Chapter 08 · Broward Circuit Court

Kameka & Dzotsi v. Burke: service and criminal contempt

A lending action became a dispute over service, travel records and sworn testimony, followed by a signed criminal-contempt order.

The Ryan Burke Public Record · Updated November 11, 2026 · How this record was compiled

Kameka Management Solutions, Inc. and Eryck Dzotsi’s case against Ryan Burke and three companies produced two different rulings that must be read in sequence. In August 2023, Judge William W. Haury Jr. granted the defendants’ motion to quash service after hearing conflicting testimony about an encounter at Burke’s home in Sunrise, Florida. On May 13, 2024, the same judge signed an order finding beyond any reasonable doubt that Burke had lied about being in Las Vegas on the disputed service date. The order adjudged him guilty of indirect criminal contempt for his affidavit and deposition testimony, and direct criminal contempt for his testimony in open court “due to his perjury.”¹

The complaint is not in the supplied packet. The underlying 2021 lending can be described only at the level established by the July 12, 2022 amended default judgment: $200,000 principal, $120,000 credited as payments tendered, a $107,212 equitable lien on the Davie parcel, and $4,080 fees separately addressed. The records do not establish separate advances, repayment installments, collateral promises or precise causes of action.²

Raymond Carrero represented the plaintiffs in 2022 and examined Burke at his February 2023 deposition. Danielle Cohen and Keith R. Gaudioso of Cohen Law represented plaintiffs at the August hearing and in the November contempt motion. Robert A. Rosenblatt of The Rosenblatt Law Firm represented all four defendants throughout the service challenge. Defense papers sometimes call Carrero “Carrera”; his own appearance blocks use Carrero. Counsel’s roles here differ from their roles in the separate foreclosure.³

Summonses, disputed service and the default judgment

The summonses directed to Burke and VEW Live LLC were e-filed on February 18, 2022. Burke’s summons directed service at his home in Sunrise, Florida. VEW Live’s separate summons named Burke as its registered agent and supplied a business-office service address. Both forms warned that a lawsuit had been filed and required a written response. Neither form, standing alone, proves that the summons and complaint were delivered. The complaint referenced in the summonses is not attached.⁴

The contested service records describe April 11, 2022, at approximately 8 a.m. Process server Shirley Lowe’s narrative says she saw a man approaching the front door, called out “Ryan,” and received an affirmative response. She said she identified herself, explained the case and the three corporations, and was asked to mail the documents or give them to his attorney. According to the return, she offered to leave the documents at the door and the man agreed. Burke later denied both the encounter and his presence in Florida that day.⁵

The 2045 SW 127th Avenue LLC return states April 4, 2022 in its operative service line but April 11 in its narrative. The returns carry May 5 e-filing stamps. At the August hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel also acknowledged that the filed VEW Live return was not the correct one.⁶

The July 12 amended final default judgment declared service “duly and regularly obtained” and granted judgment on all counts. Its title identifies a scrivener-error correction concerning property information. This was a default judgment, not a contested merits trial. The earlier default and original judgment are not supplied.⁷

The judgment provided for interest and a conditional August 24, 2022 public sale if unpaid. Its $107,212 lien total is historical, not a current balance; fees were separately addressed. The later service ruling means uninterrupted enforceability cannot be assumed.⁷

The October 25, 2022 filing attached a sale notice published October 18 and 25. It referenced an October 4 order setting an online sale for November 9. Neither that standalone order nor completion records are supplied; the notice establishes no purchaser, sale price or title transfer. The original uploaded filename incorrectly identified the year as 2023.⁸

The November challenge and the January hearing

On November 22, 2022, all four defendants moved to quash service, set aside the default and set aside the sale order. Their motion presented a legal objection and a factual denial. Rosenblatt argued that merely leaving a summons and complaint at a door did not meet the statutory requirements for service on Burke or the companies. He also argued that Burke could not have been the person encountered because he was in Las Vegas from April 1 through April 14.⁹

The supporting affidavit was executed October 17, 2022. Burke identified himself as the registered agent for the three defendant LLCs, denied being at his residence on April 11, and denied receiving any summons that day. He also said he had not been notified of the plaintiffs’ motion for default. That last statement is a separate notice objection; it should not be merged with the question of whether original service occurred.¹⁰

The affidavit said attached travel documents reflected his absence April 1–14. The supplied motion ends with an April 1 outbound confirmation, without the purported April 14 return page later attached to the contempt motion. That exhibit limitation does not negate the later court finding about a fake document or record locator.¹⁰

On January 26, 2023, defendants cited Vives, Murphy, Robles-Martinez and Carus concerning facial defects, identification and the burden of proving service. One parenthetical stated: “Plaintiff bears ultimate burden of proving valid service of process.” These precedents were not additional Burke cases or findings about his whereabouts.¹¹

The January 30 hearing was an argument over how to resolve the service dispute. No witness gave substantive sworn testimony at that hearing. Carrero argued that a screenshot of a ticket purchase did not establish boarding. Rosenblatt maintained that Burke was in Las Vegas and that the service returns were deficient. Judge Haury allowed a deposition and said an evidentiary hearing would follow if the dispute remained.¹²

Haury canceled the noticed February 8, 2023 sale, not a proved November auction. He separately raised default-proceeding notice under Rule 1.500(b). Discussing a receipt card, he said, “No. I don’t think it’s an answer to the complaint.” The service facts and document authenticity remained unresolved.¹²

Burke’s February 23, 2023 deposition

Carrero questioned Burke by videoconference on February 23, 2023, from 1:07 to 1:45 p.m., with Rosenblatt representing the defendants. Burke was sworn remotely. The questioning concerned service, his registered-agent roles and the asserted Las Vegas trip, not the formation or performance of the underlying loans. The supplied mini-transcript identifies exhibits retained by counsel rather than appending a complete exhibit bundle.¹³

Residence and company roles

Burke testified that he had lived at his home in Sunrise, Florida since 2010 without interruption and had an office inside the house. He said his spouse lived there, no other adults lived there, and he sometimes had guests for more than seven days. Those answers gave context for questions about who might have encountered the process server. They did not identify another person who actually did so.¹⁴

His answers about registered-agent status were less definite than the affidavit. Asked about 16260 Saddle Club Road LLC, he initially said, “Yes. I believe so.” After seeing a registry printout, he said that if it stated he was the agent, “it means I’m the registered agent.” He acknowledged the same role for 2045 SW 127th Avenue LLC. As to VEW Live, he said he knew he was a member but was not sure about the agent. That difference is part of the testimony; it does not, without more, prove a registry change or intentional falsehood about his corporate position.¹⁵

Purpose, duration and work

Asked where he was on April 11, 2022, Burke answered, “Las Vegas.” He identified the trip’s purpose as “Grammys ceremony,” described it as business rather than vacation and said its duration was “From the 1st to the 14th.” These answers repeated the central factual proposition in his affidavit.¹⁶

Shown an event flyer, Burke first said it was one of the events he was promoting, then corrected himself: “Well, that was the event. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. That was the event.” Asked about events after April 1, he said they were not events he was promoting but events to which he had been invited. He later said he was not paid for the April 1 event, had no contract with the client and had not reserved the venue. These answers describe the business explanation he gave for travel, not findings about any separate concert engagement.¹⁷

Airline confirmation and missing boarding passes

Burke identified a trip confirmation as his and agreed that it showed an April 1 Miami–Las Vegas flight and an April 14 Las Vegas–Miami return. He said he believed $817.20 accurately reflected the ticket cost and said he boarded the outbound flight. On how he reached the airport, he did not recall. He was not sure whether the boarding pass was digital or paper, though he said he had one.¹⁸

Burke did not recall whether the return pass was digital and had no physical copy. He could not recall how he got home from Miami and did not believe he left his car at the airport. Missing copies do not alone prove no pass existed.¹⁹

Hotel reservations and the gap between stays

Burke confirmed that the hotel documents presented to him showed reservations for April 1–3 and April 9–13. He denied writing the annotations on the printout, saying the page “came as is.” Asked about the gap between April 3 and April 9, he said he stayed with an artist who was a cousin. The cousin’s identity is not needed to report the explanation.²⁰

Burke did not recall obtaining final folios or incidental-charge ledgers for either stay. He said he ate with many people and did not recall paying meal bills. His cousin explanation accounted for why hotel reservations would not cover the asserted full stay.²⁰

Bank entries, transportation and posting dates

Carrero asked about an Uber charge posted April 4. Burke said he had multiple accounts and that not every ride had to appear on the account produced. He said the detail showed an April 1 ride from the Las Vegas airport even though it posted April 4. He had no additional Uber records with him at the deposition.²¹

Questions about Florida restaurant and fuel entries required the same distinction. Carrero referred to transactions associated with locations in Lauderhill, Pompano Beach and Fort Lauderdale. Burke said he could see the entries, but did not remember the purchases. He disputed the inference that a posting date fixed the date of his physical presence in Florida.²¹

A posting date alone does not establish the cardholder’s location that day. The later airline manifest records flight status, not a bank-date inference.²¹

Access to the house and the unanswered settlement question

Near the end of the deposition, Burke said family members probably had access to the house but he did not know where they were. He could not identify any guest or housesitter who might have been there. Asked why another person would answer to “Ryan” at his home, he said, “I have no idea.” He did not offer a specific alternative identification for the man Lowe described.²²

Rosenblatt instructed Burke not to answer whether he received Carrero’s written settlement proposal, arguing it was outside the deposition’s scope. Carrero said actual notice was relevant and certified the question. No judicial resolution is supplied; the nonanswer is not an admission of receipt.²³

The June special appearance and alleged agreement

The defendants’ special appearance was e-filed June 6, 2023, with a June 2 service certificate. A second supplied copy has the same substantive response and no independent e-filing header. The two copies are not evidence of two separate appearances or rulings. The response maintained that the service motion had to be decided before judgment or enforcement proceedings.²⁴

Rosenblatt described an alleged March agreement with Carrero. According to the defense, former plaintiffs’ counsel offered to vacate the default and grant the motion to quash if Rosenblatt would accept service for the defendants. The response said the defense agreed, then plaintiffs replaced Carrero. It also said the defense chose not to seek enforcement of that agreement because doing so would cause more delay and raise a dispute over Carrero’s authority.²⁴

The exhibit compilation’s March cancellation message does not set out the full alleged agreement. Some May correspondence is displayed as Outlook drafts, not proof of sent messages. The packet does not independently establish a binding agreement or breach.²⁵

The defense called its April 26 magistrate-referral objection timely and “self-executing.” It accused plaintiffs’ counsel of misrepresenting consent to magistrate hearings and sought sanctions and fees. These were unsworn party arguments; no order granting sanctions is supplied.²⁶

The August 21 evidentiary hearing

Haury held the evidentiary hearing on August 21, 2023. Burke and Lowe testified under oath; Cohen and Gaudioso appeared for the plaintiffs, and Rosenblatt for the defendants. No airline custodian or hotel witness testified. The standalone transcript contains no appended documentary exhibits. The airline material later attached to the contempt motion was obtained after this hearing.²⁷

Burke’s account

Burke repeated that he returned from Las Vegas on April 14, was in Las Vegas on April 11 and had not been served in this case. He identified booking and account material but did not produce boarding passes, final hotel folios, photographs from the later part of the asserted trip or additional transportation records. His answers repeated both the travel claim and the explanations for limited records.²⁸

He described multiple accounts, cash and rides or meals from friends or family. He also denied the certified-mail signature: “That is not my signature.” The card dispute did not resolve Lowe’s separate personal-service account.²⁸

Lowe’s account and the disputed returns

Lowe testified that she received the process on February 23, 2022 and served it April 11 at approximately 8 a.m. She described calling to Burke as he approached the house. Her account was not merely that papers had been left unattended without any contact.²⁹

Lowe identified Burke in court and answered “No doubt” when asked about his identity. Those are her sworn assertions about the encounter, not admissions made by Burke in the hearing. Rosenblatt challenged how she could identify someone she had not previously met, her failure to request identification and the lack of a photograph. He also questioned omissions from the return and inconsistencies concerning her camera or phone and contemporaneous observations. Lowe maintained her account.³⁰

Asked about entering the house, a detail not stated in the return, Lowe responded: “It doesn’t need – need to be in my notes in order to say that I served him.” That testimony and the cross-examination must be reported together. Counsel’s contentious exchanges are not independent evidence that a witness was dishonest.³⁰

The return for VEW Live received separate attention. Haury observed that one of the four returns was a no-service return for the company. Gaudioso acknowledged that the return filed with the court was not the correct return and proposed a correction. Rosenblatt did not object, and the composite was admitted. Admission of the composite did not amount to a final ruling that every attempted corporate service was sufficient.³¹

Arguments and the ruling

Rosenblatt criticized Lowe’s credibility, describing her as “extremely argumentative” and saying she “wasn’t candid with the Court.” Gaudioso argued that confirmations showed bookings rather than actual travel or hotel occupancy and that Burke’s evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard plaintiffs said applied. Those credibility arguments belong to the lawyers. The judge did not adopt them all in his ruling.³²

