LIT UPDATE ON MURDERER’S RELIEF BEFORE JUDGE ESKRIDGE, ET AL
You get your wish for the relief requested and you get a without prejudice determination as a murderer. Not so honest, law abiding elder citizens in this courthouse.
OCT 9, 2022
ORDER OF DISMISSAL re:
The unopposed motion by Defendants to dismiss based on mootness is GRANTED. Dkt 103.
The motion advises,
“Defendants have formally approved Gonzaless religious requests that form the basis of this suit.”
Id at 1.
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling
should later information indicate that the religious accommodations will not be fulfilled during his execution.
(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge)
Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2022)
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:21-cv-00828
| Gonzales v. Collier et al Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge
Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
Date Filed: 03/12/2021 Date Terminated: 09/26/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/29/2022 | 98 | ORDER re: The motions by Defendants to seal their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and to seal their additional trial exhibits are GRANTED. Dkts 84 & 88. The cross-motions by Gonzales and Defendants for partial or full summary judgment are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkts 40 & 42. A status conference will be set in the near future to discuss the forward path on this case and necessary dispositive motion practice. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(JosephWells, 4) (Entered: 07/29/2022) |
| 08/08/2022 | 99 | NOTICE of Setting. Parties notified. Status Conference set for 8/16/2022 at 03:00 PM by video before Judge Charles Eskridge, filed. (jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
| 08/10/2022 | 100 | Joint MOTION for Joint Motion to Cancel Status Conference Conference re: 99 Notice of Setting/Resetting FORM – CV by Bryan Collier, Dennis Crowley, Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, filed. Motion Docket Date 8/31/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(O’Leary, Leah) (Entered: 08/10/2022) |
| 08/12/2022 | 101 | ORDER granting 100 Joint MOTION for Joint Motion to Cancel Status Conference Conference. The status conference scheduled for 08/16/2022 is cancelled. The parties shall provide an update to the Court on or before 09/09/2022, regarding the path forward in this litigation. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 08/12/2022) |
| 09/09/2022 | 102 | NOTICE Joint Status Update Regarding Litigation by Bryan Collier, Dennis Crowley, Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, filed. (O’Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/09/2022) |
| 09/23/2022 | 103 | Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss Based on Mootness by Bryan Collier, Dennis Crowley, Bobby Lumpkin-Director TDCJ-CID, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/14/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(O’Leary, Leah) (Entered: 09/23/2022) |
| 09/26/2022 | 104 | ORDER OF DISMISSAL re: The unopposed motion by Defendants to dismiss based on mootness is GRANTED. Dkt 103. The motion advises, “Defendants have formally approved Gonzaless religious requests that form the basis of this suit.” Id at 1. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling should later information indicate that the religious accommodations will not be fulfilled during his execution. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2022) |
| 09/26/2022 | 105 | FINAL JUDGMENT. Case terminated on 09/26/2022.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 09/26/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 10/09/2022 15:15:41 |
LIT UPDATE ON MURDERER’S RELIEF BEFORE JUDGE ESKRIDGE, ET AL
You get your wish for the relief requested and you get a without prejudice determination as a murderer. Not so honest, law abiding elder citizens in this courthouse.https://t.co/nwHcY8SrPp @uscourts
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) October 9, 2022
PLAINTIFF[S] MOTION TO VACATE JUDGE ALFRED H. BENNETT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDER RE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, ETC DATED AUGUST 29, 2022 (DOC 50), CONTINUANCE FOR 90 DAYS, AND SUGGESTION OF DEATH OF PLAINTIFF JOHN BURKE ON THE RECORD
SEPT 8, 2022 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEPT 8, 2022
PLAINTIFF[S] MOTION TO CONTINUE INITIAL PRETRIAL & SCHEDULING CONFERENCE & VACATE THIS COURT’S ORDER, DOC. 50, AS THE REMAINING PLAINTIFF IS GRIEVING THE LOSS OF JOHN BURKE, AND IN NO MEDICAL CONDITION TO RESPOND, AS THE LAW ALLOWS, TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
John Burke (85 years old)
On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff Joanna Burke (“Plaintiff”) requested a humanitarian continuance of the in-person conference as scheduled to take place on Friday, 9th September, 2022, (Doc 49, Order, Aug 5/6, 2022) until Monday, October 10, 2022 (or as court orders), due to the emergency medical condition of hospitalized John Burke.
Coincidentally, on the same day, Monday, 29 August, 2022, the court issued a surprise order [1], dismissing the Burkes’ lawsuit – prior to the court-
[1] At the time of this filing, Joanna Burke has never received a court email or copy of the Court Order (Doc. 50) by USPS mail, as required by law.
A record-breaking month in August, with 34,300 users visiting our truly independent blog, https://t.co/ZPCo2u07pa which highlights legal and judicial corruption. Texas has gone rogue and we’ve the data and evidence to back it up. Become a supporter. No Paywall, No BS. #txlege pic.twitter.com/eeurVS6sq6
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 8, 2022
mandated, in-person hearing set for 9/9/2022, and while John Burke lay critically ill in ICU.
Official Notice of Suggestion of Death
Joanna Burke is now notifying the court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 25, that Plaintiff John Burke died on Sunday, September 4, 2022 during the pendency of this action.
Joanna Burke (83 years old)
Continuance Granted (April 2022)
On Friday, April 8, 2022, Case Manager to Hon. Alfred H Bennett emailed notifying that the Court will reset the scheduling conference to August 19, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
The initial conference was reset, based on the fact Joanna Burke was undergoing her own medical emergency, a full-mouth reconstructive dental restoration as documented and detailed on the docket.
See; Motion for Continuance, Mar 24, 2022, Doc. 45 and Order granting continuance, April 8, 2022, Doc. 48.
Further Continuance (August 2022)
On Friday, August 5, 2022, Joanna Burke emailed opposing counsel advising;
“We are filing a Motion for Continuance of the scheduled August 18, 2022 initial conference at 9am.
Joanna Burke’s full mouth reconstructive surgery has proven to be a very long and complex process, and as such Joanna Burke will require more time, until Monday, July 10, 2023 to attend the conference, as there are many parts of the surgery and reconstruction still to be performed.
Please advise if you are opposed or unopposed to a humanitarian continuance until July 10, 2023.
Sincerely
J & J Burke”
A few minutes later, Shelley Hopkins responded via email;
“We are opposed.”
Less than 48 hours later, and on a Sunday no less (August 7, 2022), the court reset the initial, in-person conference to September 9, 2022 at 9am in Courtroom 8C.
As such, Joanna Burke held off submitting the motion for continuance as she wanted to see what further medical works would be completed and would update the court nearer to the court-amended conference date.
However, the schedule changed drastically.
On Saturday morning, August 27, 2022, John Burke was rushed to ER.
On Monday, August 29, 2022 Joanna Burke notified the court by motion, requesting a 30-day continuance, as discussed herein.
Request for Relief : Vacate the Order/Judgment (Doc. 50) and Continue the Case for 90 Days
John Burke is obviously unable to participate further in this case and Joanna Burke was already in medical distress over her full-mouth dental restoration, as this court is aware.
Elders in Texas are a “Protected Class” and Abuse [2] Can Be Considered a Crime. Judge Bennett’s Doc. 50 Order is a Memorialized Abuse Against the Civil and Human Rights of the Elder Plaintiff[s]
Joanna Burke is protected by both State and Federal laws and their respective Constitution(s). This includes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which provides that neither state nor federal government can deprive a person due process, procedural and substantive, where life, liberty and property is at risk, and none more so than this case, due to the emotional and traumatic condition of Joanna Burke who is trying to cope with the loss
[2] “Elder abuse is any action or inaction that harms, endangers, or causes distress to a person over the age of 60 or 65 and is done intentionally by someone who is known to the victim and in a position of trust.” – Great Senior Living.
of her husband of 64 years. The trauma and emotional distress will also prevent Joanna Burke from rationally responding to such a devastating order (Doc 50).
