IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST DISTRICT

301 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77002

1st COA Case No. 01-14-01028-CV 

(Oral Argument Waived) 

Originating Court Case No. 2014-63727

BROWSERWEB MEDIA AGENCY

Appellant

v.

MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION

Appellee

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF MISSING

DOCUMENTS (CLERK’S RECORD) 

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 3/29/2015 2:11:53 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk ------------------------ VOID K ------------------------ FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/30/2015 11:25:00 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
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-A0B9-476A9C2E-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 Burk

•

e

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 

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 

ARBRITRATION AWARD IN PART FILED OCTOBER 29, 2014 ..............................................

3

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

EXHIBIT #329