RUD Corruption Summary

• 1991 – Enabling legislation requested by the Woodlands Development Corp (Developer) established the Road Utility District (RUD). The developer supplied names for temporary RUD board members which controlled the RUD until the confirmation election held in 1992. • The developer gerrymandered the RUD to include only main roads and commercial property (see map of this radical gerrymandering) plus two residential addresses. • Three token or puppet residents (Randy & Janet Councill at 9706 Grogans Milll Rd and Nancy Primeaux at 9700 Grogans Mill Rd), required by law to form the RUD, elect the developer-selected candidates at the confirmation and bond election in 1992 ($46 million bond). • The RUD subsequently de-annexed the residential property eliminating all voters and voter accountability. The district now includes only roads and commercial regions in which no houses were allowed by the zoning ordinance. The token residences were eventually torn down. • Except – an exception was made for Dirk and Kate Laukien to build a residence within the district. These two people registered in the RUD in Jan 2010 and are the only officially recognized voters. Hence they elect the board, if they even bother to have an election. They own other residences in the Woodlands in which they have lived for a number of years. • Until June 2010, the RUD board met monthly in the developer’s office at 24 Waterway, a building owned by Dirk Laukien. Mr. Laukien owns several RUD tax abated properties. • The RUD currently has $110 million of debt obligations. (P&I) • On discovering the RUD’s existence and their indebtedness, Adrian inquired about the next board election and was told there were 3 seats coming up for re-election, but that there would be no election as there were no voters in the RUD. This led to the email chain attached below where Mike Page suddenly “finds” two voters – Dirk & Kate Laukien in the RUD. Developer Dirk Laukien as the sole resident can vote for the next bond election. • Mike Page is the general counsel and bond counsel for the Woodlands RUD, the Woodlands MUDs, the Woodlands Township, the San Jacinto River Authority, and the Houston Ship Channel Authority. He bills the Township $400k annually. • (~May 2010) Adrian attempted to visit a board meeting, but was told it had been rescheduled. At a subsequent board visit, he observed a very unstructured process that did not begin until Mike Page, who was running late, had arrived.

• (May 2010) After extensive research to understand the residency requirements for voting, including talking to the SOS and local elections office, Adrian Heath moves into the RUD in order to elect new board members who have filed as candidates in the May 2010 RUD board election. 9 other people also move into the RUD to help defeat the corrupt board members. They use the same long established residency requirements, also used by the Councills and Nancy Primeaux to establish residency for the RUD confirmation election. • The ousted board members sue the RUD board to annul the 10 voters. The 10 voters file as interveners. Their pro bono attorney (Plaintiff) does not present any evidence or any arguments. He fails to challenge objectionable questions in examination. The election is overturned and the trial court is sustained on appeal. • 7 of the 10 receive felony indictments for voter fraud in March 2012. • Two witnesses personally hear Tommy Williams say that the 10 voters who ousted the RUD board should be criminally prosecuted . FOIA emails show RUD attorney (James Stillwell) being helped by Tommy Williams in getting AG office to investigate.

“Something is rotten Denmark.”
Hamlet Act 1, scene 4,

What is the RUD?
• Special District set up in 1991 by then state [now federal] Rep. Kevin Brady • 5 member board • Held one election [2000] since initial election in 1192 • Claims no voters – except Laukiens (if needed) • No website • 4.3 cents commercial property tax • $110 Million debt • Office is in Galleria- not in RUD • Board Meets in the Developer’s Office • Various surrogate spokesmen • Builds roads outside RUD • Lends to Montgomery County

Mike Page

Bill Neill

RUD Debt as of January 2010

Email Chain with RUD Counsel after being caught by Adrian Heath failing to hold an election
From: Mike Page <> To: "" <>, Alex Sutton> Cc: "" <> Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM As we have discussed on several previous occasions, the RUD has been in existence since 1991 to assist in financing major road improvement projects; as was discussed with Steve Burkett during his tenure as General Manager of WCA, and with John Rutledge, Assistant Manager of WCSC, who attended and monitored the meetings of the RUD Board of Directors for approximately two years before his departure,  the boundaries and taxing jurisdiction of the RUD include only commercial and retail properties that were included/added by petition of the landowner; no residential properties are included or subject to taxation; the RUD finances improvements to major thoroughfares only, when the County is unable or unwilling to do so; the completed projects are then turned over to the County for operation and maintenance; since the last two houses were torn down for construction of the Waterway west under Grogan's Mill Road, there have been no residents or voters in the RUD ; the directors receive a per diem of $25 for a day of service; if either the County or TWDC advances funds to the RUD, at the RUD's request, to finance a project for which the RUD has insufficient funds until its next bond issue, those advanced funds are repaid at the time of the next bond issue ; the current tax rate is approximately $0.476 per $100 of taxable valuation on business properties

 

 

 

From: Mike Page <> To: "" <> Sent: Tue, March 9, 2010 12:23:21 PM Subject: The Woodlands Road Utility District No. 1

Attached are the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors of The Woodlands Road Utility District No. 1 for 2008 and 2009, the most recent audit report of the District and the list of checks from the operating, debt service and capital projects fund check registers, as requested. Since there are no residents in the District, there is no document that is responsive to your request for a list enumerating any residents or voters whose registered address is inside the District. These materials, together with the materials previously sent to you, are being provided without charge as a courtesy of my firm. Please be advised that the District's policy is that all of its non-exempt records are available for inspection by any interested person during normal business hours at our offices [which are not in the RUD and involve an 80 mile round trip to inspect – PSA]. If, after inspection, copies of documents are requested, they will be made at the prevailing rate of charge. This policy will be followed hereafter.

From: Mike Page <> To: Adrian David Heath <> CC: Peggy Hausman <>; Julie Kime <> Sent: Fri, March 26, 2010 6:25:38 PM Subject: RE: The Woodlands Road Utility District No. 1

Following your e-mail, I requested that a complete canvass of the boundaries of the RUD be made to confirm that there are no registered voters in the District; [S]everal days later, I was advised that only one parcel of land in the District was shown on the MCAD records as not being restricted to commercial or retail use; after further inquiry, we found that this property is owned by Dirk and Kate Laukien, who apparently own several office buildings in The Woodlands and who received specific deed restriction permission to construct and maintain a residence adjacent to one of their office buildings; following up on this development, it appears that a residence has been constructed on this property , that it is occupied by the Laukiens as a residence and that they are registered to vote in Montgomery County; [S]o, we do, indeed, have two voters in the District, and the election is on; [T]he election will be held jointly with the two MUD elections on May 8 at The Woodlands Water Resources Building, 2455 Lake Robbins Drive, The Woodlands, TX 77380; early voting will take place at the same location from April 26 through May 4, on weekdays only, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.; [A] ballot drawing for position is being scheduled for next week on March 30 at 9:00 a.m. at the same location; there are no write-in candidates and the ballot will be made available after the drawing; [W]e are quite aware of the timetable for giving notice of and conducting the election.

Registered voters found in RUD by Adrian Heath that were ignored by RUD counsel Mike Page

• • • • • • • •

2 voter registered in the United Way Building 2 voters registered in the Residence Inn 2 voters in the Panther Creek Shopping Center 1 in the Nexus Hospital 1 in the offices at 2203 Timberloch 1 in offices at Grogans Mill & Woodlands Pkwy 2 in office 10000 block Six Pines The RUD conveniently ignored them all for years

After learning the Conroe Courier was running a piece on the RUD election …
From: Mike Page To: Gene Miller; "Buck Davenport";;; "elimayhew"; Sutton,Alexander; Derr, Richard Cc: Julie Kime Subject: Conroe Courier Date: Thursday, May 06, 2010 1:23:07 PM It appears that our friends at the Courier are going to run a story about the RUD election on Wednesday in an attempt to stir the pot a bit, courtesy of Mr. Adrian Heath and his friends who are running in the election and many of whom (22) have registered to vote in the election using business addresses within the RUD; the Montgomery County Voter Registrar has registered these people officially, so the RUD has no legal basis to challenge their eligibility to vote in the election, even if wrongdoing is suspected; so far, no one, other than the two clearly eligible voters in the RUD, Mr. and Mrs. Laukien, have voted during early voting; it remains to be seen whether anyone else will vote on May 8; a letter was sent by the DA to all registered voters in the RUD cautioning them to seek legal advice about the residency requirements under Texas law for registering to vote; however, if these apparently unqualified people do vote, the remedy under Texas law is for any aggrieved candidate to file an election contest within 30 days to contest their right to vote; presumably, this would be done immediately after the election to enjoin the canvass of the election returns at the scheduled May 17 Board meeting. The Courier seems uninterested in this potential voter fraud, or in the benefits to the entire Woodlands community that the RUD has brought about over the last 20 years, courtesy of and at the sole expense of the business community in The Woodlands; instead, they are more interested in who complained to the DA and the fact that there has been only two or no voters in the RUD for almost ten years; they don't seem to understand or care that it is irrelevant how many voters there are if there are no opposition candidates; whether 0, 1 or 10,000 voters, if there are no opposition candidates, the election is called and then cancelled under the provisions of the Election Code in order to save taxpayer money---the voters are presumed as a matter of law to have voted for the unopposed candidates.

Who is in Charge? Who is Mr. Page reporting to?

Laukien house 750 feet from the The Woodlands Township townhall can be seen from space google maps url

Jobs Completed
Laukien Retreat [not called a home – PSA] Owner: Mr. Dirk Laukien Contact: Sean Quinn (713) 805-8509 Architect: Ken Anderson & Associates, Inc. Ken Anderson (281) 367-5430 Contract: $3,221,197 Completed: May 2009

Addition of separate tax account for Dirk Laukien’s home.

SOS in Interpreter of Texas Election law for Texas Voters

Election Law Opinion GSC –1

Election Law Opinion GSC (con’t)

The definition of residence for the purpose of voter registration is well settled in Texas.

Case Law on Voter Residence

There are a plethora of election cases on Texas residence regarding both voters and candidates. Because of the fact-intensive nature of the residence question, some have argued that it is possible to select one case or another as “proving” that a certain factor is dispositive with respect to the question of intent for residence purposes. However, it is the opinion of this office that such an approach can be misleading. The one constant in the common law tests that have been approved by the Texas Supreme Court, and federal courts interpreting Texas law, is that no one factor is dispositive. As stated by the Texas Supreme Court in the leading Texas case, Mills v. Bartlett , 377 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tex.1964), regarding residence:

The meaning that must be given to it [residence] depends upon the circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual. Volition, intention and action are all elements to be considered in determining where a person resides and such elements are equally pertinent in denoting the permanent residence or domicile.

Well Settled in Texas
Neither bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and Determined . There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue ~

~ These principles apply equally to college students as well as other voters, and no more can be required of them in order for them to register and vote in the State of Texas.

April 20, 2010
• From: Grant, Phil • To: Gaultney, Carol • Subject: Residency Question • Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 3:40:36 PM

This is my email, would you please forward me the article you and I discussed. Also, during your discussions with Adrian Heath did you indicate to him that he could register to vote in the RUD using this Secretary of State philosophy of residency? I know you are busy, but thank you for your


From: Walker, David Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 8:51 AM To: Gaultney, Carol [Election Registrar – PSA] Subject:

March 24, 2011

Carol: I have looked at the Judgment and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law in the RUD case. I do not see clear language in the judgment that the losing individuals were individually declared to be not a qualified voter. It appears that their votes were disqualified and the other side declared to be the winners in the election. However, I would feel much more comfortable if the judgment said that “John Jones is ordered adjudged and decreed to be disqualified”, or “ adjudged not to be a qualified voter”, just like Section 16.004 reads. It is dangerous, in my opinion, to conclude that a judgment means something that it does not clearly state, especially if you are are proposing to limit a citizen’s rights by enforcing the judgment . We can discuss this later today if you like. I have a Tri County board meeting this morning.

Back Up Slides

One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. 1875
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

Texas Constitution 1876 Article I Sec 2 Sec. 2.  INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

U.S. Constitution Article 4 - The States Section 4 - Republican Government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Local Government Structure and Function in Texas and the United States September 15, 1997

The rapid spread of special districts in Texas can be traced to several factors, most notably the inability or unwillingness of counties and cities to deal with various regional problems. Special districts provide a way that the fragmented power which characterizes local government in Texas can be overcome in order to solve area-wide and cross-jurisdictional problems. Since Texas political culture has tended to call for minimal government and the lowest possible taxes, special districts provide a mechanism whereby government services can be delivered without existing government assuming responsibility for them. This therefore preserves the myth of limited government while insulating local public officials from citizen complaints about inadequate service performance or mandatory taxes.

Special Districts
Historically most special districts have as their constitutional basis two amendments to the Constitution of 1876: (1) Article III, section 52 (1904), allowing the formation of special districts that could incur indebtedness up to one-fourth of the assessed property valuation, and (2) the conservation amendment, Article XVI, section 59 (1917), allowing the establishment of conservation and reclamation districts with no limit as to amount of debt or taxation.