Death-Row Murderers and Rapists Obtain More Constitutional and Federal Protection in Houston Federal Courts than Law-Abiding, Elder Citizens, Who Are Abused by this Judiciary
Compare with Judge Eskridge’s recent death row inmate’s religious continuance, delaying further the execution scheduled for July 13, 2022. A convicted rapist and murderer who received the death penalty in 2006, some 16 years ago. Gonzales v. Collier, Civil Action 4:21-cv-0828 (S.D. Tex. July 4, 2022).
Argument
As a self-represented litigant, Joanna Burke will not be able to reply to the shocking, unconstitutional, and surprise Order (Doc. 50), in the legal timeline(s) allowed. For example, to respond comprehensively by submitting a Rule 59(e) motion ; 28 days – and/or make an informed choice if there is a necessity for a Notice of Appeal ; 30 days.
Hence, Joanna Burke requests a 90-day continuance to grieve the death of her best friend and husband and address her own escalating medical needs during this agonizingly painful time.
It’s a Malicious and Premeditated Order
There is further good reason for the continuance, as the elder and law-abiding Citizen of the State of Texas, Joanna Burke, asserts this premeditated Order, which maliciously attacks the integrity of the Plaintiff[s], is strewn with legal and factual errors, requires to be vacated.
Additionally, the Order is issued in violation of the law(s) and Constitution(s), and by surprise, without the opportunity to be heard in-person at the court-mandated September 9 conference.
See; The Supreme Court has stated that the ‘root’ requirement of due process is the right to be heard, and the right to be heard depends upon adequate notice of the right. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)
(“The fundamental requirement of due process is the requirement to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’”)
(quoting Armstrong v Manzo, 380 US, 545, 552 (1965)).
The 11th Circuit Upended Judge Bennett’s Plan by Granting the April Continuance, but He Would Find an Illegal Way to Circumvent A Further Medical Continuance
It is apparent, Judge Bennett was forced to grant the medical continuance in April due to the 11th Circuits Order in the Burkes Intervention Appeal, but wanted to circumvent any further medical continuance, which would have to be granted for the same reasons as the first motion.
To prevent this happening, he would have to dismiss the case before the continuance was officially filed. His order, resetting the Initial conference to 9/9/2022 accomplished that goal, delaying the Plaintiffs intended filing and allowing him, in the interim, to issue an Order unlawfully disposing of the case.
The Timeline and Docket is Transparent and Proves the Plaintiff[s] Allegations of Premeditation, Maliciousness, Judicial Usurpation and More
As stated above, the April 8, 2022 Continuance was (belatedly)[3] approved by this court due to medical reasons. It is now clear from the face of the docket and respective timeline that the court became aware of the
[3] The Plaintiffs pointed out in their Houston continuation motion, that the 11th Circuit Appeals Court had already granted Joanna Burke’s medical continuance in the Burkes intervenor case for the same period (to Aug. 2022), and hence that would have put Houston in a precarious position, should they have denied the motion.
planned motion for continuance by Joanna Burke in August, 2022.
It is purported, the court became impatient, despite the Constitution and laws supporting the past and planned motion(s) for continuance, and decided to abruptly end the case.
To do so, would require Judicial usurpation, and without hesitation, Hon. Alfred H. Bennett would readily exceed his authority to unlawfully dismiss a case involving Judicial and legal misconduct, chicanery and lawlessness, in violation of the laws.
This is a Case of a Judge Protecting the Judiciary and Fellow Colleagues by Despotism [4]
It is clear and obvious, the court wanted to suppress the undeniable and embarrassing (to the Judiciary) facts presented in the Plaintiffs case, for example, the Fifth Circuit Clerk, C. Gardner, who unlawfully submitted a
[4] “Thomas Jefferson warned that judicial review would lead to a form of despotism.” – Heritage.org, Judicial Usurpation and the Constitution.
What’s the cost to BUY a federal judge position in Texas? Anywhere from $30k (Jim and Allyson Ho – cheap 2 for one deal) to $75k (Charles Eskridge) https://t.co/KLr09Y8qNC
@thesundaytimes @Pontifex @IrishTimes @joerogan @elonmusk @SamsungUS @10DowningStreet @NGRPresident #Texas pic.twitter.com/8232ZotZKP— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 28, 2022
[text entry and back-dated] motion to the 3-panel, without the approval or signature of the Plaintiffs, and which the Judges relied upon to strike the Burke’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc.[5]
That is lawless behavior, as the law is clear, only the litigants can file motions, not clerks.
For the record, the Plaintiffs peppered their First Amended Petition [Doc. 12] with irrefutable facts, and case citations.
Judge Bennett blanked them and provided unpublished and inapposite case law in response.
The Plaintiffs even cited case law in their first amended petition, Doc. 12, p.24, which was blanked in Judge Bennett’s Order (another unlawful, standard procedure in Federal Courts); Watkins v. Hobbs, 5:11CV00217 JMM,
[5] Extract from 1st Amended Complaint, Doc. 12, p. 21: “Fifth Circuit Clerk, Christina Gardner (“Gardner”). The main co-conspirator is Christina Gardner, with knowledge and in bad faith, entered her own fraudulent Motion… upon which the Fifth Circuit entered its judgment, one procured by the co-conspirators, the Clerks and 3-Panel of assigned Judges, who implemented this unconscionable scheme while acting as officers for the court.
at *1 n.1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 16, 2012) (“Neither the Court nor the Clerk of the Court can file documents in a case on behalf of a party.”).
Clearly, Clerk Garder did just that – ‘file documents in a case on behalf of a party’ – [the Burkes], who didn’t know she had filed the motion nor would have approved it. A violation of the law.
Vacating the Order Will Prevent a Miscarriage of Justice
Judge Bennett’s legal review of the case is erroneous in both facts and law, a miscarriage of justice, and as such, Joanna Burke asserts the only remedy available is to Vacate the Order/Judgment by Judge Bennett, dated Aug 29, 2022 (Doc. 50) and continue the case, until it can be resumed, and so justice may be served.
Conclusion
The court order (Doc. 50, Aug 29, 2022) should be vacated and the case continued. This motion should be granted.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
RESPECTFULLY submitted this 8th day of September, 2022.
Joanna Burke
LIT Spotlights Magistrate Judge Johnson’s Order Related to COVID-19 and Access to Courts
Thus far, the pandemic has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, with a total death count of half a million predicted for April 2021.
Executive Emergency Orders: LIT Reviews Southern District Federal Court’s Failure to EFile During COVID-19
As long as the people accept this appalling type of behavior by federal judges and their staff, courts will continue to trample over y’all.
Constitutional Protections of our Property and Liberties Have Been Intentionally Eroded Over Time.
All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:21-cv-02591
| Burke et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al Assigned to: Judge Alfred H Bennett Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question |
Date Filed: 08/09/2021 Date Terminated: 08/29/2022 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 11/05/2021 | 26 | RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Shelley Hopkins served on 10/29/2021, answer due 11/19/2021, filed.(BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 11/15/2021) |
| 11/05/2021 | 27 | RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to PHH Mortgage Corporation served on 10/28/2021, answer due 11/18/2021, filed.(BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 11/15/2021) |
| 11/05/2021 | 28 | RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Mark Daniel Hopkins served on 10/29/2021, answer due 11/19/2021, filed.(BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 11/15/2021) |
| 11/05/2021 | 29 | RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Hopkins Law, PLLC served on 10/29/2021, answer due 11/19/2021, filed.(BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 11/15/2021) |
| 11/08/2021 | 25 |
REPLY to Response to 17 MOTION to Declare Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigants and Brief in Support, filed by Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 11/08/2021) |
| 11/08/2021 | 30 | CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Joanne Burke and John Burke, filed.(RachelSalazar, 4) (Entered: 11/16/2021) |
| 11/16/2021 | 31 | REPLY to 24 JointDiscovery/Case Management Plan, filed by John Burke. (BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 11/17/2021) |
| 11/16/2021 | 32 | RESPONSE to 19 MOTION for Judgment filed by Joanna Burke, John Burke. (dhansen, 4) (Entered: 11/18/2021) |
| 11/19/2021 | 33 |
MOTION to Strike 32 Response to Motion by Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/10/2021. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 11/19/2021) |
| 11/23/2021 | 34 | REPLY to Response to 18 MOTION for Judgment, filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 11/23/2021) |
| 11/23/2021 | 35 | REPLY to Response to 19 MOTION for Judgment, filed by Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, Hopkins Law, PLLC. (Hopkins, Mark) (Entered: 11/23/2021) |
| 12/01/2021 | 36 | MOTION for Continuance of Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference by Joanna Burke, John Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/22/2021. (BrandisIsom, 4) (Entered: 12/01/2021) |
| 12/02/2021 | 37 | RESPONSE to 36 MOTION for Continuance of of Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference filed by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 12/02/2021) |
| 12/07/2021 | 38 |
ORDER granting 36 Motion for Continuance of Initial Conference pending ruling on dispositive motions.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ledwards, 4) (Entered: 12/07/2021) |
| 12/09/2021 | 42 | MOTION Zoom Hearing Regarding Judgement by Joanna Burke, John Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 12/30/2021. (RachelSalazar, 4) (Entered: 12/13/2021) |
| 12/10/2021 | 39 | STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD per Order (Doc # 40) Modified on 12/13/2021 (ledwards, 4). (Entered: 12/10/2021) |
| 12/13/2021 | 40 |
ORDER Striking Document re: 39 Motion for Sanctions filed by John Burke, for Failure to comply with Rule B.5.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ledwards, 4) (Entered: 12/13/2021) |
| 12/13/2021 | 41 | MOTION For Zoom Hearing by Joanna Burke, John Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 1/3/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter)(RachelSalazar, 4) (Entered: 12/13/2021) |
| 12/30/2021 | 43 | RESPONSE to 41 MOTION For Zoom Hearing filed by Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 12/30/2021) |
| 12/30/2021 | 44 | RESPONSE to 42 MOTION Zoom Hearing Regarding Judgement filed by Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 12/30/2021) |
| 03/24/2022 | 45 | MOTION for Continuance of Initial Pre Trial and Conference by Joanna Burke, John Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 4/14/2022. (ShannonHolden, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/24/2022: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit) (ShannonHolden, 4). (Entered: 03/24/2022) |
| 03/24/2022 | 46 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 45 MOTION for Continuance of Initial Pre Trial and Conference, filed by Mark Daniel Hopkins, Shelley Hopkins, Hopkins Law, PLLC, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, PHH Mortgage Corporation. (Hopkins, Shelley) (Entered: 03/24/2022) |
| 03/25/2022 | 47 |
ORDER granting 5 Motion to File Electronically.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ledwards, 4) (Entered: 03/26/2022) |
| 04/08/2022 | 48 | ORDER granting 45 MOTION for Continuance of Initial Pre Trial and Conference. Initial Conference set for 8/19/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8C before Judge Alfred H Bennett.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ledwards, 4) (Entered: 04/08/2022) |
| 08/05/2022 | 49 |
NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Initial Conference set for 9/9/2022 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 8C before Judge Alfred H Bennett, filed. (ledwards, 4) (Entered: 08/06/2022) |
| 08/29/2022 | 50 |
ORDER DENYING 17 MOTION to Declare Plaintiffs as Vexatious Litigants and Brief in Support, GRANTING 18 Motion for Judgment; GRANTING 19 Motion for Judgment; denying as moot 41 MOTION For Zoom Hearing; denying as moot 42 Motion for Zoom Hearing Regarding Judgement.(Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(ledwards, 4) (Entered: 08/29/2022) |
| 08/31/2022 | 51 | MOTION to Continue Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/21/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Proposed Order)(ShannonHolden, 4) (Entered: 08/31/2022) |
| 09/08/2022 | 52 | Opposed MOTION to Vacate 50 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Strike, by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/29/2022. (Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 09/08/2022) |
| 09/12/2022 | 53 | MOTION to Vacate 50 Order by Joanna Burke, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/3/2022. (AkeitaMichael, 4) (Entered: 09/12/2022) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/24/2022 00:07:21 |
| General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| JOHN BURKE, JOANNA BURKE,Interested Parties – Appellants,CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU,Plaintiff – Appellee,versusOCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, OCWEN MORTGAGE SERVICING INC., a U. S. Virgin Islands corporation, PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,Defendants – Appellees. |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/23/2022 11:25:24 |
