Baker Donelson

Operation Elder Abuse: United States and Texas Gov. Agencies and Branches Hijack Widow’s Legal Filings

Since Nov. 2023, US/TX gov. has intercepted the legal filings sent by 85-year old Joanna Burke, and refused to file time-sensitive pleadings.


FEB 25, 2024

In a chilling display of power abuse, both State and Federal Government entities have shamelessly allied themselves with Wall Street’s elite and their legal enforcers to orchestrate the heartless confiscation of an 85-year-old widow’s cherished homestead.

Her only crime?

Her affiliation with the valiant founder of a blog committed to unveiling the rampant corruption within government, judiciary, legal, and financial spheres—a courageous act of public service.

This egregious collusion marks a distressing escalation, transforming a mere civil dispute into a flagrant violation of basic human rights. Their latest maneuver involves seizing control of the homeowner’s legal pleadings, filings, and communications—whether delivered conventionally through postal services, electronically via government portals, or directly through email channels.

Such despicable tactics pave the way for an illicit foreclosure to proceed, as detailed in the homeowner’s meticulously crafted second amended petition, particularly in its latter sections.

This reprehensible behavior is reminiscent of tactics employed by totalitarian regimes.

Welcome to the grim reality of the so-called “Land of the Free,” where the interests of the privileged one percent reign supreme, and the lives of ordinary citizens are expendable commodities.

In this distorted landscape, party affiliations hold no sway, democracy is but a facade, and the revered Constitution lies in tatters. Only the malevolent, the corrupt, and the affluent hold sway in this dystopian society.

Consider the perplexing phenomenon where politicians, once ordinary citizens, ascend to positions of power only to amass sudden fortunes, often teetering on the brink of bankruptcy one day and reveling in opulence the next.

Recent uproar surrounding the judiciary further underscores this stark reality, with financial backers lavishing judges with luxuries while shielding them from accountability.

Meanwhile, any semblance of oversight is rendered impotent as investigations are confined to internal echelons, leaving justice to wither on the vine.

This grotesque parody of accountability renders the principle of audit a mere mockery, allowing fraud to flourish unchecked unless subjected to external scrutiny.

Yet, despite mounting evidence spotlighting the dire need for independent oversight, the guardians of justice remain ensconced in their ivory towers, recoiling from any semblance of accountability.

In a breathtaking display of irony, a federal judge dares to reprimand Elon Musk for his perceived dominance over his financial destiny, all while basking in the lavish comforts afforded by their own benefactors.

The rebuke is nothing short of farcical, given Musk’s tangible contributions to the betterment of society—an activist who transcends mere rhetoric to effect real change.

The truth is evident: Musk embodies the spirit of American ingenuity and altruism, a beacon of hope in a landscape marred by corruption and apathy.

In stark contrast, the current cadre of government officials and judiciary elites stand as adversaries to the very citizens they’re sworn to serve, their allegiance bought and sold to the highest bidder, usually with ties to banks and the financial marketplace.

For every victim callously discarded as mere collateral damage, the American people unwittingly pave the path towards a future fraught with uncertainty—a future where the specter of socialism looms large, fueled by fear and subjugation.

With each injustice perpetrated against the vulnerable, the fabric of society weakens, eroding the very foundations upon which freedom and democracy stand.

Every silenced voice, every unjustly seized property, serves as a damning indictment of a system that prioritizes power and privilege over the rights and dignity of its citizens.

In turning a blind eye to the plight of the marginalized, we sow the seeds of our own demise, relinquishing control to a shadowy cabal hell-bent on consolidating power at any cost.

For every instance of injustice allowed to fester unchecked, the grip of oppression tightens, suffocating the very essence of liberty we hold dear.

Make no mistake: the road to a socialist dystopia is paved with the indifference of the masses, who, in their complacency, unwittingly surrender the very freedoms they cherish.

It is only through vigilance, solidarity, and unwavering resolve that we can hope to stem the tide of tyranny and reclaim the promise of a truly free and just society.

The choice is ours to make, but the consequences of inaction are dire indeed.


COMES NOW, PHH Mortgage Corporation (“PHH”), Defendant in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files this Answer in response to Plaintiff Joanna Burke’s (“Plaintiff”) Original Petition (“Petition”).

In support of the foregoing, PHH would respectfully show the Court the following:

1.                  Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, PHH generally denies each and every allegation contained within Plaintiff’s Original Petition and all amendments thereto and demands strict proof thereof as required by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas.

PHH further reserves the right to plead further and in greater particularity as the case progresses.

2.                  PHH further asserts that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata, claim preclusion, issue preclusion, unclean hands, contributory negligence, collateral estoppel, judicial estoppel, and the economic loss doctrine.

Further, Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and subject to sanction and dismissal.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant PHH prays that Plaintiff’s suit be dismissed, and that Plaintiff take nothing by way of her claims.

PHH further requests that judgment be granted in its favor with respect to all claims asserted by Plaintiff, and for all further and other relief, whether at law or in equity, to which PHH may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

By:      /s/ Mark D. Hopkins

Mark D. Hopkins

State Bar No. 00793975
Shelley L. Hopkins
State Bar No. 24036497

2802 Flintrock Trace,
Suite B103 Austin,
Texas 78734
(512) 600-4320

Counsel for
PHH Mortgage Corporation


FEB 27, 2024


FEB 23, 2024

Plaintiff  Joanna Burke, individually, files this petition and second application for injunctive relief against Defendants.

“Facts Adduced at Trial:

[Deutsche] Bank Defendants’ Misconduct Across the Country”

“Deutsche Bank is one of the largest banks in the world, operating in 70 countries with over 91,000 employees. It has over $1.3 trillion dollars in assets and over $68 billion in equity.

[PHH] Ocwen (which acquired Homeward in December 2012) is the largest non-bank servicer of U.S. mortgages, servicing over 1.5 billion mortgages and having a portfolio value of over $550 million in mortgages. Ocwen is the largest servicer of subprime loans in the United States.

Federal and state regulators and prosecutors have determined that Deutsche Bank, Ocwen, and Homeward have engaged in systematic mortgage fraud and abuse for years, before, during and after all relevant times to the claims made in the lawsuit.

Despite multiple findings of fraud and abuse, and consent orders requiring future compliance, Bank Defendants have: failed and refused to correct their misconduct. Plaintiffs Consuelo Jones and Gabriela Jones are victims of Bank Defendants’ pattern of fraud and abuse.”

Above is part of a May 2023 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the 93rd District Court in Texas awarding the “free living” distressed homeowners millions of dollars in punitive monetary damages and “a free home” as part of  a final judgment against Defendants in these proceedings.

The findings describe in detail a lengthy  series of  post 2008 financial-crisis induced lawsuits, which included several unlawful attempts to seize the Jones home.

This legal battle and emotional rollercoaster for the Jones has been ongoing since 2011. At the time of this filing, the case is on Appeal at the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi.

It is currently abated whilst settlement talks continue over the trial verdict, which includes a multi-million dollar judgment in favor of the homeowners.

As this amended petition will show, Plaintiff avers she has been subjected to even more egregious fraud and mental and physical abuses than those in the Jones case, as it includes claims involving “the judicial machinery itself”[1], and is entitled to a similar judgment, including any

[1] See Joanna Burke’s complaint in the District of Minnesota’s federal court, which provides a complete history of her historic victories over Deutsche Bank, and subsequent rollercoaster litigation as a direct result of the Fifth Circuit’s refusal to follow binding authority from the Texas Supreme Court in violation of Erie and disregarding its own past opinions in violation of the  circuit’s rule of orderliness.

Fast-forward to as recently as last week, the 5th Circuit Judges are now split on the basic tenet that state law controls property rights, not federal law.

Law Office of Rogelio Solis PLLC v. Curtis, No. 23-40125 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2024).

This dissent, despite the federalists allowing Defendants and their law firms to continually snap remove and/or file property and foreclosure lawsuits to federal court is a superficial critique rather than a substantial challenge to the coherence or validity of the objection.

Judge Oldham also remarks by citing the Supreme Court:

“A complaint need not cite a specific statutory provision or articulate a perfect ‘statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.’”:

yet his own  court has continuously relied upon the same to dismiss many an argument on appeal in order to craft a manufactured opinion.

requested or necessary injunctive relief, financial damages due to Defendants conspiracy and fraudulence, and any other relief which at a minimum equates to the judgment and award provided to the father and daughter case involving the Jones.

Preamble: Initial Summary of the Facts and Amendments

The Plaintiff, Joanna Burke filed this original lawsuit after being informed her homestead was illegally slated for auction on January 2, 2024.

After reaching out directly to the foreclosing counsel and law firm at Mackie Wolf Zientz Mann (“Mackie Wolf”) asking them to cancel the illegal foreclosure – they refused – resulting in the following timeline:

(i) First Act: Plaintiff came before Harris County District Judge Lauren Reeder’s 234th Court to intervene in a wrongful foreclosure civil

action, which named the same Defendants as here, in order to stop the illegal auction and sale.

This would be unlawfully snap-removed to federal court by Defendants in a motion filled with untruthful facts and statements.

Despite post removal objections, Judge Lauren Reeder  blanked the Plaintiff’s pleadings as recorded on the associated docket.

(ii) Second Act: Due to the unlawful removal in (i), Plaintiff filed this independent lawsuit.

In the intervening period between the original petition in these proceedings and this [first] amended petition and [second] application for injunctive relief, Joanna Burke would arrange, attend, and be denied a TRO by ancillary Judge Tami Craft aka Tamika Craft-Demming on December 27, 2023.

(iii) Third Act: Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy at the end of December, which mandated an automatic stay of the illegal foreclosure.

Unbeknownst to her at the time, USPS were having significant sorting office delays, which resulted in the erroneous dismissal of her Bankruptcy proceedings on January 17, 2024.

The delayed but tracked USPS mail was delivered to the federal court on Friday, 9 February, 2024 – one day after LIT highlighted the delay on social media and directly questioned the relevant institutions as to their justification for the extended delay in delivering the mail.

At the time of this filing, the federal court has yet to docket Plaintiff’s two motions included in this batch of delivered mail.

As a result, it is Plaintiff’s understanding that Defendants may have relisted the homestead for auction on March 5, 2024.

(v) Fourth Act: In response, Plaintiff ensured Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation has been served the original complaint with exhibits, executed on February 12, 2024, as recorded on the docket.

(vi) Fifth Act: This amended petition now follows, initially seeking a temporary restraining order. The core of the amended petition provides the detailed facts surrounding this litigation, provides the causes of action and legal authorities as well as exhibits in support.


Plaintiff, Joanna Burke (“Joanna”), is an individual resident of Kingwood,  Harris County, Texas.

Defendant, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, (“DBNTCO”) is a non-resident company headquartered in California and doing business in the State of Texas. DBNTCO may be served c/o  Texas Secretary of State, PO Box 12079, Austin, Texas, 78711-2079, to be served on DBNTCO’s known place of business, pursuant to Sec. 17.091, Tex. Civ. Prac. And Rem. Code.

Defendant, PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION, (“PHH”) is a non-resident company headquartered in New Jersey and doing business in the State of Texas. PHH was served on Monday, February 12, 2024.

Defendant, AVT Title Services, LLC, (“AVT”) is a limited liability company doing business in the State of Texas. AVT may be served through its registered agent at 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas, 75254.

Defendant, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, PC, (“Mackie Wolf”) is a Professional Corporation doing business as a law firm in the State of Texas. Mackie Wolf may be served through its registered agent at 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas, 75254.

Defendant, Judge Tami Craft aka Tamika Craft-Demming is a Harris County District Court Judge, Court 189, Harris County Civil Courthouse, 201 Caroline, 12th Floor, Houston Texas 77002 and has already appeared in this case as ancillary judge. As such, no service is required.

Defendant, Judge Elaine Palmer is Harris County District Court’s Administrative Judge, Civil Division, Harris County Civil Courthouse, 201 Caroline, 13th Floor, Houston Texas 77002, or wherever she may be found.

Defendant, Sashagaye Prince is a Harris County District Court’s, Civil Ancillary Clerk, 201 Caroline, Suite 208, Houston Texas 77002, , or wherever she may be found.

In addition to the named defendants, Plaintiff also names defendants John Doe and/or Jane Doe, whose true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time. John Doe and/or Jane Doe are individuals or entities whose actions or omissions are alleged to have contributed to the claims asserted herein. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this pleading to allege the true names and capacities of John Doe and/or Jane Doe when such information becomes known.

Jurisdiction & Venue

The Court has jurisdiction over the parties because the actions complained of herein all occurred in Harris County, Texas. Also, the real property which is the subject of this lawsuit is located in Harris County, Texas. Venue is also proper in Harris County, Texas.

Rule 47 Statement

For the statements and arguments provided herein and in compliance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 47., Plaintiff, Joanna Burke, seeks affirmative relief in the form of a declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief to prevent the scheduled sale while related litigation is ongoing, as well as monetary damages, including statutory damages, exemplary damages and court costs, as determined and allowed by this court after a jury trial.

Discovery Control Plan

Plaintiff respectfully requests this case be governed by Level 3, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Agency, Respondeat Superior & Vicarious Liability

Whenever in this petition it is alleged that Defendant did any act or omission, it is meant that Defendant themselves or their agents, officers, servants, employees, and/or representatives did such act or omission, and it was done with the full authorization or ratification of Defendant or done in the normal routine, course and scope of the agency or employment of/by Defendant or their agents, officers, servants, employees and/or representatives.


This petition is firmly grounded in Texas laws, with affirmative relief sought and no federal question(s) present. The defendants include Texas domiciled persons. Hence, any attempts at removal would not dispose of the Plaintiff’s claims and application for injunctive relief.

