Federal Lawsuit Finally Gives Steve Aubrey and Brian Vodicka A Voice.

Case 3:19-cv-00056-B Document 120 Filed 12/11/19 Page 20 of 248 PageID 2745
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STEVEN BENTON AUBREY, and §

BRIAN EDWARD VODICKA, § CIVIL ACTION NO.
§ 3:19-CV-056-B
Plaintiffs, § 1. Damages for Deprivation of Civil
v. § Rights By City and County, Federal
§ Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983;
D MAGAZINE PARTNERS, L.P., §
ALLISON MEDIA, INC., § 2. Declaratory Relief, 42 U.S.C. 2201;
JAMIE L. THOMPSON, §
ROBERT L. ERMATINGER, JR., § 3. Injunctive Relief, 42 U.S.C. 1651;
SCOTT ROBERT SAYERS, § 4. Injunctive Relief, 42 U.S.C. 1651
MARCUS STEPHENSON (John Doe 1), §
DERRICK CHERRY (John Doe 2), § 5. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
TRACY DOTSON (John Doe 3), § Organizations (RICO) Claims for
CITY OF DALLAS, § Damages and for Declaratory Relief,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, and § 18 U.S.C. 1961; and
JOHN DOES 4-20, all whose true names §
are unknown, § 6. Other state law claims.
§
Defendants. § DEMAND FOR JURY
______________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

______________________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs STEVEN BENTON AUBREY, and
BRIAN EDWARD VODICKA file this Fourth Amended Complaint against Defendants D
MAGAZINE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLISON MEDIA, INC., JAMIE L. THOMPSON, ROBERT
L. ERMATINGER, JR., SCOTT ROBERT SAYERS, MARCUS STEPHENSON, DERRICK
CHERRY, CITY OF DALLAS, TRACY DOTSON, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, and JOHN
DOES 4-20, all whose true names are unknown, and for cause of action the plaintiffs allege and
respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………...……….….… iii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………….………………...............…..... 1
PARTIES …………………………………………………………...…………………..…. 3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ……………………………….………………...……...… 5
TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ………………………………………… 6
FINAL POLICY MAKERS ………………….………………………………..…….…..... 7
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR ……………………………………………………………… 8
FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS ………………………………..……...…………..........… 11
A. The Plaintiffs ……………………………………………………………… 11
B. Litigation Involving Steven Aubrey, Brian Vodicka, and Ira Tobolowsky .. 16
C. Plaintiffs’ Relevant Whereabouts during and after Tobolowsky’s

Murder and Detectives’ Knowledge of Same ……………………….......… 19
D. City of Dallas Perjured and Falsified Search Warrant Affidavits………..... 26
E. City of Dallas Customs and Policies ………………………………….....… 57
F. Stakeout, High-Risk Apprehension, and Custodial Interrogation ................. 59
G. Entrapment and Seizure – October 20, 2016………………………………. 70
H. Detective Ermatinger “Just Can’t Quit” Steve and Brian: Coordinated

Efforts to Intimidate, Threaten, Traumatize, and Humiliate Plaintiffs ……. 77
I. Dallas County Validates City of Dallas Perjured Affidavits ......................... 84
J. Destruction of Government Records - Spoliation ………………………..… 85
K. Distribution and Misuse of Confidential Information …………………..…. 87
L. Malicious Prosecution ……………………………………………….…….. 90
M. D Magazine Defendants …………………………………………………… 91
ii
N. Facts Common to all Counts ……………………….……………………… 109
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) …………. 111
A. The Use of Interstate Commerce and the Mails ………………………………….. 111
B. The ENTERPRISE ………………………………………………………… 112
C. Defendants’ Operation and Management of the ENTERPRISE …….……. 115
D. Predicate Acts of Racketeering …………………………………………… 115
E. Predicate Acts of Racketeering ……………………………………………. 122
F. Proximate Cause and RICO Damages …………………………………….. 131
CAUSES OF ACTION…………….............................…….………………….………...… 131
Count I Unconstitutional Searches and Seizures - False Affidavits ………..... 131
Count II Unconstitutional Searches - Warrantless Search…………………....… 134
Count III Monell Claim Against City of Dallas -

Unconstitutional Searches ……………………………………..…….. 135
Count IV Monell Claim Against City of Dallas and Dallas County -

Excessive Force ………………………………………….……….….. 137
Count V Monell Claim Against City of Dallas -

False Arrest and False Imprisonment ………………….……….……. 144
Count VI Texas State Law Claim - Malicious Prosecution …………….…..….. 146
Count VII Unconstitutional Invasion of Privacy -

Distribution and Misuse of Confidential Information ....……………. 147
Count VIII Florida State Law Claim - Libel Per Se …………………..……...…. 150
Count IX Florida State Law Claim - Defamation …………………………...… 152
Count X Florida State Law Claim - Defamation By Implication ……….……. 155
Count XI Texas State Law Claim - Defamation Per Se …………………….…. 158
Count XII Texas State Law Claim - Defamation Per Quod ………………….… 159
iii
Count XIII Texas State Law Claim - Civil Conspiracy - Invasion of Privacy ….. 162
Count XIV Texas State Law Claim - Invasion of Privacy - Misappropriation …. 163
Count XV Texas State Law Claim - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 163
Count XVI Texas State Law Claim - Fraudulent Inducement ………………...… 165
Count XVII Texas State Law Claim - Stalking ………………………..………… 166
Count XVIII Violations of Section 1962(d) of RICO ………………….………... 168
Count XIX Violations of Section 1962(c) of RICO ……………………..…….. 169
Count XX Violations of Section 1962(b) of RICO ………….…..…….…….... 170
Count XXI Texas State Law Claim - Fraud on the Courts ……………………. 171
Count XXII Texas State Law Claim - Estoppell …………………………...…... 172
Count XXIII Texas State Law Claim - Tortuous Interference ………………….. 173
Count XXIV Texas State Law Claim - Cruel and Unusual Punishment …….….. 173
Count XXV Texas State Law Claim - Fraud …………………………………… 175
Count XXVI Texas State Law Claim - Civil Theft ……………………………… 175
Count XXVII Declaratory Relief - Against All Defendants ……………….….… 176
Count XXVIII Injunctive Relief - Against City and County Defendants ……...…. 177
Count XXIX Injunctive Relief - Against D Magazine Defendants ………….…. 180
DAMAGES……………………………………………………………………...……..….. 183
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ……………………………………………….……………… 184
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ……………………………………………….……………. 185
PRAYER ………………..…………………………...........................………………….… 185
JURY DEMAND ……………………….…………………………………………………. 186
iv
INTRODUCTION
1. Ira Tobolowsky was a man with a range of complex and opaque business interests
whose family is entwined in the business and political elites of Texas. Tobolowsky was linked
through a dense set of interlocking relationships with families tied by blood, marriage, and
business interests who are powerhouses politically, legally, culturally, and economically in the
city, state, and country. Tobolowsky — lawyer, investor, lobbyist — was also the scion of a
family whose members are scattered throughout the legal profession and judiciary in Texas.
2. Yet much of Tobolowsky’s work was behind the scenes, serving the interests of
those who chose not to be publicly identified, including himself. For example, over decades,
Tobolowsky and his business associate served as registered agents for dozens of businesses that
opened and then closed with pendulum-like regularity.
3. At the time of his gruesome death in May 2016, Tobolowsky was personally
involved in two multiyear legal cases involving vast sums of money. The first, as related in open
court filings, was a battle over control of a patent worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Even
there, Tobolowsky’s true role was obscured. A second case involved a hidden struggle hinted at
between the lines of sparse probate court filings. In a third case, a real estate investor named one
of Tobolowsky’s long-time companies as a defendant for its role in a fraudulent mortgage
transaction, a suit filed just weeks before Tobolowsky’s death.
4. Yet immediately after Tobolowsky’s death in May 2016, the Dallas Police
Department chose not to examine the multiple avenues of inquiry afforded by Tobolowsky’s
complex and obscure familial and business interests. Instead, the Dallas Police Department,
Tobolowsky associates, and certain members of the judiciary chose to publicly identify two gay
men of modest means as suspects in the high-profile case.
1
5. Immediately, the DPD used extralegal means to gather information on the
Plaintiffs, including search warrants based on false information, even though they had ample
evidence that Plaintiffs were not involved in Tobolowsky’s murder, including an electronic trail
and eyewitnesses. Yet public naming of Plaintiffs was necessary to deflect attention from where
it most logically and properly pointed: on Tobolowsky’s manifold and shadowy business
interests as well as his family’s behind-the-scenes machinations concerning a large, long-
unexecuted estate.
6. To avoid the harsh glare of a murder investigation and exposure, a corrupt
machinery involving the RICO Enterprise and RICO defendants, including D Magazine
Defendants, smeared Plaintiffs unjustly as having committed the murder of Ira Tobolowsky. This
also required publicly defaming Plaintiffs.
7. On the day of Ira Tobolowsky’s death, the Plaintiffs, a gay married couple in their
mid-50s — one a long-time HIV-positive lawyer, university instructor, CPA, and amateur
conductor; and the other a landscape lighting designer and massage therapist — had immaculate
police records with no violent history or arrests of any type.
8. Yet the Plaintiffs, who had been financially destroyed in a nationally publicized
Ponzi scheme, were targeted immediately upon Tobolowsky’s death by unknown persons,
accused of capital murder in a rush to judgment and then convicted in a trial by media. Plaintiffs
have no access to institutional power, as do those who encircled Ira Tobolowsky. Owing to
limited resources, they have been forced to silently endure the smearing of their reputations — in
which any Internet search of Plaintiffs’ names instantly links them to Tobolowsky’s murder, a
crime for which they were never charged — and the resultant repercussions.
2
9. Prior to the murder and after, Plaintiffs have been injured by the corrupt practices
of certain individuals, judges, courts, and City and County employees by and through a pattern of
racketeering activity. In addition to Plaintiffs’ injuries caused by the defendants’ malicious
prosecution, aggravated assault, destruction of governmental records, aggravated perjury,
excessive force, false arrest, false imprisonment, harassment, and defamation per se, they also
suffered injuries that were proximately caused by a RICO Enterprise.1
PARTIES
10. Plaintiff Steven Benton Aubrey (“Aubrey”) is a resident of Broward County,
Florida and is before this Court for all purposes.
11. Plaintiff Brian Edward Vodicka (“Vodicka”) is a resident of Broward County,
Florida and is before this Court for all purposes. Vodicka is a disabled person under the Ryan
White Care Act.
12. Defendant D Magazine Partners, L.P. (“D Magazine”), is a Texas limited
partnership and is before this Court for all purposes.
13. Defendant Allison Media, Inc. is a Texas corporation and is before this Court for
all purposes.
14. Defendant Jamie L. Thompson (“Thompson”) is a resident of Montgomery
County, Maryland and is before this Court for all purposes.
15. Defendant Robert L. Det. Ermatinger, Jr. (“Det. Ermatinger”) is a resident of
Ellis County, Texas and is before this Court for all purposes.

1
This complaint includes Plaintiffs’ two-year claims, four-year claims, and RICO claims, all of which are
live and relate back to this Fourth Amended Complaint. Most importantly, this amended complaint pleads
the knowledge and criminal culpability, or mensrea of various City of Dallas and Dallas County
employees in real time as the events unfolded. In compliance with FRCP 9(b), this amended complaint is
pled in particularity as is required with fraud-based RICO claims and other fraud-related state law claims.
3
16. Defendant Scott Robert Det. Sayers (“Det. Sayers”) is a resident of Collin
County, Texas and is before this Court for all purposes.
17. Defendant Captain Marcus Stephenson (“Capt. Stephenson”), formerly John Doe
No. 1, is a duly sworn peace officer of the State of Texas and was a Dallas Fire-Rescue Captain
in May 2016, He is currently an Investigator with the Rockwall Fire Marshal’s office and may
served at his place of business at 191 East Quail Run Road, Rockwall, Rockwall County, Texas
75087.
18. Defendant Lieutenant Derrick Cherry (“Lt. Cherry”), formerly John Doe No. 2,
is a duly sworn peace officer of the State of Texas. Lt. Cherry is a representative of the Dallas
Fire Rescue and may served at his place of business at 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas 75201.
19. Defendant Sergeant Tracy Dotson (“Sgt. Dotson”), formerly John Doe No. 3 is a
Dallas County district attorney police senior sergeant and he may be served with process at his
place of business, the Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., Dallas, Texas
75207 or wherever he may be found.
20. Defendant City of Dallas (the “City”) is a governmental agency of the State of
Texas and is before this Court for all purposes.
21. Defendant Dallas County, Texas (the “County”) is a governmental entity of the
State of Texas and is before this Court for all purposes.
22. Upon information and belief, John Does 4–20 (“John Does”), are individuals
whose names and addresses of residences are unknown. They include Dallas police supervisors,
officers and/or employees, Dallas County deputy sheriffs, law enforcement supervisors, officers,
and/or employees and Dallas County District Attorneys and/or employees and/or attorneys of the
4
Dallas Police Department who assisted in the preparation of the perjured affidavits upon
Plaintiffs and others.
23. Aubrey and Vodicka are referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs.”
24. D Magazine Allison Media, Inc., and Thompson are referred to collectively as “D
Magazine Defendants.”
25. The City, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, Capt. Stephenson, Lt. Cherry, and John
Does are referred to collectively as “City Defendants.”
26. The County, Sgt. Dotson, and John Does are referred to collectively as “County
Defendants.”
27. D Magazine Defendants, City Defendants, and County Defendants are referred to
collectively as “Defendants.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
28. Federal question and original jurisdiction are invoked and are proper under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, because this action involves violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). This Court has supplemental
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1334 as this action is brought under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress the deprivation of rights, privileges
and immunities.
29. This Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 because the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, the plaintiffs are citizens of the state of Florida
and the defendants are citizens of the states of Texas and Maryland.
30. This Court also has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), the Hobbs Act.
5
31. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1961, “The All Writs Act” for
the Injunctive and Declaratory Relief claims.
32. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) insofar as the Northern District of
Texas is the judicial district in which the majority of the Defendants reside.
33. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) insofar as the Northern District of
Texas is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claims occurred.
TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
34. On May 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed claims in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Broward County, Florida, where Plaintiffs reside. Plaintiffs were
confident that the court had jurisdiction over D Magazine Defendants for multiple reasons,
including: D Magazine admitted that all of its multiple publications concerning Plaintiffs
occurred while Plaintiffs lived in Florida, and D Magazine Chief Financial Officer Thomas
Earnshaw admitted in his August 31, 2018 Declaration that D Magazine distributed 124 copies
of the story that defamed Plaintiffs to 124 regular subscribers in the State of Florida, thereby
establishing minimum contacts under Florida’s long-arm statute.
35. However, on November 9, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom dismissed
the Plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims, brought in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint in this
instant case, without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
36. In her Order dismissing the Florida complaint, Judge Beth Bloom stated (albeit
erroneously), “it is Plaintiffs’ own residence in Florida that they rely on as a basis for all of their
claims.”2 Page 10 of Judge Bloom’s Order states: “conduct occurred in Texas, and while

2
See Case No. 18-cv-61117-Bloom/Valle, Aubrey and Vodicka v. D Magazine, et al. (Doc. 122 at p. 18.)
6
Plaintiffs resided in Texas.” Clearly this was an oversight as the order acknowledged the
existence of D Magazine subscribers in Florida but that the percentage was small in comparison
with subscribers in Texas. Judge Bloom did not find that Plaintiffs had made a frivolous filing,
Plaintiffs’ Complaint was brought in bad faith, or that Plaintiffs’ Complaint was groundless and
without merit.
37. On January 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the same federal claims in this instant case.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) and Section 16.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, Plaintiffs’ claims in the May 17, 2018 Complaint were tolled during the pendency of the
case and for a period of 60 days after the dismissal without prejudice. Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code § 16.064(a) provides that the applicable statute of limitations is suspended when
an action is dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction in the trial court where the action was first
filed and is commenced in a court of proper jurisdiction no later than the 60th day after
dismissal.
FINAL POLICY MAKERS
38. The Dallas City Council is the final policymaker for the City. The City is a home-
rule municipality. Texas law grants the City the authority to organize and operate a police force.
Any member of the Dallas Police Department (“DPD”) is a City employee. Chief of Police
David Brown (“Chief Brown”) was the final policymaker for the Dallas Police Department
during the events at issue, with the authority for setting policies, including training of the Dallas
Police Officers. The Dallas City Council and Chief Brown, vested with all powers of the City
and the determination of all matters of policy, had a duty but failed to implement and enforce
such policies, practices, and procedures as pertain to the truthful preparation and verification of
search warrant affidavits, as well as other policies related to plaintiffs regarding false arrests,
7
false imprisonment, warrantless searches, warrantless seizures, malicious persecution, and
destruction of government records, especially DPD police incident reports, thereby causing the
violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
39. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, DPD and the City acted
jointly with regard to the actions asserted. City unidentified employees included John Does.
40. The Dallas County Commissioners Court is the final policymaker for Defendant
Dallas County, Texas. Any member of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’”) is
an employee of Dallas County, Texas. Dallas County Sheriff Valdez was the final policymaker
for the Sheriff, with the authority for setting policies, including training of the Dallas County law
enforcement officers. Sheriff Valdez was the final policymaker for running and administering the
Dallas County Sheriff’s Department during the events at issue, including the tactical high-risk
stakeout and apprehension of Plaintiff. The Dallas County Commissioners Court and Sheriff
Valdez, vested with all powers of Dallas County and the determination of all matters of policy,
had a duty to implement lawful policies, practices, and procedures for the Sheriff. County
officials, employees, and agents adopted widespread customs and practices that violated the
plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.3
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
41. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, DPD and the City acted
jointly with regard to the actions asserted. City unidentified employees included John Does.
42. As used herein, whenever it is alleged in this Fourth Amended Complaint that the
Sheriff performed an act or made a statement, Plaintiffs intend that said act or statement was
done or made together with, and/or on behalf of the County, or as an authorized agent of the

3
Chief Brown and Sheriff Valdez are un-sued co-conspirators.
8
County, or that the Sheriff did the act or made the statement under the authority of the County
via express, implied, apparent, and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat Superior.
43. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, the Sheriff and Dallas
County acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted. County unidentified employees include
John Does.
44. As used herein, whenever it is alleged in this Fourth Amended Complaint that
Sgt. Dotson performed an act or made a statement, Plaintiffs intend that said act or statement was
done or made together with, and/or on behalf of the County, or as an authorized agent of the
County, or that Sgt. Dotson did the act or made the statement under the authority of the County
via express, implied, apparent and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat Superior.
45. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Sgt. Dotson and the
County acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted.
Det. Ermatinger performed an act or made a statement prior to December 1, 2016, a date which
approximates Det. Ermatinger’s retirement/termination from the DPD, Plaintiffs intend that said
act or statement was done or made together with and/or on behalf of the City, or as an authorized
agent of the City, or that Det. Ermatinger did the act or made the statement under the authority of
the City via express, implied, apparent, and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat
Superior.
47. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Det. Ermatinger and the
City acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted.
9
48. Although DPD homicide Det. Ermatinger retired from DPD in November 2016,
he continued to distribute classified government information that was part of an ongoing
homicide investigation.
Det. Sayers performed an act or made a statement, Plaintiffs intend that said act or statement was
done or made together with, and/or on behalf of the City, or as an authorized agent of the City, or
that Det. Sayers did the act or made the statement under the authority of the City via express,
implied, apparent and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat Superior.
50. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Det. Sayers and the City
acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted.
Capt. Stephenson performed an act or made a statement, Plaintiffs intend that said act or
statement was done or made together with, and/or on behalf of the City, or as an authorized agent
of the City, or that Capt. Stephenson did the act or made the statement under the authority of the
City via express, implied, apparent and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat
Superior.
52. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Capt. Stephenson and
the City acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted.
53. As used herein, whenever it is alleged in this Fourth Amended Complaint that Lt.
Cherry performed an act or made a statement, Plaintiffs intend that said act or statement was
done or made together with, and/or on behalf of the City, or as an authorized agent of the City, or
that Lt. Cherry did the act or made the statement under the authority of the City via express,
implied, apparent and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat Superior.
10
54. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Lt. Cherry and the City
acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted.
Thompson performed an act or made a statement, Plaintiffs intend that said act or statement was
done or made together with, and/or on behalf of D Magazine, or as an authorized agent of D
Magazine, or that Thompson did the act or made the statement under the authority of D
Magazine via express, implied, apparent and/or some other authority, pursuant to Respondeat
Superior.
56. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant herein, Thompson and D
Magazine acted jointly with regard to the actions asserted.
FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
A. The Plaintiffs
57. Plaintiffs Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka were partners for nearly two decades
before they married in 2014 in Lovington, Lea County, New Mexico. At all relevant times
herein, Vodicka has been a disabled individual under the Ryan White Care Act. Plaintiffs
celebrate their 25th anniversary on December 10, 2019.
58. Vodicka had been hard-working and gainfully employed and engaged in the
community from a young age. At age 13, Vodicka began his first career as a baseball umpire,
and later became a respected football referee. The savings from the thousands of games he
umpired gave Vodicka the down payment on his first property in Austin, Texas. Vodicka
attended law school at the University of Texas and also became a registered CPA; as a lawyer his
practice focused on wills, trusts, and estates. Vodicka was also an adjunct professor at the
University of Texas McCombs Graduate School of Business for six years, and his accounting
11
students continuously consistently scored the highest in the nation on the nationwide uniform
CPA examination, besting the Ivy League schools. Vodicka volunteered for the Texas Advocacy
Project (which runs the Texas domestic family abuse hotline) and took part in civil rights
marches.
59. Vodicka has conducted the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra for its July 4th
Concert before an estimated crowd of one million people, and has twice conducted the Austin
Symphony, University of Texas Wind Ensemble, University of Texas Longhorn Band, Austin
Summer concerts at Zilker Park, Austin High School Band, and the band of his alma mater, the
Lyndon Baines Johnson High School Band.
60. Vodicka is a long-term HIV survivor who was first diagnosed in 1986 at a time
when an HIV diagnosis was considered an automatic death sentence. When diagnosed, his
physician informed Vodicka that he had one year to live, as his physician informed again in
1994.
61. Vodicka recently completed a two-year contract teaching low-income foster
children to read, write, and spell at Kids in Distress, a nonprofit organization that works with
children in foster care. Vodicka is currently a public official on the board of trustees of the City
of Wilton Manors, Florida, Pension Plan for General Employees and Police Officers, for which
he serves on a volunteer basis.
62. Steven Aubrey grew up in Dallas, Texas, the son of a respected orthodontist and
former President of the American Board of Orthodontics, Dr. Richard B. Aubrey.
63. Aubrey is a successful, hardworking entrepreneur. Aubrey established and
managed a successful landscape lighting business in Austin in the 1990s. Aubrey dug trenches
through bedrock and climbed trees with his crew for this work, for which he used a range of
12
tools to run electrical wiring around and outside homes and underneath and through landscaping.
Aubrey’s finished product and work ethos were highly respected. His next career was as a
successful masseur, work he has been engaged in for over 10 years.
64. Aubrey and Vodicka have been together for 25 years as of December 1994.
Aubrey became Vodicka’s caregiver at that time. Aubrey chose a lifetime of service for a partner
who continuously requires toxic, debilitating medications to combat his life-threatening disease,
as well other prescribed medications.
65. In the mid-2000s, Vodicka and Aubrey became ensnared in two seemingly
separate, highly complex financial scams.
66. In October 7, 2004, Vodicka was appointed to the board of directors of a U.S.
public company at the request and behest of Mrs. Barbara Hearst. However, Vodicka’s dreams of
serving as a director of a public company were shattered at the first board of directors meeting of
DOBI Medical International, Inc.
67. On October 7, 2004, Vodicka learned that the product allegedly manufactured by
the single-product company, a breast cancer detection imaging device, did not work. He soon
discovered that DOBI was not a firm that manufactured a medical device but instead a public
company front for an undisclosed Cayman Islands “pump and dump” stock “boiler room”
operation using the U.S. penny over-the-counter stock market.4
68. Vodicka blew the whistle on the DOBI scam. He spent many thousands of hours
meticulously unraveling the highly complex DOBI scheme, which involved layers of national
and international shell companies, on behalf of DOBI’s shareholders, all on a pro bono basis. His

