Browserweb Media Agency v. Maxus Energy Corporation

ACCEPTED
01-14-01028-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
3/29/2015 2:11:53 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK

FILED IN -
1st COURT OF--APPEALS
- ----
HOUSTON, -
--- TEXAS
- - ----ID K ------
3/29/2015
- 2:11:53
- -- PM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ---- VO ------
CHRISTOPHER -- A. PRINE
----
FIRST DISTRICT ----Clerk
301 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77002

FILED IN
1st COA Case No. 01-14-01028-CV 1st COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
(Oral Argument Waived)
3/30/2015 11:25:00 AM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
Originating Court Case No. 2014-63727

BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY
Appellant

v.

MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION
Appellee

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF MISSING
DOCUMENTS (CLERK’S RECORD)
 Case No. 01-14-01028-CV

ORDER

The appellant refers to the Order dated March 10th, clarifying the pro-se’s

misunderstanding of the fact that the lower court’s fee is in respect of the Clerk’s

Record and not the Court Reporters Record and wishes to thank the Court for the

detailed explanation.

THE MISSING DOCUMENTS (CLERK’S RECORD)

Upon receipt of the above Order and ruling, the Appellant entered into a phone call

with the District Clerk’s office pertaining to the Clerk’s Record, fees and what

documents were filed with this Appeals Court. Appellant was emailed an Index of

the submission, Exhibit 329 (by Duane C. Gilmore, Civil/Family Post Trial Clerk).

If you review the Index of documents, auspiciously absent is the Return of Citation

and other documents pertaining to Service, Petition and Citation process by the

lower court in this jurisdictional case.

The appellant has made it very clear at all times, the argument in this appeal is lack

of contract, lack of jurisdiction and the crux of this case. Ultimately this appeals

case revolves around the invalid service.
 It is this pro-se Appellants understanding of Texas law that:

“Once the Respondent “has been served with a copy of the petition”, the process

server must complete a Return of Citation. The return lets the judge know how and

when the Respondent was served. The Return of Citation must be filed in the clerk’s

office with the rest of the court papers.”

Extract from http://texaslawhelp.org/ - helping low income individuals solve civil legal issues (reference; PDF

http://texaslawhelp.org/files/685E99A9-A3EB-6584-CA74-137E0474AE2C/attachments/E1597076-A0B9-476A-

9C2E-2D7E4277AEC3/def_judg_kit_2005_to_2011.pdf ).

In this Appellant’s case, Browserweb Media Agency and / or Mark Burke were never

served properly and thus is one of the main arguments of the Appellant in this case

to be presented.

Maxus and their debt collecting legal firm has four methods of allowable service

under Texas law and none was executed correctly;

(i) Personal Service

(ii) Service by Certified Mail

(iii) Substituted or Alternative Service

(iv) Publication
The Appellant, unfortunately and innocently, did not understand that he could have

any say in the compilation of the Clerk’s Record. However, the fact that the lower

court decided to submit the incomplete, yet unnecessarily overloaded record to this

Court on their own volition is not the Appellants fault and he should not be judged

by their actions.

The lower court submitted this Court Record to the appeals court and sent the

appellant an invoice stating the appellant “requested this information”. This is

wrong and quite improper as the appellant never – as stated before, ever, requested

the Clerk’s Record as submitted.

Hence this Motion for Production of documents that are relevant to the Appeals

case is being respectfully pleaded. The most critical documents pertaining to the

Service Process are not included.

However, it may well be that service was known by the lower court to be

incomplete. If the records show this documentation is not on file at the Clerk’s office

of the lower court, the law suit should have been at an end.

However, if the papers pertaining to Return of Service were submitted and accepted

by the Clerk’s office, it is critical evidence in this case.
 PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

In order for justice to be served fairly in this law suit, the pro-se Appellant

respectfully requests that the missing documents, namely the Return of Citation

and other documents pertaining to Service, Petition and Citation process as

documented by the lower court in this jurisdictional case be ordered to be

produced.

Or

An affidavit is ordered to be submitted by the lower court that these documents are

not included in their filing, as Service was not completed. (In which case it begs

the question how the case went forward).