Summary of the Amended Complaint

“This Legal Complaint with Irrefutable Supporting Evidence is about a Conspiracy between the Defendants and the ‘Judicial Machinery Itself’ targeting an 85-Year Old Disabled Widow Because of Her Son’s Investigative Legal Media Blogs Irrefutable Evidence of  Collusion, Fraud, Elder Abuse, Waste and Corruption.”

1.    There is active litigation in federal court which prevents a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding.

2.    Relevant here, the ongoing litigation includes a claim that the judgment issued by federal US District Judge Alfred Homer Bennett of S. D. Texas is void, a nullity.

3.    PHH Mortgage Corporation offered plaintiff a confidential settlement during the current federal proceedings. As such, it is clear and obvious;

a.    Defendants are fully aware of the ongoing litigation;

b.    The likelihood plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and;

c.     Warrants obtaining a TRO to prevent any nonjudicial foreclosure of the plaintiff’s homestead.

4.    Beyond the points mentioned earlier, and with a specific focus on both the past auction notice for January 2, 2024 and apparent impending harassing and unlawful nonjudicial foreclosure scheduled for  March 5, 2024, the defendants face several insurmountable issues.

These issues warrant the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to prevent this illegal act without delay;

a.    Plaintiff verifies she received no notice of default;

b.    Plaintiff verifies she received no notice of acceleration;

c.     Plaintiff has a right to cure, absent as a result of the failure to provide adequate notices;

d.    Plaintiff verifies the notice of foreclosure sale is deficient;

i.      The indebtedness in the notice is correctly set at zero dollars, so there is no reason to auction a home where no debt exists;

ii.      The correct mortgagee identified in the notice is disputed. Plaintiff contests DBNTCO as the current mortgagee. She avers PHH Mortgage Corporation, and/or another person currently owns the alleged debt.

iii.      The notice refers to the order of  judicial foreclosure, but upon inspection of the order it is deficient, and void, for example;

1.    No legal description of the property;

2.    No value of any alleged indebtedness;

iv.      In the alternative, there is no Writ of Execution.

v.      The substitute trustee is not a nominal party and defendant in this action.

vi.      The automatic bankruptcy stay in federal court, Houston division is still in effect and any future auction would be in violation of the stay and notice requirements.

5.    Plaintiff is seeking monetary damages.

6.    Plaintiff is seeking affirmative relief.

7.    Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment.

8.    Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief.

9.    Specific to the amended complaint is the unlawful and frivolous[2] snap removal of Plaintiff’s intervenor case discussed herein by the Defendants to thwart the scheduled TRO hearing to prevent the January auction, which necessitated additional time and incurred costs to file this lawsuit for which Plaintiff seeks compensation.

10.                      The Administrative Judge’s acts are without authority.

11.                      The assigned Ancillary Judge’s unethical and biased actions which resulted in the denial of Plaintiff’s TRO are void, and also forms part of the causes of action in this amended complaint.

12.                      PHH Mortgage Corporation are on notice, as they have been served in these proceedings.

13.                      Several new causes of action are added, including conspiracy, fraud and emotional distress, with supporting evidence provided in this verified petition with exhibits.


On November 25, 2023, Plaintiff  discovered a troubling issue with AVT’s notice of foreclosure sale, scheduled for January 2, 2023.

[2] Boyaki v. John M. O’Quinn & Assocs., PLLC, No. 01-12-00984-CV, at *38 (Tex. App. Sep. 30, 2014)

(“On January 7, 2008, with notice of the injunction hearing set for January 9, Boyaki, Hernandez, and Ramos signed and filed a notice of removal in district court. On the afternoon of January 9, 2009, the federal district court, Judge Kenneth Hoyt presiding, sua sponte remanded the cause to the 190th court, noting that no diversity or federal question jurisdiction existed.

The remand order also stated: “This was a frivolous removal, violating FRCP, Rule 11.””).

Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation, a subsidiary of Ocwen Financial, has a history marred by more than $2.6 billion in fines since the 2008 financial crisis. They assert themselves as the mortgage servicer for Plaintiff’s alleged HELOC loan on her homestead.

Adding to the complexity, defendant DBNTCO, claiming to be the mortgagee, has faced fines exceeding $20 billion since 2000. Notably, a $7.2 billion settlement with the Department of Justice stemmed from the bank’s irresponsible lending practices and mortgage-related irregularities.

These actions contributed to a significant loss of citizens’ residential homes, a historical injustice. The bank later reneged upon the settlement.

Defendant AVT, functioning as the appointed substitute trustee, shares its registered office address with Mackie Wolf, the law firm involved in this matter and has been caught[3] in several recent cases

[3] See; LIT blog where legal article is included:

“Outlaw Judge Tami Craft Grants TRO Bond At Dec. 28, 2023 Hearing Against AVT Title Services, et al The judicial misconduct continues as Wiseman obtains TRO against AVT Title Services denied 24 hrs earlier to pro se 85-yr-old Joanna Burke”

representing both the substitute trustee and lender. A trustee must be neutral and cannot serve as counsel for the lender at the same time.

Defendant Mackie Wolf, known for its role as a foreclosure mill and creditor rights law firm, frequently changes its position based on the allocation of foreclosure cases.

This includes representing banks, trustees, mortgage servicers, and even acting as the substitute trustee.

Notably, their staff and lawyers also engage in non-lawyer activities and moonlight for title companies.

The presence of such a glaring conflict of interest by foreclosure mills like Mackie Wolf has been widely recognized since the financial crisis.

Despite the well-known principle that law firms should not assume multiple roles to avoid conflicts, they continue to operate with apparent impunity, remaining shielded from accountability.

An Active Dispute and Litigation Prevents Foreclosure

Joanna Burke is litigating a separate, distinct, and active civil suit against PHH Mortgage Corporation in Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (0:23-cv-01119-WMW-DTS), District Court, D. Minnesota, currently under appeal to the 8th Circuit.

See; Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Cornish, No. 18-2429 (7th Cir. Feb. 6, 2019)

(Holding the “security interest in the underlying property” is ordinarily sufficient security “in appeals from mortgage foreclosure judgments”).

Despite this effectively tolling any foreclosure notice or sale, the defendants listed here have collectively defied the rule of law.

Brazenly, they scheduled Plaintiff’s home for auction on January 2, 2024, disregarding the ongoing legal proceedings.

The Past and Future Scheduled Auction Sale Violates the Law

A recent Texas Supreme Court case confirmed this in Sanders v. The Boeing Co., No. 23-0388, at *18 (Tex. Dec. 1, 2023)

(“when a party appeals a dismissal order, the dismissal does not become final until the party has exhausted their appellate remedies and the appellate court’s power to alter the judgment ends. We agree.”).

Unlawful Sale Proceedings Despite Notice and Acknowledgement

Tex. Fin. Code § 392.301(3) states; “representing or threatening to represent to any person other than the consumer that a consumer is willfully refusing to pay a non-disputed consumer debt when the debt is in dispute and the consumer has notified in writing the debt collector of the dispute”.

PHH has willfully and maliciously instructed substitute trustee AVT Title Services, LLC, and conflicted counsel Mackie Wolf to conduct the sale, a person other than the consumer, claiming erroneously that Plaintiff is willfully refusing to pay.

Furthermore, Plaintiff is receiving letters, emails and text messages stating her home is slated for auction at a foreclosure sale by cold-calling marketers, real estate investors and bankruptcy lawyers, to name a few (Exhibit DB5).

On December 3, 2023 Plaintiff sent a letter to AVT’s counsel advising them they were unlawfully scheduling the sale and requested a timely cancellation of the foreclosure sale. Plaintiff provided this letter with a notice of lis pendens via email on December 4, 2023 to counsel for AVT.

(Exhibit DB4).

Attorney Mark Cronenwett responded for Mackie Wolf late in the evening of the same day, stating that the sale will proceed, despite being notified of the ongoing dispute and litigation in federal court as discussed above, in violation of consumer laws.

(Exhibit DB6).

Deficiencies in the Foreclosure Proceedings

The Notice of Foreclosure Sale, a critical document, stands on shaky ground, rendering the entire sale void and defective.

No Default and Acceleration Notices: Failure to provide notices of default or acceleration prior to the Notice of Foreclosure Sale.

Notice of Default: The notice of default is typically the initial notice sent to the borrower when they are in default on their mortgage payments.

It informs the borrower that they have failed to make the required mortgage payments, and it usually provides a specific period within which the borrower must cure the default by bringing the payments current.

The notice of default is a prerequisite to the foreclosure process and is meant to give the borrower an opportunity to address the default before further legal action is taken.

Notice of Acceleration: The notice of acceleration is a separate notice that may follow the notice of default.

If the borrower does not cure the default within the specified timeframe, the lender may issue a notice of acceleration. This notice informs the borrower that the entire outstanding loan amount is now due, not just the overdue payments.

In other words, the lender is accelerating the maturity of the loan, making the entire loan balance payable immediately.

Legal Authority: Mathis v. DCR Mortgage III Sub I, L.L.C., 389 S.W.3d 494, 508 (Tex. App. 2012)

(“Since DCR did not give proper notice of its intent to accelerate the debt, we hold that any attempted acceleration was ineffective. See Ogden, 640 S.W.2d at 234. ”).

Summary: The Plaintiff has not received these notices and there is no proof  in the form of attachments to the Notice of Foreclosure Sale which provide copies of either notice.

Deficiencies in Notices of Foreclosure

There are known defects surrounding the Notice of Foreclosure Sale.

(Exhibit DB1).

The admitted zero dollars indebtedness raises questions about the legitimacy of the scheduled sale which is not signed or dated. Inconsistencies in the identification of mortgagee entities and a deficient order by Judge David Hittner further muddy the waters

(Exhibit DB2).

Zero Dollars Indebtedness: At the core of the defects lies the admission by defendants themselves. Point no. 5 of the Notice explicitly states the indebtedness as $0 (zero dollars), revealing that Plaintiff owes nothing to the defendants.

Joanna agrees.

Legal Authority: This critical revelation aligns with legal precedent, as highlighted in Harwath v. Hudson, 654 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Tex. App. 1983), which emphasizes the importance of compliance with notice provisions.

A foreclosure sale lacking validity due to non-compliance becomes evident, especially when the claimed debt is nonexistent.

PHH’s Confidential Settlement Offer: Furthermore, the inconsistencies multiply.

Despite asserting Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTCO) as the “real party in interest” and current mortgagee, recent correspondence from PHH Mortgage Corporation and counsel Shelley Hopkins presented a confidential settlement offer

(Exhibit DB3).

This offer stands in stark contrast to the foreclosure proceedings, raising questions about the true entities involved and the validity of the claims against Plaintiff.

Judge David Hittner’s Deficient Order: The deficiencies continue with point no. 6 – Order to Foreclosure, referencing the order by United States District Court Judge David Hittner.

Deutsche Bank’s counsel, whilst at the Fifth Circuit, attempted to inject new arguments about indebtedness and proposed orders.

The Burke’s objection was grounded in the fact that these arguments were introduced for the first time on appeal, and Hopkins was requesting the appellate court to perform a judicial act beyond its authority and jurisdiction.

Judge Hittner’s order, while addressing the remanded issues, falls short of meeting Texas law standards required for inducing a sale of Plaintiff’s homestead.

The deficiency extends to crucial details such as the value of alleged indebtedness and the legal description of the property subject to foreclosure.

Legal Authority: Drawing parallels with Gutierrez v. City of Laredo, No. 07-14-00270-CV, at *7 (Tex. App. Aug. 3, 2015), it becomes evident that a deficient property description renders the judgment void.

No Writ of Execution:  Nor is there a writ allowing foreclosure.

Legal Authority: Andrews v. Roadway, 473 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. 2006)

(Noting that no authority existed to supplant the state law process for the enforcement of a writ of execution).

Summary: As the layers of deficiency unravel, the foreclosure proceedings appear as a house of cards, built on shaky ground.

The critical examination of both the Notice and Judge Hittner’s order reveals not only legal inadequacies but raises serious doubts about the entire process’s legitimacy.

In the face of these revelations, Joanna’s fight for her homestead gains a new dimension—one that questions the very foundations of the foreclosure proceedings and demands a closer scrutiny of the entities involved.

The Substitute Trustee, Defendant AVT is not a Nominal Party

Legal Authority: As far back as 1885, Texas courts have opined “The trustee was not a merely nominal party.

The object of the suit was to prevent him from selling the property under the power given by the deed of trust.”

In Thayer v. Life Association, 112 U.S. 717, 719 (1885).[4]

As discussed above and in Harwath v. Hudson, Texas case law provides many

[4] See, for example, 202355138 – AVT TITLE SERVICES LLC THE APPOINTED SUBSTITUTE TR vs. GODFREY, BRITA (Court 157), petitioning for expedited foreclosure on August 21, 2023  and receiving an order of judgment of foreclosure on October 31, 2023 with Mackie Wolf as counsel for AVT.

strict compliance authorities, such as the “court further noted that [strict] compliance with the notice condition contained in the deed of trust and as prescribed by law is a prerequisite to the right of the trustee to make the sale”.

Summary: Here, the substitute trustee did not strictly comply as the indebtedness marked on the notice of foreclosure sale is zero dollars, as well as the other arguments presented herein.

The Malicious Targeting of Joanna and Her Homestead

At the forefront of this legal labyrinth is creditor rights law firm Mackie Wolf, defender of creditor rights.

Their extensive history and experience in real estate law is prominently displayed in cases before state and federal courts underscore Mackie Wolf’s significance.

