Appellate Circuit

Fifth Circuit ClerkGate Corruption Scandal: New Civil Action Is Formally Underway

This case has now been opened with case number 4:21-cv-2591 and randomly assigned to United States District Judge Al Bennett, S.D. Tex.

Burke v. Ocwen et al

4:21-cv-2591 (10 Aug., 2021, S.D. Tex.)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
August 10, 2021
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

AUG 10, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 12, 2021


CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:21−cv−02591
Burke et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al


1. Counsel and all parties appearing pro se shall appear for an initial pretrial and scheduling conference before


on November 5, 2021 at 09:00 AM

at United States Courthouse
Courtroom 8C, 8th Floor
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, Texas 77002

2. Counsel shall file with the clerk within fifteen days from receipt of this order a certificate listing all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, affiliates, parent corporations, or other entities that are financially interested in the outcome of this litigation. If a group can be specified by a general description, individual listing is not necessary.

Underline the name of each corporation whose securities are publicly traded. If new parties are added or if additional persons or entities that are financially interested in the outcome of the litigation are identified at any time during the pendency of this litigation, then each counsel shall promptly file an amended certificate with the clerk.

3. After the parties confer (in person or by telephone) as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f), counsel and all parties appearing pro se shall prepare and file not less than 10 days before the conference a joint discovery/case management plan containing the information as required by FED. R. CIV. P. 26(f) using the form available at

4. Counsel will complete the attached proposed scheduling order and file it with the joint discovery/case management plan. The court will sign the agreed scheduling order and may rule on any pending motions at the conference.

5. Counsel and all parties appearing pro se who file or remove an action must serve a copy of this order with the summons and complaint or with the notice of removal.

6. Attendance by an attorney who has authority to bind each represented party is required at the conference.

7. Counsel and all parties appearing pro se shall discuss whether alternative dispute resolution is appropriate and at the conference advise the court of the results of their discussions.

8. Counsel and all parties appearing pro se will deliver to chambers copies of all instruments filed within 7 days of the conference and within 7 days of any future court hearing or conference. Unless this rule is complied with the court will not consider any instrument filed within 7 days of any court appearance.

9. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) requires defendant(s) to be served within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. The failure of plaintiff(s) to file proof of service within 90 days after the filing of the complaint may result in dismissal of this action by the court on its own initiative.

10. Counsel will deliver to chambers copies of all instruments filed under seal regardless of their length.

11. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action and assessment of fees and costs.

By Order of the Court

Court Procedures: Information on the court’s practices and procedures and how to reach court personnel may be obtained at the Clerk’s website at or from the intake desk of the Clerk’s office.

Burke v. Ocwen et al, 4:21-cv-2591 (10 Aug., 2021, S.D. Tex.)

“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.”

AUG 11, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG 11, 2021

United States District Judge Alfred “Al” Homer Bennett S.D. Tex., Houston Division, Court Rules

“This Court previously denied a Motion for Leave of Court to File a Motion Seeking an Order to Show Cause [Doc. No. 160] based upon the same alleged misrepresentations. The Court denied the motion because it was filed by an amicus curiae and not by a party to this action. It is beyond the role of an amicus curiae to file substantive motions.” – State v. United States, CIVIL No. B-14-254, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2015) US District Judge Andrew S. Hanen.

“In a manner unclear from the record, the county district judge inadvertently signed the “Motion and Order” and caused the document to be filed with the county district court clerk’s office. On March 5, 2013, the county district court sua sponte issued an order setting aside the “Motion and Order,” explaining that the document had been improperly submitted, signed, and filed. The county court also scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2013 on Mr. Goings’s discovery motion.” – Goings v. Sumner Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 571 F. App’x 634, 2 (10th Cir. 2014)

Judge Alfred H. Bennett


Your attention is directed to the Court Procedures and attachments, which are applicable to cases assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett.

Plaintiff must serve these materials, and the Order for Conference And Disclosure Of Interested Parties on all defendants with the summons and complaint.

A party removing a case to this Court has the same obligations as a plaintiff filing an original complaint.

Proof reflecting service of these materials must be filed with the Clerk.

A Form of Certificate for Use in removed cases is attached.

In addition, parties may, at their option, proceed with civil cases before Magistrate Judge Francis Stacy.

Attached is a Consent Form for use by parties who consent to proceed before Magistrate Judge Francis Stacy.

Please follow the instructions in the accompanying “Notice of the Right to Try a Civil Case before a Magistrate Judge.”

The accompanying procedures are to be used in conjunction with the Local Rules for the Southern District of Texas, not as a substitute for them. The Local Rules of this District can be obtained on the District website at The Court requires strict compliance with these Local Rules.

