December 11,2012

RECEIVED
DEC 112012
PUBLIC If ^rLC -i ./urJ;

Hon. Rosemary Lehmberg District Attorney 509 West 1 1 * Street Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Senator Tommy Williams; Violations o f Penal Code Sections 36.04 and 39.02; Violation o f Open Records A c t Dear Ms. Lehmberg: I am writing to file a complaint with your office regarding the actions o f Senator Tommy Williams, who resides i n The Woodlands, Texas. Because o f his actions, I have been subject to public embarrassment, humiliation, harassment and criminal indictment for voter fraud which I did not commit. I believe this harm is the direct result o f concerted efforts by Senator Williams to ruin my reputation and take away my freedom to participate in the political process i n retaliation for my role i n exposing embarrassing facts about elections i n the Woodlands Road Utility District #1 (RUD). I believe the actions o f Senator Williams violate Texas Penal Code Section 36.04 which provides: "(a) A person commits and offense i f he privately addresses a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication to any public servant who exercises or w i l l exercise official discretion i n an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome o f the proceeding on the basis o f considerations other than those authorized by law. "(b) For purposes o f this section, 'adjudicatory proceeding' means any proceeding before a court or any other agency o f government i n which the legal rights, powers duties, or privileges o f specified parties are determined. "(c) an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor." (emphasis added) Specifically you w i l l find enclosed are copies o f a series o f emails from Tommy Williams to or from members o f the R U D ' s legal counsel or their agents, representatives, or related entities i n which Senator Williams assures the various parties (such as James Stillwell, Bruce Tough and others) that he w i l l use his office to ensure that the Texas Attorney General's Office reaches a decision to file criminal charges against myself, as well as others involved, for registering to vote and voting in the R U D election held in May o f 2010. Senator Williams is not a prosecutor who is empowered w i t h authority to investigate and report to the Texas Attorney General any alleged local criminal activity. Any citizen can contact the Attorney General's Office to offer an opinion about any activity being investigated by the Attorney General's Office. However, I believe criminal "improper influence" occurs when a powerful Senator uses the vv'eight o f his office to pressure the Attorney General's Office to guarantee a certain outcome w i l l occur in the decision whether or not to file criminal charges. Senator Williams actions i n this case are almost exactly similar to the actions of the Kleberg County Attorney, Alfred Issasi, who made phone calls to several officials

regarding his Aunt's felony criminal case to attempt to get the prosecution dismissed. See Issasi v. State. 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). It does not matter whether the government official is attempting to influence the deciding entity to dismiss charges or to file charges because the actions are the same, i.e. the attempt to use one's office to influence the decision that lies exclusively with the other entity. I believe that Senator Williams' conduct may also violate Texas Penal Code Section 39.02(a)(1), Abuse o f Official Capacity, which provides: "Sec. 39.02. A B U S E OF O F F I C I A L C A P A C I T Y , (a) A public servant commits an offense if, w i t h intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: (1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; . . . (b) A n offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor." The Texas Open Records Act, Section 552.353, provides that it is a crime to fail to provide public information when requested: "Sec. 552.353. F A I L U R E OR R E F U S A L OF OFFICER FOR P U B L I C I N F O R M A T I O N TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO OR C O P Y I N G OF PUBLIC I N F O R M A T I O N , (a) A n officer for public information, or the officer's agent, commits an offense if, with criminal negligence, the officer or the officer's agent fails or refuses to give access to, or to permit or provide copying of, public information to a requestor as provided by this chapter. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the officer for public information reasonably believed that public access to the requested information was not required and that: (1) the officer acted in reasonable reliance on a court order or a written interpretation o f this chapter contained i n an opinion o f a court o f record or o f the attorney general issued under Subchapter G; (2) the officer requested a decision from the attorney general i n accordance with Subchapter G, and the decision is pending; or (3) not later than the 10th calendar day after the date o f receipt o f a decision by the attorney general that the information is public, the officer or the governmental body for whom the defendant is the officer for public information filed a petition for a declaratory judgment against the attorney general i n a Travis County district court seeking relief from compliance with the decision o f the attorney general, as provided by Section 552.324, and the cause is pending. (c) It is an affirmafive defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that a person or entity has, not later than the 10th calendar day after the date o f receipt by a governmental body of a decision by the attorney general that the information is public, filed a cause o f action seeking relief from compliance with the decision o f the attorney general, as provided by Secfion 552.325, and the cause is pending. (d) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the defendant is the agent o f an officer for public information and that the agent reasonably relied on the written instruction o f the officer for public information not to disclose the public information requested. (e) A n offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by: (1) a fine o f not more than $1,000; (2) confinement i n the county j a i l for not more than six months; or

f-*r-^d\/»^n' R t L / f c l V CtJ DEC 1 1 2012
TRAVIS UJ. Ul•^o^rr•\Uc: PUBLiC INTEGR ^-n'Ut ^n

(3) both the fine and confinement. (f) A violation under this section constitutes official misconduct. Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, Sec. 1, e f f Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, Sec. 25, e f f Sept. 1,1995. Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1377, Sec. 12, e f f September 1, 2009." Further, Section (f) states that a violation o f this section constitutes official misconduct which is now subsumed by Section 39.02 o f the Penal Code under Abuse o f Official Capacity. The conclusion that Senator Williams has violated not only the Texas Open Records Act, but also Section 39.02 o f the Penal Code, is based upon a violation o f the Texas Open Records Act that has occurred with regard to an open records request that I made to Patsy Spaw, Secretary o f the Senate (copy o f request and response enclosed). Ms. Spaw claims to have made a search o f Senator Williams email records relevant to my request and found that none existed. In fact, when another entity (Texas Watchdog) made almost the exact same request, an email from Senator Williams was produced which was directly relevant to my request (copy enclosed). Clearly, the failure to produce the document i n response to my request was a violation o f the Texas Open Records Act. The only logical inference that can be drawn is that Senator Williams withheld the information from Ms. Spaw based upon my request but then produce the information to Ms. Spaw based upon the Texas Watchdog request. As such. Senator Williams knowingly "violated a law relating to the public servant's (his) office".. ."with the intent to harm or defraud another" (myself and the other people involved i n the R U D prosecutions). His conduct constitutes clear violations o f the Open Records Act and Abuse o f Official Capacity under the Penal Code. Senator Williams' conduct cannot be considered as innocent or misguided oversights on behalf o f a constituent request. The evidence is that Senator Williams was deeply involved i n the activities o f the R U D and was willing to use his influence as a State Senator to guarantee that political opponents would be indicted for their opposition. I am enclosing the affidavit o f M r . Jim Doyle who spoke with Senator Williams in the Fall o f 2010 about the circumstances surrounding the May 2010 Woodlands Road Utility District #1 election the involvement o f myself and others (including M r . Doyle's wife and daughter as voters in the election). I n that conversation. Senator Williams indicated, with anger (red-faced) that "he would influence Attorney General Greg Abbott to prosecute the Residence Irm voters to the fullest extent o f the law." I have enclosed as many documents as I can in order to put the Senator's actions in context in order to assist you in your investigation o f this complaint. However, i f you need any more information, please do not hesitate to contact me and I w i l l obtain any other documents that I can. A Sincerely,

Adrian Heath

RECEIVED
DEC 112012
PUBLIC INTEGRITY UNi

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful