July 1, 2015
No:03-14-00665-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
ERIC DRAKE
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
KASTL LAW FIRM P.C. ET AL
Defendant—Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE 200th DISTRICT COURT
TRAVIS COUNTY, AUSTIN, TEXAS
Trial Court No. D-l-GN-14-001215
APPELLANT ERIC DRAKE SECOND RESPONSE
TO APPELLEES MOTION REGARDING WORD
COUNT AND APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
Eric Drake
Pro-Se
'received Appellant
PO Box 833688
JUL 0 12015
Richardson, Texas 75083
^&t%ty 214-477-9288
APPLLEANT SECOND RESPONSE TO
APPELLEES MOTION REGARDING WORD COUNT AND
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
TO HONORABLE SAID JUSTICES:
Once again, Appellee Willing files a motion with the Court regarding
the Appellant's brief and its word count. The motion itself, which is called a
letter, is not a letter but a motion that is filed improperly before the Court.
Nevertheless, the Appellant must respond to Appellees motion on the record.
And even though the attorney general appear to act dumb as to the filing of
its motion, the motion itself should be stricken from the record because it is
improper and frivolous.
Regarding the attorney general's calculations of the Appellant's word
count in his amended brief, and what is excluded from the word count
calculations, it appears that Appellee Willing's counsel is suggesting that the
"Statement of the Case" should be counted in the calculations regarding
word count in a brief. For the sake of the attorney general's office, and
Appellee Willing please see attached Exhibit "A," which is taken directly
from the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Emphasis on the word:
"except." This exhibit should be self-explanatory, and self-educating.
Appellant's brief complies with appellate word count requirements.
1
WHEREFORE, Appellant Eric Drake moves this Honorable Court to
strike the Appellees motion or (document) styled "Appellee's advisory to the
Court" from the Court's record because it is improper, frivolous, and
pursuant to the attached exhibit Appellees motion is making misleading
accusations. Appellant asks the Court for all relief it can show justification.
Respectfully submitted,
Eric Drake
P.O. Box 833688
Richardson, Texas 75083
214-492-9269
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 25, 2015, I served the foregoing
Response and Motion, by causing one copy was placed in the U.S. Mail and
addressed to appellees legal counsel of record.
Eric Drake
CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE
I ERIC DRAKE, Appellant, attempted to make contact with Kristina
Kastl, three times to conference with her regarding this motion, however,
she has failed to respond. Likewise, I attempted to conference with Scot
Graydon three times, but he has continued to refused to conference with
Appellant by telephone. And Frank Waite never responded to the
Appellant's requests to conference with him. Appellant forgot to attach the
conference when he forwarded the motion to the Court. However, the
Appellant attempted to contact Kristina Kastl on Monday, June 22, 23, and
24 and she has continued to refuse to communicate with the Appellant. The
Appellant attempted to make contact with Scot Graydon on Tuesday, June
23 and Wednesday June 24, 2015 but he has likewise continued to refuse to
communicate with the Appellant. And apparently so have Frank Waite who
does not believe that he is part of this appeal. Thus, Appellant files this
motion with the Court for its decision and ruling.
Eric Drake
Exhibit "A"
Page 8 TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
must appear on the front cover of that party's first (D) A petition and response in an original
brief. proceeding in the Supreme Court, a
petition for review and response in the
(h) Appendix and Original Proceeding Record. A Supreme Court, a petition for
appendix may be bound either with the document to discretionary review and response in the
whichit is related or separately. If separatelybound, Court of Criminal Appeals, and a motion
the appendix must comply with paragraph (f). A for rehearing and response in an appellate
paper record in an original proceeding or a paper court: 4,500 words if computer-
appendix must be tabbed and indexed. An generated, and 15 pages if not.
electronicallyfiled record in an original proceeding
oran electronically filed appendix that includes more (E) A reply to a response to a petition for
than one item must contain bookmarks to assist in review in the Supreme Court, a reply to a
locating each item. response to a petition in an original
proceeding in the Supreme Court, and a
(i) Length. reply to a response to a petition for
discretionary review in the Court of
(1) Contents Included and Excluded. In Criminal Appeals: 2,400 words if
calculating the length of a document, every computer-generated, and 8 pages if not.
word and every part ofthe document, including
headings, footnotes, and quotations, must be (3) Certificate of Compliance. A computer-
counted except the following: caption, identity generated document that is subject to a word
ofparties and counsel, statement regarding oral limit under this rule must include a certificate
argument, table of contents, index of by counsel or an unrepresented party stating
authorities, statement of the case, statement of the number of words in the document. The
issues presented, statement of jurisdiction, person certifying may rely on the word count
statement of procedural history, signature, of the computer program used to prepare the
proof of service, certification, certificate of document.
compliance, and appendix.
(4) Extensions. A court may, on motion, permit a
(2) Maximum Length. The documents listed document that exceeds the prescribed limit.
below must not exceed the following limits:
(j) Electronically Filed Documents. An electronically
(A) A briefand response in a direct appeal to filed document must:
the Court of Criminal Appeals in a case
in which the death penalty has been (1) be in text-searchable portable document format
assessed: 37,500 words if computer- (PDF);
generated, and 125 pages if not.
(2) be directly converted to PDF rather than
(B) A briefand response in an appellate court scanned, if possible;
(other than a brief under subparagraph
(A)) and a petition and response in an (3) not be locked;
original proceeding in the court of
appeals: 15,000 words if computer- (4) be combined with any appendix into one
generated, and 50 pages if not. In a civil computer file, unless that file would exceed the
case in the court ofappeals, the aggregate size limit prescribed by the electronic filing
of all briefs filed by a party must not manager; and
exceed 27,000 words if computer-
generated, and 90 pages if not. (5) otherwise comply with the Technology
Standards set by the Judicial Committee on
Information Technology and approved by the
(C) A reply brief in an appellate court and a Supreme Court.
reply to a response to a petition in an
original proceeding in the court of (k) Nonconforming Documents. If a document fails to
appeals: 7,500 words if computer- conform with these rules, the court may strike the
generated, and 25 pages if not. document or identify the error and permit the party
to resubmit the document in a conforming format by
a specified deadline.
• Origin: TU60
0 U> MO Ot
08/28/JOH
4e:200ojoj-«
1006
PRIORITY PRIORITY MAIL ®2-D
MAIL
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Expected Delivery Day: 08/27/2016
USPS TRACKING NUMBER
Flat Rate Mailing Envelope
Visit us at usps.com 9505 5122 0451 5176 0216 2
INTERNATIONAL RESTRICTIONS APPLY: PRIORITY* ^POSmLSERVICEe
Customs forms are required. Consult the A I I VISITUSATUSPS.COM*
International Mall Manual (IMM)at pe.usps.gov
•^Ct w
M/\|L> ^-X- ORDER H& SUPPLIES ONLINE
or ask a retail associate for details.
f FROM: £rlc X>/i4-U& __
I
TO: 32* <*»<"* #"**