%,::. ^~...-

14-15-a3319-r;U

1!4 THE C3U3T 0? APPEALS

FOf? THE F7HifJ?£E?-lTH CHJOXClftL OISTf?ICf

HOUSTON, TEXAS

syEN eh?s« zjciha^ssofj, appsllfwt sno se,

us.

bu«a x.s.d., et. al,

appellees

Hn Apasal ffss? tho first DudiciQl District Cfe*

3-33p,er County, Tojtaa

APPcLLAWT PRO BE'a RESPONSE TO

J?IQTIC£- «¥ -TPC SirSL-RS, 'CH3J&T8PHES A* PSIiSES.,,..3f

A P,70 S£ BESP0fiS£ 3Y THIS MOM- OOU.Tf Til

AH ALL EG SO jSKOEPB BSI?;Fn (?)

^u FILEDIN i4th99.Y£r.OFAPPEALS

JUL £*#Z-i5

CHhio ior-M£R A. r'HiflE

CLERK

S¥'S?3 SQIK 35Hfl^3S1?J, APPELLANT PRO SS

T0S3S 1^6^23g/C.T.TarffeIl/^3 unit

1303 F.M. fifiS

Roshsron, Ts. 775-B3
AP-PELLAfiT ?*D SS!s RESPONSE Ti3 £.

•NOTICE B¥ THE OLER«9 CHRISTOPHER A, PilXL'E, OF *// i>

A P??B S?; R^SPO^SE 3¥ THIS HO»I. CQUP.T TO £«/*•

" ~ ~ ~~ ~ ir^ '""'so *&W*^i*toMMWilU#**i^M»^MijW^ •wm*m**m*t ifo<i»fflrtw^iiiWft«»tiiiwilB^^ii^^ iiifiM.i.ii..iH'»>lWtw.*w<#TM

TO THS HOM. 3U0GS5 OF S8ID G3i5T?T OF APPEALS? ^SfBt^^r ^-e^

COHE's mu, Sy"^l ERIK 30MAWSSf5M, APPELLANT PflO f»E HEREIff, C&M>>^SXgb

this hiss i'-saponae to the titled cause, as foiloys;

#1 . Appslicmfc pra-ss ha© not nsselvoii any copy of f'£I7BERT! of th©

viarass? docu$?njn?.9 or litlgotionCS) stated irs the Hon, Glerlsa »CA!?<)

MSUCE" about AH ALLEGED flH3ER«J 9P.ISF SEltJG FILED, ?50H, AN ALLS^EO PRR SE

SS5P0i}S£ TO OWE 3¥ THIS HO?l. COURT OF APPEALS. .. .(?>

#2. Appellant pro-sa HAS ?*Q COSJSEL. . - {PRO S£>,... -50» it ia highly •

unlikely *^«* Appellant pra-se- has filotJ any Anders Brisf m HI3 OWTJ

APPEAL-....(?)

#3. HOUEl'Sfl, tllf thn Apaallass havs Filed such a brief, uo do thank

. ... tbtss fe* t*ie5,3? p^fff-osaional GtH&sis nf i-?0.fi£5TVs .snd. aaU t5»».t:- *hi* •#«*,. • .

Court of Appeals BRDSR A SCySSSAL 19 THE DEFAULT 3UDEMEMT ORDER OF THE

HO6!, m&t"; Wimn, 1st 3udleial Olat. Ct, aasspar Co.,Tk., cans no. ^Ba%3

end, OfiBER 5AI9 TITLE AMO 0E£D OF THE MA^O U0fl£STEA3 REPLACED BASvC 1910

THi" LSOAL 5WIERSMIP 8? APPELLANT PRO S5 HSRSIH, and, • should th& Appellees

deaiffa to continua this suit, folloy cSue arocsss etf lea and iasa© aervico

of notice of Intent to sue and Isvy far thsir mensy/texas , glwinc, tC"M3

Appellant pre as a foijc nopiartisnity to ratain a loan on said property

and pay ths back tames uhils Appailani pro-se is incaffceretari, as file

banferupcy...,(?) The letar is MOT Appellant pr»~cj-a*s choice, but, if

forced to .cfo ss, y?.LL d-o so in osdsr to ossye hlo HorssBtead. . (?)

Alternatively, alley Appellant tiaa to rsgain his liharty and 90-cJayo

thsreafttar., thoos tssea will be paid.....{?)

P30TE TO THE CLERK: Pleass las caa^o spooifis sa to y-BOJI filori on ABDGfiS

TSRISf..?. .IM UHQ'g S2HflLP..?..As Apossiliant pro-ss IS A PHO SS APPCLLAWT.

^JG 5U3H 2RI&F UA5 FSLSO [3lV APPELLANT PRO S£. . . , Ai^O A?JPS:LLA?JT PRO SE

?«ftS M8T BSE?I fJ3?IFIE!5 &F A?>5¥ 3UGM CGUISSELO !?APPGl^T«£riTvf. . <?) AMY AMDERS

Bf!S£f FILED I» THIS CASE 3EP}0U?JCX?JG APPS;LLA^?T PRO SE's CtAI^KS)' & APPEAL

IS UBOLLV WITHOUT f-SF.SX?.
GO PRAVEv, THIS 2nd PAY Of . . . 3UL..V,. . . . , n ir 2015.

• il^Bpsotftflly- s.abR.ittatl,

A 9

£3

SV-EM ERIK 3GHAtfSS{SM,,APPSU.AJJT PUB SE

T0G3& U65256/C.T.Tsrrell/R3 unit

130Q f.H. S53

S5osh©pon, Tk. 77503

ecimnsATE of service

3UEN £QSbt 3aHA«SSa?J, APPELLANT PRO SS HEREIN, do state unda? penalty

f p-|®s'jurv that I have sant oil parUias in this case a copy of this 3«p§

8ESPGMSE.--TG THE 14th 8Q?jR? Of APPEALS (TEXAS-HQUST&SKLEftKO NOTICE OF A

ipfcb S£ FILING Of aS*5PSP33E TO m ALLEGED ANDEP.3 5SIEF (?.) 0?i§-in®l and

ana copy to 14th Ct. of" Apps. One copy to Appalls© oousal5 Llt*:3EBAR3£f?

GOafiA^I GLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, an« copy to 1st 3ugL DiPPt. Ct. , Closk,

Katfty Kent, .laapas Co, Ts;.. « . ».».sisposited in indigent jaail tivoQ box

on S.T*' Tas-^all/RS.^nit an thla 2nd i ^ay mf ..u l}\lr n , rrf..2ClS,

SWEK ESSXK 3QHA!J5S0K*APPELLAST »{«l SE