Cause No.

2017-CI-20428

Edith S. Jacobi, In the District Court

Plaintiff

v. 407th Judicial District

Karl W. Amrhein,
Defendant Bexar County, Texas

DEFENDANTS ORIGINAL ANSWER, MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER, AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO MODIFY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND MOTION TO INCREASE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BOND

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court:

NOW COMES Karl W. Amrhein, pro se Defendant, and files this Original Answer and Motion to
Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order. In the alternative, Defendant also files this Motion to Modify
Temporary Restraining order and to Increase Temporary Restraining Order Bond. In support thereof,
Defendant would show the Court as follows:

GENERAL DENIAL ANSWER

1. Defendant enters a general denial and asks that Plaintiff take nothing by her claims.

JURY DEMAND

2. Defendant hereby requests a trial of this cause by jury and has tendered the applicable fee to
the clerk.

FACTS

3. Mrs. Edith Jacobi is a resident of the City of Windcrest. Upon information and belief, she is not a
citizen of the United States. According to the records of the Bexar County Registrar of Voters she is not
registered to vote in Bexar County notwithstanding her long residence in Bexar county.

4. Mrs. Jacobs husband, Gerd Jacobi, is an incumbent on the Windcrest City Council and has publicly
supported reelection of the incumbent mayor and council members who are running in the General
Election to be held on November 7, 2017. See ADD SUPPORTING INFORMATION.

5. Local politics in Windcrest are known for being particularly heated and Mrs. Jacobi and her
husband have been accused of many acts of dishonesty, deceit, and intimidation of voters and residents.
See ADD SUPPORTING INFORMATION. Online records of the meetings of the City of Windcrest
demonstrate that even in the formal setting of a City Council meeting, Mr. Jacobi has shouted at and
threatened residents with whom he disagreed. See ADD SUPPORTING INFORMATION.
 6. In October 2017, Mrs. Jacobi alleged that she was involved in a physical altercation with
Defendant at the Takas Park polling sitethe only polling location within the City of Windcrest. Defendant
denied the occurrence of any physical contact and was not convicted of any crime connected with the
allegations notwithstanding Mrs. Jacobis presentation of charges before a competent authority.

7. In recent years, a significant component of voter outreach during municipal elections has been to
speak with prospective voters at the citys polling site. The City Council has passed multiple ordinances to
allow for a safe and respectful environment for residents to engage in such electioneering in compliance
with the restrictions of the Texas Election Code.

8. Recently, attempts were made to move polling for the Windcrest election to another site. Mrs.
Jacobi opposed such efforts and publicly stated that despite the alleged incident last year, she feels safe
at the park and wants polling to remain there. Takas Park will remain Windcrest poll site, San Antonio
Express News, Sept. 23, 2017 (available at
http://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/ODN/SanAntonioExpressNews/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=SA
EN%2F2017%2F09%2F23&entity=Ar00301&sk=677BBC2B&mode=text).

9. In response to residents concerns, however, the Bexar County Elections Department has required
the posting of a Sheriffs Deputy who remains physically at the voting site during all hours of voting.

10. Defendant is a registered voter residing in the City of Windcrest who has been actively involved
in campaigns to elect candidates other than those supported by Mr. and Mrs. Jacobi.

11. Mrs. Jacobi sought the temporary restraining order granted by the court on an ex parte basis
despite knowing exactly where Defendant could be provided notice of a hearing and given an opportunity
to present arguments against the issuance of the temporary restraining order.

12. The temporary restraining order has the effect of denying Defendant the opportunity to engage
in core constitutional speech in the form of electioneering activities at the polling site. Further, given the
full-time presence of law enforcement officials, the temporary restraining order does so unnecessarily.

MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

13. The temporary restraining order issued against Defendant is void and should be dissolved in
consequence of procedural and substantive deficiencies in the order and the evidence supporting it.

