docket pursuant only to Section 263.401(b) or (b-1), the court may extend the dismissal date for a stated period ending no later than February 1, 2022;

c. for any such proceeding that, on May 26, 2021, had not been previously retained on the court’s docket pursuant to Section 263.401(b) or (b-1), the court may extend the initial dismissal date as calculated under Section 263.401(a) for a stated period ending no later than April 1, 2022;

or

d. for any such proceeding that is filed on or after May 26, 2021, the court may extend the initial dismissal date as calculated under Section 263.401(a) only as provided by Section 263.401(b) or (b-1).

5. Courts may continue to use reasonable efforts to conduct proceedings remotely.

In criminal cases where confinement in jail or prison is a potential punishment, remote jury proceedings must not be conducted without appropriate waivers and consent obtained on the record from the defendant and prosecutor.

In all other cases, remote jury proceedings must not be conducted unless the court has considered on the record or in a written order any objection or motion related to proceeding with the jury proceeding at least seven days before the jury proceeding or as soon as practicable if the objection or motion is made or filed within seven days of the jury proceeding.

Except in a non-binding jury proceeding, a court may not permit or require a petit juror to appear remotely unless the court ensures that all potential and selected petit jurors have access to technology to participate remotely.

6. The chief justice of a court of appeals, the local administrative district judge, and the presiding judge of a municipal court are encouraged to adopt minimum standard health protocols for court participants and the public attending court proceedings that will be employed in the courtroom and in public areas of the court building.

7. The Office of Court Administration should issue, and update from time to time, best practices to assist courts with safely and effectively conducting in-person and remote court proceedings under this Order.

8. This Order is effective August 1, 2021, and expires October 1, 2021, except as otherwise stated herein, unless extended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

9. This Order is intended to be the final renewal of Paragraph 3(a), except the authority to modify or suspend the following deadlines and procedures in justice and municipal court proceedings will continue after October 1, 2021, until January 1, 2022:

a. jury-related deadlines and procedures; and

b. deadlines and procedures for pretrial hearings.

10. All previously adopted local plans and minimum standard health protocols will expire on September 1, 2021, unless readopted by the local administrative district judge or presiding judge of a municipal court before September 1, 2021.

11. The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to:

a. post a copy of this Order on www.txcourts.gov;

b. file a copy of this Order with the Secretary of State; and

c. send a copy of this Order to the Governor, the Attorney General, and each member of the Legislature.

12. The State Bar of Texas is directed to take all reasonable steps to notify members of the Texas bar of this Order. Dated: July 19, 2021

JUSTICE DEVINE and JUSTICE BLACKLOCK dissent.

New post: Gov Abbott’s August 2021 Emergency Executive Order Discarded by Tainted Federal Judiciary in Texas https://t.co/iSMdexUqRZ

— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) August 19, 2021

Just under half a million confirmed COVID-19 cases in Harris County, Texas as at Thursday, Aug 18, 2021. https://t.co/WdWzX737aD #coronavirus #txlege pic.twitter.com/HWb3I2qnOm

— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) August 19, 2021