What Happens When You Ask the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Permission to Supplement the Record by Providing Irrefutable Evidence of Judicial Bias by the Lower Court?

WILLETT, DON R.

SOUTHWICK, LESLIE H.

HIGGINGBOTHAM, PATRICK E.

Extract from Brief; Motion to Clarify (p.73/74)

The Burkes’ management of this case cannot be called tardy or dilatory, which is one of the main reasons a DWOP is normally issued. The reverse is true. The lower court’s administration of the case was extremely lethargic. The lower court was silent for long periods as the motions from both sides stacked up on their desk(s) and when they did respond, they deprived the Burkes’ of their Constitutional rights to be heard.

The Burkes’ filed the Motion to Clarify [ROA.981] but also attempted to reach out for clarification by contacting the Case Manager as instructed to do on the Scheduling Order, but who was also silent.

This is in stark contrast to when the Burkes’ reached out to the Court Reporter via email regarding filing the DKT13 again with the Fifth Circuit. The Court Reporter had Heather Carr, Assistant Deputy-in-Charge, SDTX emailing Joanna Burke by return, after 5pm, May 8th, 2019 (cc: Ebonee Mathis, SDTX).

Now Considering Heather Carr, Assistant Deputy-in-Charge, is a well-trained and experienced member of the Southern District (Federal) Court, this is rather a questionable denial of evidence proven by an internal “expert witness”. Below is a PDF of Ms Carr’s presentation and experience with the Court PACER/ECF training from 2012…