4
The undisclosed true owner of DOBI Medical’s entire public stock float was the Verus Group, based in
New York City and Barbados. Notorious corporate raider and financier Sam Belzberg and his son Marc
Belzberg were among the hidden principals of the Verus Group. See “Update: DOBI ‘pump-and-dump’
Scam Leads to Bankruptcy,” by Eric Rosenthal, Oncology Times, July 10, 2007, available online.
13
efforts led to multiyear litigation that ended in 2007, which allowed stockholders to receive 50
percent to 100 percent of their investment on the dollar.
69. In 2007, Vodicka and Aubrey invested the last of their savings in what was
pitched as a “safe” real estate investment by a long-time “friend” in what eventually was
revealed as a multitiered Ponzi scheme executed upon land in Austin, Texas called the Wildhorse
Ranch.
70. Through information gathered via litigation over a number of years, Vodicka
painstakingly peeled away the layers of the highly complex Wildhorse Ranch scam, which
involved a multiplicity of shell companies used to launder funds for international organized
crime through corrupt U.S.-based title companies. Victor and Natalia Wolf, Russian organized
crime figures, originated the scheme, and as a direct result of Vodicka’s whistle-blowing and
cooperation with the North Miami Beach Police Department and Citrus County (Florida)
Sheriff’s Office, the FBI placed the two on its most wanted list; the Wolfs are currently
international fugitives.5
71. Through this process, Vodicka self-educated to become an expert on complex
financial frauds and the international underworld of financial scams.
72. The Wildhorse Ranch scam was the focus of local and national publicity. Vodicka
supplied information to national journalists seeking information on the complex real estate
scheme in particular and multilayered financial fraud involving Russian organized crime in

5
In this Ponzi scheme, a group of Russian nationals worked with two U.S.-based title companies to
launder millions of dollars through title company escrow accounts. As unraveled by Vodicka in materials
gained over years via discovery, the scheme ultimately led back to the notorious Moscow-born Felix
Sater, long-term FBI informant and financial criminal tied to Russian organized crime who spearheaded
efforts to secure a Moscow tower deal for Donald J. Trump during Trump’s presidential campaign in
2015 and 2016, as well as Sater’s associates. Documents in the public domain about Sater have been
unsealed partly through Vodicka’s efforts in the Eastern District of New York. See Brian Vodicka v. USA
and USA v. Frank Coppa et al.
14
general, and he has served as a helpful source for years to many.6 Vodicka has also been a guest
lecturer at the University of Texas Business School and the University of Oregon Law School
with presentations titled “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “The Underworld of International
Finance.”
73. Vodicka and others sued the principals in the Wildhorse Ranch scheme. Nine
years after their initial investment, Plaintiffs and other investors received a judgment in January
2016 but no monies. As a result, Plaintiffs were essentially bankrupt. Plaintiffs had been forced
to sell their home in Austin and eventually moved to an apartment in Dallas (“Apt 223”) in 2016.
74. Vodicka no longer has a part-time job and has been unable to find one. He now
lives off his monthly Social Security payments and the loving support of his partner, Steven
Aubrey. Aubrey has financially supported the couple since the Wildhorse Ranch scam devoured
all of Plaintiffs’ savings.
75. The years of legal struggle and their financial devastation after a lifetime of hard
work have taken an enormous toll. Vodicka especially has been hard hit, tumbling into a
profound multiyear depression. In January 2016, soon after the Wildhorse Ranch litigation
ended, Vodicka’s physician prescribed him high dosages of the powerful anti-depressants

6
The Wildhorse Ranch scam was the focus of an episode of Kurtis Productions’ “American Greed” series
on CNBC. For this episode, “From Russia With Lies,” Vodicka served as an uncredited, unrecompensed
source, offering dozens of hours of assistance to producers.
Vodicka is a respected, regular source for many articles involving Russian organized crime, financial
crimes, and real estate scams; for example, “A Classic Florida Swindle, with a Russian Twist,” February
4, 2012, Miami Herald, by two-time Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter and editor Michael Sallah. Vodicka
also was a regular source for USA Today’s exposé on Florida’s plastic surgery death clinics, and served as
a key source for the series “Homes for the Taking: Liens, Loss, and Profiteers” in the Washington Post,
which won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award in 2014. Vodicka has also been a source for articles
published by Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post.

15
Depakote and Seroquel. These medications altered his affect and left him lethargic, and as a
result he often spent large parts of his days in bed.
B. Litigation Involving Steven Aubrey, Brian Vodicka, and Ira Tobolowsky
76. Litigation involving Steven Aubrey, Brian Vodicka, and Ira Tobolowsky is
discussed in various search warrant affidavits upon which City Defendants swore, and false
statements and mischaracterizations of that litigation contained therein were then provided by
City Defendants to members of the media. For these reasons, those matters are discussed very
briefly here.
77. In about 2004 and wholly unknown to Plaintiff Aubrey, Aubrey’s mother Betsy
Aubrey engaged the firm of Tobolowsky & Burk PC to probate and administer the will of her
husband, recently deceased. Betsy Aubrey lives in Dallas; Aubrey was then living in Austin.
78. In about 2010, Aubrey became concerned about the management of the Aubrey
Family Trust, which she formally administered, as Betsy Aubrey often complained about lack of
funds, although Trust properties were generating significant income. Aubrey eventually
discovered that Betsy Aubrey had signed deeds of Trust properties to a family member in 2007
without her knowledge or consent.
79. In 2013, Aubrey sought an impartial accounting of the Trust corpus and income
derived thereon. In December 2013, in frustration, Aubrey sent his mother an intemperate e-mail
in which he threatened “jihad” over arguments stemming from these family matters. This e-mail
was not directed at Ira Tobolowsky; Aubrey still did not know Tobolowsky, and upon
information and belief, Betsy Tobolowsky did not yet know him, either. Aubrey did not know
that Tobolowsky & Burk had probated the will, had not yet heard the name “Ira Tobolowsky,”
and certainly did not know Tobolowsky was Jewish. Aubrey’s message was an angry message
16
regarding personal matters to a family member. There was as yet no litigation concerning the
Trust.
80. In April 2014, Aubrey filed an application to probate court in Dallas for an
accounting of the Trust, an unremarkable act.7 In July 2014, Ira Tobolowsky stepped into the
case, seeking to quash any effort to secure an accounting. Non-lawyer Aubrey had inadvertently
walked into a hornet’s nest by taking on Ira Tobolowsky on his home turf, courtrooms he had
worked in for over 40 years. Because Aubrey was based in Austin and not a lawyer, he did not
know who Tobolowsky was, what his familial connections were, or the power he wielded in the
legal community and beyond. Why Tobolowsky went to such lengths to avoid an accounting of
the Trust is unclear.
81. Thus, contrary to the Affidavits discussed herein as well as virtually all news
reports, Aubrey’s litigation did not involve an “inheritance” to which he “lost access” via
Tobolowsky’s lawyering, and Aubrey had never “contested the will”: Aubrey’s was a
straightforward effort to gain an accounting of a Trust in which Aubrey was a beneficiary, as he
was legally entitled to do.
82. The legal wrangling between Aubrey and Ira Tobolowsky continued through a
series of very unusual actions in the proceedings. By April 2015, Plaintiffs nonsuited the case,
accepting that they would likely not progress in Dallas County probate courtrooms. Aubrey
never obtained a full accounting of the Trust. In Plaintiffs’ minds, the issue was closed and they
would likely never see Tobolowsky again.
83. However, in June 2015, in an apparent desire to keep the battle going,
Tobolowsky made a series of filings in the closed case, including a 521-page motion for
contempt that sought sanctions of $1,050,000 and 29 days in jail for the Plaintiffs. Tobolowsky

7
Cause No. PR-14-01486-3.
17
was earning fees by continuing litigation; in a year’s time he had generated legal fees of
$600,000, payable from the income from the Trust.
84. In July 2015, Tobolowsky sued Aubrey and Vodicka for defamation, alleging that
Plaintiffs’ had undertaken “jihad” to punish him for his “successful” representation of Betsy
Aubrey.8 Tobolowsky had plucked the inflammatory word “jihad” out of context from a personal
e-mail Aubrey sent to his mother in 2013 — months before any litigation and six months before
Aubrey had heard the word “Tobolowsky” — and studded it throughout the complaint. In
November 2015, three days after the horrific terrorist attack in Paris that left over 130 people
dead and hundreds more injured and much of the world still reeled in shock, Tobolowsky filed a
first amended complaint that doubled the use of the inflammatory word “jihad” from the original
complaint; he also included a completely fabricated assertion that Plaintiffs published a
document “stating that Tobolowsky had become Muslim and had joined ISIS,” which was as
absurd as the almost humorously hyperbolic use of “jihad.” Ira Tobolowsky could never produce
evidence to back up any of his claims. It appeared that Tobolowsky simply enjoyed the pleasure
of the game in a field that he seemed to control.
85. Upon information and belief, the purpose of Tobolowsky’s efforts to extend
proceedings and rack up sanctions, fees, and awards through a series of friendly court decisions
was to procure first bite at what all assumed would be a large payment in the Wildhorse Ranch
litigation. However, although Plaintiffs were successful in that suit in January 2016, they could
not collect the judgment. Nevertheless, Ira Tobolowsky kept the defamation suit against
Plaintiffs moving forward through a series of motions and hearings in the courtroom of Judge
Eric V. Moyé, who generously continued to add sanction awards against the Plaintiffs in

8
Cause No. DC-15-11685. It was not Tobolowsky’s first defamation case; for example, after Tobolowsky
had been sued in a commercial dispute, he then sued the plaintiff for defamation, in Cause No. DC-10-
09803.
18
Tobolowsky’s favor, and on whose court docket litigation involving Plaintiffs and Tobolowsky
was continuously assigned. On April 22, 2016, approximately three weeks before the death of Ira
Tobolowsky, Aubrey appealed one particularly outrageous sanctions award by Judge Moyé,
decided in ex parte conference with Tobolowsky, for $250,000 to Betsy Aubrey for
Tobolowsky’s legal fees (this award was overturned on appeal). Any judgments would be
impossible for Tobolowsky to collect as he well knew; they simply gratuitously added to the
challenges of the Plaintiffs, who were then living off of Aubrey’s massage business earnings and
Vodicka’s monthly Social Security payments, all while Vodicka was managing a profound
depression by taking potent anti-depressants with serious side effects (as Tobolowsky knew).
The hearing scheduled for May 18, 2016, five days after Ira Tobolowsky’s death, was one of a
series of inconsequential, pointless hearings that Plaintiffs had lost the habit of attending, as they
seemed designed to harass in a lawsuit in which Tobolowsky would never be able to collect —
until perhaps Aubrey inherited funds from the Aubrey Family Trust after Betsy Aubrey’s death.
C. Plaintiffs’ relevant whereabouts during and after Tobolowsky’s murder and

detectives’ knowledge of same
86. On May 13, 2016, at approximately 7:50 am, Ira Tobolowsky died in the garage
in his home at 7435 North Kenshire Lane. The garage had been consumed by fire. Tobolowsky,
whose five-foot, two-inch frame was bent due to a degenerative condition of his spine, did not
have full range of motion, and it was later determined that he had been alive as the fire burned.9
87. Immediately after Ira Tobolowsky’s death, DPD homicide detectives convinced
numerous Dallas-area television stations, print publications, and Texas state criminal district
court judges from whom they requested warrants that Plaintiffs were the principal suspects and

9
See “I-Team: Inside A Dallas Murder Mystery … 1 Year Later,” article and video, by Ginger Allen of
CBS affiliate KTXA-TV, April 27, 2017, available online.
19
that they were hiding from police detectives and avoiding public view to conceal burns on their
bodies.
88. Not only were none of these statements truthful, DPD also knew them to be
untrue. DPD had full knowledge of Plaintiffs’ whereabouts and actions via credit card
information, phone data, and eyewitnesses in the days immediately following Tobolowsky’s
death. The following timeline highlights the falsity of statements by the DPD.
89. On May 13, the date of Ira Tobolowsky’s death, Plaintiffs awoke around 8 am at
their home at 7777 Glen America, Apt 223, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (“Apt 223”). At
approximately 9:00 am, Aubrey drove to the Trader Joe’s supermarket at 7939 Walnut Hill Lane
and purchased groceries, as indicated by credit card receipts. Vodicka had stayed home to watch
the final episode of “Live with Kelly and Michael” at 9 am, during which time he called various
people to discuss the program, as indicated by phone records. Aubrey then returned to Apt 223.
90. On May 13, at approximately 11:45 am, approximately four hours after
Tobolowsky’s death, Aubrey drove to Highland Dermatology at 3607 Oak Lawn Avenue in
Dallas for a noon appointment with his dermatologist. His dermatologist had cut away a
cancerous cyst from his upper back on April 28, at which time Aubrey made the appointment for
May 13. Aubrey had been advised in writing to avoid “heavy lifting, exercise, and swimming”
while the sutures were in place to avoid disrupting them. During the May 13 visit, Aubrey
removed his shirt, revealing his chest, back, and arms, whereupon multiple sutures were
removed. The medical report indicates nothing unusual, including burns or ruptured sutures.
91. On May 13, after the appointment with the dermatologist’s office, Aubrey
stopped at a Taco Bell and then Walmart in Dallas, as indicated by credit card receipts, and
where numerous people saw him.
20
92. On May 13, Vodicka drove to Cremona Bistro, near downtown Dallas, for lunch,
as indicated by credit card information, and then attended a regular early-afternoon support
group meeting, at which numerous people saw him.
93. From May 13 until illegally arrested by police May 19, Aubrey followed his
normal routine, which included shopping, near-daily visits to the nearby 24 Hour Fitness, and
working with clients at their secondary apartment at 8617 Southwestern Boulevard, Apt 911,
Dallas County, Texas (“Apt 911”), all within a two-mile radius of his home. During visits to the
gym, Aubrey regularly wore a short-sleeved T-shirt or tank top and shorts. When working as a
masseur, his normal attire is a short-sleeved T-shirt and pants. Through these days, he made no
effort to hide his arms or anything else. Dozens of people saw Aubrey close up in short-sleeved
attire during this period. Further, Aubrey’s day-to-day attire normally includes short-sleeved
shirts, which he wore throughout the days from May 13 to illegal arrest on May 19.
94. On Saturday, May 14, Aubrey bought lunch at a busy Whataburger, while
Vodicka drove to Central Market on Greenville Avenue, both indicated by credit card receipts.
That evening, Aubrey and Vodicka dined at Lawry’s Prime Rib in North Dallas, a packed
restaurant on a busy Saturday night, which required a reservation by phone. Numerous persons
saw them in all of these venues.
95. On Sunday, May 15, 2016, Aubrey purchased groceries at Walmart, as indicated
by credit card receipts. Plaintiffs received an out-of-state guest, their friend Dr. Alexandra Krot
(“Krot”), an experienced radiation oncologist. Later, Vodicka and Krot shopped at Kroger on
Mockingbird Lane, where numerous people saw them.
21
96. On Monday, May 16, 2016, Aubrey went about his routine, stopping at a Walmart
Supercenter, Office Depot, and a variety of other stores, and ate at a CiCi’s Pizza Buffet, all
indicated by credit card information, and during which numerous people saw him.
97. On May 16, Vodicka and Krot visited Vodicka’s mother at the C.C. Young rest-
home and then a bookstore, and then returned to Apt 223 to prepare for Krot’s long-scheduled
visit to her attorney in Austin. (Krot, too, had been a victim of the Wildhorse Ranch scheme, and
she was scheduled to attend the deposition in Austin several days later.)10
98. Earlier that day, on May 16, the Dallas Fire-Rescue Department submitted
perjured search warrant affidavits to gain access to Plaintiffs’ phone information, including calls,
texts, and cell tower data, from May 10 to May 16, which Judge Dominique Collins signed at
1:15 pm.
99. On Tuesday, May 17, Vodicka and Krot attended one of Vodicka’s support group
meetings in Dallas at 10 am before they drove to Austin in a car Krot had rented for the
scheduled appointment with Krot’s attorney of record, Donald Grissom. Vodicka participated in
the approximately two-hour meeting with Krot and Grissom in Grissom’s office. While at the
law office, Vodicka engaged with Grissom’s law partner and other legal staff.
100. On May 17, in Dallas, Aubrey went about his routine, purchasing goods at
Walmart and Home Depot and eating lunch at a CiCi’s Pizza Buffet.
101. On May 17, after arriving in Austin, Vodicka received a text from DPD homicide
Det. Ermatinger requesting a return call without specifying the purpose. Vodicka began to
contact criminal defense lawyers to ask for advice and/or representation. Vodicka’s telephone
records indicate these calls.

10
See “Florida Swindlers’ $77 Million Cow Pasture,” by Michael Sallah, Miami Herald, May 6, 2012.
22
102. On May 17, Vodicka and Krot stayed at a rental apartment for the night in Austin
and dined at Green Mesquite BBQ, as indicated by her receipts. Vodicka and Aubrey were in
regular contact via calls and texts.
103. On Wednesday, May 18, as per usual, Aubrey spent some of his busy day in
Plaintiffs’ personal residence at Apt 223.
104. On the morning of Wednesday, May 18, in Dallas, a small-bore “motion for cost”
hearing in Ira Tobolowsky’s defamation case against Aubrey was scheduled in front of Judge
Eric V. Moyé. Fearing a media frenzy and as yet without counsel, Aubrey chose not to appear for
the inconsequential hearing, hearings he had fallen out of the habit of attending in any case.
Further, given Judge Moyé’s odd decisions in the suit and his apparent close working
relationship with Ira Tobolowsky, Aubrey was fearful Moyé would use a decision on small fees
as an excuse to jail him. Vodicka was in Austin in a day-long meeting with Dr. Krot and her
attorney, as long planned, and had never intended to appear at the hearing.
105. At the hearing, Judge Moyé publicly linked Aubrey to Ira Tobolowsky’s murder
— without evidence or cause — to a room filled with news reporters. Judge Moyé’s decision to
do so is bizarre, and his statement in court implying that he was recusing himself from the case
due to Aubrey’s “implication in the death of Ira Tobolowsky” is equally odd and highly
prejudicial. Plaintiffs never threatened Ira Tobolowsky or Judge Moyé in that case or any other
case and have no history of violence or criminal acts. Judge Moyé’s declaration placed a public
target on Plaintiffs.11

11
Why Judge Moyé might have been especially anxious on the day of Ira Tobolowsky’s death and the
days following is unclear; he had waved a firearm at a woman while driving his Mercedes on the North
Dallas Tollway that morning, and she had called DPD to report it. His agitation certainly had nothing to
do with Plaintiffs, who had never threatened Tobolowsky or Judge Moyé, inside or outside of the
courtroom, and had no history of violence; they had never even raised their voices during their multiple
visits to Judge Moyé’s courtroom. No evidence has been produced or exists that indicates the contrary.
23
106. Immediately after Moyé’s egregiously unethical and unlawful statements in court,
news reporters began to aggressively pound on the door of Apt 223 as well as the doors of
neighbors, which continued sporadically throughout the day. Aubrey did not answer while he
was home. Upon information and belief, the news reporters were directed to Apt 223 by Dallas
homicide detectives.
107. On May 18, DPD officers distributed photos of Aubrey to judges and court
staffers at the George Allen Courts Building, as “sources” informed reporters that DPD was
trying to track down Aubrey and had alerted staffers to remain on “high alert” if they saw him.
Yet DPD knew very well that Aubrey was not “on the run” and exactly where he was. As DPD
knew, Aubrey was in Dallas going about his normal routine — including visits to fast-food
restaurants and the gym, shopping, and attending clients at Apt 911 — while sleeping at Apt 223.
DPD knew because it had access to Aubrey’s phone and text data, cell tower information, as well
as credit card transactions. Simple visual monitoring of Apt 223 would indicate Plaintiffs’
comings and goings as well as their physical appearance.
108. On May 18, in Austin, Vodicka and Krot met with Krot’s attorney Grissom at his
office from approximately 9:30 am until approximately 2 pm. Vodicka and Krot ate lunch at
Fujiyama in Austin, where numerous people saw them.
109. On May 18, Krot and Vodicka returned to Dallas from Austin. En route, Krot
called Aubrey to ask him to reserve a hotel room for her not far from the Dallas airport as she
had an early morning flight; she was driving a rental car and did not want to attempt the task
Ginning up a nonexistent threat in the form of two nonviolent gay men involved in a low-bore probate
case may have been a convenient way to divert attention from what had set Moyé on edge as well as his
response. See “Lawyer in Suspected Homicide Case Received Email Threatening to Kill Him,” by
Rebecca Lopez, David Goins, and Josh Davis, wfaa.com, May 16, 2016. (There was no email threat, it
was later reported.)
24
while driving. Aubrey made a reservation under her name at the Crowne Plaza at 7050 North
Stemmons Freeway via credit card. Aubrey and Vodicka called and texted each other numerous
times.
110. During the return to Dallas, Vodicka and Krot stopped in a convenience store in
Belton, Texas. Later, Vodicka and Krot stopped at a McDonald’s in the Oak Cliff neighborhood
of Dallas, all as indicated by credit card receipts.
111. After Vodicka and Krot returned to Dallas in the early evening of May 18,
Plaintiffs chose to spend the night at Plaintiff’s secondary apartment, Apt 911, to avoid the
media onslaught without advice of counsel as well as disrupting neighbors. Dr. Krot checked into
the Crowne Plaza hotel.
112. At 9:23 and 9:27 pm of May 18, DPD obtained warrants to “examine, photograph,
and fingerprint” Plaintiffs.
113. On early Thursday morning, May 19, 2016, two DPD plainclothes officers,
presumably detectives, approached Dr. Krot at DFW airport close to the security area. Without
identifying themselves, the two very briefly questioned her, asking only one or two questions in
an interaction that lasted perhaps one minute. Although she had spent four days with Plaintiffs in
close quarters, the presumed detectives did not ask the experienced physician of over 35 years
the physical appearance of Aubrey’s and Vodicka’s bodies, if she had noticed burns or anything
unusual, her impression of their demeanor or appearance, or anything else about those four days.
The brief encounter surprised and frightened Krot. DPD made no effort to speak with her ever
again.
114. On May 19, Plaintiffs spent the morning at Apt 911. They made numerous calls;
and their cars were parked in the parking lot outside.
25
115. That afternoon, City and County defendants executed a “stakeout and high-risk
apprehension” of Plaintiffs and illegally arrested them without an arrest warrant. These illegal
acts were based on information that City and County defendants knew was untrue.
D. Unlawful Search Warrant Affidavits and Searches
116. Beginning on May 16, 2016 and for a period spanning nearly five months, the
City and its employees, including Dallas Fire-Rescue Department and the Dallas Police
Department, submitted 11 perjured affidavits for search warrants to local district criminal judges.
Each of the perjured affidavits involved Aubrey, Vodicka, or both. (The 11 perjured affidavits
for search warrants are attached hereto, as Exhibits A–K, and incorporated herein as if fully set
forth herein.)
117. Lt. Cherry of the Dallas Fire-Rescue Department submitted the first two search
warrant affidavits concerning Vodicka and Aubrey to gain cell tower data as well as phone and
text information.
118. Lt. Cherry swore to the truth of the affidavits and swore that their facts had been
verified. However, the facts were neither truthful nor verified. In his search warrant affidavits,
Lt. Cherry not only willfully misrepresented material facts; he also relied on false hearsay
information tendered by Captain Stephenson.
119. All of Lt. Cherry’s statements in both affidavits were false, and without the false
statements there was no probable cause or basis to allege Aubrey and Vodicka had anything to
do with the murder of Ira Tobolowsky. The affidavits weave blatant lies with cherry-picked facts
to create a false narrative that paints Aubrey as a greedy son and Vodicka as his lawyer-partner
who both conspired to gain an early inheritance but had been thwarted by Ira Tobolowsky.
26
120. Both of the search warrant affidavits submitted by Lt. Cherry on May 16 relied on
hearsay information from Captain Marcus Stephenson that Lt. Cherry had not verified, which
violates the Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Affidavit No. 1: Dallas Fire-Rescue Department, May 16, 2016

Lt. Derrick Cherry against Brian Vodicka
121. On May 16, 2016, while under oath, Lt. Cherry intentionally and willfully lied to
Judge Collins when he presented to her an affidavit for search warrant that resulted in a warrant
served on Vodicka’s cell phone provider, Verizon Wireless.
122. This affidavit contained material facts that were false, fabricated, and/or
misleading.
False Statements:
(a) “Aubrey was ordered to pay Tobolowsky $550,000.”
123. This statement is false. Aubrey was not ordered to pay Ira Tobolowsky $550,000
or any other amount.
(b) “The time limit for Aubrey to appeal the ruling recently expired.”
124. This statement is false. On April 22, 2016, approximately three weeks before the
death of Ira Tobolowsky, Aubrey filed his notice of appeal in Cause No. DC-15-11685 in the
14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, involving an award for sanctions without
basis. The Fifth Court of Appeals later found the court had abused its discretion and reversed the
sanctions award.
(c) “During the course of the deposition, Aubrey and Vodicka refused to
comply and insulted Tobolowsky.”
125. This statement is false. Neither Aubrey nor Vodicka insulted Ira Tobolowsky or
anyone else and they had not “refused to comply.” On that day, the deposition had started when
27
Tobolowsky chose to stop it, citing Vodicka’s health. (Tobolowsky felt that Vodicka’s affect was
too altered to proceed, whereas Plaintiffs wished the deposition to continue, as they knew
nothing would be different one or two weeks later.) Soon before Tobolowsky halted the
deposition, his attorney Steven Schoettmer asked Vodicka which medications he was taking, to
which Vodicka quipped, “anti-Ira pills”; this is apparently the “insult” to which the affidavit is
referring. (This statement is based on memory; Vodicka was never provided a print transcript or
video recording of the deposition and thus did not confirm its accuracy, as mandated by law.)
(d) “Arson Investigator Captain Capt. Stephenson obtained court records

indicating that Vodicka was named in the defamation lawsuit and is liable
for part of the $550,000 settlement.”
126. This statement is false. Vodicka was not liable for any part of Judge Moyé’s
fictitious sanctions award of $550,000, and there was no “settlement.”12 Judge Eric Moyé’s
sanctions award was then under appeal and later reversed.
(e) “Vodicka also represented Aubrey in July of 2014 when he contested his
father’s will and sued his mother, Betsy Aubrey, over inheritance.”
127. This statement is false. Aubrey never contested his father’s will, sued his mother
over inheritance, or sued her for a monetary judgment. Aubrey had sued for an accounting of the
Trust. (Id. Sec. B)
128. Further, Vodicka represented no person in July 2014; he reactivated his license on
December 1, 2014.
(f) “The judge ruled in favor of Betsy Aubrey, which did not allow Steve
Aubrey and Brian Vodicka access to Steve Aubrey’s portion of the
inheritance until his mother passes.”

12
Judge Moyé had stricken Vodicka’s name from the face of the order, which would have been clear if
Capt. Stephenson had viewed it.
28
129. This statement is false. Aubrey’s litigation concerning the Aubrey Family Trust
was not about inheritance, it was to seek an accounting of the Trust. Vodicka had never sought
access to any of the Aubrey Family Trust monies or properties.
130. Lt. Cherry did not sign this perjured affidavit. Nevertheless, he presented the
unsigned document to Criminal District Court Judge Dominique Collins, who issued a search
and seizure warrant. As a result of Lt. Cherry’s perjured affidavit for search warrant, Vodicka’s
personal cell phone data and information held by custodian Verizon Wireless was searched and
seized.

Affidavit No. 2: Dallas Fire-Rescue Department, May 16, 2016
Signed by Lt. Derrick Cherry against Steven Aubrey
131. On May 16, 2016, under oath, Lt. Cherry intentionally and willfully lied to Judge
Collins when he executed and presented to her an affidavit for search warrant that resulted in a
warrant served on Aubrey’s cell phone provider, Verizon Wireless.
misleading.
False Statements:
(a) “Aubrey was ordered to pay Tobolowsky $550,000.”
(b) “The time limit for Aubrey to appeal the ruling recently expired.”
(c) “During the course of the deposition, Aubrey and Vodicka refused to
comply and insulted Tobolowsky.”
133. Plaintiffs responded to the same false statements above. (Id. ¶¶ 122–25)
134. As a result of Lt. Cherry’s perjured affidavit for search warrant, Aubrey’s
personal cell phone data and information held by custodian Verizon Wireless was searched and
seized.
29
135. On May 18, 2016, two days after Lt. Cherry had submitted two search warrant
affidavits against Plaintiffs’ phone information for the days from May 10 through May 16, Det.
Ermatinger submitted three affidavits for search warrants on Aubrey, Vodicka, and their
residence at Apt. 223. Det. Ermatinger swore to the truth of the three affidavits and swore that
the facts in the affidavits had been verified. However, the facts were neither truthful nor verified.
136. The totality of the information presented in the affidavits created a narrative
that City Defendants fully knew was false. In Affidavits 3, 4, and 5, Det. Ermatinger strung
together blatant falsehoods with random facts to manufacture a false narrative to support
probable cause where none existed.
137. Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ credit card information as well as cell tower,
phone, and text data that indicated the activities of the Plaintiffs before, during, and after Ira
Tobolowsky’s death on May 13.
138. Nevertheless, Det. Ermatinger lied in his affidavits when he swore that Aubrey
had threatened Tobolowsky’s life, Plaintiffs were in hiding, Plaintiffs were concealing their
bodies, Plaintiffs were leaving Dallas, and that “Alexandra Krot” was a false name used to make
a hotel reservation.
139. DPD detectives knew exactly where Plaintiffs had been since May 13 — going
about their normal routine in public, and further, that Vodicka had traveled to Austin midday
May 17 and returned to Dallas on May 18.
140. Affidavits 3, 4, and 5 state in part:
“Family members advised detectives that complaint Tobolowsky felt threatened

by Steve Aubrey because of a lawsuit that complainant Tobolowsky won when he
represented the mother of Steven Aubrey, Betsy Aubrey. It was alleged in the
lawsuit that Steven Aubrey threatened “Jihad” the same words used to describe
30
the wars brought by terrorists and against his life, which was filed in court
document number 15-08135 in the 14th Judicial district court judge Eric Moye
presiding. Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descent and felt Jihad was an anti-semitic
statement. … It is believed that whoever set the complainant on fire may have
suffered serious burns and is hiding from public site [sic] as to prevent their
injuries from being seen by the public as well as detectives. On May 17, 2016,
Detectives went to location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on the door of
#223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brain Vodicka and ask them to come to
police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow detectives to view any
injuries that might have been sustained. No one answered the door. Detective R.
Laurence #9191 and Detective D. Richardson #6361 initially observed the blinds
in the window of apartment #223 … were open and slightly angled upwards with
a darkened background, which indicated that someone had been in the apartment.
Detectives Laurence and Robinson left the location for a while and when they
returned they observed the blinds to the same window closed and angled
downward with a light on in the background, which indicate that someone had
been in the apartment. … Steven Aubrey’s white Nissan Murano and Brian
Vodicka’s white Nissan Altima were both parked in the parking lot of their
apartment. Neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or Brian
Vodicka since Saturday the 14th of May 2016 and they have not heard any
occupants walking around inside. … On May 18, 2016, at approximately 2:50
P.M. Detectives returned to the apartment of Steven Aubrey and Brain Vodicka.
Detectives observed that Steven Aubrey’s white Nissan Murano was no longer in
the parking lot. Detectives knocked on the door to apartment #223 but there was
no answer. Detectives called both Steven Aubrey’s and Brain Vodicka’s phone
number but there was no answer, so Detective Ermatinger left them both a
voicemail. Detective Ermatinger also sent a text message to both numbers but he
did not reply. Approximately 2 1/2 hours after Detective Ermatinger sent the text
messages, Detectives were notified by Steven Aubrey’s credit card company that
Aubrey’s card was used at a truck stop in Belton, Texas, which is approximately
two hours south of Dallas. A short time later, Detectives were notified that Steven
31
Aubrey’s card was used to book a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Dallas,
Texas, but the room was booked under the name Alexandria [sic] Krot.”
141. The false narrative includes the following elements:
• That Steven Aubrey had threatened “jihad” on Tobolowsky’s life. Aubrey
never threatened Tobolowsky with “jihad” or in any other way.
• The affidavit does not state the time of detectives’ first-described visit to
Plaintiffs on May 17 nor whether Plaintiffs’ cars were in the parking lot. The
detectives may have knocked when they knew Plaintiffs were not there, as
Vodicka had left before 10 am. DPD knew exactly where Plaintiffs were via
phone data.
• The affidavits state when that detectives visited a second time on May 17,
Aubrey’s car is parked in the parking lot and the blinds in a different position,
which indicates Aubrey was home. Yet apparently detectives chose not to
knock on the door.
• On May 17, during detectives’ alleged second visit, Vodicka’s car is described
as parked in the parking lot and presented as evidence that he was home and
avoiding detectives. However, City Defendants knew Vodicka had
accompanied Dr. Krot to Austin.
• The affidavits state that detectives spoke with neighbors and no one had seen
Plaintiffs since May 14, implying that they were staying out of sight. City
Defendants knew via cell information and credit card transactions that the two
were doing exactly the opposite: they had spent much of the previous days in
32
public where multiple hundreds of persons had seen them, many at close
range, and detectives also knew Vodicka had left for Austin on May 17.
• The affidavits state that on May 18, at 2:50 pm, the detectives visited Apt 223.
However, City Defendants knew Vodicka was then in Austin, taken there in
Krot’s rental car, and logically his car was parked in front of his home.
• The affidavits state that when detectives visited Apt 223 at 2:50 pm on May
18, Aubrey’s car was not in the lot and Vodicka’s car was parked there. The
implication was that the two had taken off “on the run” in Aubrey’s car.
However, City Defendants knew that Vodicka was in Austin and Aubrey was
close at hand in Dallas, less than two miles from his home, as per usual.
• If Detectives knocked on the door when Aubrey’s car was not in the parking
lot, they knocked when Aubrey was not at home, which they knew.
• Although the affidavit states that Det. Ermatinger called and sent text
messages to both Vodicka and Aubrey sometime after 2:50 pm on May 18,
there is no evidence that Det. Ermatinger called either Aubrey or Vodicka on
May 18, and neither Plaintiff received a text message that day at any time,
including 2½ hours before Vodicka and Krot stopped in Belton. Vodicka had
received a single text message on May 17.
• By the time Det. Ermatinger presented these affidavits to Judge Jeanine
Howard to grant and issue search warrants, he knew that Aubrey was in Dallas
and had never left, Aubrey had not used his card at a “truck stop” in Belton,
and that Vodicka had stopped in Belton and Oak Cliff before then returning to
Apt 223 in Dallas. He also knew Plaintiffs had decamped for Apt 911. Upon
33
information and belief, he also knew that Krot had checked into her hotel
room, not Plaintiffs.
• Upon information and belief, City Defendants had visually observed
Plaintiffs, who habitually wore short-sleeved shirts, and saw that neither had
burns on their arms nor faces. They could have also observed Aubrey while he
was at the 24 Hour Fitness he regularly visited, if they wished, for example.
142. The true facts of Plaintiffs’ whereabouts, public activities, and information was
known to detectives but fraudulently concealed from Dallas County criminal court Judge Jeanine
Howard, who authorized the search warrants. Det. Ermatinger intentionally lied to Judge Jeanine
Howard to procure search warrants that lacked probable cause.
143. The totality of the information presented in the affidavits created a narrative
that City Defendants fully knew was false. An affidavit is a written statement of facts that the
affiant swears to be true. Det. Ermatinger swore to the truth of three affidavits whose narrative he
knew to be false.
Affidavit No. 3: Dallas Police Department, May 18, 2016

Signed by Det. Robert Ermatinger against Steven Aubrey
144. On May 18, 2016, under oath, Det. Ermatinger intentionally and willfully lied to
Judge Howard when he executed and presented to her an affidavit for a search warrant that
resulted in a warrant served on Steven Aubrey.
misleading.
34
False Statements:
(a) “Detectives were notified by Steven Aubrey’s credit card company that
Aubrey’s card was used at a truck stop in Belton, Texas, which is
approximately two hours south of Dallas.”
146. This statement is false. Aubrey did not use his credit card in Belton, Texas, nor
did anyone else use his card there. Further, as is clear by phone data and credit card information
used by DPD, Aubrey did not leave Dallas at any time between May 13 and May 18.
(b) “Family members advised detectives that complainant Tobolowsky felt

threatened by Steve Aubrey because of a lawsuit that complainant
Tobolowsky won when he represented the mother of Steven Aubrey,
Betsy Aubrey.”
147. This statement is false. Tobolowsky family members gave interviews many weeks
after Ira Tobolowsky’s death reporting that they had no idea who may have wanted to harm Ira
Tobolowsky.
148. On June 23, 2016, over five weeks after Ira Tobolowsky’s death, the Dallas
Morning News article “Family of Slain Dallas Attorney Ira Tobolowsky Offers $20,000 Reward
for Tips” by Tasha Tsiaperas stated: “Though some have said Tobolowsky may have been killed
because of his legal work, his sons said Thursday that they don’t know if that was likely. ‘We
have no idea,’ [his son] Michael Tobolowsky said. … Tobolowsky’s family has said he didn’t
express fear or concern in the days leading up to his death.”
149. D Magazine’s Article “A Place Where Something Evil Happened” of May 2017
stated, “The detective asked Debbie [Tobolowsky, Ira’s wife]: ‘Do you think this was an
accident, or could someone have done this?’ ‘What do you mean?’ she asked. She couldn’t think
of anyone who wanted to hurt her husband.” Further, “Ira’s three sons were at a beach in Destin,
Florida, for Jonathan’s bachelor party. The sons quickly booked return flights to Texas. Before
35
the flight, Michael had learned the fire might have been set intentionally. All he could think
about was, Who?”
150. Additionally, Ira Tobolowsky did not “win” the lawsuit in which he represented
Aubrey’s mother. The case was closed after Plaintiffs’ filed a notice of non-suit.13
Fabricated False Impression Statements:
(c) [Aubrey] “has evidence on his body in the form of injuries or burns from
an arson/murder offense that occurred on May 13, 2016 …”
151. This statement is misleading because it is based on speculation instead of verified
facts. Aubrey had no injuries or burns on his body and no one would have reason to believe he
had such. Upon information and belief, Det. Ermatinger and DPD had spoken with no one with
whom Aubrey was in contact. This “evidence” was wholly manufactured.
(d) “Detectives called both Steven Aubrey’s phone number and Brian
Vodicka’s phone number, but there was no answer, so Detective
Ermatinger left them both a voicemail.”
152. This statement is both false and misleading. Det. Ermatinger did not call
Vodicka’s phone nor did he leave him a voicemail message. Plaintiffs’ phone records indicate
the same. Det. Ermatinger left a “message” for Aubrey in which he stated his name only but
nothing else.
False Impression Statements:
(e) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descent and felt Jihad was an anti-Semitic
statement.”
153. This statement is misleading. This statement insinuates that Aubrey is anti-
Semitic and that the phrase was personally directed against Ira Tobolowsky. (Id. ¶¶ 79, 84)

13
Cause No. PR-14-01486-2 in Dallas County, Texas Probate Court No. 2. Aubrey’s trust accounting
case was reassigned from Probate Court No. 3 to Probate Court No. 2, the Honorable Ingrid Warren,
presiding.
36
(f) “A short time later, Detectives were notified that Steven Aubrey’s card
was used to book a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Dallas, Texas,
but the room was booked under the name Alexandria [sic] Krot. The
actions of Steven Aubrey and Brain [sic] Vodicka show that they are
intentionally avoiding Detectives.”
154. This statement is misleading. It implies Aubrey was hiding in a hotel under an
assumed woman’s name. He was not, which upon and information and belief was known to Det.
Ermatinger when he presented this search warrant affidavit to Judge Howard. Det. Ermatinger
knew that Aubrey was in Dallas and Vodicka was returning from Austin with Dr. Krot when the
hotel reservation was made. By 9:27 pm, Dr. Krot had checked into the hotel room. DPD could
have easily visually observed or asked hotel personnel if one or two men had checked in under
the name “Alexandra Krot” — which they presumably had done.
(g) “It is believed that whoever [sic] set the complainant on fire may have
suffered serious burns and is hiding from public site [sic] as to prevent
their injuries from being seen by the public as well as detectives.”
155. This statement is misleading. It is based on speculation instead of verified facts,
as required under the Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Further, the implication that Aubrey
was hiding from public sight is without any merit, basis, or veracity, as City Defendants knew.
(See paragraphs 90–107 for details on Aubrey’s activities from May 13 to May 18.)
156. City Defendants and other employees of the City’s homicide unit, including
supervisors, were at all times acting under color of law and as a result of their actions, Plaintiffs
have suffered injuries.
157. As a result of Det. Ermatinger’s perjured affidavit for search warrant, Aubrey was
taken into custody against his will, to examine, photograph, and fingerprint him.
37

Signed by Det. Robert Ermatinger against Brian Vodicka
Judge Howard when he swore and presented to her an affidavit for a search warrant that resulted
in a warrant served on Brian Vodicka.
misleading.
False Statements:
(a) “Family members advised detectives that complainant Tobolowsky felt

Betsy Aubrey.”
160. Plaintiffs responded to the same false statement above. (Id. ¶¶ 146–47)
(b) “The actions of Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka show that they are
intentionally avoiding the Detectives.”
(c) “Detectives were notified by Steven Aubrey’s credit card company that
161. These statements are false. (See ¶¶ 90–107 for details on Plaintiffs’ activities from
May 13 to May 18.) On his return trip from Austin on May 18, Vodicka had stopped at a
convenience store in Belton, Texas and used his credit card to make a purchase, not Steven
Aubrey. (The CEFCO convenience store was not a “truck stop,” with its loaded homophobic
connotation of a seedy place that attracts gay men, as stated in the affidavit.) DPD knew that
Vodicka was returning and not leaving Dallas when he and Dr. Krot stopped in Belton, that he
was on his way home, and Aubrey had remained in and never left Dallas.
38
163. As a result of the search warrants being used illegally to arrest Vodicka on May
19, he was taken against his will to DPD Headquarters, where he was held for 9 hours to be
examined, photographed, and fingerprinted.
(d) [Vodicka] “has evidence on his body in the form of injuries or burns from
an arson/murder offense that occurred on May 13, 2016 …”
164. This statement is based on speculation instead of verified facts. Vodicka had no
injuries or burns on his body and no one would have reason to believe he had such. Upon
information and belief, Det. Ermatinger and DPD had spoken with no one with whom Vodicka
was in contact. This “evidence” was wholly manufactured.
(e) “Detectives called both Steven Aubrey’s phone number and Brian
Vodicka’s phone number but there was no answer, so Detective
(f) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descend [sic] and felt Jihad was an anti-
semitic statement.”
(g) “It is believed that whoever [sic] set the complainant on fire may have
suffered serious burns and is hiding from public site as to prevent their
injuries from being seen by the public as well as detectives.”
(h) “A short time later, Detectives were notified that Steven Aubrey’s card
was used to book a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Dallas, Texas,
but the room was booked under the name Alexandria [sic] Krot.”
165. Plaintiffs responded to the same false and misleading statements above. (Id. ¶¶
151–55)
39

Signed by Det. Robert Ermatinger against Apt 223
Judge Howard when he executed and presented to her an affidavit for a search warrant that
resulted in a warrant served at Plaintiffs’ residence, Apt 223.
misleading.
False Statements:
(a) “It was aledged [sic] in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey threatened “Jihad”
the same words used to describe the wars brought by terrorists, and against
his life which was filed in court document number 15-08135 …”
(Emphasis added.)
168. This statement is false. Det. Ermatinger swore to the veracity of this statement,
which is an inflammatory lie with no basis in reality. It is designed to shock and alarm the state
criminal court judges to whom the affidavit was submitted and to paint the gentle Aubrey as a
violent, rage-filled terrorist. Aubrey never threatened “jihad” against Tobolowsky or made any
other threat against him, including any threat against his life, as is clear from the face of
documents filed in case DC-15-08135. Further, Tobolowsky never alleged that Aubrey
threatened him in any way, much less against his life through “jihad.” (Id. ¶¶ 79, 84)

Betsy Aubrey.”
169. This statement is false. Plaintiffs responded to the same false statements above.
(Id. ¶¶ 159–60)
(c) “… and neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or
Brian Vodicka since Saturday the 14th of May 2016 and they have not
heard any occupants walking around inside.”
40

170. This statement is false. Plaintiffs allege the City Defendants never spoke with any
of Plaintiffs’ neighbors because had they done so, they would have learned that residents never
heard persons directly above them “walking around inside.” Neighbors in the very large
apartment complex were not familiar with one another. In fact, Plaintiffs could not identify if the
person(s) living above them were male or female, white, black, or green. Perhaps most
importantly, information gained from illegally obtained search warrants as well as credit card
information in the possession of City Defendants indicates quite precisely the whereabouts of
Plaintiffs and that they indeed were in Apt 223 or within a very short driving distance of it on
May 13, 14, 15, and 16, and that Aubrey had remained in Dallas while Vodicka traveled to
Austin for one night on May 17 and returned on Dallas on May 18.
(d) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descend [sic] and felt Jihad was an anti-
(e) “It is believed that whoever [sic] set the complainant on fire may have
171. These statements are misleading. Plaintiffs responded to the same misleading
statements in above. (Id. ¶¶ 164–65)
172. As a result of Det. Ermatinger’s affidavit and search warrant, DPD searched
Plaintiffs’ personal residence at Apt 223 and confiscated their personal property, specifically
their personal desktop computer. (Lacking their computer, Plaintiffs could then not access or
reference their personal files in Tobolowsky’s ongoing defamation lawsuit, continued by
Michael Tobolowsky after his father’s death.)
41
173. In Affidavits 3, 4, and 5, Det. Ermatinger disregarded and misrepresented facts
dissipating probable cause to Judge Howard; i.e., no one alleged that Aubrey threatened Ira
Tobolowsky’s life via jihad or otherwise; Plaintiffs were not hiding from public sight; Plaintiffs
were not fleeing the jurisdiction; and Plaintiffs were not impersonating Alexandra Krot to hide in
a hotel.
175. As a result of Det. Ermatinger’s perjured affidavit for search warrant, Apt 223
was unlawfully searched and Plaintiffs’ personal property was unlawfully seized.
176. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiffs were arrested without arrest warrants on the basis of
Affidavits 3 and 4 in an illegally executed “high-risk apprehension” procedure by City
Defendants and County defendants. (Infra. ¶¶ 244–66)
177. After the Plaintiffs’ unlawful arrests, Plaintiffs were brought to DPD headquarters
for questioning on the basis of warrants that authorized DPD to only “examine, photograph, and
fingerprint” them. Aubrey and Vodicka were placed in separate rooms.
178. Vodicka spoke freely with Det. Ermatinger without counsel, while Aubrey
declined to do so. Over those approximately 9 hours, Aubrey was neither allowed food nor use of
the restroom; Vodicka was given a tiny bit of food to accompany his HIV medication.
179. Vodicka spoke at length with Det. Ermatinger and described in detail Plaintiffs’
activities before, during, and after May 13. (Vodicka did not yet know that DPD had been fully
aware of Plaintiffs’ activities in real time.) Vodicka, among other matters, spoke of:
• Watching “Live with Kelly and Michael” and calling his “Aunt Sybil” during
the program to discuss it on May 13
42
• Aubrey’s trip to Trader Joe’s at around 9 am on May 13
• Vodicka’s visit to the support group on May 13
• The arrival of Dr. Krot on May 15
• Krot and Vodicka’s trip to Austin on May 17
• Krot’s and Vodicka’s lengthy discussions with Krot’s attorney, Donald

Grissom, in Austin and their purpose on May 17 and May 18
• Krot’s and Vodicka’s return to Dallas on May 18
• Krot’s and Vodicka’s stop at the Belton convenience store during the return to
Dallas
• Aubrey’s hotel reservation for Krot on May 18
• Krot’s and Vodicka’s stop at McDonald’s in Oak Cliff before his return to Apt
223
• The profound impact of Vodicka’s medications on Vodicka, including

lethargy and change of affect
180. Vodicka further informed Det. Ermatinger of:
• The absence of burns on Aubrey’s body
• Aubrey’s multiple massage clients who saw him from May 13 to May 18
• The details of Aubrey’s litigation involving the Aubrey Family Trust and Ira
Tobolowsky14
• The absurdity of Tobolowsky’s use of the word “jihad” in his defamation suit,
and that Aubrey had never threatened Tobolowsky

181. Further, Vodicka told Det. Ermatinger:
• Ira Tobolowsky was serving as registered agent and/or corporate officer for an
inordinately large number of seeming “shell” companies15,16

14
Vodicka also suggested that Det. Ermatinger call him if he required further assistance to understand the
matter.

15
Many of the companies for which Tobolowsky served as registered agent were open for a very limited
period and had registrations that were forfeited for nonpayment of taxes. This type of entity is often
43
• To “follow the money”
182. Upon information and belief, all the activities that Vodicka described over the
days from May 13 until illegal arrest on May 19 corresponded with information already in
DPD’s possession.
183. While illegally detained at DPD headquarters, Plaintiffs had been stripped and a
DPD photographer took full-body photographs of both men. Aubrey had been examined by a
man Det. Ermatinger alleged to be a “SWAT doctor” and the “top burn specialist in the state.”
(Plaintiffs have since been unable to identify him.) The “SWAT doctor” informed Vodicka that
Aubrey had “third-degree burns” on his hands, an obvious falsehood.17
184. Det. Ermatinger showed no interest in Tobolowsky’s financial entanglements; he
seemed not to be aware of the many companies for which Tobolowsky had served as a registered

referred to as a “disappearing” or “collapsing” shell company and can be used as a pass through to
launder money.
16
Just weeks before Tobolowsky’s death, Apartment Maintenance Services, of which Tobolowsky was a
long-time principal, had been named as a defendant by a real estate investor who alleged title fraud. The
investor alleged losses of $638,900 in Cause No. DC-16-04507. Apartment Maintenance Services shared
the office with Tobolowsky’s law practice (and currently shares with Michael Tobolowsky’s law
practice).
In March 2017, Carlton Chad Sayers, one of the named defendants in Cause No. DC-16-04507, was
indicted by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Texas for financial crimes affiliated with
the scheme he ran through Wellington and Franklin Financial, also named in DC-16-04507; in September
2017, Sayers pleaded guilty to wire fraud and bank fraud, and he was later sentenced to 102 months in
prison. See USA v. Sayers.
In the press coverage after Tobolowsky’s death, there was no mention of this lawsuit, other litigation, his
businesses, his business associates, or his familial connections.

17
During the interview, Det. Ermatinger asked Vodicka, “If you found out information that implicated
Steve, would you tell me?” In response, Vodicka broke down in tears and replied, “Yes, because that
doesn’t go to who Steve is, but to who I am.” This exchange is related from memory; DPD has refused to
release the transcripts and video of the interview.
44
agent. Oddly, Det. Ermatinger also showed no interest in any aspects of the interactions between
Aubrey and Tobolowsky.
185. On May 20, Aubrey was subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury convened
to investigate Tobolowsky’s death.
186. Within 24 hours of his interview on May 19, Vodicka called Det. Ermatinger to
remind him of Aubrey’s visit to Highland Dermatology hours after Tobolowsky’s death.
187. On May 23, the grand jury convened and Aubrey testified. The grand jury did not
return an indictment against either Aubrey or Vodicka.
188. From May 25 to May 31, Det. Scott Sayers swore out Affidavits 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Neither he nor anyone else from DPD had made any effort to contact Highland Dermatology, Dr.
Krot, her attorney Donald Grissom, or anyone else who might corroborate Plaintiffs’ story or
provide more information to DPD about their activities on and after May 13.18
189. By refusing to seek exculpatory evidence, City Defendants could and did continue
to present affidavits to judges using the same falsehoods and misleading facts that Det.
Ermatinger had used in previous search warrant affidavits: exculpatory evidence would have
brought the perjured affidavits to an end. These false affidavits were then leaked to the press.
190. When Det. Sayers swore to the search warrant affidavits, he and DPD fully knew
that the Plaintiffs had not been in hiding; knew that they had been seen by many people and had
gone about their business in normal fashion, and knew that they did not have burns on their
bodies (as they had been photographed and then examined by the alleged “SWAT doctor”). He

18
As of December 6, 2019, City Defendants still have not contacted or interviewed any of the persons
named above. Upon information and belief, City Defendants have also made no effort to contact or
interview the clients Aubrey worked with between May 13 and May 19 or persons who saw him at 24
Hour Fitness; neither have they sought to interview persons at Vodicka’s support group or any other
persons who may have seen him on or after May 13. DPD actively refuses to exculpate Aubrey.
45
also knew that the grand jury chose not to indict on whatever “burn” or any other evidence it
reviewed.
191. An affidavit is a written statement of facts that the affiant swears to be true. Yet
Det. Sayers knowingly recycled the same false narrative used by Det. Ermatinger in Affidavits 3,
4, and 5. In Affidavits 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Det. Sayers did not present new information borne
from the fruits of investigation via previous search warrants to solidify the case against Plaintiffs.
He could not for an obvious reason: the two men were innocent. Det. Sayers swore to the truth of
six affidavits whose narrative was known to be false.
192. It is Affidavits 6 and 7, with their known falsehoods, that D Magazine published
in the Article in May 2017.
193. From May 24 through May 26, 2016, Det. Scott Sayers, the partner of Det. Robert
Ermatinger, swore out five affidavits for search warrants: on Apt 223; Apt 911; on both Aubrey
and Vodicka’s e-mail provider, Google, Inc; and on Plaintiffs’ computers.

Signed by Det. Scott Sayers against Apt 223
194. On May 25, 2016, under oath, DPD homicide Det. Scott Sayers intentionally and
willfully lied to Judge Jennifer Bennett when he executed and presented to her a second affidavit
for search warrant on Apt 223, a week after the search warrants executed on May 19. This
affidavit contained identical material facts that were false, fabricated, and/or misleading as
presented in Det. Ermatinger’s May 18, 2016 affidavit for the same residence.
195. Det. Sayers swore to the truth of this affidavit and swore that the facts in the
affidavit had been verified. However, facts were neither truthful nor verified.
46
False Statements:
(Emphasis added.)
196. This statement is false. As stated in ¶¶ 167–68, this statement is an inflammatory
lie, first presented in Det. Ermatinger’s May 18 search warrant affidavit. Det. Sayers apparently
copy and pasted Det. Ermatinger’s lie and swore it to be true. This false statement is designed to
shock and alarm the state criminal court judges to whom the affidavit was submitted. Det. Sayers
recycled Det. Ermatinger’s fabricated statement without verifying its veracity when he presented
the affidavit to Dallas County Criminal Court Judge Jennifer Bennett.

Betsy Aubrey.”
(c) “It is believed that whoever [sic] set the complainant on fire may have
168–71)
198. This statement is false. On May 19, while illegally under arrest, Plaintiffs had
stripped, and a DPD photographer took full-body photographs of them. Further, Plaintiffs had
been examined by the alleged “SWAT doctor.” Thus, Det. Sayers on May 25 knew there was no
evidence of burns or any other injuries. Additionally, Det. Sayers knew via phone and credit card
information that the Plaintiffs were not hiding from public sight.
47
(d) “… and neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or
(e) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descend [sic] and felt Jihad was an anti-
166–71)
(f) “Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on the
door of #223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and ask them
to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow
detectives to view any injuries that might have been sustained. No one
answered the door …”
201. As a result of Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavit for search warrant, Apt 223 was
unlawfully searched and Plaintiffs’ personal property was unlawfully seized.

Signed by Detective Scott Sayers against Apt 911
202. On May 25, 2016, under oath, Det. Sayers intentionally and willfully lied to Judge
Jennifer Bennett when he executed and presented to her an affidavit for search warrant that
resulted in a warrant served on Plaintiffs’ secondary residence, at 8617 Southwestern Boulevard,
Apt 911, Dallas County, Texas. Except for the change in property address, this affidavit repeated
the identical material facts that were false, fabricated, and/or misleading demonstrated in
Affidavit 6 that Det. Sayers signed the same day.
affidavit had been verified. However, facts were neither truthful nor verified.
48
False Statements:
(a) “It was aledged [sic] in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey threatened ‘Jihad’
(Emphasis added.)

Betsy Aubrey.”
injuries from being seen by the public as well as detective.”
(d) “Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on the
answered the door…”
(e) “… and neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or
195–200)
206. As a result of Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavit for search warrant, Apt 991 was
unlawfully searched and Plaintiffs’ personal property was unlawfully seized.
49

Signed by Det. Scott Sayers against Verizon Wireless regarding Aubrey
Brandon Birmingham when he executed and presented to him an affidavit for search warrant that
resulted in a search warrant served on Aubrey’s cell phone provider, Verizon Wireless.
affidavit had been verified. However, facts were neither truthful nor verified. This affidavit
contained material facts that were false, fabricated, and/or misleading.
False statements:
(a) “It was alleged in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey “threatened “Jihad” the
same words used to describe the wars brought by terrorists, and against his
life which was filed in court document number 15-08135 …”
(Emphasis added.)

Betsy Aubrey.”
(c) “Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on
the door of #223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and ask
them to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow
detectives to view any injuries that might have been sustained. No
one3answered the door…”
(e) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descend [sic] and felt Jihad was an anti-
203–04)
50
(f) “Steven Aubrey was eventually detained for questioning on the 19th of
May 2016.”
210. This statement is false. Aubrey was falsely arrested and imprisoned not for
questioning but to examine, photograph, and fingerprint him.
212. As a result of Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavit for search warrant, Aubrey’s cell
phone provider, Verizon Wireless, was unlawfully searched and Aubrey’s cell data was
unlawfully seized.

Signed by Det. Scott Sayers against Verizon Wireless regarding Vodicka
Birmingham when he executed and presented to him a second affidavit for search warrant that
resulted in a warrant served on Vodicka’s cell phone provider, Verizon Wireless.
contained material facts that were false, fabricated, and/ or misleading.
False Statements:
(a) “It was alleged in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey threatened “Jihad” the
same words used to describe the wars brought by terrorists, and against
(Emphasis added.)

Betsy Aubrey.”
51
(c) “Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on the
(e) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descent and felt Jihad was an anti-Semitic
statement.”
208–09)
(f) “Brian Vodicka was eventually detained for questioning on the 19th of
May 2016.”
216. This statement is false. Vodicka was falsely arrested and imprisoned not for
questioning but to examine, photograph, and fingerprint him.
218. As a result of Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavit for search warrant, Vodicka’s cell
phone provider, Verizon Wireless, was unlawfully searched and Vodicka’s cell data was
unlawfully seized.
52

Signed by Det. Scott Sayers against Aubrey and Vodicka’s Computers
Birmingham when he executed and presented to him an affidavit for search warrant that resulted
in a warrant served on Aubrey’s and Vodicka’s computers.
False Statements:
(a) “Family members advised detectives that complainant Tobolowsky felt

Betsy Aubrey.”
(b) “Detectives were notified by Steven Aubrey’s credit card company that
221. Plaintiffs responded to the same false statements above. (Id. ¶¶ 214–15)
(d) “Detectives called both Steven Aubrey’s phone number and Brian
Vodicka’s phone number but there was no answer, so Detective
(e) “Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descent and felt Jihad was an anti-semitic
statement.”
53
(f) “Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on the
(g) “… and neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or
222. Plaintiffs responded to the same false impression statements above. (Id. ¶¶ 195–
200)
(h) “A short time later, Detectives were notified that Steven Aubrey’s card was
used to book a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Dallas, Texas, but
the room was booked under the name Alexandria [sic] Krot.”
(Id. ¶¶ 109–113)
224. As a result of Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavit for search warrant, Plaintiffs’
computers were unlawfully searched and the data contained in the computers was unlawfully
seized.
225. As a result of Det. Sayers’ affidavit for search warrant, Plaintiffs’ personal
computers were searched and all the information contained in the computers was seized,
interfering with their privacy rights and their possessory interests in the computers, depriving
them of access to all information stored on their computers, and causing Plaintiffs to purchase a
new computer.
54
Affidavit No. 11: Dallas Police Department, October 5, 2016

Signed by Det. Scott Sayers against Google, Inc.
226. On October 5, 2016, Det. Sayers intentionally and willfully lied to Judge Bennett
when he executed and presented to her an affidavit for search warrant that resulted in a warrant
served on Aubrey’s and Vodicka’s e-mail provider, Google Inc.
False Statements:
(Emphasis added.)

Betsy Aubrey.”
(c) “Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and knocked on
the door of #223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and ask
them to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow
(e) “It is believed that whoever [sic] set the complainant on fire may have
55
203–04)
230. As a result of Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavit for search warrant, Plaintiffs’ email
provider, Google, Inc., was unlawfully searched and Plaintiffs’ personal and confidential
property was unlawfully seized.
231. Despite the 11 search warrants they gathered, Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers
had been unable to come up with facts or evidence to support their contention that Plaintiffs were
involved in Ira Tobolowsky’s murder because the Plaintiffs are innocent, which upon
information and belief Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers knew very well.
232. The obsession with the two men and the fact that other avenues of investigation
were barely explored if explored at all suggests that finding Ira Tobolowsky’s murderer as well
as possible motives were less important than finding convenient patsies for the horrific death of a
highly influential, highly connected citizen from a powerful extended family, many of whose
members are ensconced in law firms and judgeships throughout Dallas and Texas. DPD found
two aging, bankrupted gay men who had been upstanding, hard-working members of their
communities throughout their lives, who had no record of violence, had never threatened Ira
Tobolowsky or anyone else, and who had no motive to harm much less kill him. Plaintiffs had
been financially destroyed by a widely reported real estate scam, and upon information and
belief the Defendants understood that the Plaintiffs had limited resources to mount a defense,
56
especially in a city in which the institutional connections of Ira Tobolowsky, as well as his
extended family, were powerful, deep, and wide ranging.
E. The City of Dallas Customs and Policies
233. The City maintains and implements a policy and practice of fabricating facts or
falsifying facts in its search warrant affidavits to unlawfully obtain search warrants from local
Dallas County criminal judges or magistrates. In addition, the City has failed to properly train
and supervise its detectives to: (a) understand the significance of giving an oath to a judge; (b)
distinguish between truthful and untruthful facts; (c) verify facts before presenting them in sworn
affidavits to Dallas County criminal judges; (d) avoid relying on untruthful hearsay in affidavits
to Dallas County criminal judges; and (e) to properly update its presentation of “facts” to Dallas
County criminal judges based upon subsequently learned truth.
234. Each time one of the perjured affidavit search warrants involving Aubrey and
Vodicka was authored and signed, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, Capt. Stephenson, and Lt.
Cherry were acting pursuant to a custom, policy, practice, and/or procedure of the City. These
Defendants’ actions constitute violations of the well-settled rights of Plaintiffs, known at the
time, to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and the taking of their personal property, which is protected by the
Fifth Amendment, as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment.
235. The City’s policy was to not supervise or discipline Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers,
Capt. Stephenson, and Lt. Cherry despite their unlawful conduct.
236. The unsupervised acts of Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, Capt. Stephenson, and Lt.
Cherry led to the use of perjured search warrant affidavits and, ultimately, caused damage to
Plaintiffs.
57
237. Before the incidents described in Section C, “Unlawful Search Warrant Affidavits
and Searches,” the City, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, Capt. Stephenson, and Lt. Cherry
developed and maintained a policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind the
constitutional and civil rights violations and injuries suffered by Plaintiffs in violation of the
Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the City had a
policy, custom, or practice of tolerating use of perjured search warrant affidavits; the inadequacy
of investigations into incidents reported to superiors; the lack of discipline for incidents of
unconstitutional searches and seizures described above; and the lack of supervision and reporting
procedures to monitor the use of unconstitutional searches and seizures by the City employees.
238. The City’s use of perjured affidavits on Plaintiffs alone constituted a widespread
pattern and practice. As a result of DPD’s lack of training and its customs or policies, it is
customary for DPD to intentionally falsify its affidavits, including but not limited to:
• In June 2010, DPD Officer Dwayne Thompson executed a falsified search

warrant affidavit for murder upon Hephzibah Olivia Lord, as detailed in Case No.
3:11-cv-3241-M, in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Chief Judge
Barbara M.G. Lynn. Lord spent nine days in jail and suffered mental anguish and
loss of reputation. Chief Judge Lynn denied various Motions for Summary
Judgment and the case ultimately went to jury trial. The jury found that DPD
Officer Thompson, acting intentionally or with reckless disregard of the truth
submitted to the magistrate a sworn affidavit in support of a warrant for Lord’s
arrest that either misrepresented a material fact or failed to provide the magistrate
with information that was critical to a finding of probable cause.
• In 2013, DPD Officer Cardan Spencer shot a mentally ill man. Spencer’s partner,
Officer Christopher Watson, was suspended for 15 days for his actions. Watson’s
partner Cardan Spencer was terminated from the department after he shot 52-
year-old Bobby Gerald Bennett after claiming the man threatened Spencer and
Watson with a knife. However, video captured by a neighbor’s surveillance
camera showed that Bennett didn’t move toward the officers until he crumpled to
the ground from a gunshot. Due to Watson’s actions of being untruthful on an
affidavit and violating patrol bureau procedure, he was suspended for 15 days.
• Dallas Police Chief U. Renee Hall fired Officer Cornelius Harris IV. In a
statement from the department, police said the most recent investigation, which
58
concluded in April 2018, found that Harris violated the restricted duty policy and
“gave an untruthful verbal statement to a supervisor.” According to the statement,
Harris also used “inappropriate force against a citizen” in May 2017. An
investigation found Harris failed to perform a proper felony traffic stop, and he
entered inaccurate information into a department report. Police said Harris in
2016 was also investigated by the internal affairs department after providing
“falsified doctor’s notes in order to receive sick excused leave” on three separate
dates.
239. But for these acts and omissions of policy, custom, training, and discipline,
Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
would not have been violated.
240. These practices and lack of training were so common and widespread as to
constitute a custom that fairly represents the policy of the City.
241. The failure to ensure that written policies were adequately implemented and the
implementation and toleration of the above practices, policies and customs, as well as the lack of
adequate training by the City, constitutes deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional
rights. Further, said customs, practices, and policies were the moving force and the direct cause
of Plaintiffs’ injuries and of the unconstitutional search of their residences and harassment.
F. Stakeout, High-Risk Apprehension, Custodial Arrest, and Interrogation
242. DPD General Order 313.07(A)(1) defines “stakeout” as “an operation in which
officers assume concealed or covert positions in anticipation of a criminal act for the purpose of
apprehending the persons involved.”
243. Upon information and belief, the Sheriff has the same or very similar definition of
the DPD definition of “stakeout.”
244. DPD General Order 313.07(C)(1)(2) states, in pertinent part: “All surveillance,
stakeouts, and high-risk apprehensions must have prior approval of a supervisor. The supervisor
in charge will develop a plan for the operation.”
59
245. Upon information and belief, the Sheriff has the same or very similar requirement
for approval by a supervisor to DPD’s policy regarding stakeouts and high-risk apprehensions.
246. DPD General Order 313.07(A)(1) defines “high-risk apprehension” as “any
planned arrest in which there is good reason to believe that the person to be arrested may be
armed and intent upon resistance.”
247. Upon information and belief, the Sheriff has the same or very similar definition to
this DPD definition of “high-risk apprehension.”
248. The Dallas Police General Order 906.02(D) for the “Authorization to Use Deadly
Force,” states that “officers will only use deadly force to protect themselves or another person
from imminent death or serious bodily injury.”
249. Upon information and belief, the Sheriff has the same or very similar order and
procedure to this DPD policy addressing authorization to use deadly force.
250. DPD General Order 906.02(E), on “Drawing or Displaying Firearms,” requires
that a threat or reasonable belief that there is a threat to life or that an officer has reasonable fear
for their own safety and/or the safety of others exist in order to authorize an officer to draw or
display her or his firearm.
251. Upon information and belief, the Sheriff has the same or very similar order and
procedure to this DPD policy addressing Drawing or Displaying Firearms.
Premeditated Excessive Force
252. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiffs woke in their secondary residence at Apt 911, where
they remained until middle afternoon.
60
253. DPD homicide detective Ermatinger possessed the fraudulently obtained search
warrants for Aubrey and Vodicka, issued the night before by Judge Howard. The search warrants
authorized in pertinent part:
“... [to] examine, photograph and fingerprint said Steven Aubrey within accepted
practices.”
“... [to] examine, photograph and fingerprint said Brian Vodicka within accepted
practices.”
254. Although the homicide detectives had publicly indicated on May 18 that they had
been unable to locate the Plaintiffs during the previous six days, they and their supervisor had
known Plaintiffs’ whereabouts exactly. Plaintiffs’ extensive call, text, and cell tower trail, as well
as credit card information already in the possession of City Defendants, indicated clearly that
Aubrey had been in Dallas since May 13 and that Vodicka had traveled to Austin for a night on
May 17 and returned on May 18, then both stayed at Apt 911 that night. A simple search for
Plaintiffs’ cars in front of their secondary residence would have made that clear, as presumably
happened.
255. However, for reasons unknown, City Defendants failed to attempt contact with
Plaintiffs by phone or by legally knocking on the door and announcing themselves at Apt 911, as
required by law.
256. Instead, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, a John Doe DPD supervisor, and
unidentified City employees planned a Dallas Police Department General Order 313.07 “stakeout
and high-risk apprehension operation” to execute a warrant to “examine, photograph, and
fingerprint” Plaintiffs.
257. This plan demonstrates that the officers on the scene on May 19 did not make
split-second judgments but had instead devised a preplanned high-risk apprehension designed to
61
frighten and intimidate Plaintiffs as well as put their lives at risk simply to execute a warrant to
examine, photograph, and fingerprint Plaintiffs, although they posed no threat.
258. Prior to its execution, the City agreed with the County to work together on this
stakeout and high-risk apprehension of Plaintiffs, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s
knock-and-announce minimum policy.
259. On May 19, following a stakeout in concealed positions and with disregard for
Plaintiffs’ right to knock-and-announce, the unidentified employees of the City and the County
assaulted Plaintiffs with deadly force and risked Plaintiffs’ lives without cause.
260. Unidentified City and the County employees waited in concealed positions for
Plaintiffs to exit their residence at Apt 911. In late afternoon, Plaintiffs exited their residence and
walked to their parked vehicle. On that summer day, Plaintiffs were wearing shorts and short-
sleeved shirts, holding nothing in their hands and carrying nothing beyond wallets, keys, and cell
phones in the pockets of their shorts.
261. When Plaintiffs began to back the vehicle out of the driveway, they were
ambushed with a custom and practice reserved for the likes of Pablo Escobar. Unmarked cars
traveling at very high speeds blocked Plaintiffs’ vehicle from every angle. In what appeared to be
an attack by lawless maniacs, drivers slammed their brakes as persons in unmarked clothing
jumped from vehicles with firearms drawn and pointed at Plaintiffs as they descended upon
Plaintiffs’ vehicle.19 Though Plaintiffs posed no threat to the safety of anyone, the approximately
15 to 20 threatening gunmen screamed at Plaintiffs to get out of the car as they pointed firearms
at Plaintiffs. The attackers then forced Plaintiffs on the concrete with loaded guns pointed at

19
Uniformed officers and deputies appeared on the scene moments after the attack, permitting Plaintiffs
to identify DPD’s tactical division and the Sheriff’s officers and deputies.
62
Plaintiffs’ heads and the barrel of one gun actually touching Aubrey’s head. One of the gunmen
who pinned Vodicka to the ground said in a low voice, “You know what you did, faggot.”
262. There is no evidence Plaintiffs posed a threat or exhibited threatening behavior.
263. There is no evidence that the unidentified City and County employees were in
imminent danger or in fear of serious bodily injury. There were no signs of any danger that
would indicate or suggest that the use of deadly force was justified.
264. Neither the City nor the County employees had authority to arrest Plaintiffs.
Judge Howard did not issue an arrest warrant on Plaintiffs. There was no cause to believe
Plaintiffs might be armed, and there was no cause to believe Plaintiffs intended to resist.
Therefore, the City’s well-defined stipulations for use of a high-risk apprehension in no way
comported with the situation that presented on May 19 that involved examining, photographing,
and fingerprinting Plaintiffs.
265. The City has a pattern, practice, history, and custom of using excessive force,
false arrest, and false imprisonment against minorities and those with few resources, including
approaching with guns drawn when there is no imminent threat of bodily harm or other
justifiable reason to do so. Because DPD’s policy was to not properly train its officers, they use
deadly force even when there exists no immediate threat to themselves or others, followed by
arrest and imprisonment in an attempt to cover up the wrongdoing, ongoing custom, pattern, and
practice, for example:
• On or about July 24, 2012, unarmed James Harper was fatally shot by DPD officer
Brian Rowden. Rowden pursued Harper on foot and fired a shot at Harper as he ran
away. Rowden was not disciplined for the unlawful killing of Harper.
• On or about March 10, 2013, unarmed Clinton Allen was fatally shot seven times by
DPD officer Clark Staller. Allen was wrongfully gunned down although he held both
hands up. Staller, despite falsifying a police report prior to his murder of Allen, was
allowed to remain an officer and not disciplined for Allen’s death. Staller was
63
allowed to prepare his statement of the incident with the assistance of his attorney and
was not asked any questions to determine the veracity of his statements.
• On or about October 14, 2013, a DPD officer shot unarmed Bobby Bennett and
attempted to falsify a police report, but a video exposed the attempted coverup. David
Blair, an unarmed individual, was standing outside his east Oak Cliff apartment on
October 2, 2013, when a pair of Dallas police officers harassed him for no lawful
reason. The officers approached him, followed him to his apartment, and shot at him
14 times for no lawful reason as he stepped out of his apartment. Blair’s story
surfaced just a week after a video circulated of a Dallas police officer shooting
Bennett, a man with mental challenges, after he stood up from a chair he set in the
middle of a cul-de-sac. Police initially claimed the man lunged at them, but the video
showed otherwise. An aggravated assault charge against the wounded man has since
been dropped.
• On December 10, 2013, 19-year-old Kelvion Walker was in his vehicle with his
hands up when a Dallas police officer shot him.
• On August 27, 2015, DPD officer Matthew Terry fatally shot unarmed Bertrand
Syjuan Davis after he immediately arrived at the scene. According to multiple
witnesses, Officer Terry failed to conduct an objectively reasonable assessment of the
facts and failed to give a verbal warning before he drew his gun and shot Davis
several times, including once in the back. Per witnesses, Officer Terry was not facing
or reacting to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or any other
person at the time he fired multiple shots that struck Davis. Officer Terry was not
disciplined by the DPD for his wrongful conduct.
• On January 18, 2017, DPD Officers Christopher Hess and Jason Kimpel used
excessive and deadly force that resulted in the death of 21-year-old Genevive Dawes
and injuries to Virgilio Rosales. As Dawes drove in her vehicle in reverse at a very
slow rate of speed, Hess and Kimpel fired at least 13 shots through the passenger-side
window where Rosales was seated, striking Dawes five times in the neck, her right
tricep, left arm, upper left chest, and right forearm. Dawes’ right earlobe was also
partially amputated. Dawes died at the hospital as a result of her injuries. Hess’s
defense for firing at the moving vehicle was not supported by body cam evidence.
Despite footage showing that Dawes was not trying to injure anyone as she reversed
her vehicle, Hess and Kimpel were not terminated for their violation of DPD policy.
In fact, the DPD and City of Dallas attempted to cover up this shooting until the body
cam footage was released to the Dallas District Attorney’s office almost six months
later. Hess was indicted for the death of Dawes.
• On September 6, 2018, DPD Officer Amber Guyger used excessive and deadly force
and killed Botham Jean, who was lawfully in his apartment, unarmed, and not
attempting to harm her or any other person. Officer Guyger, who was off duty, was
not placed under arrest and was allowed to continue roaming about the crime scene.
DPD’s investigation was designed to cover up the misconduct of Officer Guyger.
64
Detectives sought warrants for Jean’s home with the specific intent of discovering
evidence of illegality. Detectives did not initially seek warrants for the apartment or
vehicle of Officer Guyger. DPD began providing local media with information to cast
Officer Guyger in the best light, saying the physical evidence at the crime scene
substantiated the officer’s version of events. The media published the warrant
affidavit that indicated drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered from Jean’s
home, in an effort to protect Officer Guyger. Joshua Brown, a 28-year-old black man
who was a witness in the case, was shot dead ten days after testifying. Guyger was
found guilty and sentenced to ten years in jail.
266. The City and the County did not provide adequate training to their employees as it
relates to the use of deadly force and non-deadly force, arrest, and imprisonment. The City and
County’s failure to properly train, supervise, and discipline its officers was the proximate cause
of Plaintiffs’ injuries.
267. The City and the County did not provide adequate training to their unidentified
employees on conditions necessary to arrest as well as confrontation techniques. There is no
evidence the unidentified City and the County employees that participated in the high-risk
apprehension believed they were entering an active crime scene, as required by law.
268. The City and the County failed to adequately discipline the unidentified
employees for the misuse of force and/or the employment of deadly force, arrest, and
imprisonment.
269. Chief Brown, as the final policymaker for DPD, as well as the Dallas City
Council and the City knew or should have known that the training provided to employees who
participated in the May 19, 2016 stakeout and high-risk apprehension, arrest, and imprisonment
was inadequate or nonexistent.
270. Sheriff Valdez, the final policymaker for the Sheriff, as well as the Dallas County
Commissioners Court and the County, knew or should have known that the training provided to
65
the employees who participated in the May 19, 2016 stakeout and high-risk apprehension, arrest,
and imprisonment was inadequate or nonexistent.
271. The City and the County employees should have been well trained to handle
situations in which unarmed citizens pose no threat of imminent bodily harm to them, other
officers, or the general public.
272. The unidentified City and the County employees had a clear view of Plaintiffs as
they walked to their parked car; however, instead of using de-escalation techniques, they opted to
use deadly force.
273. No reasonably competent officer would have concluded that the actions of the
City and the County unidentified employees, described herein, would not and did not violate
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. In other words, no reasonably prudent police officer under
similar circumstances could have believed that the conduct of the City and the County
unidentified employees was justified.
274. Despite the fact that the Defendants held no arrest warrant, the Plaintiffs, who felt
lucky to have survived the incident, in front of their home and neighbors they were unlawfully
arrested, handcuffed, and hauled off to police headquarters, against their will, all violations of
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and
unusual punishment.
275. DPD and the Sheriff had knowledge of the violations of their own policies and
other best police practices as described above. However, the City, City Council, and Chief
Brown as well as the County, Dallas County Commissioners Court, and Sheriff Valdez refused
to adequately discipline the unidentified employees of DPD and the Sheriff, and their failure to
66
adequately supervise and/or discipline their officers was therefore the moving force behind
Plaintiffs’ damages.
Conspiracy
276. On May 19, 2016, the City and the County employees worked together to effect
the premeditated plan that culminated with multiple firearms pointed at Plaintiffs’ heads and the
barrel of one gun physically touching Aubrey’s head.
277. The City conspired with the County to conduct an unlawful stakeout and high-risk
apprehension to examine, photograph, and fingerprint Plaintiffs.
278. Without an arrest warrant, the City and the County agreed to violate Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights with use of deadly force and arrest them.
279. This conspiracy demonstrates the officers who were on the scene on May 19,
2016, were not making split-second judgments but had devised a preplanned high-risk
apprehension using deadly force to place Plaintiffs’ lives at risk and traumatize, intimidate and
humiliate them for purposes of examining, photographing, and fingerprinting them, though
Plaintiffs posed no threat to any person.
280. The purpose of conspiracy agreement was to intentionally violate Plaintiffs’ rights
under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and violate
DPD General Orders 906.02(D), (E) and the Sheriff’s corresponding orders and/or policies
regarding use of firearms.
Arrest, Imprisonment, and Interrogation
281. On May 19, 2016, following the City and the County’s unlawful stakeout and
high-risk apprehension to examine, photograph, and fingerprint Plaintiffs, unidentified City
officers unlawfully arrested Plaintiffs without an arrest warrant and without Plaintiffs’ consent.
67
282. Plaintiffs never actively resisted or evaded arrest.
283. Instead of examining, photographing, and fingerprinting Plaintiffs at their
residence, unidentified City officers physically seized Plaintiffs, forced them to the concrete
while pointing loaded firearms at them, handcuffed them against their will, forced them into
separate squad cars, and took them to police headquarters without their consent, depriving them
of their liberties and violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
284. Plaintiffs had not yet eaten on May 19, and were on their way to a restaurant for
yet another appearance in public when the tactical division attacked them. Det. Ermatinger and
other City employees then held Plaintiffs against their will for approximately 9 hours to
interrogate them without corresponding warrant.
285. As part of the imprisonment and interrogation, Det. Ermatinger and other DPD
employees refused Aubrey’s requests of food and use of a restroom for 9 hours. Vodicka, in a
separate interrogation room, was given a tiny snack required to take his HIV medication and
access to a restroom because he was willing to talk to Det. Ermatinger and others. During this
period, Vodicka explained in detail his whereabouts from May 13–19, confirmed by the credit
card and phone record trail.
286. Aubrey was punished for not complying with Det. Ermatinger’s warrantless
custodial interrogation, and he was not given a crumb to eat for the day of May 19, unlike other
properly arrested prisoners and inmates locked up by DPD.
287. DPD officers arrested Plaintiffs without an arrest warrant. Without cause, DPD
imprisoned Plaintiffs for approximately 9 hours. Because Aubrey did not participate in the forced
interrogation, DPD imprisoned Plaintiffs against their will for approximately 9 hours and refused
to feed Aubrey or permit him use of a restroom.
68
288. As a proximate cause from the arrest, Plaintiffs were imprisoned for
approximately 9 hours, violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from unreasonable
seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
Conversion of Plaintiffs’ Property
289. On May 19, 2016, following Plaintiffs’ arrests, unidentified officers and Det.
Ermatinger illegally seized and impounded vehicles owned by Plaintiffs.
290. Det. Ermatinger had obtained search warrants on Aubrey, Vodicka, and their
personal residence at Apt 223 that did not include or permit seizure of their vehicles followed by
impounding them.
291. The illegal seizure of Plaintiffs’ vehicles caused Plaintiffs damage in the loss of
transportation, loss of business due to lack of transportation, permanent damage to Aubrey’s
vehicle, and other economic damages.
292. Because Det. Ermatinger’s and Det. Sayers’ search warrant affidavits were
obtained under false pretenses, all Plaintiffs’ items confiscated by DPD, including but not limited
to computers, cell phones, clothing, safety headrests from Aubrey’s vehicle, power tools, and
other personal property, deprived Plaintiffs’ possession and use of the personal property, causing
economic damages to Plaintiffs.
293. Most of the seized property has never been returned, causing permanent damage
and economic hardship, considering Plaintiffs’ very limited economic circumstances. Some of
Plaintiffs’ property was maliciously destroyed; for example, DPD apparently intentionally
smashed crystal candlesticks on the floor at Plaintiffs’ personal residence at Apt 911 and left
them for Plaintiffs to clean (they were on a difficult-to-access high shelf).
69
294. The only property seized by DPD and returned to the Plaintiffs were the two
computers, both returned after several months; one was permanently damaged.
G. Entrapment and Seizure – October 20, 2016
297. DPD entrapped Aubrey for a criminal prostitution charge.
Arrest and Imprisonment
298. On October 20, 2016, more than five months after Ira Tobolowsky’s still
unexplained death, an unknown person using the name “Ryan” sent a text to Aubrey’s work-
related number associated with his ad in masseurfinder.com. “Ryan” requested a massage at the
Hilton Anatole hotel, approximately 8.5 miles from Plaintiffs’ Apt 223.
299. Following a few texts, at 11:00 am Ryan asked Aubrey if they could meet for
drinks in the bar and then go to the room for the massage. Aubrey responded at 11:01 am that his
business was serious and declined.
300. Ryan was silent for 20 minutes. Upon information and belief, DPD had wanted to
avoid paying for a room and to publicly bust Aubrey for prostitution in the bar. Upon
information and belief, DPD was obtaining approval to book a room at the Hilton hotel to entrap
Aubrey.
301. At 11:12 am, Aubrey sent Ryan a text stating: “I assume that we do not have an
appointment and 2 pm is off?”
302. Finally, at 11:20 am, Ryan replied, saying: “We are still on for 2.” Aubrey asked
Ryan for the room number, and Ryan responded he had not checked in yet and would let Aubrey
know. Later, Ryan sent the room number and they agreed to meet at 2:15 pm.
303. At 1:47 pm, Ryan sent a text stating: “Let me know when you get here.”
304. At 2:15 pm, Aubrey sent a text stating: “Just parked.”
70
305. Aubrey unpacked his massage table and supplies, entered the hotel, and several
minutes later knocked on the door of Room 1095. “Ryan” answered and let him in.
306. As Aubrey was setting up his table, Ryan repeatedly tried to give Aubrey money.
Aubrey told him he did not take money up front before the session.
307. At approximately 2:25 pm, Ryan put money on the desk and excused himself into
the bathroom. Moments later, several unidentified uniformed DPD officers with guns flashing
busted through the front door and arrested Aubrey.
308. The officers walked Aubrey out of the hotel in handcuffs, leaving his belongings
behind. Before shutting the door of the squad car, one of the officers held up a clear plastic bag
with money in it and asked, “This is the money you accepted, right?” Aubrey said no he did not.
The officer asked the same question several times with small variations, but Aubrey did reply in
the affirmative.
309. Aubrey’s arrest was against his will, and the restraint was unreasonable under the
circumstances.
310. Unidentified DPD sources immediately began distributing false information about
the arrest for “prostitution” to local media outlets, all designed to cast Aubrey in the worst
possible light to further damage Plaintiffs. The false information was published in D Magazine’s
Article as follows: “Aubrey agreed to masturbation and sexual intercourse for $300.” This is a
blatantly false statement. There is no evidence whatsoever to support these fabricated statements.
311. To create the impression that Aubrey had accidentally run into an ongoing police
operation at the hotel and had not been set up by DPD, DPD falsely told the media that Aubrey
was arrested because “police were running an undercover investigation into the website
masseurfinder.com.” Upon information and belief, police were not investigating the website and
71
“Ryan” did not call any other number advertised on masseurfinder.com. Aubrey was the lone
target, and DPD entrapped and then falsely arrested him.
312. Because DPD arrested to harass him as well as to isolate and frighten Vodicka.
(Infra. ¶¶ 320–33), DPD’s evidence did not support the allegations, the State of Texas never
prosecuted the case and the charges were dropped. Nevertheless, to harass Aubrey further, the
State held the prostitution charge on the books for two years, requiring Aubrey to pay an attorney
to make 14 appearances at hearings until the statute of limitations had run out on the charge on
October 19, 2018 and the proceeding was terminated.
313. From the moment of his arrest, Aubrey suffered humiliation and public ridicule.
Aubrey had never been implicated in or arrested for prostitution, and the public shaming on false
charges is humiliating and painful. The agony is compounded by the knowledge that the police
officers in charge of investigating the matter prosecuted him on a completely baseless action. All
of this caused and continues to cause Aubrey to suffer depression, insomnia, nightmares, and
constant anxiety of the most extreme nature. Aubrey’s and Vodicka’s reputations have been
permanently damaged, including Aubrey’s professional reputation causing economic loss.
Extortion of Aubrey under Color of Law
314. The entrapment and arrest of Aubrey under color of law constituted the first act of
extortion in this action. The Dallas Police Department obtained several items of Aubrey’s
property, including his massage table and supplies, and a required payment of $500 bail money.
This taking of property was induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, and
fear, and under color of law. Aubrey certainly felt threatened when multiple uniformed armed
policemen busted through the door of “Ryan’s” hotel room. The Dallas police officers who
participated in the “sting” operation were government officers. Their identities are unknown to
72
date but are listed as John Does as parties. The DPD officers had no basis to investigate Aubrey
as there had never been a complaint filed about his business practices. Without probable cause,
DPD conduct the sting operation on Aubrey alone.
315. Extortion can include the threat to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a
secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to
an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim’s spouse that the
victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another. DPD exposed Aubrey to ridicule as, once
again, they leaked Aubrey’s arrest to the media so that Aubrey’s face and picture would be
prominently displayed and featured in the Dallas Morning News and linked to prostitution.
316. This act of extortion caused Aubrey great injury to further damage him and
subject him to public ridicule and scorn, causing economic damage. This incident was yet
another “surprise attack” upon Plaintiffs.
317. The force used by the DPD officers was a willful and purposeful threat and taking
of property. This threat and taking of property was unauthorized.
Civil Theft
318. Because Aubrey’s arrest was unlawful, DPD committed theft when it
appropriated his property with the intent to deprive Aubrey his property, without Aubrey’s
consent.
319. The value of the property stolen was greater than $20,000 and included Aubrey’s
car, cell phone, massage table and supplies, $500 bail money, and the payment of a $3,000
retainer to his criminal defense attorney. Aubrey was deceived by DPD and deprived of his
property without his “effective consent.”
73
Warrantless Searches and Seizures
320. On October 20, 2016, Vodicka woke from a groggy sleep to find Det. Ermatinger
perched next to him in bed, tapping Vodicka’s leg, and Det. Sayers standing next to him in
Vodicka’s darkened bedroom.
321. Just as Aubrey was being falsely arrested across town for prostitution, Det.
Ermatinger and Det. Sayers had illegally entered Plaintiffs’ residence and the intimate space of
Plaintiffs’ bedroom without a warrant.
322. Minutes before, Vodicka had heard knocking while sleeping, but when he went to
the door, he could see no one through the peephole. In response, Vodicka attempted to call
Aubrey at 2:29 pm and again at 2:30 pm, the very minutes Aubrey was being arrested. At 2:31
pm, Vodicka sent Aubrey a text, stating: “Someone knocking/I can’t see anybody,” but Aubrey
could not reply because his phone had been confiscated.
323. Vodicka went back to sleep after sending Aubrey the text.
324. Minutes later, Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers illegally entered Plaintiffs’
apartment, without a warrant and with confirmed knowledge that Aubrey was not present.
325. Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers had gained entry into the apartment via a key
given to them by Plaintiffs’ landlord after the detectives lied to him about “conducting a welfare
check.”
326. Neither Det. Ermatinger nor Det. Sayers had attempted to call Vodicka to check
his welfare. Instead, they trespassed into Apt 223 and into the bedroom where Vodicka slept.
327. The first words from Det. Ermatinger’s after Vodicka awoke were: “We arrested
Steve.”
74
328. Upon information and belief, Det. Ermatinger’s and Det. Sayers’ intention was for
Vodicka to believe Aubrey had been arrested for the murder of Ira Tobolowsky and to
interrogate Vodicka without the presence of an attorney and/or Aubrey.
329. Upon information and belief, Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers were seeking
incriminating and/or self-incriminating statements from Vodicka, whom they viewed as
“fragile,” loquacious, vulnerable, and heavily medicated.
330. Det. Ermatinger’s and Det. Sayers’ illegal entry shocked and frightened Vodicka.
331. While lying in bed, Vodicka asked Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers if they had
spoken with Aubrey’s dermatologist at Highland Dermatology, whose office Aubrey had visited
hours after Ira Tobolowsky’s death. The detectives said they had not done so. By refusing to seek
exculpatory evidence, City Defendants could continue to present the same falsehoods and
misleading facts to the press and others.
332. Assuming there must be victims who suffered financial loss as a result of Ira
Tobolowsky’s business practices, Vodicka asked Det. Ermatinger repeatedly if he had made any
efforts to “follow the money.” Ermatinger did not reply.
333. The motive behind Det. Ermatinger’s and Det. Sayers’ illegal and warrantless
search was to harass and intimidate Vodicka. In fact, Det. Ermatinger made sure to mention his
visit to Vodicka’s mother at the C.C. Young rest home and was surprised he did not know about
it. As Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers were leaving the apartment, Vodicka told them he had
been to the courthouse to examine Det. Ermatinger’s affidavits and that he was alarmed at the
false “facts” they had used in search warrant affidavits.
75
Extortion of Vodicka under Color of Law
334. While Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers were in Plaintiffs’ bedroom on October
20, 2016 after illegally entry, Det. Ermatinger told Vodicka that he had interviewed Vodicka’s
93-year-old mother a few days prior at the C.C. Young retirement home in Dallas. Det.
Ermatinger’s harassing visit had terrified Vodicka’s mother, who can only remember feeling
afraid and wishing him to leave. Mrs. Vodicka felt such shame that she did not tell Vodicka
about the detective’s visit. Det. Ermatinger caused severe damage to Vodicka’s relationship with
his aging mother, which in turn caused severe damage to Vodicka’s relationship with his entire
family, who came to believe Vodicka was involved in the murder.
335. Det. Ermatinger did not visit, harass, question, or frighten Aubrey’s mother Betsy
Aubrey, who was not frail and living in a retirement home. Betsy Aubrey had been Ira
Tobolowsky’s client. The fact that Det. Ermatinger did not interview Betsy Aubrey indicates a
peculiar lack of interest in determining the facts of the case and a pointed effort to upset
Vodicka.
336. Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers extracted value from Vodicka in denying
Vodicka the quiet enjoyment of his personal residence. Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers could
reasonably foresee that asking Plaintiffs’ landlord for a key to unlock Plaintiffs’ personal
residence, without cause, would injure Plaintiffs. Their unjustified actions caused severe damage
to the good relationship Plaintiffs had cultivated with their landlord.
337. The combined acts of the City, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers, including: 1)
using excessive force, assault, false arrest, and false imprisonment to execute a warrant to
photograph Vodicka on May 19, 2016; 2) traumatizing Vodicka’s 93-year-old mother about the
investigation into Ira Tobolowsky’s murder; and 3) illegally entering Vodicka’s apartment to
76
frighten and interrogate him, under false pretenses and without a warrant, constituted a threat to
Vodicka’s personal safety and quiet enjoyment of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
H. Detective Ermatinger “Just Can’t Quit” Steve and Brian:

Coordinated Efforts to Intimidate, Threaten, Traumatize, and Humiliate Plaintiffs
338. In August 2016, the Tobolowsky family had released information from the
coroner’s report — three months after Ira Tobolowsky’s death — that declared that his death was
not an accident, and stories in the media again appeared that named Plaintiffs.20
339. By October 2016, Plaintiffs had come to believe the worst had passed in the Ira
Tobolowsky murder investigation. Although Plaintiffs’ reputations and lives had been destroyed
by the baseless, evidence-free claims floated by DPD, Judge Moyé, and associates of Ira
Tobolowsky immediately upon Tobolowsky’s death and thereafter, the absence of indictment by
the grand jury in May 2016, lack of interest or inquiries from DPD after May, and their own
innocence had led Plaintiffs to believe that questions about their alleged role in the death had
been resolved. Plaintiffs were unprepared for what came next: a coordinated, for-profit setup.
340. Unknown to Plaintiffs, Det. Sayers had perjured himself again by submitting a
search warrant affidavit on October 5, 2016 with the same known falsehoods used in earlier
affidavits in May, “facts” he knew were false.21
341. On October 20, 2016, DPD lured Steven Aubrey to a hotel for a phony massage
appointment to arrest him on a false charge of prostitution. DPD entrapped Aubrey at a time and
place — over eight miles away from Apt 223 — arranged by DPD.

20
It is unclear why the coroner’s office had required three months to render an official cause of death for
Ira Tobolowsky.
21
The affidavit that Det. Sayers swore to on October 5, 2016, is the 11th and last known affidavit. There
may be others of which Plaintiffs are unaware.
77
342. The false arrest was the first step in an elaborate sting and harassment operation
coordinated between City Defendants and the Tobolowsky family.
343. Just as Aubrey was being led away in handcuffs, Vodicka awoke to find Det.
Ermatinger perched on the bed beside him. Det. Ermatinger immediately informed Vodicka that
Aubrey had been arrested without telling him the charge. (Id. ¶¶ 320–33)
344. Upon information and belief, the purpose of Aubrey’s arrest was to not only
humiliate Aubrey but also to separate Aubrey from Vodicka for a lengthy period in the hope that
Vodicka would make unguarded statements without Aubrey or counsel, as well as to record it.
345. Upon information and belief, the further purpose of Det. Ermatinger’s and Det.
Sayers’ illegal entry into the intimate space of Plaintiffs’ bedroom was to shock, upset, and
disorient Vodicka and to elicit discombobulated, Depakote- and Seroquel-fueled statements in
which he would self-incriminate, incriminate Aubrey, and/or provide recorded material for
purposes other than law enforcement, such as programming content.
346. Vodicka did none of those things. Vodicka’s questions to Det. Ermatinger and
Det. Sayers about why they had not “followed up” with Highland Dermatology, the false story
they had peddled in their sworn affidavits, and his stress on the need to “follow the money” to
solve Tobolowsky’s murder did not provide the “content” that Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers
sought. Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers left after approximately 10 minutes.
347. Following the news from Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers that Aubrey had been
arrested, Vodicka was distraught and anxious while he waited for news from him, as DPD had
previewed. (Vodicka still did not know on which charge Aubrey had been arrested; he assumed it
was for the murder of Tobolowsky). Aubrey’s case, meanwhile, was being slow-walked at the
78
county jail, as Aubrey watched those who had entered after him leave to appear before a judge
and be formally charged while he remained in the holding area.
348. In the evening, while waiting for news from Aubrey, Vodicka ran out to pick up
something to eat. Upon his return to Apt 223, two strangers approached him in the parking lot.
The two — a male and female, both approximately in their 40s — identified themselves as
“investigators working for Ermatinger and Debbie Tobolowsky.” The two “investigators” asked
Vodicka if he would answer questions about Ira Tobolowsky’s death.
349. Vodicka invited the two “investigators,” who never gave their names, into Apt
223 to offer assistance. The two asked a few questions but quickly told Vodicka that the media
would soon descend on the apartment as news of Aubrey’s arrest became public and that it
would be best if he quickly packed a bag to stay overnight at a hotel, for which they would pay.
(Although news of Aubrey’s arrest was not yet public, the “investigators” were aware of it. They,
too, failed to ever inform Vodicka of the arrest charge. D Magazine’s article of May 2017
identifies these two as “private investigators” hired by the Tobolowsky family and that they had
been “tipped” to news of Aubrey’s arrest.)
350. Disoriented, distraught, alone, exhausted by months of public smearing, shaming,
and suspicion, and wrapped in a heavy fog of Depakote and Seraquel, Vodicka acceded to the
request of the strangers, who had identified themselves as working with Det. Ermatinger.
351. The trip to the hotel was the third act of the setup: to isolate the vulnerable
Vodicka, whom they perceived as pliant and fragile, with persons connected to the Tobolowsky
family to question and film him, alone. Although Vodicka had previously repeatedly offered
assistance to Det. Ermatinger, Det. Ermatinger had never followed up. The cruel charade at the
79
hotel was devised because there was no evidence City Defendants could use to obtain an arrest
warrant to question Vodicka again, alone.22
352. The Tobolowsky investigators drove Vodicka to a nearby DoubleTree Hotel,
where they had already reserved a room and had the key. The two strangers were in control: they
led Vodicka into the room and stayed while Vodicka waited for news from Aubrey. Vodicka and
the male investigator watched a football game as the man asked Vodicka questions about Aubrey
such as “did Steve do it?” The man was secretly filming Vodicka with a video pin throughout.
The woman continuously came and went from the room, taking calls from “Ermatinger” because
they were “working with Ermatinger,” she said, and speaking on her phone only in the hall.
353. While being recorded, Vodicka never implicated himself or Aubrey, because
Plaintiffs are innocent.
354. After approximately two hours, the two Tobolowsky investigators abruptly
disappeared, leaving Vodicka alone in the hotel room without a “goodbye.” Not long after,
Aubrey was released from the county jail.
355. At the county jail, Aubrey had been detained at length, far longer than anyone
else. The holding area had turned over three times before he was released; this indicates close
coordination between the Tobolowsky “investigators,” City Defendants, and County Defendants.
Aubrey, upon calling Vodicka, told Vodicka to immediately take his things and “get out,” and
the two eventually returned to Apt 223.
356. The fourth act of the setup and harassment started the following day. On October
21, as Vodicka walked alone to his car, the male “investigator” whom he had met the night
before jumped from between parked cars, startling him, screaming repeatedly, “Brian, you’re in

22
Vodicka is no longer prescribed these medications.
80
danger!” and “Get out of here!” while waving his gun at him. Shocked, frozen with fear, and
feeling extremely vulnerable, Vodicka returned to Apt 223.
357. Over the next several days, two Tobolowsky “investigators” — less
“investigators” than hired goons with guns — repeated the same routine of harassment. As
Plaintiffs approached their car, the two surprised Plaintiffs from between parked cars while
yelling and waving their guns. However, Vodicka was the especial target of the harassment as
they screamed his name only — “Brian, get out of there, you’re in danger!” — implying he was
unsafe with Aubrey.
358. On October 26, soon after these events, while in court before Judge Donald
Cosby, Aubrey confronted Michael Tobolowsky about the “investigators’” stalking and
harassment of Plaintiffs. Michael Tobolowsky smiled and did not deny that he had hired the
“investigators” to harass Plaintiffs.23

23
After Judge Moyé recused himself from Cause No. DC-15-08135 on May 18, 2016, the Texas State
Supreme Court appointed Tarrant County District Judge Donald Cosby to the case. Michael Tobolowsky,
one of Ira Tobolowsky’s sons, had chosen to continue the defamation suit his father had filed against
Plaintiffs. In this exchange on October 26, Judge Cosby’s response to information that persons hired by
Michael Tobolowsky were harassing Plaintiffs while waving guns at them in public was that he was “not
sure” about what exactly was legal conduct for “investigators,” and he did not admonish Michael
Tobolowsky or ask him to refrain.
During that hearing, Judge Cosby threatened to place Plaintiffs in debtors’ prison for the unpaid sanctions
accreted via Judge Moyé: “I think that is an option I can explore,” Judge Cosby said (a direct quote or
close approximation).
It is Judge Cosby who entered the $5.5 million judgment in the defamation case in May 2017 on the one-
year anniversary of Ira Tobolowsky’s death and several weeks after D Magazine Defendants’ had
published the Article featuring Plaintiffs as the murderers; that amount was later reduced to $1 million on
appeal. Judge Cosby later said he had read the highly prejudicial, defamatory Article.
Because Plaintiffs have been “run out of town” by Tobolowsky-hired goons, they have been unable to
attend near-monthly hearings in front of Judge Cosby. Judge Cosby has consistently refused to allow
Plaintiffs to conference telephonically (except for a single instance), thus guaranteeing orders and
judgements against them.
81
359. Unsurprisingly, following these acts, Plaintiffs felt extremely unsafe. Det.
Ermatinger and Det. Sayers had entered their home without a warrant and could so again.
Plaintiffs were threatened by screaming, gun-waving goons in their parking lot. City Defendants
had entrapped Aubrey and publicly smeared him, and his picture and name was featured
prominently in news outlets that blanketed Dallas identifying him as a male prostitute (making it
almost impossible to earn an income, upon which the Plaintiffs depended). The Tobolowsky
family and City Defendants had (and have) vast resources and power and had demonstrated
continuing use of extralegal as well as extrajudicial means to achieve their ends.24
360. Plaintiffs, no longer safe in their own home, chose to leave the state and broke
their lease (which seriously impacted their excellent credit ratings). City Defendants and those
coordinating with them had literally “run” the Plaintiffs out of town.25
361. Upon information and belief, City Defendants’ actions of October 2016 — Det.
Ermatinger’s visit to Vodicka’s 93-year-old mother in the rest home, the entrapment of Aubrey
on a charge for which he was never prosecuted, the illegal entry into Plaintiffs’ bedroom while
Vodicka slept, the Tobolowsky investigators’ hotel room operation with Vodicka and secret
filming, as well as Tobolowsky-hired goons stalking and harassing Plaintiffs — was to push
Vodicka, whom they viewed as “fragile,” past the breaking point to destroy his psyche and will

24
After Aubrey identified the vehicle of one of the “investigators” stalking Plaintiffs in the parking lot of
Apt 223, he asked building management about the owner’s identity, to which he received an odd and
unsatisfactory answer. How and under what pretences these “investigators” presented themselves to
building management, what identification they used, and how it was they felt free to waive guns and
threaten Plaintiffs in a public area in which posted signs indicated “no trespassing” and “no firearms” is
unclear.

25
As Plaintiffs drove their rented truck away from Apt 223, an unmarked vehicle followed them out of
Dallas, a car Plaintiffs had seen at length in front of the apartment management office. When Plaintiffs
arrived at their new residence multiple states distant, local police remained stationed in front of their
home for hours at a time over two weeks, severely impacting their reputation, their relationship with new
neighbors, and their sense of safety.
82
to generate a false confession or incrimination of Aubrey, and/or to enrage the Aubrey to lead
him to behave in a way that self-incriminated, or for other as yet unknown purposes.26
362. Upon information and belief, the investigators who stalked Plaintiffs were off-
duty DPD employees hired by the Tobolowsky family who were coordinating efforts with DPD
generally and Det. Ermatinger specifically, in a semi-official or “off the books” operation. Upon
information and belief, the goal of these activities was to elicit from Vodicka a false confession
and/or for him to falsely incriminate Aubrey so as to earn payment from the Tobolowsky family
via reward money. (The Tobolowsky sons had by then become fixated on Plaintiffs, clearly
described in the Article.)
363. Upon information and belief, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, and others further
sought to generate content for “The First 48,” the “reality” program on A&E on which Det.
Ermatinger had been previously featured. The elaborate setup of October 2016 took place in the
weeks before Det. Ermatinger retired. Upon information and belief, Det. Ermatinger had wished
to “go out with a win” by “solving” a notorious murder and closing the case, despite the truth
and through whatever spurious means, and perhaps generate income post-retirement.27 The video
collected by the Tobolowskys’ investigators — which City Defendants could not obtain legally
— could be used for such content.
364. All of these acts are cruel, sadistic, and extortionate of two men who had in the
previous year seen their finances destroyed and then their lives and reputations smeared and
shattered after years of hard work and “playing by the rules.” They had been identified locally,

