McVea files lawsuit, alleges official oppression, abuse of authority in South Texas cover-up. 

CAUSE NO. 2024CI06529

DENISE MCVEA,

PLAINTIFF,

v.

DAVID GARCIA, in his individual and official capacity; BLANCA HERRERA, in her individual and official capacity; KARLA MILLER, in her individual and official capacity; TEDI LYNN MCVEA; DREW GARRETT WASHINGTON; TERESA JO BUTOLPH; JOE GONZALES, in his individual and official capacity;  JORGE MUNOZ, in his individual and official capacity; ANTHONY ARRIAGA, in his individual and official capacity; J. MARTINEZ, SAPD #2411, in his individual and official capacity; TYLER PATTERSON,  SAPD #3256, in his individual and official capacity; WILLIAM MCMANUS, in his individual and official capacity; ERIC A. RUIZ,  SHANNON KITE-POWELL, JONATHAN MICHELL, TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE GROUP, SHERI BRYCE DYE, and SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (SAISD);

DEFENDANTS.

§

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

COMES NOW, PLAINTIFF DENISE MCVEA, who files this Second Amended Original Petition and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

1. FACT PATTERN

A. Background

1.    This lawsuit has its genesis in a dangerous culture of corruption and impunity that has plagued nearly every public institution in San Antonio, Texas, and which has allowed unprecedented abuses against Plaintiff because of her role as a writer and social justice advocate exposing corrupt and criminal schemes against vulnerable San Antonians in her non-fiction literary works.

​

2. Plaintiff Denise McVea is a local author and award-winning investigative journalist who has been documenting organized crime and public corruption in San Antonio for more than a decade for her true crime book Evil Corp: Allstate Insurance, Shadow Networks, and the Corruption of a Major American City and other journalistic works. The non-fiction works, in part, document organized white collar criminals’ successful efforts to co-opt and control elements of local government and private institutions in order to illegally access and divert development funds and resources intended for poor and otherwise marginalized communities. The most notable schemes involve accessing and diverting federal grant moneys and other development resources meant for President Obama’s Promise Zones and other historically disenfranchised communities. In particular, the City of San Antonio manages millions in federal funds through its Development Services (code enforcement) Department (DSD) and Neighborhood and Housing Services Department (NHSD). Plaintiff’s work asserts that organized white collar criminals conspire with complicit city officials and employees in these city departments to divert development program funds away from their intended targets – among other predatory schemes. For instance, Plaintiff’s work shed’s important light on a 2021 report by the University of Texas Law School that revealed that between 2015 and 2020, the City of San Antonio issued orders to vacate and demolish to more than 600 occupied homes. During that same time span, the major Texas cities of Houston, Dallas, Austin, and Fort Worth, combined, issued less than 20. 

“Illicit schemes (in San Antonio) include the use of fake buyers and front companies, forgery, fraudulent filings, abusive code enforcement, document tampering, false reports, and sham due process proceedings,” Plaintiff wrote in her 2022 draft report, Conspiracy Theater.  “The amount of wealth stolen from struggling communities as a result of unchecked corruption in San Antonio cannot be overstated.”

As a result of her investigative work, Plaintiff has been the target of documented, unrelenting harassment and official oppression. The harassment operations have been ongoing since at least 2012 and have historically included multiple false arrests and prosecutions, illegal surveillance, and systematic, organized attacks on Plaintiff’s homestead, finances, privacy, reputation, relationships, business operations, and communications. A portion of that harassment is performed by government employees recruited through bribery and quid pro quo arrangements with criminal and often covert actors. 

​

B. Interference with possessory right and defamation per se.

3. Plaintiff is also the mother and court-appointed possessory conservator of her three school-aged children D, Z, and K (“the children”), who are students at Mark Twain Dual Language Academy (“Twain”), a school of the San Antonio Independent School District (“SAISD”) that provides instruction in English and Spanish for students from Prek-3 to 8th grade. As possessory conservator of her three children, Plaintiff has a legal right to educational information about the children and SAISD has a legal duty to provide that information.

​

4. In the fall of 2023, Plaintiff became concerned that she was not receiving updates about her children from Twain. School records later acquired by Plaintiff revealed that Defendant Tedi McVea had filled in the Plaintiff’s parental email notification slot with an email account controlled by Defendant Tedi McVea, assuring that Plaintiff would not receive her children’s school related notifications. Plaintiff made several inquiries over the course of several weeks with Twain community liaison KARLA MILLER, data clerk BLANCA HERRERA, and Principal DAVID GARCIA about why she was not being notified and inquired about the steps necessary to correct the notification problem. Miller, Garcia, and Herrera repeatedly stated that the school did not have the proper permissions to provide the information, and that the birth mother and Plaintiff’s ex-spouse, TEDI MCVEA (from whom the Plaintiff is estranged), would have to approve the notification request. Throughout, Miller, Garcia, and Herrera were evasive, resistant, and deceptive. At all times during this period, SAISD had in its files the children’s birth certificate showing Plaintiff as mother and parent to the children and a Final Divorce Decree (court order) showing Plaintiff as the children’s parent possessory conservator. The birth certificates and court order were readily available and accessible to Defendants during the time they were actively denying Plaintiff access to her children’s educational information but Defendants ignored them. In fact, evidence will show that Defendant Garcia had a PDF copy of the court order displayed on his school computer screen at the same time he was falsely advising Plaintiff that the school district was not in possession of any documentation requiring the school district to provide school information about her children to Plaintiff. 

​

5. After much effort on Plaintiff’s part, the school eventually began providing school notifications about her children through online school notification utilities SeeSaw and Frontline, but over the Christmas Holidays of 2023 and into the Spring semester of 2024,  those notifications once again stopped, even though plaintiff had made no changes to her email preferences.  

