Filed: 3/27/2018 10:40 PM JOHN D. KINARD - District Clerk Galveston County, Texas Envelope No. 23473612 By: Shailja Dixit 3/28/2018 9:10 AM NO. 18-CV-0181 MOODY NATIONAL BANK § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § VS. § GALVESTON COUNTY, T E X A S § GALVESTON COUNTY REPUBLICAN § 56TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE § THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS’ ORIGINAL ANSWER & REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Third Party Defendants Kathy Rogers, Paula Smith, Scott Apley, Alicia Youngblood and David Buke, efeeed heei as Thid Pat Defedats, file this Oigial Ase to Iteeo’s Carl Gustafson Thid Pat Plaitiff’s Oigial Petitio. GENERAL DENIAL Third Party Defendants generally deny the allegatios i Thid Pat Plaitiff’s Oigial Petitio the filing of this Verified Pleading. NEW PRECINCT CHAIRS IN JULY AND DUTIES It is relevant for the Court to understand that on or about July 1, 2018 any of the issues surrounding the by-laws or their amendments will become a moot point. The bi-laws will be re- written by the new office holders. Currently, as reflected herein, there is a need to call a meeting and pass resolutions regarding: 1. Moody Bank issues and problems; 2. Resolution of the disagreement within the party regarding the November 2017 by-law amendment; and, 3. Authority necessary to respond to and manage this litigation. 1 REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE Under the authority of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Third Party Defendants request the Third Party Plaintiff disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. SANCTION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDIES CODE Third Party Plaintiffs seek sanctions under the Civil Practices and Remedies Code for the Frivolous Thid Pat Petitio filed agaist Thid Pat Defedats. The Satios ill ilude attoe’ fees and costs. Additioall, the Thid pat Defedats ill seek osts fo ioeiee, haasset, ad out of poket epeses iued o aused the Thid Pat Litigatio. Specifically, Third Party Plaintiff Gustafson has no causes of action personally against Third Party Defendants DEFECTIVE PLEADING OF THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF Third Party Defendants Request The Court Sign An Order Releasing The Temporary Injunction Retroactively From The Date Of Issue And Deny The Temporary Injunction Because The Pleading Is Defective. The Rule 68 of the Teas Rules of Ciil Poedue sas that No it of ijutio shall e gated unless the applicant therefor shall present his petition to the judge verified by his affidavit and containing a plain and intelligible statement of the gouds fo suh elief. The pleadig submitted by the Intervenor and Third Party Plaintiff is not verified and the affidavit of Julia C. Hatcher does not verify all of the factual assertions made by Carl Gustafson in his personal third party action against the Third Party Defendant Precinct Chairs. The Petition for Injunctive relief and a Temporary Restraining Order is defective and deficient and must be dismissed as a matter of law with an order withdrawing the Injunction retroactively. 2 DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT OF JULIA HATCHER The Uso Delaatio of Julia Hathe is defetie o isuffiiet to suppot the Ijutio o the TRO. An examination of the affidavit clearly shows it is complete with opinions, hearsay and frankly assumptions about who did what at more than 30 voting locations on a single day. The affidavit reflects again events that are the business of the Galveston County Executive Committee and not Carl Gustafson. The analysis is as follows: Paragraph #2 states Mees of the steeig oittee hae islead the ees of the Cout Eeutie Coittee….. This stateet is isuffiiet i that it is speculative and states a conclusion rather than a fact. It also fails to identify the specific members who islead ees. The paagaph also states that the CEC [County Executive Committee] was prevented from sending out a voter’s guide ad was unable to do other things. This statement fails to make a causal connection. It also makes a statement, which if true, could arguably be under the authority of the Galveston County Executive Committee and not the personal action or claim of Carl Gustafson. Paragraph #3 states that Scott Apley made efforts to prevent a quorum. There is nothing illegal or against the by-laws of the Galveston County Executive committee that prevented that. Again if any one person or entity had a complaint about that behavior it would be the GCEC and not Carl Gustafson individually. Paagaph #4 states that duig the election held on March 6, 2018 members of the Steering Committee ripped legal notices of the precinct convention locations off all of the doos of the pollig loatios…. This is leal heasa i that thee ee oe than 30 such locations and one individual could not have witnessed events of all of the Steering Committee members at the 30 voting locations all in one day. This is clearly not based on personal knowledge. Paragraph #5 contains clearly what is hearsay about what someone told her. Over ad oe agai she states I as told. Clearly that is hearsay and not personal knowledge as she swears. There is absolutely no evidence presented to show the existence of any duty owed by any of the Third Party Defendants to Carl Gustafson and therefore there can be no breach of said mystical duties. There is no evidence of the specific action of any specific individual except Scott Apley. There is no evidence of any breach of any duty imminent that was owed to Carl Gustafson. There is no evidence of any actual or specific damages incurred or potentially occurring to Carl Gustafson. The affidavit is simply one written by an advocate of Mr. Gustafson who seems to 3 share his perspective that he owns the Galveston County Executive Committee and is entitled to claim the damages from alleged actions where no duty was owed to him. If there were to be a claim and recovery it would be the property of the Galveston County Executive Committee and not Carl Gustafson. There is no evidence of any damages or even factual assertions of damages being owed to Carl Gustafson personally. Despite his own pleadings and the affidavit of his supporter Attorney Julia Hatcher who references fund raising events he sues elected Precinct Chairs for his own financial gain. Is there any wonder why so many Precinct Chair positions are empty? EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES Section 65.001 APLICATION OF EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES: The Civil Practices and Remedies code clearly states that equitable principles govern injunction proceedings. The conflicts between the Precinct Chairman Carl Gustafson have existed for some time but in November 2017 a By-Law amendment was passed which was challenged by Mr. Gustafson as not being valid because of procedural issues. Mr. Gustafson had administrative remedies since November 29, 2017 to resolve conflicts which resulted in the Bank filing suit all surrounding the disagreement regarding the November by-law amendment. Rather than immediately noticing a meeting to resolve the conflict, a meeting where he would not get his way, he waited several months and then intervened personally into the Bank litigation and represented to the Court there was an emergency. Perhaps the reason for Mr. Gustafso’s efusal to all a eetig is efleted i the Vote of No Cofidee eeuted the majority of the Precinct Chairs. He knew he would have to bypass his administrative/by-law remedies and get the Court to intervene. Yes, there was an emergency, but it was of Mr. Gustafso’s o akig his dela. Not ol does Mr. Gustafson not have standing or authority, as discussed later, he is not entitled to the equitable relief of an injunction or TRO 4 because his hands are not clean. It was a crisis created intentionally because had he followed the By-Laws of the Galveston County Executive Committee he would have lost if he had allowed it to come to a vote of the Precinct Chairs. On multiple grounds, Mr. Gustafson should be denied the relief, which he sought personally and with no authority from the Galveston County Executive Committee. The right to enjoin a member of the Galveston County Executive Committee belonged not to any individual but to the Committee itself, for which Mr. Gustafson has no right to act individually. He has no standing and no authority. THE THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF CARL GUSTAFSON MOVANT IS MISSING SPECIFIC ELEMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR RELIEF. "A temporary injunction does not issue as a matter of right." Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002); accord Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam). "To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead and prove three specific elements: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim." Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; accord Walling, 863 S.W.2d at 57. Keep in mind it was Carl Gustafson who individually and personally sought the injunction and TRO on his own behalf and not Galveston County Republican Party Executive Committee. As to element #1 the Intervenor and Third Party Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against the individual Third Party Defendants and failed to show any evidence of any such cause of atio. His ause of atio is that he did’t like the esult otaied ithi the GCRP ad did ot like the remedy of calling a meeting of the GCEC. He has stated no cause of action against them individually, he has asserted to no fact giving rise to a tort, breach of contract or any action giving rise to a breach of any legal duty giving rise to a cause of action of Carl Gustafson against any of the eight Precinct Chairs sued personally by Carl Gustafson.