ACCEPTED

09-16-00293-CV
NINTH COURT OF APPEALS
BEAUMONT, TEXAS
9/19/2016 12:00:00 AM
CAROL ANNE HARLEY
CLERK

In re Jean-François Gariépy
FILED IN
9th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE ESTATE OF § IN THE NINTH COURT
BEAUMONT, TEXAS
§ 9/19/2016 8:14:00 AM
JACQUELINE CASTELLANOS, § OF APPEALS,
CAROL ANNE TEXAS
HARLEY
§ Clerk

ALLEGED TO BE INCAPACITATED § - IN PROBATE -

Filed by JEAN-FRANÇOIS GARIÉPY, RELATOR

1212 Washington Street
Durham, NC, 27701
Tel: 919-885-6035
jeanfrancois.gariepy@gmail.com

Case number 09-16-00293-CV

Original proceedings case number 115533

RELATOR’S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE

COMES NOW Dr. Jean-François Gariépy (‘relator’), pursuant to Rule 52.5 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, replying to the Real Party in Interest’s

Response to his Petition for Mandamus.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 1 of 27

(b) Table of Contents

Table of Contents Page 2

Index of authorities Page 3

Response Page 5

Certificate of compliance Page 24

Certificate of service Page 25

Verification Page 27

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 2 of 27

(c) Index of Authorities

CASES

A&W Industries, Inc. v. Day, 977 S.W.2d 740, Court of Appeals of Texas,

1998………………………………………………………………………...Page 14

Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, Supreme Court of Texas, 1995…..Page 14

In re Michelle Chester, No. 04-11-00758-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, San

Antonio, 2011……………………………………………………….………Page 15

In re Peggy Bowie, Cause No. 09-08-118-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas,

2008……………………………………………………………….…….Pages 15-16

In the Estate of Chad Eric McDonald, Cause No. 09-13-00470-CV, Court of

Appeals of Texas, 2013……………………………………………………..Page 16

Womble v. Atkins, 334 S.W.2d 294, Supreme Court of Texas, 1960…….....Page 15

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 3 of 27

STATUTES AND RULES

Texas Estates Code § 1055.003……………………………………………..Page 11

Texas Estates Code § 1055.001……………………………………………..Page 12

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 52.3…………………………………Page 20

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 52.4…………………………………Page 20

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 9.4 (j) (i)……………………...…….Page 20

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 9.4 (k)………………………………Page 21

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 9.2 (c) (1)…………………………...Page 21

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 9.4 (i) (3)…………………………...Page 21

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure § 52.3 (g)……………………………..Page 21

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 4 of 27

(d) Response

1. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator has “lured” the Proposed Ward to

another state, but this statement is not supported by admissible evidence. To the

contrary, the Affidavit of the Relator establishes that her move to North Carolina

was a free choice made by the Proposed Ward herself (see Affidavit of Jean-

François Gariépy, Paragraph 10). These statements were not denied nor objected to

in the trial court and thus are undisputed.

2. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward is completely disabled, but

the Relator is objecting to this statement and has not been given a chance to

counter-interrogate the witnesses who claim that she is in the trial court, due to the

striking of his petition-in-intervention. Thus, this court should not assume that she

is incapacitated.

3. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward is not pregnant, but this is

not supported by any other evidence than a claim that the Proposed Ward has

undergone a blood and urine test. Relator contends that the tests were performed

too early to have any validity, because they were performed 7 days before the

expected date of the Proposed Ward’s periods, and these tests only start having

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 5 of 27

some degree of validity 6 days before. They become 100% precise only 3 days

before the expected periods. Thus, the tests could not possibly have returned a

positive result because they were performed too early. In any case, the petition-in-

intervention of the Relator does not solely hinge on the fact that the Proposed Ward

may be pregnant, but also on the fact that she was the domestic partner and fiancée

of the Relator. For the record, the Relator still believes that the Proposed Ward is in

all likelihood pregnant, and this is further suggested by the fact that the Real Party

in Interest has not provided newer and valid tests since these inappropriate tests

were performed.

4. Real Party in Interest states that the Honorable Jeff Branick suggested that the

romantic relationship between the Proposed Ward and the Relator may be a crime.

The judge did indeed state this, and it is precisely the reason why the Relator will

file a Motion to Recuse as soon as he is given a chance to intervene in the

proceedings. We would be making a great disservice to individuals with mental

health diagnoses in this country were we to taint any romantic relationship they

freely engage in with the specter of criminal accusations. The Proposed Ward has

the right to engage in a romantic relationship and the comments made by the

Honorable Jeff Branick (see Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A, Page 13, lines 15-

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 6 of 27

22) reveal that he has an already-made adverse opinion on the matter, and that he

should recuse. The Relator notes that the Court Reporter’s report is incomplete in

this part and that the honorable Jeff Branick actually directly addressed comments

to a policeman in the audience, Mr. Alan Roberts, who exchanged with the judge at

that moment. The Relator also notes that the Court Reporter’s attribution of

statements to “Mr. Nichols” is erroneous and that the judge was actually

exchanging with the policeman Mr. Alan Roberts. There is no Mr. Nichols in these

proceedings. Furthermore, some of the statements of Mr. Alan Roberts as part of

this conversation do not appear in the Court Reporter’s report.

5. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator is still married. The Relator has

stated numerous times that he was separated, and that he was in the process of

obtaining divorce. The reason there is no filing in North Carolina for divorce is that

the Relator had to wait the prescribed 1-year separation period and then start

negotiating the details of the separation of his goods from those of his ex-wife. In

any case, the Relator is separated from his ex-wife and he is free to commence a

new romantic relationship with the Proposed Ward.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 7 of 27

6. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator is basing his petition for mandamus

on factual disputes and issues. Relator contends that there are no factual disputes

about the main facts supporting his intervention: that he is the fiancé of the

Proposed Ward, that the Proposed Ward wants to be in a relationship with him, that

the Proposed Ward wants to have a baby with him, and that they were residing

together in North Carolina when the Proposed Ward was brought against her will

back to Texas. The Relator has stated all of these facts under oath in his affidavit

and petition-in-intervention, and these facts were not denied nor objected to in the

trial court. In addition, some of these facts were even later confirmed by some of

the follow-up documents brought to the trial court by the Real Party in Interest.

7. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward was found to be

incapacitated by a qualified psychiatrist, but the Relator was not served the

documents produced by this psychiatrist, nor given a chance to counter-interrogate

the psychiatrist. The Relator contests the conclusions of the psychiatrist and will do

so in the trial court once he is given a chance to intervene.

8. Real Party in Interest claims in this Court that she denies and challenges the

facts in the Relator’s Affidavit, but has not made such denial in the trial court and

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 8 of 27

simply states in this Court that these statements are “not evidence at all.” The

denials and claims of the Real Party in Interest in this Court are not supported by

qualifying evidence, were not submitted in the trial court and should be ignored.

9. Real Party in Interest claims that the Proposed Ward is not the Relator’s fiancée,

but she is not a qualified witness because she was not present when the Proposed

Ward and the Relator made a commitment to marry each other. Her claim has not

been proven in the trial court and has no basis in any qualifying evidence.

10. Real Party in Interest admits that “the most important facts in this case come

from the Ad Litem’s Report,” but the Relator has not been provided said report after

requesting it. It would be the end of due process in America if the Relator’s right to

participate to the underlying proceeding was obliterated by this Court based on a

document that he could never get a copy of. Consequently, the report of the ad

litem should be ignored because the Relator has not had a chance to contest the ad

litem’s competence in the trial court. A discussion on the phone between the

guardian ad litem and the Relator was sufficient to confirm that she has not

properly informed the Proposed Ward of her rights in this case, which should also

allow the Relator to contest her competence in the trial court.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 9 of 27

11. Real Party in Interest claims that the “Appointment of Temporary Guardian of

the Person” contains a report from “Dr. Mark Thompson” establishing that the

“Proposed Ward demonstrates the social and mental maturity of a 10 or 11 year-old

child.” The Relator has filed a motion to strike this document in the trial court

because it is hearsay, Mark Thompson is not a Doctor, and the conclusions are

based on unreliable evidence. The Relator could not be heard on this motion

because his petition-in-intervention was stricken. Relator also filed a motion to

strike Exhibit B, which contains hearsay claiming that the Relator is aggressive

towards women, which is both false and inadmissible in court. The simple fact that

the Real Party in Interest felt the need to include these documents in the underlying

proceeding is perhaps the best demonstration that the Relator should be given the

right to intervene in this matter in order to defend himself against these false

allegations.

12. Real Party in Interest states that the Proposed Ward has been appearing at the

hearing on the Application for Permanent Guardian of the Person and agreed to the

guardianship. This statement is not supported by qualifying evidence and should be

discarded as hearsay. Additionally, this statement would have occurred after the

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 10 of 27

striking of the petition-in-intervention of the Relator, thus it should be ignored by

this Court as the Relator has not been given the right to counter-interrogate the

Proposed Ward.

13. Real Party in Interest submitted to this Court the “Appointment of Permanent

Guardian of the Person,” which contains a psychiatrist report (Appendix 2). This

submission was made in the trial court while the Relator was stripped of his due

process rights and the Relator will challenge several of the conclusions of the

report and the application document. The Relator has not been given a chance to

counter-interrogate the psychiatrist, nor to move for striking the report, which is

hearsay, and it should be ignored by this Court.

14. Real Party in Interest cites Texas Estates Code § 1055.003, providing “(2) the

proposed intervenor has such an adverse relationship with the Ward that the

intervention would unduly prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’

rights.” However, the Real Party in Interest has not demonstrated that the Relator

had adverse interests to the original parties’ rights. All they have stated is

essentially that they are scandalized that the Proposed Ward has freely decided to

have a baby with the Relator (Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A, Page 4, lines 15-

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 11 of 27

17). Furthermore, the honorable Jeff Branick has stricken the petition-in-

intervention based on lack of standing, and did not make a specific finding of

adverse interests (see Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A, Page 11, lines 16-18). It

would be highly prejudicial for the sexual and reproductive freedom of individuals

with mental health diagnoses if our courts were to find that their chosen life partner

and the soon-to-be co-parent of their child necessarily has interests that are adverse

to them. It cannot be assumed that a romantic relationship undertaken freely by an

individual is necessarily adverse to their interest. Finally, Real Party in Interest

cites Texas Estates Code § 1055.001 as a special rule applying to standing in

probate proceedings; this rule actually provides the right to “any person” to

intervene and contest an application for guardianship, except finding of “an interest

that is adverse to a proposed ward.” The Real Party in Interest shows no qualifying

evidence that the Relator has an interest that is adverse to that of the Proposed

Ward. As stated previously, romantic relationships are not in and of themselves

adverse to someone’s interests.

15. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator must show he has a clear legal

right to the performance of a certain act. Relator has already made the case that he

has the right to (1) contest the venue in a special appearance, (2) demand the

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 12 of 27

striking of false information presented as hearsay, including oral statements made

by Mr. Snider during the hearing, (3) contest the fact that the Proposed Ward is

incapacitated, (4) move for recusal of the Honorable Jeff Branick, (5) contest that

the physically-abusive biological parents of the Proposed Ward are qualified

guardians, (6) apply himself as a guardian (7) present a defense based on the clean

hands doctrine to ask for dismissal of the lawsuit based on the fact that the Real

Party in Interests have physically assaulted the Proposed Ward and the Relator as

part of this case and (8) contest the competence of the guardian ad litem, who has

not properly informed the Proposed Ward of her rights and of the consequences of

these proceedings. Before the decision to strike his petition-in-intervention, the

Relator had already filed several motions concerning these matters in the trial

court, but was not given a chance to be heard on these motions. The rights

protected by these motions do not rely solely on disputed facts. Indeed, there is no

factual dispute about the content of the Relator’s Affidavit because it was not

objected to in the trial Court, nor was it countered by any evidence. The facts that

the Proposed Ward is the fiancée of the Relator, that she had decided to live with

him, that she wants to have a baby with him, for instance, are undisputed by any

qualifying evidence.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 13 of 27

16. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator has not shown that the striking of

his petition-in-intervention was an abuse of discretion, and that he must show that

the Trial Court could have reasonably reached only one decision. Relator has

already laid out in his petition how the striking of his petition-in-intervention was

an abuse of discretion.

17. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator has an appropriate remedy on

appeal and claims that “an Order that a litigant lacks standing disposes of all the

issues in the proceedings for which it is brought,” and in support of this statement

cites Crowson v. Wakeham, 897 S.W.2d 779, Supreme Court of Texas, 1995.

However, Crowson v. Wakeham vastly differs from the current case in that in

Crowson v. Wakeham, the order which was found to be appealable was an order

granting a motion for summary judgment, which means that Crowson was a party

in the original proceedings and was given a chance to file motions and argue

questions of law in the trial court, unlike the Relator in the current case who has

been kept from becoming a party. In addition, the Relator provides several

arguments showing the necessity and emergency of the situation, including the fact

that the Proposed Ward is in all likelihood pregnant, which further justifies an

intervention of appellate courts before the final judgment. Mandamus is the only

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 14 of 27

appropriate remedy, and would save time and resources invested in the rest of the

proceedings.

18. Real Party in Interest cites A&W Industries, Inc. v. Day, 977 S.W.2d 740, Court

of Appeals of Texas, 1998 and Womble v. Atkins, 334 S.W.2d 294, Supreme Court

of Texas, 1960, stating that “an Order that a litigant lacks standing disposes of all

the issues in the proceeding for which it is brought, such an order is a final

judgment that may be appealed.” The analysis of the case law by the Real Party in

Interest is erroneous. In these two proceedings, the parties making the appeal were

litigants in their respective original proceedings, and were not appealing of the

striking of a petition-in-intervention. Indeed, in Womble v. Atkins, the party

making the appeal was the original applicant. The proper case law that binds this

Court is In Re Michelle Chester, 04-11-00758-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas,

2011, even if that case is a child custody proceedings, because the rights of the

Relator have been similarly violated to those of Michelle Chester in her child

custody case.

19. Real Party in Interest invokes In re Peggy Bowie, Cause No. 09-08-118-CV,

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008, and claims that “a party did not have the right to

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 15 of 27

mandamus relief when they were in similar circumstances as Relator.” However, In

re Peggy Bowie is not binding nor similar to the circumstance of the Relator,

because in that case, Peggy Bowie was not requesting a reversal of the striking of a

petition-in-intervention, but rather a reversal of a dismissal of her motion to

transfer. Furthermore, she made the argument on appeal that mandamus relief was

available to her “without a showing that she has no adequate remedy by appeal,”

which is very different from the emergency argument made by the Relator. Peggy

Bowie still had the right to intervene in the underlying proceeding, she simply had

to wait up to the end of the proceedings to appeal of the dismissal of her motion to

transfer, and thus she had a proper remedy on appeal, unlike the Relator in the

current case, who has been kept from becoming a party to the original proceeding.

20. Real Party in Interest cites In the Estate of Chad Eric McDonald, Cause No.

09-13-00470-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013, also presenting it as case law

showing that “a party did not have the right to mandamus relief when they were in

similar circumstances as Relator.” The Real Party in Interest apparently missed the

fact that In the Estate of Chad Eric McDonald was not a petition for mandamus, it

was an appeal from an interlocutory order, and thus it was properly dismissed as

the party appealing the decision still had the chance to intervene in the

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 16 of 27

proceedings. Thus, unlike the Relator in the current case, the party appealing In the

Estate of Chad Eric McDonald still had a proper remedy on appeal because he was

able to continue participating to the underlying proceeding. Furthermore, the party

was appealing an order that allowed another party to intervene rather than an order

that kept a party from intervening.