​

6. During this period, Plaintiff became concerned about the mental and emotional health of her children. The children, who spend the majority of their time with their birth mother and sole managing conservator Defendant Tedi McVea, appeared to be having trouble sleeping, difficulty in regulating their emotions, and other concerning behaviors. Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to discuss these concerns with Defendant Tedi McVea were unsuccessful. In November 2023, Plaintiff learned after an outcry from her children that Defendant DREW GARRETT WASHINGTON had been spending time in the house with the children, sometimes unsupervised, and that Defendants Washington and Tedi McVea had engaged the children in a scheme to protect Washington’s existence from Plaintiff by hiding Washington’s car down the street from the house. When Plaintiff attempted to discuss these bizarre behaviors with Defendant Tedi McVea, Defendant became evasive and uncommunicative. The children later revealed that Defendant Tedi McVea had berated them for discussing Defendant Washington and reinstructed them to never discuss Defendant Washington. An investigation into Washington’s background further alarmed Plaintiff, as public records depicted him as a married man with a past criminal conviction for contributing to the delinquency of minors, a history of illicit drug use, and who claims employment with an unregulated, unlicensed investment firm with no physical address. Defendants Tedi McVea and Washington began secreting the children away from Plaintiff, including keeping them out of school on Plaintiff’s pick up days, effectively preventing any further outcries. Concerned about these inexplicable absences and lack of notifications, Plaintiff visited the Mark Twain attendance office to ensure that her children were present for class. Defendants Miller, Garcia, Herrara, and other school attendance office employees first informed Plaintiff that the children were in school that day, but when Plaintiff asked to see them, Twain attendance employees reversed, saying that the children were in fact, not in school that day. At the same time, Defendants Tedi McVea and Washington concocted a scheme whereby they would not allow the children to speak freely with Plaintiff by demanding that Plaintiff make a video talking to the children and then provide the video to Defendants Tedi McVea and Washington. The Defendants would then, ostensibly, play the video for the children and then allow the children to make a video which Defendants would then, ostensibly, send to Plaintiff. On several occasions, Defendants Tedi McVea, Washington, and TERESA BUTOLPH refused to answer the door when Plaintiff attempted to check on the welfare of her children. On one occasion, Defendant Tedi McVea and one of the children were standing in the open doorway of her home when Plaintiff drove by her house. The child greeted Plaintiff happily and excitedly, but Defendant Tedi McVea roughly shoved the child inside and slammed the door. The child could be heard crying loudly. This conduct is especially disturbing because Defendant Tedi McVea is a licensed clinical social worker. She is trained to understand the negative impact such disruptions in the parent-child relationship can have on the emotional and mental development and health of minor children. Plaintiff has not been allowed to freely communicate with her children since February 8, 2024. Evidence will show that the Defendants conspired to use Plaintiff’s beloved children as bait, with no care for the children’s mental and emotional health, to create a thin pretext for arresting plaintiff on criminal trespass and other legally false criminal charges. 

​

7. On or about January 7, 2024, Plaintiff mailed via certified USPS mail a letter outlining her concerns to Defendant Tedi McVea about the negative affects her and Washington’s conduct was having on the children. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Defendant Tedi McVea began writing emails to school administrators falsely depicting Plaintiff, a committed social justice advocate, accomplished author, non-profit publisher, and Master of Legal Studies law student with a 4.0 GPA, as delusional and mentally and emotionally unstable. In her emails, Defendant Tedi McVea makes several false claims in an effort to paint Plaintiff in the worst possible light, including attributing false statements to Plaintiff that Plaintiff never uttered and describing scenarios that never occurred. She also falsely claimed that Plaintiff posed a danger to her and the children while continuing to provide access and protection to Defendant Washington. In an email dated January 16, 2024, Defendant Tedi McVea requested that school administrators share her false and defamatory claims against Plaintiff with the children’s teachers. On information and belief, Defendants Washington and McVea conspired with each other and the other Defendants to create strategies that would effectively prevent Plaintiff from seeing or communicating with her children. The Defendants also conspired to construct a false picture of Plaintiff designed to undercut her credibility and, accordingly, the depictions of organized white collar criminality and corruption she has documented in her work. 

​

8. On or about February 21, 2024, Plaintiff attempted to communicate with her children on Telegram. Audio and video evidence showed that Defendant Washington was handling Defendant Tedi McVea’s phone during the video call when Plaintiff received a security notice that her network was being compromised. While Defendant Washington handled the phone during the video call, brief views of the children showed them to be confused, troubled, and uncomfortable. 

​

9. On or about Friday, March 1, 2024, Defendants Tedi McVea, Karla Miller, Blanca Herrera, and David Garcia conspired to interfere with Plaintiff’s access to her children by removing the children from class early to meet secretly with Tedi McVea and by providing an alternative exit for Defendant Tedi McVea so that the Plaintiff could not see or communicate with her children. Three days later, Defendant Garcia issued an unfounded trespass warning against Plaintiff, banning Plaintiff from the school campus. Garcia supported the trespass warning with demonstrably false claims that Plaintiff had ignored his instructions to remain in the office prior to dismissal on the day the Defendants secreted the children and echoed Defendant Tedi McVea’s libelous claims that Plaintiff was disruptive and unstable. This has been a common slander made by corrupted local government employees, especially SAPD Eastside property crimes police officers, helping to cover up large scale property and other crimes against vulnerable San Antonians by attempting to demean Plaintiff and, correspondingly, the findings in her journalistic works. The Defendants’ interference in Plaintiff’s possessory rights in violation of family code statutes while falsely claiming she was unstable, disruptive, and delusional is defamation per se, and evidence that the Defendants knowingly joined an ongoing conspiracy against Plaintiff.

​

10. On or about March 4, 2024, Defendant Teresa Butolph secreted the children away inside her home on a day when Plaintiff historically would see the children and prevented the children from seeing or communicating with Plaintiff.

