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 itself should be stricken from the record because it is improper and frivolous.

Regarding the attorney general's calculations of the 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.

*3

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 of record.

*4

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

*5 Exhibit "A"

*6 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 which it is related or separately. If separately bound, the appendix must comply with paragraph (f). A paper record in an original proceeding or a paper appendix must be tabbed and indexed. An electronically filed record in an original proceeding or an 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 of the document, including headings, footnotes, and quotations, must be counted except the following: caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the 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 brief and response in a direct appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals in a case in which the death penalty has been assessed: 37,500 words if computergenerated, and 125 pages if not. (B) A brief and 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 if not. In a civil case in the court of appeals, 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 brief in 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. (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 of Criminal Appeals, and a motion for rehearing and response in an 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 if not. (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 document format (PDF); (2) be directly converted to PDF rather than scanned, if possible; (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.

*7