Debt Collector

Let’s Transfer LIT Related Civil Actions to Harris County District Court 189 and Consolidate

Granting this Motion will not only save time and expense but also ensure a streamlined and efficient resolution of the related issues.



JUN 28, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 28, 2023


Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Third-Party Plaintiff  Mark Burke, individually, files this motion for the following reasons:-

Parties in 2023-11266

Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Third-Party Plaintiff, Mark Burke (“Mark”), is an individual residing at 46 Kingwood Greens Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77339 and on behalf of Blogger Inc. See; 202327202 – GUO, NA vs. INVESTOR LENDING LLC (Court 061); Plaintiff Na Guo, individually and on behalf of Skylight Property, LLC; Order signed SETTING HEARING, ORDER SETTING BOND SIGNED, ORDER SIGNED GRANTING TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (05/02/2023).

Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Third-Party Plaintiff,  Joanna Burke (“Joanna”), is an individual residing at 46 Kingwood Greens Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77339.

Counter-Defendant, Robert Joseph “Bob” Kruckemeyer (“Bob”) is a Texas lawyer. Bob has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant, The Kruckemeyer Law Firm (“Kruckemeyer”) is an unincorporated DBA registered in Harris County on May 11, 2023. Kruckemeyer has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant, Randall O. “Randy” Sorrels (“Randy”) is a Texas lawyer. Randy has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant, The Sorrels Law Firm, PLLC (“Sorrels”), is a domestic corporation doing business in Texas. Sorrels has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant, Jason A. Powers (“Jason”) is a Texas lawyer. Jason has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant David A. Oubre (“David”) is a Texas lawyer. David has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (“Lewis”), is a domestic corporation doing business in Texas. Lewis has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Counter-Defendant, Berkshire Hathaway Direct Insurance Company (“BHDIC”), and also trading as an insurance agency under the online brand biBERK (a Berkshire Hathaway Company), is a domestic corporation doing business in Texas. BHDIC has already appeared in this lawsuit and no further service is required.

Third-Party Defendant, John Scott (“Scott”) is  Acting Texas Attorney General and former Secretary of State, who may be served at, Office of the Attorney General, 300 W. 15th Street, Austin, TX 78701 or wherever he may be found;

Third-Party Defendant, Andrew P. Lehman (“Lehman”) is an individual having his domicile in Harris County and who may be served at 13602 Shadow Falls Ct, Houston, TX 77086 or wherever he may be found.

Third-Party Defendant, Patricia Guerrero is Chief Justice and Chairman of The Judicial Council and who may be served at Judicial Council of California, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 or wherever she may be found.

Parties in 2022-68307 and 2022-63807-A

The Plaintiff, Mark Burke, is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas.

Defendant KPH – Consolidation, Inc., DBA HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood (“HCA”), is a domestic corporation which operates as a Hospital in Harris County, Texas. HCA has been served;

Defendant Nicole Andrews has made an appearance as (lead) counsel for HCA;

Defendant Madison Addicks has made an appearance as counsel for HCA;

Defendant Benjamin Hamel has made an appearance as counsel for HCA (over objection of Plaintiff);

Defendant Jeffery Addicks has been served;

Defendant Sharon Addicks has been served;

Defendant Hon. Lauren Reeder (severed) has made an appearance as District Judge but not appeared in severed action nor represented by counsel, and;

Defendant Hon. Susan Brown (severed) has made an appearance as Presiding Judge, but not appeared in severed action nor represented by counsel.

Transfer and Consolidation

In re Cano, No. 14-22-00369-CV, at *4-5 (Tex. App. Aug. 11, 2022) (“A trial court has broad discretion, but not unlimited discretion, to consolidate cases with common issues of law or fact….

In determining whether to consolidate, the trial court must “exercise a sound and legal discretion within limits created by the circumstances of the particular case” and consider whether the legal rights of the parties will be prejudiced by consolidation.

A trial court may consolidate actions that relate to substantially the same transaction, occurrence, subject matter, or question. “The actions should be so related that the evidence presented will be material, relevant, and admissible in each case.”

A trial court may abuse its discretion by “incorrectly resolving the relatedness issue or by consolidating cases when the consolidation results in prejudice to the complaining party.”

“The central and primary requirement for consolidation of actions as directed by rule 174(a) is that there must exist common issues of law or fact in both cases.” “Consolidation is improper ‘if the parties and issues differ.'”).

Facts Supporting Transfer and Consolidation

The civil actions are intricately intertwined, making transfer and consolidation not only appropriate but also essential from a legal perspective.

See; Excel Corp. v. Valdez, 921 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex. App. 1996)

(“a transfer alone does not necessarily cause prejudice to any of the parties.”)

Granting the motion promotes judicial economy and saves resources.

See; In re Houston Northwest Partners, Ltd., 98 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. App. 2003)

(“to promote judicial economy”).

Mark’s initial complaint against HCA began as a claim against a for-profit hospital, but it swiftly evolved into a legal battle focusing on opposing counsel and, subsequently, implicating officers of the court and a counterclaim by defendants as listed above who retaliated against Mark Burke and his personal gripe site at

As a result, the HCA case has recently undergone separation at the direction of the court itself, under a false premise and order of the court mis-categorizing  Mark’s second amended complaint and erroneously applying Sec. 30.017, resulting in the emergence of two distinct civil actions.

Two judges, namely Hon. Lauren Reeder and Hon. Susan Brown, have been specifically assigned to the new lawsuit following their severance from the original proceedings.

It is worth noting that the defendants, despite being notified twice—once on June 23 and again on June 27, 2023—have yet to officially appear in the severed action.

The proliferation of these related civil actions raises concerns about the impartiality and application of the law by the judges presiding over the Harris County District Court, as well as the integrity of the parties and legal counsel involved.

Therefore, there is a compelling need to address these issues together, rather than individually, and thus ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties concerned.

Similarly, the Kruckemeyer case directly involves Mark via his role as Editor at large for his legal investigative blogging platforms, including the blog called, which focuses on the legal profession, judges, and officers of the court, as well as the highest ranked lawyer in the State of Texas who are named in this civil action.

In both the HCA and the Kruckemeyer proceedings, defamation, and more causes of action overlap.

Then there’s the Lehman complaint, also alleging defamation and related causes of action, by targeting Mark’s non-profit business and his Editorial role therein.

In the HCA case, Mark defeated similar defamation arguments as presented in Kruckemeyer’s and Lehman’s complaints by HCA, Serpe Andrews and family members of associate Madison Addicks, who are also active Texas lawyers.

To grasp the full impact of the situation, it is crucial to examine Judge Reeder’s own words in her recent order denying HCA’s motion to dismiss. In this order, she explicitly acknowledges that Mark’s complaint started as an unknown individual stalking complaint, but central claims emerged after his departure from the hospital, centering on a web of conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and retaliation.

These serious charges have arisen after dealing with HCA’s counsel, Serpe Andrews, PLLC, and which included the horrific and baseless accusations by two lawyers who happened to be parents of associate lawyer Madison Addicks.

It started after they retaliated in response Mark’s first motion for sanctions, by filing  their frivolous and yet malicious counterclaim, including their request for injunctive relief for their false but premeditated scheme to accuse Mark of defamation, criminal stalking and harassment because he had an article on his personal gripe site, attacking his legal rights from persecution and chilling his speech by relying upon the First Amendment, Texas Constitution and Free Speech laws.

Ultimately, their abusive pleadings and request for injunctive relief would be denied after they presented no witnesses or independent proof of their false claims  including defamation, stalking and harassment.

However, it is important to note that prior to this latest order, there were concerning circumstances surrounding the ex parte hearing involving Judge Reeder, and which is not protected by judicial immunity.

As such, it was inappropriate and incorrect to separate Mark’s claims into the severed case relying on Sec. 30.017.

The January 2023 hearing raised significant questions as to why it took place at all, based on the fact it was abated in law, and why the administrative Judge Beau Miller blanked Mark’s written questions related to the same in the absence of Judge Reeder who was on vacation.

Related events before, during and after the ex parte hearing, as ascertained from the court reporter, only heightened concerns as to the relationship between Judge Reeder and opposing counsel.

First, there was the issue of Benjamin ‘Ben’ Hamel presenting himself before the court as lead counsel, along with Ms. Addicks, despite Nicole Andrews as the official lead counsel in this proceeding.

No formal filings have ever been made and Mark has raised this issue most recently in his March 28, 2023 Motion to Show Authority.

The attendance of Hamel is Serpe Andrews flawed attempt to separate themselves from Mark’s motion, requesting HCA’s counsel be disqualified.

Second, there was no witness for HCA or defendants at the hearing.

In fact, Addicks parents, core to the counterclaim and request for injunctive relief never showed up, and were represented by Serpe Andrews, another conflict.

Only later, when Mark subpoena’d Jeffery and Sharon Addicks did they independently ‘lawyer up’ to file a frivolous motion to quash and protective order, along with a legally deficient request for discovery sanctions, attorney fees, expenses and related relief which was denied by the operation of law.

This mirrors the action in the Kruckemeyer case, where the first amended complaint is signed by Sorrels as lead counsel.

This is false, a conspired and premeditated act.

He is not lead counsel, Kruckemeyer is lead counsel.

This is confirmed by the efiling of the amended complaint, which was dated on a Sunday afternoon and submitted by Kruckemeyer.

Again, as with the HCA case, this is also a flawed attempt by Kruckemeyer to separate himself from acting pro se in his own proceedings, and where, in fact, Bob and Randy are best friends.

As documented, Randy did not author or file the amended complaint, but rather allowed his name and that of his firm to be used as a decoy. It fails miserably.

After the ex parte proceedings  and upon further investigation, it was revealed Judge Reeder had received considerable sized donations for her 2022 re-election campaign from Serpe Andrews, including contributions from both the lawyers and their spouses, who are also lawyers.

See; “Center for Judicial Ethics for State Courts: Judicial Disqualification Based on Campaign Contributions. In 2014, ABA House of Delegates adopted a resolution urging states to adopt judicial disqualification and recusal procedures.” – republished by LIT.

These events, combined with her March 15, 2023 orders ‘Granting request from Discovery Request’ – pertaining to the Court Reporter subpoena, and her order ‘Denying Extending Discovery Deadline’ which was caused by the court setting the scheduled sanctions hearing beyond the deadline,  contributed to a chain of events leading to Mark’s motion to disqualify Judge Reeder, ultimately resulting in the court independently severing the involvement of the judges mentioned from the second amended petition and establishing a completely new civil action – when the court lacked authority and jurisdiction to do so.

That stated, revisiting Judge Reeder’s recent order denying HCA’s motion to dismiss may initially seem like a positive development for Mark.

However, it is crucial to recognize this order is just one piece of an ongoing legal stratagem.

HCA’s lawyers, Serpe Andrews, have already retaliated, as Mark predicted, by answering and filing a new motion seeking dismissal, monetary damages and sanctions, yet relying upon the same defenses which Mark had to invoke to defend their ‘defamation, stalking and harrassing’ counterclaim – the First Amendment and Free Speech.

Let that sink in.

What opposing counsel and the Addicks parties utilized as a sword in many pleadings, the First Amendment and Free Speech, they absurdly seek to implement as a shield.

Their most recent motion not only aims to dismiss the case, but also returns to malicious attacks and disparagement of Mark, without any valid basis, legal or otherwise.

Remarkably, these new filings conveniently overlook the earlier sanctions motion Mark filed, which ultimately exposed the gross misconduct of Serpe Andrews even before the lawsuit was filed.

Their most recent submissions fail to address Serpe Andrews grossly inflating their billable hours, along with admissions of Nicole Andrews advising her “client” before Mark’s case was even initiated, but yet she intentionally blanked Mark’s direct email asking if HCA would waive service around the time of filing.

However, the client billed is not the entity served and defending Mark’s lawsuit.

The party in the exhibit is named Health Care Indemnity, Inc.

See; Mar. 28, 2023 Plaintiff’s Motion to Show Authority for background and confirmation.

Yet they sought an order requesting attorney fees of $28,625 for these invoices, another flawed and unlawful act.

However, the detailed time records in support of their attorney fees in their June 16, 2023 motion are conspicuously absent this time around.

It raises questions about their transparency and calls into question the validity of their claims.

Similarly, Kruckemeyer and Mark’s own appointed counsel at Lewis Brisbois also suggest he does not require a surety bond in Texas law, in part because he doesn’t have any non-attorneys working for him.

As explained to this court, Kruckemeyer’s own requests for attorney fees and detailed timesheets confirm otherwise.

Kruckemeyer operates as a small concern, and he bills for both lawyer and non-lawyer works. As such he wears both hats in his day-to-day debt collection business.

Returning to the HCA case, it is important to note that the absence of these supporting records by Serpe Andrews is not an isolated incident.

Throughout the proceedings, there have been numerous instances where crucial information and evidence seem to conveniently go missing or remain undisclosed.

These tactics only serve to further complicate the already complex nature of the case and create an atmosphere of unfairness.