11. On or about March 17, 2024, Plaintiff served statutorily required notice to Defendant Tedi McVea and her proclaimed attorney, Defendant SHERI BRYCE DYE, that she intended to exercise her possessory rights in accordance with the state of Texas standing possession order. Neither woman objected and no legal authority for withholding the children was provided to Plaintiff. Neither did they file any, protest, petition, or injunction to give notice to Plaintiff that she did not have effective consent to exercise her possessory rights to take her children to dinner.  However, when Plaintiff arrived March 21, 2024 at the statutorily prescribed time to retrieve her children, Defendant Tedi McVea then called the police and caused the arrest of plaintiff, falsely alleging criminal trespass, a Class C misdemeanor. Defendant Tedi McVea then permitted unauthorized access to Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was maliciously modified during Defendant’s possession. Evidence will show that Defendant Dye repeatedly ignored the Texas Family Code and advised Defendant Tedi McVea to ignore the Texas Family Code. Her silence and state law gave Plaintiff effective consent to be on the property, but it also gave other conspirators, namely Defendants ANTHONY ARRIAGA, JOE GONZALES, JORGE MUNOZ, WILLIAM MCMANUS, TYLER PATTERSON, and J. MARTINEZ the thinnest pretext they needed to falsely arrest and maliciously prosecute Plaintiff – as involved conspirators had done on three prior occasions. 

​

C. Continuing conspiracy – false arrest as a tactic of oppression.

12. When Plaintiff filed this suit, Defendants Tedi McVea and Dye failed to file an answer.
To belief and information, the women did not file an answer because they were assured that Plaintiff would be arrested, imprisoned, and unable to pursue any civil claims against them. Defendants Tedi McVea and Dye had successfully accomplished their part in the conspiracy, allowing the district attorney’s office and the police department to arrest Plaintiff on the thin pretext of criminal trespass and resisting arrest. Defendants Munoz and Gonzalez persisted in the arrest and prosecution, even though they knew that a necessary element for bringing criminal trespass charges in Texas is notice (Tex. Penal 30.05) – and that conspirators could not satisfy that requirement. The false criminal trespass charge and another facially false charge of resisting arrest are part of a pattern of official oppression against Plaintiff by complicit SAPD Eastside property crimes officers and others involved in concealing the illegal transfer of millions of dollars in real property in distressed neighborhoods, the diversion of millions in federal development grant funds, the destruction of crucial housing stock, and the displacement of thousands of vulnerable San Antonians. Case in point: Plaintiff is the only person in the history of San Antonio to be arrested, jailed, and falsely charged with the non-existent misdemeanor offense of holding a garage sale without a permit. To underscore the corrupt and complicit culture permeating San Antonio, that strategic violation of Plaintiff’s rights was facilitated by Defendant McManus, defended in federal court by the City of San Antonio using taxpayer funds, absolved by local federal judge DAVID A. EZRA and former federal magistrate judge JOHN PRIMOMO, and then scrubbed from the public record. All of Plaintiff’s three (3) previous false arrests eventually resulted in dismissals, but not before they took an enormous toll on Plaintiff and significantly impaired her ability to engage in her work, make a living, run her organization, build a community, enjoy consortium, or raise a defense against constant constitutional deprivations – which, of course, is the point.

​

13. On or about March 21, 2024, part-time San Antonio Municipal Magistrate ANTHONY ARRIAGA issued a facially invalid emergency protective order (EPO) against Plaintiff, falsely alleging that Plaintiff had engaged in family violence. The issuance of an invalid EPO violates the basic tenets of due process and is a violation of section 85.022 of the Texas Family code, which states that a protective order may not be issued “unless the trial court finds that family violence (10) has occurred, or (2) is likely to occur in the future.”  It also violates the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights which states:

“The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.” Tex Const.  Sec. 19, Sec. 29.

Defendant Arriaga willfully issued the false EPO in clear violation of this important due process right. The Defendant conspirators  who conspired to falsely arrest and prosecute Plaintiff could not show that Plaintiff ever engaged in family violence because she has not, but Defendant Arriaga issued the defamatory and abusive EPO anyway, in what has become in Bexar County’s judicial system a common and routine abuse of authority. Arriaga denied Plaintiff’s repeated requests to produce the facts and/or evidence he relied on in issuing that offensive and patently false order. Defendant Arriaga’s issuance of the EPO in violation of the Texas Constitution and Defendants Gonzales’s and Munoz’s prosecution of Plaintiff under it despite its evident invalidity is defamation per se, and prima facie evidence that these defendants had knowingly joined and contributed to the ongoing conspiracy to interfere in Plaintiff’s parental rights, falsely imprison Plaintiff, defame Plaintiff, deny Plaintiff her due process rights, and inflict emotion distress upon Plaintiff. Defendant Arriaga’s issuance of the false emergency protective order in violation of Tex. Fam. Code sec.85.002 is also defamation per se and proof that he knowingly joined the conspiracy against Plaintiff. 

Taken as a whole, the Defendants’ actions are evidence of the extent to which criminal actors and their corrupted public counterparts routinely violate the law and flagrantly use the power and authority of the Bexar County judicial system to cover up unlawful conduct and silence victims.

​

14. On or about May 5, 2024, Defendants JOE GONZALES and VICTOR MUNOZ, in their capacity as District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney of Bexar County, respectively, caused to be filed a false and unsupported motion to amend conditions of bond against Plaintiff. The bond amendment motion falsely alleged that Plaintiff violated the terms of the legally invalid EPO for family violence. Once again, Defendants provided the Court no verified facts, evidence, affidavits, or sworn testimony to support their false and defamatory claims seeking to modify the conditions of bond – or to support their cruel threats to bring against Plaintiff additional false felony charges. Despite that fact, and without a hearing, information, or record, Bexar County Court Judge ALFREDO XIMENEZ approved the motion. (In 2013, former Bexar County District Judge Angus McGinty violated similar due process protections in the sham 2013 misdemeanor garage sale permit violation case. McGinty would eventually serve federal time for bribery, but was never prosecuted for his crimes against Plaintiff.)

