"

.,.

CAUSE NO. DVl 0-02239-E .

,...FIL cD
"."""-24 ". .'..
. .'''Wf
THE STATE OF TEXAS, EX REL. § IN THE DISTRICT ~m£f~' 6.. 1),
§ .
o,c~LLAS
1/<;'1(/( r ';;'i -}1IJrts
Co C4rRI(
GUADALUPE FRIAS, LOIS MARTIN, § _____ .• If XA$
AND LES WILLIE § DALLAS COUNTY,~.rJtflU'11fl
§
Vs. §
§
JAIME CORTES § 10pt JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION,

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Defendant JAIME CORTES, who files this his Original Answer, Plea to the

Jurisdiction, Motion for Sanctions, and Counter-Claim and respectfully shows this Court as follows:

COUNTER-CLAIM

1.

Defendant believes that Plaintiffs GUADALUPE FRIAS, LOIS MARTIN, and LESLIE

WILLIE a/k/a LES WILLIE have conspired to defame, embarrass, and thereby damage Defendant.

Defendant's belief is substantiated by the fact that the Original Petition contains frivolous and

unsubstantiated allegations; is verified by Lois Martin, who has nopersonal knowledge of anything

stated in the Original Petition other than the allegations contained in section XI(4); llId does not

comply with the statuory requirements before Defendant may be removed from office, as explained
t

below. The Original Petition was filed with the obvious purpose of influencing the Democratic

Primary election on March 2,2010 and the Democratic Primary runoff election on April 13, 2010.

Plaintiffs were clearly successful, as which Defendant must win the Democratic Primary runoff

election on April 13, 2010 in order to run against the Republican candidate during the general

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 1 of 26
•

election in November 2010 and have any hope of continuing in office beyond January 2011.

II.

Defendant can be removed from office pursuant to Section 87.013 of the Texas Local

Government Code only for incompetency, official misconduct, or intoxication. The affidavits

attached to the Original Petition show that the affiants have little, if any, personal knowledge of any

conduct ofDefendant which could be the basis for his removal from office. Instead, those affidavits

contain and relate little more than hearsay, unsubstantiated conclusions and opinions, admissions,

rumors, assumptions, presumptions, and innuendo; therefore, no reasonable and unbiased person

who did not intend harm to Defendant would have believed either the allegations contained in those

affidavits or the allegations contained in the Original Petition. Consequently, the Original Petition

was not filed in good faith, and neither Plaintiffs nor their attorney made a reasonble inquiry into the

facts and the affidavits attached to the Original Petition prior to filing it. Likewise, the allegations

contained in the Original Petition have no good-faith basis in law or in fact, are groundless, and were

clearly made only to harass Defendant.

III.

Upon information .andbelief, Plaintiffs GUADALUPE FRIAS, LOIS MARTIN, and LESLIE

WILLIE a/kIa LES WILLIE agreed and conspired with Dallas County Judge Jim Foster, Dallas

County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, and Defendant's Democratic Primary opponent(s) to file

the Original Petition in this cause based upon no more than false information, hearsay, rumors, and

innuendo for the sole purpose to engage in a smear campaign against Defendant. The prior

Constable for Precinct 5 of Dallas County was Mike Dupree, who resigned, and Defendant was then

appointed as Constable for Precinct 5. Mr. Dupree appointed his attorney John Barr and his

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 2 of 26
•

roommate Jim Foster as reserve Deputy Constables. After Jim Foster was elected Dallas County·

Judge in November 2006, Judge Foster, County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, and another

Dallas County Commissioner hired Danny Defenbaugh to investigate Defendant, even though the

Dallas County District Attorney and other law enforcement agencies have investigated Defendant

and declined to request the indictment of Defendant on any charge. Judge Foster, Commissioner

Mayfield, and another Dallas County Commissioner hired John Barr to represent Judge Foster and

Danny Defenbaugh. Judge Foster and Commissioner Mayfield also voted to approve John Barr's

wife as a Dallas County Magistrate Judge. Danny Defenbaugh is a tenant of John Barr and regularly

works as an investigator for John Barr. It is also Defendant's information and belief that the

affidavits attached to the Original Petition were given to Mr. Defenbaugh as part ofhis investigation

on behalf of the Dallas County Commissioners Court to further their efforts to smear and harm

Defendant and to prevent his re-election.

IV.

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant hereby sues Plaintiffs GUADALUPE FRIAS, LOIS

MARTIN, and LESLIE WILLIE a/k/a LES WILLIE for defamation, malicious prosecution, and civil

conspiracy and seeks a Judgment

. .
for $100 million against Plaintiffs GUADALUPE
. .
FRIAS, LOIS

MARTIN, and LESLIE WILLIE a/k/ a LES WILLIE, jointly and severally, for Defendant's damages.

V.

Pursuant to the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Defendant also requests that this

Court find that Plaintiffs and the Judge assigned to this cause have not complied with all statutory

requirements and conditions precedent to the filing of the Original Petition in this cause and/or the

removal of Defendant from office and enter such a declaration as a Final Judgment in this cause.

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 3 of 26
 VI.

Defendant further requests that this Court award him a Judgment for reasonable and

necessary attorney's fees, expenses, and Courts costs against Plaintiffs, both through the trial in this

cause and all subsequent appeals, as are equitable and just.

ORIGINAL ANSWER

VII.

Defendant enters a general denial and denies each and every, all and singular, the allegations

contained in the pleadings of Plaintiffs and demands strict proof thereof.

VIII.

Defendant demands a trial by jury, as Section 87.018 ofthe Local Government Code states

that he may be removed from office only following a trial by jury.

IX.

Defendant specifically denies the following allegations in the Original Petition:

A. Section II(l) ofthe Original Petition for Removal states that the State ofTexas is the Plaintiff

and refers to to Section 87.018(d) of the Texas Local Government Code. However, Section

87.018(d) states, "The county attorney shall represent the state in a proceeding for the removal of

an officer ..." Since Plaintiffs' attorney ofrecord is not the Dallas County Attorney, Defendant

denies that Plaintiffs have the legal capacity to sue Defendant in this action and that Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover in the capacity in which they sue, unless and until they are represented by the

Dallas County Attorney or the District Attorney of Dallas County;

B. That Defendant has committed any act constituting misconduct, criminal conduct, retaliation,

incompetence, official oppressions, and/or misuse of County property;

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 4 of 26
C. That Defendant has engaged in conduct that makes him subject to removal from office

temporarily and/or permanently;

D. That Defendant created a quota system by establishing or suggesting a certain number of

traffic tickets be issued by his deputy constables;

E. That Defendant violated subsections (a)(2) and/or (b)(l) of Section 72.002 of the Texas

Transportation Code and thereby committed misconduct, which is a ground for his removal from

office;

F. That, during daily briefings or at any other time, Defendant personally and/or through Sgt.

Michael Hinojosa or any other person constantly told his deputy constables to ticket cars and/or their

drivers and to tow cars;

G. That Defendant mandated and/or required his deputy constables to ticket drivers and tow cars

ifthe driver had no proof of insurance, an expired driver's license, or expired registration;

H. That Defendant maintained a policy ofrequiring his staffto work at various campaign events,

that Defendant circulated a sign-up sheet at daily briefings for his deputy constables and/or staffto

work such events, that Defendant ever announced that such participation was mandatory, and that

deputy constables handed out campaign material for Defendant while on duty and in uniform at a

candidate meet-arid-greet- at the Communications Workers' union hall;

1. That Defendant personally and/or through Sgt. Knight or any other person requested

volunteers from his office to work events handing out campaign material, in uniform or otherwise,

and/or implored "all team players" to "sign up" for such events, specifically including, but not

limited to, a domestic violence event in April 2009 and another event in Cockrell Hil;

J. - That Defendant demanded that deputy constables volunteer for weekend literature drops in

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 5 of 26
various neighborhoods, that any deputy constable who did not volunteer would be harassed on the

job, that Defendant and/or any other person acting on his behalf and/or with his knowledge

mentioned that a deputy constable had not attended an event or threatened to remember who did and

who did not attend an event;

K. That Defendant inflicted a pattern of oppression on any employees of Precinct 5 of Dallas

County, that Defendant authorized or encouraged sign-up sheets in the daily briefing room for deputy

constables to volunteer to work on Defendant's campaign, that Defendant expected his deputy

contables to volunteer to work on his campaign, that the job of any employee of Precinct 5 could

have been lost if that employee did not volunteer to work on Defendant's campaign, and that

Defendant ever said or expected 100% participation in weekend neighborhood sweeps or in any

campaign event;

L. That Defendant personally and/or through any other person asked deputy constables to

volunteer at the polls and/or to hand out campaign material on election day in November 2008 and

that any employee of Precinct 5 had any reason to believe that his or her job could be lost ifhe or

she did not volunteer to work on that day;

M.· That Defendant violated any Texas statute, specifically including, but not limited to, Section

253.003 of the Texas Ethics Commission with regard to making or accepting contributions in

violation ofChapter 253, Sections 39.02(a)(2) and 39.03(a)(2) ofthe Texas Penal Code, and Section

572.051 of the Texas Government Code; abused his official capacity or the official capacity of any

deputy constable; committed official oppression; and/or violated any Standards of Conduct or state

agency ethics policy;

N. That Defendant maintained constant control ofthe off-duty work opportunities available for

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 6 of 26
officers or deputy constables, that Defendant required only his friends to be assigned to such off-duty

work opportunities, and that Defendant threatened to cancel the account of any officer or deputy

constable;

O. That Defendant required the deputy constables who were assigned off-duty work to kick back

$5.00 for being assigned a job, cancelled any account when kick backs were not paid, and/or

condoned such conduct;

P. That Defendant insisted that Deputy Nosheska Garcia be given special favors or her

preference ofoff-duty jobs, cancelled any account when Deputy Nosheska Garcia was not employed

or given any off-duty job(s), threatened to terminate any person if Deputy Nosheska Garcia did not

receive her preference of off-duty assigmnents, and/or condoned such conduct;

Q. That Defendant questioned Deputy Guadalupe Frias about which supervisors were being

assigned to off-duty work and/or cancelled all off-duty assigmnents;

R. That Defendant required supervisors to be paid $25.00 more than the deputy constables

assigned to off-duty work, required that that $25.00 had to be deducted from the money paid to the

deputy constables ifthe client refused to pay that extra $25.00, and/or condoned such conduct;

S. That Defendantviolated Section 36.05, Section' 36.06, and/or Section 39.03 of the Texas

Penal Code or engaged in tampering with witnesses, obstruction, retaliation, or official oppression;

T. That Defendant told any ofhis deputy constables that they did not have to cooperate with the

investigator(s) hired by the Dallas County Commissioners, regardless ofwhether the investigator(s)

have subpoena power;

U. That Defendant threatened any of his deputy constables or staff for talking with the

investigator(s) hired by the Dallas County Commissioners to investigate Defendant, regardless of

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 7 of 26
whether he is indicted;

V. That Defendant personally and/or through any other person required deputy constables or any

other employees of Precinct 5 to sell raffle tickets for Defendant, threatened to harass and/or

discipline any employee who did not sell such raffle tickets, required any employee to pay for such

raffle tickets ifhe or she did not sell them, and/or condoned such conduct;

W. That Defendant required his deputy constables to use only the Dowdy Ferry Towing Service

to tow all vehicles in Precinct 5, that Defendant received a $25.00 payment for each vehicle which

his deputy constables requested be towed by or any payment from the Dowdy Ferry Towing Service,

and that Defendant condoned the payment of any money to any person by the Dowdy Ferry Towing

Service;

X. That Defendant violated Section 36.02 ofthe Texas Penal Code or committed the offense of

bribery or corrupt influence;

Y. That Defendant has done anything to harm the employees of his office, the taxpayers of

Dallas County, and/or Dallas County itself and that justifies his suspension from office pursuant to

Section 87.0l7(a) of the Texas Local Government Code;

Z. That Defendant should be suspended from office as the Constable for Precinct 5;

AA. That this Court should or can waive the setting of a bond to be executed by any person

appointed to serve as temporary Constable for Precinct 5, as Section 87.0l7(b) requires that

temporary Constable to execute a bond with at least 2 sureties in an amount and on such conditions

fixed by the Judge of this Court;

BB. That Defendant's conduct has resulted or will result in harm, irreparable or not, to Precinct

5 employees, the property and rights of Dallas County, and/or Dallas County taxpayers; has created

DEFENDA~T'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 8 of 26
or will create liability for Dallas County; is wrongful and/or unprotected by any right or entitlement;

and has created fear of adverse employment action if Precinct 5 employees complain about

Defendant or cooperate in Dallas County's ongoing investigation of Defendant;

CC. That Plaintiffs, Precinct 5 employees, and/or Dallas County have no adequate remedy at law;

that Plaintiffs, Precinct 5 employees, and/or Dallas County have incurred any losses or damages due

to Defendant's conduct; that the financial losses to Dallas County and its taxpayers are likely to

exceed Defendant's financial net worth or ability to account for those losses; and that sufficient

compensation will be unavailable if money damages are an adequate remedy in this cause;

DD. That a temporary injunction as requested by Plaintiffs is necessary to preserve the status quo

and the property of Plaintiffs, Dallas County, and/or its taxpayers;

EE. That Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendant is likely to retrieve information from any

of the records of Dallas County or to alter any of that information to the harm of Plaintiffs, Dallas

County, and/or its taxpayers;

FF. That Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Defendant is likely to obtain or exercise control over

any money, property, or thing of value received or held by Dallas County to the harm of Plaintiffs,

Dallas County, and/or its taxpayers; .

GG. ThatPlai~tiffs havedemonstrated that Defendant is likely to communicate, directly or

through any agent or other person, with any employee(s) of Dallas County to the harm of Plaintiffs,

Dallas County, and/or its taxpayers;

HH. That a temporary restraining Order is necessary to restrain Defendant from the conduct

described in the Original Petition;

II. That Defendant has undertaken a course of conduct to squelch the reporting or discovery of

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTlON, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 9 of 26
evidence of his wrongdoing;

n. That Defendant will conceal or destroy evidence of his conduct and has undertaken actions

against Precinct 5 employees to create fear of adverse employment action if any of those employees

complain about him;

KK. That Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Sections 37.003, 37.004(a), and/or 37.009 of the

Texas Uniform Delcaratory Judgments Act;

LL. Since, the Original Petition is verified by Lois Martin, Defendant denies that, other than the

allegations contained in section XI(4) of the Original Petition, she has personal knowledge ofmost

ofthe alleged facts supporting the requested removal ofDefendant from office, despite her swearing

to have that personal knowledge under oath;

MM. That Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek, since they have not posted "security for

costs" and as the Judge of this Court has not required Plaintiffs to do so, as stated in Section

87.016(c) of the Texas Local Government Code;

NN. That Plaintiffs have satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action and/or having

Defendant removed from office;

00. That Plaintiffs and their attorney have not filed the OriginalPetition in good faith and that

Plaintiffs and their attorney made a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the affidavits attached to

the Original Petition prior to filing it; and

PP. After the Exhibit F attached to the Original Petition, which consists of two affidavits of

Leslie Willie, Plaintiffs have attached three photocopies. The last two of those photocopies consist

ofthe only one side of a tri-fold pamphlet. The other side of that pamphlet has information related

to Constable and Justice of the Peace fees, and Defendant has attached that omitted information

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 10 of 26
hereto. Defendant, accordingly, denies that the last two photocopies attached to the Original Petition

are complete and that they contain campaign material.

x.
Defendant pleads the following affirmative defenses:

A. Plaintiffs are legally and/or Constitutionally estopped from suing Defendant in this cause

unless and until they are represented by the Dallas County Attorney;

B. Illegality prevents the State of Texas from being the Plaintiff in this cause, as Section

87.018(d) of the Local Government Code requires "the state" to be represented by "[t]he county

attorney ... in a proceeding for the removal of an officer ... ;" and

C. Plaintiffs can recover nothing and can be granted no relief in this cause, as Defendant is

cloaked with official, sovereign, judicial, and/or legislative immunity, and Plaintiffs have not plead

in the Original Petition a statutory waiver of immunity, plead a jurisdictional basis, and/or

demonstrated that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this cause.

XI.

Defendant pleads the following special exceptions:

A. Section V(2) of the Original 'Petition states that Defendant has committed many acts

constituting misconduct, criminal conduct, retaliation, incompetence, official oppression, and misuse

of County property over several years. Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly

state specific facts which support these allegations and when each of which occurred, especially

since Section 87.015(c) requires the Original Petition to "set forth the grounds alleged for the

removal of the officer in plain and intelligible language and must cite the time and place of the

occurrence of each act alleged as a ground for removal with as much certainty as the nature of the

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 11 of 26
case permits;"

B. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegation in section VI(3) ofthe Original Petition that Defendant has

engaged in conduct which makes him subject to removal from office;

C. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegation in the first sentence of section VIl( 1) of the Original

Petition that Defendant created a quota system by establishing or suggesting a certain number of

tickets by issued by his deputy constables;

D. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegation in section VIl(2) of the Original Petition that, by violating

Section 72.002 of the Texas Transportation Code, Defendant committed official misconduct and a

ground for his removal from office. Plaintiffs should be ordered to state specific facts showing how

Defendant violated subsections (a)(2) and/or (b)(1) ofSection 72.002 ofthe Transportation Code and

how any such violation constitutes a ground for his removal from office and/or misconduct;

E. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specifi c facts in support 0 fthe all egation in secti on VIl(3) 0 f the Original Petition that Defendant and

then Sgt. Michael Hinojosa allegedly constantly told deputy constables to ticket cars and to tow cars

during daily briefings. Plaintiffs should be ordered to state specific facts regarding when, where, and

by whom this constantly occurred and which deputy constables were told such things;

F. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegation in section VIl(4) of the Original Petition that Defendant

m.andated and/or required his deputy constables to ticket and tow cars if they had no proof of

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 12 of 26
 insurance, an expired driver's license, or expired registration and to clearly state why James DeCoux

feared retaliation if the car ofthe elderly man who was a double amputee was not towed;

G. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section VIII(l) of the Original Petition that Defendant

maintained a policy of requiring his staff to work at various campaign events, that Defendant

circulated a sign-up sheet at daily briefings, and that Defendant would announce at these meetings

that participation was mandatory. Plaintiffs should also be required to clearly state which deputy

constables handed out campaign material for Defendant while on duty and in uniform at a candidate

meet-and-greet at the Communications Workers' union hall and when that occurred;

H. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section VIII(2) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state who requested volunteers to work at a domestic violence event

in April 2009, why Sgt. Knight's alleged statement "that all team players sign up" should be

attributed to Defendant, which off-duty officers, deputy constables, and/or staff of Defendant who

worked that event were in uniform and/or handed out campaign material, and who that campaign

. material benefitted or named;

1. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section VIII(3) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state who requested employees to volunteer to work at an event in

Cockrell Hill, why that request should be attributed to Defendant, which deputy constables and/or

employees who worked that event were in uniform and/or handed out campaign material, and who

that campaign material benefitted or named;

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COlJ.NTER-CLAIM/bn Page 13 of 26
J. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section VIlle4) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state when Defendant demanded that his deputy constables volunteer

for weekend literature drops in various neighborhoods, why Deputy Willie felt that he would be

harassed on the job if he did not volunteer, who mentioned the following day and to whom if a

deputy constable did not attend such an event, why Deputy Bostic's alleged statement that "he would

remember who did and who did not choose to volunteer" should be attributed to Defendant, which

deputy constables "volunteered" to weekend literature drops, who that literature benefitted or named,

and why Defendant's statement that those who chose not to volunteer were exercising their own

prerogative should not have been believed;

K. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section VIII(5) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state what pattern ofoppression applied to many employees ofPrecinct

5; to which employees such a pattern of oppression applied; why the presence of sign-up sheets in

the daily briefing room should be attributed to Defendant; what Defendant did which leads Plaintiffs

to believe that deputy constables were expected to volunteer to work on Defendant's campaign; why

Jim Giilia~d and Lois Martin believed that they could lose their jobs if they did not volunteer; who

directed deputy constables to divide into 2 teams and go into specific neighborhoods to knock on

each door, drop off campaign literature, and ask if the resident wanted a campaign sign during

weekend neighborhood sweeps and when they were told this; who that campaign literature and those

campaign signs benefitted or named; and why Deputy Bostic's alleged statement that he heard

Defendant state that he expected 100% participation in these events should have been believed;

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER. PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COlJNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 14 of 26
L. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section VIll(6) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state who asked deputy contables to volunteer at the polls on election

day in November 2008 and why any such requests should be attributed to Defendant, who "Polk"

is, who told Polk to take a vacation day but appear in uniform, who told Polk that the people

delivering food would give him a box lunch during that day based upon the fact that he was wearing

his uniform, who gave Polk campaign material to hand out that day, who told Polk to hand out that

campaign material, who that campaign material benefitted or named, and why Polk feared that he

would lose his job ifhe did not volunteer to work that day;

M. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section VIll(7) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state what conduct ofDefendant potentially violates any Texas statute,

specifically including, but not limited to, Section 253 .003 ofthe Texas Ethics Commission, Sections

39.02(a)(2) and 39.03(a)(2) of the Texas Penal Code, certain alleged Standards of Conduct, and

Section 572.051 of the Texas Government Code and what conduct of Defendant violated Chapter

253 of the Texas

, ' .
Ethics Commission
-
regarding making or accepting contributions,
­
abused his :

official capacity or the official capacity of any deputy constable, ~ommitted official oppression,

and/or violated state agency ethics policy;

N. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section IX(l) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state what Defendant did to maintain constant control of the off-duty work

opportunities available to officers and deputy constables, when Defendant ordered Deputy

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER. PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 15 of 26
Guadalupe Frias to employ Defendant's friends when assigning officers and/or deputy constables

to such work, and when Defendant threatened to cancel the account of any officer or deputy

constable and for what reason(s);

O. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section IX(2) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state who required deputy constables who were assigned off-duty work to kick

back a $5.00 charge for being assigned such a job and when that occurred, why that should be

attributed to Defendant, who instructed or said that Deputy Nosheska Garcia was assigned to all such

jobs which she wanted and when that occurred, why that instruction or statement should be attributed

to Defendant, who cancelled any account at the end of August and in which year that occurred, to

whom Deputy Frias was expected to pay the required kick backs, why Deputy Frias did not wish to

employ Deputy Nosheska Garcia, who threatened Deputy Frias with termination ifDeputy Nosheska

Garcia did not receive her preference of off-duty work assignments, when that occurred, and why

such threat(s) should be attributed to Defendant;

P. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section IX(3) ofthe Original Petition,_ Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state why Defendant required- a supervisor to also be assigned on all

engagements of 3 or more officers or deputy constables and when this occurred, why Defendant

questioned Deputy Frias numerous times which supervisors were being assigned and when this

occurred, why Deputy Frias was forced to reduce the assignments to 2 officers and when this

occurred, who cancelled all off-duty assignments and when this occurred, why this should be

attributed to Defendant, and how Chief Hines' discovery of Deputy Frias' reduction of off-duty

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 16 of 26
assigmnents to 2 officers is related in Defendant in any way;

Q. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section IX(4) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state who decided that supervisors were to be paid $25.00 more than the deputy

constables assigned to off-duty work and when that occurred, who decided that that $25.00 had to

be deducted from the money paid to the deputy constables if the client refused to pay that extra

$25.00 and when that occurred, and why any of this should be attributed to Defendant;

R. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this COUli Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section IX(5) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state what conduct of Defendant violated Section 36.06 and/or Section 39.03

of the Texas Penal Code and/or constitutes obstruction, retaliation, and/or official oppression;

S. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section X(l) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state which deputy constables were told by Defendant that, ifthey talked to the

investigators retained by Dallas County to investigate Defendant, they should contact their TMAP

attorney or retain their own lawyers before talking to those investigators, when Defendant told that

to any deputy constable, and why Defendant would have said such things;

T. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section X(2) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state which deputy constables were told by Defendant that they did not have

to cooperate with the investigators hired by the Dallas County Commissioners to investigate

Defendant since the investigator(s) did not have subpoena power and when that occurred;

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 17 of 26
U. For the same reasons,Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section X(3) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state on which social media site the February 3,2010 staff meeting was made

public and provide details regarding how that social media site can be accessed, so the recording of

that meeting can be viewed and/or listened to;

V. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section X(4) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state which deputy constables were told by Defendant that, ifhe was indicted,

he would obtain a bond, would then deal with the deputies while he was still in office, and that he

had seen some affidavits from deputy constables, and when that occurred;

W. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section X(5) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state what conduct of Defendant violated Sections 36.05, 36.06, and/or 39.03

of the Texas Penal Code and/or constituted official oppression, tampering with witnesses,

obstruction, and/or retaliation;

X. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts In support ofthe allegations in section XI(l) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state why Chief Hines' alleged giving raffle tickets to Deputy Willie in

December 2007 and December 2008 to sell should be attributed to Defendant and why or how they

were being sold for Defendant, how Assistant Chief Frank Bromely allegedly made it clear that all

employees of Precinct 5 had to sell these tickets and would be harassed and disciplined for minor

matters if they did not do so, why that should be attributed to Defendant, who made Deputy Willie

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMfbn Page 18 of 26
pay for the tickets he was given since he did not sell them, and why that should be attributed to

Defendant;

Y. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XI(2) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how and/or why Chief Ken Hines' alleged statements to Deputy James

DeCoux should be attributed to Defendant and when the things alleged in that section occurred;

Z. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XI(3) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how and/or why Chief Ken Hines' alleged conduct and statement to

Deputy DeCoux should be attributed to Defendant, when that occurred, and why Defendant would

not like Deputy DeCoux giving his check and a raffle ticket back to Chief Hines;

AA. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XI(4) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how and/or why Chief Ken Hines' alleged conduct and statements to

Deputy Martin should be attrributed to Defendant, when the things alleged in that section occurred,

and why Deputy Martin feared trouble with Defendant if she did not sell the raffle tickets given to

her and/or personally pay for-them;

BB. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XI(5) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state what conduct of Defendant violated several Texas statutes, specifically

including, but not limited to, Section253.003 ofthe Texas Ethics Commission, Sections 39.02(a)(2)

and 39.03(a)(2) ofthe Texas Penal Code, and Section 572.051 ofthe Texas Government Code and/or

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 19 of 26
constituted making or accepting contributions in violation of Chapter 253 of the Texas Ethics

Commission, abuse ofhis official capacity or ofthe official capacity ofany deputy constable, official

oppression, or a violation of any Standards of Conduct and/or state agency ethics policy;

Cc. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in sectionXII(l) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how Defendant required his deputy constables to use only the Dowdy

Ferry towing service to tow all vehicles in Precinct 5, when Defendant stated that requirement and

to whom, how Sgt. Howard Watson's alleged statements to Deputy Willie should be attributed to

Defendant, why what Sgt. Howard Watson allegedly told Deputy Willie should be believed, and

when and where each ofthese alleged statements by Sgt. Howard Watson to Deputy Willie occurred;

DD. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XII(2) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state what conduct of Defendant violated Section 36.02 of the Texas Penal

Code and/or constitutes bribery and/or corrupt influence;

EE. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in s~ctio'n XN(l) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

should be required to clearly state what Defendant has done from which the employees ofhis office,

the taxpayers of Dallas County, and/or Dallas County itself need protection and what justifies the

suspension of Defendant from office as provided in Section 87.0l7(a) of the Texas Local

Government Code;

FF. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support of the allegations in section XIV(2) of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 20 of 26
should be required to clearly state what justifies waiver of a bond for any person appointed as

temporary Constable of Precinct 5 of Dallas County, especially since Section 87.017 (b) requires the

execution of such a bond with at least 2 good and sufficient sureties in an amount and on conditions

fixed by the Judge ofthis Court;

GG. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XV( 1) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state what conduct of Defendant has resulted and will continue to result in

irreparable harm to Precinct 5 employees, the property and rights ofDallas County, and the taxpayers

ofDallas County and/or has created liability and for whom, is wrongful and unprotected by any right

or entitlement, and has created fear of adverse employment action if employees of Precinct 5

complain about him or cooperate in Dallas County's ongoing investigation of Defendant;

HH. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XV (2) ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how and/or why Plaintiffs, Precinct 5 employees, and/or Dallas County

have no adequate remedy at law; what injuries and damages Plaintiffs, Precinct 5 employees, and/or

Dallas County have suffered due to Defendant's conduct; how and/or why the financial losses to

Dallas County and its taxpayers are likely to grossly exceed Defendant's financial net worth or

wherewithal to account for those losses; and why sufficient compensation will be unavailable even

if money damages were an adequate remedy in this cause;

II. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XVI of the Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how restraining Defendant, as they request, is necessary in order to

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 21 of 26
preserve the status quo and the property of Plaintiffs, Dallas County, and its taxpayers;

JJ. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XVII ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state how and why it is essential that this Court immediately restrain

Defendant, as they request, without prior notice to Defendant; how Defendant has undertaken a

course of conduct to squelch the reporting or discovery of evidence of his wrongdoing; and how

Defendant is likely to conceal or destroy evidence ande/or has previously done so; and

KK. For the same reasons, Defendant requests that this Court Order Plaintiffs to clearly state

specific facts in support ofthe allegations in section XVIII ofthe Original Petition. Plaintiffs should

be required to clearly state why Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Sections 37.003, 37.004(a),

and/or 37.009 of the Texas Uniform Delcaratory Judgments Act; why Plaintiffs need a declaration

of their right to be free from intimidation, harassment, and retaliation by Defendant and to be free

from supervision by Defendant; why this justifies or entitles Plaintiffs to injunctive relief; and why

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any attorney's fees and/or an award of costs.

PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

XII.

Because Defendant is cloaked with official, sovereign, judicial, and/or Iegislative immunity

and because Plaintiffs have not pled in the Original Petition a statutory waiver of immunity, pled a

jurisdictional basis, and/or demonstrated that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this

cause, Defendant makes a plea to this Court's jurisdiction. After hearing on this plea, this Court

should dismiss this cause.

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 22 of 26
 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

XIII.

Defendant denies that Plaintiffs and their attorney read the Original Petition in this cause

prior to filing it. Likewise, Defendant denies that Plaintiffs and their attorney read the affidavits

attached to the Original Petition prior to filing that Original Petition because, based upon the hearsay,

unsubstantiated conclusions, and admissions contained in those affidavits, no reasonable and

unbiased person could or would have verified the Original Petition and/or would have believed that

the allegations contained in that Original Petition could have been made in good faith, with a basis

in law or in fact, and not for the purpose of harassing Defendant.

XIV.

Consequently, Defendant alleges that the Original Petition is groundless and that Plaintiffs

and their attorney filed the Original Petition in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment of

Defendant. Because Plaintiffs and their attorneys should have known statements in the Original

Petition are groundless and false, they should be held guilty of contempt for filing the Original

Petition. Likewise, for signing and filing the Original Petition in violation of Rule 13 of the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs and their attorney should be sanctioned for good cause, as

authorized by Rule 13 in compliance with Rule 215-2b of the Texas Rules ofCivii Procedure, after ­

notice and following the hearing on this Motion for Sanctions.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that the Plaintiffs take nothing

by their suit herein, but that Defendant go hence without day and recover all of his attorney's fees,

expenses, and Court costs. Defendant also prays that this Court, after hearing, sustain Defendant's

special exceptions and Order Plaintiffs to amend their Original Petition as requested herein.

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 23 of 26
Defendant additionally prays that this Court, after hearing, grant his Plea to the Jurisdiction and

dismiss this cause. In addition, Defendant prays that this Court, after service of notice on Plaintiffs

GUADALUPE FRIAS, LOIS MARTIN, and LESLIE WILLIE a/kla LES WILLIE and their attorney

F. Benjamin Rick, III and after hearing, find good cause for the imposition of sanctions on both

Plaintiffs and their attorney as authorized by Rules 13 and 215-b2 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure because Plaintiffs and their attorney signed and/or filed the Original Petition in bad faith

and for the purpose of harassment, knew or should have known that statements in the Original

Petition are groundless and false and that Plaintiffs and their attomey should be held guilty of

contempt for filing the Original Petition. Defendant further prays that Plaintiffs GUADALUPE

FRIAS, LOIS MARTIN, and LESLIE WILLIE a/k/a LES WILLIE be cited to appear and answer

Defendant's Counter-Claim and that, after final hearing, this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment in

this cause that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief which they seek in this cause for failing to

comply with all statutory requirements and all conditions precedent and award him a Final Judgment

against Plaintiffs GUADALUPE FRIAS, LOIS MARTIN, and LESLIE WILLIE a/kiaLES WILLIE,

jointly and severally, for Defendant's total damages in the sum of$100 million and for reasonable

arid necessary attorney's fees, expenses, and Courts costs against Plaintiffs GUADALUPE FRIAS,

LOIS MARTIN, and LESLIE WILLIE a/kla LES WILLIE, jointly and severally, both through the

trial in this cause and all subsequent appeals, plus pre- and post-Judgment interest on all sums

awarded herein at the highest legal rate until paid. Furthermore, Defendant prays for such other and

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 24 of 26
further relief, both at law and in equity, to which he may show himselfjustly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

T AW OFFICES OF DOMINGO A. GARCIA. P.C.

-~ ,

B
I '
Domingo A. Garci
State Bar No. 0763 50
Paul D. Rich, Of Counsel
State Bar No. 16842500

600 Bank of America Tower - Oak Cliff

400 S. Zang Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75208
Telephone:(214) 941-8300
Facsimile:(214) 943-7536

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS ]
]
COlJNTY OF DALLAS ]

Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this date personally appeared Jaime Cortes,

who stated under oath that he is the Defendant in this cause, that he has read the foregoing Original

Answer and Plea to the JUrisdiction, and that every statement and allegation stated therein in

Sections IX and XII is within his personal knowledge and true and correct.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 24 th day of March, 2010, to certify which

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIM/bn Page 25 of 26
witr ~"" mv hand and official seal.

/1--­
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas

My Commission Expires: December 9, 2010 Print Notary's Name: Mark W. Nelson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct photocopy ofthis document was served upon all counsel ofrecord in this

cause on March 24, 2010 in accordance with TEX. R. CIV. P. 8,21, and 21a.

~------.,'' '
/
I
--'---Domingo A. Garcia

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, PLEA TO THE

JURISDICTION, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, AND COUNTER-CLAIMlbn Page 26 of 26
CONSTABLE JAIME CORTES: (fN.D~ ~b1\ .~
~~V.n:i:OJ V~

• A life long resident of Precinct 5 Constable Senice fees:

~,.. .
• Began his career in law enforcement as a reserve Citations, Subpoenas, Summons, Protective
deputy constable with Dallas County Precinct 6 in Orders, Notices, Citations by Publication
1997. & Evictions $60JHl
• He quickly became a permanent employee that same Writs of Garnishment, Attachment
&: Sequestration 511O.UO
year with Dallas County Constable's Office Precinct
7 as a deputy constable. For additional Fees of Service COil tart the office,
Cash, Cashiers Checks or Money Orders Accepted
After the merger of precincts 7 & 8 and under the leader­ Made Payable to Dallas County.
ship of Constable Derick Evans, he served as one of the l i ee Seh!.!!:ule for Jr 5-2 Court:
Sergeants in charge of overseeing the Traffic Division \'11 rtt of Execu lion IDalias County) S l15.t{j
for Dallas County Constable's Office Precinct l. '\Vrit of possession, including Sen ice Ie,,: for on!,\ ,lPe
Serving as a Sergeant of Precinct 1, Constable Jaime IJefendalll (Dallas CO) Plus S3600 pel depUl) a Jt(:i 3
Cortes not only assisted in providing leadership to the hours (The additional fee will be charged 0111;. if more
traffic division of precinct 1, he also aided in the field than three hours are spent, ) Ballas Co. only
training of the Civil Division and was a community ser­
$135.00
Smull Claims Filing (including Service fee
CONSTABLE
vice liaison.
•
•
A Certified basic police instructor
A Certified field training officer
fur only one Defendant) Dallas Co. only
Justice Su its tiled (including service fee

S72JW
'AlMEOORlU
for only one Defendant) Dallas Co. only S97JJO

• Firearms Instructor
Evictions (FE& D)

• Spanish Instructor for one residence of service 592.00

• Specialized Gang Recognition Training, for each additional address of service SMI.OO

Filing Suit VI hen defendant (s) are OUT OF STATE

Hostag~;Negotiations~ First RespoItd~rTraining
(1\'

•
OUT OF COUr~TY only

']thetWQod~il1~~ offi~t:r~"ia§si,g;he(It9,pilot Small Claims $12.00

.~

Justice S32,O\:)

Subpoena-For each Witness Sen ed in

Dalias County $H).1~iJ

.~

Subpoena DUCllS Tecum

Witness fees (3 ten dollar bill) plus $11.00

p Law
The production ofdocument (s) lee (3 one dollar bill)
'r'
to attach to each subpoena requested.

Lea rship "Gf

() iJ :~> :l~'P{~' j PI e:l
"CiTtitled" Copies

First page $2.00

-1-1 {) S. Bt-clJ 1"'1 ;\ \'j . S n. :2U(l
l.nch additional p,ige $.15
2i'i]) 1 j .i."J!, 1j!.
Hot Checks-are lilted VI ith the Do'\·s Office
n.\II.\\. j 1\\> I~:'IU
At No Charge PiiUNL' .:I-i.. ',)-n-i/b'
CashlMoney Order/Cashier's Checks accepted and . ()fflict Hours: 8:00 j]Fd-5:~}O p,n::