PETITION FOR INJUNCTION: JAMES HIGGINS Vs ROY SARVER and JULIAS HJULIAN

 THE FOLLOWING IS THE NEW AMENDED PETITION FOR INJUNCTION PER NEW DISCOVERY FILED BY REV. JAMES W. HIGGINS AS COMPOSED AND FILED BY HIS LAWYER, ALLEN C. LEE:

1

CASE NO: A-15-0339-CV-A

JAMES HIGGINS                                        §          IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff                                                       §

Vs                                                               §

    §          36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ROY SARVER, and JULIAS HJULIAN        §

Defendants                                                  §         ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS

FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION, AND REQUEST FOR PERMANENT

INJUNCTION

COMES NOW, JAMES HIGGINS, hereinafter referred to a Plaintiff complaining of

ROY SARVER and JULIAS R. HJULIAN, DEFENDANTS, AND would show unto this

Honorable Court the following:

1. Discovery Control Plan

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under level 2/3 of the Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure because this is a suit involving extensive discovery involving a residential real estate

transaction involving interests in land with damages in excess of $100,000.

2. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction because this suit involves a private nuisance, stalking, as

defined by Section 42.072 of the Texas Penal Code; Harassment as that offense is defined by

Section 42.07 of the Texas Penal Code; Conspiracy to Enter into a Private Nuisance; Section

42.01 (11 A) stalking when Sarver uses his camera to look into the window of Plaintiff’s private

residence for a lewd and unlawful purpose; Fraud; and Fraudulent Concealment and Fraudulent

Inducement; and Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act; and an action involving

the sale and purchase of real estate in Aransas County, Texas, jurisdiction is also pursuant to

Texas Real Estate Code, and is also because of the applicability of certain provisions of an

Ordinance known as “The Abatement of Public Nuisance Ordinance” by the Aransas County

2

Commissioners Court on the 15th of December 1999, made applicable through Section 343.001

through 343.023 of the TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

3. Parties

Plaintiff is a resident of Aransas County, Texas and resides at 516 Rowe Street,

Rockport, Texas 78382. Defendant, has previously been served in this lawsuit, Defendant, Julias

R. Hjulian who is a resident of Rockport, Texas 78382 and has previously been served in this

case.

4. FACTS

Plaintiff purchased a tract of land from Mathew Ryan on or about the 11th day of

September 2013. The real property and improvements thereon herein referred to as “The

Property” are situated at 514/516 Rowe Street, Rockport, Aransas County, Texas. A copy of the

real estate contract is attached hereto as exhibit “A” and made a part hereof by incorporation.

Plaintiff went into possession of the property and started to clean the area between his lot and the

next-door property owned by defendant, Roy Sarver. Sarver came onto Plaintiff’s property and

tried to intimidate Plaintiff by threatening to assault Plaintiff and stating he would take action to

reduce the value of Plaintiff’s Property if he continued to clean up his property. Plaintiff

constructed a fence between his land and Sarver’s land. During that period, Plaintiff discovered

that a portion of a concrete pad owned by Sarver was encroaching about a foot on Plaintiff’s

land. The encroachment was buried a few inches under the ground and not clearly visible. After

conducting discovery, the former owner, Mathew Ryan asserted that Defendant, Sarver did not

disclose to him that he had constructed a series of pipes that connected to a water storage tank

situated on the Sarver land. Sarver from the time that Plaintiff started clearing the brush and

debris on his land began a campaign to intimidate and force Plaintiff to move from his property.

3

Ryan had utility service to city water but Sarver had no such utility connection to city water.

When Plaintiff discovered that Sarver was apparently stealing water from him, one reason for the

constant harassment became apparent. Sarver was trying to keep Plaintiff from discovering that

he had been stealing water from Plaintiff to fill his storage tank. A review of Plaintiff’s water

bills reveals a surge in consumption that was more than plaintiff was normally using on a

monthly basis. It is estimated before the water line was disconnected from Defendant Sarver’s

land, Sarver had stolen about $300-400 worth of Plaintiff’s water. As a result of Sarver’s

activities, Plaintiff was forced to dig up the pipeline connected to Sarver’s water tank leading to

his discovery of other pipelines traversing his property at a cost of approximately $3000.

Plaintiff only recently discovered that Ryan after his purchase of the property from Sarver only

lived there about eight months. Ryan had moved to Longview, Texas and only traveled back to

his house in Rockport, Texas intermittently until he sold the property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also

learned that Ryan had given Sarver keys to his house and had allowed Sarver to use the building

next to the house to repair his vehicles until he rented the property to Plaintiff about six months

before the sale and purchase of the property. Plaintiff alleges that Sarver has conducted a

campaign that amounts to a private nuisance and continues to conduct such a campaign to harass;

annoy, and subject Plaintiff to a health hazard by operating his tractor inside a shed next to

Plaintiff’s property so that the noxious fumes cross from Sarver’s property onto Plaintiff’s

property causing he and his companion who reside in his home to have serious breathing

problems to a point where his health both physically and mentally have been impaired. Sarver

also burned leaves or other debris in a barn immediately next to Plaintiff’s bedroom and kitchen

causing such noxious smoke to enter his premises to the extent that it has become a health hazard

and continued to do so until recently. Sarver has also conducted a campaign of playing his style

4

of music at a rate of more than 85 decibels than are allowed according to the police. To

plaintiff’s consternation the police are called to his home and threaten to file complaints against

Plaintiff for disorderly conduct when the musical output is less than one/half of the decibels put

out by Sarver. Sarver initially installed powerful flood lights on his property which were

directed at the front door and bedroom windows of Plaintiff’s property and are endangering

Plaintiff and his girlfriend when they walk up and down the stairs to the front door of their home

and the light is intentionally beamed directly toward them to cause them to fall down the steps

and injure themselves. He continues this type of harassment by constructing another set of lights

on his property and directing them toward Plaintiff’ bedroom window allowing his camera to

take pictures of plaintiff and his girlfriend; by intermittently playing music above the 85 decibels

allowed by law; and by taking an instrument and banging on metal in the building across the

fence from Plaintiff’s bedroom window at all hours of the night, particularly after 10:00 p.m.

when plaintiff tries to sleep.

“The Property” is described as Lots 17 and 18 Bellevue Addition, City of Rockport,

County of Aransas, Texas also known as 514 and 516 Rowe Street.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant, Sarver has conspired with defendants Julius R.

Hjulian, to have him file false charges of disorderly conduct and attempted assault as part of the

campaign to harass and intimidate Plaintiff. Defendant was wrongly convicted of disorderly

conduced in the JP and County Courts of Aransas County by the State’s introduction of a video

prepared by Roy Sarver which he manipulated to indicate that Plaintiff threatened Hjulian with a

gun. The video and audio was altered by Sarver to indicate Plaintiff has requested a “gun” when

Plaintiff had responded to a remark from Sarver at the time stating “Why don’t you get your

gun?” The response by Plaintiff was “I don’t need a gun”. The jury in both cases heard only the

5

word “get gun”. Hjulian was standing next to Sarver when the conversation occurred then lied to

the prosecutor to get him to try the cases then to both juries about what had happened. Hjulian

entered into the conspiracy to harass Plaintiff by constantly riding on his tricycle on the wrong

side of the road with his dog. Plaintiff has dogs which were excited by Hjulian’s dog. These

antics were designed to cause another altercation between himself and plaintiff to the point

where he could defend himself by shooting Plaintiff with a gun which he carried each time he

rode his tricycle on the wrong side of the road. Plaintiff has videos that indicate, Hjulian would

pause before he continued to drive by Plaintiff’s house and set his phone on video so that if a

confrontation did ensue he would have a record. Hjulian in his affidavit attached to his First

Amended Answer falsely stated that on August 3, 2015, that Plaintiff threatened to pull a gun on

him without cause. Plaintiff again asserts that the tape and video were altered to make it appear

that Hjulian was threatened when the words, “get the gun” instead of “I don’t need any gun”

were altered to indicate to the jury that Plaintiff had threatened defendant with a gun.

Additionally, at a time when the police had confiscated plaintiff’s gun, Plaintiff asserts that on or

about December 9, 2015 plaintiff was driving in his car to town on the right side of the lane

when he encountered Hjulian again driving his tricycle on the wrong side of the road. Without

getting out of his car Plaintiff stopped his car and motioned to Hjulian to move to the correct side

of the road. This event happened after Hjulian was served with notice of this lawsuit where he

was accused of civil conspiracy. Plaintiff was aware that Hjulian had a gun and appeared to go

for it. Fearing that he was about to be shot, plaintiff turned his car to the left and proceeded

around Hjulian. As Plaintiff’s car drove by an eye witness observed that Hjulian had raised his

feet to kick the side of plaintiff’s car and based on the evidence that Hjulian’s right wheel had hit

plaintiff’s vehicle near the right rear of plaintiff’s car, it appeared that Hjulian had purposely

6

caused the impact and reported it to police. Police photos of the incident indicated that Hjulian

even moved his tricycle slightly off of the road to make it appear he was not on the roadway.

Plaintiff did not see Hjulian actually fall on the ground so was not aware that an accident had

occurred. He proceeded to the sheriff’s office to inform officers there that Hjulian had tried to

assault him with a gun and that he drove around him to prevent his being shot. Plaintiff

affirmatively pleads that his actions were taken under the defense of “necessity” as he was

subsequently falsely charged with “Injury to an Elderly Person” and had to go to jail and make a

$10,000 bond. That felony case was dismissed by the State, then he was charged with aggravated

assault and that case was dismissed by the State. He was finally charged with failure to stop and

render aid after an accident. At the time of the alleged accident, Plaintiff again asserts that the

facts indicate that Hjulian had moved the tricycle off the road; He also stated to the police that he

was not injured’ and admitted that he was carrying a handgun as Plaintiff feared which made it

necessary that he take action to protect himself and his passengers who were traveling in his car

and had also witnessed Hjulian’s threatening actions. Plaintiff is set for trial in the criminal case

before this case so expects to be vindicated at trial.

During these past four years, Plaintiff has been constantly harassed, annoyed, tormented,

been burglarized, had his tires cut; had his housemate who is nearly blind, harassed and

intimidated to the point that he doesn’t get out of his house; Sarver has placed cameras all around

plaintiff’s house to view plaintiff’s activities and into plaintiff’s bedroom. Despite plaintiff’s

efforts to avoid the intrusive cameras by building tarps above his fence, Defendant Sarver has

placed cameras on his property and has run wire on the McLester property and around to another

neighbor’s property so he can attempt to find out what Plaintiff is doing.

Plaintiff again originally thought Sarver’s activities were related to the stolen water which was

7

alleged in Plaintiff’s original petition. Over an almost four year period, Sarver continued the

harassment. Plaintiff further alleges that Sarver placed his camera at a point where it can survey

all of plaintiff’s property, even above the Plaintiff’s tarps that are over twelve feet high.

Within the past 60 days, Plaintiff has had third parties assist him to determine what an

alleged “hurricane shelter” which is about 4’in height, 8-10 feet in length and about 4’ wide with

a metal door that only opens from the top had actually been used for. The room which was built

by Sarver before the sale to him by Ryan had been cleaned with chemicals in an effort to make it

difficult to determine what Sarver had been using the room for. Despite his efforts, a test has

confirmed that the room had been used to manufacture illegal drugs. On an occasion when

plaintiff’s investigators were present during the last 45 days, Defendant, Julias Hjulian trespassed

onto plaintiff’s driveway and took pictures of the vehicles there as well as presumably the parties

present. He was contacted by one of the investigators and asked why he was there and apparently

gave an obtuse answer. This illegal trespass onto Plaintiff’s property conclusively proves that

Hjulian is in fact involved with Sarver in a civil and possibly criminal conspiracy to harass

Plaintiff as well as a cover-up of Sarver’s illegal activities. In the first criminal trial in the JP Ct,

Hjulian testified under oath that he barely knew Sarver. Further discovery indicated that they

served together as Masons for years. Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions over the past four

years have caused plaintiff extreme mental anguish; have caused him to spend money to dig up

the pipes laid by Sarver; money to have someone survey the property for water damage caused

by Sarver; have caused him to spend money on attorney fees to defend himself against false

charges brought against him by Sarver, and his neighbors some of which were dismissed by

agreement in the mediation. Plaintiff also requests that the Court permanently enjoin defendants

from harassing and/or stalking Plaintiff and his housemate; threatening to case them bodily

8

injury; harassing them under both civil and applicable criminal statutes; communicating directly

or indirectly in any threatening manner; going to or near his residence; engaging in conduct

directly specifically toward Plaintiff and members of his household and friends including but not

limited to following plaintiff, or taking any action that is reasonably likely to harass, annoy,

alarm, abuse, torment or embarrass the person. Plaintiff further requests that the Court based on

defendant Hjulian’s conduct with both implied or direct threats to use his gun on Plaintiff cancel

or suspend his gun carry license with the State. If their actions are not enjoined and abated,

Plaintiff’s health will continue to deteriorate. Plaintiff is a disabled Viet Nam Veteran and only

wants to live in peace with his neighbors.

5. Count One: Common Law Fraud

Plaintiff incorporates the facts alleged in paragraph 4 herein in the interest of brevity.

Plaintiff alleges that the failure to disclose the encroachments and water lines installed by Sarver

on plaintiff’s land and failure to disclose that fact that Sarver was using the waterlines to literally

steal water from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s recent discovery that his Seller Mathew Ryan was

induced by Sarver to purchase the land without disclosure of the encroachment and pipes

Had Plaintiff known that the encroachments was there or that Sarver was allowed to steal water

from him, or that Sarver would turn out to be the “Neighbor from Hell,” he would not have

purchased the real property from Ryan. As a producing result and/or proximate result of the

defendant, Sarver’s fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs alleges that the market value immediately

before the sale of the property was the price he paid for the property of $119,616.63 and the

market value of the property immediately after the sale was $50,000, the difference of which is

$69,616.00. In the alternative, Plaintiff alleges damages based on the benefit of the bargain rule

in an amount equal to the cost of remediating his land, damages as a consequence of the

9

encroachment in an amount alleged to be more than $50,000 all of which he prays judgment

against defendant Ryan.

6. Count Two: Fraud by Non-Disclosure and Fraudulent Inducement

Plaintiff incorporates the facts alleged herein in paragraph 4 herein in the interest of

brevity. In the alternative, Plaintiff alleges that defendant, Sarver committed fraud by nondisclosure

and fraudulent inducement in that the failure to disclose the encroachment and the

hidden pipes trans versing his property to Ryan have reduced the market value of plaintiff’s real

property were intentional and/or reckless and done with intent that Plaintiff would complete the

purchase of the property. But for the fraudulent/ alternatively negligent acts of the defendant,

Sarver which were only discovered in discovery this year Plaintiff would not have purchased the

property from Ryan. Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount in excess of $50,000 as a

producing/proximate result of defendant, Sarver’s acts and prays for a judgment against him for

such amount.

7. Count Four: Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Plaintiff incorporates the facts alleged herein in paragraph 4 in the interest of brevity. In

the alternative, Plaintiff alleges that he is a consumer under the DTPA because Plaintiff is an

individual who sought/acquired/goods and services by purchase of “The Property” identified

herein. Defendant, Sarver is an individual who can be sued under the DTPA. Defendant Sarver

violated the DTPA when he:

A. engaged in false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices that plaintiff relied on to

Plaintiff’s detriment. Specifically, defendant intentionally, recklessly or negligently failed to

provide information to Ryan at the time of his sale of the property to Ryan relative to the

encroachment and water lines traversing the property which were connected to Roy Sarver’s

10

water storage tank or that Sarver was utilizing the water line without Ryan’s full knowledge and

consent. Plaintiff alleges that he did not discover the hidden encroachment and water lines until

sometime after February of 20l4 after he discovered the water line attached to a pipe leading to

Sarver’s water storage tank. Plaintiff discovered the fact within the last 30 days that Ryan was

also misled by Sarver.

Plaintiff further alleges that it was impracticable for him to give defendant Sarver the 60

days written notice under the Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.505 (a) because the

two year statute of limitations may have run on the DTPA action unless the discovery rule

applies. Plaintiff affirmatively pleads that the discovery rule applies to this cause of action.

Plaintiff further pleads that defendant, Sarver’s wrongful conduct was a producing cause of

plaintiff’s injury, which resulted in actual losses of over $50,000 since the sale was closed.

Plaintiff also alleges that the acts of defendant Sarver were done intentionally,

knowingly, or recklessly which entitles him to recover treble damages under the Texas Business

and Commerce Code, Section 17.50 (d) as well as reasonable attorney fees which are plead and

proved at the time of trial.

8. Count: Five Private Nuisance

Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations contained in paragraph 4 in the interest of

brevity. In the alternative, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, Roy Sarver along with Hjulian have

engaged in a private nuisance which has interfered with the use and enjoyment of Plaintiff’s

property in that the acts of defendants substantially interfere with the use and enjoyment of land

by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance to persons such as plaintiff of ordinary

sensibilities. Defendant, Sarver has allowed the noxious and harmful fumes from his tractor, and

has directly caused smoke to be released from his shed while he is burning brush or trash in his

11

shed and to directly spread to plaintiff’s kitchen and bedroom causing plaintiff extreme breathing

problems to such an extent that they have to vacate their home or be overcome with the smoke

and noxious odors emanating from defendant’s property as a proximate result of defendants

intentional and/or reckless conduct. Plaintiff alleges that defendant’s conduct regarding the

smoke and gas fumes occurs whenever the wind is out of the north and spreads directly on to

plaintiff’s land. Such activity has occurred in the past ten days when defendant Sarver was

burning something which again caused Plaintiff and his companion breathing problems.

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant, Sarver is also engaging in a private nuisance in

that he is utilizing a device to play music that can be heard night and day and plays it daily and at

such an intense volume that it interferes with the plaintiff’s peaceful use and enjoyment of his

land. Such music is played at all times of the day and night for the past four years and even

during the past 30 days has gotten to the point where plaintiff and his companion have not been

able to sleep peacefully. Plaintiff also plays music but stops it before ten o’clock at night and

maintains the volume at a place where it is less than one/half of the 85 decibels that the police

have indicated would constitute a nuisance. Defendant plays the music up and until the police

arrive to check to measure the volume and returns his harassment immediately after the police

leave. Plaintiff asserts claims of nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se, negligent

endangerment, and gross negligence as a matter of law because the noise, smoke, odors, gas

fumes are temporary and occur as the wind changes to blow them across from defendant’s land

over to plaintiff’s land.

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant, Roy Sarver has failed to maintain his property in

order to reduce the flow of water over plaintiff’s land when it rains. Such conduct amounts to

negligence, negligence per se and causes plaintiff’s land to be flooded to a point where it has

12

damaged the pilings holding up plaintiff’s house as well as other parts of his foundation to a

degree where they have been damaged in excess of $20,000 for which sum plaintiff prays

judgment against defendant Sarver.

Plaintiff further alleges that the candle power of the lights that are directed from

defendant Sarver’s property to the entrance of plaintiff’s door to his residence, as well as the

light that is intentionally directed toward plaintiff’s bedroom window have caused him and his

companion extreme mental anguish to the point where they allege that the defendant has

damaged them in excess of $100,000 for which sum plaintiff prays judgment against defendant

Sarver. Since the lights are positioned to cause plaintiff damages, defendant alleges that as a

matter of law the nuisance is permanent entitling him to damages for the diminution of the value

of his land for a sum in excess of $25,000 for which sum plaintiff prays judgment against the

defendant, Roy Sarver. Should the defendant’s acts constituting a private nuisance continue the

value of plaintiff’s land may be reduced to zero.

. Count Six: Conspiracy to Enter into a Private Nuisance

Plaintiff alleges that as a part of his plan of harassment and private nuisance, defendant

Sarver engaged in a conspiracy with Defendant, Hjulian to harass and intimidate Plaintiff by

initially filing false criminal charges of disorderly conduct and assault and disorderly conduct.

Plaintiff expects to file a writ of habeaus corpus to set aside convictions in the JP and County

Court because of the alteration of the video prepared by Sarver used by defendant, Hjulian to

convince a prosecutor to file the case. Additionally, Hjulian conspired with Sarver to harass and

annoy Plaintiff by attempting to start a new confrontation with Plaintiff by riding up and down

the road in front of Plaintiff’s house dozens of times over the period of four years since August

3, 2015 and taking pictures and using his dog to annoy Plaintiff’s dogs with the intent of seeking

13

a confrontation. Such harassment have aggravated Plaintiff’s medical condition causing him to

lose sleep and suffer extreme mental anguish. Hjulian even trespassed on plaintiff’s property to

take pictures of the persons who were visiting Plaintiff and the cars they were driving.

Apparently Sarver and Hjulian were getting nervous that the investigators would find what

Sarver and possibly Hjulian had been hiding on Plaintiff’s property in the past. It is

inconceivable that Hjulian would take such a chance to trespass on Plaintiff’s land and taking

pictures knowing he could be charged with criminal trespass. The reason why Defendants went

to such trouble to commit a private nuisance, escalating to criminal acts of harrassment and

stalking by Sarver finally resulted in the discovery that Sarver had conducted a criminal

enterprise on the property of Ryan by using the ‘hurricane shelter” to manufacture illegal drugs.

In fact it was determined that the so-called Hurricane shelter had been used to manufacture

illegal drugs at a time before and after the land was sold to Ryan. Sarver had Ryan’s keys and

full use of the property during the years before the land was sold to Plaintiff, Sarver even this

week uses a bat to make loud banging noises in his barn located within twenty feet of Plaintiff’s

house and fires off fire crackers with the intent to annoy, intimidate, and harass Plaintiff. The

actions of Sarver and Hjulian have caused extreme mental anguish to Plaintiff as well as

thousands of dollars in expense to litigate this case and defend himself from the criminal

charges that both Hjulian and Sarver have falsely filed as well as the expense he has had to go to

to try to keep Sarver from using his camera and lights to further harass and annoy him. Plaintiff’s

personal and financial reputation of plaintiff and have been damaged. The word “ malicious” by

plaintiff is not directed to a malicious prosecution case which is premature at this time but to

show that the Defendants acts are intentional and malicious as opposed to incidental or

accidental all used to cause damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks damages against defendants, Roy

14

Sarver, and Julias R Hjulian, in an amount of $50,000 for the mental anguish, and another

$50,000 to his personal and financial reputation as a direct and proximate result of defendant’s

unlawful, or reckless or negligent conduct for which sums plaintiff prays judgment against these

named defendants.

10. Count Seven: Stalking, a conspiracy to enter into a private nuisance under the

provisions of a private nuisance, as defined by Section 42.072 of the Texas Penal Code;

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, Sarver has committed a private nuisance under the provisions of

the Texas Criminal Code called Stalking in that he has placed cameras and lights on his property

designed to intrude into the bedroom of plaintiff and his companion as well as lights and cameras

on the property of his neighbors with the intent of stalking Plaintiff and his companion.  Plaintiff

incorporates the factual allegations contained in paragraph 4- 10 the interest of brevity. Again,

despite plaintiff’s efforts to avoid the intrusive cameras by building tarps above his fence,

Defendant Sarver has placed cameras on his property and has run wire on the McLester property

and around to another neighbor’s property so he can attempt to find out what Plaintiff is doing to

try to learn why Sarver would go to such an extent to harass Plaintiff. Sarver placed his camera

at a point where it can survey plaintiff’s property over the twelve feet that Plaintiff’s. Within the

past 60 days, Plaintiff has had third parties assist him to determine what an alleged “hurricane

shelter” which is about 4’in height, 8-10 feet in length and about 4’ wide with a metal door that

only opens from the top had actually been used for. The room had been cleaned with chemicals

in an effort to make it difficult to determine what Sarver had been using the room for. Despite his

efforts, a test has confirmed that the room had been used to manufacture illegal drugs. On an

occasion when plaintiff’s investigators were present during the last 45 days, Defendant, Julias

Hjulian trespassed onto plaintiff’s driveway and took pictures of the vehicles there as well as

15

presumably parties present. He was contacted by one of the investigators and asked why he was

there and apparently gave an obtuse answer. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

Stalking, Plaintiff has lost sleep, and experienced extreme mental anguish and the cost of

attempting to prevent defendants from further stalking him and has been damaged in an amount

in excess of $100.000 for which he prays judgment from the defendants both individually and

collectively.