Defendant Munoz’s and Gonzales’s fraudulent motion furthered the defamation initiated by Defendant Arriaga that Plaintiff engaged in family violence, while knowing (1) that Plaintiff has never engaged in family violence, (2) that IF allegations of family violence were alleged (there is no proof that any were; the record suggests that Arriaga unilaterally abused discretionary authority to make that order) it was after Plaintiff raised concerns about Defendants Tedi McVea and Drew Washington’s disturbing conduct with her children. Allegations of family violence were concocted by Defendants, including and especially Defendants Munoz, Gonzales, Arriaga, McManus, Tedi McVea, and Washington, in order to arrest, jail, prosecute, and ultimately imprison Plaintiff on false criminal charges so that the actors responsible for the displacement and victimization of thousands of vulnerable San Antonians can finally be assured of their impunity. 

​

15. SAPD Defendants William McManus, T. Patterson, and J. Martinez, as complicit individuals and police officers, have a long history of falsifying police reports, or permitting the falsification of police reports to cover up crimes against Plaintiff and the many victims she advocates for. In fact, a review of police reports will show that police officers zealously and repeatedly recorded facially false allegations as facts, while as a rule omitting any exculpatory evidence. The SAPD, under McManus’s leadership and direction, has also permitted the routine and daily intrusion of Plaintiff’s network and devices by criminal actors, in a successful attempt to isolate Plaintiff and control the false, unsupported, and defamatory narrative (Plaintiff is unstable, delusional, and now, violent) that is the subject of this suit. 

A successful prosecution of Plaintiff for family violence – or Plaintiff plea bargaining and entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere – would help substantiate the hundreds of false and defamatory references in SAPD police reports describing Plaintiff as “psyche” every time she attempted to report a criminal offense against her. It would also bar Plaintiff from seeking redress for constitutional deprivations intrinsic to the causes of action that are the subject of this suit. Those are the primary, non-exclusive facts providing mens rea behind the Defendants’ cynical conspiracy against Plaintiff. The complained of misconduct has facilitated a dangerous culture of impunity in the local law enforcement and judicial systems and has kept hidden the corrupt and organized criminal conduct against Plaintiff and San Antonio’s struggling residents. Plaintiff is only one of thousands of victims in San Antonio who receive no protection from the local police department and judiciary when they have been victimized by the organized criminals rapidly transferring wealth from Eastside and Westside neighborhoods.

​

16.  In a very real sense, under Defendants Gonzales’s and McManus’s leadership, the Bexar County district attorney’s office and the San Antonio police department have become de facto arms of the white collar criminal networks victimizing Plaintiff and her class. As such, their primary objective is to provide cover to the organized criminal actors while denying equal protection to their victims.  For instance, the SAPD and District Attorney’s Office have arrested and jailed Plaintiff 4 times on demonstrably false criminal charges. Conversely, of the nearly 100 times Plaintiff has made credible, verifiable complaints of criminal acts against her – including frauds, theft, assault, stalking, vandalism, and network intrusion – local police have arrested exactly zero (0) suspects. This selective enforcement of Texas laws by the local law enforcement and judiciary to favor criminal actors has emboldened those criminal actors to elevate their criminal conduct against San Antonians up to and including murder.

​

17. Police Defendants have been so successful in falsifying the public record and are so confident that the judicial system will allow whatever fictions they choose to design, they are now working diligently to enhance criminal charges against Plaintiff to include “two felony charges of violation of a protective order, which are currently awaiting filing but occurred on March 25th 2024, and March 31st, 2024. Further, Defendant has four more felony charges awaiting filing where Tedi McVea is the complaining witness.” 

SAISD records reveal that the DA’s office, which has a long history of animus and constitutional abuses against Plaintiff, worked with SAISD Defendants to synchronize their false allegations against Plaintiff – all in an effort to halt her progress in law school, extend the oppressive environment that they and others have constructed over time to silence Plaintiff, and keep the information in her work about white collar crime and corruption in San Antonio from reaching its intended audience. To information and belief, the conspiracy to arrest Plaintiffon felony charges was also motivated by a desire to ensure that defendant DREW GARRETT WASHINGTON, whose participation in the criminal conspiracy is directed by unknown persons, could continue to evade service in this suit and thereby avoid sitting for depositions or otherwise being held accountable for his conduct.

​

D. Cybercrime as a tool of oppression and cover up.

18. The precision and confidence in which the Defendants have repeatedly violated Plaintiff’s rights could not be accomplished without persistent, illegal surveillance, network intrusions, invasion of privacy, communications disruptions, and cyberattacks perpetrated by compensated individuals working on behalf of the organized criminals actors who benefit from Plaintiff’s oppression. Plaintiff has made dozens of police complaints about relentless attacks on her phones, modems, routers, and other IOT devices. She repeatedly showed responding police evidence of the criminal activity – and even appealed directly to Defendant McManus in 2020 to intervene and put a stop to the criminal activity. The attacks continued unabated. Defendant McManus’s strategic refusal to charge crimes perpetrated against Plaintiff where ample evidence exists - and decisive action to charge Plaintiff with crimes where no evidence exists - is proof that Defendant McManus has joined the ongoing conspiracy against Plaintiff. 

