Elder Abuse by The Judicial Machinery Itself


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Plaintiff Joanna Burke (“Plaintiff”) files this original complaint to vacate void judgments on the basis of fraud by named judges and officers of the courts, including Constitutional and due process violations, as well as misconduct and fraud by the judicial machinery itself. Plaintiff contends she is unable to obtain justice in the State of Texas, and specifically the Federal and Circuit Courts in Texas. See; United States v. Collette, No. 22-CR-00141-DC, at *17 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 25, 2022);

“The Constitution is, of course, just words. They are “what our Framers would have called a parchment guarantee.” Indeed, “every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights.”  Thus, it is not the empty words but the sacrifices – the unflinching commitment to protecting the rights of the people – that make this country what it is.”.

Secondly, Plaintiff files this lawsuit claiming discrimination for being a non-prisoner, self-represented, pro se civil litigant who is being denied the same access to justice as civil litigants represented by legal counsel.  Plaintiff aligns this as the civil version of Gideon’s complaint regarding the right to legal representation is a fundamental aspect of due process in criminal proceedings.  Gideon contended that without legal representation, he was unable to effectively defend himself against the charges he faced, and this lack of representation resulted in a violation of his right to due process

Similarly, Plaintiff is being discriminated against by the judicial machinery itself in Texas, and Florida. She is being denied due process repeatedly, and blatantly in violation of the United States Constitution.

And there’s a good reason Plaintiff has chosen to go on a road-trip and file in the US District Court of Minnesota. Most notably, Plaintiff has been denied access to discovery and evidence such as the mortgage loan file for her purported mortgage,  and which is regularly provided to civil litigants who are represented by counsel in federal courts around the country, including this court.   See; “ResCap Bankruptcy Trust Nets First Jury Verdict -Liquidating trust has previously generated $1.1 billion in settlements for creditors”, WSJ, Nov. 9, 2018; https://2dobermans.com/woof/6w , (last visited Apr. 14, 2023).

It begs the question, “How Did RESCAP Receive $1.3 BILLION Dollars in “Liar Loan” Federal Court Wins and the Homeowners Zero?”.

Plaintiff has monitored the RMBS lawsuits which have recently concluded in this District Court and where access to all the mortgage loan files were provided for analysis, unlike Plaintiff, who has been repeatedly denied the mortgage loan file (admittedly withheld by opposing counsel). Importantly, the expert witness audits of these liar loans conspicuously include the same parties Plaintiff has been litigating in Texas Courts for the last 11 plus years.

So Why Are Investors Obtaining Financial Relief on the Back of the Fraud Against Homeowners, who Lose Everything?

Plaintiff will explain the essential reasons in this complaint – discrimination, fraud and ochlocracy by the judicial machinery itself against self-represented homeowners who were – and still are – a target, in the greatest theft of citizens residential homes in American History.



Plaintiff, Joanna Burke is a retired resident in Harris County, Texas.


PHH Mortgage Corporation

Defendant PHH Mortgage Corporation is a foreign corporation that may be served by delivering citation to its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.

Hopkins Law, PLLC

Defendant Hopkins Law, PLLC is a Texas professional limited liability company having its principal place of business in Austin, Texas and may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Mark D Hopkins, Registered Agent Address is; 3809 Juniper Trace, Suite 101, Austin, TX 78738 USA, or wherever the Registered Agent can be found. Mark D Hopkins is a member and director and has his domicile in Austin, Texas. The company’s tax filing status is listed as In Existence and its File Number is 32057539499.

Defendant: Mark D. Hopkins

Defendant Mark Daniel Hopkins is an individual having his domicile in Austin, Texas and may be served at his business address, 3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110, Austin, Texas 78734-2692, or his place of residence, 3 THE HILLS DR, THE HILLS, TX 78738-1537 or wherever he may be found.

Defendant: Shelley L. Hopkins

Defendant Shelley Luan Hopkins is an individual having her domicile in Austin, Texas and may be served at her business address, 3 Lakeway Centre Ct., Suite 110, Austin, Texas 78734-2692, or her place of residence, 3 THE HILLS DR, THE HILLS, TX 78738-1537 or wherever she may be found.