However, a paradox emerges as fallacious claims and erroneous acts persist, seemingly driven by undisclosed incentives.

The intricate dance between these foreclosure mills, substitute trustees, mortgage servicers, and bank trustees, despite conflicts of interest and aged Texas laws, raises questions of organized collusion.

The narrative takes a dark turn as Joanna’s 85-year-old vulnerability is exploited, marked by attempts to seize her retirement home. Mackie Wolf stand accused, put on notice for elder abuse, a felony under Texas law.

Joanna’s poignant letter (Exhibit DB4) serves as a legal battleground, exposing the criminal intent behind the attempt to wrest her homestead away.

The footnote becomes a testament to the gravity of the situation, citing elder abuse as both a criminal act and a felony.

Amidst ongoing legal battles, the defendants frustration reaches a tipping point, leading to scandalous and unlawful acts, which were reaffirmed by the fraudulent removal of Joanna’s recent intervention as described in her last filing docketed Dec. 19, 2023;

“Verified Emergency Motion to Retain Jurisdiction with Exhibits by Intervenor-Plaintiff Joanne [sic] Burke”, 202359141 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. AVT TITLE SERVICES (Court 234).

In their desperate pursuit, the risk to Joanna is not only the impending theft, but the past, present and future infliction of irreparable harm and emotional distress resulting from the ongoing traumatic defense of the foreclosure sale.[5]

The narrative suggests a sinister motive—silencing Plaintiff permanently through the weight of emotional and physical stresses.

As justice unravels, the struggle for Joanna’s home becomes a broader tale of legal complexity, abuse, and the resilience of one woman against an unjust system.


December 2023: Requests for TRO Hearings and Remote Hearing

Plaintiff arranged with the ancillary clerk via a series of emails the TRO hearing which was scheduled and heard at 3.15 pm on Wednesday, December 27, 2023 by the ancillary judge.

[5] See; EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Jones, 252 S.W.3d 857, 876 (Tex. App. 2008)

(“Taken as a whole, the evidence is sufficient for a jury to reasonably form a firm belief or conviction that EMC acted with specific intent to cause the Joneses substantial harm.

Because we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of malice, we need not consider whether the collection efforts also resulted from gross negligence.”).

Judge Tami Craft aka Tamika Craft-Demming

Importantly, Plaintiff was unaware who the ancillary judge was at the remote hearing, and only became aware that it was Judge Tami Craft of Court 189 after receiving a copy of the Order, denying the TRO and which identified her by signature.

The Kruckemeyer Law Firm Defamation Lawsuit

The Plaintiff was shocked to learn the assigned ancillary Judge was the same Judge actively assigned to another case involving Plaintiff, namely case no. 202311266 – KRUCKEMEYER, ROBERT J vs. BLOGGER INC D/B/A LAWIN TEXAS.COM [SIC].

The Real Clown: Judge Tami Craft’s Self Recusal

Post-denial of the TRO in December, on Jan. 23, 2024, Judge Craft self-recused in the Kruckemeyer case, notably after LIT published an article on January 5, 2024 – Harris County Judge Tami Craft Caught Defaming a Lawyer in Good Standing With State Bar of Texas Texas Lawyer

“Andy Taylor is a real clown and I will forever recuse myself from ALL cases that he files…He’s a disgrace to the entire Bar”.

Judge Craft is clearly biased, defaming a lawyer who was before her court in ex parte communications via a social media messaging system not authorized by Harris County District Courts to disparage a lawyer in good standing with the State Bar of Texas.

The maligned lawyer complained in a supplement to his motion to recuse, which was filed in early October of 2023 confirming Judge Craft’s bias well before Plaintiff’s orders were issued.

In support, there are many articles on LIT about Judge Craft, confirming she is unfit to serve on the bench and should be administratively suspended without pay, investigated and impeached.

District Judge Lauren Reeder

Without authority, the Administrative Judge Elaine Palmer strategically reassigned the Kruckemeyer defamation case to Judge Lauren Reeder.

It was strategic because there are only three Harris County judges involved in the Burke’s recent litigation, and Judge Reeder has seen more than her fair share.

Joanna Burke is involved in three of those cases, namely the Kruckemeyer case (Judge Craft/Reeder/Schaffer), the Samuels intervenor case (Judge Reeder), and this case before Judge Kristen Hawkins.

Mark Burke and/or LIT is involved in two active cases, namely the Kruckemeyer case (Judge Craft/Reeder/Schaffer) and the intervenor case involving Idea 247 Inc. (Judge Craft) and the HCA[6] case (Judge Reeder), which would be severed[7] upon an amended filing, separating the complaint against Judge Reeder and Regional Administrative Judge Susan Brown into a new case.

This would be assigned to retired Judge, Hon. Dan Hinde by Judge Susan Brown herself, the defendant in those proceedings.


[7] 202268307A – BURKE, MARK vs. REEDER, LAUREN HONORABLE THE (Court 234)

However, this assignment has been reversed, with Judge Reeder filing an order dated Feb. 8, 2024, stating that she had been “ordered to recuse”.

Once again without authority, the Kruckemeyer defamation case has been reassigned by Administrative Judge Palmer in the same order on Feb. 9, 2024 to Judge Robert Schaffer.

This, despite the fact the case is prematurely at an end as a direct result of  Judge Craft – who acted in absence of all jurisdiction and her order of recusal void.

See; Ex Parte Eastland, 811 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1991)

(“The order [of contempt and commitment] is void since Judge [Ashworth] had no authority to enter the order” – citing to several cases in support).

Administrative Judge Elaine Palmer

Administrative Judge Elaine Palmer lacks authority to assign cases involving Recusal and/or Disqualification.

It is patently evident the assignment of cases has unilaterally changed since the recent HCA lawsuit, and where Mark Burke sought to disqualify Judge Reeder.

This lack of authority is in violation of  “the Texas Constitution and a collective scheme of statutes known as the Court Administration Act”.

The HCA lawsuit led to a series of very questionable events and void orders which remain open to legal challenge by Mark Burke.

Here, Plaintiff contends upon interpreting the latest opinion from an appellate court, it disavows Judge Palmer’s alleged authority to assign;

“Thus, when a district judge is disqualified or recused, the regional presiding judge of that region has the authority to assign the case to themselves or another judge.”

In re State ex rel. Wice, 668 S.W.3d 662, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023).

Judge Pamer is the “Civil Division Administrative Judge”.

The Regional Administrative Judge for the Region in this case is Hon. Susan Brown.

Thus, only Judge Brown or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas could reassign the case(s), rendering the orders of reassignment void.

The Samuels Intervention

By way of background, prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff requested an emergency hearing in her intervenor case before Judge Reeder  in case styled; 202359141 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. AVT TITLE SERVICES (Court 234).

This intervention would have served the same purposes as the filing of a new lawsuit, as the parties aligned as well as the underlying facts and issues, namely, to stop an illegal foreclosure auction.

Civil Ancillary Clerk Sashagaye Prince

The same DCO ancillary clerk arranged the hearing(s) in those proceedings.

The first TRO hearing before ancillary Judge  Tanya Garrison was arranged but canceled as it was premature, and the clerk advised  that the next assigned Judge was not yet appointed for the second half of the month.

As a result, the hearing could only be arranged after appointment. Plaintiff followed up as suggested to arrange the second half of the month hearing.

The DCO provided her with a date and time. In Plaintiff’s final email, sent on Friday, December 15, 2023 at 3.17 pm, she provided case information, a confirmation, and a question –

“May I ask who the ancillary judge is please?”

(Exhibit DB9).

No answer was received.

Additionally, Plaintiff also scoured the court’s website for the name of the appointed ancillary judge, but the hyperlink pertaining to the ancillary court and judge provides a link to a web page which is unavailable or has been removed.

New Facts and Findings re Second Application for a TRO

TRO Hearing No 2: Civil Ancillary Clerk (“Prince”)

After this court accepted the First Amended Petition and Second Application for a TRO on Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2024, at 11.05 am Plaintiff emailed Prince:

“I have filed an amended petition with a second request for TRO/hearing. Please advise calendar availability for a zoom hearing please. The proposed order is on the docket, image # 112897419”.

No response was received.

On Thursday, Feb. 22, 2024 at 11.33 am Plaintiff emailed Prince:

FOLLOW UP TO YESTERDAY’S REQUEST FOR A HEARING – PLEASE CONFIRM RECEIPT OF THIS EMAIL: I understand you may be arranging scheduling, but could you please touch base? I have filed an amended petition with a second request for TRO/hearing. Please advise calendar availability for a zoom hearing please. The proposed order is on the docket, image # 112897419.

At 11.48 am, Prince replied:

“Please give me a call to set the TRO 8329275732.”

At 1.01 pm, Plaintiff responded:

“I am hard of hearing, that’s why I have an ADA-compliant zoom hearing with subtitles. Please email the available date(s) and time(s).”

(Exhibit DB12).

At the time of this filing, no response has been received.

Discrimination and Elder Abuse

It is irrefutable, the court recognizes TRO’s are arranged quickly and on short notice, considering what’s at state which is a person’s home.

Two days later, Plaintiff is being stone-walled by the Ancillary Clerk Prince.

The Plaintiff’s first TRO was  arranged via Zoom, and the hearing held before the court and Judge Craft with the aid of subtitles.

Those facts are incontestable.

Now, Prince and the court is violating ADA laws by discriminating against Plaintiff when she obtained the first TRO via email without issue.

This is both discriminatory and elder abuse, resulting in further emotional distress, panic and despair at the malicious and willful targeting of the Plaintiff and her home by the judiciary.

Legal Authority: On the Texas Courts own website, the following document titled

“Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities By Brian East, Senior Attorney, Disability Rights Texas” :

“The ADA and other laws apply to state and local courts, as well as to attorneys. These laws prohibit disability discrimination, and generally require that courts and lawyers provide equal access and an equal experience. Specific obligations include: 4. When attorney, party, or witness is deaf or hard of hearing…”

See; Texas Courts website at: (last visited Feb. 23, 2024).

First TRO Hearing (Dec. 27, 2023)

Here, Plaintiff was left completely in the dark as to who was assigned to the hearing, and who Plaintiff was facing at the zoom hearing until the Order denying the TRO was released, and signature reviewed, identifying Judge Craft as the signatory.

The fact Judge Tami Craft did not self-recuse in these proceedings or the Kruckemeyer lawsuit until January 23, 2023, and only after a series of abhorrent, unethical, and unconstitutional acts and orders were entered become additional causes of action in this amended complaint.

Moreover, combined with the fact that Harris County District Courts, by not publicly disclosing the ancillary judge[8], denied Plaintiff’s state constitutional and due process rights (to challenge Judge Craft’s assignment before the hearing) were violated.[9]

[8] See; In re Patel, No. 01-10-00957-CV, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2010)

(“The temporary restraining order that is the subject of this original proceeding was issued by the Hon. Patricia Hancock, judge of the 113th District Court of Harris County, Texas, sitting as Ancillary Judge under Local Rule 3.5 of Rules of Civil Trial Division of the Harris County District Courts. See HARRIS COUNTY (TEX.) CIV. DIST. CT. LOC. R. 3.5.”).

[9] See; Sendgikoski v. State, No. 03-10-00271-CR, at *4-5 (Tex. App. Aug. 19, 2011)

(“Judicial bias is a ground for disqualification in those cases in which the bias is shown to be of such a nature and to such an extent as to deny a defendant due process of law—a right guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions.

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1; Tex. Const. art. 1, § 19; Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 121 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

Disqualification cannot be waived where it arises from a constitutional provision.

Woodland v. State, 178 S.W.2d 528, 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1944).

Disqualification of a judge for bias that denies due process may be raised at any time.

See Gamez v. State, 737 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).”). See also, generally; Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App. 2008).

Disclaimer: Plaintiff only relies upon the State’s constitution in these proceedings and pleadings.

Plaintiff asserts disqualification cannot be waived but can be raised at any time.

Buckholts Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tex. 1982).

No judge shall sit in any case wherein he or she may be interested.

See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 11.

Judges shall disqualify themselves in all proceedings in which they have an interest in the subject matter in  controversy.

See TEX.R. CIV. P. 18b(1)(b).

The interest that disqualifies a judge is an interest, however small, which rests on a direct pecuniary or personal interest in the result of the case.

Cameron v. Greenhill, 582 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tex. 1979) (per curiam).

If a judge is disqualified, the judge is without jurisdiction to hear the case; therefore, any judgment rendered is void and a nullity.

Glaser, 632 S.W.2d at 148; Gulf Mar. Warehouse Co. v. Towers, 858 S.W.2d 556, 560 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1993, writ denied); Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Ater, 845 S.W.2d 334, 336 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992, no writ).

Judge Tami Craft as Ancillary Judge Denied Burke’s TRO

Here, Judge Tami Craft was absent all jurisdiction to be assigned as ancillary judge in these proceedings as she failed to answer Burkes’ December 11, 2023 motion to disqualify her in the Kruckemeyer case (where Plaintiff is a party) within the statutory three-day time period allowed[10].

Significantly, this was prior to the assignment of the ancillary judge by Harris County District Court’s Administrative Judge.

Judge Craft would eventually “self-recuse”, but not before a tidal wave of prejudicial acts and orders related to the Burkes’ litigation had been issued, including denial of the TRO to stop the illegal foreclosure.

High-Profile Son Sparks Court Retaliation and Prejudice

Plaintiff avers due to the high profile of Joanna Burke’s son, Mark Burke, who operates a legal blog which investigates legal, judicial and government corruption, there is a conspiracy which is prejudicial to both Joanna and Mark Burke because of their verifiable claims against “the judicial machinery itself”.

It is well-known within this courthouse and legal circles that Mark Burke as founder of Blogger Inc., an investigative journalist and editor at, has published many articles about this court, including the visiting lawyers, judges,  court staff and administrative divisions in Harris County District Court and related Harris County agencies.

In fact, the Kruckemeyer Law Firm lawsuit is a defamation case brought by one such Texas lawyer, Robert Kruckemeyer.

The Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice of the underlying facts, counsel, and parties in those proceedings.

Coincidentally, on Friday, February 16, 2024 the Texas Supreme Court released an opinion which would extinguish Kruckemeyer’s defamation case, had the actions of Judge Tami Craft not prematurely terminated the case.

See; Polk Cnty. Publ’g Co. v. Coleman, No. 22-0103 (Tex. Feb. 16, 2024).

Hence, Plaintiff alleges the assignment of the ancillary judge for the second half of December was a conspiracy between Judge Craft, and the Administrative Judge Elaine Palmer, in collusion with Harris County administrative officers/judges, Defendants and their agents.

This illegal foreclosure is part of a concerted and premeditated scheme, a conspiracy to target and victimize a law-abiding elder citizen and abuse her constitutional rights to a fair and impartial hearing.

This is verified by the fact that Judge Craft could not even manage the TRO docket herself, relying upon Judge Donna Roth to aid her by acting as ancillary on foreclosure-related TRO hearings during the same period.

The opportunity for Judge Craft to recuse from Plaintiff’s TRO hearing was clearly available but she was eager to preside over the hearing to execute the predetermined denial of the requested injunctive relief.

[10] See; Barnhill v. Agnew, No. 12-12-00080-CV, at *2 (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2013).

As such, her subsequent order(s) are  void.

See: In re A.R.,236 S.W.3d 460, 477 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).

The Automatic Bankruptcy Stay is Still in Effect

Known Facts and Findings  at Time of Filing the First Amended Petition

Joanna Burke filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in Southern District Federal Court, Houston division on December 28, 2023. The case was assigned to Federal Bankruptcy Judge Jeffrey Norman, who signed an order dismissing the case on January 17, 2024.

However, this was as a direct result of USPS mail delivery issues which have been well documented in the local media.

As such, the intended pleadings, including a motion to reinstate, which arrived on Friday, February 9, 2024[11] were not considered, and as such the dismissal was in error.

As such, any reliance on prior legal opinions by the Bankruptcy Court or the Defendants on the premise the dismissal of the bankruptcy proceeding ended the automatic stay, would be misplaced.

In short, the federal bankruptcy court automatic stay is still in full force and effect – as the Plaintiff’s [missing] motions are valid and enforceable, pending a decision and order[s] from the court.

As such, any future foreclosure auction or sale, for example on March 5, 2024, would be in violation of the notice requirements and automatic stay.

It is necessary to point out the Plaintiff’s two separate USPS mailings, which enclosed Plaintiff’s timely pleadings – and which were both delivered at 8:04 am on February 9, 2024 in HOUSTON, TX 77208 as per Tracking Numbers: 9405830109355057663270 (January 5, 2024 mailing) and 9405830109355063164198 (January 26, 2024 mailing) – remain missing from the court’s case docket at the Southern District, Houston Division as at the time of this filing.

This, Plaintiff asserts, is part of the ongoing federal judiciary and federal government’s conspiracy with the Defendant’s to allow the apparent March 2024 foreclosure auction to proceed.

Currently, the case has been erroneously dismissed on the basis the court had not received Plaintiff’s timely pleadings, which is untrue.

The court has been in possession of the mailed pleadings since the early morning of Friday, February 9, 2024.

A review of the US Court’s website states, in part;

“The clerk manages the court’s non-judicial functions according to policies set by the court and reports directly to the court through the chief judge. Among a clerk’s many functions are: Maintaining court records and dockets”.

In Plaintiff’s case, the clerk has not filed the two separate motions delivered on the same day, and Plaintiff avers, it is a deliberate act.

In short, an ultra vires act, as it affects the Plaintiff constitutional and due process rights in the future. Furthermore, this warrants injunctive relief to restrain future unconstitutional conduct.

Any reliance upon the courts’ dismissal as binding and the automatic stay terminated would be a mistake.

Certainly, that may well have been the case had the federal bankruptcy court docketed the motions, but they deliberately failed to do perform their non-judicial duties which is materially detrimental to Plaintiff.

Legal Authority: Etan Indus. v. Lehmann, 359 S.W.3d 620, 624 (Tex. 2011) (explaining that UDJA is “intended as a means of determining the parties’ rights when a controversy has arisen but before a wrong has been committed”).

New Facts and Findings at Time of Filing the Second Amended Petition

After filing the First Amended Petition on February 21, 2024 Plaintiff sent an email at 10.44 am that morning to Southern District Bankruptcy Clerk Mario Rios as suggested in the court’s rules at ‘’  which concluded with:

“I would kindly ask that my motions to be filed on the docket and addressed in accordance with the law and without further delay.”. 

Plaintiff did not receive a response.

Later in the same day, and upon checking the now removed intervenor docket for updates, there were additional new filings which Plaintiff had not seen.

Upon obtaining the updated docket, the Plaintiff was shocked to find the “missing” USPS mail had been docketed onto this district court case, assigned to Judge Alfred Homer Bennett.

The date shown is February 9, 2024.

This was a deliberate act in furtherance of the conspiracy described in the First Amended Petition and restated herein.

On February 22, 2024 at 3.37 pm, Plaintiff received notice from my email provider that the court was refusing to accept the email to Mario Rios, and it would attempt redelivery.

At 5.26 pm, Plaintiff sent a copy of the email, removing the one attachment from the first email (the screenshot) to ‘’ and additionally, a court email wherein Plaintiff has successfully corresponded with in the past, ‘’ labeled TXSDdb Houston Operation

(Exhibit DB10).

Simultaneously, the Trustee in Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy filed “Chapter 13 Trustee’s Final Report and Account (batch)”

(Exhibit DB11).

As at the time of this amended filing, there are two motions from the Plaintiff admittedly in the possession of the Houston Federal Courts which have yet to be disposed and prevent a premature dismissal of the Bankruptcy case, as this latest Trustee Final Report seeks to erroneously challenge.

When these new facts and findings are taken into consideration, it provides additional weight and support to the conspiracy claims by Plaintiff.

It is clear and obvious; both the Houston Federal Court and this Harris County State Court are conspiring together in violation of Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights.

It does not go unnoticed that federal Judge Bennett, who has unlawfully hijacked Plaintiff’s bankruptcy filings, is a former Harris County District Court judge.

In fact, it was  Judge Bennett who signed the extension of the TRO for Jeff Samuels in his 2013 pro se case against Ocwen, and who were represented by Barrett Daffin, as visible in Exhibit DB8.

As such, Plaintiff is assured the filing of these new and alarming facts and findings of the ongoing deception and conspiracy will ensure expedited notice by this court to the federal court in Rusk Street, Houston, including Judges Norman and Bennett.

[11] See; In re Cadwallder, CASE NO: 06-36424, at *3 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 28, 2007)

(“Occasionally the Clerk receives paper documents, from pro se litigants for example.

When paper documents are submitted to the Clerk, they are scanned and turned into PDF documents on the Clerk’s computer.

The Clerk then generates the electronic docket entry through which the PDF document is accessed.

Some courts destroy the paper copies. Other courts keep them for varying periods, but only as a precaution.

No courts use the paper documents; only the electronic computer images are used by the courts, the parties, and the public.”).

To this day, Houston division still forces pro se litigants to file in-person or by post, denying ECF/Pacer permissions. Federal rules are clear;

once the mail has been deposited in a United States postal box, as happened on January 5, 2024 and again on January 26, 2024, it is deemed posted and an active pleading.

As such, the automatic stay persists – whether or not delivery is delayed and/or disputed. The automatic stay persists until such times as the court enters an order pertaining to the motions.

Indeed, the federal court filed other delayed mail onto the respective case docket from the same postal batch which left the Burke’s household that first fateful day, Jan. 5, 2024, and which would not reach the court until Feb. 9, 2024.


In light of the preceding, it would appear another orchestrated and illegal sale has been scheduled.

Plaintiff has not received any official notices in the mail regarding the planned foreclosure sale, set for the first Tuesday in March of 2024.

However, similar to the first attempted foreclosure sale, the Plaintiff is receiving unsolicited phone calls and mail indicating her homestead has been relisted for sale in March.

As such, Plaintiff restates and incorporates the allegations regarding the first notice of foreclosure here.


It is evident the Defendant’s past actions, coupled with their future intentions, are scheming an unlawful and unjust foreclosure aimed at displacing the Plaintiff from homeowner status to a mere tenant-in-sufferance.

This calculated strategy represents a premeditated conspiracy designed to strip the Plaintiff of her homeowner rights and unlawfully seize her homestead, thus depriving her of the opportunity to pursue rightful challenges, including those related to title and other associated causes of action.

Legal Authority: Marsh v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 760 F. Supp. 2d 701, 708 (N.D. Tex. 2011)

(“A claim for wrongful foreclosure requires that the property in question be sold at a foreclosure sale.

Allied Capital, 67 S.W.3d at 492.

Here, Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for wrongful foreclosure because no foreclosure sale has occurred.”).

Villanueva v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. ex rel. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust, No. 13-13-00393-CV, at *4-5 (Tex. App. Feb. 12, 2015)

(“ A. Applicable Law – The purpose of a forcible entry and detainer action is to provide a party with an immediate legal remedy to obtain possession.

Falcon v. Ensignia, 976 S.W.2d 336, 338 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.)

(citing Home Sav. Ass’n v. Ramirez, 600 S.W.2d 911, 913 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.));

Justice courts may adjudicate possession even when issues related to the title of real property are tangentially or collaterally related to possession.

Id.; see McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. 1984); Home Sav. Ass’n, 600 S.W.2d at 913-14; Fry v. Ahrens, 256 S.W.2d 115, 116-17 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1953, no writ).

The right to immediate possession may be determined separately from the right to title in most cases, and the Texas Legislature purposely established just such a system.

Rice v. Pinney, 51 S.W.3d 705, 710 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, no pet.);

see Scott v. Hewitt, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex. 1936)

(holding that the provision in a deed of trust that made defaulting grantor a tenant at sufferance was valid and able to support a forcible detainer action).

However, if the question of title is so integrally linked to the issue of possession so that possession may not be determined without first determining title, justice and county courts are without jurisdiction to make any determinations regarding title.

Mitchell v. Armstrong Capital Corp., 911 S.W.2d 169, 171 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied); Johnson v. Fellowship Baptist Church, 627 S.W.2d 203, 204 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1981, no writ).

Rather, district courts have sole jurisdiction to adjudicate title to real property.

TEX. CONST. art. 5, § 8; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 26.043 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.); Falcon, 976 S.W.2d at 338.”).

Tenant-in-Sufferance Case Study Without Active Injunction

That stated, there are current cases which reject this application of Texas law, and Plaintiff presents an ongoing case study in support.

See; “Daniels Eviction Case before Judge Hanks in Houston Federal Court Is a Barnstormer”, and which can be found online at

This provides a detailed history of the litigation in both state and federal courts.

At the time of this filing, the case is currently on appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

As the (“LIT”) article confirms, Daniels has not been successful in obtaining injunctive relief, yet his appeal has clearly acted as security for the home in dispute, which is still in the ownership of Daniels – despite being sold to an investor in 2022 and the mandate in favor of eviction of Daniels in the state proceedings, see; ZLOS Investment Trust vs David Lee Daniels, III, All Occupants, Case No. 1181380 (2022).

Defendants are Serial Violators of Texas Foreclosure Laws

The preamble to this amended petition outlined the egregious acts by Defendants in the following Jones case study.

“Texas: The $4 Million Dollar Wrongful Foreclosure Judgment Against Deutsche Bank and PHH Ocwen”: which can be found online at provides a detailed history of the lengthy litigation in state courts.

At the time of this filing, the case is currently on appeal at the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi.

The Plaintiff asserts the legal tactics currently employed here are very similar, as the ultimate goal is to illegally seize a homestead by violating every possible Texas law and statute.

The Plaintiff has discussed the appointed Defendants and their counsel’s illegal acts, and the latest assigned counsel, Baker Donelson recently showed their affinity to criminal acts as confirmed by these independent press headlines;

Law360 (Feb. 16, 2024) – “A Mississippi federal judge has limited certain damages Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC may have to pay in a federal receiver’s suit claiming the firm allowed a Ponzi scheme to unfold in one of its offices, but left the door open for other types of damages.”

Bloomberg Law News (Nov. 2, 2023) – “Ex-Baker Donelson Partner Sentenced to Prison for Ponzi Scheme for conspiracy to defraud.


Seeking injunctive relief from Harris County District Judges or Ancillary Judges to prevent the illegal sale appears improbable – but remains a necessary pursuit.

Referencing the first denial of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) by this court, obtaining future injunctive relief, including a TRO from any judge in the state, would likely face major hurdles.

Alternatively, any granted TRO would likely entail an unreasonably high bond, especially burdensome for a retired widow with a modest fixed income.

Plaintiff contends that the conspiracy attributed to her in these proceedings is targeted. It’s a direct result of her son’s media business blogs and underscores the challenge she faces.

A comparison is necessary to provide evidentiary proof.

For example, TROs with low bonds were granted to “foreclosure defense” lawyers lacking substantial evidence, further supports her assertions.

