LIT COMMENTARY
LIT’s 2020 Update
When LIT started this blog, one of the cases we covered was the corrupt conviction of Alfred Dewayne Brown. (June 2019).
Then, LIT covered the fact that after over a decade behind bars, Texas refuses to compensate him (Oct. 2019).
Then, in 2020, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Alfred Dewayne Brown must be compensated for his wrongful imprisonment.
Also in 2020, as Texas comes under intense scrutiny from the public, the case erupts, they now decide to go after the ex-Prosecutor Daniel “Dan” Rizzo?
Yup, that’s authentic Texas. As authentic as your attempts to cover up the #ElderAbuse y’all are perpetrating against the Burkes, (now widower Joanna Burke).
LIT’s June 2024 Update
This article has been updated on June 18, 2024 and substantial movement has been noted.
First, the State Bar of Texas’s Disciplinary action against Dan Rizzo fizzled 2 years ago, in June of 2022.
The corrupt former prosecutor would be allowed to quietly “retire”, with no sanction at Texas Bar level and there would be no criminal prosecution either – it would be swept under the carpet.
In 2020, an independent investigative report would be released into the public domain by Samuel Gross;
“Government Misconduct and Convicting the Innocent”.
This report focuses on misconduct in a criminal setting by lawyers standing before a Judge.
LIT’s position is that there’s even more abuse and misconduct behind the bench. The third branch of government has been labeled in online legal communities as “The Most Dangerous Branch”.
Joanna Burke’s 13-year civil litigation commenced after the 2008 financial crisis and has resulted in the Greatest Theft of Citizens Residential Homes in American history.
In relation to widower and Plaintiff Joanna Burke, she’s fighting similar “withholding of evidence”, the mortgage loan file which defense counsel Mark Hopkins for the financial institutions Deutsche Bank and PHH Mortgage (aka Ocwen aka ONITY) admitted to withholding on the record during a federal court hearing.
Yet, subsequent attempts to obtain the mortgage loan file legally via the courts and the judiciary has resulted in her being blocked and denied access to the file time and time again.
So far, federal courts in Texas, Florida and Minnesota have denied her and the appellate courts at the 5th, 11th and 8th have maintained the fraudulence and withholding of evidence which would show that these financial institutions do not have the necessary legal paperwork to foreclose on her home of 22 years.
Fast-forward to the current litigation, despite her 2-time victory after a 2015 bench trial, and with legal support from legal titans who agree the subsequent 5th Circuit opinions against Joanna Burke were legally flawed, the judiciary have made it clear they will continue to violate her civil rights by penning opinions and orders which leave “exculpatory evidence” out – in order to steal her home.
The judiciary have made it very clear they will defend banks, non-banks and lawyers from creditor rights law firms who have maliciously and willfully pursued time-barred attempts to foreclose.
In short, the judiciary are aiming to steal Joanna Burke’s homestead in the very near future.
Unfortunately, they may do so. However, she has made it clear and obvious, in any attempt to remove her from home -the judiciary will have blood on their hands.
Let it be known, both Texas and the US Government will forever be remembered as “committing violence, not justice” from the bench, and LIT will be live-streaming the murderous events in Kingwood.
Citizens and the public around the world, join LIT’s live-stream, subscribe to our free newsletter and you’ll be provided with the scheduled execution date and time.
Joanna Burke versus the Judicial Machinery Itself
A summary of the litigation can be reviewed on nonprisoner.com, including the original complaint which discusses “JudgeGate” and “ClerkGate” and where the judiciary is as culpable for misconduct from the bench as former prosecutor and lawyer Dan Rizzo.
Most recently, a state court case snap-removed to the Houston federal court supports LIT’s findings that judicial immunity purportedly allows judges to behave criminally on the bench.
As the date of execution by US Marshal, Federal Agent, Texas Ranger or Sheriff is committed against this activist for human rights and justice, elder, 85-year old law abiding citizen Joanna Burke draws ever closer, LIT hopes readers share and repost this article, and if you are able to chip in to help LIT highlight this human rights tragedy, you can do so by clicking this link.
When the Day of Execution arrives, LIT will be live-streaming the murderous events live.
Houston Ex-Prosecutor Faces Discipline for Allegedly Withholding Evidence in Alfred Dewayne Brown Case
Former prosecutor Daniel Rizzo is facing a lawyer discipline lawsuit that alleged he withheld exculpatory evidence in the murder case of Alfred Dewayne Brown, who spent 12 years imprisoned but has since been found actually innocent. But Rizzo denies seeing a copy of the evidence in question.
Originally Published: May 15, 2020 | Republished: July 4, 2020
An ex-prosecutor in Houston accused of misconduct for suppressing evidence in a murder case will soon be served with an attorney disciplinary lawsuit.
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline on Thursday requested service of citation of a lawsuit from earlier this month against Daniel Rizzo, who used to work in the Harris County District Attorney’s office and led the prosecution of Alfred Dewayne Brown.
Brown in 2005 was wrongfully convicted of murdering a Houston police officer during a 2003 robbery. He was declared actually innocent in 2019 after a special investigation found evidence to back his alibi that he wasn’t at the murder scene that day.
Rizzo denies seeing the exculpatory phone record at the time of trial.
“The piece of evidence that the DA here in Harris County, and others, have relied on–Dan just never saw,” Tritico Rainey partner Chris Tritico of Houston, who represents Rizzo. “Everyone is saying Dan should have turned it over. Had he known about it, he would have turned it over, but he never saw it. You have to know about it to turn it over. It’s just that simple.”
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline alleged that during Brown’s prosecution, Rizzo failed to disclose evidence to Brown’s criminal-defense attorney that tended to negate his guilt, said the petition in Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Rizzo, filed in Harris County district court.
Specifically, Rizzo withheld landline telephone records of Brown’s girlfriend of the time, the petition explained. Also, withholding the favorable evidence violated a court order that told him to produce that evidence to the defense, it said.
The discipline commission alleged that Rizzo’s conduct violated a lawyer-discipline rule that prohibits an attorney from knowingly disobeying an obligation under a court’s order. He also broke a rule that applies specifically to a prosecutor and mandates the timely disclosure to the defense of any exculpatory or mitigating evidence, alleged the petition.
The grievance against Rizzo came about because of a 2018 investigation by special prosecutor John Raley, who was appointed by the district attorney’s office to determine if Brown should be retried on the murder charge, or if he was actually innocent. Raley found little evidence of Brown’s guilt and ample evidence to back up his alibi.
The investigation uncovered significant prosecutorial misconduct by Rizzo, according to a grievance by Raley. The grievance alleged that Rizzo knew about important exculpatory evidence but did not disclose it to the court or Brown’s criminal-defense attorneys.
It was a phone record. Brown always said he was at his girlfriend’s apartment when the murder happened and had made a phone call. The phone record documented that call.
There was evidence in the form of an email that showed Rizzo knew about the existence of the phone record.
Yet when the court ordered Rizzo to disclose any exculpatory evidence, Rizzo did not give it over, the grievance alleged.
Raley wrote in an email that Rizzo knew about the phone records and concealed them, which put an innocent man on death row.
“At a minimum, he should not be permitted to retain his law license,” Raley said.
Rizzo also maintained in his response to the grievance that he believes Brown killed the Houston police officer. He argues that the phone record didn’t prove that Brown was innocent.
He says it showed there was a three-way phone call, and that it was possible Brown was at another location with two other murder accomplices at the time of the call.
Post Edited: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP Take $10 Million from PPP and then Hand Out $20k Bonuses to New Starts, Who https://t.co/HioDdH2VCT
— LawsInTexas (@lawsintexasusa) December 19, 2020
202028072 –
THE COMMISSIONER OF LAWYER DISCIPLINE (A COMMITTEE OF THE STATE BAR OF vs. RIZZO, DANIEL J
Jun 16, 2020 | Republished by LIT: Jun 18, 2024
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Petitioner, the Commission for Lawyer Discipline, a committee of the State Bar of Texas (Petitioner), complains of Respondent, DANIEL J. RIZZO (Respondent), State Bar Card No. 16965400, showing the Court:
I.
Discovery Control Plan
Pursuant to Rules 190.1 and 190.3, TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (TRCP), Petitioner intends discovery in this case to be conducted under the Level II Discovery Control Plan.
II.
Petitioner brings this disciplinary action pursuant to the State Bar Act, Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann. §81.001, et seq. (Vernon 1988), the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, and the
Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The complaint that forms the basis of the Disciplinary Petition was filed on or after January 1, 2004.
III.
Respondent is an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas and is a member of the State Bar of Texas. Respondent has his principal place of practice in Harris County, Texas.
IV.
Beginning in or around 2003, Respondent was lead prosecutor in a capital murder case against Alfred Dewayne Brown (Brown). During the prosecution of Brown, Respondent failed to make timely disclosure to the defense of evidence or information that tended to negate the guilt of Brown, specifically including but not limited to, landline telephone records of Brown’s girlfriend, Ericka Dockery (Dockery).
On or about April 21, 2003 Dockery testified at a grand jury proceeding that she received a call from her apartment at 10:08 a.m. on the day of the murders from Brown at her place of employment.
This corroborated Brown’s alibi defense that he was in Dockery’s apartment at the time of the murders.
Respondent pressured and intimidated Dockery to change her testimony regarding Brown’s whereabouts on the morning of the murders. Dockery changed her testimony regarding Brown’s whereabouts on the morning of the murders.
The next day, on April 22, 2003, law enforcement notified Respondent via email that landline phone records of Dockery appeared to corroborate Dockery’s original testimony regarding receiving a phone call from her apartment at her place of employment at or around 10:08 a.m.
This information was never disclosed to the defense and the records were not discovered until 2013.
The email from law enforcement to Respondent regarding the corroborative records was discovered by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office in February 2018.
Respondent still pursued aggravated perjury charges against Dockery.
Dockery was indicted on or about August 22, 2003 for aggravated perjury in connection with her grand jury testimony.
By withholding this information, Respondent failed to abide by the Court’s orders to produce any and all favorable evidence to Brown and any and all evidence showing Brown’s lack of culpability.
In 2005, Brown was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
During the prosecution of Brown, Respondent made false or misleading statements to the tribunal by failing to disclose the existence of a phone call from the landline of Dockery to Dockery’s place of employment.
In October 2007, Brown filed a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus petition alleging that the State violated its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland 1 and failed to admit into evidence the complete cell phone records of Brown’s co-defendants used at trial.
In 2008, during its habeas investigation, the State confirmed that some of the records used during trial regarding cell phones were not admitted into evidence.
The State’s file did not contain the complete records. The habeas prosecutor obtained, by subpoena, the cell phone records of Brown’s co- defendants.
On or about July 11, 2008, Respondent signed an affidavit for use in responding to Brown’s writ stating he did not suppress knowledge of or information about a landline call from Dockery’s apartment to Dockery’s place of employment.
This was a false statement.
In April 2013, the aforementioned landline records of Dockery were located.
These records were never disclosed to the defense.
The court found the records to be exculpatory.
As a result, Brown’s conviction was vacated.
The charges against Brown were later dismissed at the Harris County District Attorney’s request.
In March 2019, the court declared Brown “actually innocent.”
V.
Such acts and/or omissions on the part of Respondent as are described in Paragraph IV, hereinabove, which occurred on or after January 1, 1990, constitute conduct that violates Rules 3.03(a)(1), 3.04(a), 3.04(d), 3.09(d), and 8.04(a)(3) of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
VI.
The complaint that forms the basis of the cause of action hereinabove set forth was brought to the attention of the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, by John Wesley Raley, III, filing a complaint on or about June 4, 2019.
The tolling provisions contained within Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.06 are triggered in this case.
As reflected in Rule 17.06(C), Respondent may be disciplined for a violation of Rule 3.09(d), Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, that occurred in a prosecution that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of Brown.
Brown was not released from a Penal Institution until June 8, 2015.
In addition, Respondent engaged in a fraud upon the court when he failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused before, during, and after the 2005 trial of Brown.
Further, Respondent concealed his misconduct from the time of the misconduct forward and throughout all post-conviction litigation.
Therefore, the complaint is not barred by statute of limitations.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays for judgment that Respondent be disciplined, as the facts shall warrant, and that Petitioner have such other relief to which entitled, including direct expenses, costs of Court and reasonable attorney’s fees.
Respectfully submitted,
Seana Willing
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Kristin V. Brady
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
Rachel Craig
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel State Bar of Texas
The Princeton
14651 Dallas Parkway, Suite 925
Dallas, Texas 75254
Telephone: (972) 383-2900
Facsimile: (972) 383-2935
E-mail: kristin.brady@texasbar.com
E-mail: rachel.craig@texasbar.com
/s/Kristin V. Brady
Kristin V. Brady
State Bar No. 24082719
/s/Rachel Craig
Rachel Craig
State Bar No. 24090049
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Brittany Paynton on behalf of Kristin Brady Bar No. 24082719
brittany.paynton@texasbar.com Envelope ID: 63461769
Status as of 4/11/2022 3:46 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name
BarNumber
Email
TimestampSubmitted
Status
Christopher Tritico
ctritico@triticorainey.com
4/11/2022 3:30:24 PM
SENT
Joanne Turturro
jturturro@triticorainey.com
4/11/2022 3:30:24 PM
SENT
Ron Rainey
rrainey@triticorainey.com
4/11/2022 3:30:24 PM
SENT
Kristin Brady
kristin.brady@texasbar.com
4/11/2022 3:30:24 PM
SENT
Brittany Paynton
brittany.paynton@texasbar.com
4/11/2022 3:30:24 PM
SENT
Rachel Craig
rachel.craig@texasbar.com
4/11/2022 3:30:24 PM
SENT
Predatory Lending: If Your Foreclosure Involves BDF Law Group, aka Barrett Daffin and Hopkins Law
When you reach ‘discovery’, Requests for Admissions (RFA’s) are an essential tool in both state and federal court to prove your case.
Hopkins Judgment on the Pleadings versus Hopkins Fraudulent Documents and Criminal Behavior
What is a motion for judgment on the pleadings and why are they disfavored by federal court judges? Answer: Because most are conclusory.
Who’s Lyin’ Again in Federal Court? Hopkins Law, PLLC, Austin, Texas, Of Course
Plaintiffs request court take notice of the verified falsity and perjury of Shelley Hopkins, who submitted this ‘Joint’ Plan for Defendants.
This Ain’t a Reply Hopkins, It’s a Begging Letter for Felonious Judicial Protection
The Pro Se’s response with citations has blown Hopkins Law PLLC’s failed arguments out of the water so they opt for a begging letter instead.
The Ten Sins by Hopkins Law
Admitted serial liar Mark Hopkins, along with Shelley Hopkins of Hopkins Law, PLLC continue their premeditated legal frauds and schematics.
Discrimination: Obtaining the Mortgage Loan File and Sanctions In Texas Courts Compared with Illinois
LIT compares Federal District Court Discrimination Cases between African Americans in Ill. and Elder Abuse in TX. The Disparity is Alarming
Sofia
February 9, 2022 at 5:51 am
How’s about going before congress to place a law to hold prosecutors accountable to knowingly holding evidence from the defense that would have showed someone’s innocence and that they’ll be held to the same laws as all criminals. Because until then these prosecutors will keep hiding behind their title and keep putting innocent people in jail,prison or death row !
Arlena Jones
March 27, 2022 at 2:51 pm
Prosecutors should be held to same standards as the person on trial. They hold that persons life in the palm of their hand. They are there to uphold the law, not mold it to their interpretation or to get a win. It is sad that we have such people in the position they are in to advocate the death or imprisonment of another person through a lie. He should not be allowed to be in a court of law seeking the death penalty on an innocent person.