Defendant: Christina Gardner

Defendant Christina Gardner is a Clerk at the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and may be served at her work address, U.S. Court of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit 600 S. Maestri Place, New Orleans, LA 70130 or wherever she may be found.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because it involves questions of federal law and secondly because it is the correct court which may resolve this complaint when fraud is involved. See Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 558 (2nd Cir. 1988);  Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332, 1337-38 (5th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2000);  In re James, 940 F.2d 46 (3d Cir. 1991); United States v. Zima, 766 F.2d 1153 (7th Cir. 1985).


The Plaintiff shall refer to this lawsuit as “JudgeGate” as it pertains to claims against the judicial machinery itself.

The Deutsche Bank Case (2011-2018)

Despite defeating straw man Deutsche Bank (“DBNTCO”) twice in federal court, the Fifth Circuit reversed and ultimately rendered judgment, contrary to binding precedent and the rule of orderliniess.

Connie Pfeiffer, Beck Redden Represented Plaintiff

Let it be known, Plaintiff wasn’t self-represented for the duration of the seven plus years the DBNTCO wrongful ligitation ensued. No, after the first erronous reverse and remand decision by CA5, a Texas Constitutional lawyer and expert in the field of home equity loans and the Texas Constitution, Constance “Connie” Pfeiffer, would represent Plaintiff during that remand period.  Connie Pfeiffer was appointed as she had led the charge in the Texas Supreme Court to overturn an erroneous Fifth Circuit decision and restore a correct interpretation of the Texas Constitution. The victory was a landmark decision for Texas homeowners who face foreclosure on unconstitutional home equity loans. See Wood v. HSBC Bank USA NA, 505 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. 2016).

Steve Berman, Hagens Berman Represented Plaintiff

Alas, the lower court award on remand to Plaintiff would be appealed by BDF Hopkins for DBNTCO a second time. Plaintiff discussed the appeal and case with legal titan, Steve Berman of Hagens Berman, who agreed to take the case on appeal and was confident to do so based on the Magistrate Judge’s opinion.

Hagens Berman co-founder and managing partner, Steve W. Berman has earned many awards, including Law360’s 2022 Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar award for his significant achievements fighting for the rights of plaintiffs.

As with Connie Pfeiffer, he agreed that the Fifth Circuit’s opinion was erroneous;

“That’s correct, Your Honor. And I DO want to make an important clarification, which is WE DON’T necessarily AGREE that the FIFTH CIRCUIT was correct in REVERSING this Court’s judgment.” – Doc. 126, p. 34; https://2dobermans.com/woof/6t

After initial briefing was submitted, Hagens Berman were waiting for oral argument. However, what happened next left them speechless. An Order was rapidly issued by CA5, reversing and rendering a decision in favor of DBNTCO for a second time and in defiance of 200+ years of legal binding precedent.

The Expensive Petition to a Clerk at SCOTUS was a Waste (2019)

The Plaintiff paid a considerable sum for a large quantity of little bound books to be submitted to the United Supreme Court, see; Joanna Burke, et vir, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 18-1370, May 1, 2019, SCOTUS – https://2dobermans.com/woof/3o. They would be dumped after a brief flick of one bound book by a Clerk of the Court. The expensive print run and Petition (https://2dobermans.com/woof/p ) would be denied without much more than a cursory glance. Notably, the Supreme Court has not heard a single foreclosure case post financial crisis involving predatory lending and/or lender application fraud.

The Fifth Circuit Riddle (late 2018)

As a result of the decision separating the legal obligations of a mortgage servicer from a bank in the Riddle[1] opinion, Plaintiff filed two lawsuits simultaneously in Texas State Court and which would be snap removed to Federal Court by BDF Hopkins. These cases are discussed further in this complaint.

The Florida Motion to Intervene (late 2018, filed Jan. 2019 in Fl.)

            Around the same time, Plaintiff, knowing they needed the mortgage loan file and other independent evidence for their new cases against Ocwen and BDF Hopkins, all the time aware the Texas judiciary was working against allowing discovery of this key evidence, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Intervene in Florida to obtain the mortgage loan file from Plaintiff’s alleged current mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. This critical file is discussed in greater detail below and is extremely relevant to the acts of fraud by the courts, not only in CA5 Circuit, but CA11 Circuit Courts as well.

The Burkes Missing Mortgage Loan File

Repeatedly over years of legally binding requests, the judiciary has consciously, willfully and maliciously denied John Burke (deceased, Sep. 4, 2022) and Joanna Burke ( jointly referred to as “Plaintiff”) access to the actual “mortgage loan file” associated with their purported residential home in Kingwood, Texas, and central to their complaint(s). These judicial orders are in defiance of the law.  In federal district courts the Plaintiff pursued obtaining the mortgage loan file (“file”), and on each occasion without success;

First Attempt to Obtain the Correct Mortgage Loan File (2011)

In Burke v. IndyMac Mortgage Services (4:11-cv-00341) District Court, S.D. Texas (2011), randomly assigned to repeatedly admonished Judge Lynn Hughes. During the initial conference Judge Hughes was made fully aware by Plaintiff, as documented on the court transcript, the purported loan paperwork presented by Indymac counsel was for the wrong loan amount, one rejected by the Burkes.

At the end of the hearing, Judge Hughes told counsel to ensure that their ‘ducks were lined up’ upon return to his chambers. During the conference he also threatened the pro se Burkes with aggressive language which  included, “you don’t get a free home”; “this is not a game”, and; “I will conduct the foreclosure sale personally.”.

Second Attempt to Obtain the Correct Mortgage Loan File (2011+)

In Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burke (4:11-cv-01658) District Court, S.D. Texas (2011), randomly assigned to Judge David Hittner.

Deutsche Bank Counsel Admits to Withholding Mortgage Loan File

On remand and whilst before Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith and Burkes counsel, Ms Constance Pfeiffer, Beck Redden, Doc. 126, p.13

“I’ve had the benefit of reviewing that closing file, which wasn’t put in evidence before the Court because the allegations were raised by the Burkes.” –  https://2dobermans.com/woof/6t

Compare with; Dill v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 21-20533, at *1 (5th Cir. May 16, 2022).

Third Attempt to Obtain the Correct Mortgage Loan File (2018+)

In Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (4:18-cv-04544) District Court, S.D. Texas (2018), it would be “randomly” [re]assigned upon unlawful snap removal to Judge David Hittner.

Fourth Attempt to Obtain the Correct Mortgage Loan File (2018+)

In Burke v. Hopkins (4:18-cv-04543) District Court, S.D. Texas (2018), it would also be “randomly” [re]assigned upon unlawful snap removal to Judge David Hittner.

Attorney Immunity Does Not Protect Fraudulently Withholding Evidence. The Fifth Circuit Resorted to Being Fraudulently Untruthful.

See; Burke v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., No. 19-20267, at *8 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 2021),  before OWEN[-RICHMAN-HECHT], Chief Judge, and DAVIS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

This is more evidence of the type of blatant untruths by the hand-selected, 3-panel, including the Chief Judge herself. It’s included the Burkes first amended complaint, Doc. 27, p. 58+, p. 66+ and more., as well as being heavily cited and referred to in the M&R by Magistrate Judge Bray, (Many of the Burkes’ claims stem from this exchange…),  Doc. 65, p. 7+., Burke v. Hopkins (4:18-cv-04543). That stated, its only one of the many material falsehoods perpetrated against the Burkes by the Fifth Circuit in all appeals brought before this court.

Fifth Attempt to Obtain the Correct Mortgage Loan File (2019+)

In the Burkes Motion to Intervene and Memorandum in Support, Doc. 220 and 220-1 docketed on Jan. 4, 2019, in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. OCWEN Financial Corporation, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2017), Judge Kenneth Marra presiding.

And, Denied On Appeal to CA11 (2020)

Burke v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 19-13015, at *14-15 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2020). A ‘whiteout’ glossed and unpublished opinion which would be penned after the Court went through every judge before issuing it’s opinion in a pro se appeal. That’s right, there is serious questions as to whether a quorum could even be considered legal after this appeal and briefing scandal which is too lengthy to recant here but available for all to review on the docket. It’s again more evidence of blatant lying by the hand-selected, 3-panel at the Eleventh Circuit, ‘glossing and unpublishing opinion’. Indeed, Judge Tjoflat is on the record and admits and endorses this type of corrupt and fraudulent practice when dealing with pro se litigants before the court.

[1]              See; Johnson v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., CIVIL ACTION No. H-18-489, at *15-16 (S.D. Tex. May 16, 2019) (“the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Christina Trust v. Riddle, 911 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2018). In Riddle, the homeowner alleged that the bank was vicariously liable for the failure of its loan servicer to comply with RESPA. The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument based on the plain terms of the regulation, which imposes duties on services, and held that “[t]he text of this statute plainly and unambiguously shields Bank of America from any liability created by the alleged RESPA violations of its loan servicer.””).

Read the full Complaint with Exhibits in PDF format below.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments