Appellate Circuit

Judicial Lyin’: Calling Out the Deviants and Miscreants at the Federal Fifth Circuit

Oath of office of clerks and deputies; In part: “…and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.”

Posted on

Share this post:

Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn

LIT COMMENTARY

JULY 18, 2021

The motion herein submitted by the Burkes is in response filings at  the circuit court as discussed in LIT’s articles as found in chronological order.

CORRECT OPINION; RESPONSE TO STRIKE CLERKS’ DOCKET ENTRY DATED 9TH JULY, 2021 AND OTHER RELIEF

DENNIS, JAMES L.

Judge James L Dennis

was born January 9, 1936 (Capricorn)

Age: 85

OWEN, PRISCILLA R.

Judge Priscilla Richman Owen

was born October 4, 1954 (Libra)

Age: 66

DAVIS, W. EUGENE

Judge William Eugene Davis

was born August, 1936

Age: 84

As advised in the Motion to Clarify of 8 July, 2021, Appellants, Joanna Burke and John Burke (“Burkes”), herein civilly request this Court issue Corrected Opinion(s) in the Order(s) DENYING the Burkes Motion to File the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in its Present Form, namely without the ‘Statement of Facts’ which was initially submitted on Apr 23 and denied by a single judge on May 5.  Thereafter, the Burkes sought a 3-panel review by motion and this would be denied on June 21. In support thereof would show the Court as follows:

ARGUMENT

This correction request is updated to include the ‘conversation’ between Fifth Circuit Clerk Ms. Gardner and Appellant John Burke, wherein he received a phone call from Ms Gardner on Friday, 9 July, 2021. Ms Gardner and the Court would subsequently make the following incorrect docketing entry. The entry states;

Docket Text: OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 06/21/2021 court order denying motion for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 order denying motion for authorization to omit the Statement of facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc and file petition in present form. No action is taken on Appellants’ request for clarification of clerk’s office procedure as unnecessary – procedure was explained to Mr. Burke telephonically. Appellants may use the pro_se@ca5.uscourts.gov email as an alternative, if necessary [9557920-3], [9557920-2] [9614189-2]. Response/Opposition due on 07/19/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209].

This is factually erroneous. First, the “procedure was not explained to Mr. Burke telephonically”. What happened in short form is Ms. Gardner asked if the Motion to Clarify was a Motion for Reconsideration. Mr. Burke responded that the motion was detailed and clear on the face as to what relief is requested. Ms. Gardner ended the call saying she would be treating the Motion to Clarify as a Motion for Reconsideration[1] and she would present this to her supervisor for review. This statement was made forcefully and with a tone of finality.

There was no discussion what [entry] was being reconsidered, and there are several filings regarding this en banc petition. The above subsequent docket entry has ‘reconsidered’ the wrong event in an attempt to circumvent the Burkes proposed filings, including this  one for “Opinion/Order Correction”.

This correct entry was clearly labeled in the Burkes Motion to Clarify and is the June 29, 2021 entry, which has been ‘backdated’ by this Court to April 13, 2021, and includes the following docket text;

[1] This statement by Ms Gardner would not be reflected in the docket entry, where the actual recorded entry shows the court has “taken no action” on the Motion to Clarify.

PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209]

Interestingly, this is entered by Fifth Circuit Clerk Ms Rebecca L. Leto. The Burkes believe this deviation and entry by a new Clerk is significant for the reasons outlined herein.

A.               A DISINGENUOUS CLERK OF COURT

1.                 The Reconsideration Motion Was Exhausted

As explained in the opening paragraph, the Burkes exhausted their motions for reconsideration of this court’s order pertaining to the Statement of Facts. In short, on June 21, the 3-panel denied that [final] motion for reconsideration.

2.                 The Court Reversed Itself

Thereafter, this court then decided on its own to reverse that ruling by issuing a clerks’ order on June 29 (backdated) which waived the requirement for the Statement of Facts. The court specified the only requirement outstanding was the March 30, 2021 order from the new panel affirming the lower courts’ [void ab initio] judgment.  See; Burke v Ocwen Loan Servicing, 19-20267 c/w 20-20209, https://2dobermans.com/woof/3e.

 

3.                 Rules Are Being Blanked  and Violated, Which is Unlawful

The rules do not allow for what the clerk entered on the docket and Ms. Gardner has no authority to proceed as she did, with or without a supervisor’s blessing. It is a disingenuous entry. That stated, the Burkes are fully aware this has never prevented this court from similar Machiavellian acts in the past, some which are listed in support of this response.

It is patently obvious the court is now trying to rail against its own June 29 order, waiving the ‘Statement of Facts’ and which is not mandatory from pro se parties, as previously discussed.

4.                 Common Sense Defeats Incorrigible Legal Wordsmithing

Alternatively, perhaps this court does not grade the briefs, motions and related filings as composed by non-prisoner, pro se litigants,  or in the alternative, incorrectly believe the Burkes are attorneys. Let the record show, the Burkes are law-abiding,  pro se litigants. They are also scholarly and can apply common sense to nonsensical and unlawful acts which result in fraudulent entries and orders.

5.                 Unethical Clerks with “Lifetime Appointments” to Harass,  Oppress and Abuse Elders

The Burkes are acutely aware when this court and its staff repeatedly mistreats these elder pro se litigants. Sadly, it is the same  repeat offenders  as well, namely Fifth Circuit Clerks Ms. Gardner and Ms. Wynne. The Burkes could easily exhaust this motion with the bias and prejudice in email communications and entries on the docket from these two clerks alone, and while they are fully cognizant their treacherous acts are shielded by immunity.

That stated, the Burkes respectfully ask this court and its staff to please refrain from any more personal attacks on the elder Burkes, in the form of abusive, harmful, stressful, unlawful, unconstitutional and wasteful orders.

See  28 U.S. Code § 951. Oath of office of clerks and deputies; In part:

“…and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.” and See Guide to Judiciary Policy, Ch. 3: Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees (https://2dobermans.com/woof/3d).

6.                 Request to Strike the 9 July Docket Entry by Ms Gardner

Returning to the latest  event, Ms. Gardner is apparently in her early 40’s and the Burkes are in their 80’s. While she may wish to rely upon her phone manner as  a reference, the Burkes look to her actions and orders when she hangs up – and on July 9, her text docket entry clearly violates the rules. It was a calculated and deceptive entry on the docket.

Furthermore, in support of  the Burkes response, they have been unable to locate another entry in any circuit court where a clerk informed a litigant that she is going to treat the phone call as a ‘motion for reconsideration’ – without the Burkes first filing a new motion for reconsideration – and proceed to enter her  ‘motion for reconsideration’ (as a docket text entry) and in doing so, “take no action” on the Motion to Clarify.

Contrary to Ms Gardner, her colleague, Ms Wynne has always stated that the Burkes would have “to file a motion” for any relief. In this instance, the Burkes refer to the email correspondence which would start this lengthy dispute as regards the new deficiency, the Statement of Facts, and where she abruptly closed the email thread with an ultimatum; comply with her erroneous and mischievous request or file a motion for relief. The Burkes filed a motion.

In summary, the Burkes are confident this is another illegal act by this court and Ms Gardner is fully aware of her lawlessness.  Indeed, if  Clerks enjoy such liberal authority, why did they not just upload a copy of the Courts March 30, 2021 Opinion to satisfy the final deficiency in the June 29 notice?

