Acceleration

Owen’s Easter Basket of Omissions and Whiteouts re Ocwen Loan Servicing et al.

The Burkes filed their Petition for Rehearing en banc to allow all the active judges who are not recused and able to participate, an opportunity to cast their Vote.

LIT COMMENTARY

The Burkes filed their Petition for Rehearing en banc to allow all the active judges who are not recused and able to participate, an opportunity to cast their Vote and see if they will stand up and correct a manifest injustice, or continue with their ochlocracy. LIT will be watching, monitoring and of course, commentating on this case.

We also wanted to share a bit of information about Chief Judge Priscilla Owen and her zodiac star sign  – because we’re wondering why the Chief decided to go completely rogue and become an Outlaw in a Robe by injecting herself into the Burkes 2 cases on appeal.

First, she fired the 6 judges already assigned to the cases (3 judges sit on each panel/case, traditionally on appeals courts).

Then she ignored the fact that the Burkes Ocwen appeal had been percolatin’ for 2 years while the All American case (another fiasco) was yet to be decided. It is currently stayed because the Selia Law case recently decided at SCOTUS never answered the whole question (a common issue with court opinions).

It gets more complicated, so hang tight as we try and lay down the basics.

The Fifth Circuit also had the Collins (FHFA) case(s) in their circuit with similar issues. This case is currently pending a decision at SCOTUS which should be issued this term and provide the missing answers.

This in turn will allow the 5th Cir. to sit en banc and decide the appeal for both Collins and All American. Now there’s a lot of judicial politics with the Collins and All American cases which we won’t detail here, but the fact is that the judges at the 5th Circuit all hold different positions on these high profile cases.

The Burkes case should have been one of those cases that would be decided at that time, but that won’t happen now. That’s because the Chief barreled into the Burkes cases, and she was like….that ain’t happenin’..coz there ain’t no free lunches around here… So what happened next? She preceded to assign two elder judges who would join her Outlaw in a Robe decision-making and issue the most ridiculous opinion we’ve ever seen.

It is absolutely diabolical.

Now y’all have the background, let’s review her star sign.  Ya see, she’s a Libra and we know the following summary is actually pretty darn spot on from YourTango.com (Hat tip).

Why Chief Judge Priscilla Owen is an Outlaw in a Robe

Libras act like they are all about peace and positivity (they are the peacemakers of all zodiac).

The truth is that Libras possess a dark side.

A closer look into their negative personality traits reveals that Libras are so mean because of a tyrannic attitude, which comes out when trying to bring others into harmony.

Just like the smile of a predator, this doesn’t mean a Libra likes you, in a sense, they are controlling you.

They have a natural tendency to be overbearing with other horoscopes on a normal basis. This behavior trickles into every situation where a Libra has to have empathy for others.

Because of a Libra’s severe need for order, they need every zodiac sign around them to behave a certain way.

Their covert control issues, in addition to their selfish tendencies, can promote unpleasant interactions with every horoscope sign around them.

Now you have Owen’s personality traits, let’s return to the Burkes appeal(s).  Below is their filing for en banc in this now consolidated appeal in response to the 5th’s original opinion from the 3 Outlaws in Robes.

As always, comment, like, share, donate and be a voice. Y’all are amazin’, have a great day.

DENNIS, JAMES L.

OWEN, PRISCILLA R.

DAVIS, W. EUGENE

A Due Process Petition for Rehearing En Banc, 13 Apr., 2021

I.                              Statement Regarding Necessity of En Banc

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the government except as authorized by law.

Authored by this court’s newest Judge in a concurring opinion comprising panel Judges Southwick and Jolly, Wilson remarked; “A litigant has the fundamental right to fairness in every proceeding. Fairness is upheld by avoiding even the appearance of partiality. See, e.g., Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). When a judge’s actions stand at odds with these basic notions, we must act or suffer the loss of public confidence in our judicial system. “[J]ustice must satisfy the appearance of justice.” Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 (1954).” – Miller v. Sam Hous. State Univ., No. 19-20752 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2021).

Judge Wilson goes on to discuss the pre-judgment and bias by Senior Judge Hughes. The final decision would be reversal and reassignment of the case(s). It’s  eerily similar to the Burkes case(s) but with a material difference on appeal: the decision.

