In my main article, I called out the staggering financial cost of the MUD Board’s ongoing lawsuit against four of its own residents, including fellow Vote 3 candidates David and Linda. But to truly understand why this litigation is such a profound affront to Constitutional rights, funded by taxpayer dollars, we have to look past conclusory statements and the dramatic accusations. Lawsuits are inherently one-sided, drafted by attorneys whose job is to make the mundane sound malicious. When a government entity sues its own constituents, the underlying evidence should be airtight. Instead, I found a case built on retrofitted grievances, subjective feelings, and explosive buzzwords designed to mask a lack of facts.
The "Tortious Interference" Claim
The District alleges "tortious interference" with its contractors. Yet the record shows a single vendor with a straightforward deed inspection contract merely exercising a standard provision to terminate their services with notice. The contractor even put in writing why they were leaving: poor governance by the District. Merits aside, the statute of limitations on this claim had already expired before the MUD even filed the lawsuit.
This contract dispute was the entirety of the board’s original complaint. A week before the hearing to consider the defendants' motion to dismiss that was ultimately granted, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and bolted on the rest of the allegations below.
"False Police Report"
The statement claims a defendant made a “false police report." Filing a false police report is a serious crime, yet law enforcement pursued zero charges in this case. The reality? The report was entirely factual. The MUD simply doesn't like that a resident brought the markings on their contractor's private security vehicle to the attention of law enforcement.
Video-Recorded "Assaults"
The plaintiffs allege “assault,” a word that naturally makes residents picture physical violence. But the plaintiffs don’t allege a single instance of physical contact. Instead, they rely on theories of "subjective fear" arising from interactions that all share a common circumstance: they happened at public MUD meetings. These meetings are video-recorded, held in a modern, well-lit venue, and attended by Inframark staff, the general public, and usually MUD-hired security. If the MUD faces genuine threats at meetings, it can modify the boardroom or hire more security. Retroactive civil litigation is not a safety plan, and it certainly isn't cost-effective.
False Imprisonment and the Gun-Toting Interloper
The sole exceptions to the public-meeting claims are allegations said to have occurred near one plaintiff’s home. This plaintiff claims a defendant stopped a motorcycle at the end of their driveway, delayed their departure in a vehicle for three minutes, and raised a fist. If true, this is absolutely something the MUD should take action to stop.
But the affidavit takes a bewildering turn: “On two occasions, I have personally seen [the defendant] in an easement beside my house spinning the chamber on a revolver he was holding.” Here, the narrative collapses under its own weight. The easements beside this property are for underground utilities. There is no place to stand without obviously trespassing in a residential yard. Furthermore, observing a detail as specific as "spinning the chamber" implies an alarming, immediate physical proximity.
Taken at face value, a person trespassing in your yard while holding a pistol demands an immediate 911 call and a police response. Instead, the plaintiff waited months or maybe years (it doesn't say), said nothing, and then piggybacked this terrifying claim onto a failing lawsuit about contract interference. Elephants don’t hide in mouse holes. Are we really supposed to believe this plaintiff just happened to realize a man with a gun in the yard was a big deal at the exact moment the contract interference claim was headed for the rocks? The plaintiffs are now at the appeals court arguing that the law doesn't require them to allege more specific details about these incidents. What would it hurt? Given even the most charitable reading, the Board's decision to pursue these claims second fiddle to a First Amendment dumpster fire is, at best, staggering incompetence. But my money is on retaliation.
When you piece it all together, the picture becomes painfully clear. The MUD’s case isn't a safety measure; it's a retaliation strategy. They took a weak contract dispute that had already passed the statute of limitations, realized it was sinking, and desperately bolted on sensational, subjective claims to keep the lawsuit alive. They are asking us to suspend our common sense and believe that they were terrified of immanent bodily injury, but somehow forgot to call the police. We deserve a MUD Board that can take a dispassionate look at the facts, not one that invents a sprawling conspiracy to silence the residents they don’t like.