See Practitioners Guide;

“Among the clerk’s duties are to: receive and account for monies paid to the court, initiate a docket for each appeal, enter all filings in appeals, issue calendars for oral argument sessions, enter orders and opinions of the court as authorized by the judges, and decide or refer to the court the procedural motions set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 27.1 and 31.4 (https://2dobermans.com/woof/3c).

A review of 27.1 and 31.4 did not reveal any allowance for the Clerk to enter a ‘motion [for reconsideration]’ on behalf of the parties, especially when none was filed by the Burkes and as the Burkes had already exhausted that reconsideration previously (denied).

7.                 Correct the Erroneous Order to Say this Court GRANTS the Motion to File the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in its Present Form

This court erred in denying the Burkes Motion to waive the Statement of Facts. This court would agree with this statement by its notice on June 29, wherein the court uploaded the ‘proposed sufficient brief’ with only one outstanding requirement, the order of the 3-panel, dated March 30, 2021 in this now consolidated appeal.

It would be irreconcilable to think a Statement of Facts was required when the court took it upon itself to upload the Burkes ‘non-compliant’ Petition as sufficient.

As the Burkes outline herein, pro se litigants like the Burkes look toward the docket for filings to help their arguments. When the court denies a meritorious motion and then seeks to rewind that under its own sly terms, that is an abuse of power and not authentic.

The Burkes wish the record to reflect pro se parties are not required to file a ‘Statement of Facts’ in a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, as the rules and law stand at this time.

Additionally, and in support of this request, the Burkes maintain the view that the clerk could not seek to add a new deficiency after the Burkes cured the original deficiencies.

B.               ACCESS TO COURTS

Access to courts; Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 971 (5th Cir. 1983)

(“The Substantive Right of Access to Courts: The right of access to the courts is basic to our system of government, and it is well established today that it is one of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. In Chambers v. Baltimore Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142, 28 S.Ct. 34, 52 L.Ed. 143 (1907), the Supreme Court characterized this right of access in the following terms:

The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government. It is one of the highest and most essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each state to the citizens of all other states to the precise extent that it is allowed to its own citizens. Equality of treatment in this respect is not left to depend upon comity between the states, but is granted and protected by the Federal Constitution.

207 U.S. at 148, 28 S.Ct. at 35 (citations omitted). It is clear that the Court viewed the right of access to the courts as one of the privileges and immunities accorded citizens under article 4 of the Constitution and the fourteenth amendment.”).

Court dockets are the heartbeat for litigants seeking to find relevant motions, briefs, orders and opinions to support their own case or position on appeal. The Burkes believe it is even more life-changing for pro se litigants who are before this court and wherein the court incorrectly rules and/or where such an order or opinion can impact the ‘non-prisoner’s’ life in a destructive manner, such as;

(i) An erroneous and unlawful judgment of foreclosure (See; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burke, 5th Circuit Case No.’s 15-20201 and 18-20026 as prime examples), or;

(ii) A denial of a motion to disqualify, in violation of the rules (See; Burke v Ocwen, 11th Circuit Case No. 19-13015, Nov. 2, 2020 (unpub.), re Judge Jill A. Pryor) and this now consolidated appeal, a single order denying disqualification of a Chief Judge who dismantled two appeal panels in order to assign herself and hand-picked judges to a new panel), so a bias judge may retain a control over a specific appeal and/or panel, or;

(iii) Where a motion to unseal is unconstitutionally denied. (See; Burke v Ocwen, 11th Circuit Case No. 19-13015, Nov. 2, 2020 (unpub.), re Judge Jill A. Pryor).

C.                MOTIONS & ORDERS

In the matter herein, the Burkes requested relief as pro se litigants with irrefutable supporting evidence and exhibits which were furnished to this court in their motion dated April 23, 2021. Despite convincing evidence that the local rule requirement re Statement of Facts had not been applied consistently in this court and was ambiguous, this court would maintain an aggressive and unconstitutional stance.

Namely, Fifth Circuit clerk, Jann Wynne would take it upon herself to add a new deficiency – after the Burkes complied with her original deficiency notice.  This stubborn stance would be maintained by the newly formed panel. However, the Burkes held firm in their opinion that they were being held to a higher standard by this court than the law commands and acted upon the clerk’s offer to motion the court, as filed on April 23, 2021.

Nonetheless, despite advising this court of their concerns via the clerk’s suggested motion, the Burkes concerns and claims would be dismissed in subsequent erroneous orders as detailed.

D.               US COURT’S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE & APPELLATE COMMITTEE

The Burkes evidence is overwhelming in support of their now denied motion(s). An online search for further proof would take them to the US Courts website. Circuit courts rely upon the Administration Office (“USAO”) for support on a daily basis, according to videos the USAO’s office has published and which the Burkes have reviewed.

While on their website, the Burkes located the Appellate Committee Meetings, transcribed and published as online documents in Adobe format (.PDF). These documents support the Burkes views. “Judge Bybee stated that this could be very difficult for little folks; Mr. Byron responded that a pro se letter could be treated as a petition.”  See p. 14, Minutes of the Fall 2020 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Appellate Rules October 20, 2020. (https://2dobermans.com/woof/2u).

Indeed, the committee was concerned with the Fifth Circuit’s continual violation of related changes to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”), for example the Certificate of Service requirement for online filing which was repealed in 2019 (See the Burkes prior motion(s) detailing the same).

E.                REAL CASE EXAMPLES OF INTERFERENCE, BIAS AND DENIAL OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE BY THIS COURT

The Burkes suggest this court has interfered with their rights of access, not only with regards to the denial of filing of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc in its original form, but also prior and subsequent orders issued in this case, including (but not exhaustive);

1.                 PRO SE RULE CHANGE (JUNE 2021)

The premeditated rule changes regarding access to the court’s clerks via email; in relevant part this court’s letter stated on June 8;

“Pro se parties are advised that the pro se email may not be used to ask questions. If you have questions concerning your case, you need to call our office. The instructions for use of the pro se email are posted on our website under “News and Announcements.”

Upon analysis of the metadata on this PDF on the News section at the Fifth Circuit, it alarmingly confirms that the alteration to these instructions was applied shortly before this letter was released to the Burkes. In other words, it was a premeditated and calculated act.

2.                 EXTENSION OF TIME

This court would deny a motion for an extension of time to file a [reply] brief by clerk, Christina Gardner, (See 20-2020, Docket entries on Oct. 7/8) when opposing counsel had received exactly the same requested relief (See 20-20209, Docket entries on Sept. 8/10, 2020). This would be subsequently granted (Oct. 16, 2020) only after the Burkes sought reconsideration by formal motion (Oct. 15).

3.                 CIVILITY IS ABSENT FOR DISABLED ELDERS

When the Burkes erroneously posted printed Briefs intended for the Eleventh Circuit to the Fifth Circuit, clerk Jann Wynne would not forward the documents “without a pre-prepared new postage box, e.g. The Burkes would have to post to the Fifth Circuit a new USPS priority box and corrected postage label where she could just place the briefs into and post”. This, despite the Burkes offering to pay to fulfill the request. It was a completely childish act when addressing senior and disabled citizens who were making  a simple request to correct their admitted error and in an attempt to redirect briefs which had a court deadline in Georgia. In the end the Burkes would have to reprint the briefs and post directly to the court, after motioning and obtaining a court extension of time to file the briefs at the Eleventh Circuit. Whilst this type of act is at the discretion of the court, it warrants inclusion here as it confirms the persistent bias and malevolence towards the Burkes when they are before this court.

4.                 A REQUEST FOR A COPY OF A JUDICIAL COMPLAINT REGARDING JUDGE EDITH BROWN CLEMENT WOULD BE DENIED BY JUDGE CLEMENT HERSELF

Before this court consolidated the appeals and dismantled the two PANLOG panels, Judge Clement was assigned to the Burke v. Hopkins appeal. She would be the motion judge in this appeal. The Burkes submitted a motion wherein they requested a copy of a Judicial Complaint against Judge Clement. Instead of referring this request  to the Judicial Complaints section of the court and advising the Burkes in the motion their request was ‘moot’, as it is dealt with by the Complaints section and not in motions submitted in a case, she would lawlessly proceed to outright deny the request in her order dated August 4, 2020.

5.                 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The Burkes have detailed the issue with Hopkins continued failure to conference in a separately filed sanctions motion on July 8, 2021, and which is pending at this time. This is not the first time the Burkes have raised Hopkins non-compliance to this court and the documented perjury[2] in filings in this consolidated appeal. (Relief Denied in Judge Clement’s August 4, 2020 Order).

[2] Allowing perjury to be committed before the Fifth Circuit by the Appellees when they filed a certificate of conference stating that they contacted the Burkes and the Burkes did not reply when in fact the Appellees did not contact the Burkes.

Hopkins persistent violation of Federal rules and professional ethics continue to be condoned by this court.

6.                 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP)

A CIP is submitted to the court by all parties to allow the court and the judges to decide if they should recuse if they are assigned to the panel. The Burkes maintain the following judges appearance of bias precluded them from being a panel member, yet they did not self-recuse. See; Miller v. Sam Hous. State Univ., 986 F.3d 880 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Khan, No. 20-20030, at *1 (5th Cir. May 6, 2021) “And because the sentencing judge seems immovable from his views of the sentence he imposed, and because the judge displayed bias against the government and its lawyers, we sua sponte reassign this case to a different judge.”; as well as the Burke Motion to Disqualify Judge Owen, accepted onto the docket by this court on July 3, 2021 (den.).

a.                 Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham

Judge Higginbotham made alarming oral statements in the Reinagel v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 735 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2013) case. He was laughing when he announced “There ain’t no free lunch and there sure ain’t no free house”. He authored the Reinagel opinion. Judge Higginbotham was assigned to the Burke v Ocwen panel and would also be the assigned motion judge. He should have self-recused, but he did not.

b.                 Judge Stephen A. Higginson

Judge Higginson was assigned to the Burke v Hopkins appeal. He was the original author in the very first appeal by Deutsche Bank (Case No. 15-20201) and wherein he stated that the Bank was the mortgage servicer. It required Hon. Stephen Wm. Smith to ask for correction and a new order was subsequently issued. Judge Higginson should have self-recused, but he did not.

c.                  Judge W. Eugene Davis

As with Judge Higginson, he was on a prior panel, namely Deutsche Bank Case No. 18-20206). His financial disclosure report intimated a shareholding in Deutsche Bank and yet he failed to recuse. See; Guide to Judiciary Policy, Ch. 2, Published Advisory Opinions; Disqualification Due to Debt Interests; (https://2dobermans.com/woof/3f )

“Judges must also disclose stock holdings on their annual financial disclosure reports.  Ownership of any stock in a party, however small, automatically requires a judge’s disqualification because it constitutes a financial interest in the party. Disqualification under these circumstances is not subject to remittal. See Canon 3D.”

This formed part of the judicial complaint against Judge Davis in 2019. He would be assigned to the hand-picked Owen (consolidated) panel in 2021. Judge Davis should have self-recused, but he did not.

d.                 Judge Jennifer W. Elrod

Judge Elrod was on the Burke v. Hopkins panel despite the fact she would affirm the dismissal of the Burkes petition for review of the judicial complaint against Senior United States District Judge David Hittner for the Judicial Council.

Judge Elrod was also gushing with compliments about Judge David Hittner during recent oral arguments in this court, in an attempt to redirect her question which concerned whether the Judge [Hittner] executed his responsibilities correctly at a jury trial.

When counsel hinted that was not the case, she quickly massaged her response and provided a glowing summary resume of the Senior Judge, an overt act of partiality.

Judge Elrod should have self-recused in the Burkes appeal, but she did not.[3]

[3] Listen to former Clerk for Both Judges Hittner and Elrod, Catherine Eschbach in this HBA video https://2dobermans.com/woof/2h starting at 27.17 minutes and then Listen to Oral Argument: 19-20140 | 02/04/2021: Fulton v. Untd Airlines where Judge Elrod excusing and then praising Hittner (The Burkes herein provide a combined audio with Eschbach leading into oral comments re Hittner); https://2dobermans.com/woof/2q

Elrod’s signed order for the Judicial Council was issued within a month of this hyperbole (The Fulton opinion is still pending at the Fifth Circuit).

e.                 (Chief) Judge Priscilla R. Owen

See Motion to Disqualify (July 3, 2021). Judge Owen should have self-recused, but she did not and has subsequently denied the Burkes recusal motion on July 7, 2021.

f.                 Judge James L. Dennis

Judge Dennis has been appointed as the motion judge by the new panel and his rulings have denied any and all relief. For the reasons explained herein, that itself is strong enough to disqualify him now along with the reasons included in the Motion to Disqualify Judge Owen; in part;

“Judge Dennis, who wrote a 49-page[14] dissenting opinion as to why Judge Porteous should not be impeached for his crimes[15]. He was impeached and removed from office.[16]”.

F.                RELIEF REQUESTED

The courts actions on June 29 are clear and obvious. The Petition was uploaded as proposed sufficient, pending a copy of this Courts order dated 31 March, 2021. The entry by the clerk on July 9, 2021 is an attempt to circumvent that entry, which is unlawful.

First, the Burkes formally request a “Corrected Opinion” granting the Burkes denied motion to waive the necessity to refile their Petition with the ‘Statement of Facts’ and;

Secondly, strike the clerks’ July 9 docket entry as  void.

Finally, the Burkes return to their Motion to Clarify and request once again, verbatim;

“(b) filing a separate motion to obtain an extension of time to resubmit their new Petition without the Statement of Facts section along with any other modification as they may wish, relying upon due process of law afforded civil litigants per the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Burkes will then file the new  Petition for Rehearing En Banc, along with a copy of this courts’ March 30, 2021 order.”

This will ensure – in these specific requests at least – the court is complying constitutionally with access requirements; See; Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 972 (5th Cir. 1983) (“A mere formal right of access to the courts does not pass constitutional muster. Courts have required that the access be “adequate, effective, and meaningful.” Bounds v. Smith, 97 S.CT. AT 1495; see also Rudolph v. Locke, 594 F.2D AT 1078. Interference with the right of access to the courts gives rise to a claim for relief under section 1983. Sigafus v. Brown, 416 F.2D 105 (7th Cir. 1969)”).

G.               CONCLUSION

Appellants Joanna & John Burke civilly request the relief requested herein.