21. Real Party in Interest claims that the facts “as they relate to Relator’s actions

and the mental capacity of the Ward,” “way [sic] heavily in favor of the striking of

Relator’s Motion to Intervene.” Such reasoning would effectively deprive

individuals of due process in probate proceedings and allow the kidnapping of

adult human beings by the state, since the striking of a motion to intervene, by

definition, occurs before the intervenor has been given any chance to establish

facts in the trial court. It is in part because so much of this probate proceeding

relies on false information about the Relator that the Relator must be given the

right to intervene.

22. Real Party in Interest claims the relief requested by the Relator is moot because

Marsha Castellanos has now been appointed Permanent Guardian of the Ward. If

this argument was ever considered by an Appellate court, this would essentially

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 17 of 27

defeat the purpose and role of such courts. The Relator is entitled to a review of

this case that looks at the fact as they were at the moment of decision concerning

the striking of his petition-in-intervention, and any decision that has been taken

after this decision is irrelevant given that the Relator was improperly deprived of

his right to intervene in said proceeding.

23. Real Party in Interest claims that the Relator “could take advantage of a

disabled young lady whose parents have come to the Courts of Jefferson County to

seek help and to protect their daugther,” but cites no qualifying evidence in the

record showing that the Relator is taking advantage of the Proposed Ward. In fact,

the qualifying evidence shows that the Relator has simply committed to loving the

Proposed Ward and caring for her for the rest of his life and that the Proposed Ward

has decided to freely engage in a romantic relationship with the Relator and wants

to start a family with the Relator. It would be highly prejudicial to the sexual and

reproductive liberties of individuals with mental health diagnoses if it was

automatically assumed by the courts that anyone who falls in love with them wants

to take advantage of them.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 18 of 27

24. Relator brings two additional clarifications to the report of the court’s reporter

(Real Party in Interest’s Appendix A). Firstly, on Page 9, lines 20-21 and 23-24, the

reporter wrote what the Relator said as “I’m contesting that Jacqueline isn’t

incapacitated.” To clarify, the Relator meant that he is contesting the allegation that

Jacqueline is incapacitated. In other words, he considers she is not incapacitated.

Perhaps the French accent of the Relator has been misunderstood by the reporter,

or the Relator may have poorly formulated his sentence, but the context was clear

that the Relator was contesting the guardianship. Relator also brings the precision

that he has complained in the trial court that the documents referred to in Page 4

lines 4-5 and 23-24 have not been served to him and that he had no copies of those,

but the Court Reporter apparently omitted to include his complaint in the report.

25. Relator asks this Court to ignore the Application for Appointment of Permanent

Guardian of the Person as well as Exhibit A which is attached to it (Real Party in

Interest’s Appendix 2), since it was filed and heard in a separate, subsequent

hearing, and the Relator has not been given the chance to object to its content, nor

were these documents served to the Relator.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 19 of 27

26. Relator asks this Court to ignore Real Party in Interest’s Appendix 3 since it is

a decision taken in a subsequent hearing, after the Relator was silenced in the trial

court. Relator suggests that the Real Party in Interest could be sanctioned for

bringing as much frivolous arguments of law as they did, and for including

inadmissible evidence in the record that is irrelevant to the matter brought by the

Relator.

27. Relator asks this Court to ignore the guardian ad litem’s report since he was not

provided a copy of the report upon request and has not been given a chance to

contest its content as well as the competence of the guardian ad litem in the trial

court.

28. The entire response of the Real Party in Interest is submitted in violation of

Rule 52.3 (j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “The

person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and

concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent

evidence included in the appendix or record” and Rule 52.4 providing “The

response must conform to the requirements of 52.3 […].” There is no statement in

the Real Party in Interest’s response indicating that each of their factual statements

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 20 of 27

is supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, the statements are not made

under oath, thus the entire response should be discarded by this Court as

unsupported claims.

