The lawsuit that the TRRP has filed against POATRI is in  Brazoria county which shows the plaintiffs' names,  here is the link to it:

http://records.brazoria-county.com/Scripts/UVlink.isa/brazoria_tsg/WEBSERV/CivilSearch?action%253Dview%26track%253D166748

The TRRP's attorney's Petition to the Judge of Brazoria County will be copied below.

  ..the only problem with this petition are that the charges listed are only the Mahan interpretation of Board actions and they are the unproven and unfounded accusations of the Mahans ....

these would be the same rantings they have put out for years....

Since they are only accusations and have not gone through the legal system they may be looked at by some as having to be true if they are in a lawsuit...which is certainly not true at all.   (They are cleverly worded by their TRRP member ,  who is their attorney also in this case,  who worded the petition to appear that the board and manager have violated laws.  POATRI attorneys can prove in a court of law,  that these accusations are unfounded.  

 Notice also that the original 140 plaintiffs are no longer on the plaintiff list.  Their attorney, Conner did this because it the only way they could keep the suit in Brazoria County, by removing  all the plaintiffs off the list except the 3 Brazoria County residents.    However,  because the Judge in Brazoria County did not grant POATRI'S attorney the change of venue to Brewster County,  where the alleged "crimes" occurred,   this trial must be held in Brazoria County.    This in itself is not legal,  according to established law.      One may begin to wonder why the TRRP attorney chose this county for the suit,  which is his and the Mahan's back yard. 

Petition

NO. 39329
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS

Frank Truska et al
Plaintiffs

V.

Tom Durham et. al
Defendants



PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES the one hundred and forty people listed on Exhibit "A" hereinafter called Plaintiffs, complaining of and about, Tom Durham, Janet Sullivan, Liz Demetri, T. J. Ramey, Virgil Evans, Jack Staton, Alan Baker, Alida Lorio, Kirk Meade and Kay Nehring, hereinafter called Defendants, and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN LEVEL
1. Plaintiff intends that discovery be conducted under Discovery Level 2.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
2. Plaintiffs are individuals whose are listed on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
3. Defendants are Individuals who, may be served with process by the clerk of the court by Certified U.S. Mail return receipt requested at the address and location as follows:
: Tom Durham P.O. Box 776, Eastpoint, FL, 32328.
Janet Sullivan P.O. Box 322, Terlingua, TX, 79852,
Elizabeth Anne Demetri 3600 Alma Road Apt 3616, Richardson, TX 75080-1121.
T. J. Ramey P.O. Box 113, Fischer, TX 78623
Virgil Evans P.O.Box 221, Harper TX, 78631
Jack Staton P.O. Box 3273, McKinney, TX 75070-2250.
Alan Baker HC 65 Box 255E, Alpine TX 79830
Alida Lorio P O Box 638, Terlingua, TX 79852
Kirk Meade 213 East Holland Ave, Alpine, TX 79830-
Kay Nehring 213 East Holland Ave, Alpine, TX 79830-

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this court.
5. This court has jurisdiction over the parties because the actions of the defendants are a civil conspiracy and the actions constituting the conspiracy hereinafter described took place in the State of Texas. Each of the defendants was a participant in such conspiracy.
6. Venue in Brazoria County is proper in this cause for the following reasons: under Section 15.002(a)(1) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this lawsuit occurred in this county. The action of Defendants constitutes a civil conspiracy. At least one act in furtherance of such conspiracy took place in Brazoria County, Texas. The Plaintiffs and Defendants are domiciled over a wide area of the State of Texas and some are domiciled outside the State of Texas. There is no other forum which is as convenient as the county in which this suit is filed.
FACTS
7. The facts alleged are by way of example not limitation of the wrongful actions by the Defendants.

8. Some of the Defendants are directors of a not for profit corporation named Property Owners' Association of Terlingua Ranch, Inc. (POATRI) Hereafter called the Association. Those Defendants who are not Directors are coconspirators with the Directors to accomplish the conspiracy as hereinafter alleged. The purpose of the Association is to manage an association of property owners of a remote subdivision in West Texas known as Terlingua Ranch. The Association was created by declarations in the Maintenance Agreement established by the developer of the Terlingua Ranch properties and is believed to be contained by reference in the deed of each property owner. Each owner and property is made subject to certain rights and duties.
9. Each of the Defendants is a member of the Board of Directors of the Association either elected or appointed or is a conspirator to accomplish the goals of the conspiracy hereinafter described.
10. Defendants herein have knowingly combined and entered into a course of conduct to wrongfully change the character of the Association and to change the method of management of the Association. The object of this course of conduct has been to consolidate control of the Association in a small number of people and to eliminate the rights of the members of the Association to take part in the management of the Association. By this method, the Defendants have enriched themselves at the expense of the owners of the property which makes up the Terlingua Ranch and who are members of the Association. Some of the coconspirators have enriched themselves by dealing in sales of property located in Terlingua Ranch. Others have enriched themselves by participating in projects funded with Association money. In the event a defendant did not profit by the conspiracy, such defendant nonetheless was an active participant in the conspiracy for reasons personal to such defendant.
11. THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE ACTS OF THE CONSPIRATORS IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONSPIRACY
(A) On January 28, 2006 the POATRI (Property Owners' Association of Terlingua Ranch, Inc.) Board of Directors refused to allow Donald W. Mahan to vote 303 proxy ballots in a regularly called members' meeting. This action was taken without notice or opportunity for a hearing on the propriety of disallowing the proxies. The proxy ballots had been previously officially registered at the ranch office two weeks earlier. The Board of Directors took this action upon advice of coconspirator, Kirk Meade and Kay Nehring. The object of disallowing the proxies was to be able to control the outcome of the business conducted at the meeting as the proxies were of sufficient number to affect the outcome of any business conducted at the meeting.

(B) . On January 28, 2006 the POATRI Board of Directors in their regular meeting Passed a resolution that stated:
"No records of the Corporation shall be released in digital format, except for records legally allowed by law and at the discretion of POATRI through the General Manager. However, NO list of members in good standing, including their names and addresses may be released in digital format. A list of all members in good standing including their names and addresses will be available to any member through a hard copy kept at the front office. The General Manager shall determine a reasonable price for the information. "
This resolution violates equal treatment of all property owners because it allows the General Manager (Alida Lorio) to decide at her discretion who should get copies of the records in digital format . Copies of the Members' List in digital format for property owners are needed so that property owners can contact other property owners when they run for office or when such contact is needed to compare viewpoints and exchange information with other property owners. Denial of this information muzzles free dialogue between property owners concerning matters of common concern. Further, the making of a hard copy of that information available at the Ranch Office is of no real advantage as the Ranch Office is located in far west Texas and is a journey of many hundreds of miles for most members.

(C) On October 29, 2005 the POATRI Board in violation of Association Bylaws decided not to allow the use of written proxy in the election of directors or for other election issues.
Article 3 of the Association bylaws states that votes may be cast in person, by written proxy or by written ballot. Only votes by written ballot were allowed in the election held on January 28, 2006. The one exception to voting by written ballot allowed was an exception in furtherance of the conspiracy. That is, any member who did not return his written ballot was deemed to have voted in favor of the proposition before the board. This had the effect of greatly increasing the number of votes counted and enabled the conspirators to declare that the requisite number of land owners had voted in favor of the proposition when the number of actual votes was far short of the number needed to pass the resolution.

The board, prior to the above date, engaged in a series of Bylaw changes described later to enable them to falsely claim that the Bylaws had been legally changed to allow the counting of votes not cast as a vote actually cast. The counting of votes not cast at all as a vote cast goes against all sense of fair play and is a subterfuge to increase the total vote tally in order to pass amendments to the Maintenance Agreement that required a minimum number of votes in order to be effective.

(D) On January 14, 2006 the ranch General Manager, Alida Lorio published the Official Voters' List for the January 28, 2006 election. One copy of this list was given to the Official Vote Counter (Karlin DeVoll) to enable her to count the votes. Another copy is placed in the ranch office so that the membership can see who is qualified to vote.

The Official Voters' List did not contain all the information required to enable the Official Vote Counter to determine the qualification of the voter. The Official Vote Counter then used a computer program not available to property owners to determine voter eligibility in the election held on January 28, 2006. This violated the Bylaws of the Association that require the Official Vote Counter to use the Official Voters' List to determine eligibility to vote. Property owners do not have access to the computer program to see the list of qualified voters. The board in effect failed to provide, as required, to the membership a copy of the voters' list provided the Official Vote Counter. This is because the use of the computer program to change the qualifications of the voter in effect changed the voter list. The Board of Directors, in violation of POATRI Bylaws, allowed the vote counting to begin 14 days before the election (January 28, 2006) and voting was allowed to continue until Election Day. No poll watchers or observers of the vote counting were allowed. No member was allowed to vote in person at the members meeting scheduled on Jan28,2006 although there were some members present. Plaintiffs believe that Defendants treated the issues before the membership to be discussed at the January meeting as a mail in ballot only. If this is true, no notice was ever sent to the members that no votes would be allowed at the members meeting or that the issues would be decided on a mail in ballot only. Further, such an action would be in violation of the applicable bylaws of the Association.
(E) The Official Voters' List was prepared by the General Manager Alida Lorio. The Association Bylaws require that the directors should have the "sole responsibility and authority for determining the good standing status of any Member." The general manager did not allow the Board of Directors access to the POATRI Global Records necessary to make that determination and the Board controlled by the conspirators agreed to this rule. Therefore the Board is not performing their duty required by the Bylaws and there is no check on the accuracy of the voters' list.

(F) No one is allowed to look at the Terlingua Ranch Global Records, which is a violation of applicable law. These records show whether property owners have paid their maintenance fees and are thereby eligible to vote. An independent examination of the Official Voters' List comparing it to the records of Brewster County indicate that many names found in the Association' s list of members in good standing were not found listed as property owners in Brewster county records. Plaintiffs believe that a thorough investigation into the method of collecting and counting votes will reveal fraud on the part of the conspirators to "rig" the outcome of elections.

(G). On March 19, 2005 at a Special POATRI Board Meeting the following resolution was passed the Board of Directors of the Association.
Article 9 of the bylaws of the Association were amended to state, "Should a member who is entitled to vote in any election
conducted by mail by the Association fail to exercise that right, the vote to which the member is entitled shall be counted the same as those cast by the majority of those voting."
This amendment was never submitted to the membership for a vote of approval or disapproval as required by the bylaws said to be in effect at the time such amendment was made.
Plaintiffs believe they will be able to show that the bylaw in effect at the time was actually enacted in 1996 and required the approval of two thirds of the members entitled to vote in order to make such amendment as the one in question. The bylaw published by the conspirators on the web site of the Association was represented to have been the result of an amendment of the 1996 bylaw on October 11, 2000. Plaintiffs would show that the amendments represented by Defendants as having been approved in a members meeting held on the 27th day of January 2001 is a fiction and that at least some of the coconspirators were aware of that fact.
This amendment violates the Association rules set forth in the Maintenance Agreement setting forth that any change to the Maintenance Agreement must be approved by a vote of a majority of the property owners. Such a rule has only one purpose, to inflate the number of votes so as to circumvent the requirement that over fifty percent of the members in good standing must vote in favor of the amendment to the Maintenance Agreement. Such a fiction violates all notions of fair play and the spirit of the Maintenance Agreement requirements that a certain percentage of members must vote in favor of amendments to the maintenance agreement.
(H). During the year 2005 two special elections were conducted. The resolution passed by the Board of Directors on March 19, 2005 (See item G.) was used in reference to the two special elections.
· The first item voted on was called Article X. This resolution was to change the Maintenance Agreement regarding the number of votes required to amend the Maintenance Agreement.

· The second item voted on was called Article I. This resolution was to increase the Maintenance Fees provided for in the Maintenance Agreement.