Contrary to these precedents, Plaintiff’s latest amended petition and second application for injunctive relief risks being denied once more.

In order to support the conspiracy claims, Plaintiff performs this comparison by reference to her son’s investigative legal blog at (“LIT”), which highlights numerous cases affirming Plaintiff’s claims.

This archive of foreclosure proceedings in Harris County District Court reveals a diminishing trend, with a discernible focus shift among foreclosure defense lawyers towards counties beyond Harris to escape LIT’s investigative journalism and publicity that may come with any filings they present—a primary focus of is Harris County foreclosure proceedings.

TRO Bond Amount

Recent changes in TRO bond calculations, appearing arbitrary and influenced by personal connections rather than a standardized means test, provide additional support for the Plaintiff’s conspiracy claims.

Judge Brittanye Morris

For instance, a significant commercial property valued at over $30 million dollars facing foreclosure obtained a remarkably low $500 bond, which LIT’s blog suggests is attributable to the property’s owner’s familiarity with the court and as the former boss of Harris County District Judge Morris, who refused to voluntarily recuse from his case before her court.

This relationship is confirmed by independent local investigative journalist Wayne Dolcefino on his website and YouTube channel, where he narrates that the property owner is the former boss of Harris County District Judge Morris, who declined to recuse herself voluntarily from his case.

These circumstances raise concerns about the impartiality of the judicial process and reinforce suspicions of preferential treatment based on personal connections.

Ancillary Judge Jaclanel McFarland

In January’s docket, disparities in TRO bond amounts were noted, overseen by ancillary Judge Jaclanel McFarland.

In one case, Svetlana A. Pestova vs. LIC Financial LLC, where Pestova represented herself, Judge McFarland granted the TRO but set the bond at $3,000.

Conversely, in another case involving Logik Precision Real Estate Holdings LLC vs. U.S. Bank NA, represented by lawyer Morgan Jenkins, the TRO was granted with a bond of $1,000.

Comparing the bond amounts, Pestova’s property, estimated at approximately $235,800, had a higher bond than the commercial buildings subject to foreclosure in the Logik proceedings, with a note valued at around $1.3 million.

These differences raise questions about the rationale behind bond determinations and strongly support a finding of discrimination in the application of judicial discretion.


Based on the facts presented in this complaint, any future foreclosure sale of the Plaintiff’s homestead without obtaining a TRO from the court would be considered void for fraud, rendering it legally ineffective.

This would serve as a significant legal obstacle against any attempts to evict the Plaintiff from their home.

The Plaintiff argues that such an illegal foreclosure, if carried out by the Defendants, would be unlawful and should not be permitted to stand.

The Defendants’ purported goal appears to be the conversion of the Plaintiff from a homeowner into a tenant-in-sufferance, a scenario that contradicts the legal protections historically afforded to residential homesteads in Texas and related foreclosure property laws.

Consequently, any foreclosure sale and subsequent deed filings by the Defendants in real property records would be deemed both void and fraudulent under the law.

To support this assertion, the complaint suggests a review of past and present foreclosure cases in both state and federal courts, likely aiming to demonstrate a pattern of improper or illegal foreclosure actions by the Defendants or similar entities.

This historical context is intended to bolster the Plaintiff’s argument regarding the illegitimacy of any future foreclosure attempts against their homestead property.


As she’s been in federal courts relative to her homestead since 2011, Joanna Burke is not familiar with the State Court’s standard practices and the challenges she currently faces.

However, a review of the state court archives affirms it is normal practice for homeowners to seek, and the courts to grant  temporary injunctive relief with a nominal valued bond to prevent a disputed foreclosure auction and sale.

Case studies relevant to this dataset are provided.

Joanna Burke’s Intervention in the Samuels Case

Creditor Rights Lawyer Emily Stroope (“Stroope”)

As with the multi-million dollar judgment against Defendants in the Jones case, counsel for servicer (Ocwen) and trustee (Deutsche Bank) includes Emily Stroope of Baker Donelson (State Bar No. 24070692).

Foreclosure mill lawyer Stroope appeared in Plaintiff’s Samuels intervention case.

Stroope committed perjury, as she was untruthful in her justification and legal reasoning as to the snap removal of those proceedings to federal court, as recorded on the docket.

Over her objections[12], Plaintiff’s formal request for an emergency hearing, which she had followed-up directly with the court via email would be blanked by both the court and staff.

Analysis of  December 2023 Foreclosure Cases (Sample)

This analysis provides an overview of several foreclosure cases filed in December 2023, focusing on the efforts of two foreclosure defense lawyers, Erick Delarue and Bruce Akerly, in Harris County District Court.

Erick Delarue’s Cases

Case 1 (202388478): Delarue represents 7502 HARRISBURG LLC against TEXAS FUNDING LLC. A TRO was granted in a commercial property dispute, but the court sealed key documents. Despite complaints from the foreclosing lender, the TRO was extended, leading to the case’s removal to S.D. Texas Bankruptcy Court.

Case 2 (202388508): This case, filed by Sarah Rowles Sewing against PNC BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, was quickly withdrawn.

Sewing’s history of foreclosure filings and the involvement of her family members, including prominent individuals, cast doubt on the legitimacy of her claims.

The fact that there has been no foreclosure despite multiple judgments or orders permitting foreclosure raises questions about the circumstances surrounding the parties and the legal proceedings.

Despite numerous past judgments authorizing foreclosure, including expedited orders and rulings dating back to at least 2014, foreclosure has not yet occurred.

The absence of foreclosure despite multiple prior judgments raises concerns about the legal tactics employed, which is exploitation of the legal system for financial gain by the involved law firms.

It is alleged by the preponderance of the evidence that Mackie Wolf have consistently engaged in the unethical practice of overbilling their clients and prolonging legal proceedings unnecessarily to generate more fees.

Case 3 (202383355): Tracy Wicker, represented by Delarue, obtained a TRO against NORTH AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, FSB, before it was removed to federal court and whilst her home lay empty while on the market for sale.

Akerly’s Cases

Case 1 (202388045): Urban Row Holdings LLC, represented by Akerly, secured a TRO against U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, with unlawfully sealed documents.

Conflict of interest issues arose with shared legal representation for the defendants, leading to the case’s dismissal after highlighted irregularities.

Case 2 (202384975): In another case against U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Akerly represents The Lodges at Scott LLC. This case mirrors the first, with sealed documents and a conflict of interest regarding legal representation.

Properties listed in the sealed petition were sold at foreclosure, suggesting breach of a commercial loan agreement.

Both Delarue and Akerly’s cases highlight irregularities such as sealed documents, conflicts of interest, and questionable legitimacy of foreclosure defenses.

The analysis suggests potential legal violations and strategic maneuvers by both sides in these foreclosure proceedings.

[12] See; Verified Emergency Motion to Retain Jurisdiction with Exhibits by Intervenor-Plaintiff Joanne Burke Image No. 111852105, Dec. 18, 2023 – 202359141 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. AVT TITLE SERVICES (Court 234), specifically p. 9-10 with supporting exhibits.


Since the greatest theft of residential homes in American history, Plaintiff’s litigation commenced in 2011, persisting in federal district and appellate courts to this very day.

No Injunction or Bond Required in Federal Courts

At no time has Plaintiff ever been required to seek injunctive relief or required a monetary bond whilst litigating. A review of historical federal court archives confirms injunctive relief wasn’t necessary, mandated or even discussed in the majority of lawsuits.

The Homestead Acts as Security

It is common knowledge that the home provides the collateral or security necessary to negate the requirement for an injunction and/or monetary bond.

Plaintiff cited a recent appellate court decision which states;

“The lender already has its security interest in the mortgaged property. That security interest should ordinarily suffice to protect the lender’s rights pending appeal for purposes of Rule 62. That’s what the lender bargained for as its security, after all.”

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Cornish, No. 18-2429, at *6 (7th Cir. Feb. 6, 2019).


Clearly, no bond or injunction was required in Plaintiff’s litigation until November of 2023, when the wheels of the conspirators started turning and the first illegal and deficient notice of foreclosure was issued by the Defendants.

All whilst there is ongoing litigation in federal court .

The Plaintiff avers the trigger for this illegal act was her son’s investigations into government fraud, waste and abuse, legal and judicial corruption, and related investigative articles on his legal media blogs.

Plaintiff has been tarred as a result.

As such, she turns to LIT’s well-researched and data intensive blog(s) to support her claims;

The Laser Focus on Joanna Burke and her Home

The Plaintiff has delved into various foreclosure cases involving Defendants. She has also reviewed cases where injunctive relief has been deemed necessary during litigation or appeal.

This small sample of cases provides incontestable evidence of a targeted scheme against Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts the evidence reveals a clear and unmistakable pattern of conspiracy, fraud, discrimination, and elder abuse perpetrated by the Defendants.

This assertion is supported by various instances of irregularities and questionable practices observed throughout the foreclosure cases under scrutiny.

These cases demonstrate a consistent pattern of prolonged litigation despite homeowners’ concession to foreclosure judgments and where no injunctive relief was ever obtained, as it is not required. Notable instances include:

Dorman Case (Dianne Dorman vs. Deep Pockets PHH): Despite repeated foreclosure orders over several years, Mackie Wolf sent Dorman another notice of foreclosure.

However, the scheduled auction would be stopped when it could have continued, and was then snap removed to federal court, where a rapid substitution of legal representation coincided upon investigation by LIT.

Schoenbauer Case (Tim Schoenbauer vs. Deutsche Bank): The article discusses the snap removal of the case to federal court and the absence of injunctive relief or monetary bond requirements.

Despite an opinion and order of foreclosure entered in the lower court in June 2023, no foreclosure auction or sale has occurred.

Kew Case (Dr. Yvonne Kew vs. Deutsche Bank): Dr. Kew’s ongoing battle against foreclosure since 2011, despite dismissals with prejudice, and the absence of a temporary restraining order (TRO) for the ongoing state court proceedings filed in July 2023 by sanctioned and admonished foreclosure defense lawyer Brandy Alexander, the home has not been listed for foreclosure auction.

Underwood Case (Rodney Underwood vs. PHH): Rodney Underwood’s 17-year litigation continues, with no active temporary injunction or application for injunctive relief.

Hughes Case (Homeowner Hughes vs. Deutsche Bank): Despite a foreclosure judgment entered in 2022, Mackie Wolf’s representation has not led to any foreclosure auction or sale as of 2024.

Shackelford Case (Ray L. Shackelford vs. Various Entities): Ray Shackelford’s repeated frivolous filings and perjury, along with his family’s property remaining in foreclosure for over 22 years, illustrate systemic issues within the foreclosure defense circle of lawyers who are more than officers of the court, they are “friends of the court”.

A Quick Federal Recap

The federal cases offer a brief glimpse into the ongoing situation, underscoring a targeted campaign against Joanna Burke and her home.

Despite the limited dataset for the purposes of brevity, it’s evident that Plaintiff, her son, his business interests, and her homestead have been singled out by the Defendants and their co-conspirators, including the judicial machinery itself.

The Defendants are cognizant of LIT’s vigilant monitoring of foreclosure-related cases in both state and federal courts.

Judicial Activism and Manufactured Opinions

Courts are engaged in judicial activism, fabricating opinions to favor banks and foreclosure mill law firms. A notable example is a Fifth Circuit opinion invoking “prudential standing,” viewed by Plaintiff as pretextual to dismiss cases unfairly.

The court’s actions enable further abuses in the foreclosure process.

In order to try and overcome historical facts and opinions, the judiciary and courts will manufacture opinions on the fly to accommodate the banks, non-banks and the tight circle of foreclosure mill law firms and lawyers who practice before the court.

These opinions will then take precedence in future cases, thus allowing the court to discount earlier case law.

This is also based on personal experience by Plaintiff and Hon. Stephen Wm. Smith, and while on appeal at the Fifth Circuit not once, but twice with (i) Connie Pfeiffer of Beck Redden agreed with then Magistrate Judge Smith that the Fifth Circuit erred in reversing, and; (ii) legal titan Steve Berman’s and his law firm of Hagens Berman represented Plaintiff in the second appeal.

However, they would be flabbergasted and shocked to learn they were denied the opportunity to present oral argument, considering the importance of the case.

Returning to the present, one such  opinion was released by the Fifth Circuit panel including Judges Elrod, Oldham and Wilson on Nov. 17, 2023, which coincides neatly with the Plaintiff’s first foreclosure notice in November of 2023. In this opinion, the 3-panel on rehearing invokes “prudential standing”, claiming;

“Because the Sechlers do not dispute that they have failed to make any mortgage payments in over seven years, which puts them in default of the Promissory Note, the district court correctly determined they lack standing to bring a wrongful foreclosure claim.”

Sechler v. U.S. Bank, No. 23-60103, at *3-4 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2023).

The prudential standing doctrine is explained by the 5th Circuit themselves in a notorious case where it is rumored that Judge Elrod’s last minute recusal meant a loss of quorum for rehearing.

As a result, the case could not be heard en banc and was ultimately dismissed. In short, it was a landmark case for all the wrong reasons.[13]

Plaintiff asserts this latest opinion and 3-panel have invoked judicial activism in order to manufacture their per curiam opinion under the false assertion that prudential standing applies in the circumstances discussed.

If that were true, then 99 percent of cases nationwide should have been dismissed post-2008 in favor of prudential standing and federal courts’ would be devoid of foreclosure cases.

[13] See; Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, 585 F.3d 855, 868 (5th Cir. 2009)

(“[O]ur standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement,

see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-62, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992);

and prudential standing, which embodies “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,”

Allen, 468 U.S., at 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315.”).