The transcript says “so”; plaintiffs’ later motion inserted “[if].” Despite that ambiguity, the operative ruling granted quashing. Future contempt was left open, not adjudicated that day. Haury did not expressly find Lowe incredible, Burke guilty of perjury or the travel document fabricated.³³

Afterward, Gaudioso asked whether Rosenblatt would accept service. Rosenblatt declined and returned to the alleged prior agreement, including vacatur and mediation. Gaudioso disputed its terms. The transcript ended with defense counsel proposing to prepare an order. The plaintiffs’ later motion describes an August 23 written order quashing service and vacating the judgment, but that operative order is not supplied.³⁴

On August 24, the defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 1.070(j), arguing that service had not been obtained within 120 days and plaintiffs had not shown good cause or requested an extension. That motion supplies the packet’s assertion that the complaint was filed February 3, 2022. A notice e-filed November 2, with an October 20 service certificate, withdrew the dismissal motion scheduled for November 9. It gave no reason. Withdrawal did not itself concede valid service or establish any contempt allegation; no order granting dismissal is supplied.³⁵

American Airlines subpoenas and records

The plaintiffs pursued nonparty production from American Airlines concerning the asserted travel. An October 10, 2023 notice attached requests concerning April 1 flight AA462 from Miami to Las Vegas, April 4 flight AA2742 from Las Vegas to Miami and a passenger manifest. It allowed other passengers’ names to be redacted. Its attached deadline was September 21, before the notice’s October filing date. That internal problem means the notice should not be treated as proof of an orderly completed production on the stated deadline.³⁶

The responses themselves are attached to the November contempt motion. An October 5 letter said the carrier was “unable to locate a passenger manifest for April 14, 2022, Flight AA 1524.” The first group of records included an April 1 AA462 manifest identifying Burke as “Successfully flown.” A further letter dated October 30 accompanied records identifying him as “Successfully flown” on April 4 AA2742 from Las Vegas to Miami.³⁷

The April 4 record describes an overnight flight. It lists scheduled departure at 23:27, actual departure at 23:50, scheduled arrival at 07:08 and actual arrival at 07:11. It is not an 11:50 a.m. departure. The itinerary history also identifies an earlier booking on AA1524 for April 4, not April 14. Passenger contact information, ticket identifiers and other passengers are not reproduced here.³⁷

What the airline records show and what they do not show

The April 4 record substantially conflicts with the claimed continuous April 1–14 stay. It does not alone establish Burke’s location April 11. Lowe supplied a separate eyewitness account, disputed by Burke. The later finding belongs to the court, not an independent reconstruction of every movement by this publication.³⁷

The November 21 verified contempt motion

On November 21, 2023, Kameka and Dzotsi filed a verified motion for an order to show cause and to vacate the order granting the motion to quash. The actual movants were the plaintiffs, despite “Defendants” appearing in the original file name and later hearing-notice matter line. Gaudioso verified the motion’s facts. Verification made it a sworn party submission; it did not turn its conclusions into court findings.³⁸

The motion alleged perjury in the October affidavit, February deposition and August hearing. It also alleged that Burke submitted a “forged or altered” confirmation to obtain the service ruling and judgment vacatur. Its exhibits collected the affidavit, deposition and hearing, a purported $817.20 itinerary showing April 1 AA462 outbound and April 14 AA1524 return, subpoenas, carrier responses and flight records.³⁸

Plaintiffs sought a show-cause order, direct and/or indirect contempt with incarceration, a fine or other punishment, vacatur of quashing, reinstatement of the July 12 judgment nunc pro tunc (with retroactive effect), and fees. Neither the request nor the later contempt order proves reinstatement.³⁹

The motion’s narrative contains date and time errors. Some flight references say 2023 although the carrier records say 2022. It misdates the February deposition as 2022 rather than February 23, 2023. It calls the April 4 flight’s actual departure 11:50 a.m. instead of the manifest’s 23:50. It describes the further response as November 2 although the attached letter is dated October 30. Those errors do not erase the exhibits, but the chronology must be taken from the underlying documents rather than copied uncritically from the motion.⁴⁰

A hearing notice filed November 22 scheduled an evidentiary hearing for November 30 before Haury. The notice establishes scheduling, not that the hearing occurred or what happened there. It erroneously called the plaintiffs’ motion “Defendants’” and misspelled Burke’s name. The signed May order supplies the later show-cause and hearing chronology.⁴¹

