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

'received

JUL 0 12015

Eric Drake

Pro-Se

Appellant

PO Box 833688

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 itselfshould be stricken from the record because it is

improper and frivolous.

Regarding the attorney general's calculations ofthe 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 ofrecord.

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

must appear on the front cover of that party's first

brief.

(h) Appendix and Original Proceeding Record. A

appendix may be bound either with the document to

whichit is relatedor separately.If separatelybound,

the appendix must comply with paragraph (f). A

paper record in an original proceeding or a paper

appendix must be tabbed and indexed. An

electronicallyfiled record in an original proceeding

oran electronically filed appendix that includes more

than one item must contain bookmarks to assist in

locating each item.

(i) Length.

(1) Contents Included and Excluded. In

calculating the length of a document, every

word and every part ofthe document, including

headings, footnotes, and quotations, must be

counted except the following: caption, identity

ofpartiesand counsel, statement regardingoral

argument, table of contents, index of

authorities, statement ofthe case, statement of

issues presented, statement of jurisdiction,

statement of procedural history, signature,

proof of service, certification, certificate of

compliance, and appendix.

(2) Maximum Length. The documents listed

below must not exceed the following limits:

(A) A briefand response in a direct appeal to

the Court ofCriminal Appeals in a case

in which the death penalty has been

assessed: 37,500 words if computergenerated, and 125 pages ifnot.

(B) A briefand response in an appellate court

(other than a brief under subparagraph

(A)) and a petition and response in an

original proceeding in the court of

appeals: 15,000 words if computergenerated, and 50 pages ifnot. In a civil

case in the court ofappeals, the aggregate

of all briefs filed by a party must not

exceed 27,000 words if computergenerated, and 90 pages if not.

(C) A reply briefin an appellate court and a

reply to a response to a petition in an

original proceeding in the court of

appeals: 7,500 words if computergenerated, and 25 pages if not.

TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

(D) A petition and response in an original

proceeding in the Supreme Court, a

petition for review and response in the

Supreme Court, a petition for

discretionary review and response in the

Court ofCriminal Appeals, and a motion

for rehearing and response inan appellate

court: 4,500 words if computergenerated, and 15 pages if not.

(E) A reply to a response to a petition for

review in the Supreme Court, a reply to a

response to a petition in an original

proceeding in the Supreme Court, and a

reply to a response to a petition for

discretionary review in the Court of

Criminal Appeals: 2,400 words if

computer-generated, and 8 pages ifnot.

(3) Certificate of Compliance. A computergenerated document that is subject to a word

limit under this rule must include a certificate

by counsel or an unrepresented party stating

the number of words in the document. The

person certifying may rely on the word count

of the computer program used to prepare the

document.

(4) Extensions. A court may, on motion, permit a

document that exceeds the prescribed limit.

(j) Electronically Filed Documents. An electronically

filed document must:

(1) be in text-searchable portable documentformat

(PDF);

(2) be directly converted to PDF rather than

scanned, ifpossible;

(3) not be locked;

(4) be combined with any appendix into one

computer file, unless that file would exceed the

size limit prescribed by the electronic filing

manager; and

(5) otherwise comply with the Technology

Standards set by the Judicial Committee on

Information Technology and approved by the

Supreme Court.

(k) Nonconforming Documents. If a document fails to

conform with these rules, the court may strike the

document or identify the error and permit the party

to resubmit the document in a conforming format by

a specified deadline.
f

I

PRIORITY

MAIL

SERVICE POSTAL STATES UNITED

Envelope Mailing Rate Flat

usps.com at us Visit

APPLY: RESTRICTIONS INTERNATIONAL

the Consult required. are forms Customs

pe.usps.gov Manual (IMM)at Mall International

details. for associate retail a ask or

TU60 Origin: •

Ot MO U> 0

08/28/JOH

4e:200ojoj-« 1006

®2-DaMAIL PRIORITY

08/27/2016 Day: Delivery Expected

^POSmLSERVICEe PRIORITY*

VISITUSATUSPS.COM* -X- I I A w t ONLINE SUPPLIES H& ORDER ^ M/\|L> •^C

_ _ X>/i4-U& £rlc FROM:

#"** <*»<"* 32* TO:

NUMBER TRACKING USPS

29 0216 5176 0451 5122 9505