Rule 62: No Monetary Bond Required

The recent introduction of bond requirements by federal courts marks a notable shift in legal tactics. Rule 62 traditionally dictates that injunctions and monetary bonds are not necessary.

However, the Fifth Circuit and the judiciary have recently begun implementing these requirements in foreclosure cases—a departure from previous practices dating back to 2008.

This new ploy introduces hurdles for homeowners facing foreclosure, deviating from established legal norms.

See; U.S. Bank v. Bates, No. 21-11251, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 16, 2023):

“After noticing this appeal, Defendants filed a motion in the district court asking the court to set a bond to stay the upcoming scheduled sale of the Property by the Plaintiff.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b).

The district court Judge Reed O’Connor issued an order requiring Defendants to post a $387,000 bond-worth about one-third of the outstanding debt-to obtain a stay of the court’s judgment.

Defendants did not post the bond.

Subsequently, Defendants sought an emergency stay in this court, which we denied. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 8”.

The Plaintiffs (US Bank, PHH Ocwen, et al) employed Mark Cronenwett of Mackie Wolf and lawyers from McGlinchey Stafford.

It should be recognized that Bates had already reached a settlement agreement which included an agreement that he would not legally challenge his foreclosure.

Despite this, several foreclosure defense lawyers and their firms pursued baseless litigation for Bates in this case and earlier cases in state, federal and appellate courts litigation to prevent foreclosure by auction of his residential property.

Neither opposing counsel on behalf of themselves or their clients, nor the court itself imposed any show cause orders  or sanctions pertaining to the patently frivolous litigation.

The Persecution of Great Recession Homeowners Persists

The plight of homeowners affected by the Great Recession persists, with predatory lending practices going unpunished.

Wall Street investors and government-backed agencies have profited from lawsuits while families continue to face illegal evictions.

Joanna Burke, an 85-year-old widow and confirmed victim of predatory lending, now faces illegal foreclosure and eviction from her retirement home.

The financial crisis, which originated in the United States due to the collapse of the housing market and the proliferation of subprime mortgage lending is well-documented.

However, despite congress, the Department of Justice and the FBI calling predatory loans criminal and that those responsible would be held accountable, there was never any successful prosecution of the institutions and executives responsible.

That stated, one would have hoped the government would sua sponte instruct forgiveness of these predatory securitized mortgages and loan.

Distressingly, the opposite is true.

Instead, Plaintiff has witnessed the largest payout of relief for post-2008 financial crisis victims of predatory lending and lender-application fraud, as identified here.

These judgments did not go to the victims.

No, they were distributed to Wall-Street investors including pension funds, along the government-backed agencies who were involved in home ownership securitization of mortgages and loans (RMBS) and who sued for monetary damages.

After lengthy litigation – and whilst they watched millions of families of these predatory loans being illegally evicted from their residential homes –  they  have quietly won billions of dollars in court judgments, including hefty attorney fee awards.

These judgments were based upon lengthy and voluminous discovery and expert witness testimony and reports provided to the courts, which unequivocally concluded upon detailed forensic examination that mortgages to the true-victims of these financial crimes, including Joanna Burke and her now deceased husband,  were both predatory and fraudulent.

One would assume that forgiveness or restitution, and an apology would be forthcoming to the victims of such fraud, considering the courts have affirmed what was already well-known, the now defunct Indymac Bank’s loan to Plaintiff was criminal, predatory and fraudulent.

No, with the investors’ accounts flush with these billion-dollar judgments and which are tainted in the blood of millions of illegally foreclosed families homes, they have targeted this 85-year old widow’s homestead for illegal foreclosure in 2024.

It is uncontested that the bankers greed which lit the flame for the great recession has only benefited the financial services vertical and the government.

Post-2008, the statistics confirm one in three residential homes in America are now Wall-Street owned rentals.

America’s dream of home ownership is just that for future generations, a dream.

Viciously, the greed and crimes against abused and now elderly financial crisis homeowners who have survived the brutal bank and non-bank litigation to-date is akin to waiting for execution in a concentration camp.

Joanna Burke, a confirmed victim of a predatory loan, is being illegally foreclosed and will be forcefully evicted in violation of her constitutional rights.

This would represent a manifest injustice, a tragic continuation of the crimes perpetrated against financial crisis victims.



Violation of  the Texas Constitution (All Defendants)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above as if fully written herein.

The Texas Constitution: protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, those which affect due process and constitute discrimination, in this case elder abuse of an 85-year old disabled widow. See; Tex. Const. art. I, 3a, 9, and 19.

Article I, Section 3a of the Texas Constitution states: 3a.

“EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.”

Here, while the specific language of Article I, Section 3a of the Texas Constitution may not directly reference elder abuse, the principle of equality under the law can be applied to protect older adults from discrimination and mistreatment, including elder abuse.

Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution states: “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”.

Here, it is clear there is a conspiracy by the Defendant’s, including State and Federal Government agencies to aid and abet Defendants in seeking an unlawful and illegal foreclosure auction to take place on March 5, 2024 in order that Defendants, and/or their agents can seize her homestead, her possessions and in doing so, violating her Constitutional rights.

Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution states: “19. DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, ETC. BY DUE COURSE OF LAW. No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.”.

Here, it is clear and obvious that Plaintiff’s rights under this section have been infringed.

Legal Authority: 165,524.78 v. State, 47 S.W.3d 632, 639 (Tex. App. 2001)

(“Tex. Const. art. I, § 19. “Here the Government seized property not to preserve evidence of wrongdoing, but to assert ownership and control over the property itself. Our cases establish that government action of this consequence must comply with the Due Process” James Daniel Good, 510 U.S. at 52.”).

It matters not that any future seizure of the Plaintiff’s homestead is executed privately and/or with assistance from the local sheriff or police departments.

Any attempt at seizure of the Plaintiff’s homestead affirms the conspiracy causes of action included in this amended petition and is in violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional and Due Process rights.

Ex parte communications in this case are a violation of Plaintiff’s right to due process, which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Due process requires that all parties to a legal proceeding have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of their case. If a judge engages in ex parte communications, it may give one party an unfair advantage over the other.

Judicial misconduct: Ex parte communications are generally considered to be a form of judicial misconduct.

As stated earlier, Judge Craft’s misconduct should be grounds for disqualification, disciplinary action, and/or removal from the bench. Further, as conspiracy is alleged, that would also prompt ex parte communications amongst the judges and the Defendants.

Bias or prejudice: If a judge engages in ex parte communications as witnessed here, it is clearly direct and uncontroverted evidence of bias and prejudice against Plaintiff in this case. This bias and prejudice mandates disqualification.

Violation of ethical rules: Judges are held to high ethical standards and are required to follow certain rules of conduct. When, as here, a judge engages in ex parte communications, they are in direct contempt and violation of these rules and should be subject to disciplinary action.

The Texas Constitution refers to “due process” as the “due course of law.” Section 19 of Article I of the Texas Constitution states:

The concept of “due course of law” in Texas has been interpreted by courts to require that legal proceedings must be fair, impartial, and follow established procedures. It guarantees that individuals have a right to notice of any legal actions against them, the opportunity to be heard, the right to legal counsel, and the right to a fair and impartial decision-maker.

In summary, “due course of law” in the Texas Constitution serves as a protection against arbitrary and unfair government actions and provides Texans with similar protections to those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause.

All elements apply in this case as described in this petition and supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


Malicious Use of Process aka Abuse of Process (All Defendants)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above as if fully written herein.

“The elements of abuse of process are (1) an illegal, improper, or perverted use of the process, neither warranted nor authorized by the process, (2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such use, and (3) damages as a result of the illegal act.

Bukaty, 248 S.W.3d at 897. ” LaCore Enters. v. Angles, No. 05-21-00798-CV, at *29 (Tex. App. Mar. 23, 2023).

All elements apply in this case as described in this complaint and supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


Conspiracy (All Defendants)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above and as if fully written herein.

Civil Conspiracy: The Defendants are part of a conspiracy to damage Plaintiff. Defendants had knowledge of, agreed to, and intended a common objective or course of action that resulted in damages to Plaintiff, and Defendants performed an act or acts to further the conspiracy, which Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages.

Elements of Civil Conspiracy:  “A “civil conspiracy” means a combination by two or more persons or entities to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means.

The elements of a civil conspiracy are: (a) two or more parties; (b) an object to be accomplished; (c) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action to accomplish; (d) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (e) damages as a proximate result.”)

– Facciolla v. Linbeck Const. Corp., 968 S.W.2d 435, 444-45 (Tex. App. 1998).

Legal Authority: See; Gabriela Jones, Consuelo Jones vs. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Homeward Residential Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Ameriquest Mortgage Company, Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-R8, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Marcc Real Estate Investment, LLC, Case No. C-0453-17-B, 93rd Judicial District, Hidalgo County, Texas (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Plaintiff’s Claims against Bank Defendants, May 15, 2023).

All elements apply in this case as described in this petition and supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


Fraud (All Defendants)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above and as if fully written herein.

The elements of fraud are well established. A party attempting to prove fraud must establish that

“(1) … a material representation was made; (2) the representation was false; (3) when the representation was made, the speaker knew it was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion; (4) the speaker made the representation with the intent that the other party should act upon it; (5) the party acted in reliance on the representation; and (6) the party thereby suffered injury.”

– In re K.D., 471 S.W.3d 147, 157 (Tex. App. 2015)

Here, the Defendants misrepresentations were made with malice, willfully and with knowledge of their falsity when made.

Alternatively, Defendants made these representations recklessly without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion.

Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages and exemplary damages based on Defendants’ fraud. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(a).

All elements apply in this case as described in this petition and supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (All Defendants)

Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate each allegation set forth above and in conjunction with the main counterclaim as if fully written herein.

The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are that (1) the Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly, (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) the actions of the Defendants caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex. 1993).

All elements apply in this case as described in this petition and supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


Mental Anguish (All Defendants)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above and as if fully written herein.

The Texas Supreme Court has defined mental anguish as “emotional pain, torment, and suffering.” Moore v. Lillebo, 722 S.W.2d 683, 688 (Tex. 1986).

Plaintiff, by her association has become the primary target in this conspiracy by the Defendants. As a result, the pressures on Joanna Burke and the growing implications have exponentially increased her emotional pain.  The torment inflicted upon the law-abiding elder citizen is escalating, leaving her in a constant state of anxiety and psychological anguish.

This relentless and orchestrated campaign is taking a heavy toll on the Plaintiff. She finds herself subjected to further acts of retaliation and condemnation. The resulting suffering is immense, encompassing profound emotional distress, a sense of powerlessness, and an overwhelming burden on her mental well-being.

All elements necessary to establish mental anguish in this case are described in this petition, along with supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


TDCA  and Texas Finance Code (All Defendants)

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above and as if fully written herein.

Damages: As per the TDCA (Tex. Fin. Code § 392.403(a)(2)), “A person may sue for: actual damages sustained as a result of a violation of this chapter,” as cited from McCaig v. Wells Fargo Bank (Texas), N.A., 788 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2015).

Plaintiff can establish damages, including mental anguish resulting from this latest legal conspiracy and targeted harassment, leading to the unwarranted threat of foreclosure and planned eviction.

Plaintiff seeks an award of monetary damages, including any statutory damages, and reimbursable costs as allowed in law.

Violation: As highlighted in McCaig, mortgage servicer PHH Mortgage Corporation violates the Texas Finance Code by asserting legal rights it does not possess, concluding that because Wells Fargo (the loan servicer) did not have a right to foreclose, then its threat of initiating foreclosure proceedings was actionable under the TDCA.

Legal Authority: Plaintiff has met the necessary burden of proof, see; Williams v. Lakeview Load (sic) Servicing, LLC, Civil Action 4:20-CV-1900, at *49 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2023) (“Proof of an actual injury is a liability element of Plaintiffs’ TDCA claims).

All elements apply in this case as described in this petition and supporting docketed pleadings, motions, and exhibits.


Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each allegation set forth above and as if fully written herein.

Purpose: The purpose of a declaratory judgment is to clarify legal rights and relationships before any actual harm occurs. It allows parties to seek a binding determination from the court on the interpretation of a contract, statute, or other legal document.

Statutory Basis: Texas law provides for declaratory judgments under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.002. This statute allows a party to seek a declaration of their rights and legal relations. It is to be liberally construed and administered.

Requirements: To seek a declaratory judgment in Texas, Plaintiff must demonstrate that there is an actual controversy or uncertainty that needs resolution. As discussed, Plaintiff meets this requirement.

Discretion of the Court: The court may consider factors such as whether the judgment would effectively and conclusively settle the legal issues at hand. Here, the judgment would settle the issue, the unlawful foreclosure sale.

Legal Authority: The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that “[a] person interested under a deed… may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.004(a).

Scope of Relief:  Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment which states;

(i) when a party appeals a dismissal order as Joanna Burke has timely initiated in Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (0:23-cv-01119-WMW-DTS), District Court, D. Minnesota, the dismissal does not become final until the party has exhausted their appellate remedies and the appellate court’s power to alter the judgment ends,


(ii) that Joanna Burke’s current and active appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, case no. 23-3593,  prevents defendants from conducting the scheduled foreclosure sale of her home at 46 Kingwood Greens Drive, Kingwood, Texas, 77339 on January 2, 2023,


(iii) a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and/or Permanent Injunction is granted to prevent defendants from proceeding with the scheduled sale on January 2, 2023, which shall remain in effect until such times as the current litigation in the District of Minnesota and at the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is at a formal end.

