In a recent filing, released today, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City Manager rebutted the stance of the City Manager on all accounts.
The initial answer to this lawsuit, by the City Manger, claimed the Court did not have jurisdiction to order the City Manager to perform a duty. Unfortunately, Texas Government Code 24.011, says different. There is also associated case law which allows this type of lawsuit to be filed in District Court.
It also claimed the City Manager didn’t know which laws to enforce; however, his City Ordinance states he ‘shall’ enforce ‘all’ state laws and city ordinances and ‘require’ compliance with all policies, procedures, and regulations. The ordinance also states that every representative in the City of Kyle ‘must’ scrupulously avoid the ‘appearance of impropriety’ at all times. This is all a ‘duty’ specifically applying to a public servant; which, ‘indirectly or directly’ imposes the ‘duty.’ One which creates a lawful requirement to avoid violating the abuse of official capacity statue of the State of Texas. Per Albertson’s Inc. V Sinclair, 984 S.W.2d 958, 961, “the use of the word shall in a statue is generally constructed as created a non discretionary duty.”
Essentially, the Police Chief for the City of Kyle should never have conducted an impartial investigation into the claims he made to his own employees. He should never have ordered the citizens arrest. Per City of Kyle Police, General Order, Rules of Conduct, the following screenshots are made available:
In another Kyle Police Department, General Order, labeled Internal Investigation Process, the following screenshots are being made available:
So, one may wonder, why was the plaintiff not told how to make a complaint until after the plaintiff was arrested, almost two years later from claiming the Police Chief was abusing his office? Why did an unnamed female Hays County Assistant District Attorney interfere with the complaint? Why would the Public Information Office not reply to the plaintiff? Why would the complete City of Kyle fail to respond to the plaintiff until after he was arrested? It seems clear laws, policies, procedures, and regulations were violated. The City Manager ‘shall’ act, per law, or violate the law related to his own employment. There is no discretion in action.
The next part of the City Manager’s answer was related to two attempts to file a Federal Lawsuit were dismissed as “fantasy or delusional,” but failed to mention that component was related to the long endured stalking the plaintiff has been subjected too. The answer failed to mention the lawsuits were not served and also involved conduct of a Department of Veterans Affairs Police Chief. The purpose of the lawsuits going unserved shows the plaintiff has no other choice in law, but to file a Petition for Mandamus Relief.
The City Manager also claimed that he was immunity from lawsuits when performing his duties. This may be true in a lot of cases, and it would have to be granted by the court; however, in a mandamus lawsuit: “if the duty is imposed by law, then the performance of the duty is a ministerial act, and there is no official immunity for the failure to perform it.” Govant. Houston Cmty. Cool. Says. 72 S.W. 3d 69, 74.
The recent filing by the plaintiff goes to connect other laws of the City and the State to show a duty that is required of the City Manager to perform. It also explains the harm the plaintiff was subjected too.
HERE is the City Manager’s answer.
HERE is the Plaintiff’s reply to the City Managers answer.
HERE is the Original Petition for Mandamus Relief which INCLUDES many of our publishings, showing Chief Barnett to have performed “alleged,” criminal acts.
Categories: The Field Review - Local
1 reply »
You must log in to post a comment.