The rule of law (ROA.1118, footnote 9) requires the law to be clear and to be correctly applied. Inconsistent judgments which purport to create or apply legal standards breach both requirements, as patently the case here.

The Burkes contend if the rules, laws and actual facts had not been manipulated or omitted from this court’s restrictive consolidated opinion, it commands a completely different conclusion and opinion, one in favor of the Burkes.

I.                              Statement of issues warranting en banc revew

“Today’s concept of judicial integrity turns out to be “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”0F[1]

Whether the dissolution of the two assigned, separate panels and the Chief Judge’s appointment of a new panel (for the consolidated appeal), and which includes the Chief Judge – who negatively prejudged the Burkes cases while dismissing the judicial complaint re Judge Hittner – supports a finding of an appearance of prejudice and unfairness, as validated by the adverse panel opinion?

If a scheduling conference before a magistrate judge, which turns out to be solely for the purpose of an administrative act and which specifically bans the far-traveled parties from the opportunity to discuss the case or pending motions violates due process when considering the role of a judge and the guide for magistrates1F[1]?

Where there’s two civil cases and the Ocwen case is denied the right to amend a complaint before the judge issues its order on a motion for summary judgment masked as a motion to dismiss but conversely the judge allows the Burkes to amend their Hopkins complaint before ruling, does that violate the rule of law’s “clear and correct” standard of consistency?

Do panel judges admit and correct mistakes, even where they may dislike the party or personally disagree with the majority’s opinion? In other words, are substantial panel misrepresentations and omissions, which, if corrected would reverse the conclusions and opinion in an erroneously decided panel opinion, reason to vacate the judgment in favor of full panel rehearing?

II.                           Statement of issues warranting en banc revew

“Today’s concept of judicial integrity turns out to be “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”0F[1]

Whether the dissolution of the two assigned, separate panels and the Chief Judge’s appointment of a new panel (for the consolidated appeal), and which includes the Chief Judge – who negatively prejudged the Burkes cases while dismissing the judicial complaint re Judge Hittner – supports a finding of an appearance of prejudice and unfairness, as validated by the adverse panel opinion?

If a scheduling conference before a magistrate judge, which turns out to be solely for the purpose of an administrative act and which specifically bans the far-traveled parties from the opportunity to discuss the case or pending motions violates due process when considering the role of a judge and the guide for magistrates1F[2]?

Where there’s two civil cases and the Ocwen case is denied the right to amend a complaint before the judge issues its order on a motion for summary judgment masked as a motion to dismiss but conversely the judge allows the Burkes to amend their Hopkins complaint before ruling, does that violate the rule of law’s “clear and correct” standard of consistency?

Do panel judges admit and correct mistakes, even where they may dislike the party or personally disagree with the majority’s opinion? In other words, are substantial panel misrepresentations and omissions, which, if corrected would reverse the conclusions and opinion in an erroneously decided panel opinion, reason to vacate the judgment in favor of full panel rehearing?

III.                       Statement of Proceedings

This matter involves two cases, Burke v Ocwen (19-20267) and Burke v Hopkins (20-20209), which started life in Harris County assigned to two state judges. Both civil cases were filed shortly after a disputed judgment of foreclosure was authorized by this court in case no. 18-20026, published on September 10, 2018.

The judgment, however, did not end the attorneys for Deutsche Bank’s quest to amend the judgment, $615,000 being the total amount Deutsche Bank had requested repeatedly during case filings. (ROA.535, ROA.546-557). This late request was raised first time on appeal (ROA.544-545) by Deutsche Bank and objected to by the Burkes. This court correctly denied the untimely request.

Removed on federal question jurisdiction, opposing counsel received service for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) and Hopkins Law, PLLC, (“Hopkins”) but only accepted service for attorney’s Mark and Shelley Hopkins. They would represent Ocwen and proceed pro se in the Hopkins case. The company was never served. The case was [re]assigned to  Judge Hittner (“Hittner”) while the ink was still drying in the Deutsche Bank case, along with novice Magistrate Judge (“MJ”) Bray, the replacement for honest and Honorable Stephen Wm. Smith.2F[3]

Shortly after filing the state cases, the Burkes sought to intervene in three relevant cases. The Kansas intervention to gather attorney immunity evidence for the Hopkins case, the Chicago and Florida interventions to gain information in support of the Ocwen litigation and where relevant, the Hopkins case. The parties in both lawsuits requested the court take judicial notice. All interventions would be denied. However, the Florida intervention materially harmed the Burkes Texas litigation due to legal and judicial misconduct.3F[4]

Returning to S.D. Texas, opposing counsel would hurriedly submit premature motions to dismiss only seven days after removing both cases. The Burkes responded, filing a motion to remand and at the same time motion to stay, asking the court to suspend replying to the premature motion(s) until ruling on the Burkes remand motion(s).   Concerned with the [re]assignment of both cases to Hittner, the Burkes motioned the court to ensure at least the cases remained separate and furnished the court with their case management plan.

Next, the Burkes attended the Scheduling Conference before novice MJ Bray (same date/time for both cases, ROA.3), which turned into a 3-minute ‘proof-of-life’ calendar event. Incomprehensibly, the parties were barred from discussing the pending motions, the case management plan or providing the court with any documents or files relevant to the cases (ROA.587) and the Burkes would later provide the court with affidavits detailing the disconcerting events of that conference[5] (ROA.572-618), which denied the parties due process and which aided the court in negatively deciding the Burkes case(s).

A.               District Court Rulings

I.                   Ocwen

This case was expedited by Hittner.  First, “the district court granted Ocwen’s motion to dismiss the Collection Claims…for res judicata.

Response: This order (ROA.972) was issued without (a) considering the Burkes pending motions or after allowing the Burkes to amend their complaint for the first time5F[6] (unlike the Hopkins case) prior to ruling and where the Burkes specifically requested such relief. Note: The court denied the motion to remand without explanation. (b) Hittner, longtime co-author of a Summary Judgment Guide6F[7] which is in the hands of nearly every practicing Texas lawyer, knowingly accepted a motion to dismiss which, in essence, is a motion for summary judgment – despite the court’s warning this is highly inappropriate[8]  and (c) Incorrectly applied res judicata in law (ROA.991).

Second, “The court also concluded that the Burkes did not adequately plead a claim under RESPA but granted the Burkes twenty-one days to address their pleading deficiency. Failure to file an amended complaint within that time period, the district court cautioned, would result in dismissal.”

Response: This, despite no intentional delay,  the Burkes responding with a motion to clarify, (ROA.981) an omnibus of motions (ROA.530) and  a request for interlocutory appeal (ROA.1046) if they were denied the relief sought.

“The court…dismissed the cause without prejudice…”.

Response: Fifth Circuit precedent says without prejudice is actually with prejudice and too harsh a sanction.[9]

II.                Hopkins

This case would be referred to MJ Bray (ROA.1007) as soon as the Burkes filed a Request for Admissions (“RFA”) for Mark Hopkins ROA949-1006.

“After the Burkes filed an amended complaint, the [pro se] Attorney Defendants moved to dismiss…The Burkes then requested leave to file a second amended complaint…The magistrate judge  denied the Burkes’s motion…The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district judge dismiss the Burkes’s complaint for failure to state a claim.”

Response: The MJ snubbed the majority of the Burkes filings and then went beyond the pleadings to dismiss the complaint, including erie guesses.

“The district court adopted the magistrate’s report and dismissed the case with prejudice.”

Response: The order and judgment issued (a) with Hopkins Law, PLLC still listed as a defendant and despite being unserved, (b) without ‘de novo’ review (ROA.1116: the Burkes specifically asked for de novo review in footnote 1) and (c) the ministerial act of issuing the judgment  was executed in violation of Gov. Abbott’s executive order (Pandemic). Hittner had cancelled a scheduled pretrial conference (ROA.1097), an ultra vires act.

B.                Panel Decision

The six judges randomly assigned by PANLOG to the two cases were inexplicably replaced with a new panel, comprising Chief Judge Owen, active Judge Dennis and Senior Judge Davis, who recently participated in the 2018 panel decision in Deutsche Bank II. There is no justification in terminating all judges from the assigned panels.

In a per curiam opinion (consolidated), the panel affirmed.[10]

Questionably, the Panel incorrectly labeled the Deutsche I and Deutsche II appeals as Burke I and Burke II, reversing the plaintiff and defendant status from the prior case before this court. The case summary did not fare any better, it is completely misleading. The panel inaccurately decided the cases.

1.     Ocwen

The Burkes appealed on 22 Apr 2019.  The original 3-panel comprising Judges Higginbotham, Southwick and Willett were actively responding to motions via court orders during briefing which was fully briefed by 11 Oct. 2019.