Cain & Able - Restrain Enable
Texas Constitution 1904 Article III Sec 52 (a) Sec. 52.  COUNTIES, CITIES OR OTHER POLITICAL CORPORATIONS OR SUBDIVISIONS; LENDING CREDIT; GRANTS; BONDS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, the Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the State to lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in such corporation, association or company.

Texas Constitution 1987 2005 Article III Sec 52 -a Sec. 52-a.  LOAN OR GRANT OF PUBLIC MONEY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the legislature may provide for the creation of programs and the making of loans and grants of public money, other than money otherwise dedicated by this constitution to use for a different purpose, for the public purposes of development and diversification of the economy of the state, the elimination of unemployment or underemployment in the state, the stimulation of agricultural innovation, the fostering of the growth of enterprises based on agriculture, or the development or expansion of transportation or commerce in the state. Any bonds or other obligations of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state that are issued for the purpose of making loans or grants in connection with a program authorized by the legislature under this section and that are payable from ad valorem taxes must be approved by a vote of the majority of the registered voters of the county, municipality, or political subdivision voting on the issue.

Candidates v Residents
• Resident of Texas • 18 years old • Not a felon • Not insane • Or otherwise disqualified • No time limit • Registered voter • 30 days in advance for administrative purposes • No residency time requirement

Nine people registered DEA Office “It’s the way the law is written, and the only way it would be changed is through the legislature,” said Steve Raborn, Tarrant County’s elections administrator. The residency requirement can be determined “by the voter,” said Randall Dillard, a spokesman for the Texas Secretary of State's office.

Feb 24, 2010

“And yes, a work address is OK if they consider that their residence."

Dillard cites a section of the state’s code regarding residency:

"'Residence' means domicile, that is, one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence.” Last year, a Tarrant County voter used a vacant piece of land as his residence on the voter rolls, Raborn said.

“any time there is an issue regarding voter access, the tendency is for politicization,”
State Rep. Dennis Bonnen

“The fact is, any registered voter can challenge the voting status of another voter,” Raborn said. “But it generally doesn’t do any good.”

who apparently own several office buildings…

Voter Registration Card

Case of Senator Brian Birdwell
• Tex Const. ARTICLE 3. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT • Sec. 6.  QUALIFICATIONS OF SENATORS. No person shall be a Senator, unless he be a citizen of the United States, and, at the time of his election a qualified voter of this State, and shall have been a resident of this State five years next preceding his election, and the last year thereof a resident of the district for which he shall be chosen, and shall have attained the age of twenty-six years.

• (Granbury, TX) – This afternoon, the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas denied the suit filed against Senator Brian Birdwell by the Texas Democrat Party and his Democrat Opponent to have Sen. Birdwell removed from the ballot. In a unanimous ruling, the three justice panel found that the Democrats failed to prove Birdwell is an ineligible candidate for the Texas Senate. According to the court, “…the record does not show, that information on any application by Birdwell for a place on the ballot indicates that he is ineligible for the office.”

Then What Happened?
• The Vote 10 - 2 • The Election Contest 0 -2 • The Appeal • The Indictment The RUD 7 • The Trial ?

The RUD Apologists view
“Both the District and the Appeals Courts have now ruled on the RUD residency issue, disqualifying the 10 people who tried to vote in the last RUD election. Are we not a county of laws? The current issue is only whether or not these same people tried to defraud the voting process. That is the current legal issue.”   Mike Bass The Woodlands Township, Director (Position 2)

What the non-confrontational access oriented are saying

Willie Ray v. State of Texas
• ABBOTT Accused

• -“Mr. Abbott, as you may know, has engaged in racially selective law enforcement activities in connection with prosecutions of the Texas Election Code.” • LSP Investigates While Abbott's bogus anti voter fraud program was being lauded in the San Antonio ExpressNews and the Texas Attorney General was putting out press release after press release congratulating himself, the Lone Star Project issued numerous open records requests to the AG and found that virtually all the prosecutions were of minority senior citizens who were doing nothing more than helping their neighbors vote. Additional research showed that ALL those prosecuted were Democrats. This research was confirmed by a Dallas Morning News investigative report  this month detailing that: • "26 cases – all against Democrats, and almost all involving blacks or Hispanics... In 18 of the 26 cases, the voters were eligible, votes were properly cast and no vote was changed – but the people who collected the ballots for mailing were prosecuted." (Dallas Morning News, May 18, 2008)

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful