If you haven’t noticed #StopTheSilence is trending on Twitter right now. The State Bar(s) and the Judiciary have literally shut down talking or communicating with the Burkes and that’s unacceptable behavior, in anyone’s book.
Below is the shenanigans that the Eleventh Circuit are implementing to delay the Burkes complaint against Judge Kenneth A. Marra. Here’s a timeline of events;
Due to the national/international pandemic, the elder Burkes filed a complaint against Judge Marra into the appeal case no. 19-13015 on June 9th, 2020.
The Burkes provided a letter asking that the filing be transmitted to the correct person and/or department for processing.They did not receive any type of acknowledgment from the person(s) / department reviewing the complaint.
On July 2nd, 2020, the Burkes followed up with a letter addressed for the Attn of: Circuit Mediation and Judicial Support Office, which was also filed by ECF into case no. 19-13015. Again, they asked that this complaint be directed to the [correct] person or department for processing. No reply or acknowledgment has been received.
On July 13th, in the lower court case, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. (9:17-cv-80495), District Court, S.D. Florida Judge Marra entered and order removing case from trial calendar re: Status conference held on 7/10/20. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/13/2020.
On July 27th, Law360 reported; “Don’t Give Ocwen An Early Win, Regulators Tell Fla. Judge Law360 (July 27, 2020, 5:37 PM EDT) — State and federal regulators urged a Florida federal judge Friday not to grant an early win to Ocwen Financial in enforcement litigation it faces…”
On July 29th, 2020 the Committee of the Judiciary held a remote hearing of five judicial nominees. One of those was nominees is Aileen Mercedes Cannon – who has been nominated to Be United States District Judge For The Southern District Of Florida and designated to replace ‘retiring’ Senior Judge Kenneth Marra.
On August 6th, 2020 the Burkes wrote a letter to Chief Judge William Pryor expressing their dismay at the court’s silence over their many filings and letters to the court re their complaint against Judge Marra. The Burkes also used this opportunity to refile the complaint against Judge Ken Marra again, for the record.
On August 12th, 2020 is the date of a snail-mail letter from the Eleventh Circuit answering the Burkes August 6th letter to the Chief Judge. They ignored all the earlier correspondence (as shown in the copy of the letter below) defying the executive orders during a national/international pandemic and demanding the elder Burkes, who are staying-at-home in Texas due to their age and health, post the complaint. This is also despite the 11th Circuit allowing waiver of posting record excerpts to the court with a COVID-19 declaration.
It should be noted that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit permitted efiling of the complaint, including a scanned blue ink affidavit.
The Eleventh Circuit’s conduct is reprehensible and it’s elder abuse by the courts.
July 2, 2020
Clerk of Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
56 Forsyth St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
By ECF for the Attn of: Circuit Mediation and Judicial Support Office
Dear Clerk of Court
JUDICIAL COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE KENNETH MARRA, S.D. FL.
We filed a complaint into the appeal case no. 19-13015 on June 9th, however, we have not received any type of acknowledgment from the person(s) / department reviewing the complaint.
We would be obliged if you could provide an update, ensuring the person(s) responsible have actually received the complaint. We would have expected a courtesy response after this extended length of time acknowledging the complaint.
Thanking you in advance for your continued assistance.
Judicial Complaint: United States District Judge Kenneth Marra
As relevant here in a live case and controversy, judicial disqualification under § 455(a) is required when an alleged bias is personal in nature. United States v. Ramdeo, No. 17-10297, at *5 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017). The Burkes rely upon the facts presented herein, combined with the Judicial Oath and Canons (e.g. Canon 3) and in conjunction with the legal definition of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). See Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 609 F.2d 1101, 1115 (5th Cir. 1980); 13A WRIGHT & MILLER, supra note 15, § 3551, at 630.
The Burkes Motion to Intervene in Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 9:17-CV-80495-MARRA-MATTHEWMAN (S.D. Fla. 2017-2020)
Background: The CFPB initiated the civil case on April 20, 2017, alleging that Ocwen, in servicing borrowers’ loans, engaged in various acts and practices in violation of federal consumer financial laws. On January 4, 2019, Joanna and John Burke sought leave to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. (Doc. 220). The CFPB and Ocwen jointly opposed the motion to intervene (Doc. 224) and the Burkes filed a reply brief (Doc. 237). On May 30, 2019, the district court denied the Burkes’ motion to intervene (Doc. 375). The Burkes moved for reconsideration (Doc. 408). The Court denied that motion on July 3, 2019, (Doc. 411), and the Burkes noticed an appeal on August 2, 2019 to the Eleventh Cir., Case No. 19-13015. The Burkes have argued that Judge Marra’s denial of Intervention is an ‘abuse of discretion’ and erroneous in law in the appeal case. Here, the Burkes only address the judicial complaint requirement, a showing of [pervasive] bias.
Denial of Intervention ‘As of Right’: Judge Marra denied the Burkes intervention as of right (Doc. 375, p. 4).
Denial of Intervention ‘Permissively’: Judge Marra also concluded the Burkes should be denied permissive intervention.
Analysis of Judge Marra’s Order [Reconsideration]; The Burkes then asked Judge Marra to reconsider. The courts fleeting order follows (Doc. 411, p. 3);
“In addition to the grounds stated in the Court’s Order Denying Intervention (ECF No. 375), the Court notes that intervention is not permitted to allow a party to seek or obtain evidence for other litigation as asserted by the proposed Intervenors. (See ECF No. 408 at 4).”
Judge Marra’s Implausible Statement: The Burkes address the proclamation that the ‘intervention is not permitted for the purposes of seeking or obtaining evidence for other litigation’ and which refers to p. 4 of the Burkes motion for reconsideration (wherein the Burkes detail reasons for their request to intervene, included obtaining documentation to assist with their ongoing and active litigation in Texas against Ocwen).
Obtaining “Evidence” as a Non-Party Without a Motion to Intervene: Recently, and most certainly after Doc. 411 was published by Judge Marra, the pro se Burkes were researching cases and citations which would help prove their arguments for their current appeal at the Eleventh Cir. (Case No. 19-13015). The results now raise a serious question as to the truth of the uncorroborated statement in law by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra (Doc. 411, p.3).
In the Texas case of Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13) (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019), which will be referenced as “Greens” for short, is one of a series of actual cases by the Greens, who are Texas homeowners, at the S.D. Tex. court against Ocwen. The order In Re Green was published on August 26th, 2019, e.g. After Judge Marra had disposed of the Burkes motion to intervene and reconsideration and after the Burkes Notice of Appeal (Doc. 414, Aug. 2, 2019).
A summary of the Greens own foreclosure case(s) is provided by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas’s order affirming Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur’s order, and allowing the Greens to retain access to ‘discovery’ documents as evidence for their own case against Ocwen.
The documents which the Greens actually obtained and Ocwen attempted to quash, would be from the lower court case in Florida. That is correct, these are documents (currently under seal at S.D. Tex.), from the CFPB v. Ocwen case before Judge Marra. See Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13), at *2-4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019)
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. Judge Marra should be disqualified from the case.
Note: The Burkes admit due to their pro se education of federal laws, they were completely oblivious to the fact you could request documents and evidence from other cases without intervention, for example, even if the Greens were entering or conducting ‘discovery’ in their Texas case (based on the request being made in the Joint Case Management Plan). The Burkes relied on the more legally known and accepted path – intervention – and not just for permissive intervention but also to become a plaintiff. As such, formal intervention in the Florida case would still be necessary to achieve that end goal.
The Impact of the Judge in Delaying his Original Ruling: The Burkes were looking to intervene both as a right or permissively and a timely response by Judge Marra was necessary, due to their ongoing Texas cases. The judge could allow intervention in any form, for example, for the sole purposes of the Burkes obtaining documents for their Texas case, as the Greens achieved. But Judge Marra flat out denied any type of intervention, in contradiction and conflicting with the Greens case. The Burkes, at a minimum, were seeking to obtain evidence which would aid the Burkes cases in Texas and intervention would be necessary. This is supported by the docket. At the time the Burkes filed the motion to intervene, there was a live case against Ocwen in S.D. Texas District court. By the time Judge Marra issued his opinion, which was only after prodding by the Burkes, (See; https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/01/09/motions-in-slo-mo-3-south-florida-federal-judges-dinged-for-slow-responses/ ) conveniently the Burkes case in Texas against Ocwen had been dismissed by the lower court, leaving an appeal as the only option (noticed 18th Apr., 2019, Case No. 19-20267, 5th Cir.) to return that case to the docket.
Not only do parties regularly intervene for evidence in their ‘other’ civil actions, the Greens case proves that litigants can obtain discovery from related cases directly from their civil actions. Permissively, the Burkes looked to seek or recover evidence for their ongoing Ocwen action in Texas. Judge Marra’s personal bias was proven when he denied the Burkes intervention when the Greens recovered documents from the very same court. There is also a strong argument by the Burkes that Judge Marra must have colluded with both Ocwen and CFPB counsel to ensure his written opinions would not be contradicted in any filing(s). Judge Marra, Ocwen and CFPB knew about the Greens case. Judge Marra lied to the Burkes and so did opposing counsel. That’s pervasive bias and prejudice. See “Among these is a proceeding in which the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”” – Disqualification of Federal Judges for Bias or Prejudice, Uni of Chicago Law.
Submitted this day, Monday, June 9, 2020