The Burkes had sought to stay the case due to the question regarding the constitutionality of the CFPB and Director. The motions were denied. As such, the case was primed for a timely opinion.

This court’s historical data7F[11] confirms from Notice of Appeal to final disposition (average for all appeals) is 9.1 Months. This case should have been disposed on or around January 2020. However, this court did not decide the case, rather it percolated at the court until issuing its opinion on 30 March, 2021, some 23 months later.

The panel now concludes: (i) The Burkes motion to remand was correctly denied on federal question jurisdiction. (ii) The Burkes contentions that res judicata does not bar their Collection Claims against Ocwen on appeal were forfeited as the Burkes “failed entirely to file any response to Ocwen’s motion to dismiss”.

Response: This is  inaccurate, unsupported and misleading.

And lastly (iii) “the Burkes challenges to the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of their case against Ocwen fail…because the Burkes did not file an amended complaint within that timeframe, so the district court dismissed the action without prejudice.

Response: The panel stops too short in their summary  because the Burkes filed a motion to clarify along with an omnibus of motions and supporting evidence (ROA.530-1067).

Without prejudice in this case equals with prejudice as res judicata prevents refiling the same claims.[12]

2.     Hopkins

Second, The panel now concludes (i) The Burkes motion to remand was correctly denied on federal question jurisdiction.

p.19, Burkes Reply Brief

Response: This court misrepresented and/or excluded the Burkes written words and evaded acknowledging or answering (a), (b) and (c).

(ii) The Burkes challenges to the district court’s dismissal of claims based on the attorney immunity doctrine fail specifically because (a) the attorney’s acts were conducted during representation of Deutsche Bank at all times; (b) Shelley Hopkins is entitled to attorney immunity because the Burkes do not contend that any of Shelley Hopkins’s challenged conduct occurred at a time other than when she was acting in her capacity as an attorney in the foreclosure case.

Response: The Burkes attorney immunity arguments are misstated or completely discounted. The Burkes provided plausible reasons why Shelley Hopkins was, for lengthy periods, not protected by immunity “at all times”. The panels conclusory conclusions in (a) and (b) are repelled by the Burkes filings which show she wasn’t even counsel of record until Deutsche II and her role in the period prior was undetermined.

The Burkes pointed to case law where attorneys performing non-attorney work did not have immunity. See ROA.745, ROA.752-755 As such this courts summary is erroneous.

Nothing on the record indicates opposing counsel disproving the Burkes claims and hence it should have continued with discovery.

See Jaffer v. Davis & Assoc., 4:19-cv-00860-RWS-KPJ, Doc 37, 7/27/20, E.D. Texas8F[13], “The Court finds discovery is necessary as to Defendant’s attorney immunity defense”. The magistrate judge’s ruling was based on discovery to help determine whether attorneys are debt collectors (the cited cases therein are self-explanatory).

This conflicts with this case, where the MJ and the appeal panel rejected discovery, per footnote3 of the opinion.

(c) Mark Hopkins is also protected by the doctrine – in particular regarding a statement he made in a court proceeding concerning the Burkes’s mortgage loan file being intentionally withheld from the Burkes, as the Burkes “do not point to anywhere in their operative complaint where they actually alleged that Mark Hopkins wrongfully withheld the file”.

Crime Scene Coverup: It’s a whiteout and wall of silence from both courts.

Response: Mark Hopkins is not protected. The operative complaint rejects the panels falsehoods. See ROA.578-579, ROA.585-586, ROA.589, ROA.599-607. Furthermore, the Burkes have consistently stated in filings that the mortgage file is not protected or privileged by the doctrine, which has never been acknowledged or answered.

(d) In footnote4, the court states; “The Burkes make the conclusory assertion that their claim for unjust enrichment is “valid” but do not set forth any further argument challenging the district court’s determination that their claim is barred by the attorney-immunity doctrine. Thus, this issue is forfeited” and

Response: (d) The unjust enrichment claim is “valid”.  The Burkes clearly responded sufficiently to defeat this false accusation of non-compliance. See ROA.1127 & ROA.762. In the Burkes objections (ROA.1116) to MJ Bray’s M&R (ROA.1098) they detailed sound reasons why the court should view the MJ’s encapsulated claims – which included unjust enrichment (ROA.1127) – holistically as the Supreme Court demands.

(e) in the same footnote the court states the Burkes also failed to state a claim under the FDCA or the TDCA and as such it was forfeited on appeal and,

Response: The Burkes identified that this was novice MJ Bray’s first M&R in these complex areas of law and statutes. He erroneously applied the incorrect standards for review and unlawfully skipped over the majority of the Burkes arguments in their court filings (Visual Aid; ROA.1212-1214).

Administratively, the Burkes noted in briefing, that the lower court documents and responses were integral to the Burkes appeal and argument. Thus, all issues submitted on appeal are preserved, not forfeited.  The Burkes met the appellate standard required by cross-referencing the lower court files. E.g. “The Burkes have articulated…” Doc:00515533682  p.55

Falsely applying a terminal sanction on the Burkes claim(s) is denial of due process (e) As with (d) the  Burkes clearly state claims under the FDCA or the TDCA and as such it was never forfeited on appeal. See ROA.764-777, ROA.1194, ROA1206.

(f) “The Burkes contested the district court’s dismissal of their case with prejudice, however, after providing the Burkes the opportunity to amend their complaint once, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in denying their request for leave to amend their complaint a second time where their motion did not explain what new facts they would allege nor attach a proposed amended complaint”.

Response: (f) See ROA.1186-1188.

The court ignored the Burkes claims that (i) Hopkins as a debt collector or as an agent is disbarred from replying to QWR’s which the law firm did repeatedly – only Ocwen are allowed to respond per the statute.

In part; “Common sense tells you if you send a QWR to the named invisible doe and the debt collector responds, in violation of the statute, the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt they own.” The plausibility standard dictates this statement is legally sufficient to proceed to discovery and defeat the motion to dismiss. Why? Because despite the many requests by the Burkes, no evidence has been presented by Hopkins to refute the Burkes claims.

Boazman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 537 F.2d 210 (5th Cir. 1976)

IV.                        Argument & Authorities

This court should grant this petition and rehear the case en banc. The issues requiring the full Court’s resolution concern the Fifth and Fourteenth  Amendments and a fair and impartial judiciary.

Review by the full Court is “necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions.” Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)(1). The questions are also of “exceptional importance.” Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)(2).

A.               The Burkes Preserved All Their Claims for Appeal

The panel insincerely accuse the Burkes of failing  to properly preserve their claims for appeal. These accusations are unfounded on revisiting the Burkes comprehensive and well-cited motions and briefings.

As a result of civil conspiracies (preserved, ROA.760) with his attorney wife, the Hopkins duo and their ‘unserved’ corporate ego committed fraud (preserved, ROA.757, ROA.1119) to obtain a false reversal from this court, twice, and in the process they violated the TDCA/FDCPA (preserved, See ROA.764-777, ROA.1194, ROA1206). As a result, they were unjustly enriched (preserved, ROA.1127 & ROA.762) for their civil and criminal acts.

These facts are discounted by the panel, who claim the Burkes waived the majority of their causes on appeal, a fraudulence to avoid reaching the Burkes meritorious claims and arguments.

B.                Non-Random Assignment of Cases Questions Neutrality

It sheds darkness over justice, the right to a fair hearing and impartial judge(s). Here, both cases were immediately [re]assigned to Hittner.

When the Burkes filed a judicial complaint against Hittner, Chief Judge Owen dismissed the complaint and in a factually inaccurate memorandum, threatened the Burkes in the process with a [disputed] warning. Civility was not considered.

Shortly thereafter, and unbeknownst to the Burkes, she dissolved the panels as Chief Judge and then proceeded to assign herself onto the new panel in order to rule on the now consolidated cases.

Thus, the “appearance of bias” changed immediately to “known bias”. When assignments from the both courts involving the same case(s) are not random and panels are replaced without good reason, “justice does not satisfy the appearance of justice”.

C.               This Panels Review is Undermined Due to Material Misrepresentations and Omissions

Doc 27, Amended Complaint, Disclaimer on footnote 1, ROA.533.

What is most noticeable and disingenuous is the panel excluded all the Burkes mitigating reasoning or evidence presented in their one-sided summary, which would have resulted in a completely different opinion, one in favor of the Burkes.