The rules governing both these special elections required that Maintenance Agreement could only be amended by a vote of the majority of the property owners in good standing. A majority of property owners in good standing did not vote for either of these measures. However the Board of Directors using the method of counting votes not cast outlined above proclaimed that both measures passed.
(I) A total of 975 property owners formerly in good standing were disqualified from voting in the election to raise maintenance fees. These property owners did not pay a Special Income Assessment of $51.00, which was assessed by the Board. This Special Assessment was conceived and approved solely by the Board of Directors prior to an election to raise maintenance fees. Property owners were led to believe this was a voluntary assessment and that no penalty would attach to failure to pay the assessment. There is no authority for the Board to make assessments other than the maintenance fees mentioned in the Maintenance Agreement. The property owners that did not pay the Special Assessment were not notified that they were disqualified from voting in the election to raise maintenance fees. These property owners were however mailed ballots and many voted thinking that their ballots would be counted. This Board action was intentionally misleading. A total of 299 ballots were thrown out because the owners had not paid the Special Income Assessment.
(J) There are a number of exempt property owners (about 900) who are not required to pay maintenance fees. These property owners who do not pay maintenance fees, were allowed to vote in the election to raise the maintenance fees even if they did not pay the Special Assessment. This is disparate treatment of property owners and dilutes the voting power of the legitimate members of the association. Further, the only property owners who are defined in the Maintenance Agreement as members of the Association are the owners of the property subject to maintenance fees. The Board has consistently allowed property owners who are not defined as members to vote in the Association elections and on other propositions required to be decided by a vote of the members. This is particularly egregious because many of the questions involve maintenance fees to be paid by the property owners. It is patently unfair to allow non-members who are not subject to the payment of maintenance fees to vote to increase the fees paid by the members of the association.
(K) On January 31, 2004, Don Mahan was removed from serving his term as a Board Member in violation of State of Texas law for nonprofit corporations, in violation of due process and all notions of fairness. Don Mahan was removed from office due to a vote of proxies in a Members Meeting. The law governing removal of an elected director: requires an affirmative vote equal to the vote necessary to elect the director. Just prior to the membership meeting in which Don Mahan was removed as Director, and to accomplish the removal of Don Mahan as a Director, the Board passed a Bylaw change enabling removal of directors by the membership. Then at the membership meeting, without prior notice of any kind, the Board entertained a motion to remove Don Mahan as Director based on conduct allegedly committed prior to the change in the Bylaws. Don Mahan was not allowed any rebuttal to the allegations and proxy votes were used to remove Mr. Mahan as a Director. Subsequent to that meeting, the Board amended the Bylaws to remove the recently added provision that was used to remove Mr. Mahan as a Director.
.
Don Mahan was elected to office for a three-year term on January 25, 2003 by a vote of 486 votes. . He was removed from office by a vote of 458 in a members meeting. No notice of the removal was given to Don Mahon and he was not allowed any right of due process concerning the removal. The removal of Don Mahan was orchestrated by the members of the conspiracy in order to remove a Director who refused to join them and who was an active voice to reveal the conspirators. Since the removal of Don Mahan, other Directors have been harassed and intimidated into resigning or have been removed by the board and their coconspirators. The Board has amended the Bylaws to include a provision that a director who has been removed may not again be elected to the Board. This allows the Board to forever get rid of dissenting voices on the Board and allows the Board to appoint people of like mind to the Board to fill out the vacant term of the removed director. The Board appoints a director to fill the remaining term of the dismissed director. At one time, and during much of the time covered by the alleged conspiracy, the number of appointed directors exceeded the number of elected directors.

12. The examples given above are examples of how the Defendants have used the powers of the office of director on the board of the Association to manipulate the operation of the Association and to obtain and retain control of the Association. In furtherance of their agenda Defendants have done the following
A. Defendants have amended the Bylaws of the corporation without following the prescribed method for amending the Bylaws and by combining together to falsely inform the members of the Association that the proper procedure was followed.
B. The Maintenance Agreement which is the core document of the Association was amended by the subterfuge of first amending the Bylaws of the Association to allow the Directors to avoid the requirement that a majority of the owners of property in the Association vote in favor of any amendment of the Maintenance Agreement. This was done through a series of steps described above calculated to reach a result in which members who did not even cast votes were deemed to have voted in the election. The amendments to the bylaws themselves were not authorized and were falsely represented as conforming to the requirements of the rules for changing the bylaws.
C. The Defendants have gained control of the Board of Directors of the Association by means of intimidation, trickery, false accusations and removing Directors without due process. The Directors where then replaced with appointed Directors who would join the conspiracy and continue the consolidation of power.
D. The Defendants have carried out the conspiracy outlined above by means of the U.S. Mail, the Internet and by telephone. The U.S. Mail was used to deliver to each member in good standing material in furtherance of the conspiracy. The web site of the Association was used to deliver false information in furtherance of the conspiracy and the U.S. Mail was used to collect assessments from the members. The actions of the conspirators were carried out in secrecy and have been concealed from the members of the association. Only in the last year has the conspiracy began to be uncovered and there is still much about the conspiracy that is unknown as the records of the meetings and of the actions of the conspirators have been secretive to avoid detection.


13. Each of the preceding acts were committed by means of telephone, e-mail, United States Mail as well as by other means. Communications to Plaintiffs in furtherance of the conspiracy were made by email, United States Mail and by telephone. Collections of maintenance fees resulting from the illegal and wrongful acts were done by United States Mail. Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were committed in each of the counties of residence of Plaintiffs including Brazoria County, Texas.

DAMAGES FOR PLAINTIFF
13. As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, Plaintiffs have been assessed increased maintenance fees. They have been threatened with loss of member in good standing status if they do not follow the dictated amended Bylaws and Maintenance Agreement. Some Plaintiffs have been deprived of their member in good standing status and have been deprived of their right to vote. They have been deprived of the right to vote by proxy, to due process and to be elected to the Board of Directors of the Association. The Maintenance Agreement and Bylaws of the Corporation have been illegally amended. The conspirators have profited by the conspiracy in profits from land sales, diversion of maintenance fund monies to the use and profit of the conspirators and their cohorts. The maintenance fund money has been wasted on projects that benefit only the conspirators to the detriment of the dues paying members and landowners. Plaintiffs ask that the illegal acts by the conspirators be set aside, that the conspirators be forced to disgorge the profits made as a result of the conspiracy. Plaintiffs further request that the voting of proxies at the members meeting scheduled to be conducted in January 2006 mentioned above be ordered to proceed and that the proxies held by Donald Mahon be allowed and that such proxy votes added to the total votes cast on each issue voted upon by the members and the results be retabulated. If such retabulation changes the outcome of the election then Plaintiffs request the court to order the board to forthwith change the records of the Association to reflect the new result of each issue so changed.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES
The actions of the Defendants are willful and malicious and without regard for the rights of Plaintiffs and as such make Defendants liable for punitive damages.

NO INDEMNITY FROM ASSOCIATION FUNDS FOR MEMBERS OF THE CONSPIRACY WHO ARE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
The conduct outlined above was burdensome, harsh, and wrongful. It demonstrated a lack of probity and fair dealing in the Association' s affairs to the prejudice of some of the members and was a visible departure from the standards of fair dealing and a violation of fair play on which each member of the Association is entitled to rely. Further, the conduct was deliberate, knowing, willful and with knowledge that the conduct was wrongful. Such conduct constitutes Member Oppression on the part of the Directors and bars the directors from indemnity for their actions as directors of the Association. Further such conduct renders the Defendants liable to Plaintiffs as a matter of law and requires disgorgement of the profits and other gains of Defendants arising out of the conduct.

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs invoke their right to trial by jury.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, respectfully pray that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against Defendants for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. That Defendants be ordered to pay punitive damages. That the conspirators be required to disgorge their ill gotten profits, that the funds used for the profit or benefit of the conspirators be ordered replaced, that the amendments to the Bylaws and the Maintenance Agreement be set aside as void. That the disallowed proxies be counted and the results entered on the record of the Association. That the Plaintiffs have all their damages together with pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; post-judgment interest at the legal rate, costs of court; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,


By:
Jerry D. Conner
Texas Bar No. 04688000
1648 GESSNER
HOUSTON, Texas 77080
Tel. (713)465?1026
Fax. (713)461?1515
Attorney for Plaintiff