Respectfully submitted,

PDF Version

Formerly of W.D. Louisiana, now S.D. Texas Bankruptcy Court, Judge Jeffrey Norman's rules are indiscriminate as applied to litigants filing bankruptcy in his court.

Motion to Extend Time to File Bankruptcy Schedules Granted to Lawyers Before Judge Jeffrey Norman

Formerly of W.D. Louisiana, now S.D. Texas Bankruptcy Court, Judge Jeffrey Norman’s rules are indiscriminate as applied to litigants filing bankruptcy in his court.

Read more
Fifth Circuit Clerk Gardner, with knowledge and in bad faith, entered her own fraudulent Motion upon which the 5th Cir. entered its judgment.

A Fifth Circuit Clerk Corruptly Impersonating Appellants Induces Finality of Appeal

Fifth Circuit Clerk Gardner, with knowledge and in bad faith, entered her own fraudulent Motion upon which the 5th Cir. entered its judgment.

Read more
The Burkes now have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Elder Abuse in Texas Federal Courts. It's now a valid Criminal Complaint.

The Ultimate in Corrupt Opinions. Fifth Circuit Issue Mandate Based on 5th Circuit Clerks Motion.

The Burkes now have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Elder Abuse in Texas Federal Courts. It’s now a valid Criminal Complaint.

Read more

5th Cir. Full Docket to 8 July 2021 (Case 19-20267 Ocwen)

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 19-20267 Docketed: 04/22/2019
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3220 Foreclosure
Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:18-CV-4544
     Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/18/2019      04/18/2019
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant		 Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant		 John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee		 Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

04/22/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 74.67 KB		 PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 04/22/2019 01:34 PM]
04/22/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 127.77 KB		 COURT REPORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT received from Ebonee Mathis. [19-20267] (Ebonee S. Mathis ) [Entered: 04/22/2019 02:54 PM]
05/02/2019 FEE PAID by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 05/02/2019 02:14 PM]
05/02/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 208.46 KB		 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [9043617-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 05/17/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (CSG) [Entered: 05/02/2019 02:20 PM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 59.74 KB		 APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 11:23 AM]
05/03/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 59.95 KB		 APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Shelley Luan Hopkins for Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 05/03/2019 11:26 AM]
05/03/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/03/2019 02:59 PM]
05/03/2019 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Mark D. Hopkins for party(s) Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., in case 19-20267 [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/03/2019 03:00 PM]
05/08/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 211.67 KB		 MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for leave to file electronically as a pro se party [9048328-2]. Date of service: 05/06/2019 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: Did not conference with the opposing side and the motion does not have a certificate of compliance. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 05/20/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/08/2019 03:10 PM]
05/08/2019  Open Restricted Document
6 pg, 155.52 KB		 LETTER OF ADVISEMENT. Reason: Advising appellants they must file a transcript order form as stated in our letter of 5/2/2019. If one is not filed, the case will be dismissed for want of prosecution. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/08/2019 03:20 PM]
05/14/2019  Open Document
3 pg, 171.25 KB		 TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. DETAILS: Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 02/06/2019. Transcript Order ddl satisfied. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 12:30 PM]
05/14/2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Est. Completion Dt: 05/17/2019, Dt. Fin Arrangements Made: 04/19/2019, Dt. Trans. to be Filed: 05/17/2019, Proceeding Type and Date: Hearing 02/06/2019. Transcript Due/Court Reporter Discount Date is 05/17/2019 for Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/14/2019 12:31 PM]
05/28/2019 TRANSCRIPT FILED IN DISTRICT COURT Transcript Order: Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Dt. Filed in Dist. Ct: 05/17/2019 Transcript Due/Court Reporter Discount Date canceled [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/28/2019 07:28 AM]
05/28/2019 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:18-CV-4544. Electronic ROA due on 06/03/2019. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/28/2019 07:28 AM]
05/30/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.23 KB		 CLERK ORDER granting appellants’ Motion for leave for pro se to file electronically filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9048328-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 05/30/2019 10:58 AM]
06/05/2019 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (PAC) [Entered: 06/05/2019 01:31 PM]
06/05/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 126.08 KB		 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/15/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267] (PAC) [Entered: 06/05/2019 01:31 PM]
07/14/2019  Open Document
81 pg, 822.22 KB		 SUFFICIENT APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0
Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 07/30/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief due on 07/29/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke.. Record Excerpts due on 07/29/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Appellee’s Brief due on 08/13/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/14/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/14/2019 02:50 PM]
07/14/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 256.93 KB		 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. John Burke for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/14/2019 02:57 PM]
07/15/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 75.34 KB		 Party Mr. John Burke is advised that pro se parties do not file appearance forms. [19-20267] (LBM) [Entered: 07/15/2019 09:46 AM]
07/17/2019  Open Restricted Document
78 pg, 745 KB		 PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9096817-2] Brief has been deemed insufficient. Corrections required: Caption to be corrected, table of authorities to be added to the table of content, identify the standard of review, incorrect ROA nimber on page 28. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief deadline updated to 08/02/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9096817-2] Date of service: 07/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/17/2019 10:21 AM]
07/17/2019  Open Document
48 pg, 2.22 MB		 SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. # of Copies Provided: 0 Sufficient Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 07/30/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Record Excerpts NOT Sufficient as they require caption to be corrected, all documents in the table of content to have ROA numbers. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Sufficient Record Excerpts due on 08/02/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/17/2019 10:23 AM]
07/23/2019  Open Restricted Document
78 pg, 631.69 KB		 PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9096817-2] Date of service: 07/23/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/23/2019 04:49 PM]
07/23/2019  Open Restricted Document
43 pg, 2.03 MB		 PROPOSED SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9099430-2] Date of service: 07/23/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/23/2019 04:51 PM]
07/25/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 74.09 KB		 LEVEL 1 EXTENSION REQUESTED by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. for filing Brief of Appellee until 08/28/2019 [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/25/2019 03:49 PM]
07/25/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 478.94 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Supplemental Appendix received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because Must file a motion to supplement the record on appeal with these documents. Filed incorrectly on our docket. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/25/2019 03:52 PM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 385.34 KB		 MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to supplement the record on appeal with With evidence of the emails between the Court Reporter, SDTX Staff and Joanna Burke as identified on pages 57 of the Burkes Brief [9106497-2]. Date of service: 07/26/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/26/2019 01:31 AM]
07/26/2019 EXTENSION RECEIVED for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. Extension Denied Reason: Motion Required. Must filed using the motion filed event not the ecf ext rqst event. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/26/2019 07:55 AM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
4 pg, 73.99 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. to extend time to file brief of appellee until 08/28/2019 [9106661-2]. Date of service: 07/26/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellants Burke, Burke [19-20267] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/26/2019 09:35 AM]
07/26/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 79.92 KB		 CLERK ORDER granting appellee’s opposed motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [9106661-2] Appellee’s Brief due on 08/28/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/26/2019 10:34 AM]
07/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.94 KB		 CLERK ORDER denying appellant’s Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9106497-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 07/29/2019 08:33 AM]
07/29/2019 Paper copies of Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (CMB) [Entered: 08/01/2019 12:27 PM]
07/29/2019 Paper copies of Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (CMB) [Entered: 08/01/2019 12:37 PM]
08/28/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 494.6 KB		 APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 09/18/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Paper Copies of Brief due on 09/03/2019 for Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.. Date of service: 08/28/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 08/28/2019 12:52 PM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 195.19 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Extension Request received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because this document must be filed as a motion using the motion filed event and not the attorney extension request event [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 08/29/2019 07:56 AM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
5 pg, 104.79 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to extend time to file reply brief until 10/02/2019 [9132646-2]. Date of service: 08/29/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/29/2019 08:12 AM]
08/29/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 87.9 KB		 CLERK ORDER granting in part appllants’ opposed Motion to extend time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9132646-2] Reply Brief deadline updated to 09/25/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 08/29/2019 12:37 PM]
08/30/2019 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (MRW) [Entered: 08/30/2019 02:11 PM]
09/18/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 193.8 KB		 FED. R. APP. P. 44 Notice of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statute filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: FED. R. APP. P. 44 Notice of Challenge to Constitutionality of Statute filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of Service: 09/18/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/18/2019 04:13 AM]
09/19/2019  Open Document
9 pg, 125.99 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION to stay further proceedings in this court for 90 days . Reason: awaiting a final rule or adjudication on the constitional challenges, to suspend briefing notice dated 06/05/2019 [9148078-3]. Date of service: 09/19/2019 Response/Opposition due on 09/30/2019. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: Constitutional Challenge(s), to extend time to file reply brief until 03/18/2020 [9148078-3]. Date of service: 09/19/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/19/2019 06:46 AM]
09/25/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 617.61 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Reply Brief received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because FIled incorrectly on the docket as a Rule 28(i) letter. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 09/27/2019 09:43 AM]
09/27/2019  Open Document
43 pg, 623.12 KB		 APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr John Burke. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 Reply Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 10/07/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [19-20267] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 09/27/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 09/27/2019 10:57 PM]
10/07/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 90.67 KB		 Paper copies of Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes They require: durable gray covers # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied.. Sufficient Paper Copies of Brief due on 10/15/2019 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [19-20267] (MRW) [Entered: 10/07/2019 01:31 PM]
10/11/2019 Paper copies of Reply Brief [9161773-2] received as sufficient. Sufficient Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 10/18/2019 11:10 AM]
10/19/2019  Open Document
8 pg, 165.47 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION alternative request to stay case for a period of no less than nine (9) months, (which equates to the anticipated timeline for a decision in the Selia Law case before the US Supreme Court) [9170890-3]. Date of service: 10/19/2019 [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court Selia Law Case #19-7 re CFPB Constitutionality Question and Dodd-Frank Act Question. Date of service: 10/19/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/19/2019 08:57 PM]
10/25/2019  Open Document
10 pg, 149.25 KB		 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. [9176007-1] to the Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9170890-2], Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-2], Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-3], Letter filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke, Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9146872-2] Date of Service: 10/25/2019 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins; US mail – Appellant Burke. [19-20267] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 10/25/2019 01:12 PM]
10/27/2019  Open Document
64 pg, 2.78 MB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for leave to file a supplement to Response/Opposition [9176007-2], Letter [9146872-2] [9176432-2], to supplement the record on appeal with two exhibits as uploaded here [9176432-3] and INCORPORATED RESPONSE to the Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9106497-2] Date of service: 10/27/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/27/2019 07:19 PM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
6 pg, 163.45 KB		 REPLY filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9176855-1] to the Response/Opposition filed by Appellee Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C. in 19-20267 [9176007-2]. Date of Service: 10/27/2019. [19-20267] (INCORPORATED IN MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD) (DMS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 11:24 AM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 119.88 KB		 COURT ORDER denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-2]; denying Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9148078-3] [19-20267] (AS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 12:29 PM]
10/28/2019  Open Document
1 pg, 78.51 KB		 CLERK ORDER denying appellant’s opposed Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9176432-3] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 10/28/2019 02:01 PM]
11/07/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 264.69 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/28/2019 [9185202-2]. Date of service: 11/07/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/07/2019 11:07 AM]
11/10/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 312.79 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke for reconsideration of the 10/28/2019 clerk order denying Motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by Appellants in 19-20267 [9176432-3] [9186922-2]. Date of service: 11/10/2019 [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/28/2019 [9186922-2]. Date of service: 11/10/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/10/2019 01:42 PM]
11/13/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 103.34 KB		 COURT ORDER – A member of this panel previously denied appellants’ opposed motion to stay case in Fifth Circuit awaiting a final rule or adjudication on the constitutional challenges. The panel has considered appellants’ motion for reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
[9185202-2] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/13/2019 03:10 PM]
11/13/2019  Open Document
11 pg, 746.24 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion entitled, “Appellants motion for reconsideration RE Constitutional Challenges” received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in light of the 11/13/19 court order already denying a motion for reconsideration, as to that prior motion [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 09:26 AM]
11/14/2019  Open Document
7 pg, 339.56 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the entitled, “Appellants notice regarding attorney general Barr’s constitutional…..”, which was filed as a motion for clarification of an order dated 11/13/19, received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because the document is not requesting any relief. It indicates it is a “notice”. The event will be deleted. [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 10:38 AM]
11/15/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 117.11 KB		 COURT ORDER – IT IS ORDERED that appellant’s opposed motion to stay the case until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the United States Supreme Court is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that appellants’ opposed alternative request to stay the case for period of no less than nine (9) months, (which equates to the anticipated timeline for a decision in the Selia Law case before the United States Supreme Court) is DENIED AS MOOT. [9170890-2]; [9170890-3] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 11/15/2019 09:06 AM]
11/17/2019  Open Document
21 pg, 278.38 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the 11/15/2019 court order denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9148078-2], Motion to suspend briefing notice filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 [9148078-3] [9191242-2]. [19-20267]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 11/15/2019 [9191242-2]. Date of service: 11/17/2019 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/17/2019 09:27 PM]
11/18/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 118.51 KB		 COURT ORDER filed: On October 28, 2019, the clerk denied pro se appellants’ opposed motion to supplement the record with a pleading and exhibits. Upon consideration of pro se appellants’ motion for reconsideration, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. [9186922-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 11/18/2019 02:21 PM]
12/19/2019  Open Document
2 pg, 85.38 KB		 COURT ORDER FILED: A member of this panel previously denied appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration of appellants’ opposed motion to stay the case until the matter of the CFPB’s Constitutionality is answered by the United States Supreme Court and appellants’ opposed alternative request to stay the case for period of no less than (9) months. The panel has considered appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. [9191242-2] [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 12/19/2019 03:14 PM]
02/03/2020  Open Document
509 pg, 18.21 MB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Brief and Record Excerpts received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because The brief and record excerpts are entitled In the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The case number on both documents is 19-13015, with a lower court number 9:17-CV-80495. [19-20267] (DMS) [Entered: 02/06/2020 12:05 PM]
02/10/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 132.17 KB		 LETTER filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke Date of Service: 02/10/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 02/10/2020 09:10 AM]
07/05/2020  Open Document
17 pg, 282.51 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay the case 5cca; or stay case for a period of no less than 4 months [9348363-2]. Date of service: 07/05/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/05/2020 09:23 PM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
77 pg, 1.09 MB		 EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT of opposed motion to stay further proceedings in this court….. [9348363-2] filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 07/07/2020 10:29 AM]
07/08/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 117 KB		 COURT ORDER denying opposed motion to stay the case in this court filed by pro se appellants; denying the alternative opposed motion of pro se appellants to stay the case for a period of no less than 4 months [9348363-2] [19-20267] (JMW) [Entered: 07/08/2020 08:28 AM]
09/04/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 1 MB		 MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for judicial notice [9394044-2]. Date of service: 09/04/2020 [19-20267] (CAG) [Entered: 09/08/2020 08:59 AM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
13 pg, 225.24 KB		 UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [19-20267; 20-20209 Affirmed] Judge: PRO, Judge: WED, Judge: JLD. Mandate issue date is 04/21/2021; denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394044-2] in 19-20267, denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394017-2] in 20-20209 [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:01 PM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 74.3 KB		 JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: appellants. [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:06 PM]
04/13/2021  Open Document
70 pg, 1.23 MB		 PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Mandate issue date canceled.. Sufficient Rehearing due on 04/26/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: case caption must match our case caption exactly; statement of facts; copy of the court’s opinion [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2]. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/13/2021 07:27 PM]
04/23/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 972.38 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 file petition in present form [9557920-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2] [9549894-2] [9557920-4], alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for leave to file petition in present form [9549894-2] [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/23/2021 12:00 PM]
05/05/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 127.24 KB		 COURT ORDER denying motion to file Petition for Rehearing En Banc in present form, to omit the Statement of Facts requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-2], denying as unnecessary motion to waive the paper requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-3]; granting alternative motion to extend time to return a sufficient Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10 days from the date of this order, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-4] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/05/2021 07:57 AM]
05/12/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 229.11 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to extend the time to file a rehearing until 05/26/2021 [9572022-2]. Date of service: 05/12/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 05/12/2021 08:44 AM]
05/14/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 309.14 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/19/2021 01:50 PM]
05/17/2021  Open Document
35 pg, 627.82 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Proposed sufficient rehearing en banc received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because It is a duplicative filing, as the rehearing should be emailed, not re-filed. Additionally, it still remains insufficent as it does not have a copy of the court’s opinion. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CCR) [Entered: 05/17/2021 03:52 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 124.48 KB		 COURT ORDER denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9572022-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 02:56 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 231.34 KB		 MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 court order denying Motion for authorization to omit the Statement of Facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9557920-2] [9585172-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 03:07 PM]
06/08/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 257.92 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because A motion for reconsideration is already pending [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 06/08/2021 09:04 AM]
06/21/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 138.34 KB		 COURT ORDER denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9585172-2] in 19-20267 [19-20267, 20-20209] (RLL) [Entered: 06/21/2021 03:33 PM]
06/28/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 175.28 KB		 MOTION to stay issuance of the mandate [9607360-2]. Date of service: 06/28/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court and this Court’s All American and Collins cases.. Date of service: 06/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 06/28/2021 08:36 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB		 COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]

5th Cir. Full Docket to 8 July 2021 (Case 20-20209 Hopkins)

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 20-20209 Docketed: 04/17/2020
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3290 Other Property Actions
Burke v. Hopkins
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:18-CV-4543
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/15/2020      04/15/2020
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant		 Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant		 John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Mark D. Hopkins
Defendant – Appellee		 Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Pro Se]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734
Shelley Hopkins
Defendant – Appellee		 Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
[COR NTC Pro Se]
(see above)
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee		 Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
[COR LD NTC Retained]
(see above)Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
[COR NTC Retained]
(see above)

_____________

No. 19-20267
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

consolidated with
_____________

No. 20-20209
_____________

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Mark Daniel Hopkins; Shelley Hopkins; Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.,

Defendants – Appellees

04/17/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 76.47 KB		 PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/17/2020 01:51 PM]
04/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 82.2 KB		 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Mark D. Hopkins for Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 04/21/2020 11:18 AM]
04/21/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 82.39 KB		 APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Shelley Luan Hopkins for Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [20-20209] (Shelley Luan Hopkins ) [Entered: 04/21/2020 11:21 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209, Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209, Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:51 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209, Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209, Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:52 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Mark D. Hopkins for Appellee Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:54 AM]
04/22/2020 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Shelley Luan Hopkins for Appellee Shelley Hopkins in 20-20209 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/22/2020 05:55 AM]
04/24/2020 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process after monitoring for motion to alter or amend judgment (#72). [9300045-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 04/24/2020 06:24 AM]
05/14/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 59.12 KB		 DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 05/01/2020 denying motion to alter or amend judgment (#72). [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/14/2020 05:57 AM]
05/14/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 117.82 KB		 UPDATED CASE PROCESSING NOTICE sent. Fee due 05/29/2020. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/14/2020 05:59 AM]
05/28/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 253.57 KB		 MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for leave to file electronically as a pro se parties [9323502-2]. Date of service: 03/28/2020 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:04 PM]
05/29/2020 FEE PAID by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke. Fee deadline satisfied [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:09 PM]
05/29/2020 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 4:18-CV-4543. Electronic ROA due on 06/15/2020. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 05/29/2020 04:10 PM]
06/01/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.54 KB		 CLERK ORDER granting Motion for leave for pro se to file electronically filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9323502-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/01/2020 10:26 AM]
06/03/2020 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (CMB) [Entered: 06/03/2020 11:44 AM]
06/03/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 116.79 KB		 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/13/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CMB) [Entered: 06/03/2020 11:46 AM]
06/04/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 76.87 KB		 CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for Mark D. Hopkins in 20-20209. Update: caption does not include full middle name as indicated on the district court docket sheet. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/04/2020 10:05 AM]
06/05/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.12 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the request for status on judicial complaint filed as OPPOSED MOTION for clarification received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because judicial complaints are not handled within appeals. To find out the status of a judicial complaint, appellants should contact Circuit Mediation.. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 06/05/2020 07:06 AM]
07/06/2020  Open Document
113 pg, 2.65 MB		 OPPOSED JOINT MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to stay further proceedings in this court.. Response/Opposition due on 07/16/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to stay case in 5cca [9348413-2]. Date of service: 07/06/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/06/2020 08:31 AM]
07/07/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 74.13 KB		 CLERK ORDER denying opposed motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9348413-2] [20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 07/07/2020 03:57 PM]
07/10/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 153.63 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 07/07/2020 clerk order denying Motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9348413-2] [9352577-2]. Date of service: 07/10/2020. Response/Opposition due on 07/20/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 07/07/2020 [9352577-2]. Date of service: 07/10/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/10/2020 10:14 AM]
07/13/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 108.41 KB		 COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ motion for reconsideration [9352577-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/13/2020 12:23 PM]
07/13/2020  Open Restricted Document
41 pg, 512.8 KB		 STRICKEN IN LIGHT OF THE COURT ORDER OF 07/16/20.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke. Brief NOT Sufficient as it requires a Certificate of Interested Parties, summary of argument, standard of review, argument, the certificate of service is out of order, and Record Excerpts are required.
SEE ATTACHED INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Record Excerpts due on 07/29/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Sufficient Brief due on 07/29/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/13/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/13/2020 09:19 PM]
07/14/2020  Open Document
7 pg, 135.31 KB		 MOTION to strike Appellants’ brief brief [9354874-2] and to place brief under seal [9354874-3]. Date of service: 07/14/2020. Appellants’ brief is under temporary seal. Response/Opposition due on 07/24/2020. [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to strike Appellants’ Brief brief [9354874-2]. Date of service: 07/14/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/14/2020 01:04 PM]
07/16/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 109.18 KB		 COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellees’ motion to strike portions of the Appellants’ brief that refer to materials outside of the record [9354874-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees’ motion to file Appellants’ brief under seal is DENIED AS MOOT [9354874-3]. Striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9354311-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 04:51 PM]
07/16/2020 COURT ACTION striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9354311-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:07 PM]
07/16/2020 BRIEFING SUSPENDED – portions stricken from appellant’s brief; establishing new briefing schedule.. Record Excerpts deadline canceled. Sufficient brief deadline canceled. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:10 PM]
07/16/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 102.67 KB		 BRIEFING RESUMED. Appellants’ brief must be refiled omitting references to material outside of the record on appeal. A/Pet’s Brief Due on 07/30/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Record Excerpts due on 07/30/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/16/2020 05:13 PM]
07/27/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 263.65 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 07/16/2020 court order granting Motion to strike brief [9354874-2], and place brief under seal filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9354874-3] [9363300-2]. Date of service: 07/27/2020. Response/Opposition due on 08/06/2020. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 07/16/2020 [9363300-2]. Date of service: 07/27/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/27/2020 12:35 AM]
07/29/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 137.04 KB		 COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ opposed motion for reconsideration [9363300-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 07/29/2020 02:03 PM]
07/30/2020  Open Restricted Document
51 pg, 418.86 KB		 THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN IN LIGHT OF THE COURT ORDER OF 08/04/2020.
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Paper copies are not required at this time. Appellee’s Brief due on 08/31/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/30/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/30/2020 07:02 PM]
07/30/2020  Open Document
81 pg, 2.37 MB		 RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. Record Excerpts deadline satisfied. Paper copies are not required at this time. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 07/30/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/30/2020 07:03 PM]
07/31/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 145.66 KB		 MOTION to strike Appellant’s brief brief [9368451-2], to place brief under seal [9368451-3]. Date of service: 07/31/2020 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to strike Appellants’ Amended Brief brief [9368451-2]. Date of service: 07/31/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 07/31/2020 04:01 PM]
08/02/2020  Open Document
19 pg, 927.77 KB		 SUFFICIENT OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. Date of service: 08/03/2020. Document is insufficient for the following reasons: all motions must state that the movant has contacted or attempted to contact all other parties and must indicate whether an opposition will be filed. 5th Cir. R. 27.4. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 08/07/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to strike Motion to strike brief filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins [9368451-2] [9368627-2]. Date of service: 08/02/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/02/2020 08:04 PM]
08/02/2020  Open Document
10 pg, 278.53 KB		 SUFFICIENT OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke for a copy of the original complaint filed by Mr. Jim Harrington against Judge Clement and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett replaced Judge Clement on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (5th Cir. 2019). [9368628-2]. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke a copy of the original complaint filed by Mr. Jim Harrington against Judge Clement and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett replaced Judge Clement on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (5th Cir. 2019) [9368628-2]. Date of service: 08/03/2020. Document is insufficient for the following reasons: all motions must state that the movant has contacted or attempted to contact all other parties and must indicate whether an opposition will be filed. 5th Cir. R. 27.4. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Reply due on 08/07/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for clarification of the Order dated 07/29/2020. Date of service: 08/02/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/02/2020 08:08 PM]
08/04/2020 The Motion for extraordinary relief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9368628-2], Motion to strike document filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9368627-2] has been made sufficient. Sufficient Mtn/Resp/Rpl deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 09:59 AM]
08/04/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 141.42 KB		 COURT ORDER GRANTING Appellees’ opposed motion to strike Appellant’s amended brief [9368451-2]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellees’ opposed motion to place Appellants’ brief under seal is GRANTED [9368451-3]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion to strike Appellees’ opposed motion to strike Appellants’ brief is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ opposed motion for a copy of a judicial complaint and resulting opinion/decision/memorandum and the reason Judge Willett was on the panel in Thomas v. Bryant, 938 F.3d 134, 155 n.95 (2019), is DENIED [9368627-2] [9368628-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 03:13 PM]