The May 13, 2024 criminal-contempt order

The signed two-page order is titled “Order Adjudging Respondent in Indirect Criminal Contempt of Court and Order of Commitment.” It was e-filed May 13, 2024 as Filing #198218543, recorded May 15 as Broward instrument 119575457, and filed May 24 in company bankruptcy case 24-14947-PDR as Doc. 10-1. Although its title refers to indirect contempt, its operative paragraph also adjudges direct criminal contempt.⁴²

The order recites that an order to show cause was issued December 2, 2023 and served that same day under Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.516. It describes the charged conduct as perjury in Burke’s efforts to quash service, occurring through the affidavit filed November 22, 2022, deposition testimony February 23, 2023 and court testimony August 21, 2023. The separate show-cause order and service proof are not supplied. The December dates are recitals in the signed May order; inspection of the facsimile resolves misread superscripts in the OCR.⁴²

The order says the contempt hearing was held April 8, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. It refers to deliberation, advice of counsel and evaluation of the evidence presented. The April hearing transcript is not supplied, so the complete testimony, objections and defense argument at that hearing cannot be reconstructed. The court’s findings, however, are expressly stated in the signed order.⁴³

Unlike plaintiffs’ November assertion of proof beyond reasonable doubt, this is the court’s stated finding after the contempt hearing.⁴³

The finding identifies intent and each repetition of the travel claim. The publication has not independently determined who created or altered the document. The order gives no technical account of alteration, but expressly finds the document or locator fake.⁴⁴

The obstruction finding concerns the administration of this civil case. It does not resolve every lending claim, later service on each company or current judgment enforceability.⁴⁵

The affidavit and deposition are the indirect-contempt acts; open-court testimony is the direct-contempt act. This is the only criminal-law adjudication established in the reviewed record, entered by a civil judge in a civil case. No separate prosecutor-filed perjury charge, arrest record or other criminal conviction was found.⁴⁶

The sentence, reduction and appeal bond

The order uses “incarnation” [sic] in the final sentence. It states three consecutive days with the Friday-to-Monday reporting window and a May 15–July 15 period for service. It expressly says the written sentence was reduced from the sentence pronounced in open court because of the Broward Sheriff’s Office’s inability to accommodate multiple weekends. The reviewed primary records do not establish the precise original oral sentence, so its number of weekends should not be inferred from that phrase.⁴⁷

The order required a $500 bail bond if Burke appealed and said the court would entertain a further contempt motion if he neither reported nor appealed. It proves no appeal, bond posting, failure to report or completed confinement.⁴⁷

Direct and indirect criminal contempt

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 addresses direct criminal contempt. It permits summary punishment only when the court saw or heard the conduct in its actual presence. The rule requires notice of the accusation before adjudication, an opportunity to present excusing or mitigating evidence, a factual recital in the judgment, a signed and entered judgment, and sentence pronounced in open court. “Direct” describes the relationship of the conduct to the court’s presence, not a separate lending offense.⁴⁸

Rule 3.840 provides the procedure for indirect criminal contempt. It calls for a show-cause order stating the essential facts and allowing reasonable preparation time after service. The respondent may seek dismissal, particulars or answer with an explanation or defense; failure to answer is not an admission of guilt. The rule provides for a hearing, representation by counsel, compulsory process for witnesses, a written judgment and an opportunity to present mitigating evidence before sentencing.⁴⁸

Those rules explain the categories used by Haury: a filed affidavit and deposition were treated as indirect contempt, while testimony given in open court was treated as direct contempt. The absence of the April hearing transcript and any appellate disposition prevents an independent assessment here of every procedural step or potential challenge to the order. The publication reports the signed adjudication without substituting its own ruling on compliance with the rules.⁴⁸

What happened next

The next supplied records connect the civil action to the bankruptcy of 2045 SW 127th Avenue LLC. On July 17, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a notice in the state case attaching the order dismissing the company’s first Chapter 11 case, 24-14947-PDR. Judge Peter D. Russin signed the bankruptcy order July 15; it was entered July 16. July 17 was the state notice date, not the dismissal date.⁴⁹

The dismissal package identifies the debtor as the 2045 company, although the order’s caption says “2034 SW 127 Avenue, L.L.C.” The matching case number and notice connect it to the company’s proceeding; the discrepancy remains unexplained. This was not Burke’s personal bankruptcy. The dismissal order addresses bankruptcy and the stay, not whether he completed the contempt sentence. The two company proceedings are covered in the bankruptcy chapter.⁴⁹