ALL inquiries regarding ANY case, please contact:

Lisa Edwards, Case Manager
To United States District Judge Alfred H. Bennett
United States District Court
515 Rusk St, Room 8624
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: 713-250-5850

Court Procedures and Practices


  1. Contact with Court Personnel
  2. Electronic Filing
  3. Appearances
  4. Emergencies
  5. Young Lawyers
  6. Courtesy Copies
  7. Font


  1. Scheduling Conferences
  2. Expedited Trial Alternative
  3. Continuances
  4. Discovery Disputes
  5. Motion Practice
  6. Settlements
  7. Default Judgment


  1. Trial Settings
  2. Pretrial Filings
  3. Exhibits
  4. Jury Selection
  5. Hours
  6. Depositions
  7. Courtroom Protocol
  8. Trial Decorum
  9. Courtroom Technology
  10. Examples

Judicial Senate Questionnaire for then Nominee, The Hon. Alfred “Al” Homer Bennett 

“In a manner unclear from the record, the county district judge inadvertently signed the “Motion and Order” and caused the document to be filed with the county district court clerk’s office. On March 5, 2013, the county district court sua sponte issued an order setting aside the “Motion and Order,” explaining that the document had been improperly submitted, signed, and filed. The county court also scheduled a hearing for March 14, 2013 on Mr. Goings’s discovery motion.” – Goings v. Sumner Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Office, 571 F. App’x 634, 2 (10th Cir. 2014)



1.  Contact with Court Personnel

Case-related inquiries regarding any case should be made by e-mail to the Case Manager, Lisa Edwards, at At the Court’s direction, law clerks may contact counsel; however, they will not discuss matters other than the subject of the call. Lawyers must not call the Court’s law clerks unless they are returning a call.

2.  Electronic Filing

The Court requires that parties file documents through the District Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (“CM/ECF”) System. See Southern District Local Rule 5.1 and Administrative Procedures for CM/ECF (as amended and available at

3.  Appearances

An attorney who appears at a hearing or conference shall:

  • be familiar with the case and be prepared to argue any pending motions (including at the scheduling conference);
  • have authority to bind the client; and
  • be in charge for that appearance.

All counsel wishing to appear at a conference or hearing by telephone shall send a request to the Case Manager by email at least three business days prior to the hearing.

The Court prefers for counsel to attend in person, especially for initial appearances. As such, leave for appearing at a conference or hearing by telephone will only be granted in special circumstances. Failure to appear when notified of a setting may subject the attorney and/or his or her client(s) to sanctions. Motions Pro Hac Vice, and Notice of Appearance should be on file a week before counsel plans to appear.

4.  Emergencies

If both sides agree to an emergency/expedited hearing, e-mail the case manager and set up a phone conference or hearing with the judge. If only one side feels it is an emergency, file a motion for emergency/expedited hearing. Email the case manager with a courtesy copy who will then give it to the judge for consideration of a hearing date.

5.  Young Lawyers

The Court strongly encourages litigants to be mindful of opportunities for young lawyers (i.e., lawyers practicing for less than seven years) to conduct hearings before the Court, particularly for motions where the young lawyer drafted or contributed significantly to the underlying motion or response. The Court believes it is crucial to provide substantive speaking opportunities to young lawyers, and that the benefits of doing so will accrue to young lawyers, to clients, and to the profession generally. Thus, the Court encourages all lawyers practicing before it to keep this goal in mind.

6.  Courtesy Copies

The court will request courtesy copies if needed. Courtesy copies of expedite or sealed documents only may be emailed to case manager.

When requested, courtesy copies may be mailed to the Court at the following address:

Case Manager to Judge Alfred H. Bennett
United States District Court 515 Rusk Street, Room 8624
Houston, Texas 77002

7.  Font

Filings must be in 12-point font.


1.  Scheduling Conferences

Rule 16 Conferences are ordinarily scheduled approximately three months after the filing of the case to allow the full time period for service. In cases in which service is prompt, this often results in a two or three month dead period in the case.

To prevent this delay, parties are allowed to commence discovery once service is effectuated and prior to the scheduling conference.

The parties may agree on additional deadlines for completion of pretrial matters and bring a proposed docket control order with them to the initial pretrial conference.

See Local Rule 16.1.

The Court seeks to set all but the most complex cases for docket call within one year of the scheduling conference. Thus, the parties should come to scheduling conferences prepared to discuss the proposed scheduling order as well as the likelihood of resolutions prior to trial.

2.  Expedited Trial Alternative

In cases that do not require substantial discovery, the Court provides the parties the option of agreeing to an abbreviated scheduling order and expedited trial. If the parties agree to forgo dispositive motions and formal discovery, the Court will set a date for a jury or bench trial within three months of the pretrial conference.

Counsel should contact the case manager as soon as possible if the parties seek this option so the Court can set a trial date. An expedited trial is a much less expensive alternative for cases in which the parties already possesses at the time of filing most of the information they need.

And agreeing to an expedited bench trial with no appeal is a less expensive alternative to arbitration.

3.  Continuances

The parties may agree to extensions of discovery deadlines without seeking court approval, so long as the extension does not affect the dispositive motion deadline or docket call date.

To continue the dispositive motion deadline or docket call date, the parties must submit a motion detailing a reasonable explanation that takes into consideration the current age and status of the case and whether opposing party is prejudiced by further delay.

Agreed motions for continuance are not binding on the Court and should also include an explanation as to why the parties feel a continuance is necessary.

4.  Discovery Disputes

The Court expects that the parties will make every effort to resolve all discovery issues absent court intervention. When those attempts prove unsuccessful, a conference with the Court may be requested.

The complaining party should email the case manger a letter not to exceed two pages explaining the nature of the dispute and include the date, time and place of the parties’ prior out-of-court discovery or scheduling discussion(s) and the names of all counsel participating therein.

The Court will then determine the need for briefing and/or a conference on the matter.

Should additional briefing be allowed, such briefing and any response should not exceed 10 pages except on leave of the Court. The initial letter as well as all additional briefing should also include a proposed order.

5.  Motion Practice

Most motions are ruled on by submission.

When a motion is filed on the docket, the ECF system calculates the twenty-one (21) day response due date, indicated in the entry as the Motion Docket Date. (THIS IS NOT A HEARING DATE).

If parties wish to have an oral argument, a motion for hearing must be filed on the docket.

A party should not file a motion and separate “Memorandum of Law.” The motion itself should include the party’s argument supporting the relief it seeks.

Except for dispositive motions, all motions should include a proposed order, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(C). (Do not include “Proposed” in the title of the order). An exemplar order can be found at the bottom of this document. Please use the format featured in the example for the correct styling of the signature

Nondispositive motions will be struck if they do not include Certificate of Conference.

See Local Rule 7.1(D) (1).

If a party wishes to file a pleading, motion, or exhibit under seal, the party must file a motion to file under seal, which will then be considered by the Court and admitted under seal if the Court deems such filing to be necessary.

Absent leave of Court for extended briefing, any brief or memorandum shall be limited to twenty (20) pages. Per the local rule, responses should be filed within 21 days unless the Court orders an expedited response.

Reply briefs filed by movants will be considered if submitted before the Court rules on the Reply briefs should be submitted within 7 days after the non-movant’s response to the motion is filed and should not exceed 5 pages in length. Sur-replies are not typically considered. Should a party think one is necessary, the party must seek leave of Court.

6.  Settlements

If the parties are seriously contemplating settlement, they will advise the Court by emailing the case manager requesting the Court postpone consideration of pending motions until the parties advise the Court as to whether a settlement has been reached. If the parties succeed in settling the case, they should inform the Court by email and file a notice of settlement on the case immediately.

Upon receipt of parties’ announcement of settlement, the court will enter a 30 or 60-day conditional order of dismissal, which permits a party to move to reopen the case if final settlement cannot be completed within the allotted time.

Upon settlement of a suit involving a minor plaintiff, counsel must jointly move for appointment of a guardian ad litem if there is potential conflict of interest between the parent(s) and the minor. The parties may (but are not required to) submit the names of proposed ad litems upon whom they agree. The Court will consider any names submitted, but may appoint as guardian ad litem a person whose name has not been submitted by counsel.

7. Default Judgement

A party seeking a default judgment shall file a Motion for Default Judgment with the Court. The party seeking the default judgment must then notify the opposing party(ies) by regular and certified mail (return receipt requested).

If no hearing is necessary, the Court will rule on the Motion for Default Judgment twenty-one (21) days after the motion is made. If a hearing is necessary, the parties should contact Lisa Edwards, the case manager, to set a date for a hearing with any necessary witnesses prepared to testify at the hearing. However, if damages are liquidated, no hearing will be necessary if the parties submit the proper evidence with the motion.

Entry of default will be entered by the Court at the time the default judgment is granted. Accordingly, it is not necessary to seek an entry of default from the Clerk of the Court.


“Lawyers occupy a singularly lofty position in the political and judicial fabric of the United States. And with good reason. This is, after all, a nation of laws.” Contico International, Inc. v. Alvarez, 910 S.W.2d 29, 33 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995), mandamus granted on other grounds sub nom. Mendoza v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 917 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1996). “An honest and ethical lawyer has long been part of the foundation for the historically elevated and well-deserved role lawyers have played in our culture. The lawyer must be steadfastly committed both to the client and, more importantly, to the law itself.” Id.

“[T]he power for good of that ideal and undying personality, the Supreme Court of the United States.. So noble in conception and yet so simple in execution; so ordinary in its incidents and yet so majestic as the servant of the whole people; so weak and yet so strong, because founded upon the affection of all people and depending for its existence upon their continued support.” 222 U.S. xxv-xxvi (1912).2 “In a civilized society, members of the judiciary are significant public figures…… [who] serve as the collective guidon of the banner representing fairness and impartiality in our state.

It is for that reason, plus others, that the judiciary must nurture and maintain respect for their decisions, as well as the judiciary of the State of Texas as a whole.” In re Barr, 13 S.W.3d 525, 532 (Tex. Rev. Trib. 1998, no appeal). “[T]he ultimate standard for judicial conduct…… must be more than effortless obedience to the law, but rather, must be conduct which constantly reaffirms one’s fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office and which continuously maintains……. the belief that an independent judiciary exists to protect the citizen from both government overreaching and individual self-help.” In re Chacon, 138 S.W.3d 86, 90 (Tex. Rev. Trib. 2004).

As these opinions demonstrate, our system of justice depends, in large part, on the integrity of the judges and lawyers who participate in the system. Under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, lawyers have certain duties to the court. Under the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, judges have certain obligations to the court process. Where the two meet is the subject of this paper. Where appropriate, we have included ethics opinions governing lawyers (“Professional Ethics Opinions”), Texas state judges (“Texas Judicial Ethics Opinions”), and federal judges (“Federal Judicial Ethics Opinions”).

1 Nothing herein should be construed to suggest how Judge Haynes, Judge Bennett, Judge Reyna, Justice Rose, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the 61st Civil District Court, the 206th District Court, the 3rd Court of Appeals, or any other judge or court would rule upon any question specifically presented to that judge or court.

Judge Haynes first began speaking on this topic in 1999, and she has presented or participated in presenting various iterations of this paper to various bar association groups over the last twelve years in conjunction with other judges and lawyers who have also contributed comments to this paper. Prior updates have been completed with the assistance of other lawyers and judges. Michael Correll of Jones Day and Sidney Smith, a third-year law student attending the University of Texas, assisted in updating this paper for this presentation. None of the views contained herein should be attributed to Jones Day or its clients.

2 Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, Proceedings on the death of Mr. Justice Harlan.


1.  Trial Settings

The docket control order will set the case for docket call, which will take place, typically on a Friday at 1:30 PM. If your case will be tried the week of docket call, the case manager will notify you at least a week in advance. Otherwise, expect your case to be set for trial later that month.

Absent an order to the contrary, parties do not need to submit any pretrial filings prior to the docket call and the Court will set a date for those submissions when it sets a trial date and final pretrial conference during docket call. A pending dispositive motion does not cancel the docket call setting; in such cases, counsel is expected to appear and be prepared to discuss the motion and a trial setting.

2.  Pretrial Filings

The parties should file a Joint Pretrial Order seven (7) days prior to docket call. In addition, each party should file the following: Exhibit List, Witness List, Proposed Voir Dire Questions, Proposed Jury Instructions, Motions in Limine, and Deposition Designations and Objections.

The parties must confer prior to filing Motions in Limine and note which requests are unopposed. Motions in Limine should not be “form” motions, but rather should be specific to the case.

3.  Exhibits

To make efficient use of jurors’ time, the Court follows Local Rules 44 and 46 requiring pretrial objections to the authenticity and admissibility or exhibits. Counsel should be reminded that Rule 11 applies to authenticity objections. The Court will typically address evidentiary objections at the pretrial conference and seeks to pre-admit as many exhibits as is reasonable under the circumstances. Attorneys should use NUMBERS, not letters, for exhibits. Counsel for each party shall provide the court with a copy of that party’s exhibits in a notebook at the beginning of trial.

4.  Jury Selection

Jury selection is typically set for the afternoon. The Court will provide some background information and conduct a brief preliminary examination. Lawyers will then generally be allowed 30-60 minutes per side, depending on the nature and complexity of the case. The Court typically selects eight jurors for civil cases, though it may sit more in lengthier cases. The first afternoon will typically only be used to select the jury, with opening statements and testimony commencing the next morning.

The Court will allow for some facts during voir dire to put examination into perspective, but no opening and no argument.

There will be an opportunity to question jurors individually at the conclusion of the Court’s and attorney’s question, but attorneys should not rely on this time to ask broad questions, only those relating specifically to an issue raised during voir dire.

The Court will allow time for any Batson challenges.

5.  Hours

The Court typically holds trial from 9:00 AM-5:00 PM, Monday-Thursday. For trials expected to last more than two weeks, the Court will consider Friday sessions. The Court will take an afternoon and morning break in addition to the lunch hour.

6.  Depositions

The Court will accept the parties’ agreement to use a deposition at trial even though the witness is available. Counsel should provide the designations and objections with the pretrial filings. The Court will attempt to rule on objections at the pretrial conference if necessary, but these are usually ruled on during trial.

7.            Courtroom Protocol

Be Punctual;

Stand when addressing the Court;

No Blackberry, iPhone, use in the well of the Court;

No drinks besides water in the well of the Court.

