Kyle Holland v. Kristine Scroggie Appeal from 261st District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-16-00601-CV Kyle Holland, Appellant v. Kristine Scroggie, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 261ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-FM-03-000048, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Kyle Holland has filed a pro se appeal from the trial court’s order in this suit to modify his parent-child relationship with his children, A.H. and N.H.1 Holland’s appellate brief does not describe the order being appealed or address why the trial court erred in issuing the order, other than making vague assertions that others in his life have lied and that the courts have in effect punished him despite the fact that he has not lied or committed a crime. The brief does not include citations to the record, although it does include excerpts from some of the 154 attached exhibits. Moreover, the brief does not cite to legal authorities or explain how the law and the facts of this case entitle him to relief from the trial court’s order.2 Therefore, we conclude that any issues 1 Appellee Kristine Scroggie has not filed a brief in this case. 2 The following excerpts show the major themes of Holland’s brief. We have used initials to protect the privacy of non-parties: Notice in the testimony below how my father blames me, and says that only if I get a “certified psychological evaluation” will I be able to “get on with my life” when a psychological evaluation does not put money in the Greenstar Goods bank account, and everyone knows that all I need is for the Judges of the 3 COA to ORDER that my sister-in-law: [M.A.T.-F.], be made to come to court so that Judge Hathcock can tell [M.A.T.-F.], in front of Kristine Scroggie, and [D.B.], and [C.H.], and [N.H.] and [A.H.], that Judge Hathcock NEVER said that I was “crazy” in Judge Hathcock’s court room, so that [M.A.T.-F.] will finally complete [M.A.T.-F.]’s second round investment of $2 Million dollars, in Greenstar Goods, and then I can pay child support, and my black, former prostitute girlfriend named: [J.J.], will be inspired to tell [J.J.]’s true life story, and condemn [J.J.]’s pimp, rapist, baby killer, and cult leader named: [V.M.], who proudly posted a video on Facebook bragging about brainwashing girls into the burning man cult titled: “HOW TO BRAINWASH GIRLS INTO THE BURNING MAN CULT”, for the whole world to see, to hell, so that [J.J.] can rejoin me in wearing a Greenstar Goods t-shirt, making live babies with me, for free, for love, like [J.J.] said [J.J.] would do with me after [J.J.] met me on a website called: sugardaddyforme.com, and then [J.J.] dated me for two years before [J.J.] agreed to wear my ring, in front of [B.W.], on May 27th, 2013, all because my business partner: [D.B.], told me to go to sugardaddyforme.com, because [D.B.] met [D.B.]’s wife: [Da.B.], on the same website. *** I have prayed, and asked, and contine [sic] to pray, and ask, that the 3 COA act in the Best Interest of [A.H.] and [N.H.], and the rest of the American People, and REVOKE THE LICENSES OF: Judge Scott Jenkins, and [L.M.], and [J.S.], and [G.K.], and [W.D.], and SET A NEW TRIAL IN FRONT OF A JURY, and ORDER that the liars in my life, including: [M.A.T.-F.], and [C.H.], and Dr. [D.], and [L.M.], and Kristine Scroggie, and [J.J.], and [D.B.] to come FACE A JURY, and explain why the liars in my life have told lies about me, to keep me living in conditions of extreme poverty, when I have not committed any crimes however I have non-violently fought for my civil liberties to be restored, in a court of law, FOR YEARS, without any law schooling, while heroically, and romantically, rescuing my black, former prostitute girlfriend: [J.J.], from the mind control, and brainwashing, of: [V.M.], who raped my girlfriend: [J.J.], and sadly tricked [J.J.] into getting an abortion, so that [J.J.] would be seen being exploited as the number one prostitute, and poster girl, for: “the BURNING MAN”, and just to make sure that nobody missed the dead baby tragedy, [V.M.] PROUDLY posted a video on Facebook titled: “HOW TO BRAINWASH GIRLS INTO THE BURNING MAN CULT”, for the whole world to see, as my employer’s (Greenstar Goods) bank account has been BLOCKED, and I was embezzled from, by: [D.B.], because I told the world using 2 Holland may have are inadequately briefed and present nothing for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); Amir-Sharif v. Hawkins, 246 S.W.3d 267, 270 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, pet. dism’d w.o.j.) (“An issue on appeal unsupported by argument or citation to any legal authority presents nothing for this Court to review.”). We will not comb through the record looking for legal errors Holland has not identified and explained. See Amir-Sharif, 246 S.W.3d at 270 (“This Court has no duty to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether the error complained of occurred.”). To do so would be placing ourselves in the role of Holland’s advocate. See Valadez v. Avitia, 238 S.W.3d 843, 845 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (“An appellate court has no duty—or even right—to perform an independent review of the record and applicable law to determine whether there was error. Were we to do so, even on behalf of a pro se appellant, we would be abandoning our role as neutral adjudicators and become an advocate for that party.”) (citation omitted); see also McClain v. Byrne, No. 03-16-00216-CV, 2016 WL 4506304, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 24, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). Because Holland has not adequately briefed any issue on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order. Facebook that [D.B.] met [D.B.]’s wife: [Da.B.], on sugardaddyforme.com, while [A.H.] and [N.H.] were brainwashed into hating me for my lacking of having any money, and my super-rich sister-in-law: [M.A.T.-F.], filed an affidavit in court filled with LIES, while [M.A.T.-F.] told me that it is “too bad” that I do not have any money so I cannot see [A.H.] and [N.H.] as [M.A.T.-F.] hoarded $100’s of millions of dollars and tricked people into believing that [M.A.T.-F.] was a non-judgmental saint. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 3 __________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Field and Bourland Affirmed Filed: May 4, 2017 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.