Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Testimony that was blocked by the court and prosecutors in Jim Jenkins voter fraud trial

Testimony that was blocked by the court and prosecutors in Jim Jenkins voter fraud trial

Ratings: (0)|Views: 656|Likes:
Published by TEXASTAXPAYER
Testimony that was blocked by the court and prosecutors in Jim Jenkins voter fraud trial
Testimony that was blocked by the court and prosecutors in Jim Jenkins voter fraud trial

More info:

Published by: TEXASTAXPAYER on Jun 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

08/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
NO.
12-03-02579-CR
THE
STATE OF TEXASJAMES ALAN JENKINSVs.
§§§§§§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
359TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICTMONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXASBYSTANDER'S
BILL
OF EXCEPTIONS
ON
BEHALF OF DEFENDANT,JAMES ALAN JENKINS
ON
THIS
DAY
personally appeared
Adrian
Heath, who under oath deposed and
"I
was called as a witness by the
State
and the Defense in the above-styled andnumbered
cause.
When examined by counsel for the Defendant, the
State
objected anumber of times and the court sustained the objections.
If I
had been
allowed
to
testify
bythe court, this is what I
would
have said in
response
to the questions propounded to me bycounsel for the Defendant,
James
Alan
Jenkins.
"I
learned that the RUD in this
case
at
first
claimed there were no voters in the
district
and then discovered two new voters that they claimed were a surprise. I
found
several longstanding registered voters in the
district.
I had read a story of 9 DEA
agents
voting
from
there
office
yet nobody prosecuted them."The Secretary of
State
confirmed Texas residence law for
voting
purposes
supported such a concept
based
explicitly
on the Supreme Court
case
of
Mills
v Bartlett
which
contained the details of the Secretary of
State's
opinion
I
relied
upon. Joe
Kulhavy
said the RUD election was an outlier that trampled
decades
of voter law in Texas. Joe
Kulhavy
thought so low of the RUD election contest court decision that he called thejudge
dirty.
"The developer and the Woodlands Road
Utility
District
came
to my attention
when
I was researching
state
and
local
government debt. The
WRUD
was
listed
on theTexas
Bond
Review Board as responsible for more than $65
million
in debt--yet we knew
nothing
about
it.
My
first
call
went out to Township board member Tom
Campbell.
Tom
allowed
he did not know much about the
WRUD
and
would
like
to know more andadvised me to
call
Mike
Page,
of Schwartz,
Page
&
Harding,
L.L.P.,
who is also attorney
for
the Township and a host of other Woodlands entities.
Calling
Page's
office
I learned
COUNTY
OF
MONTGOMERY
STATE
OF
TEXAS
{
{
{
said:
1
 
from
Julie
Kime
that the
WRUD
is a
political
subdivision of the
State
of Texas formed in
1991,
there are
five
directors, and that three were up for election in the March election. Irequested ballot applications as I immediately saw that the incumbents
needed
challengers. The
qualification
for the ballot are to be 18
years
of age and a resident of the
State
of Texas. Next, I received a
call
from Mike
Page
himself, his
message
was alongthe lines of
~
you are more than welcome to apply for a place on the ballot, but Texas law
is
a peculiar
thing.
He went on to explain that even though the
WRUD
was required topost notices of an election
each
year and although there might be a contested election this
time,
there was not going to be an election at all
because
he
asserted
that there were zeroresidents in the district
because
years
ago the developer had
torn
down the
only
two
residences
that
once
existed.
Page
said the
WRUD
was created
because
the county was
imwilling
to finance the
roads
in the Woodlands. I was furnished
with
a map of the
district which
covers all the commercial and
retail
areas
in the Woodlands plus the slivers
of
main
roads. Sorry, said
Mike
Page
but we
will
just cancel the election.
"Hearing
that there is a government body
without
any taxpayer or votersupervision or accountability to anyone should bother anyone as it did me. Using
Reagan's
maxim:
"Trust but
Verify,"
I set out to see
if
what I was
told
about no voters inthe
WRUD
was true. My
first
instinct was that the store and
lock
businesses
would
have
on
site
managers,
one claimed it did not but the other, Metro
Mini
at 7373 Gosling,reportedly did
have
a site
manager
in the
residence
constructed there. Next the voter
list
for
the Woodlands Township was obtained and I immediately found
NINE
registeredvoters,
some
dating back to 2006, listed in conmiercial and
retail
properties
within
the
WRUD.
Two were current
business
owners in the
Panther
Creek shopping center, twowere listed in the
United
Way offices, one at Nexus Hospital, two in
separate
Residence
Inn
properties, one at 2203
Timberloch,
and one at 10210 Grogans
Mill
Road.
"By
this time I had read a report on the Texas
residence
law and called to
confirm
the facts related to that
with
a
assistant
General Counsel for Texas Secretary of
State
Elections
Division.
They confirmed that Texas voter
residence
laws leave
residence
tothe discretion of the voter. I said, I could
change
my
address
to the
Residence
Inn andthen vote in the election. I'd
like
to see the
look
on their face
if
that happened, they said.
Still
disbelieving
Page's
assertion of "NO Residents," I thought, surely, if I do ask himagain in an open records
request
he
will
then
confirm
voters exist. I was completely
wrong.
On March 9,
Mike
Page
personally responded to my Texas Public
Information
Act
request
as
follows
~"Since there are no residents in the
District,
there is no document that isresponsive to your
request
for a
list
enumerating any residents or voters whoseregistered
address
is inside the
District."
Then my attention shifted to the question of canceling the election. I contacted theSecretary of
State's
Elections
Division
again and they
gave
me the language to explain to
Page
why he could not cancel the election
with
valid
candidates
on the ballot.
2
 
"Then,
on March 26, we got the biggest surprise.
Mike
Page
told
me in the
beginning
that there are no voters in the
district,
while
he runs the show
from
his tower on
Post
Oak the board actually
meets
inside the
"District".
Where they meet is in thedeveloper's
office
at the Woodlands Development Company
which
moved into the
beautiful
new
high
rise at 24 Waterway. That is the
building
that
hosts
Hudson and
Hubbell
on the
North
side and overlooks Plunder Fountain and the Plunder Taxis on thesouth side. The
building
has also
been
christened by its owner as the Black Forest Tower.The Big surprise was this:
Mike
Page
found two additional residents,
Dirk
and Kate
Laukien,
who apparently own several
office
buildings in The Woodlands and whoreceived specific deed restriction permission to construct and maintain a
residence
adjacent to one of
their
office
buildings.
"And
what a surprise. The Laukiens are not your
average
commercial owners
who
happened to
fall
of a turnip truck and into the developers' and the WRUD's
collective
lap. They are
high
rollers who stand out among the Woodlands elite. They
own
Bruker Optics. A Forbes Magazine article
estimates
Laukien's personal net
worth
due to a recent IPO at more than two hundred
million
dollars.
Dirk
Laukien personallyowns the string of commercial properties on Cresent Ridge
Drive
near
the
Hewitt
campus. One of
these
buildings is the impressive and formidable compound that theLaukien's recently changed to their
voting
residence. Some of
these
buildings are taxabated. At the
same
site they
operate
Black forest ventures
which
manages
$500
million
in
real
estate
investment funds,
including
some
beautiful and
high
profile
properties
across
the Woodlands. And yet they ran completely under
Mike
Page's
radar
until
hediscovered they were voters in the
WRUD.
They also own the
building
the
WRUD
meets
in and are the
only
commercial owner to
have
special variance to place a
residence
in
a commercial
area.
"Something the attorney for the
WRUD
can be
forgiven
for not
knowing.
Theattorney for the Township may
have
known though. That's
right,
Mike
Page
is attorney
for
the Township too. I
have
nothing against the Laukien's, we need more
like
them. Dr.
Dirk
Laukien is obviously a
brilliant
and successful scientist and entrepreneur. I don'tblame the WDC for doing contortions to
please
him. Rather, the story
here
is anunsupervised government entity that has paved over voters rights for years. It
seems
to
have
a silent and captive board that exists
primarily
for the benefit of the developer. InTexas, as in all
states
in the union, we are mandated to
have
a republican
form
ofgovernment. That
means
accountability to voters. This board has
been
ignoring voters
rights
and their obvious duty to determine at all times if and when voters are
present
in
their
jurisdiction.
"Voter
apathy is at an all time
high
these
days. Yet,
while
we
still
enjoy the rule
of
law
under the constitution that restrains government and
preserves
individual
freedom,
including
voters rights, no government can be allowed to trample voters rights or ignore
or
pretend voters are not
present.
I don't
care
if the 24 voters in the district never vote,the point is the government, in this
case
the
WRUD,
has a duty to observe its
responsibility
to
hold
an election.3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->