​

19. In the summer of 2023, Defendant ERIC A. RUIZ unlawfully intercepted and captured a signal from a device in Plaintiff’s home using an illegal device commonly known as an IMSI catcher. This unlawful act permitted Ruiz to control the device’s communications and caused Plaintiff to lose all control of the device, rendering it useless. Plaintiff alleges, and evidence will show, that Ruiz has a history of interfering with Plaintiff’s network and devices and that he frequently conspires with others attacking Plaintiff’s network and devices. An open records act request by Plaintiff after her arrest revealed that Defendants Tedi McVea, Ruiz, Washington, and Martinez conspired to use Ruiz’s control of the device to implicate Plaintiff in what Defendant Munoz has asserted are felony crimes of stalking. This act by Defendant Ruiz provided a thin rationale for Martinez and other corrupt SAPD officers to try and develop a pretext for charging Plaintiff with a felony offense when their false and defamatory criminal trespass charge inevitably failed.

​

20. Plaintiff has repeatedly shown law enforcement Defendants evidence of constant and daily cyberattacks against her network and devices. These attacks include man-in-the-middle attacks, denial of service attacks, IMSI catcher attacks, and zero day attacks. The SAPD’s refusal to stop the daily attacks on Plaintiff’s networks and devices has allowed criminal actors to invade her privacy, determine what phone calls she is able to receive, eavesdrop on her conversations, intercept her emails and phone calls, block her from social media, and capture passwords and sensitive identity information. The SAPD reports made no mention of the cybersecurity reports Plaintiff provided police to substantiate her claims. Instead the reports repeatedly referred to Plaintiff as psyche.  (The SAPD shot and killed a woman, Kirsten Kloppe, who complained of similar organized cybercrimes after years of taking no action to investigate similar claims.) Chillingly for Plaintiff, police rationalized the Kloppe killing by asserting that the victim was mentally ill, or “psyche.”

Since at least 2014, Defendants Martinez, Patterson, McManus, and Gonzales had access to, or were in possession of, dozens of police reports filed by Plaintiff complaining of 24-hour cyber-attacks. Despite ample and credible evidence, not once did any of the Defendants, or any SAPD officer, follow up on, investigate, or bring charges for the thousands of incidents of network intrusion or other cybercrimes.  Police reports Plaintiff later acquired through the Texas Public Information Act reveal that the suspects’ names, license plates, and other identifying information Plaintiff provided to police appear nowhere on SAPD police incident reports.

​

E. Continuity of conspiracy – a history of false arrests. 

21. Defendant Martinez is also not unknown to Plaintiff. Before he became the principal SAPD investigator building the current fraudulent felony criminal cases against Plaintiff that are the subject of this suit, Martinez was an Eastside property crimes officer for the San Antonio Police Department working under Defendant Patterson. In 2014, Defendant Martinez falsely arrested Plaintiff and charged her with assault – despite the fact that Plaintiff had in her possession a video-recording of the incident which showed she was actually the victim of assault, theft, and fraud. Specifically, Martinez arrested Plaintiff knowing that “practicing attorney” KRISTINA COMBS had physically attacked Plaintiff and was in the process of unlawfully taking possession of more than $200,000 of Plaintiff’s organizational and personal property, including real property, a book store, office furniture, electronics, building supplies, and a law library from the information center Plaintiff was constructing at 1614 Martin Luther King Drive. That massive theft was affected, according to a court certieif forensic examiner report, by the use of deeds forged by local lawyers and notaries. Defendants Joe Gonzales and William McManus also participated in that 2014 false arrest, fraud and theft by facilitating the cover-up of criminal activity, denying Plaintiff due process, permitting conspirators to escape accountability, and facilitating a host of constitutional and criminal abuses against Plaintiff. Because of the ongoing nature of the official oppression, Plaintiff has been unable to recover those stolen assets.

​

F. Continuity of the conspiracy – sham defense representation.

22. The ability of conspirators to control Plaintiff’s communications at will has isolated Plaintiff, prevented her from gaining allies, support, and resources, and emboldened criminal actors to subject Plaintiff to increasingly vile criminal depredations, like the current criminal charges, without fear of consequences. That ability has also allowed criminal actors to direct Plaintiff to other conspirators, who promise to help her, but who in fact work against Plaintiff’s interests while extorting Plaintiff’s meager and dwindling resources.  

​

23. On or about March 28, 2024, Plaintiff received a promotional mailer from Texas Criminal Defense Group (TCDG), a Lubbock, Texas law firm specializing in criminal defense. The mailer urged defendants not to plea bargain, and promised to exhaust little-known legal tools and tactics to aggressively advocate for its clients at the pretrial stage of prosecution and assured the reader it would put on vigorous pretrial defense. The firm’s website stated:

“If you are facing any kind of criminal charges, a knowledgeable Texas criminal lawyer can protect your rights and defend you tirelessly. Experienced criminal lawyers understand the ways in which prosecutors think and, therefore, can often anticipate how a prosecutor may handle a case. That knowledge allows for diligent and comprehensive preparation of a potential client's defense strategy.” 

​

24. The firm’s San Antonio webpage specifically states: “More serious felony offenses often require a long prison term upon conviction. A San Antonio criminal lawyer can help work to prevent this from happening. From day one, they can help to protect your rights and discover flaws in the prosecutor’s case that could work in your favor.”

​

25. However, once Plaintiff signed the contract, Defendants TCDG, attorney Jonathan Michell and attorney Shannon Kite-Powell refused to provide any defense whatsoever. Evidence will show that Michell repeatedly violated attorney-client privilege and that the Defendant defense attorneys willfully sat idle without protest while Defendant Munoz filled the court record with false and unsubstantiated allegations against Plaintiff and while the district attorney’s office repeatedly violated due process requirements and the Morton Act. Despite the lack of evidence to support the criminal charges against Plaintiff, Defendants Michell, Kite-Powell, and TCDG spent 100 percent of their time pressuring Plaintiff to plea bargain, and zero (0) percent of their time defending Plaintiff in even the slightest way. Despite several requests from Plaintiff, these Defendants never once challenged the legal sufficiency of the facially fraudulent and defamatory emergency protective order falsely alleging Plaintiff engaged in family violence, or even the absence of information or indictment - even though they knew that Defendant Munoz was using that invalid instrument as the basis for bringing false felony charges against Plaintiff. Audio recordings of Plaintiff’s consultations with Defendants Michell and Kite-Powell reveal brazen professional misconduct, in which Defendants repeatedly misrepresented the law and facts to Plaintiff, their client who was paying them approximately $10,000 for legal defense, in order to convince her to plea bargain on the criminal trespass and resisting arrest charge – all the while knowing that once she pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor charge, she would be arrested on the concocted felony charges.

​

26. By May 30, 2024, Defendants Michell and Kite-Powell knew that Defendants Munoz and Gonzales, as county prosecutors, had quietly dropped the false criminal trespass charge against Plaintiff and had begun preparing to arrest Plaintiff with felony charges of alleged violations of the invalid emergency protective order – but did not inform Plaintiff of either occurrence. Evidence will show that Defendants conspired to surprise Plaintiff with a felony arrest in June prior to her completing her final semester of Trinity Law School master’s program. The evidence will bear out that Bexar County judge Ximenez and Defendants Michell, Kite-Powell, Munoz, Gonzales, and TCDG provided Plaintiff a court order permitting her to travel to Europe for a final master’s course on international human rights all the while knowing she would be falsely arrested again before she could board the plane. 

Defendants TCDG’s, Kite-Powell’s, and Michell’s refusal to provide a defense against the facially invalid charges against Plaintiff and to facilitate the due process violations of prosecutors  is prima facie evidence that they had knowingly joined the ongoing conspiracy to interfere in Plaintiff’s parental rights, falsely imprison Plaintiff, defame Plaintiff, deny Plaintiff her due process rights, and inflict emotion distress upon Plaintiff.

Defendants Michell, Kite-Powell, and Texas Criminal Defense Group’s treatment of Plaintiff is nearly identical to conduct displayed by Defendant Joe Gonzales in previous attacks on Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Today, Gonzales is leading the conspiracy against Plaintiff in his role as Bexar County District Attorney, but in 2014, he assisted a false misdemeanor criminal assault prosecution against Plaintiff - as Plaintiff’s defense attorney. Like Defendants Michell, Kite-Powell, and Texas Criminal Defense Group, Gonzales induced Plaintiff to enter into a contract for legal defense with promises of an aggressive pre-trial defense, but then, once paid, willfully refused to provide Plaintiff with even a scintilla of a defense. At the time, Gonzales’ refusal to defend Plaintiff after inducing her into an expensive contract for legal services helped to cover up the forgery and thefts of assets worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Auris Project, Inc., a501c3 non-profit organization founded by Plaintiff in 2003. The non-profit organization seeks to help poor and otherwise marginalized communities gain access to key rights and development information. Gonzales’ fraudulent denial of paid-for legal services in 2014 effectively shut down the Auris Project information center, and was a key reason the residents of the Eastside were powerless when white collar criminals descended on the area and began systematically transferring property title away from homeowners all over San Antonio’s Eastside and Westside. 

​

27. Ample evidence shows that the Defendants conspired without legal authority to unlawfully violate Plaintiff’s possessory rights, to interfere in the parent/child relationship, to illegally seize Plaintiff, to repeatedly deny Plaintiff due process and equal protection and other constitutional rights, and to maliciously defame Plaintiff through libel and slander; that Defendants took numerous actions in furtherance of those unlawful goals; that the actions facilitated and supported an ongoing criminal conspiracy against Plaintiff; and the conspiracy’s motive was to harrass, oppress, isolate, debilitate, and inflict emotional distress upon Plaintiff and thereby delay or halt Plaintiff’s investigative journalism work and cast doubts on the veracity and quality of that work. As a result, Defendants have severely damaged Plaintiff’s reputation, her standing in society, and further derogated her already systematically devastated economic prospects. More importantly, Defendants have caused severe damage to Plaintiff’s family structure. They have inserted instability and disruption into the childhood development process, callously caused mental anguish to minor children, enabled an unsafe and potentially predatory environment, prevented Plaintiff from exercising her crucial protective and nurturing role as the children’s mother, and intentionally inflicted deep suffering and emotional distress on Plaintiff and her three beloved children. 

​

28. This suit is being brought under Title 5 of the Texas Family Code, the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights and the ultra vires doctrine. 

​

II. PARTIES

29. Plaintiff Denise McVea is a Texas citizen that resides in Bexar County, Texas. She may be served at 1006 Wyoming Street, San Antonio, Texas 78203

30. Defendant SAISD is a Texas independent school district located in Bexar County, Texas.  SAISD may be served at 514 W. Quincy St., San Antonio, Texas 78212. It has been served in this suit and has filed an answer.

31. Defendant David Garcia is a Texas citizen who resides in Bexar County, Texas. Garcia may be served at Mark Twain Dual Language Academy, 2411 San Pedro Ave, San Antonio, Texas 78212. He has been served in this suit and has filed an answer.

32. Defendant Blanca Herrera is a Texas citizen who resides in Bexar County, Texas. Herrera may be served at Mark Twain Dual Language Academy, 2411 San Pedro Ave, San Antonio, Texas 78212. She has been served in this suit and has filed an answer.

33. Defendant Karla Miller is a Texas citizen who resides in Bexar County, Texas. Miller may be served at Mark Twain Dual Language Academy, 2411 San Pedro Ave, San Antonio, Texas 78212. She has been served in this suit and has filed an answer.

34. Defendant Tedi McVea is a Texas citizen who resides in Bexar County, Texas. McVea may be served at 659 McDougal Ave, San Antonio, Texas 78223. She has been served in this suit but has failed to file an answer.