A. Procedural Defects in the Application for Temporary Restraining Order and the Temporary
Restraining Order Itself Render the Order Void

14. To obtain a temporary restraining order on an ex parte basis, an applicant must demonstrate that
she will suffer irreparable injury, loss, or damage if the temporary restraining order is not granted and
there is not sufficient time to serve notice on the respondent and hold a hearing. Tex. R. Civ. P. 680.
Further the local rules in Bexar County require that when a party is represented by counsel its counsel
state in writing:

(1) to the best of his knowledge the respondent is not represented by

counsel, (2) he has tried and has been unable to contact opposing counsel
about the application, (3) opposing counsel has been notified of the
application and does not wish to be heard, or (4) notifying the respondent
or his counsel would cause irreparable harm to the movant.

Bexar Cnty. L. R. 6C. Furthermore, the order granting an ex parte temporary restraining order must state
why it was granted without notice if it is granted ex parte. Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. In re Office of the Atty. Gen.,
257 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Tex. 2008). Orders that fail to fulfill these requirements are void. Id.

15. Plaintiffs Application lacks any certification from counsel as required by the Bexar County Local
Rules. The application also does not allege that there is not sufficient time to serve notice on the
respondent and hold a hearing. The only allegation is that Defendants prior conduct demonstrates a
propensity for engaging in willful and malicious conduct, which Plaintiff fears will occur in the form of
additional acts of assault or intentional inflictions of emotion [sic] distress at polling places in the City of
Windcrest. This broad statement does not allege why, for example, Plaintiff could not hold a hearing on
an expedited basis. There is no allegation of any improper contact or conduct since the alleged altercation
on year ago even though the parties have repeatedly been in proximity since that time.

16. The order does not even reference the fact that it was granted on an ex parte basis.

B. The Temporary Restraining Order Is an Improper Prior Restraint on Speech

17. While the temporary restraining order does not immediately purport to restrain speech other
than communication with Plaintiff and her spouse, it unquestionably has the effect of restraining
Defendants core constitutional interest. Unlike Plaintiff, Defendant is a citizen and regularly votes in
elections. More than only voting in elections and on matters of interest to the community, he seeks to
avail himself of his first amendment rights to persuade others to vote consistent with his perspectives.

18. As stated above, in the City of Windcrest, on Election Day there is a single site where individual
may vote in a municipal electionthe polling place at Takas Park which is referenced in the temporary
restraining order. As a result, there are annual efforts at voter education which take place at the polling
site outside of the 100-foot restrictive areas. Candidates and supporters place temporary tents and tables
and distribute literature and speak with voters. City of Windcrest ordinances regulate the placement of
such sites and facilitate an orderly election process.

19. While Windcrest registered voters may vote at any polling site in Bexar County during early voting,
it is often the caseparticularly when there is not a national campaignthat a high proportion of
Windcrest voters exercise their franchise rights at the Takas Park polling site. For this reason, the same
electioneering activities that take place on Election Day are also conducted throughout early voting. It is
these exact activities in which Plaintiff seeks to take part and are referenced in the Application for
Temporary Restraining Order.

20. As a result, if Defendant is prohibited from being at the Takas Park polling cite or within 1,000 feet
of Plaintiff while she is there, he is deprived of his constitutional right to speak with voters prior to their
casting a ballot. While there is no pecuniary value associated with this right, it is fundamental to an
engaged citizenry.

21. Furthermore, upon information and belief, if this first instance of attempting to bar a political
opponent from the polling site is successful, it is expected that the same tactic will be used against others
in future elections in Windcrest. Because such prior restraints on speech are violative of the Texas and
United States Constitutions, see Hajek v. Bill Mowbray Motors, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 253, 255 (Tex. 1983), the
temporary restraining order should be set aside. It should also be set aside because it will open Pandoras
box and forever impact elections in Windcrest.

C. The Temporary Restraining Orders Duration and Nature Effective Awards Permanent Relief to
Plaintiff

22. One of the structural protections against temporary restraining orders, particularly those granted
on an ex parte basis, is their limited duration. However, as this temporary restraining order seeks to enjoin
electioneering activity and would extend through the date of the General Election, the limited duration
does not afford Defendant any due process.

23. Furthermore, the temporary restraining order seeks to disturb rather than preserve the last
peaceable status quo. Prior to issuance of the order, Plaintiff and Defendant were both engaged in
electioneering activities at Takas Park without incident, as they were following the alleged incident last
year. The last peaceable status quo would be preserved without limiting Defendants participation in
electioneering activities.

ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO MODIFY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

24. While Defendant contends that the entirety of the temporary restraining order is both void ab
inicio and should be set aside as a prior restraint on speech, in the alternative, Defendant would have the
Court modify the temporary restraining order to remove all restrictions related to polling places. Further,
Defendant would have the court remove any distance or proximity prohibition at polling places where
Plaintiff and Defendant are anticipated to jointly engage in free speech activities and where law
enforcement officials are already present.

25. Defendant does not object to the restraining orders requirement that communications between
the parties be limited and wishes only that he could have the same judicial guarantee that neither Mr. or
Mrs. Jacobi would contact him with their continuing harassing invective.
 ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO MODIFY BOND

26. The second structural protection against issuance of improper temporary restraining orders,
particularly those granted on an ex parte basis, is the imposition of a reasonable bond requirement to
satisfy injuries sustained by a wrongfully enjoined party.

27. Yet in the present case, for the low price of only $100, Plaintiff successfully obtained an order
prohibiting an opposing political activist from engaging with voters at the location where such
communication is most successful. Plaintiff achieved this feat without the presentation of evidence or the
opportunity for Defendant to attempt vindication of his Constitutional rights.

28. Simply put, Defendants constitutional rights are worth far moreand if Plaintiff seeks to enjoy
the Constitutions protections, even for those such as herself who are not citizens, while wrongfully
denying Defendants same rights, the price should be much higher. Consequently, Defendant asks that if
the Court does not set aside the temporary restraining order that the bond be modified and set at a price
no less than $25,000. While no price can be placed on the value of ones Constitutional rights, such a bond
would compensate Defendant for the temporary deprivation of those rights once he is afforded an
opportunity to defeat Plaintiffs spurious claims before a jury.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant hereby requests that the Court set aside the
temporary restraining order issued in this matter. If the Court does not set aside the temporary restraining
order, Defendant requests that the Court strike all restrictions that prevent him from engaging in
electioneering activities during the Windcrest election. Defendant further requests in the alternative that
the bond be set at an amount no less than $25,000 in consequence of the serious Constitutional rights
implicated by continued enforcement of the temporary restraining order. Defendant further requests all
such and further relief to which he is rightfully entitled under the laws of Texas or of the United States.

Respectfully Submitted,

________________________
Karl W. Amrhein
Address
Telephone number
Pro se defendant

A copy of the foregoing has been delivered by hand on October 30, 2017 to:

Kenneth Saks
Ashley M. Graham-Hladek
Scott E. McCarty
Oliva Saks Garcia & Curiel LLP
14225 Blanco Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78216
_(signature)___________________________
Pro se defendant
 Cause No. 2017-CI-20428

Edith S. Jacobi, In the District Court

Plaintiff

v. 407th Judicial District

Karl W. Amrhein,
Defendant Bexar County, Texas

NOTICE OF HEARING

Notice is hereby given that the following matter in the above-styled and numbered case is set as
follows:

Defendants Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order and, in the alternative, Motion to Modify
Temporary Restraining Order and, further in the alternative, Motion to Increase Temporary Restraining
Order Bond

Date/Time: 9:00 a.m. on November 1, 2017 in the Presiding Court of Bexar County, Texas at 100
Dolorosa, Suite 1.09, Bexar County Courthouse, San Antonio, Texas 78205.

A hearing on only two days notice is permitted pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680.

Respectfully Submitted,

(Signature)________________________
Karl W. Amrhein
Address
Telephone number
Pro se defendant

Certificate of Service

A copy of the foregoing has been delivered by hand on October 30, 2017 to:

Kenneth Saks
Ashley M. Graham-Hladek
Scott E. McCarty
Oliva Saks Garcia & Curiel LLP
14225 Blanco Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78216

_(signature)___________________________
Pro se defendant