FORMAL PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
An open letter sent on August 29, 2026, to the MUD Board, the Attorney for the MUD, the Deed Enforcement Attorney and his Managing Partner.
Dear Cole and Members of the Board,
Pursuant to the constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, I submit this formal petition regarding the ongoing deed enforcement practices conducted by District legal counsel John Lione and committee representatives Beth Jones and Chris Rocco.
What is most troubling about these recent enforcement actions is the broader moral failure they represent. The District appears to have adopted a "verdict-first, evidence-second" approach to enforcement. Rather than meticulously assembling a case, the District conducts sloppy, incomplete investigations and relies on legal intimidation to fill in the evidentiary gaps. This is a profound abuse of authority that evades justice only because the financial cost for a resident to defend themselves is so high.
However, this strategy is not just unethical; it is highly reckless. This approach backfires entirely the moment a target puts up a fight, as the District's procedural defects will immediately collapse under basic legal scrutiny, leaving the District—and the taxpayers—exposed to significant legal and financial liability.
I. Factual Misrepresentations and Evidentiary Failures The enforcement correspondence issued in June 2026 relies on a foundation that cannot survive a legal challenge. Specifically, the violation letters allege that property owners may have received prior notice.
PIR Stonewalling as Defense Evidence: To date, every request filed under the Texas Public Information Act seeking copies of these preliminary "friendly" violation notices has resulted in "no responsive records," and Sage Management billing records show no postal charges since December 10, 2025. If the District attempts to escalate these cases, any defendant will successfully use this PIR stonewalling and lack of billing as compelling evidence that the notices were never mailed, fatally undermining the District’s procedural standing.
Evidentiary Sloppiness and Increased Litigation Costs: The monthly photo reports submitted by legal counsel fail to identify the property addresses associated with the images, rendering the current evidentiary record facially incomplete. While the District might be able to cure this post-hoc via metadata tags or sworn affidavits, the District is rolling the dice. If a resident defends an enforcement action, the District will be forced to spend money to repair its sloppy evidence under pressure and may have to nonsuit if re-inspection doesn’t identify the violation.
II. Fabrication of Legal Authority and Improper Threats of Litigation The correspondence asserts claims that exceed the governing authority of the District. If residents realize the District is bluffing about its authority, the District and its counsel are at risk of sanctions.
A Representative Example (Anderson Mill West, Section 6): Correspondence sent to residents claims that an HOA has prohibited skateboard ramps. This is a fabrication. Anderson Mill West, Section 6 does not have an HOA, nor do the deed restrictions explicitly prohibit skateboard ramps.
Misapplication of Covenants: The letter cites Section II, Item M (Nuisances) and Item R (Unsightly Articles). Applying a subjective "unsightly articles" clause to items not explicitly banned legally requires a formal determination by an Architectural Control Committee (ACC). However, the ACCs in Anderson Mill West and Hunter's Glenn II are long defunct. Even if the District could resurrect an ACC for a 30-year-old subdivision, weaponizing subjective standards after decades of neighborhood evolution invites challenges based on waiver, abandonment, and arbitrary enforcement.
Scope of Mandatory HOAs: With the sole exception of Section 19 (Volente Hills), no section within Anderson Mill West (Sections 1–21) maintains a mandatory-membership HOA with jurisdiction over private property alterations. Threatening residents using fabricated HOA authority constitutes an improper weaponization of legal standing.
III. Public Information Act Violations and a Pattern of Legal Sloppiness The administrative execution of these enforcement actions further reveals a concerning pattern of legal corner-cutting.
Unlawful Redactions: Records of the June 2026 enforcement correspondence recently produced via Public Information Requests (PIR) contain arbitrary redactions lacking any cited legal basis. Under the Texas Public Information Act, a governmental body cannot simply black out information at will; it must assert specific statutory exceptions.
A Symptom of Systemic Carelessness: While an arbitrary PIR redaction may seem like an administrative foul compared to the fabrication of HOA authority, it demonstrates a District legal apparatus that routinely ignores statutory obligations. It signals to residents—and to any future reviewing court—that the District relies heavily on sloppy legal work and the assumption that no one will double-check their diligence. When a legal team is this careless with basic transparency laws, their substantive legal threats lose all presumption of validity.
IV. Texas Open Meetings Act Violations and Deprivation of Public Oversight Conducting these enforcement actions outside of public view raises severe concerns under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA).
Unlawful Delegation: A political subdivision cannot delegate enforcement authority, direct legal counsel, or authorize litigation threats behind closed doors without formal Board action, public notice, and recorded votes.
Discovery Risks: Conducting District business in secret not only deprives property owners of transparency, but if these enforcement actions go to court, the District’s internal communications regarding authorization will be pulled into discovery.
Arbitrary Enforcement and Failure to Make Specific Findings: The Board has adopted a blanket position that enforcing the original deed restrictions is necessary to sustain taxable values. However, statutory authority to protect property values requires a reasonable, not arbitrary, determination. The Board cannot lawfully delegate the discretionary determination of whether a specific violation actually threatens the District’s tax base to legal counsel or an unelected committee. Issuing legal threats without the Board making a specific, recorded finding of fact for each alleged violation is arbitrary, capricious, and legally indefensible. If challenged in court, the District will be entirely unable to prove that these delegated, blanket enforcement actions are reasonably related to sustaining taxable values.
V. Formal Demands for Remedial Action Given the reckless nature of these enforcement procedures and the legal exposure they create for the District, I formally demand that:
Public Accountability: This petition be placed on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled open meeting of the Board of Directors for public discussion and formal acknowledgment.
Retraction: Legal counsel John Lione retract the June 2026 enforcement letters.
TOMA Cure and Specific Findings: No future violation notices or legal threats will be issued without a specific, recorded finding of fact by the Board in an open meeting demonstrating how the specific alleged violation harms the District's taxable values.
Apology: A written apology be sent to affected property owners for the use of fabricated authority to infringe upon their private property rights.
Respectfully submitted,
-Linda Fabre
Resident & Taxpayer, Williamson–Travis Counties MUD No. 1