These individual instances from the HCA case only scratch the surface of the multitude of issues present in the pleadings, illustrating the ongoing abuses Mark has endured thus far.

Judge Reeder has refused to depart from the case, despite the evidence presented.

Transferring and consolidating the case will promote transparency, uphold the principles of justice, and prevent any perception of impropriety.

It will allow for a comprehensive examination of the interconnected issues while removing any doubts or suspicions arising from previous ex parte proceedings or donations made to Judge Reeder’s campaign.

In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the legal process, it is essential to transfer and consolidate this case, promoting a fair resolution based solely on the merits of the case.

In parallel to the HCA proceedings, Mark finds himself compelled to vigorously defend his personal and collective First Amendment rights, relying upon the Texas Constitution and Free Speech laws in the face of the Kruckemeyer complaint.

The situation becomes even more bewildering as Mark is compelled to take legal action against his own insurer and their appointed lawyers, who, in direct violation of the First Amendment, demanded the removal of the disputed article(s) on as raised by Kruckemeyer.

Despite Mark’s resolute effort to expose the absurdity of this demand and provide supportive legal precedents, these parties conspired with each other and with Kruckemeyer, demonstrating a clear intent to inflict deliberate and malicious harm upon Mark and his business interests.

This concerted effort to undermine his rights and tarnish his professional reputation is deeply troubling and underscores the urgent need for consolidation and resolution of these interconnected legal matters.

Echoing the HCA case, Mark has asserted similar claims in the Kruckemeyer proceedings, through his blog at

He avers judges overseeing the Harris County District Court have consistently misapplied laws, in this case intended to protect Texas consumers from unlawful debt collection practices.

LIT possesses compelling evidence to substantiate the claim that these judges are complicit in the misapplication of these laws, effectively impeding the protection of consumer rights.

The evidence supporting this assertion of judicial complicity is publicly available on LIT’s blog, underscoring the credibility and transparency of the provided information.

Prayer and Relief

Based on the inter-related nature of the civil actions and the presence of common issues of law and fact, it is crucial that this Motion for Transfer and Consolidation be granted.

Mark’s original claim against HCA has evolved into a broader legal battle involving opposing counsel, officers of the court, and his role as an editor of legal investigative blogging platforms and/or personal gripe sites.

As stated, the HCA case has been erroneously severed into a separate civil action, and where the defendants have yet to officially appear.

It is evident that a smooth transfer and consolidation can be achieved without any significant inconvenience.

Similarly, the Kruckemeyer and Lehman cases are recent and early in proceedings.

All proceedings directly involve Mark and his First Amendment rights, with overlapping issues materially the same in all civil actions.

To ensure fairness and efficiency in the judicial process, consolidation is warranted to avoid potential prejudice and to allow for the presentation of material, relevant, and admissible evidence in each case.

It is clear and obvious transfer and consolidation is warranted due to the simultaneously orchestrated actions taken by opposing counsel and parties in all proceedings, and which includes the judiciary’s misapplication of Texas laws, the intentional collaboration between officers of the court, lawyers and parties to harm Mark and his business.

In order to resolve these issues, Mark has invited the acting Texas Attorney General to  investigate as to the constitutionality of these unlawful acts and provide his opinion.

Thus, it demands a comprehensive and unified approach to resolve these significantly related matters.


In conclusion, Granting this Motion for Transfer and Consolidation will not only save time and expense but also ensure a streamlined and efficient resolution of the related issues. For the reasons presented, the Motion to Transfer and Consolidate should be GRANTED.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 28th day of June, 2023.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. This declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.


Mark Burke
State of Texas / Pro Se


I hereby certify that on the 27th day of June, 2023, I emailed defendants in civil action 2022-68307 and via counsel Benjamin Hamel, they responded with “Defendants are opposed”.  Earlier on the same day, I submitted a notice for the severed civil action 2022-68307-A as recorded on the docket “Notice RE Proposed Motion to Transfer and Consolidate with Reservation of Rights”. As at the time of filing, no response has been received, and  I assume the motion is opposed.


Mark Burke
State of Texas / Pro Se


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT MARK BURKE’S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE CIVIL ACTION 2022-68307 AND 2022-68307-A into this civil action has been forwarded to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants/Third-Parties and counsel by electronic filing notification and/or electronic mail and/or facsimile and/or certified mail, return receipt requested, this the 28th day of June, 2023.