8.  Trial Decorum

The Court is participating in a jury trial innovation project that requires using one or two of the following practices in each trial: (1) using a timing order; (2) instructing the jury on the law prior to trial; (3) allowing jurors to ask questions; and (4) allowing attorneys to make mini- summations during trial. The Court will address these practices during the pretrial conference and seek input from counsel about which practices are most suitable for their case. More information about this project is available on the Court’s website.

Counsel may question witnesses while sitting or standing. Counsel should ask to approach the witness the first time, but afterwards can move freely between the witness and counsel table when questioning so requires.

Counsel will address adult witnesses as “Mr.” or “Ms.”

Barring exceptional circumstances, each party is given only two opportunities to question a witness, i.e., direct and redirect, or cross and recross.

9.  Courtroom Technology

Counsel should consult with the case manager about technology needs at least one week in advance of trial.

10. Examples

Example of an Order

On Sept 1, Hopkins responds to Complaint.

Doc. 6, Ocwen ‘s Answer, Doc 7, Hopkins Answer.

Docs. 8 and 9, Certificates of interested Parties.

On Sept 1, Hopkins responds to Complaint.

Doc. 6, Ocwen ‘s Answer, Doc 7, Hopkins Answer.

Docs. 8 and 9, Certificates of interested Parties.

Query 8/10/2021 – Zero Results. Nada.

4:21-cv-2591 (S.D. Tex.)

Select A Case


1:21-mj-00799 USA v. Alonso-Cruz filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00799-1 Ricardo Alonso-Cruz filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00800 USA v. Sanchez-Martinez filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00800-1 Jairo Johan Sanchez-Martinez filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00801 USA v. Garcia-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00801-1 Juan Jose Garcia-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00802 USA v. Salazar-Alvarez filed 08/10/21
1:21-mj-00802-1 Mario Humberto Salazar-Alvarez filed 08/10/21
2:21-cr-00705 USA v. Trevino filed 08/10/21
2:21-cr-00705-1 Raul Trevino filed 08/10/21
2:21-cv-00167 Ramirez v. Collier et al Case has been transferred to Houston under Civil Action No. 4:21cv02609. filed 08/10/21   closed 08/11/21
2:21-mj-00990 USA v. Flores filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00990-1 Maria Flores filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00991 USA v. Copal filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00991-1 Axel Edward Copal filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00992 USA v. Lugo-Facundo filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00992-1 Martin Lugo-Facundo filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00993 USA v. Lara-Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
2:21-mj-00993-1 Luis Ernesto Lara-Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
3:21-cv-00210 Holcomb et al v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC et al filed 08/10/21
3:21-cv-00211 Micah McFarlane v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00416 USA v. Rodriguez-Flores filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00416-1 Rene Marcelino Rodriguez-Flores filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00417 USA v. Mendez-Ovalle filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00417-1 Elizar Mendez-Ovalle filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00418 USA v. Hurtado-Mosquera filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00418-1 Hugo Hurtado-Mosquera filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00419 USA v. Coutino-Marquez filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00419-1 Manuel Coutino-Marquez filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00420 USA v. Saucedo filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00420-1 Luis Javier Saucedo filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00421 USA v. Aju-Batz filed 08/10/21
4:21-cr-00421-1 Watson Daniel Aju-Batz filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02581 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Whitley et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02582 Gilmore v. Allstate Indemnity Company filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02586 Whitten v. Cannon et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02587 Griffin v. Walmart Stores Texas LLC filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02589 United States of America v. Fullen et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02592 Digital Cache, LLC v. LTL Group, Inc. filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02593 Calleja Ahedo v. Garland et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02594 Cornejo et al v. Lovelace et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02595 Segovia, Jr. v. One Stop Wash #2 Inc. et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-cv-02609 Ramirez v. Collier et al filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01869 Party X v. Party Y Do not e-file. Paper pleadings only. filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01870 Party X v. Party Y Do not e-file. Paper pleadings only. filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01871 Party X v. Party Y Do not e-file. Paper pleadings only. filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01872 Party X v. Party Y Do not e-file. Paper pleadings only. filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01873 Party X v. Party Y Do not e-file. Paper pleadings only. filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01874 In re: Attorney Admissions filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01875 In re: Attorney Admissions filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01876 Party X v. Party Y filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01877 Dao v. Dao filed 08/10/21
4:21-mc-01878 In re: Attorney Admissions filed 08/10/21
4:21-mj-01726 USA v. Alvear filed 08/10/21
4:21-mj-01726-1 Cristian Alvear filed 08/10/21
4:21-mj-01727 USA v. Rodriguez-Orellana filed 08/10/21
4:21-mj-01727-1 Jose Rodriguez-Orellana filed 08/10/21
4:21-mj-01729 USA v. Trinidad-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
4:21-mj-01729-1 Rutillo Trinidad-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01405 USA v. Leal-De Lazaro filed 08/10/21   closed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01405-1 Antonio Leal-De Lazaro filed 08/10/21   closed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01406 USA v. Gonzalez-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01406-1 Ricardo Gonzalez-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01407 USA v. Santay-Perez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01407-1 Jorge Anibal Santay-Perez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01408 USA v. Medina filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01408-1 Ruben Medina filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01409 USA v. Valdez-Alvarez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01409-1 Jorge Luis Valdez-Alvarez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01410 USA v. Gallardo-Cuaquehua filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01410-1 Juan Gallardo-Cuaquehua filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01411 USA v. Tzun-Melendez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01411-1 Douglas Josue Tzun-Melendez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01412 USA v. Lopez-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01412-1 Miguel Lopez-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01413 USA v. Flores filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01413-1 Jose Santos Flores filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01414 USA v. Antonio-Neri filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01414-1 Cipriano Antonio-Neri filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01415 USA v. Resendez Ramirez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01415-1 Luis Armando Resendez Ramirez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01416 USA v. Garcia-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01416-1 Juan Carlos Garcia-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01417 USA v. Sierra-Jaimes filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01417-1 Jose Luis Sierra-Jaimes filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01418 USA v. Bautista filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01418-1 Edgar Bautista filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01419 USA v. Quintero-Barias filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01419-1 Cipriano Quintero-Barias filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01420 USA v. Juarez-Nunez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01420-1 Luis Alberto Juarez-Nunez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01421 USA v. Arriaga-Garcia filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01421-1 Jose Julian Arriaga-Garcia filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01422 USA v. Paz-Cortez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01422-1 Crecenciano Paz-Cortez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01423 USA v. Morales-Esqueda filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01423-1 Fidel Antonio Morales-Esqueda filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01424 USA v. Carcamo-Valladarez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01424-1 Ermes Isaac Carcamo-Valladarez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01425 USA v. Zarate-Cervantes filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01425-1 Hector Zarate-Cervantes filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01426 USA v. Vasquez-Romero filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01426-1 Guillermo Vasquez-Romero filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01427 USA v. Ramos-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01427-1 Roberto Javier Ramos-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01428 USA v. Escobar-Paniagua filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01428-1 Carlos Alberto Escobar-Paniagua filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01429 USA v. Hernandez-Sosa filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01429-1 Claudia Hernandez-Sosa filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01430 USA v. Reynero-Serna filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01430-1 Nelson Reynero-Serna filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01431 USA v. Rodriguez Porcayo filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01431-1 Francisco Rodriguez Porcayo filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01432 USA v. Pimentel-Hillan filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01432-1 Luis Pimentel-Hillan filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01433 USA v. Rivera filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01433-1 Jose Luis Rivera filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01434 USA v. Ormaza-Barrera filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01434-1 Freddy Santiago Ormaza-Barrera filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01435 USA v. Rural-De La Gruta filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01435-1 Maximiliano Rural-De La Gruta filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01436 USA v. Lopez-Zapata filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01436-1 Juan Carlos Lopez-Zapata filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01437 USA v. Vasquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01437-1 Venessa Susanne Vasquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01464 USA v. Adaway filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01464-1 Jason Edgar Adaway filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01465 USA v. Valerio-Marquez filed 08/10/21
5:21-cr-01465-1 Luis Valerio-Marquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01532 USA v. Hernandez-Banuelos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01532-1 Jesus Hernandez-Banuelos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01533 USA v. Muratalla-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01533-1 Luis Muratalla-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01534 USA v. Orellana-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01534-1 Carlos Joel Orellana-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01535 USA v. Perez-Martinez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01535-1 Pedro Sebastian Perez-Martinez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01536 USA v. Funez-Cruz filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01536-1 Fernando Funez-Cruz filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01537 USA v. Castro-Castrillo filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01537-1 Carlos Ivan Castro-Castrillo filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01538 USA v. Martinez-Aguilar filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01538-1 Christian Alejandro Martinez-Aguilar filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01539 USA v. Abarca-Radilla filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01539-1 Adan Abarca-Radilla filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01540 USA v. Rodriguez-Contreras filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01540-1 Arturo Cesar Rodriguez-Contreras filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01542 USA v. Morales-Morales filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01542-1 Edwin Auner Morales-Morales filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01544 USA v. Velasquez-Lozano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01544-1 Santos Velasquez-Lozano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01545 USA v. Zamora-Samar filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01545-1 Ociefer Zamora-Samar filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01546 USA v. Martinez-Rosales filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01546-1 Ismael Martinez-Rosales filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01547 USA v. Penaloza-Duarte filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01547-1 Hiber Penaloza-Duarte filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01548 USA v. Gonzalez-Ortiz filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01548-1 Eduardo Gonzalez-Ortiz filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01549 USA v. Alvarado-Cortez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01549-1 Dennis Roberto Alvarado-Cortez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01550 USA v. Monfil-Ricano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01550-1 Jose Antonio Monfil-Ricano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01551 USA v. Trejo-Escobar filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01551-1 Manuel de Jesus Trejo-Escobar filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01552 USA v. Barajas-Gaytan filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01552-1 Francisco Javier Barajas-Gaytan filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01553 USA v. Reyna filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01553-1 Juan Gerardo Reyna filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01554 USA v. Castillo-Galvan filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01554-1 Francisco Castillo-Galvan filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01555 USA v. Felix-Belmares filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01555-1 Juan Carlos Felix-Belmares filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01556 USA v. Parada-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01556-1 Byron Parada-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01557 USA v. Porras filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01557-1 Hector Alejandro Porras filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01558 USA v. Hernandez-Soto filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01558-1 Miguel Hernandez-Soto filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01559 USA v. Davalos-Ayala filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01559-1 Daniel Davalos-Ayala filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01560 USA v. Hernandez-Cabrera filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01560-1 Jose Edilberto Hernandez-Cabrera filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01561 USA v. Lopez-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01561-1 Martin Lopez-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01562 USA v. Martinez-Abarca filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01562-1 Bertin Martinez-Abarca filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01563 USA v. Cisneros-Cisneros filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01563-1 Milton Adonay Cisneros-Cisneros filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01564 USA v. Rojas-Hidalgo filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01564-1 Gelson Eurin Rojas-Hidalgo filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01565 USA v. Portillo-Interiano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01565-1 Jorge Obdulio Portillo-Interiano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01566 USA v. Beltran-Santos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01566-1 Francisco Beltran-Santos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01567 USA v. Rojas-Carrilo filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01567-1 Guadalupe Rojas-Carrilo filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01568 USA v. Barcenas-Sandoval filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01568-1 Jose Barcenas-Sandoval filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01569 USA v. Almazan-Vega filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01569-1 Carlos Almazan-Vega filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01570 USA v. Borjas-Ramos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01570-1 Fredy Orlando Borjas-Ramos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01571 USA v. Maldonado-Esmith filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01571-1 Cesar Adolfo Maldonado-Esmith filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01572 USA v. Arita-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01572-1 Carlos Alberto Arita-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01573 USA v. Padilla-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01573-1 David Padilla-Vasquez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01574 USA v. Lopez-Lopez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01574-1 Grosvin Noel Lopez-Lopez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01575 USA v. Bonilla-Andrade filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01575-1 Miguel Angel Bonilla-Andrade filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01576 USA v. Gonzalez-Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01576-1 Harvey Adolfo Gonzalez-Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01577 USA v. Valverde-Garay filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01577-1 Oscar Ramon Valverde-Garay filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01578 USA v. Tanguma-Guerra filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01578-1 Rogelio Tanguma-Guerra filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01579 USA v. Montoya-Castano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01579-1 Jose Nelson Montoya-Castano filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01580 USA v. Calderon-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01580-1 Esau Omar Calderon-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01581 USA v. Machardo-Padilla filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01581-1 Luz Arely Machardo-Padilla filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01582 USA v. Cruz-Martinez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01582-1 Enrique Cruz-Martinez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01583 USA v. Madrid-Madrid filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01583-1 Wilson Jesus Madrid-Madrid filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01585 USA v. Olmedo-Mendez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01585-1 Julio Olmedo-Mendez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01586 USA v. Montenegro-Gutierrez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01586-1 Lech Gerald Montenegro-Gutierrez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01587 USA v. Reveles-Macias filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01587-1 Sergio Reveles-Macias filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01588 USA v. Gomez-Amaya filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01588-1 J Pascual Gomez-Amaya filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01589 USA v. Aranda-Gutierrez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01589-1 Jose Alberto Aranda-Gutierrez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01590 USA v. Hernandez-Suarez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01590-1 Abraham Hernandez-Suarez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01591 USA v. Salinas-Cazares filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01591-1 Sergio Salinas-Cazares filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01592 USA v. Olivarez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01592-1 Porfiria Maria Olivarez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01593 USA v. Pina-Arjona filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01593-1 Roberto Pina-Arjona filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01594 USA v. Perez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01594-1 Jonathan Perez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01595 USA v. Guerrero-Ramirez et al filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01595-1 Maynor Bernardo Guerrero-Ramirez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01595-2 Gabriel Alonzo Sanchez-Rodriguez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01596 USA v. Garza-Flores filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01596-1 Adalberto Garza-Flores filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01597 USA v. Avila-Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01597-1 Francisco Avila-Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01598 USA v. Flores-Carrizales filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01598-1 Jose Luis Flores-Carrizales filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01599 USA v. Fuentes-Cardenas filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01599-1 Jesus Fuentes-Cardenas filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01600 USA v. Gonzalez-Herrera filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01600-1 Librado Gonzalez-Herrera filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01601 USA v. Pina-Marron filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01601-1 Jose Angel Pina-Marron filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01602 USA v. Gonzalez-Ledezma filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01602-1 Salvador Eduardo Gonzalez-Ledezma filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01603 USA v. Lopez-Flores filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01603-1 Efrain Lopez-Flores filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01604 USA v. Llanas-Zuniga filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01604-1 Ernesto Llanas-Zuniga filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01605 USA v. Aparicio-Ramos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01605-1 Priscilla Aparicio-Ramos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01606 USA v. Garcia-Maldonado filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01606-1 Gael Alejandro Garcia-Maldonado filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01607 USA v. Martinez-Silva filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01607-1 Miguel Martinez-Silva filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01608 USA v. Gonzalez Coss filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01608-1 Felipe Gonzalez Coss filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01609 USA v. Gonzalez-Ramos et al filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01609-1 Ernesto Gonzalez-Ramos filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01609-2 Ivan Avila-Alarcon filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01610 USA v. Hernandez-Sevilla filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01610-1 Omar Hernandez-Sevilla filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01611 USA v. Aguilera-Rios filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01611-1 Pablo Aguilera-Rios filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01612 USA v. Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01612-1 Thomas Gonzalez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01613 USA v. Galicia-Valdez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01613-1 Lester Josue Galicia-Valdez filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01614 USA v. Loa filed 08/10/21
7:21-cr-01614-1 Adan Loa filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01709 USA v. Ortega-Ramirez filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01709-1 Daniel Ortega-Ramirez filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01713 USA v. Perez-Sanchez filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01713-1 Jose Roberto Perez-Sanchez filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01717 USA v. Hernandez-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01717-1 Juan Pablo Hernandez-Hernandez filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01718 USA v. Cordero-Pinzon filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01718-1 Ausencio Cordero-Pinzon filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01719 USA v. Adame-Madera filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01719-1 Abel Adame-Madera filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01720 USA v. Cavazos-Gallegos filed 08/10/21
7:21-mj-01720-1 Juan Diego Cavazos-Gallegos filed 08/10/21



PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
08/11/2021 22:43:02
PACER Login: alsation123:5748292:0 Client Code:
Description: Search Search Criteria: Filed From: 8/10/2021 Filed To: 8/10/2021
Billable Pages: 8 Cost: 0.80


U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:21-cv-02591

Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

Burke et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al
Assigned to: Judge Alfred H Bennett
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question
Date Filed: 08/09/2021
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
John Burke represented by John Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr
Kingwood, TX 77339
Joanna Burke represented by Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr
Kingwood, TX 77339
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Mark Daniel Hopkins
Shelley Hopkins
Hopkins Law, PLLC


Date Filed # Docket Text
08/09/2021 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by John Burke, Joanna Burke. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MelissaMorgan, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/10/2021: # 2 Cover Letter) (MelissaMorgan, 4). (Entered: 08/10/2021)
08/09/2021 2 Exhibit List by Joanna Burke, John Burke(MelissaMorgan, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2021)
08/10/2021 3 NOTICE to Pro Se Litigant of Case Opening. Party notified, filed. (MelissaMorgan, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2021)
08/10/2021 4 ORDER for Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference and Order to Disclose Interested Persons. Initial Conference set for 11/5/2021 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8C before Judge Alfred H Bennett. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(MelissaMorganadi, 4) (Entered: 08/10/2021)

Sen. Ron Johnson Cites ‘Malicious Poison’ But He’s Clearly Not Studied Texas Govt Nor Federal Judges in Texas

LIT: Senator Ron Johnson was an avid viewer of our social media account on Twitter leading up to this congressional nomination hearing.

Standards of Review in Texas Courts

What is a standard of review in Texas? It is a function of the allocation of judicial power between trial and appellate courts.

Federal Law: The Rights of Elderly Litigants to Be Heard At an Oral Hearing

Justice Frankfurter believed that no better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than the notice and hearing requirement.

Fifth Circuit ClerkGate Corruption Scandal: New Civil Action Is Formally Underway
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Laws In Texas first started as an independent investigative blog about the Financial Crisis and how the Banks and Government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas, relying upon 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. That stated, LIT's Blog has grown tremendously during the three or so years it has been operating and our reach is now nationwide as we expand via our micro-blogs in various states. Join us as we strive to bring back justice and honor to our Judiciary and Government employees, paid for by Citizens.

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.

© 2020-2023 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