In the alternative, the automatic bankruptcy stay is still in effect and the relief requested herein can be applied on this independent basis alone, and to prevent an illegal foreclosure sale from resulting at any future scheduled foreclosure auction involving the Plaintiff’s homestead.

Void Order by Ancillary Judge is a Nullity

Plaintiff requests the court declares Judge Crafts’ TRO-related order which was entered in the complete absence of jurisdiction,  and which was a conspiracy, a premeditated act, wherein she denied the Plaintiff’s temporary restraining order as filed on Dec. 27, 2023 – a void order – a nullity in law.

Unconstitutional Assignment of  Undisclosed Ancillary Judges

The Constitution and Due Process demands notice of hearings and that includes knowing who the ancillary judge is by name for conflict checks prior to the TRO hearing. The court’s website does not provide this information and the DCO and ancillary clerk fails to disclose the judge’s appointment unequivocally and clearly, as the rules, laws and constitution demand.

Plaintiff requests the court provide the name of the ancillary judge in advance of any hearing and seeks assurances that the court will comply with full and clear disclosures of the ancillary judge moving forward.


Second Application for Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction

For the reasons provided, Plaintiff, Joanna Burke is seeking an ex-parte temporary restraining order in the sum of $100 (one hundred US Dollars) and a temporary injunction preventing the defendants from foreclosing on the property and evicting plaintiff from the property which is the subject of this lawsuit.

Legal Authority: Considering the unconscionable and illegal acts by defendants in this matter, the request to set the bond at $100 (one hundred US Dollars) is more than reasonable, and in light of other bond amounts set at $100 in this district court.

By way of example; in Jeff Samuels litigation history in this court, he has sued his lender/mortgage servicing company and/or substitute trustee on at least four occasions, in 2012[1], 2013[2], 2014[3], and 2023[4].

In the most recent case, bond was set at $100

(Exhibit DB7).

Additionally, a review of his other cases strongly indicates bond was waived,  and the court personally assisted Jeff Samuels in his lawsuit by advising him to extend the date for a temporary injunction hearing by obtaining an order extending his no-bond TRO

(Exhibit DB8).

Summary: It is In the event this Court does not grant Joanna Burke’s Application for Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order, she will suffer irreparable harm because the real estate which is the subject of this lawsuit is unique in character and cannot be replaced with money damages only. Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law.

The Ex-Parte TRO Hearing

Plaintiff, Joanna Burke respectfully requests the court provides the date and time for a hearing.

The Plaintiff is hard of hearing and would respectfully request the court invoke constitutional due process by allowing the emergency hearing to be remote, as zoom allows for real-time closed captioning which complies with ADA guidelines.


Plaintiff, Joanna Burke requests a jury trial in these proceedings.


In closing, I, Joanna Burke, as Plaintiff with due authority and competency, resident of Kingwood in the livable forest of Harris County, Texas, born on November 25, 1938 (85 years old), in Kirkintilloch, Scotland, United Kingdom, and currently holding U.S. Citizenship, a valid State of Texas Driver License (last 3 digits are 738), and a Social Security Card (last 3 digits are 874), do solemnly declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. This verified declaration, made under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, holds significant weight in legal precedent, as evident in ACI Design Build Contractors Inc. v. Loadholt, 605 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App. 2020), McMahan v. Izen, No. 01-20-00233-CV, at *15-17 (Tex. App. Sep. 2, 2021), and In re Whitfield, No. 03-21-00170-CR, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App. Nov. 10, 2021).

Judgment and Award: Causes of Action

Accordingly, plaintiff Joanna Burke respectfully requests that she receives a trial by jury and upon judgment in her favor, that she recovers the jury award and recover costs as allowed by this court and in law, and that Joanna Burke have and recover all other and further relief to which she may be entitled.

Alternatively, based on the foregoing Plaintiff seeks the following relief: An award of actual and consequential damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court;

An award of exemplary damages and/or punitive damages for all claims for which such damages are authorized;

An award of pre-and-post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and such other relief the Court may deem just, proper and /or necessary under the circumstances.

Declaratory & Injunctive Relief

Accordingly, plaintiff Joanna Burke respectfully requests that she receives declaratory judgment in her favor, a temporary injunction and other relief requested above, that she recovers recover costs as allowed by this court and in law, and that Joanna Burke have and recover all other and further relief to which she may be entitled to prevent defendants from unlawfully selling her homestead, in violation of Texas laws.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 23rd day of February, 2024.

[14] 201271195 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC (Court 269).
[15] 201326721 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC (Court 269).
[16] 201470060 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC (Court 055).
[17] 202359141 – SAMUELS, JEFF vs. AVT TITLE SERVICES (Court 234).

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, CIVIL ACTION NO: H-11-1658, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017)

(“Under the Texas Property Code, the only party entitled to initiate a non-judicial foreclosure sale is the mortgagee or the mortgage servicer acting on behalf of the current mortgagee. ”)

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Burke, 902 F.3d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 2018)

(“In April 2011, Deutsche Bank sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court authorizing a non-judicial foreclosure sale pursuant to Texas law.”)

Judge David Hittner enters deficient order of foreclosure for Deutsche Bank.

Original Federal Complaint filed by turncoat lawyer Jason LeBoeuf detailing non-judicial foreclosure order requirements.


JAN 25, 2024

On Dec. 11, 2023, LIT’s founder, Mark Burke, filed a motion to disqualify Judge Tamika Craft-Demming, aka Tami Craft.

She had 3 days to decide – mandatory rule. Craft failed to do anything, rather blanking the motion. Thereafter, she went on a tirade of retaliatory acts.

First, the court refused to accept the filing, claiming the exhibits had to be renamed. Mark refused, citing to prior examples of naming convention for exhibits accepted by the court. The court would then rename all exhibits as “Exhibit”.

Then on Dec. 27, 2023 she’d be the assigned ancillary judge for party Joanna Burke in her request for a TRO in case; 202386973 – BURKE, JOANNA vs. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (Court 011). At the oral hearing she DENIED the TRO without reason, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting the TRO. See signed ORDER denying TRO, dated Dec. 27, 2023.

Next, on submission dayJan. 8, 2024, Mark intervened in the matter;  202366239 – IDEA 247 INC vs. EPPS, RAYMOND (A/K/A RAY EPPS) (Court 189) and the court would GRANT Idea’s motion to STRIKE the INTERVENTION, despite the objections and request for hearings which were also blanked by the court. The order was signed at 3.35 pm.

Also, at 1.16 pm earlier that day, the court – in the case 202311266 – KRUCKEMEYER, ROBERT J vs. BLOGGER INC D/B/A LAWIN TEXAS.COM (Court 189) – would email Mark falsely claiming “The courts do not have a record of a Proposed Order for the following setting. Please file one or contact the court if there is one on file.”. This was a ruse and Mark wittingly chose to ignore the premeditated invite to respond.

As detailed below, today, Jan. 23, 2023, the court and Outlaw Craft would contradict their own rule by holding the hearing (no proposed order, no hearing) and 3 minutes later stating it was PASSED. Shortly thereafter, it is clear from the online docket, Craft would then enter her self recusal – once her trail of destruction was complete.

Let it be known, this is only the beginning, Outlaw Craft, not the end of your ongoing relationship with Mark Burke and LIT.

See; Barnhill v. Agnew, No. 12-12-00080-CV, at *2 (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2013)

(“When a party files a motion to recuse a trial judge, the responding judge, regardless of whether the motion complies with the requisites of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, must, within three business days after the motion is filed (1) sign and file with the clerk an order of recusal or (2) sign and file with the clerk an order referring the motion to the regional presiding judge.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f)(1).

Failure to comply with the rule renders void any actions taken subsequent to the violation. 

In re A.R.,236 S.W.3d 460, 477 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007, no pet.).”)

Notably, no email from the Court advising of this sua sponte recusal

Absent from the Docket as at Jan. 23 - An Order re Self-Recusal by Outlaw Tami Craft

Burke v. Deutsche Bank, et al

DEC 21, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 21, 2023
DEC 21, 2023
FEB 21, 2024

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

TRO ORAL HEARING (Wed. Dec 27, 3.15 pm by zoom)

After listening to Bandit lawyer James Minerve obtain a $100 bond on a short statement of fact, Joanna Burke was called next by hand-selected ancillary judge Tami Craft of Court 189. For those familiar, Judge Craft sits in another case involving Joanna Burke, and where the judge’s disqualification was sought.

The decision was swift as expected, the judge DENIED the TRO.

In re Joanna Burke

DEC 28, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 29, 2023
MAR 2, 2024

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Texas (Houston)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 24-30885

Assigned to: Bankruptcy Judge Jeffrey P Norman
Chapter 13
Date filed:   03/01/2024


Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr.
Kingwood, TX 77339
SSN / ITIN: xxx-xx-1874
represented by Joanna Burke
Tiffany D Castro
Office of Chapter 13 Trustee
9821 Katy Freeway
Ste 590
Houston, TX 77024
U.S. Trustee
US Trustee
Office of the US Trustee
515 Rusk Ave
Ste 3516
Houston, TX 77002


Filing Date # Docket Text
03/01/2024 1
(9 pgs)
Chapter 13 Voluntary Petition Individual . Receipt Number 00, Fee Amount $313 Filed by Joanna Burke . (ShannonHolden) (Entered: 03/01/2024)
03/01/2024 2 Statement of Social Security Number Filed. Does this document change the social security number for one or more debtors? No. Has the Meeting of Creditors been set in this case? No. (ShannonHolden) (Entered: 03/01/2024)
03/01/2024 3 Pro Se Filer Identification (Debtor – JOANNA BURKE ). (ShannonHolden) (Entered: 03/01/2024)
03/01/2024 4 Receipt of Chapter 13 Filing Fee – $313.00 by SH. Receipt Number 40000613. (ADIuser) (Entered: 03/01/2024)



PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
03/02/2024 09:21:11

In re Joanna Burke

DEC 28, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 29, 2023
DEC 29, 2023
FEB 21, 2024

Above is the date LIT Last updated this article.

Chapter 13 Trustee’s Final Report and Account (batch)

U.S. District Court
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:23-cv-04687

Samuels et al v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al
Assigned to: Judge Alfred H Bennett

Case in other court:  234th Judicial District, Harris County, 23-59141

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

Date Filed: 12/15/2023
Jury Demand: None
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Diversity


Date Filed # Docket Text
12/21/2023 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Cheyenne D. Haley on behalf of AVT Title Services, LLC, filed. (Haley, Cheyenne) (Entered: 12/21/2023)
12/26/2023 4 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by AVT Title Services, LLC, filed.(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 12/26/2023)
12/26/2023 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff Jeff Samuels’ Claims by AVT Title Services, LLC, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/16/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 12/26/2023)
12/26/2023 6 MOTION to Dismiss Intervenor-Plaintiff Joanna Burke’s Claims by AVT Title Services, LLC, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/16/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cronenwett, Mark) (Entered: 12/26/2023)
12/27/2023 7 SUPPLEMENT to 1 Notice of Removal, by AVT Title Services, LLC, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Haley, Cheyenne) (Entered: 12/27/2023)
01/16/2024 8 MOTION to Remand by Jeff Samuels, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/6/2024. (HortenciaLerma, 4) (Entered: 01/16/2024)
02/06/2024 9 RESPONSE to 8 MOTION to Remand , filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, PHH Mortgage Corporation, Power Default Services, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stroope, Emily) (Entered: 02/06/2024)
02/09/2024 10 NOTICE of Bankruptcy Filing, Automatic Stay and Request for ECF-Pacer Filing Permissions by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/1/2024. (TerriHanniable, 4) (Entered: 02/09/2024)
02/09/2024 11 FIRST Motion for Extension of Time to file initial lists, schedules, statments and other required documents by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/1/2024. (TerriHanniable, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2024)
02/09/2024 12 MOTION to Reinstate Case by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 3/1/2024. (TerriHanniable, 4) (Entered: 02/12/2024)



PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
02/21/2024 14:02:35

Case Docket as at Dec. 29, 2023

Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.
14160 North Dallas Parkway
Suite 900, Dallas, TX, 75254

Dec. 28, 2023


My references:

Case No.: 23-3593, Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir.
Case: Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al

Case No.: No.: 202359141, Court 234, Harris County District Court

Case No.: 202386973, Court 011, Harris County District Court

Your references:

MWZM No.: 14-003766-670-3
Loan No.: ending in 1333

Dear Sir or Madam

Re: Notice of Bankruptcy Filing – Joanna Burke – Case No: 23-35083,
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas

I, Joanna Burke, have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas. The petition was assigned the case number 23-35083 at 10:45 hrs today, December 28, 2023.

Pursuant to the bankruptcy filing, an automatic stay is in effect as of the filing date, providing me with protection from any collection activities, including foreclosure proceedings.

The purpose of this letter is to request that you immediately cease any actions related to my homestead at 46 Kingwood Greens Dr., Kingwood, TX 77339, including, but not limited to, the scheduled illegal foreclosure auction on January 2, 2024, in light of the automatic stay resulting from the bankruptcy petition.

The automatic stay is a statutory injunction that prohibits creditors and their representatives from taking any collection or enforcement actions against me, Joanna Burke, or my property.

Please be advised that any continuation of the foreclosure proceedings after the bankruptcy filing would be a violation of the automatic stay and will subject you to legal consequences. It is imperative that you take appropriate steps to halt the foreclosure process and ensure compliance with the bankruptcy laws.

Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the Notice of Bankruptcy Filing, which includes the case number and filing date for your reference.

Given the urgency of this matter, I emphasize that this is a one-time email. For the record, I have communicated this demand via email to the addresses listed below. I expect a response by no later than 1700 hrs on Friday, Dec. 29, 2023 upon your receipt of this emailed letter, confirming the cancellation of the scheduled sale. A copy should be emailed to and/or faxed to +1 (866) 705-0576.