11. Count Eight Harassment as that offense is defined by Section 42.07 of the Texas Penal

Code.

Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations contained in this petitioner in paragraphs 4,-

11 herein in the interest of brevity. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct, and proximate result of

Defendants’, Sarver and Hjulian’s continuing course of harassment, he has been damaged in an

amount in excess of $100,000 for which sum he prays judgement against defendant both jointly

and severally.

12. Count Nine: Violations of the Abatement of Public Nuisance Ordinance

Plaintiff alleges that he has standing under the provisions of the Abatement of Public

Nuisance Ordinance enacted by the Commissioner’s Court of Aransas County on the 15th of

December 1999 and alleges that defendant Roy Sarver’s property is located in an unincorporated

part of Aransas County and is in violation of the act in the following particulars:

A. Defendant has placed a sewer line on his property which runs from his residence to a

point on his property where it is assumed there is a septic tank. The sewer line is located where

it is more than ten feet in the air instead of being buried in the ground, and should a storm or high

wind blow the line down, depending on the direction of the wind, it presents a clear and present

16

danger to plaintiff’s property if raw sewage is allowed to be transported by air to plaintiff’s

property.

B. Defendant Sarver has placed or allowed garbage and tree limbs to be placed on a

public easement on the street called Amelia east of its intersection with Rowe Street. Defendant

has allowed weeds and rubbish as well as old cars to be placed on his property as well as old

buckets; sinks, stoves, Styrofoam coolers, in violation of 343.002 of the Texas Health and Safety

Codes provisions regarding refuse, weeds, receptacles, and garbage.

Plaintiff alleges that such conduct of the defendant constitutes a “public nuisance” as that term is

defined in the ordinance and provides both a civil and criminal penalty and for injunctive relief

to cause an abatement of the conduct alleged herein against defendant. If the condition remains

unabated for a period of 30 days after Defendant, Sarver is served with notice of this lawsuit

which provides him the required notice under the Ordinance, Plaintiff requests that the criminal

penalties provided in the ordinance be invoked.

13. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff incorporates the factual allegations contained in this petition3 in paragraphs 4-12

in the interest of brevity. Plaintiff further alleges that the flood lights which are directly toward

his bedroom window as well as the loud volume of the music being played by defendant Sarver;

the harassment and stalking is harmful to the health and welfare of plaintiff and his companion

and that if not stopped immediately by injunctive relief by this Honorable Court that they will

suffer immediate and irreparable damages for which they have no judicial remedy whether at law

or equity if the nuisance is not abated. Plaintiff’s request that no bond be ordered to restrain and

enjoin defendant from continuing this destructive and harmful conduct. Plaintiff’s pray that a

permanent injunction issue against the defendants both jointly and severally for the various

17

causes of action pled herein, alternatively Plaintiff requests that the court issue a temporary

injunction as prayed for herein and hear it on July 6, 2017 and that after trial that the temporary

injunction be made permanent.

14. Attorney Fees

Plaintiff has had to engage the services of Allen C. Lee, Attorney licensed to practice in

the State of Texas to litigate the issues and causes of actions alleged herein. Plaintiff prays

judgment against each of the defendants jointly and severally for such reasonable attorney fees as

are expended by Plaintiff in this case against the defendants alleged herein Attorney fees for the

investigation and trial for the cases against Sarver and Hjulian are estimated to be $15,000 for

trial level, $7500 for the Court of Appeals level, and $5000 for the Supreme Court with remitter

of those fees if no appeal is taken.

14. Prayer

Plaintiff prays that the defendants be cited to appear and that he have a judgment against

the defendants for damages as alleged and proved herein, for prejudgment and post judgment

interest, costs of court and such other relief to which he may be justly entitled whether at law or

equity.

Respectfully submitted,

Allen C. Lee

Attorney for Plaintiff

810 Oriole Street

Corpus Christi, Texas 78418

Ph: 361-353-4884

Fax: 361-353-4482

SBN: 12110000

Email: allen@allencleelawfirm.com