35. Defendant Drew Washington is a Texas citizen who resides in Bexar County, Texas. Washington may be served at 13918 Mulch Court, San Antonio, Texas 78252. He is evading service.

36. Defendant Teresa Butolph is a Texas citizen who resides in Bexar County, Texas. Butolph may be served at 322 Metz Ave, San Antonio, Texas 78223. She is evading service.\

​

III. ADDED PARTIES

37. Defendant JOE GONZALES is the Bexar County District Attorney. He may be served at 101 W Nueva St., San Antonio, Texas 78205.

38. Defendant JORGE MUNOZ is a Bexar County Assistant District Attorney. He may be served at 101 W Nueva St., San Antonio, Texas 78205.

39. Defendant ANTHONY ARRIAGA is a part-time city magistrate. He may be served at 401 S. Frio St., San Antonio, Texas 78207.

40. Defendant WILLIAM MCMANUS is the San Antonio Police Department Chief of Police. He may be served at 315 S. Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Texas 78207.

41. Defendant J. MARTINEZ, SAPD#2411, is a San Antonio police officer. He may be served at 315 S. Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Texas 78207.

42. Defendant TYLER PATTERSON, SAPD#3256, is a San Antonio police officer. He may be served at 315 S. Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Texas 78207.

43. Defendant ERIC A. RUIZ is a resident of Bexar County, Texas. He may be served at 1015 Wyoming Street, San Antonio, Texas 78203.

44. Defendant JONATHAN MICHELL is a private attorney offering legal services in San Antonio, Texas. He may be served at 3003 NW Loop 410, San Antonio, Texas 78230.

45. Defendant SHANNON KITE-POWELL is a private attorney offering legal services in San Antonio, Texas. She may be served at 3003 NW Loop 410, San Antonio, Texas 78230.

46. Defendant TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE GROUP is a private Texas law firm doing offering legal services in San Antonio. It may be served at 3003 NW Loop 410, San Antonio, Texas 78230.

47. Defendant SHERI BRYCE DYE is a private attorney offering legal services in San Antonio, Texas. She may be served at 1919 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, Texas 78212.

​

IV. JURISDICTION, CONDITIONS PRECEDENT, RELIEF SOUGHT, & VENUE

48. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s claims and recovery of damages have occurred, been satisfied, or been waived, including but not limited to Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034, and Chapter 73 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This lawsuit seeks to enforce the common-law, statutory, and constitutional rights of Plaintiff and her three minor children and to recover the damages caused by the Defendants.

​

49. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Defendants because they are Texas citizens and residents of Bexar County, Texas.

 

50. The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 47(c), Plaintiff seeks monetary relief over $1 million, excluding interest, statutory, exemplary and punitive damages.

​

51. Venue in Bexar County is proper because the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Bexar County and Plaintiff resided in Bexar County, Texas when the causes of action accrued. Plaintiff requests incidental, nominal, compensatory, exemplary and punitive relief, attorney’s fees and court costs, injunctive relief, and further requests judgment for all other relief to which she may show herself to be justly entitled.

​

V. DISCOVERY

52. This suit is best managed under a Level 2 discovery order.

 

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Interference with a Possessory Right.

53. Plaintiff Denise McVea incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

 

54. Plaintiff files this suit pursuant to Texas Family Code, Title 5, which states: a person who takes or retains possession of a child or who conceals the whereabouts of a child in violation of a possessory right of another person may be liable for damages to that person. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 42.002(a).  A possessory right is violated by the taking, retention, or concealment of a child at a time when another person is entitled to possession of or access to the child. FAM § 42.002(b).  A person who was not a party to the suit in which an order was rendered providing for a possessory right is not liable unless the person at the time of the violation: (1) had actual notice of the existence and contents of the order; or (2) had reasonable cause to believe that the child was the subject of an order and that the person's actions were likely to violate the order. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 42.003(a). Plaintiff alleges that all Defendants were in possession of, and had knowledge of, the court order designating Plaintiff as possessory conservator of her children but conspired to conceal the children and violate Plaintiff’s possessory right, anyway.

​

B. Violations of the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights (Due Process, Equal Rights, Equal Protection, Searches and Seizures).

55.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference. 

​

56. Plaintiff brings this cause of action under the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights, which states that “no citizen ….shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of law of the land.” “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. Tex Const.  Sec. 19, Sec. 29. Further, “equality under the law shall ot be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.” Tex. Const. Sec. 3a.

​

C.   Defamation (Libel and Slander)

57.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference. 

​

58. Plaintiff brings this cause of action under the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights, which states that “Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege….  And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the Court, as in other cases.” Tex. Const. Sec. 8.

​

59. The general elements of a Texas defamation claim are: 1) the publication of a false statement of fact to a third party, 2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and 4) damages, in some cases. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 593, (Tex. 2015); WFAA–TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex.1998). The status of the person allegedly defamed determines the requisite degree of fault. A private individual need only prove negligence, whereas a public figure or official must prove actual malice. WFAA–TV, Inc., 978 S.W.2d at 571. “Actual malice” in this context means that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for its truth. Huckabee v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 19 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Tex.2000). The plaintiff must plead and prove damages, unless the defamatory statements are defamatory per se. Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc., 434 S.W.3d 142, 162 (Tex.2014).

​

60. The Defendants published and/or caused to be disseminated multiple false, defamatory statements of fact that referred to Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff works in the area of media and communications, she has been forced into a protracted and sustained isolation by criminal conspirators seeking to cover up widespread crimes against Plaintiff’s community and as a consequence is a private figure. Additionally, the false, defamatory statements of fact of each Defendant regarded private issues: Plaintiff’s family relationship, alleged mental health, and alleged safety risks to her children and/or ex-spouse. The statements are defamation per se because each (a) was reasonably calculated to injure Plaintiff’s reputation and thus exposed her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or financial injury; (b) did in fact injure Plaintiff in her private affairs in that they damaged Plaintiff’s parent-child relationship by facilitating her being unlawfully separated from her children; (c) did in fact injure Plaintiff in her business/occupation (investigative journalism/non-profit publishing/social justice advocacy for victimized communities) by denying Plaintiff the tools, stability, security, resources, and protections necessary for the proper conduct of her business/occupation; (d) falsely accused Plaintiff of committing acts that are crimes (violation of TEX. PENAL CODE § 30.05, and family violence); and (e) facilitated the false arrest and malicious prosecution of Plaintiff as part of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to retaliate against Plaintiff for her work exposing organized crimes against her community. 

​

61. The Defendants published the statements intentionally and without justification or excuse. A reasonable person would recognize that their actions created an unreasonable risk that the defamatory statements would be communicated to other parties; in fact, the Defendants diligently sought to communicate the defamatory statements to others without regard to falsity or truth. Consequently, Plaintiff’s injuries are presumed. As a result of the defamatory and disparaging statements of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages, including lost profits, damage to the family structure, mental anguish, loss of standing, devaluation of her work or business, and loss of the value of certain assets no longer viable due to the deliberate, systematic damage maliciously inflicted on Plaintiff’s private and professional affairs.

​

D. Civil Conspiracy

62.   Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

​

63. An action for civil conspiracy has five elements: (1) a combination of two or more persons; (2) the persons seek to accomplish an object or course of action; (3) the persons reach a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts are taken in pursuance of the object or course of action; and (5) damages occur as a proximate result. Tri v. J.T.T., 162 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex. 2005). An actionable civil conspiracy requires specific intent to agree to accomplish something unlawful or to accomplish something lawful by unlawful means. ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d at 881. This inherently requires a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action. Id. (quoting Massey v. Armco Steel Co., 652 S.W.2d 932, 934 (Tex. 1983)). Thus, an actionable civil conspiracy exists only as to those parties who are aware of the intended harm or proposed wrongful conduct at the outset of the combination or agreement. Firestone Steel Prods. Co. v. Barajas, 927 S.W.2d 608, 614 (Tex. 1996); see Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. v. Nortex Oil & Gas Corp., 435 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Tex. 1968). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly plotted and strategized over a period of several months on how best to conceal the children from Plaintiff and block Plaintiff from having access to her children, showing a malicious and reckless disregard for the welfare and emotional health of the children throughout the conspiracy. 

​

E.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

64. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

65. The elements of the cause of action of intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe. Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sears, 84 S.W.3d 604, 610 (Tex. 2002). Ample evidence exists to show that the conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her parental rights was a desperate attempt to cause her emotional distress in order to discredit her work and findings as a trained and respected investigative journalist documenting the extent to which local government institutions have been brought under the control of organized white collar criminals preying on vulnerable San Antonians. The conspiracy has deep roots in years-long attacks against Plaintiff for her journalistic work that include documented attacks on her home and other property, finances, and privacy. The complained of conspiracy is an excellent example of how organized white collar criminals use complicit government employees and other morally bankrupt individuals to affect their criminal aims. 

​

G. Doctrines of Ultra Vires and Res Ipsa Locutor

66. It is a prima facie fact that Defendants acted without legal authority when they conspired to interfere with Plaintiff’s possessory rights, violate Plaintiff’s civil and constitutional rights, falsely imprison and defame Plaintiff, and inflict emotional distress upon her. City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W. 3d 366 (2009).

​

VII. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

67.   Plaintiff requests entry of a temporary injunction, and after trial, a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from violating Plaintiff’s parental rights, as substantial harm is being inflicted on the children by the unlawful and malicious interference in the parent/child relationship between Plaintiff and her children. 

​

68. Plaintiff seeks a Writ of Mandamus to compel Defendants William McManus and Joe Gonzales to investigate, affect arrests, and bring about prosecutions of the numerous criminal actors repeatedly violating Chapter 33 of the Texas Penal Code against Plaintiff and members of her class.

​

69. Plaintiff requests the Court vacate the invalid emergency protective order issued against Plaintiff and vacate all other such court orders made dependent upon it. 

​

70. Plaintiff requests the Court appoint a special master to intervene on Plaintiff’s behalf based on the facts alleged in this instrument, as failure to do so will result in grave Constitutional deprivations against Plaintiff and her class, cause widespread damage to Plaintiff’s community and other Texas communities like hers, further diminish the esteem that Texans should have for their government and the law, and permit organized criminal actors  further derogate the viability of government institutions in Texas and escape scrutiny and accountability for their crimes against Plaintiff and the citizens of the state. 

​

VIII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

71.   WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court, upon final disposition of this matter, enter judgment against each Defendant based on the claims enumerated herein, grant to Plaintiff her damages (actual, nominal, consequential, special, etc.), grant to Plaintiff exemplary damages, grant to Plaintiff reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and court costs under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the maximum amount of pre-judgment and post-judgment remedies available under law, injunctive and declaratory relief, and any and all other relief at law and in equity to which Plaintiff has shown herself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ DENISE MCVEA

IN PROPIA PERSONA 

dmcvea@protonmail.com

1006 Wyoming Street

San Antonio, Texas 78203

210.651.6555

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served on the following on the 4th of June, 2024:

 

1. SAISD, Blanca Herrera, David Garcia, and Karla Miller through their attorney of record:

ELAINE EDWARDS 

via E-file and email 

eedwards@escamillaponeck.com  

 

1. TEDI MCVEA, 

via USPS Mail email 

​

​
 

/s/Denise McVea

1006 Wyoming Street

San Antonio, Texas 78203

(210) 651-6555