29. The entire response of the Real Party in Interest is being submitted in violation

of Rule 9.4 (j) (1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it was

submitted electronically as a PDF and only Page 1 is in text-searchable format, the

rest of the document being unsearchable. The entire response should be stricken

pursuant to Rule 9.4 (k). See also Rule 9.2 (c) (1), providing that attorneys in civil

cases must electronically file documents.

30. The entire response of the Real Party in Interest is being submitted in violation

of Rule 9.4 (i) (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that it does not

include a certificate by counsel stating the number of words in the document. The

entire response should be stricken pursuant to Rule 9.4 (k).

31. The Statement of Facts section of the Real Party in Interest’s Response is

submitted in violation of Rule 52.3 (g) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

in that the statements of facts are not supported by citation to competent evidence

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 21 of 27

included in the appendix or record. The entire response should be stricken for not

conforming to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

32. To conclude on a more philosophical note, the Relator notes that due process

has been violated in almost every possible way in these proceedings. The Relator

engages in a romantic relationship with the Proposed Ward with a full

understanding of who she is, and perhaps with a better understanding of her mental

capacities than any of the persons who have been allowed to intervene in this case

up to now, since he is in fact one of the leading neurobiologists in this country, has

directed research projects about autism in leading universities, and has worked in

clinical environments with individuals diagnosed with autism. The ultimate

question which will emerge from these proceedings, if the Relator is ever given a

chance to participate to them, is whether or not an adult individual who has been

diagnosed with autism but otherwise demonstrates perfectly sound decision-

making and cognition has the right to choose to start a family and reproduce with

someone she loves, or if such individuals in this country are subject to arbitrary

judicial orders granted by the State of Texas allowing the violent kidnapping of

their person by their biological parents at any time as they start engaging in their

life as an adult. Needless to say that such state-allowed kidnappings are quite scary

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 22 of 27

and would impose a burden on individuals with mental health diagnoses and their

sexual and reproductive freedom. However, let us not fool ourselves that whether

our courts should allow such acts without due process for the people victimized by

them is exactly the issue that is being submitted to this Court.

33. Thus the Relator respectfully asks that this Court strikes the response of the

Real Party in Interest, grants his petition for mandamus, and further grants the

Relator all other relief, either at law or in equity, to which he may be entitled.

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 23 of 27

(e) Certificate of Compliance

The current document contains 4717 words and therefore is in compliance with

Rule 9.4 (i) (2) (C) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This, the 17th day of September, 2016.

_______________________________

Jean-François Gariépy, Ph. D.

1212 Washington Street
Durham, NC, 27701
Tel: 919-885-6035
jeanfrancois.gariepy@gmail.com

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 24 of 27

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jean-François Gariépy, certify that a copy of the foregoing RESPONSE

TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST’S REPLY, was served on all interested

parties via U.S. Mail deposited in a post-paid, properly addressed envelope in a

post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal

Service, addressed to the following parties:

Jacqueline S. Castellanos Wyatt D. Snider

7885 Deerchase 3535 Calder Ave., Suite 300
Beaumont, Texas, 77713 Beaumont, Texas, 77706
wyatt@sniderlawfirm.com

Joshua C. Heinz Grace Nichols

Benckenstein & Oxford, LLP 740 Hospital Drive, Suite 220
3535 Calder, Suite 300 Beaumont, Texas, 77701
Beaumont, Texas, 77706
jheinz@benoxford.com

Judge Jeff Branick Marsha Castellanos

Jefferson County Courthouse 7885 Deerchase Drive
1149 Pearl Street Beaumont, Texas, 77713
Beaumont, Texas, 77701
Fax: (409) 839-2311

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 25 of 27

This, the 17th day of September, 2016.

_______________________________

Jean-François Gariépy, Ph. D.

1212 Washington Street
Durham, NC, 27701
Tel: 919-885-6035
jeanfrancois.gariepy@gmail.com

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 26 of 27

Reply to Real Party in Interest’s Response – Jean-François Gariépy – Page 27 of 27