ACCEPTED
03-13-00025-CV
7372246
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/14/2015 1:46:18 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-13-00025-CV
In the Third Court of Appeals FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
Austin, Texas AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/14/2015 1:46:18 PM
Jerry Scarbrough, et al JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
Appellant
v.
Helen Purser, et al.
Appellee
On Appeal from the 146th Judicial District Court of
Bell County, Cause No. 236,117-B
APPELLANTS JERRY SCARBROUGH, MELISSA DEATON,
AND DENISE STEELE’S OPPOSITION TO THE CIRCULATION
OF In Re Scarbrough
____________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Counsel for the Pursers has asked this Court to circulate the Waco
bankruptcy court’s opinion in In re Scarbrough, 516 B.R. 897 (Bankr.
W.D. Tex. 2014, presumably because it has some relevance to the instant
appeal. It does not and the Court should disregard it. Relevancy is the
quality of making something either more or less likely to be true. It does
not make the trial court’s judgment more or less likely to be correct
because:
1. Unlike Appellants’ Aug.24th letter, which updated the Court on the
most recent law on spoliation instructions – an issue in the case, and
unlike Appellants’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Elizabeth
Tipton’s argument in the bankruptcy court – which admitted to
waiver of confidentiality, and thus made it less likely that Mr.
Scarbrough broke a confidentiality order - the bankruptcy opinion
adds no additional information. The court adopted collateral
estoppel to hold the trial court’s findings correct. It merely rubber
stamped the trial court’s judgment, before appellants could have
their day in this appellate court. Two courts do not make a
conclusion more likely than one, if the second is applying collateral
estoppel to avoid weighing the facts itself.
2. Collateral estoppel is not proper if both this case and the bankruptcy
case are still on appeal, which they are. They are not final. The
Pursers entire case has been one unsubstantiated rant, usually
through attorney “testimony” in the form of improper questions, and
now that want to cut off the Appellants’ right to fair appeal in two
forums.
3. Stacking the deck with a second opinion can only serve to bias the
court in favor of the trial court’s conclusions – preventing Appellants
from having a fair appeal. This is essentially a “no evidence”
appeal, which relies on a voluminous record – only. There is no
place for repeating that Mr. Scarbrough “intentionally failed to turn
them over,” when the Court must focus on the record to see that
there is actually no evidence of such intent. Circulating this opinion
seeks to draw attention away from the record, which is not a proper
goal.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Circulation of the bankruptcy opinion serves no proper
purpose and seeks to deny the appellants a fair appeal in a very
difficult and voluminous case.
Appellants pray that the Court decline to apply the bankruptcy
case – or to even circulate it – in this appeal. Appellants ask for such
other and further relief as is merited.
Respectfully submitted,
_____/s/ MB CHIMENE_______
THE CHIMENE LAW FIRM
Michele Barber Chimene
TBN 04207500
2827 Linkwood Dr.
Houston, TX. 77025
PH: 832 940-1471; no fax
michelec@airmail.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of this
Opposition was served through ECF and email on the 14th of
October, 2015 on Daryl Moore and Jack Crews and Elizabeth
Tipton.
_____/s/ MB CHIMENE
Jerry Scarbrough, Denise Steele, and Melissa Victoria Deaton v. Helen Purser, Sue E. Purser A/K/A Sue E. Van Zanten, Gary W. Purser, Jr., Joann M. Purser, and Elizabeth H. Tipton
Combined Opinion