Unfortunately, without this clarification from the lower court, we will all be missing

the vital flow of events and legal paper-trail that should have occurred.

As it stands, the Appellant is being asked to pay for the thousands of pages of

irrelevant Exhibits submitted by the Clerk’s office, namely Exhibits A-N.
There is absolutely no requirement for these documents in this Appeal.

However, as a pro-se Appellant, the key documents required to argue the case are

missing and the Appellant would like for this Court to have the full facts that are

relevant to this case - on the record and available for review.

Case law in support of this motion;

State of Texas, et al – v- United States of America, et al (case no. 1:14-cv-00254)

-Texas Judge Blocks Obama's Immigration Plans

Facts in this quoted case;

No matter what authority or power you think you may have, President of the United

States or otherwise, to make liberal decisions against the State (the people) is not

going to be upheld or tolerated. In this case, for the lower court to supply the

Appeals Court with a premeditated and edited version of the lower court case

without the consent of the appellant is unconstitutional.

For the record, this appellant is part of “The People” and in particular “The People

of Texas” and would ask to be allowed to digress briefly from legal format to quote

the following;
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to

overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

― Abraham Lincoln

“The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen

to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this

defense are the constitutional rights secure.”

― Albert Einstein

There are plenty of cases to quote about lack of service, contract law and

consideration, etc. That can be saved for the Brief. Right now, all the appellant

desires is a fair submission of documents in order to facilitate a fair review.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellant prays that this Court Orders the Clerk to submit the

missing documents as stated.
 Declaration

My name is Mark Stephen Burke, my date of birth is June 20th, 1967, my address

is 46, Kingwood Greens Dr, Kingwood, TX 77339, USA and I declare under

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.1

1
Sec. 132.001. UNSWORN DECLARATION. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), an unsworn declaration
may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit required by
statute or required by a rule, order, or requirement adopted as provided by law.
 Case No. 01-14-01028-CV

Mark Burke
•
Browserweb Media Agency
46 Kingwood Greens Dr
-"\;< .•
Kingwood, Texas 77339
Telephone: (832) 654-3511
Facsimile: (866) 705~0576

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been provided to
the following via USPS Mail on this 29th day of March, 2015:

GffiBS &BRUNS, L.L.P.
J. Benjamin Bireley
1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300
Houston, Texas 77002
INDEX PAGE 1 EXHIBIT #329
BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY

VS. NO. 01-14-01028-CV Case No: 2014-63727

MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION
PAGE

COVER PAGE ....................................................................................................................................... 1

INDEX ................................................................................................................................................... 2

MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION'S APPLICATION AND MOTION TO CONFIRM
3
ARBRITRATION AWARD IN PART FILED OCTOBER 29, 2014 ..............................................
CIVIL CASE INFORMATION SHEET .......................................................................................... 16
PROPOSED ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD IN PART .................................. 18
EXHIBIT A ...................................................................................................................................... 21
EXHIBIT B ...................................................................................................................................... 23
EXHIBIT C ...................................................................................................................................... 32
EXHIBIT D ...................................................................................................................................... 148
EXHIBIT E ....................................................................................................................................... 209
EXHIBIT F ....................................................................................................................................... 224
EXHIBIT G ...................................................................................................................................... 272
EXHIBIT H ...................................................................................................................................... 274
EXHIBIT I ........................................................................................................................................ 305
EXHIBIT J........................................................................................................................................ 315
EXHIBIT K ...................................................................................................................................... 317
EXHIBIT L ....................................................................................................................................... 322
EXHIBIT M...................................................................................................................................... 324
EXHIBIT N ...................................................................................................................................... 326

NOTICE OF HEARING FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2014 ...................................................................... 360

ORDER CONFIRMING ARBITRATION AWARD IN PART SIGNED DECEMBER 8, 2014 .......... 362

ELECTRONIC DOCKETSHEET .......................................................................................................... 365

GENERAL ACTIVITY SCREEN .......................................................................................................... 366

NOTICE OF APPEAL: CAUSE NO. 2014-63727 FILED DECEMBER 29, 2014 ............................... 367

CERTIFICATE ....................................................................................................................................... 373

BILL OF COST ...................................................................................................................................... 374