08/04/2020 COURT ACTION striking Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9367572-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/04/2020 03:19 PM]
08/05/2020 BRIEFING SUSPENDED – portions striken from appellants’ brief; estabilishing new briefing schedule. E/Res’s Brief deadline canceled [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/05/2020 05:34 AM]
08/05/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 101.36 KB		 BRIEFING RESUMED. Appellants’ brief must be refiled ommitting references to material outside of the record on appeal. A/Pet’s Brief Due on 08/19/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/05/2020 05:36 AM]
08/13/2020  Open Document
11 pg, 188.59 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 08/04/2020 [9377524-2]. Date of service: 08/13/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/13/2020 05:24 PM]
08/18/2020  Open Document
3 pg, 143.67 KB		 COURT ORDER DENYING Appellants’ Motion for reconsideration [9377524-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 08/18/2020 09:48 AM]
08/19/2020  Open Document
67 pg, 475.11 KB		 APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke.
A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Appellee’s Brief due on 09/18/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 08/19/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 08/19/2020 03:41 PM]
09/04/2020  Open Document
22 pg, 1.01 MB		 MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke for judicial notice [9394017-2]. Date of service: 09/04/2020 [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 09/08/2020 08:43 AM]
09/08/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 122.02 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C., Mr. Mark D. Hopkins and Ms. Shelley Hopkins to extend time to file brief of appellee until 10/02/2020 [9394501-2]. Date of service: 09/08/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 09/08/2020 01:02 PM]
09/10/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 75.3 KB		 CLERK ORDER granting Motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [9394501-2] Appellee’s Brief due on 10/02/2020 for Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 09/10/2020 08:18 AM]
10/02/2020  Open Document
42 pg, 377.75 KB		 APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 10/23/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. and Ms. Shelley Hopkins. Date of service: 10/02/2020 via email – Appellants Burke, Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (Mark D. Hopkins ) [Entered: 10/02/2020 03:23 PM]
10/05/2020  Open Document
16 pg, 212.34 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellants Mr. John Burke and Ms. Joanna Burke to strike Appellees’ brief [9413904-2]. Date of service: 10/05/2020 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to strike Appellees Brief filed Friday, 2nd October, 2020 brief [9413904-2]. Date of service: 10/05/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/05/2020 12:07 PM]
10/06/2020  Open Document
2 pg, 137.48 KB		 COURT ORDER DENYING appellants’ opposed motion to strike appellees’ brief [9413904-2]. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/06/2020 01:40 PM]
10/07/2020  Open Document
4 pg, 141.46 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to extend time to file reply brief until 11/06/2020 [9416112-2]. Date of service: 10/07/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/07/2020 12:32 PM]
10/07/2020  Open Document
5 pg, 215.29 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for extension entitled “motion to strike” received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke because motion was corrected and refiled. Removing “motion to strike” from the docket. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:20 PM]
10/08/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 73.44 KB		 CLERK ORDER denying Motion to extend time to file reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9416112-2] [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 10/08/2020 04:24 PM]
10/15/2020  Open Document
9 pg, 177.16 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke for reconsideration of the Order dated 10/08/2020 [9422323-2]. Date of service: 10/15/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 10/15/2020 06:03 PM]
10/16/2020  Open Document
1 pg, 76.45 KB		 CLERK ORDER granting motion for reconsideration filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9422323-2]; extending time to file reply brief [9422808-2] Reply Brief deadline updated to 11/06/2020 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke [20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 10/16/2020 11:37 AM]
11/06/2020  Open Document
38 pg, 344.81 KB		 APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED
Reply Brief deadline satisfied [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. John Burke. Date of service: 11/06/2020 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 11/06/2020 04:38 PM]
01/07/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 91.2 KB		 PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the Appellant Brief filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9381578-2], Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9367573-2], Appellee Brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 [9413256-2], Appellant Reply Brief filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 20-20209 [9437996-2]. Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/12/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke and Appellees Mark D. Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 01/12/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 01/07/2021 11:35 AM]
01/08/2021  Open Document
16 pg, 687.15 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke waive paper copies requirement for appellant’s brief, record excerpts, and reply brief [9478154-2]. Date of service: 01/11/2021 [20-20209]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke to waive requirement to file record excerpts [9478154-2], to waive requirement to file Appellee’s brief [9478154-3]. Date of service: 01/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 01/08/2021 12:00 PM]
01/11/2021 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellees Mr. Mark D. Hopkins, Ms. Shelley Hopkins and Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C. in 20-20209 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 01/12/2021 08:56 AM]
02/11/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 76.24 KB		 CLERK ORDER denying as moot the motion to waive paper copies requirement filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9478154-2]. The Clerk’s Office has printed the paper copies required. [20-20209] (CAG) [Entered: 02/11/2021 09:42 AM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
13 pg, 225.24 KB		 UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [19-20267; 20-20209 Affirmed] Judge: PRO, Judge: WED, Judge: JLD. Mandate issue date is 04/21/2021; denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394044-2] in 19-20267, denying Motion for judicial notice filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9394017-2] in 20-20209 [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:01 PM]
03/30/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 74.3 KB		 JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: appellants. [19-20267, 20-20209] (WMJ) [Entered: 03/30/2021 03:06 PM]
04/13/2021  Open Document
70 pg, 1.23 MB		 PETITION for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Number of Copies:0. Since it could not be determined that the filing on 05/17/2021 was not emailed, Clerk’s Office has filed the document as proposed sufficient rehearing. However, document remains insufficient for lack of copy of the Court’s opinion. Sufficient Rehearing due on 07/09/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 05/14/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2] Mandate issue date canceled.. Sufficient Rehearing due on 04/26/2021 for Appellants Joanna Burke and John Burke. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 Document is insufficient for the following reasons: case caption must match our case caption exactly; statement of facts; copy of the court’s opinion [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for rehearing en banc [9549894-2]. Date of Service: 04/13/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/13/2021 07:27 PM]
04/23/2021  Open Document
25 pg, 972.38 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 file petition in present form [9557920-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Joanna Burke in 19-20267 alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2] [9549894-2] [9557920-4], alternative request for extension of 10 days to make rehearing sufficient; for leave to waive requirement to file paper rehearings [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for leave to file petition in present form [9549894-2] [9557920-2]. Date of service: 04/23/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 04/23/2021 12:00 PM]
05/05/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 127.24 KB		 COURT ORDER denying motion to file Petition for Rehearing En Banc in present form, to omit the Statement of Facts requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-2], denying as unnecessary motion to waive the paper requirement, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-3]; granting alternative motion to extend time to return a sufficient Petition for Rehearing En Banc 10 days from the date of this order, filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9557920-4] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/05/2021 07:57 AM]
05/12/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 229.11 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to extend the time to file a rehearing until 05/26/2021 [9572022-2]. Date of service: 05/12/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 05/12/2021 08:44 AM]
05/14/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 309.14 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the motion for reconsideration of single judge’s order received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because the motion is premature, as the extension motion is still pending with the court [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/19/2021 01:50 PM]
05/17/2021  Open Document
35 pg, 627.82 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Proposed sufficient rehearing en banc received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 because It is a duplicative filing, as the rehearing should be emailed, not re-filed. Additionally, it still remains insufficent as it does not have a copy of the court’s opinion. [19-20267, 20-20209] (CCR) [Entered: 05/17/2021 03:52 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 124.48 KB		 COURT ORDER denying Motion to extend the time to file a petition for rehearing filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke [9572022-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 02:56 PM]
05/28/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 231.34 KB		 MOTION filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267 for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 court order denying Motion for authorization to omit the Statement of Facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9557920-2] [9585172-2]. [19-20267, 20-20209] (JMW) [Entered: 05/28/2021 03:07 PM]
06/08/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 257.92 KB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Motion received from Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because A motion for reconsideration is already pending [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 06/08/2021 09:04 AM]
06/21/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 138.34 KB		 COURT ORDER denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke [9585172-2] in 19-20267 [19-20267, 20-20209] (RLL) [Entered: 06/21/2021 03:33 PM]
06/28/2021  Open Document
8 pg, 175.28 KB		 MOTION to stay issuance of the mandate [9607360-2]. Date of service: 06/28/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to stay further proceedings in this court. Reason: US Supreme Court and this Court’s All American and Collins cases.. Date of service: 06/28/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 06/28/2021 08:36 PM]
07/01/2021  Open Document
29 pg, 1.43 MB		 DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the Appellants’ Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Owen received from Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 because wrong filing event used [19-20267, 20-20209] (SDH) [Entered: 07/02/2021 01:56 PM]
07/03/2021  Open Document
28 pg, 1.35 MB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 to disqualify Court of Appeals Judge Priscilla Owen from the case. [9611750-2]. Date of service: 07/03/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/03/2021 06:44 AM]
07/07/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 147.97 KB		 COURT ORDER FILED that Appellants’ opposed motion to disqualify Chief Judge Priscilla R. Owen is DENIED. [9611750-2] [19-20267, 20-20209] (DMS) [Entered: 07/07/2021 02:40 PM]
07/08/2021  Open Document
7 pg, 200.42 KB		 OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke ) [Entered: 07/08/2021 10:02 AM]

