# No:03-14-00665-CV /'RECEIVED^ SEP 3 0 2015 XTHRDCOUWOFAPPEALS.

IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

### ATAUSTIN, TEXAS

ERIC DRAKE Plaintiff-Appellant

v. KASTL LAW FIRM P.C. ETAL Defendant-Appellee


### ONAPPEAL FROM THE 200th DISTRICTCOURT TRAVIS COUNTY, AUSTIN, TEXAS Trial Court No. D-l-GN-14-001215


### BREIF OFAPPELLANTERIC DRAKE

Eric Drake Pro-Se Appellant PO Box 833688 Richardson, Texas 75083 214-477-9288
ORAL ARGUMENTREQUESTEDIDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Plaintiff/Appellant/Petitioner
Eric Drake Pro-Se P.O. Box 833688 Richardson, Texas 75083 (214) 477-9288 Defendants/Appellee/Respondents Seanna Willing Scot Graydon 

### 300 West 15th Street, Ste 2 Austin, Texas 78701 512-475-4413
David Harris Carl Ginsberg 

### 300West 15TM Street, Ste 2 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: 512-475-4413
Kristina KastI Kastl Law P.C. 4144 N. Central Expressway Ste 300, Dallas, Texas 75204 Telephone: 214-821-0230
Frank Waite Vikki Ogden 411 Elm Street, Ste 500 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: 214-653-7568MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND OBJECTION TO COURT IGNORING THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO RECUSE REQUESTS FOR APPELLANT'S RE-HEARING TO BE REVIEWED AND HEARD BY THE ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT (FIRST DIVISION!

TO THE NOT SO HONORABLE JUSTICES: 

### Appellant has not witnessed such corruption in any courts as he has in the Travis County courts, including this appellate court. And as promised the Appellant have sued each and everyjustice in this Court, and each and every 

### justice in the Supreme Court, which is also racially inclined. However, the Appellant files his Motion to Reconsider or Re-hearing 

### but objects to this Court considering his motion because of the obvious racism and prejudice shown to the Appellant by members ofthis Courts 

### justices, which the Appellant view as no more than racially charged hoodlum's with black robes. Appellant does not believe that this Court has 

### the ability to be impartial to him, thus he seeks another appellate court to review this Court's decision, the First District Appellate Court (First Division) in the state ofIllinois. 

### This Court's many cover-ups and errors demand that another impartial court review this Court's ridiculous opinion.

### This Court overruled the fact that Judge Ramsay wasn't properly assigned is a joke. And the reason why the Appellant must sued all ofthe 

### justices in this Court. Rule 18 of the TRCP is not for argument, because there is too much ofcase law that supports the Appellant brief. Moreover, Warren Vavra claimed that he was a judge, this fraudulent action cannot be 

### waived, further, the Appellant did complain about Warren Vavra in the trial court's record. Warren Vavra will be sued. 

### The Court is either blatantly ignorant to the law or case law or is 

### totally incompetent, or has conspired with the Attorney Generals Office to make sure that the Appellant remains a vexatious litigant. This will cost the assistant attorney general and the justices who have conspired with them a 

### demand of$50,000,000.00. The Court's argument regarding David Philips and Stephen Yelenosky is a matter ofoutright incompetence. The Court is incorrect in their assumption and how they have drawn to any conclusion. Apparently, Mr. Fields is not familiar with case law or is a racist or both. In 

### eithercase, the Court is completely wrong. The Court ignores the assistant attorney generals fraud, thus a means to cover-up the truth and will result in a federal lawsuit. Overall the Court 

### has completely ignored the law. Appellant is asking for a review ofhis brief

### by another Court away from such bigotry. Oneach pointtheCourt failed to convince the Appellantthat itsargument was evenreasonable. 

### The Court refused oral arguments, and it shows through its racially motivated and reckless ways of trying to make a poor argument that the decision should be sustained. Yearoflitigation will be filed from this point on over this matter and the Appellant will not stop untiljustice is done. WHEREFORE, APPELLANT ERIC DRAKE respectfully requests that: a). The Court transfers the above appeal to the First District Appellate Court (First Division) in the state ofIllinois; 

### b). Ifthe Court refuses to transfer the above appeal that the Court
reverse its pathetic decision it made in the above appeal after reviewing the Appellant's motion to reconsider and name a new panel of justice to review 

### Appellant's motion filed herein. However, the Appellant has sued all ofthe justices ofthis Court. Respectfully submitted,

Eric Drake P.O. Box 833688 Richardson, Texas 75083 214-477-9288CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

## Ihereby certify this the_J£fj^fday ofSeptember, 2015,1 servedthe foregoing "Motion," by causing four paper copies sent by certified first-class U.S. Mail to the Clerk ofthe Court ofthe 2nd Court ofAppeals Dallas, and one copy was HandDeliveredto appellees legal counsel.

iric Drake

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

### Ihereby certify this the -A^^day ofSeptember, 2015,1 attempted to conference with the opposing counsel but after three attempts he was unable to be contacted. Appellant therefore files this motion to this Court for 

### itsjudgment. Finally, the Appellant contacted opposing counsel but only the opposing counsel refused to respond.

Eric Drake