It’s Petty and It’s Unconstitutional. Y’all at SDTX Federal Court are Violatin’ Civil Rights of Texas Citizens

DENYING ECF/CM FILING PERMISSIONS TO PRO SE IN SDTX IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

SEP 25, 2021

Joanna Burke and John Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, TX, 77339
Tel: (281) 812-9591
Fax: (866) 705-5076
Email; kajongwe@gmail.com

Cc:

US Courts
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544

Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

By post, email, fax and the internet at large

September 25, 2021

Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal
United States District Court
515 Rusk St
Houston TX 77002

Dear Hon. Lee Rosenthal

Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Mark D. Hopkins & Shelley L. Hopkins, Case No. 4:21-CV-2591

We civilly ask that the pending motions and relief requested in the above titled case are answered without further delay for the following reasons:

This court accepted and filed our efiled complaint on Monday, August 9, 2021 and also processed payment for the said complaint remotely. The date the Burkes were notified of acceptance was late in the afternoon of August 10, 2021.

The civil action relates to voiding a judgment and mandate where a Fifth Circuit clerk outrageously impersonated the Burkes and illegally filed a motion, which would in turn unlawfully terminate the appeal.

The new federal lawsuit in S.D. Texas, Houston Division was ‘randomly’ assigned to Judge Alfred H. Bennett. Markedly, we recently had a first amendment, access to courts and transparency dispute with Judge Bennett and cited to a higher court and Judge, namely Judge Don Willett of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – who instructed citizens  and fellow judges to preserve first amendment constitutional rights in cases similar to Halliburton’s.

See; Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021) (“In this tradition, American judicial proceedings are public. And judges must protect public accessibility for three mutually reinforcing reasons: (1) the public has a right to monitor the exercise of judicial authority; (2) judges are “the primary representative[s] of the public interest in the judicial process”; and (3) the judiciary’s institutional legitimacy depends on public trust. Public trust cannot coexist with a system wherein “important judicial decisions are made behind closed doors” and, worse, private litigants do the closing.”)

See; Halliburton v. PHH Mortgage Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-0919.

New post: Henry, Show Cause Why You Ain’t Gonna Be Sanctioned for Bein’ Pro Se in S.D. Tex. https://t.co/QiUIJpAS5W

— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) September 20, 2021

The Burkes invoked that right of access and transparency, which would be denied by email.

ECF/PACER FILING PERMISSONS

Since filing our new complaint, we’ve been forced by this court to file by USPS mail, despite the pandemic and the fact John Burke is disabled and  our elderly ages which make us high risk for death, especially as we are not vaccinated because of current health concerns.

See letter dated Aug 17, 2021 efiled with this court, to  Lisa_Edwards@txs.uscourts.gov, case manager for Judge Bennett and follow-up motion on Aug 23, 2021, EMERGENCY MOTION TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY DUE TO LIFE-THREATENING PANDEMIC IN HARRIS COUNTY (LEVEL I, STAY AT HOME) AND THE STATE OF TEXAS & EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS).

The pettiness by a federal judge has reached a new level as we previously received email notifications in this court from 2011-2020  and that benefit has also been removed by Judge Bennett upon our unfortunate return to S.D. Tex., Houston, several months later.

We maintain the position S.D. Tex., Houston Division’s denial of ECF/Pacer filing is not only deadly, but without doubt, unconstitutional. As such,  we wish to obtain a final judgment denying our motion.

See CANYON GATE AT NORTHPOINTE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. V. HENRY (4:21-CV-01737) DOC. 6, dated July 27, 2021 denying ECF filing permissions to pro se, claiming “Only attorneys are allowed to file with CMECF. You may submit pleadings by mail”.

This will allow us to appeal the same without further delay, waste, expense or costs in the underlying lawsuit.

EDITED: Can US Courts Police Themselves – HELL NO!

The judiciary moved 4 years ago to address a culture of silence around sexual harassment in judicial chambers. The judiciary resists legislation offering more protections, questions persist ABOUT OCHLOCRACY AND OUTLAWS IN ROBES pic.twitter.com/3CNWTonaqz

— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) September 23, 2021

In support of our request, we refer to the filing by Ms. Harriet Nicholson in N.D. Tex., which is via ECF.  Ms. Nicholson, like ourselves, is proceeding pro se.

See; U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (DALLAS), CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:21-CV-01779-G-BK, Nicholson v. Bank of America et al, Assigned to: Senior Judge A. Joe Fish.

Certainly, one cannot allow one federal court in the State of Texas to allow pro se to file electronically and another deny all pro se litigants. The writing is clear, to deny the pro se Burkes electronic filing rights is in violation of the US Constitution.

RESPONSES TO PENDING MOTIONS

We have witnessed this court, specifically biased Judge Alfred “Al” Bennett, respond to opposing counsel and party Hopkins Law, PLLC, et al, motion (Doc. 10, Sep. 17, 2021) to change the pre-trial conference date (unopposed) and granting the same by return. (Doc. 11, Sep. 21, 2021). The approval was given because ‘counsel would be out of the country’.

All this was completed in advance of our pending ‘emergency motion’ and requests for relief.

We maintain Judge Bennett’s clear ignorance of pro se litigants percolating formal requests is unconstitutional and a slight on due process in law, and particularly when there is a formal request to disqualify Judge Bennett.

DISCLOSURES

Unfortunately, we have witnessed the Chief Judge also acting in an unconstitutional manner.

See; Jackson v. Wells Fargo , CIVIL ACTION No. H-21-1366 (S.D. Tex. May 7, 2021).

That stated, we are legally obligated to exhaust our civil and legal rights and provide – in our opinion – this bootleg controlled court, which abuses law-abiding elder citizens in contravention of the laws and US Constitution, the opportunity to respond to our complaint as detailed herein.

SUMMARY OF RELIEF REQUESTED

We formally request;

A final order disposing of our Amended Complaint (reminder) request for ECF/CM Pacer filing privileges,

(Doc. 12, Sep. 17, #6, p. 77/78).

A final order disposing of our Amended Complaint (reminder) seeking disqualification and replacement of Judge Bennett,

(Doc. 12, Sep. 17, #6/7/8, p. 78);

A final order re Amended Complaint, request for remote hearings,

(Doc. 12, dated Sep. 17., p. 78/79, #9);

A final order re Amended Complaint, request for Waiver of Process of Service,

(Doc. 12, dated Sep. 17., p. 79, #10).

If you do not respond to this request by the close of business on Friday, October 8^th,  2021, we shall be forced to seek alternative resolution to our constitutional request for relief.

Thank you very much in advance for your time and consideration. Stay safe.

Sincerely,

s/ J & J Burke

Joanna Burke and John Burke

46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, TX, 77339
Tel: (281) 812-9591
Fax: (866) 705-5076
Email; kajongwe@gmail.com

Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 954 (11th Cir. 1985) (“According to the majority, judicial immunity even protects a judge who acts without subject matter jurisdiction, without personal jurisdiction, and who unlawfully conspires with a party to violate another party’s federal constitutional rights. ”)