Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 23, 2015·No. 03-15-00642-CV·Published

Opinion

December 23, 2015

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS /RECEIVED\ AUSTIN TEXAS [ DEC 2 3 2015

DENNIS TUMLINSON § Vwrowwofafpeals^

V. § 03-15-00642-CV CAROLYN BARNES, ETAL §

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING APPELLEE'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, CAROLYN BARNES, hereinafter referred to as BARNES, and files this motion for leave to supplement the Clerk's Record and to extend time for filing Appellee's Brief, and in support thereof would show the court as follows:

1. On December 9, 2015, Barnes filed a motion for extension of time to file the appellee's brief because she was still awaiting arrival of the clerk and court reporter's record, which the Clerk's Office stated they mailed on December 4, 2015. Barnes received the CD on December 10, 2015, the same day that she received a very disturbing letter via email from Jeffrey Kyle returning all her documents recently filed in the Third Court and the trial court.

2. On December 9, 2015, when Barnes requested an extension of time to file the Appellee's Brief until December 23, 2015, she could not have anticipated the email from Jeffrey Kyle on December 10,2015. It took

Barnes the remainder of the week to investigate and respond to Jeffrey Kyle's unilateral actions outside the due course of law. Barnes secured Orders from the Administrative Judge and timely responded to the accusations of Jeffrey Kyle without any benefit of substantive due process on December 17,2015.

3. It was only then that Barnes was able to begin going through the CD of the record to insert the cites into Appellee's Brief. There are no hyperlinks that work in the CD and Barnes literally has to scroll through every page. The CD is not even a searchable pdf. In going through the tedious process, Barnes discovered many missing documents—some due to lack of designation and some due to oversight or miscommunication. There is no way that Barnes could have anticipated that there would be so many gaps in the Clerk's Record. Barnes immediately drafted a letter to the District Clerk requesting a supplementation ofthe record. A true and correct copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. When Barnes started going through the record, she discovered for the first time, the letter that was hand-delivered to the trial Judge by Appellant's counsel requesting the court reporter's record. Barnes was not ever served with a copy of that letter that was hand-delivered to the trial

Judge. Neither Appellant's attorney nor the Judge made Barnes aware of this letter.

5. Further, as Barnes went through the Clerk's Record, Barnes discovered for the first time, a letter to the Clerk from Appellant's counsel designating matters to be included in the record. Neither Appellant's counsel nor the Clerk notified Barnes of this designation or sought Barnes' designation of matters to be included in the record on appeal. As is shown in the letter attached, there are many documents that were not designated for inclusion that will support the Judge's decision in this matter. These matters include Barnes' Brief in Support of Response to Motion to Dismiss filed on August 14, 2015, Plaintiffs Objections, Motion to Strike and Response to Travis County Defendants' Late-Filed Supplement to Third Motion to Dismiss filed on September 8, 2015, and Barnes' Brief on Constitutional Rights filed on September 8,2015.

6. The missing documents were a combination of non-designation and oversight because Barnes does see the designation of the Plaintiffs Objections, Motion to Strike and Response to the Travis County Defendants' Late-Filed Supplement to the Third Motion to Dismiss filed on September 8, 2015 listed in Appellant's designation letter; however, it is not in the C.R. The Appellee's Briefs were not designated by Appellant for inclusion in the record, but were documents considered by the trial judge in reaching her decision and, in fairness, should be included in the C.R.

7. Barnes is filing this motion for leave to supplement the record and for an extension of time to file the brief in good faith and not for purposes of delay, but so that justice may be done.

8. The Brief is due in three days and as soon as the Clerk provides the supplemental record, Barnes should be able to file the Brief within 24 hours thereafter. The Brief is ready to file and the places for the cites are bracketed and just needing the volume and page number.

9. Tumlinson certainly will not be harmed by the delay because Barnes has been foreclosed from appealing the summary dismissal of the other Travis County defendants in this case due to the refusal of the trial court to grant Barnes' motion to sever claims so they can be appeal that was filed back in September and set for hearing in October and November without action by the Court.

10. This case cannot proceed in the trial court until the appellate court takes action. The trial court has failed and refused to sever the dismissed parties from the suit so that Plaintiff can appeal the summary dismissal of those defendants under an abuse of Chapter 13 Tex. R. Civ. Proc. Plaintiff is being hindered from appealing the adverse rulings of the trial court, while Tumlinson is allowed an interlocutory appeal. This is patently unfair when the abuserand criminal is employed by the government and can destroy all the evidence of his crime and the malicious, violent assault on Barnes. This assault was in broad daylight in the Travis County Courthouse clearly captured on the security video cameras. Despite Barnes securing an immediate Order from a District Judge to preserve and protect that video recording that would prove the truth, these State employees destroyed the video anyway. Despite numerous open records requests, letters and packets to four separate grand juries that were intercepted by the State employees, and requests under the freedom of information act, all discovery was denied to Barnes in both the malicious prosecution and in the civil case which is now being appealed. Barnes served discovery but the biased trial court allowed all the defendants to merely ignore the discovery requests. The trial court even refused to hear the motions to compel discovery.

11. Due to the continuing criminal conspiracy, these appeals are much more involved that regular appeals and require much more work to brief and present. In a normal case, the parties will have been allowed some semblance of substantive due process and would have been afforded the due course of law and equal rights, but Barnes has been deprived of all rights secured by the Texas Bill of Rights for over five years now. Barnes has even been deprived of any right to file a petition to redress these grievances through declaratory judgment and prospective injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed all the defendants under the false pretense that all these criminal offenders have absolute sovereign immunity to violate the Texas Bill of Rights.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes (Travis County Sheriff's Office Senior Certified Peace Officer Dennis Tumlinson v. Carolyn Barnes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.