Disclaimer: The Burkes reserve their legal rights[14]. The errors and omissions are so many, it’s impossible to reach them all in 3,900 words. The Burkes have provided a summary of the most severe violations of due process.

D.               The Panel Excluded the Plausibility Standard including “Twiqbal”

The “The plausibility standard “does not give district courts license to look behind [a complaint’s] allegations and independently assess the likelihood that the plaintiff will be able to prove them at trial.”” and “Rule 12(b)(6) does not require the United States to present its best case or even a particularly good case, only to state a plausible case.” United States v. Bollinger Shipyards, Inc., 775 F.3d 255, 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2014).  The ‘Twiqbal” standard for review has been cited by the Chief Judge when she sat on prior and recent foreclosure panel(s) including Davis v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 20-10547 (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2021) and when she was on the panel which granted panel rehearing and then reversed and remanded; Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 499 n.12 (5th Cir. 2011).

However, despite the Burke’s specifically citing[15] and detailing over two pages of their initial brief the ‘Twiqbal’ standard, it was totally disregarded in the opinion.

E.                The Magistrate’s Offensive Rebuke of the Elder Burkes

At his one and only in-person hearing,  MJ Bray horribly botched his audition, including picking sides without assessment of the abhorrent lies directed at the Burkes.  MJ Bray immediately aligned with pro se and self-admitted lying attorney Hopkins, who falsely accused the Burkes of “wanting certain judges to be shot”. While clearly enraged, he demanded to know if the law-abiding Burkes were criminals. He continued his threatening and abusive manner stating this was  “way more serious than a counterclaim…”  to these perplexed elder citizens.

Despite voluminous filings complaining about the events, from the conversion of a status conference to a motion hearing without notice, to  the elder abuse, the judiciary has remained silent, in violation of their oath, canons and legal responsibilities.  ROA.1010-1017, ROA.1044, ROA.1076,  ROA.1089, ROA.1116, Initial brief, Doc:00515533682 p.44.

In conclusion, the MJ discounted the Burkes subsequent filings in the majority, and his inaugural Memorandum and Recommendation (ROA.1116) would be a litany of lies, erie guesses and omissions, but in the end his opening M&R carries no legal consequence.

F.                No ‘De Novo’ Review

Terminally, Hittner did not perform a ‘De Novo’ review. (ROA.1157, ROA.1185) This panel did not address the question. See Calderon v. Waco Lighthouse for the Blind, 630 F.2d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 1980).

G.               The Cancelled Pretrial Conference

This would be followed by the Burkes timely objections and  Hittner’s final order (ROA.1157) and judgment (ROA.1158), a complete perversion of justice and an ultra vires act rendered during the height of the pandemic (ROA.1171, ROA.1186). The judgment is void and this court’s opinion moot for lack of jurisdiction.

H.               Hopkins is a Rogue Debt Collector

Critically, this court never once addressed or discussed this unlicensed, unbonded, rogue “debt collector” in its opinion.

I.                  Fraud Annuls Attorney Immunity

The Fraud claim was incorrectly dismissed in the opinion as “unavailing”. This court relies upon immunity that is “unavailable” to fraudsters like Hopkins. The district court approved the Burkes request to supplement the PNC case (Initial brief, Doc:00515533682, p.42), another foreclosure matter where Hopkins would perpetrate the same system of fraud (ROA.1119).  The Burkes went into great detail including citations as to why immunity is not provided for fraudulent acts by rogue, unbonded, debt collecting lawyers. It is summarized concisely in ROA.1184. Note: Once again, this court falsely claims this is ‘forfeited’ in dismissive footnote3 and despite it being correctly cited on appeal.

J.                 The Evasion of Service & Motion to Substitute Service

The termination of the motion by Hittner, sua sponte, was raised on appeal and blanked by the panel.

K.               The Unserved Party

Hopkins Law, PLLC is part of the dismissal with prejudice which cannot stand when the party was never served per precedent. p.23, reply brief, Doc: 00515630386, Citing: Coleman v. Gillespie, 424 F. App’x 267 (5th Cir. 2011).

L.                The Mortgage File is All That’s Needed

The Burkes require only one key document to prevail in the lawsuit(s), the mortgage loan file.  The Burkes sought to recover a verified copy of the mortgage file which would prove lender application fraud and allow this case to be finally  ratified and resolved. Nonetheless, despite Hopkins own admission on the record that he unlawfully and unethically withheld the file specifically from the Burkes, they could not obtain the file from Hopkins in the lower court. The bold-faced court was not acting as truth seeker but truth blocker. To do so, it would not acknowledge nor discuss the piercing of immunity arguments raised by the Burkes, namely that attorney privilege/immunity does not apply to the mortgage file or engagement letters.  This court refused as well.

V.                           Conclusion

For a panel to be considered legitimate, due process, fairness and impartiality should always be present. The Constitution demands it. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Burkes civilly requests that this Court grant rehearing en banc.

– END –

DATED:        April 13, 2021

McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1981)

[1] Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656, 1677 (2015).

[2] https://2dobermans.com/woof/1d

[3] “…Non-random assignment conflicts with fundamental due-process principles and results in suspicions that cloud the public’s perception of an impartial judiciary”, Texas Brine Company LLC v. Rodd Naquin et al, SCOTUS, No. 20-312 (pet. denied) https://2dobermans.com/woof/2b

[4] Burke v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 19-13015 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2020)

[5] defined as “A meeting of several persons for deliberation, for the interchange of opinion, or for the removal of differences or disputes…” HTTPS://THELAWDICTIONARY.ORG/CONFERENCE/

[6] See; Jemison v. Citimortgage, Inc., H-13-2475 (2013), Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal stating pro se’s are given ‘ample’ opportunity to amend and ‘generous’ extensions of time.

[7] https://2dobermans.com/woof/2c

[8] See Gray v. 1 Texas Adjusters LLC, 4:17-cv-02353, Doc. 44, S.D. Tex., (ROA.1009)

[9] Boazman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc., 537 F.2d 210, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1976).

[10] Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267 (5th Cir., Mar. 30, 2021).

[11] BAFFC, https://2dobermans.com/woof/29

[12] McGowan v. Faulkner Concrete Pipe Co., 659 F.2d 554, 556 (5th Cir. 1981).

[13] This was cited in footnote 43, p.33 of Burkes Reply Brief.

[14] Otherwise known as: “Reservation of Rights”; https://2dobermans.com/woof/2d

[15] And ROA.747.

Exclusive: LIT’s Obtained the Opening Statement from the Burkes Sizzlin’ Hot Petition for Rehearing

Abuse of the public trust cannot and must not be tolerated. Corrupt practices in government strike at the heart of social order and justice. – Federal Bureau of Investigation

Hall v. McRaven, Supreme Court of Texas and Judge Don Willett’s Sovereign Immunity Concurrence

Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Donny Willett may be changing his stance on Qualified Immunity in recent opinions at the Fifth Circuit, but has he always asked for accountability when immunity applies?

Press Release: Elder Abuse and Crimes Committed by Federal Judges in America

Why Judicial Immunity has killed democracy.

Allen v. Leal (4:96-cv-00030), District Court, S.D. Texas – Judge Hittner presiding…

Notice of Interlocutory Appeal.

Pretrial Conference Held with Hittner, case stayed pending interlocutory appeal.

Burkes Omnibus Response.

General Docket
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals Docket #: 19-20267 Docketed: 04/22/2019
Termed: 03/30/2021
Nature of Suit: 3220 Foreclosure
Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:18-CV-4544
     Court Reporter: Ebonee S. Mathis, Court Reporter
     Originating Judge: David Hittner, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 12/03/2018
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     04/18/2019      04/18/2019
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
Lead Member Start End
     Consolidated
19-20267 20-20209 03/30/2021
Panel Assignment:      Not available
Joanna Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
Joanna Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
John Burke
Plaintiff – Appellant
John Burke
Direct: 281-812-9591
Email: kajongwe@gmail.com
Fax: 866-705-0576
[NTC Pro Se]
46 Kingwood Greens Drive
Kingwood, TX 77339
v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.
Defendant – Appellee
Mark D. Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4320
Email: mark@hopkinslawtexas.com
Fax: 512-600-4326
[COR LD NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734Shelley Luan Hopkins
Direct: 512-600-4323
Email: shelley@hopkinslawtexas.com
[COR NTC Retained]
Hopkins Law, P.L.L.C.
Suite 110
3 Lakeway Centre Court
Austin, TX 78734

Joanna Burke; John Burke,

Plaintiffs – Appellants

v.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C.,

Defendant – Appellee

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

Leave a Reply

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

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top