Christina Gardner's Docket Entry, July 9, 2021

Docket Text:

OPPOSED MOTION for reconsideration of the 06/21/2021 court order

denying motion for reconsideration of the 05/05/2021 order

denying motion for authorization to omit the Statement of facts requirement for their Petition for Rehearing En Banc and file petition in present form.

No action is taken on Appellants’ request for clarification of clerk’s office procedure as unnecessary – procedure was explained to Mr. Burke telephonically.

Appellants may use the pro_se@ca5.uscourts.gov email as an alternative, if necessary [9557920-3], [9557920-2] [9614189-2].

Response/Opposition due on 07/19/2021.

Date of service: 07/08/2021 [19-20267, 20-20209]

REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows:

OPPOSED MOTION for clarification of the Order dated 06/21/2021 denying Motion for reconsideration filed by Appellants Ms. Joanna Burke and Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 [9585172-2]. Response/Opposition due on 07/19/2021. [19-20267, 20-20209]

REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows:

OPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. John Burke in 19-20267, 20-20209 for clarification of the Order dated 06/29/2021. Date of service: 07/08/2021 via US mail – Appellant Burke; email – Appellant Burke; Attorney for Appellees: Hopkins, Hopkins [19-20267, 20-20209] (John Burke )

Share this post:

Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn
Judicial Lyin’: Calling Out the Deviants and Miscreants at the Federal Fifth Circuit
Related Items:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recommended for you

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top