List of email recipients:

Your cooperation is mandatory, to ensure that all your future actions are in compliance with the bankruptcy laws.


Joanna Burke
46 Kingwood Greens Dr.,
Kingwood, Texas, 77339
Fax: (1) 866-705-0576

Elder abuse in Texas includes physical abuse, mental abuse and emotional abuse. A variety of programs in Texas ensure that senior citizens will not be abused or taken advantage of in any form. Anyone convicted of elder abuse will be charged with a felony in either the first, second, or third degree, depending on the circumstances of the abuse. Texas residents are required by law to report any known elder abuse. Those who don’t will be convicted of a misdemeanor.

The following are orders of the Court:

1.  Payment of the Filing Fee. [PAID IN FULL]

a.  The debtor(s) shall pay the filing fee with the petition or promptly on the due date provided in an order allowing installment payments.

b.  If the filing fee or any installment is not timely paid, the Clerk shall issue a notice of pending dismissal of the case for failure to pay filing fees. The notice of pending dismissal shall be served on the debtor(s), debtor(s)’ counsel and the chapter 13 Trustee.

c.  If the debtor(s) do not pay the filing fee or request a hearing within 10 days after the notice is served, the case may be dismissed without further notice.

2.  Filing the List of Creditors, Plan, Schedules and Statements.

a.  The list of creditors (with addresses) must be filed with the petition in the format prescribed by the Clerk unless a motion for extension of time under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 1007(a)(4) is filed with the petition.

b.  A motion for extension of time to file the list of creditors, plan, schedules or statements need be served only on the chapter 13 Trustee and on the U.S. Trustee.

Because the FRBP require a creditor’s meeting within 50 days, except for truly exceptional circumstances, the Court will not grant an extension beyond 25 days for filing the plan, schedules or statements.

c.  If the U.S. Trustee files a motion to dismiss under Bankruptcy Code §1307(c)(9) or (10), or if the chapter 13 Trustee files a motion to dismiss for delay prejudicial to creditors and the basis of that motion is that the debtor(s) failed to file the papers required by Bankruptcy Code §521 or failed to file a plan in accordance with FRBP 3015, the motion need not be served on any party except the debtor(s) and, if the debtor(s) are represented by counsel, on debtor(s)’ counsel.

d.  If either the U.S. Trustee or the chapter 13 Trustee files a motion to dismiss under subparagraph (c) above, the motion need not include BLR 9013 language but shall include the following notice:

A hearing will be conducted on this matter on [insert date of next chapter 13 panel following expiration of 15 days] at       a.m.

If the debtor(s) object to the requested relief, the debtor(s) and counsel must attend the hearing.

If no party objects to the requested relief within (ten) 10 days after the date that the motion was served, the United States Trustee or the chapter 13 Trustee may file a certificate of non−compliance and the Court may dismiss this case without actually conducting a hearing.

(Bankruptcy Code §102(1)(B).)

3.  Confirmation Hearings.

a.  Confirmation hearings will be continued beyond the initial setting only for good cause shown.

A motion for continuance shall be filed setting forth the basis of the cause for the requested continuance.

The chapter 13 Trustee is not authorized to grant a continuance of the confirmation hearing.

Only the Court may grant a continuance of the confirmation hearing.

b.  Absent exceptional circumstances, the hearing on confirmation of the debtor(s) plan will not be continued to a date that is after 180 days after the commencement of the chapter 13 case.

c.  At least 5 days before confirmation, the chapter 13 Trustee shall submit a recommendation (which may be in summary chart form for all cases set for confirmation on a particular date) as to whether plans should be confirmed.

The Court will not be bound by the chapter 13 Trustee’s recommendation for or against confirmation.

If the chapter 13 Trustee has recommended in favor of confirmation and if there are no objections to be considered at confirmation, the debtor(s) and debtor(s)’ counsel need not attend.

If the Court determines that a hearing is required on a plan for which confirmation is recommended by the trustee and on which no other objections were filed, the hearing will be rescheduled with notice to the debtor(s) and debtor(s)’ counsel.

If the chapter 13 Trustee has not recommended confirmation, the debtor(s) and debtor(s)’ counsel must attend the hearing and meet the debtor(s)’ statutory confirmation burden, except that attendance in the circumstances set forth in §7, §8, §9(b) and §9(c) below shall be according to those sections.

4.  Parties Required to Attend Hearings.

This section applies to hearings that are set on the chapter 13 trustee’s scheduled panel.

a.  If a matter has been resolved concerning a motion or an objection, the parties may designate counsel for one of the settling parties to announce the settlement.

Other counsel may, but are not required, to attend.

If no person announces the settlement, the motion or objection may be denied for want of prosecution.

b.  If the Court declines to accept the announced agreement, the matter may be continued until the next chapter 13 panel date or the Court may make another disposition.

All parties to the objection (i.e., the objecting party, the debtor(s) and the chapter 13 Trustee) must attend the continued hearing.

5.  Tax Transcripts.

The Internal Revenue Service must send a tax transcript to the chapter 13 trustee, the debtors and the debtor’s counsel, with detrainry to occur not later than 7 days prior to the initial date set for the §341 meeting of creditors.

6.  Service of this Order.

A copy of this Order shall promptly be served by the Clerk on parties in interest, including the debtor(s) and debtor(s)’ counsel and the United States Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Service shall be served at the addresses provided by them from time-to-time to the Clerk.


The debtor(s) are ordered to:

1.      Make all payments due to the chapter 13 trustee. The first payment is due not later than 30 days after the petition date.

2.      File a proposed plan within 15 days, unless the plan was filed with the petition.

3.      File a proposed Wage Order, Order for EFT Payments (online banking), or Order for ACH Payments in compliance with Local Rule 1007-1(c).

4.      File all schedules and the statement of financial affairs within 15 days, unless these documents were filed with the petition.

5.      Attend the § 341 meeting of creditors as scheduled by the chapter 13 trustee.

6.      Attend the debtor education seminar within 45 days.

7.      Immediately file all delinquent tax returns.

8.      Comply with all Court orders.

Failure to comply with this order is likely to result in a dismissal of this bankruptcy case. It may also result in a prohibition against the filing of additional bankruptcy cases or a finding that the debtor(s) are in contempt of court.

Issued and Entered on 12/29


1.                   The Debtor(s) are authorized to use their vehicle(s) pursuant to § 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, conditioned on the following:

A.                   The Debtor(s) must maintain insurance on the vehicle(s) in the amounts and with the coverages pertaining to the vehicle itself required by the contract with any holder of a pre-petition lien on the vehicle(s).

B.                   Proof of insurance must be provided within 5 days of receipt of written request by the holder of a vehicle lien.

C.                   The Debtor(s) must timely make all required payments to the chapter 13 trustee.

D.                   Not later than the date on which a plan is filed, file a proposed (i) wage order; (ii) Order for EFT Payments (Online Banking) and Debtor’s Certification; or (iii) Order for ACH Payments and Debtor’s Certification, each in the form approved by the Court.

2.                   As additional adequate protection for the interest of the lien holder(s), the lien holder(s) are granted a claim pursuant to § 503(b)(1).

This lien is intended to be of the type described in § 507(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The amount of the claim is equal to 1.25% of the value of the vehicle on the petition date.

The adequate protection payments shall be calculated by the chapter 13 trustee determined as of the date of the filing of the chapter 13 petition and will be equal to 90% of the “Average Price Paid” stated on the website (utilizing the version available without charge) for a vehicle (without options or mileage adjustments) located at the first zip code listed for the Debtor on the docket sheet, unless the Court orders otherwise.

3.                   The Debtor(s) or any other party in interest may object to this order within 30 days of its entry.

If a timely objection is filed, an evidentiary hearing will be conducted at the next chapter 13 panel.

The objecting party is ordered to provide notice of the hearing date, attend the hearing and present evidence in support of the objection.

Issued and Entered on 12/29/23

No proof of attendance at an approved credit counseling course has been filed in this case.

1.   11 U.S.C. §521(a) requires Debtors to file certain information.  Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1007(c) requires Debtors to file the list of creditors with the petition and requires Debtors to file the balance of the documents required by §521(a)(1) within 14 days after the petition date, unless extended for good cause shown.

2. Documents:

The Clerk has determined that the Debtor(s) has failed to file the following

Form 106A/B, Schedule A/B (Property)

Form 106C, Schedule C (The Property You Claim as Exempt)

Form 106D, Schedule D (Creditors Who Have Claims Secured by Property)

Form 106E/F, Schedule E/F (Creditors Who Have Unsecured Claims)

Form 106G, Schedule G (Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases)

Form 106H, Schedule H (Your Codebtors)

Form 106I, Schedule I (Your Income)

Form 106J, Schedule J (Your Expenses)

Form 107, Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy Form 122A-1, B or C-1, as applicable to the chapter (Statement of Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and Disposable Income)

The Clerk has determined that the debtor(s) has failed to file the list of creditors in the form of a mailing matrix.

Copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor(s) from any employer of the debtor(s).

3.                  The Court orders that the foregoing documents must be filed timely.

4.                  11 U.S.C. §521(i) requires the “automatic dismissal” of voluntary bankruptcy cases filed by individuals who are in chapter 7 or chapter 13 bankruptcy cases who do not file all of the information required by §521(a)(1).

Additionally, if the Debtor(s) does not comply with this order, the case will be dismissed without further notice.

5.                  A party must either satisfy the deficiency or file a pleading denying the existence of the deficiency.

Signed December 29, 2023.

Creditor lists must be uploaded to CM/ECF or filed on matrices.

To ensure that the lists you file can be read by the optical scanner and interpreted by the software, please follow these rules.

Your help is essential both for current efficiency and for future improvements.

1. Addresses must be in a format of six lines for every entry with a maximum of 40
characters per line. Use lower and upper case letters. Do not use all capitals. Note that
blank lines have been added to make each address conform to the six line format.


Line 1 John Q. Public
Line 2 Attorney at Law
Line 3 123 Main Street
Line 4 Anywhere, Texas 12345!0123
Line 5
Line 6

Line 1 Joanna R. Doe
Line 2 123 Avenue A
Line 3 Anywhere, TX 12345!0123
Line 4
Line 5
Line 6

2. Addresses must be in this order:
Person or Company Name
Optional Description (e.g. Attorney, Division)
Address (street or post office box, not both)
Suite or Apartment Number
City, State, Zip (Use the state’s two!letter abbreviation, without a period)

3. The company or individual’s name must be limited to one line only.

4. Descriptions must be limited to two lines only. Keep it simple. Omit non!essential and
imprecise descriptions. Insert blank lines to provide a six!line entry.

5. Do not include account numbers on the matrix.

6. Zip codes must be on the last line with the city and state. When possible, use all
nine digits with a hyphen inserted. Use capital letters for state abbreviations, with no
periods in or after the letters (i.e. TX).

7. All creditors listed on Schedules D, E and F should be included.

8. The court’s “Receipt of Creditor’s List” must accompany each matrix.

9. Never resubmit a name on a supplemental matrix that was submitted on the original
unless the name or address is being corrected. Do not relist all creditors that appeared
on the original in addition to the changes you are making through filing the supplemental

10. A separate matrix must be filed to add, correct or delete creditors at the same time.
Indicate on the reverse of the matrix whether it added, modified or deleted creditors.

1. Matrices must be on 8 1/2″ x 11″ good quality paper, with a single column on each page
along the one inch left!hand margin. No misaligned columns please.

2. Use one of the typefaces: Courier 10 Pitch (preferred) or Courier 12 Pitch.

3. Laser printed text is preferred. Do not include other information, like letterhead, case
number, page or line numbers, or stray marks.

4. Please do not staple.


Mail that is returned as undeliverable will be given to the attorney for the debtor who will have the
duty to effect notice.


11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B)(iv) requires a debtor to file “copies of all payment advices or other evidence of payment received within 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, by the debtor from any employer of the debtor.”

It appears that the debtor in this case has failed to file the payment advices required by § 521(a)(1)(B)(iv).

If the debtor did not have an employer during the 60 days before the date of the filing of the petition, the debtor may file a statement in the form attached to this notice.

The statement must be filed with the clerk of the Court within 45 days after the petition was filed in this case.

Relief from the requirements of § 521 (a)(1)(B)(iv) must be sought in writing, by a motion filed within 45 days of the date the petition was filed in this case.

If the debtor fails to file the required payment advices or the statement in the form attached to this notice, the case will be dismissed effective as of the 46th day following the petition date.


My name is                                       .

I am a debtor in this bankruptcy case. I declare that I did not receive any payment advices or other evidence of payment from any employer during the 60 days before the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

If this case is a joint case, both spouses have signed below to make this declaration jointly with respect to both.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on                                                                             (date).

Signature of Debtor

Ground Zero: All Federal Judges Disqualified from Minnesota Case Linked to Lawyer turned Judge

Shocking Twist in Legal Battle: All Judges Disqualified by Chief Judge of the Federal District of Minnesota Due to Black Robe Testimony.

Police Seizure of Cell Phone Unlawful but Seizure of Legal Papers by Court Clerk for Nefarious Reasons Allowed

4th Amendment protects people’s rights to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Lender Application Fraud: Homeowners Pay The Price Due to Judicial Corruption and Gov. Interference.

U.S. Attorney’s and investigative partners across the country are selectively committed to holding lenders accountable for liar loans.

Operation Elder Abuse: United States and Texas Gov. Agencies and Branches Hijack Widow’s Legal Filings
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

To Top