I will also file copies of this motion with the 234th Court in causes 2022-68307 and 2022-68307-A.

Tamika Ledet Craft Married Marcus Dwayne Demming in 1997

Tamika Craft Demming Married Marcus Dwayne Demming in 2019

Tamika Craft-Demming Divorces Marcus Dwayne Demming per Sep. 8, 2023 Divorce Decree

Called at 10.49 am and spoke with Ashley.

Provided Sept 26 and Oct 10 as hearing dates. (3 months, but withdrawal motion by Lewis Brisbois, 1 month).

Transferred 2nd part re payment of fees to Monica Jackson. Same event, just provide unique cover letter.

Good morning,
I sent the following email yesterday;
Further to my note at time of efiling, I would be obliged if you could provide me with 2 dates for a motion hearing re Defendant Mark Burke’s Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Civil Action 2022-68307 and 2022-68307-A, image # 108904422, docketed Jun 28, 2023 in order that I may confer with counsel for the parties as to availability and preference.
I have added the court coordinator to this email based on this filing by prior judge Dollinger. In the 2022-68307 case Clerk Shannon North always replies directly to my emailed requests such as this.
Secondly, due to rejected efilings, I separated the citation payment from the requested 3rd party payment and made a notation to the court to ignore the copy of the lead document as I had to file ‘something’ to select in order that I could submit the 3rd party payment, which I did.
The response I received was this rejection with note
The question remains, if I file a ‘letter’, am I to file it as a 3rd party petition event when efiling, as that will be a ‘duplicate’ filing or is there a miscellaneous event where I may selec the $80 fee to be paid?
Please advise.


Good morning,
Further to my note at time of efiling, I would be obliged if you could provide me with 2 dates for a motion hearing re Defendant Mark Burke’s Motion to Transfer and Consolidate Civil Action 2022-68307 and 2022-68307-A, image # 108904422, docketed Jun 28, 2023 in order that I may confer with counsel for the parties as to availability and preference.
Many thanks in advance.

Please file a cover letter as the third-party petition (simply stating you are paying the fee), we’re not permitted to accept duplicates.

Thank you,


Notice:  The new judge of the 189th Civil District Court is the Honorable Tamika “Tami” Craft effective January 1, 2023.

Case (Cause) Number Style File Date Court Case Region Type Of Action / Offense
202331508- 7
Active – Civil
NGUYEN, STEVEN vs. PHAM, PETER 5/22/2023 189 Civil Defamation
202311266- 7
Ready Docket
2/21/2023 189 Civil Defamation
202220121- 7
Active – Civil
BONNY, TODD vs. DEHERRERA, TY 4/1/2022 189 Civil Defamation
202123967- 7
Disposed (Final)
4/22/2021 189 Civil Defamation
202062041- 7
Ready Docket
201857270- 7
Disposed (Final)
8/24/2018 189 Civil Defamation
201837486- 7
Disposed (Final)
AMSTILL CORP vs. HUYNH, LIEN 6/6/2018 189 Civil Defamation
201811560- 7
Disposed (Final)
2/22/2018 189 Civil Defamation
201765004- 7
Disposed (Final)
ARACIL, EDUARDO J vs. TEXAS TRANSEASTERN INC 9/29/2017 189 Civil Defamation
201738137- 7
Disposed (Final)
6/7/2017 189 Civil Defamation
201676821- 7
Disposed (Final)
POFF, JULIA vs. GUZMAN, JUAN CARLOS 11/4/2016 189 Civil Defamation
201653806- 7
Disposed (Final)
8/15/2016 189 Civil Defamation



JUN 15, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: JUN 16, AND JUN 27 2023

OCC Real Estate Invesments LLC Sued PT-Patriot Title For Breach of Lease then Changed its Mind

OCC’s lawsuit was filed by debt collector Bob Kruckemeyer of 244 Malone St, and OCC returns results that he is a member of OCC.

A Legal Cowboy and the Stallones in Harris County District Court Complainin’ About a Chain Saw Operator

Debt Collectin’ lawyer Robert Kruckemeyer files suit on behalf of Jeff and Pam Stallones complaining about the felling of pine and oak trees.

The Stallones and Greystone Custom Builders Cross-Sue Each Other in Travis County

US Gov. Wingman and Cowboy Robert Kruckemeyer is counsel in both cases for the Stallones and Stallones Holdings Inc.

Let’s Transfer LIT Related Civil Actions to Harris County District Court 189 and Consolidate
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top