the 335th District Court Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 26, 129
Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins.
November 29, 2017 Ullja Kuntze tendered for filing a document
entitled "Appellant's Motion Requesting
Clarification and Correction in the Appellate Record."
Notwithstanding the use by Kuntze of the term-of-art
"Appellate Record, " her actual complaint is about
inconsequential entries in the Court's case management
records known as TAMES.
Kuntze has directed the Court's attention to several
inconsistencies or incorrect entries, which the Court will
correct, we will briefly comment on some of them. Most of her
complaints surround the filing, and then transfer to a
separate proceeding, of a document she tendered for filing on
November 17, 2017.
first complains that the November 17, 2017 document should
not have been docketed as an original proceeding,
10-17-00384-CV, In re Ullja Kuntze. She is
incorrect, and the Court has explained the reason a document,
even when tendered for filing in an existing case, will be
set up as an original proceeding in the opinion issued
therein. Kuntze's motion on this issue is overruled.
next argues that the Court erred in keeping the November 17,
2017 document in this appeal, docket number 10-17-00228-CV.
In this regard, Kuntze is correct. Once the
"motion" was set up as an entirely new proceeding,
it may have been advisable to either note what we had done
with it in this proceeding, or strike it entirely.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is ordered to strike the
November 17, 2017 document from this appeal in TAMES.
it entirely from this proceeding also eliminates the need to
address Kuntze's arguments about how the November 17,
2017 document is characterized in TAMES in this appeal. Those
complaints are dismissed as moot because the document is no
longer filed in this appeal.
does, however, note that the original proceeding in which the
November 17, 2017 document was filed did not indicate it was
an original proceeding. Kuntze is correct in that oversight
on our part, and the appropriate "box" in TAMES
will be checked.
next argues that the Court erred in not adding all the
parties Kuntze designated in the November 17, 2017 document
as parties in this direct appeal. We do not agree with Kuntze
on this issue. Parties to a trial court proceeding do not
change on appeal unless there is a formal substitution of
parties, normally due to the death or legal disability, or
legal reorganization of a named party to the trial court
proceeding. None of that happened to a party in this appeal.
Rather, Kuntze tried to assert new complaints, via a document
filed in this appeal, against persons or entities who were
not parties in the trial court. This is improper. Kuntze
refers to these new parties as the "respondent" and
"real party." The Court need not wait to hear
argument from the alleged "respondent" or
"real party, " as argued by Kuntze, before we
dismiss or deny Kuntze's frivolous argument that they are
somehow now made parties in this direct appeal.
Kuntze argues that the Court was unreasonable in referring to
a document dated November 21, 2017 as received rather than
filed. The document was initially stamped as
"filed." However, part of the document's title
was "Request for Certified Copies" so it was
unclear if it was actually a motion and, therefore, should be
"filed, " or whether it was simply correspondence
and, therefore, should be only "received." The
Court has treated the document as a motion, and filed it as
such in the direct appeal (and has already denied the relief
sought in that frivolous motion).
relief requested in the motion filed on November 29, 2017 not
expressly granted herein is denied.
ruled on or addressed the concerns raised by Kuntze in her
November 29, 2017 motion, we now address the conduct of
Kuntze by filing the document. Kuntze has filed so many
documents so fast it is virtually impossible to understand
what her complaints are, or the basis for them, and it is
impractical for the Court to attempt to do so.
she is not an attorney, her numerous filings are often
incomprehensible in the legal foundation needed for the Court
to address the issue. There is not a single issue that we
were asked to address in the November 29, 2017 motion that
would impact the outcome of Kuntze's appeal on its
merits. We are striving to reach those issues, but these
numerous unfounded or immaterial complaints are distracting
and time consuming to ...