In the company’s second bankruptcy, 25-14362-SMG, Kameka and Dzotsi filed joint Claim 4 on May 21, 2025 through Gaudioso. It sought $178,415.77 for “Money loaned”: $131,104.73 claimed secured by a recorded judgment lien and $47,311.04 claimed unsecured. It attached the July 2022 amended judgment, an interest statement, a fee motion, a declaration and billing records. Filing a proof of claim did not establish allowance or payment of the entire amount.⁵⁰

The attached fee motion supplies an account of later state proceedings not otherwise reproduced in full. It says a March 20, 2024 order determined that plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable fees and costs associated with the show-cause and vacatur motion and deferred the show-cause ruling. It recounts the April 8 hearing and May 13 indirect-contempt order. The May adjudication can now be checked against the signed order; the separate March fee-entitlement order is not attached.⁵¹

Counsel’s account does not establish a new jail sentence, the acts adjudicated or whether the second motion concerned failure to report. The fee motion requested $42,835 fees and $4,476.04 costs, totaling $47,311.04. Its expense sheet totals $4,118.04, an unexplained $358 difference. These are claimed figures, not a verified present balance or final fee judgment.⁵²

Secondary material reports a 2025 sentence modification replacing jail weekends with a $5,000 fine and 30 hours of community service. It attributes that account to a May 16, 2025 modification and the creditors’ later conversion motion, ECF 36, in bankruptcy case 25-14362-SMG. Neither the modification order nor that motion has been seen by this publication. The supplied conversion order references ECF 36 but does not reproduce that account. The reported modification, payment of any fine and completion of any community service remain not independently verified.⁵³

The second company case was converted to Chapter 7 by an order signed September 9 and entered September 10, 2025. That order granted the U.S. Trustee’s motion and deemed Kameka and Dzotsi’s separate conversion motion moot. It does not amend the state contempt sentence. Likewise, the later senior-lender foreclosure concerns the Davie property and competing lien interests, not an adjudication that the contempt commitment was served. The complete civil enforcement sequence, including any reinstatement of the 2022 judgment, is not established by the records supplied.⁵³

Chronology, 2022–2025

Burke’s position

Burke’s defense was that he was not served because he was away on business in Las Vegas. He put that position in an affidavit, repeated it under oath in deposition and again testified to it at the August hearing. His lawyer separately argued that the delivery method described in the returns was legally insufficient for him and the companies. Those were distinct grounds: the first denied the encounter; the second challenged the legal sufficiency of the asserted service even on the process server’s account.⁹¹⁰

The bank-date explanation deserves its full context: he distinguished posting from transaction dates rather than simply denying every Florida merchant entry. The hotel explanation likewise supplied a reason for the reservation gap rather than asserting uninterrupted paid hotel occupancy. He denied the certified-mail signature and could not identify another person who might have answered Lowe. Counsel instructed him not to answer the settlement-proposal question; that instruction did not establish the answer.^2021222328

Rosenblatt also challenged Lowe’s identification and documentation, complained of inadequate default notice, described an alleged agreement to accept service in exchange for vacatur, and sought sanctions over magistrate scheduling. The defense obtained a favorable bench ruling on quashing in August 2023. That result must remain in the account even though the court later found the testimony used to obtain it false.^1224263033

The reviewed packet does not contain Burke’s full response at the April 2024 contempt hearing, a separate response to the carrier’s April 4 successfully-flown record, or an appellate decision on the May order. His earlier explanations should not be invented into a later defense that the records do not show. They also cannot be presented as leaving the judicial finding unresolved: Haury expressly rejected the material Las Vegas account in the signed contempt order. The unresolved issues concern the missing later record, not whether that order was entered.⁴³⁴⁴⁴⁶

What remains unresolved

The original complaint, lending instruments, earlier default orders, written August 2023 quashing and vacatur order, and any later reinstatement order are not supplied. Their absence prevents a complete account of the lending allegations and current judgment status. The separate December show-cause order, April 2024 contempt transcript, March fee-entitlement order and December ruling on the second contempt motion are also absent; where later filings describe them, this chapter attributes the account to those filings.^234424351

No primary record reviewed establishes whether Burke reported to jail, served the written sentence, appealed, posted the $500 bond, or obtained a later sentencing modification. The reported $5,000 fine and 30 hours of community service remain unverified without the underlying modification and compliance records. The proof of claim does not establish an allowed or paid claim, a current balance, or a complete resolution of the $358 costs discrepancy. The signed May 13, 2024 criminal-contempt adjudication is established; its execution and the complete subsequent civil disposition are not.^47505253