27
The Tobolowsky family seems to have hired private investigators in early October, according to the
Article, around the time the 11th perjured search warrant was sworn to by Det. Sayers on October 5. The
Article notes that Det. Ermatinger was worried about his City pension and that informed his decision to
retire. The last segment of “The First 48” on which Det. Ermatinger had appeared was originally
broadcast in 2013.
83
nationally, and even internationally as the likely murderers of Ira Tobolowsky and continue to be
so via the online version of the D Magazine Defendants’ Article. (Infra Section M, D
Magazine’s Article.) Plaintiffs lack the vast resources and institutional access — of the DPD, the
courts, and media outlets — that the Tobolowskys and their extended family enjoy.
365. The harassment is ongoing. Det. Ermatinger’s public identification of Plaintiffs as
“strong suspects” in the Article of May 2017, the online version of the Article that remains
available, a billboard on the Central Expressway in Dallas paid for by the Tobolowsky family
that offered a “$25,000 reward” for information on “Who Murdered Ira Tobolowsky,” and an
image of the billboard in the Article that remains online, has effectively put a bounty on
Plaintiffs’ heads. Cars with darkened windows idle for hours in front of their home; unknown
persons are seen underneath their cars; unknown vehicles appear for no reason. Upon
information and belief, these persons seek to gather information that will gain them the reward
and/or “investigators” hired by the Tobolowsky family to stalk and harass them. (An online
search of “Who Murdered Ira Tobolowsky” finds Plaintiffs’ names hundreds if not thousands of
times, with D Magazine’s articles at or near first position; various means have been used to
manipulate the results of a keyword search for “Ira Tobolowsky” as well as names of Plaintiffs.)
I. Dallas County Validates the City of Dallas Perjured Affidavits
366. On October 24, 2016, Aubrey filed a complaint with the Public Integrity Unit
whose stated mission “is to investigate and prosecute those who have misused the trust placed in
them by State licensing boards” because “independence and transparency are paramount to a
process that is fair to both law enforcement and the citizens of this County.”
84
367. Aubrey’s six-page complaint was a detailed account of Det. Ermatinger’s and
Det. Sayers’ repetitive use of affidavits containing materially false material facts that ultimately
caused various judges to issue unlawful search warrants.
368. Aubrey alleged that Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers did in fact “violate the law
while operating with the public’s trust.”
369. Aubrey’s complaint was handled by Sergeant Tracy Dotson, who called Aubrey
to discuss the results of his “investigation.” Sgt. Dotson informed Aubrey that he had spoken
with a DPD supervisor and determined that there was nothing inappropriate about the affidavits.
Aubrey asked Sgt. Dotson if aggravated perjury is considered appropriate, and Sgt. Dotson
answered that nothing inappropriate had occurred.
J. Destruction of Government Records – Spoliation
370. Independent of each other, Dallas County and the City of Dallas destroyed
records that reflect certain events as they relate to Plaintiffs.
Dallas County Destruction of Records
371. On May 19, 2016, the County executed an unlawful premeditated “stakeout, high-
risk apprehension” operation to arrest Plaintiffs without an arrest warrant, the basis forming
Plaintiffs’ Excessive Force claim against Defendants Dallas County and City of Dallas.
372. As part of their ambush, County employees drew and displayed firearms against
Plaintiffs without the requisite threat or reasonable belief there was a threat to life or reasonable
fear for their own safety and/or the safety of others, as required by policy.
373. Upon information and belief, the County destroyed its records related to its
participation in the ambush operation. The destroyed records included the identities of the
85
County employees who pointed loaded firearms at Plaintiffs’ heads and pinned them to the
ground, including one who stated in a whisper, “You know what you did, faggot.”
374. Without the employment records identifying the deputies by name, it is
impossible for Plaintiffs to identify the John Does or discover relevant information as to the
County’s role in the excessive force operation.
375. In March 2019, Dallas County Attorney John Butrus notified Plaintiffs during a
prearranged phone call that the County had no records relating to the tactical high-risk stakeout
and apprehension of Plaintiffs on May 19, 2016.
376. The County fraudulently concealed this effort to destroy its records in relation to
Plaintiffs prior to (estimated) March 2019, during the pendency of this litigation.
377. The County’s destroyed records include but are not limited to incident reports,
internal employee timesheets, and employee/personnel records containing daily activity
descriptions.
378. The County’s destruction of all governmental records reflecting its involvement in
the May 19, 2016 excessive force constitutes a second-degree felony offense under Texas Penal
Code Section 37.10, it raises a spoliation jury charge inference to the jury, and itself will warrant
the denial of any motion to dismiss or summary judgment made by Dallas County.
City of Dallas Destruction of Records
379. On May 13, 2016, the day of Ira Tobolowsky’s death, a woman posted a cry for
help on Facebook. She stated that a man threatened her with a gun while she was driving on the
North Dallas Tollway. The woman snapped a photo of the license plate and car and contacted the
Dallas Police Department asking for help. The DPD would not help her, so she posted the picture
86
of the license plate and car on Facebook, asking the general public if anybody could identity the
perpetrator. It turned out that the person flashing the gun at her was Judge Eric V. Moyé.
380. In 2019, Vodicka made an open records request upon the City of Dallas police
department pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act for documents and information related
to Judge Moyé’s incident on the North Dallas Tollway, which had been reported by numerous
local newspapers and news stations.
381. In response to the request, the City replied that it possessed no records or police
reports regarding Judge Moyé’s incident, despite the fact that the victim had called the police to
report the criminal act.
382. Upon information and belief, and in violation of Chapter 37.10 of the Texas Penal
Code, City employees took part in intentionally destroying these government records. They did
so because evidence and focus on Judge Moyé’s criminal act would have severely diminished the
value DPD would realize from Judge Moyé’s baseless accusation that Aubrey was involved in
the murder of Ira Tobolowsky, which unleashed more than 100 defamatory publications in print,
online, and on the television. (Why Judge Moyé might have been fearful on the day of Ira
Tobolowsky’s murder is unclear; it had nothing to do with Plaintiffs, who had never threatened
Tobolowsky or Judge Moyé and had no history of violence; they had not even raised their voices
in Judge Moyé’s courtroom.)
K. Distribution and Misuse of Confidential Information
383. DPD General Order 323.05(A) states: “Departmental employees will not give
information from Police Department files to media members except the following: Accident
Reports; Page One of Offense Reports; Page One of Arrest Reports; Mug shots where records
87
reflect previous convictions or where defendants have recently been charged; and Previous
convictions.”
384. Texas Government Code 552.352(a-1)(1)(3), states: “An officer or employee of a
governmental body who obtains access to confidential information under Section 552.008
commits an offense if the officer or employee knowingly uses the confidential information for a
purpose other than the purpose for which the information was received or for a purpose unrelated
to the law that permitted the officer or employee to obtain access to the information; or discloses
the confidential information to a person who is not authorized to receive the information.”
385. Det. Ermatinger, until his retirement from DPD in November 2016, and other
DPD employees were a constant source of leaked information about the active murder
investigation of Ira Tobolowsky. Even after retirement, Det. Ermatinger continued to share
confidential information about the murder investigation and to implicate Plaintiffs.
386. As a private citizen, Det. Ermatinger distributed provably false information about
the murder investigation and Plaintiffs to D Magazine Defendants.
387. Det. Ermatinger made himself available to be interviewed by Thompson for the
Article, which stated:
“Detective Ermatinger, now retired, says the men remain primary

suspects.
“ ‘They are suspects, and they are strong ones,’ Ermatinger says. ‘But I
had no evidence to arrest them.’
“They did not have good alibis, telling detectives that at the time of the
fire, they were at their apartment.
“The doctor explained to us that it could be from the flash of a fire, it

could be burns, or it could just be a sunburn,” Ermatinger says. He says
too much time had passed.”
88
388. However, Plaintiffs were not suspects and none have ever been named as such in
the Ira Tobolowsky investigation. Further, Det. Ermatinger’s knowledge about the alibis of
persons of interest and information about Aubrey’s arms was information that pertained to an
ongoing, active criminal investigation, and distribution of that information is a criminal offense
under Tex. Gov. Code 552.352. Unremarked upon here is the spuriousness of the notion that two
men — one of whom is disabled, requires multiple prescribed medications, and is retired — who
state they are in their home at 7:50 am indicates lack of “good alibis.”
389. Moreover, Det. Ermatinger lied to D Magazine Defendants about confidential
information from the Ira Tobolowsky murder investigation that in fact did not exist. Det.
Ermatinger fabricated a story about Plaintiffs’ phone records, indicating that Plaintiffs did not
use their cell phones from about 9 pm the night before the fire until the next afternoon and were
possibly turned off. D Magazine’s Article stated:
• “Phone records, detectives told the Tobolowsky family, showed no

activity on the men’s cellphones from about 9 pm the night before the
fire until the next afternoon, meaning their phones were not pinging
towers and may have been turned off. The records did show cell
activity before and after that time period.”
390. In fact, Plaintiffs’ phones were turned on, as Det. Ermatinger well knew, because
phone records indicate that on the morning of May 13, 2016:
• Vodicka placed five calls between 9 am and 12 pm starting at 9:17 am
• Aubrey placed two calls between 9 and 12 from 10:51 am
391. Plaintiffs continued to make calls throughout the day, Aubrey until 11:30 pm and
Vodicka until 8:30 pm. Det. Ermatinger had gained that information in the illegal search
warrants of Plaintiffs’ phone data, which also indicates that they were home on the night 12th
89
and morning of the 13th, and credit card information that shows that Aubrey bought items at the
Trader Joe’s a short drive from his home at around 9 am.
L. Malicious Prosecution
392. Beginning on May 16, 2016, and for the five months that followed, City
employees Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers maliciously fabricated and included
false facts in their sworn affidavits for search warrants, which caused eleven (11) unlawful
search warrants to be executed on Plaintiffs, causing them injury.
393. The end did not justify the means as not a single fact was found to connect
Plaintiffs to the fire/death of Ira Tobolowsky.
394. Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers each instituted and pursued legal
actions without probable cause, and the search warrants that were executed as a result were
unsuccessful.
395. On October 20, 2016, DPD initiated a criminal prosecution against Aubrey in
which they entrapped Aubrey for a prostitution charge without basis.
396. DPD’s false arrest and false imprisonment deprived Aubrey of his rights to
liberty, rights to his property, and caused damage to his business. Though there was no evidence
to support the charge, the district attorney would not dismiss the case against Aubrey, which
required fifteen (15) court appearances over a two-year period until the state’s statute of
limitations ran out.
397. Without probable cause, the City Defendants initiated or procured the prosecution
of Aubrey, which was terminated in Aubrey’s favor.
398. Aubrey’s reputation and business were directly impacted by this false arrest,
which remains on Aubrey’s record.
90
M. D Magazine Defendants
399. At all relevant times applicable to D Magazine Defendants, Plaintiffs resided in
Florida, including, but not limited to, D Magazine’s publication of articles that identified
Plaintiffs as the likely murderers of Ira Tobolowsky.
400. D Magazine Defendants’ publication regarding Plaintiffs charged Plaintiffs with
an infamous and gruesome crime and subjected them to public hatred, distrust, ridicule,
contempt, disgrace, and loss of companionship, and the publications damaged and continue to
damage Plaintiffs in their professions, income-earning potential, and relationships with family
and friends.
The Titles Alone Defame Plaintiffs
401. Though no suspects were ever officially named in the Ira Tobolowsky murder
investigation, D Magazine Defendants teased its 1,620,368 social media followers when in 2017
it suggested it had solved the crime that DPD investigators could not.
402. On April 26, May 3, and May 8, 2017, D Magazine Defendants published three
online short story and video cliffhanger ads, immediately before the extensive feature story in its
May 2017 issue would hit the stands:
• “Sneak Peek: D Magazine’s May Issue, Which Explores Who Killed Ira
Tobolowsky”
• “Who Murdered Ira Tobolowsky?”
• “The Unsolved Murder of Ira Tobolowsky. The prominent lawyer was

burned alive in his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who
did it.”
403. D Magazine Defendants did not keep its followers waiting long and answered the
titles and their questions in its cover story for the print and online versions of its May 2017 issue.
91
• “A Place Where Something Evil Happened,” by Jamie Thompson.
404. This 7,147-word feature story about Ira Tobolowsky’s death focused on Aubrey
and Vodicka and their alleged guilt for the murder of Ira Tobolowsky. D Magazine Defendants
printed Aubrey’s and Vodicka’s names 120 times in the online version of the Article and 110
times in the print version. In contrast, the name “Ira Tobolowsky” appears 92 times in the online
version, or 35 percent less than Plaintiffs’ names.
405. D Magazine Defendants did not print the names of any other persons of interest in
the investigation. Instead, D Magazine Defendants targeted Plaintiffs and left its readers no
choice but to believe the worst: that the Plaintiffs had committed the horrific acts of attacking
Tobolowsky and then setting him on fire.
406. The Article’s trial and conviction by media for the death of Ira Tobolowsky was
based on the assertions that Plaintiffs were broke, deplorable, despicable, degenerate, and
desperate, and the allegation that Aubrey is a prostitute.
407. Law enforcement has been unable or unwilling to generate evidence to name a
suspect in the Ira Tobolowsky murder investigation. Similarly, D Magazine Defendants had no
evidence to present, but its Article arrived at a guilty verdict for Plaintiffs by means of character
assassination and innuendo.
408. D Magazine Defendants maliciously damaged Plaintiffs’ reputations by Lt.
Cherry picking bits of Plaintiffs’ information out of context and repeatedly presenting Plaintiffs
in a false light.
Murder Accusation by Implication
409. The Article was a combination of false facts, omitted material facts, innuendo,
and random facts juxtaposed to imply a negative and defamatory connection between them.
92
Through insinuation and implication, the Article fabricated a motive for Plaintiffs to murder Ira
Tobolowsky; in fact; Plaintiffs never had a motive to harm him. The Article included provably
false statements detailed as follows:
410. Libel Statement No. 1
“It was aledged [sic] in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey threatened ‘Jihad’ the
same words used to describe the wars brought by terrorists, and against his life
which was filed in court document …”
411. This statement is false. No such allegation exists in the defamation lawsuit or any
filed court document. Aubrey has never threatened anybody’s life.
“Aubrey agreed to masturbation and sexual intercourse for $300.”
413. This statement is false. Aubrey did not agree to this. It is unclear which document
if any this statement is based on.
“Vodicka had reactivated his law license and could file the lawsuits on his
partner’s behalf, sidestepping the need to get approval.”
415. This statement is false. Vodicka reactivated his law license on December 1, 2014,
for reasons that had nothing to do with the Aubrey’s litigation involving the Aubrey Family
Trust.
“Detective Ermatinger, now retired, says the men remain primary suspects.”
“‘They are suspects, and they are strong ones,” Det. Ermatinger says. ‘But I had
no evidence to arrest them.’”
417. This statement is false. Plaintiffs have never been named as suspects in the Ira
Tobolowsky investigation and no one else has been named, either. DPD spokespeople have
93
repeatedly stated that they have not named any suspects. D Magazine is the only publication that
has made the allegation that Vodicka and Aubrey are suspects, and it used the word “suspect” 14
times in the Article. D Magazine Defendants published a modified photo of Aubrey with a
caption that identifies him as “one of the suspects.” It had simply published the same false
accusation of the detective.
“Ira searched online for the suit, but it was never officially filed.”
419. This statement is false. Aubrey “officially” filed the suit, as proved by the filing
envelope from efile.txcourts.gov with details, including a paid cost of $285.01.
“Ira had defeated Aubrey at every turn, stripped him of his ability to file lawsuits,
and now was coming after him for defamation.”
421. This statement is false. In fact, Aubrey and Vodicka had thwarted Ira Tobolowsky
at every turn. Aubrey defeated Tobolowsky in the first four-hour evidentiary hearing to
determine Aubrey a vexatious litigant. Aubrey defeated Ira Tobolowsky when the Fifth Court of
Appeals reversed Moyé’s and Tobolowsky’s ex parte order for Aubrey to pay $250,000 in
sanctions. Further, Tobolowsky’s 521-page motion to hold Plaintiffs in contempt of court with
sanctions and fees of over $1 million and a request for both to be confined in jail for 29 days was
ignored by Dallas County probate court Judge Ingrid Warren.
“They’d spent nearly $2.3 million fighting the case and still owed about
$400,000 in legal fees.”
423. This statement, referring to the Wildhorse Ranch litigation, is false. Plaintiffs
spent approximately one-half this amount.
94
“Dallas police were running an undercover investigation into the website

masseurfinder.com.”
425. This statement is false. DPD was not running an undercover operation into
masseurfinder.com. DPD had targeted Aubrey to entrap him while simultaneously harassing and
frightening Vodicka.
426. In addition to provably false statements and accusations of criminality, D
Magazine Defendants’ Article actively smeared the reputation of the Plaintiffs, using dozens of
false suggestions, impressions, and implications, including but not limited to:
a. “Steven Aubrey, middle son of a Dallas orthodontist who died in 2004, was fighting
an inheritance battle with his mother, who believed he’d come unhinged. He stood
well over 6 feet tall and carried 220 pounds packed with muscle, which he flaunted in
online ads for his services as a masseur.”
b. “Betsy came to fear her son. ‘He has absolutely gone crazy and is on a rampage like
no other,’ she wrote to a relative.”
c. “Betsy and Buck told the court that they thought Aubrey might hurt them, and a judge
issued peace bonds forbidding Aubrey from contacting them for one year.”
d. “Over the years, the feud grew more heated, and Betsy came to fear her son.”
e. “Eventually, Betsy sought help at a small law office on Lovers Lane run by Ira
Tobolowsky.”
f. “Ira had defeated Aubrey at every turn …”
g. “The next week, Aubrey tried to set a deposition for September 26, during Rosh
Hashana. Ira thought Aubrey did it just to irritate him and asked for a date change.”
h. “Ira showed Aubrey’s pattern: he’d file a lawsuit and clog the court with motions. If
rulings didn’t go his way, he’d sue the judge and demand recusal. If that didn’t work,
he’d nonsuit and file in a different court.”
i. “Ira enlisted … Steve Schoettmer … who worked at Thompson & Knight, to file a
defamation suit against Aubrey in the summer of 2015.”
95
j. “In February 2016, Judge Eric Moyé declared Aubrey a vexatious litigant and ordered
him to pay his mother $250,000.”
k. “It had been a bruising couple of years for the couple. They had been involved in
another contentious lawsuit in Austin, after they’d invested hundreds of thousands of
dollars in a real estate deal that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. They had to sell their
$1 million house, and they moved to an apartment in Dallas. They’d spent nearly $2.3
million fighting the case and still owed about $400,000 in legal fees. Aubrey had
become estranged from his family. Ira had defeated Aubrey at every turn …”
l. “‘And it’s over with, and I’m asking everybody to please leave,’ Ira said. The men
lingered, and Ira grew more stern. ‘Steven and Brian, will you please vacate my
office now. These are my offices, this my property, and I’m asking you all to leave.
...”
m. “I’ll be forced to have you escorted out of here.”28
n. “Sheriff’s deputies had been patrolling Moyé’s home that weekend and had instructed
him to carry a gun, fearing that he, too, might be in danger.”
o. “But after talking to Ira’s relatives and colleagues, detectives turned their focus to
Aubrey and Vodicka. The level of hostility the men had displayed toward Ira—and
the fact that he’d recently defeated them in court—pushed the men to the top of their
list.”
p. “Police officers eyed the crowd packed with judges and attorneys.”
q. “The level of hostility the men had displayed toward Ira—and the fact that he’d
recently defeated them in court—pushed the men to the top of their list.”
r. “On May 17, the Tuesday after the fire, detectives went to Aubrey and Vodicka’s
Dallas apartment. They planned to take the men in for interviews, according to search
warrants. But no one answered the door. Two detectives noticed the blinds on a
window were open and angled upward. When they returned later, the blinds were
closed. Both men’s cars were in the parking lot.”
s. “The next day, Aubrey and Vodicka were scheduled to appear at a hearing in Ira’s
defamation case. Security was tight in the courtroom, as extra sheriff’s deputies stood
guard, but the men didn’t show.”
t. “From the bench, Judge Moyé announced his recusal. ‘I think at this point,’ he said,
‘with the allegations which have been made related to Mr. Aubrey and his implication

28
This refers to the deposition with Vodicka in 2016. Plaintiffs never received copies of the deposition, as
mandated by law, and Schoettmer has refused to release the transcripts to Plaintiffs. Yet D Magazine
Defendants gained access to sections of the deposition from Shoettmer and/or Michael Tobolowsky.
96
in the death of Mr. Tobolowsky and related issues, I don’t think that it is
unreasonable for a judge other than myself to hear this case.’”
u. “Later that day, detectives returned to the men’s apartment. No answer. Aubrey’s car
was gone. Det. Ermatinger called their phones and left messages and also sent them
texts. No response.”
v. “Detectives began monitoring the men’s credit card transactions and discovered that
Aubrey’s card had been used that day to book a room at the Crowne Plaza hotel in
Dallas under the name Alexandra Krot.”
w. “Phone records, detectives told the Tobolowsky family, showed no activity on the
men’s cell phones from about 9 pm the night before the fire until the next afternoon,
meaning their phones were not pinging towers and may have been turned off.”
x. “Aubrey declined an interview for this story but did respond to questions over email.
‘Det. Ermatinger is a lying sack of shit,’ he wrote.”
y. “That night, at 9:30, Det. Ermatinger got a judge to sign search warrants to examine
Aubrey and Vodicka for burns and search their apartment. He was looking for
combustible liquids, empty containers, medical supplies to treat burns, and gas
receipts, according to the warrants. No one was at the apartment when police arrived,
but detectives seized an Apple desktop computer and paperwork for burner phones.”
z. “They needed to find the killer before any injuries had time to heal.”
aa. “Plainclothes detectives watched and waited until about 3:30 pm, when they saw
Aubrey and Vodicka get into their car, heading out for a late lunch. Police cars
surrounded the men. Detectives jumped out with guns drawn and screamed, ‘Get
down on the ground!’…”
bb. “For the next nine hours, Aubrey was kept in an interrogation room…”
cc. “Aubrey refused to talk without a lawyer and said he couldn’t afford one. Det.
Ermatinger called Assistant District Attorney Gary McDonald, who helped find a
public defender and also subpoenaed Aubrey to testify before a grand jury, a tactic
prosecutors sometimes use when dealing with uncooperative witnesses. A few days
later, the prosecutor questioned Aubrey before jurors. It would be a violation of law
for anyone to reveal what exactly was said that day, but the proceedings didn’t
produce an indictment.”
dd. “Det. Ermatinger says Aubrey had red marks on both arms.”
ee. “’The doctor explained to us that it could be from the flash of a fire, it could be burns,
or it could just be a sunburn,’ Det. Ermatinger says. He says too much time had
passed.”
97
ff. “They did not have good alibis, telling detectives that at the time of the fire, they were
at their apartment.”
gg. “Michael saw a hole surrounded by what looked like black paint. It appeared to have
been made recently. For someone of his height—the 6 feet and 4 inches that helped
get him onto the team at Trinity—it provided a clear view to the garage where his
father had died.”
hh. “Detectives remembered seeing a drill at Aubrey and Vodicka’s apartment and
obtained warrants for another search. When they searched it the following week,
they found an Apple MacBook in the process of having its hard drive wiped clean,
according to a later search warrant. They seized it for testing. From the two
apartments, they also collected a cordless drill and bits, two red gasoline containers,
a yellow propylene tank with a torch attachment, a blue propane torch, two cans of
paint, and a couple of pairs of shorts and pants.”
ii. “Det. Ermatinger would have to wait for crime scene technicians to search the men’s
computers and process the juice bottle found in the garage for fingerprints.”
jj. “Detective Ermatinger, now retired, says the men remain primary suspects; no one
else on their list came close. He says detectives executed more search warrants on the
Tobolowsky case—roughly 18—than on any other case he’d worked. Most of those
dealt with Aubrey and Vodicka; others were for cell tower dumps. “They are
suspects, and they are strong ones,” Det. Ermatinger says. “But I had no evidence to
arrest them.”
kk. “Aubrey agreed to masturbation and sexual intercourse for $300.”
ll. “It had occurred to family members to take matters into their own hands. Debbie
worried about keeping her boys leashed. “I don’t know how serious they were, but I
thought they could have very easily gone and done something stupid,” she says. “I
told them, ‘Do you think your father would want you in jail for the rest of your life?’”
mm. “Michael filled a whiteboard with evidence and photos of Aubrey and Vodicka. He
still researched other suspects, but the more he learned about the two men, the more
he believed they were responsible. Michael decided to keep representing Aubrey’s
mother and to move forward with his dad’s defamation case.”
nn. “Most of the family thought Aubrey had killed Ira. But he was still free, living not far
away in North Dallas.”
oo. “One afternoon Ira’s sister saw Aubrey in Bed Bath & Beyond, and her knees
buckled.”
98
pp. “In early October, Michael got an email from a pair of private investigators. ‘We are
private investigators who simply have a low tolerance for scumbaggery and this case
really bothers us,’ they wrote.”
qq. “One whiteboard lists 10 suspects in his dad’s death. He has crossed off only two, his
mother and neighbors. Like his mother, he fears police may not have done enough
work to rule out any of the rest.”
rr. “Debbie had never been sued before, and she was frightened. Someone sent a blank
piece of paper to her house, in an envelope with Aubrey’s return address on it. To her,
it seemed to be saying: I know where you live.”
ss. “While believing the men killed her husband, Debbie sometimes wonders whether
police have adequately ruled out the other suspects.”
tt. “Family members also worry about the lack of physical evidence. While believing the
men killed her husband, Debbie sometimes wonders whether police have adequately
ruled out the other suspects.”
uu. “Late last year, they learned Aubrey and Vodicka had moved to Florida. The men live
in a bungalow surrounded by palm trees.”
vv. Debbie cried for two days. Michael worries about her. She has been living elsewhere,
paralyzed about what to do next.
ww. With an arrest, with justice and closure, maybe Michael could move on. But not now.
Because he can also hear his father saying, Get the bastard.
xx. “One of the suspects Dallas police detectives investigated following Ira
Tobolowsky’s murder” (caption underneath a photo of Aubrey)
yy. Imbedded images of the perjured affidavits for search warrants.
All of the above statements imply the existence of undisclosed defamatory facts.
426. D Magazine Defendants’ Article included an excerpt from an email exchange
between Aubrey and M. Tobolowsky, but the excerpt included only Aubrey’s response to an
email from M. Tobolowsky, which was highly charged but not included in the Article. M.
Tobolowsky and Aubrey had engaged in multiple email exchanges, during which M.
Tobolowsky made a range of personal attacks on Aubrey.
99
427. D Magazine Defendants’ online version of the Article included two of the
perjured search warrant affidavits and search warrants used against Plaintiffs. However, the
Article failed to include any of the search warrants affidavits and search warrants executed on
behalf of other persons of interest.
428. On May 9, 2017, D Magazine Defendants published the online article “Judge
Awards Huge $5.5 Million Verdict in Ira Tobolowsky Defamation Suit,” by Defendant Jamie
Thompson. Again publishing the opinions of the Tobolowsky family, the article stated:
• “The sons had continued to pursue the case after their father’s death. And they all
believe that Aubrey killed Ira.”
• “Two judges had voluntarily recused themselves from the case after Ira’s death ...”
• “A key reason the family and police suspect Aubrey in the murder is the personal
animosity he showed against Tobolowsky ...”
• “‘I wish the defendants were here,’ Schoettmer said. ‘What these two defendants do
... is that they sue people in order to destroy their lives.’”29
429. Thompson made no effort to find those who might offer a counter-narrative to
those of the Tobolowsky family or associates, or who are even personally familiar with
Plaintiffs, as opposed to those quoted in the Article. D Magazine Defendants juxtaposed a series
of selective facts to create a false narrative about the Plaintiffs and subject them to ridicule and
public hatred.
Accusations of Criminality
430. The Article was designed to prove Plaintiffs were guilty of the murder as D
Magazine Defendants intentionally and maliciously kept the names of other persons of interest
out of the story.

29
Stephen Schoettmer flipped this fact upside down. Schoettmer represented Tobolowsky when they filed
the defamation case against Plaintiffs.

100
431. The Article only included interviews with persons who stated that Plaintiffs are
guilty of the murder, without basis, including Judge Moyé, who stated the following on May 18:
“... with the allegations which have been made related to Mr. Aubrey and
his implication in the death of Mr. Tobolowsky and related issues, I don’t
think that it is unreasonable for a judge other than myself to hear this case.”
432. In addition to the murder accusation, D Magazine Defendants falsely accused
Aubrey of another crime. The Article stated:
This is a false statement.
433. In total, the Article made three criminal accusations. It accused both Aubrey and
Vodicka of the murder of Ira Tobolowsky and accused Aubrey of working as a prostitute.
Plaintiffs’ Modified Photos
434. D Magazine Defendants published a modified photograph that depicted Aubrey
and Vodicka as suspects.
435. D Magazine Defendants’ altered photograph of Aubrey and Vodicka carried the
following caption: “Michael Tobolowsky lays out all the homemade evidence in his Lovers Lane
law office as he attempts to solve the mystery of who killed his father.” And D Magazine
Defendants further modified the photograph by blurring the names of people whom Michael
Tobolowsky had determined were suspects, only showing Aubrey’s and Vodicka’s names to
keep the focus solely on them.
436. The staged photograph included two propane tanks underneath Plaintiffs’ photos.
Upon information and belief, the addition of propane tanks was to imply that somebody found it
necessary to carry heavy, bulky propane tanks to the crime scene to light the fire that killed Ira
Tobolowsky.
101
437. The staged photo also includes photographs of Aubrey’s brother and Plaintiffs’
friend Dr. Krot. Their photos are placed under the heading “Accessory(s),” which are outrageous
smears on both persons.
Detectives Manufactured Motives
438. The Article omitted material facts and juxtaposed others to imply a defamatory
connection between them. Through insinuation and implication, the Article fabricated a motive
for Plaintiffs to murder where there had been no motive.
439. D Magazine Defendants published the detectives’ fabricated stories, such as the
following:
“Detectives began monitoring the men’s credit card transactions and

discovered that Aubrey’s card had been used that day to book a room at
the Crowne Plaza hotel in Dallas under the name Alexandra Krot; and
phone records, detectives told the Tobolowsky family, showed no activity
on the men’s cellphones from about 9 pm the night before the fire until the
next afternoon, meaning their phones were not pinging towers and may
have been turned off. The records did show cell activity before and after
that time period.
440. The information about the cell phones was fabricated and the information on Krot
misleading. (Id. ¶¶ 95, 98, 108–13, 141)
Thompson’s Knowledge
441. Aubrey had informed Article author Thompson about many of the falsities
eventually presented in D Magazine Defendants’ Article.
442. On February 24, 2017, Thompson sent Aubrey an email stating that she was
writing a story about the death of Ira Tobolowsky, that she had read many of the legal filings,
and she wanted to speak with Aubrey and meet him in person.
102
443. On February 24, 2017, Aubrey replied with an email. Aubrey knew that this
interaction with Thompson may be the only chance to inform her of the many false allegations
surrounding Plaintiffs and the death of Ira Tobolowsky.
444. Aubrey stated in his email to that if she had read the filings, she had learned that
Ira Tobolowsky never “alleged” that Aubrey threatened “jihad” against his life, as Det.
Ermatinger and Det. Sayers had sworn in their search warrant affidavits. D Magazine Defendants
ultimately published both of Det. Sayers’ search warrant affidavits in its online version of the
Article, without stating that the documents were perjured or any mention that Plaintiffs contested
the facts.
445. Aubrey stated in his email to Thompson that because the detectives were
manufacturing probable cause, their search warrant affidavits falsely stated, “Family members
advised detectives that complainant Tobolowsky felt threatened by Steve Aubrey because of a
lawsuit”; however, this fact did not comport with the family’s multiple interviews, which
indicate otherwise. On June 23, 2016, six weeks following the murder, the Dallas Morning News
published an article stating:
“Tobolowsky’s family has said he didn’t express fear or concern in the days
leading up to his death. Though some have said Tobolowsky may have been
killed because of his legal work, his sons said Thursday that they don’t know if
that was likely.”
446. Aubrey concluded that the Article would be far too reliant on information
provided by Tobolowsky family members and associates, and he felt he would not get a fair
hearing. He declined to be interviewed in person. D Magazine Defendants’ Article proved
Aubrey was correct. However, he did provide information and suggestions via email.
447. On February 25, 2017, Thompson responded and began an email chain with
Aubrey. Aubrey responded and told Thompson that Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers had
103
illegally entered Plaintiffs’ residence while DPD was arresting Aubrey for the false prostitution
charge. Aubrey told Thompson that DPD’s video and audio of the arrest for prostitution would
prove his innocence.30
448. Nevertheless, the Article published the false information about the arrest, read by
millions, and left out the truth about the detectives’ illegal entry, stating:
449. On March 1, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey and told him that there
were “about a half dozen persons of interest” related to the Ira Tobolowsky investigation,
information previously unknown to Aubrey.
450. D Magazine Defendants’ Article chose to not name the other persons of interest.
451. In their email exchange, Thompson informed Aubrey that Det. Ermatinger had
spoken of Aubrey’s “red arms.” Aubrey told Thompson that the “red arms” was a “fact”
fabricated by DPD.
452. Aubrey sent Thompson pictures of his arms taken approximately 36 hours after
DPD’s body search. Vodicka took pictures of Aubrey’s arms in front of a newspaper dated May
21, 2016. The pictures, taken eight days after the fire/death, showed that the hair on Aubrey’s
arms was not singed and they were not red.
453. Thompson also communicated with Aubrey’s criminal attorney Phillip Hayes,
who told Thompson about Aubrey’s appointment with his dermatologist on May 13, 2016, a few
hours following Tobolowsky’s fire/death.
454. On March 20, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey and told him that she had
acquired nearly 20 search warrants executed on the case31. She further stated:

30
The video and audio of the setup and arrest have never been released.
104
“However, as I trace the investigation in this story, I want to make sure your [sic]
points are adequately represented. It’s a chance to get out there why you shouldn’t
be considered a suspect -- so whatever you are able to share, please do. The ‘red
arms’ is one of the things the authorities point to as circumstantial evidence. If
you are able to refute it, it helps me make your case in print. If you have an
independent witness -- such as a dermatologist, or someone else who saw you
over that weekend -- it’s even more convincing.
455. Aubrey himself informed Thompson about his visit to the dermatologist, as well.
However, the information about the dermatologist, as well as pictures of Aubrey’s “non-red”
arms with hair, were unmentioned. Contrary to her statement, Thompson did not ensure
Aubrey’s points were “adequately represented.” D Magazine Defendants published the following
about the “red arms”:
“Det. Ermatinger says Aubrey had red marks on both arms. But a SWAT doctor
couldn’t definitively say what the marks were from. ‘The doctor explained to us
that it could be from the flash of a fire, it could be burns, or it could just be a
sunburn,’ Det. Ermatinger says. He says too much time had passed.”
456. On March 21, 2017, Thompson inquired about Aubrey’s alleged “jihad” statement
as represented by Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers in their search warrant affidavits. Thompson
stated in an email to Aubrey:
“Steve,
I understand everything you are saying and I think your point about jihad is
important. It’s an enormous show of power when police get search warrants, and
it’s essential they have their facts straight on them. I will definitely be writing
about that in the story.”

31
It was through Thompson that Plaintiffs learned of multiple search warrants against them. As of March
20, 2017, the date of Thompson’s email to Aubrey, Plaintiffs knew of only five affidavits, but Thompson
claimed to have access to nearly 20 search warrants. The Article quotes Det. Ermatinger saying that
“detectives executed more search warrants on the Tobolowsky case – roughly 18 – than any other case
he’d worked. Most of those dealt with Aubrey and Vodicka; others were for cell tower dumps.” Plaintiffs
acquired the remaining search warrant affidavits and search warrants in their possession and enumerated
in this complaint through an open records request in August 2019.
105
457. Instead of “writing about” the perjured search warrant affidavits, D Magazine
Defendants published Det. Sayers’ affidavits, and the Article did not reflect that it believed
Aubrey’s “point” about jihad was important.32
458. In an email dated March 23, 2017, Thompson stated:
“Hi Steve, I’d like to write at least one section of the story from your perspective,
to let readers get to know you. I’m struggling because I don’t have a ton of
information.”
459. Yet the Article never included a section from Aubrey’s perspective.
460. On March 24, 2017, Aubrey sent an email to Thompson asking if she had learned
information about an alleged death threat that Tobolowsky had received via email, which was
reportedly attributed to Aubrey.
461. On March 24, 2017, Thompson responded in an email:
As for the email threat, everyone I’ve spoken with said there is no evidence of
that on Tobolowsky’s computer. The thought is someone leaked it to reporter
Rebecca Lopez, but it was later deemed untrue. I’ve talked to several people who
spoke with Tobolowsky the week and day before the murder, and no one says he
mentioned any threats.
462. D Magazine Defendants’ Article did not include any information about the false
report about the death threat.
463. On March 25, 2017, Thompson stated in an email to Aubrey:
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your response — appreciate it. Should I expect any statements
regarding the questions I sent? I’ve included in the draft your feelings about
Schoettmer dragging you into the case and questions about the legitimacy of the
search warrants.
464. In the Article, no questions about the veracity of the Affidavits were included, and
there was no discussion of Aubrey’s views on Schoettmer’s role in placing Plaintiffs in the

32
Det. Sayers’ search warrant affidavits are imbedded in the online version of the Article.

106
crosshairs of the DPD. Instead, D Magazine Defendants published two of Det. Sayers’ perjured
search warrant affidavits as though they were lawful, legitimate, and true.
465. On April 4, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey stating:
Hi Steve,
Couple points in the story I wanted to see if you had any interest in responding to:
1. The Tobolowskys say after the fire, you sent a blank piece of paper to Debbie's
house, the envelope addressed to her, with your return address on it. They
perceived this as threatening. Wanted to see if you had any response to this …
466. Aubrey replied to Thompson, explaining in detail that Plaintiffs sought a legal
address for Ira Tobolowsky’s widow Debbie Tobolowsky (who had moved), and that he learned
via an Internet search that a common method for doing so was to send a letter to the former
address with the sender’s return address per usual, and print on the face of the envelope “Return
Service Requested.”33
467. Aubrey further responded stating:
“In my first email back to you I said you either thought I was stupid or crazy. So
which is it? I would have to be stupid and crazy to threaten Debbie in any way
when my life is under a microscope. I have never understood what motive there
was for me to want to get rid of Ira as a solution to my family problems. So now
the Tobolowskys want to further pretend that Ira’s widow would be next? You are
going to have to go with stupid and crazy to pull this one off.
“My mother and Buck later admitted in depositions that their lawyer, known for
defending child molesters, had drafted their affidavits for the peace bonds with
untrue statements. The State settled with me on those bonds after finding they
both admitted the affidavits were fictitious.”
468. However, Thompson and D Magazine Defendants represented the following in
the Article:

33
Aubrey conducted an Internet search for “how to find forwarding address,” which created a lengthy list
of websites offering the same advice, including: “How can I find out the forwarding address for a person
who moved” at: https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-find-out-the-forwarding-address-for-a-person-who-
moved
107
“Someone sent a blank piece of paper to her house, in an envelope with Aubrey's
return address on it. To her, it seemed to be saying: I know where you live.
“Betsy and Buck told the court that they thought Aubrey might hurt them, and a
judge issued peace bonds forbidding Aubrey from contacting them for one year.”
469. On April 26, 2017, D Magazine Defendants published online “Sneak Peak: D
Magazine’s May Issue, Which Explores Who Killed Ira Tobolowsky.” D Magazine Defendants
published an online version of “A Place Where Something Evil Happened,” the same date day.
470. On May 3, 2017, D Magazine Defendants published online “Who Murdered Ira
Tobolowsky,” a short video that asked the question, “Who wanted Ira Tobolowsky dead?” The
next screenshot included the following statement: “Read the story in D Magazine’s May issue.
ON NEWSSTANDS NOW.” D Magazine Defendants’ Article had already maliciously answered
the question with only two names, Steve Aubrey and Brian Vodicka.
471. All of Thompson’s indications that the Article would tell Aubrey’s side of the
story were false. Instead, Thompson and D Magazine Defendants selectively chose information
to present Plaintiffs in a false light.
472. The Article presents no exculpatory information regarding Plaintiffs, and D
Magazine Defendants, like City Defendants, seemed uninterested in presenting a story that
varied from the one told by DPD, the Tobolowsky family, and Tobolowsky associates.
473. As a non-public figure, Aubrey has been without resources to counter the
Article’s misrepresentation that Aubrey was an angry and violent prostitute who was the prime
suspect for the murder of Tobolowsky.
474. D Magazine Defendants maliciously and intentionally turned a blind eye to the
truth, falsely accused Aubrey of being a prostitute, and identified Plaintiffs as the murderers of
Ira Tobolowsky.
108
N. Facts Common To All Counts
475. Each and every allegation set forth in each and every averment of this pleading
hereby is incorporated by this reference in each and every other averment and allegation of this
pleading, as though the Plaintiffs were deprived of interests protected by the Constitution and/or
laws of the United States of America, and each and every defendant (except D Magazine
Defendants) caused, by commission or omission, or by conspiracy or RICO violation, such
deprivations while acting under color of law. All acts and/or omissions perpetrated by each
defendant, except any defendant only in his/her official capacity, was engaged in maliciously,
callously, oppressively, wantonly, recklessly, with deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly
violated, despicably, and with evil motive and/or intent, in disregard of the rights of the Plaintiffs
and under color of federal and state law (except D Magazine Defendants).
476. Every defendant in both his/her individual and official capacity knowingly, or
grossly negligently, or with deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly violated, caused to
come before the fact or the fact, ratified, took no action to correct, an official policy, practice,
procedure, or custom of permitting the occurrence of the categories of wrongs set forth in this
pleading, and/or improperly, inadequately, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional or
other federal rights of plaintiff, grossly negligently, with reckless disregard to constitutional or
other federal rights, failed properly to train, to supervise, to retrain, if necessary, to monitor, or to
take corrective action with respect to the police and with respect to the types of wrongful conduct
alleged in this pleading, so that each one of them is legally responsible for all of the injuries
and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiffs.
109
477. Decisions, to pay for, or to indemnify for, or to hold harmless for damages
assessed by juries against the City Defendants and the County Defendants make the defendants
other than the officers liable for the police misconduct in this case.
478. Failures to investigate police misconduct and/or to discipline police found
culpable for misconduct, inadequate investigations and/or inadequate discipline imposed for
police misconduct, and/or a failure to investigate and/or to discipline the police defendants in this
case for the alleged misconduct in prior cases and in this case, all make the defendants other than
the police officers liable for the police misconduct in this case.
479. Failures to provide civilian oversight of the City Defendants and the County
Defendants, to reign it in, to ensure that it follows the requirements of the Constitution, and/or to
stop the City Defendants and the County Defendants who, as a continuous group, have caused
false charges to be made against innocent persons, who have leaked false reports about innocent
persons, have sworn under penalties of perjury falsified search warrant affidavits, who have done
so as to Plaintiffs, make defendants liable to Plaintiffs.
480. In doing the alleged wrongful things they did, or in failing to do those things they
legally should have done, all defendants acted or failed to act in deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff's constitutional and statutory rights under federal and state law.
481. Failures by all defendants with the duty, power, and responsibility to do so, to
provide civilian oversight of the City Defendants and County Defendants, to reign them in, to
ensure that they follow the requirements of the Constitution and Texas state law, and/or to stop
City defendants and County defendants and certain City and County employees who, as a
continuous group, have done the following-enumerated things, make all Defendants liable to
Plaintiffs: manufacturing evidence in search warrant affidavits (upon information and belief),
110
causing public smear campaigns of innocent persons, making illegal threats to suspects, making
false arrests, .conducting illegal searches, making illegal seizures, making false search warrant
applications, using excessive force, lying under oath, suborning perjury, lying as witnesses,
obstructing discovery of police criminal conduct, covering up illegal police activity, destroying
official governmental records, covering up the malfeasance of illegal police activity, and
participating in a code of silence.
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
482. Plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused and continue to be caused by the
racketeering activities of two separate RICO enterprises.
A. The Use of Interstate Commerce and the Mails
483. The City Defendants’ activities affect interstate commerce. Detective Robert Det.
Ermatinger demonstrated this when, acting as a City employee before retiring, he used his cell
phone to contact Aubrey and to contact Vodicka. The City Defendants use the
telecommunications of interstate commerce on a daily basis.
484. As well, the City Defendant staff attorneys’ emails and telephone calls to
Plaintiffs are activities that affect interstate commerce. The City used the mail to answer both of
Plaintiffs’ Open Records Requests that revealed six additional perjured search warrant affidavits.
485. The County Defendants’ activities affect interstate commerce. These activities
include a press release from the sheriff’s spokeswoman Melinda Urbina, published by the Dallas
Morning News on May 18, 2016, in the article “Judge Steps down from Civil Case after Dallas
Lawyer’s Suspicious Death,” by Tasha Tsiaperas. Urbina’s press release stated that Sheriff’s
Department officers had patrolled Judge Moyé’s house over the previous weekend owing to
Tobolowsky’s defamation suit before Judge Moyé.
111
486. As well, the County Defendant staff attorneys’ emails and telephone calls to
Plaintiffs are activities that affect interstate commerce.
487. Each of the City Defendants and the County Defendants used interstate commerce
through use of cell phones as part of their daily work-related activities.
488. D Magazine Defendants’ activities affect interstate commerce, which include their
mailing of 124 printed copies of the D Magazine issue of May 2017 to residents in the state of
Florida, as attested by D Magazine CFO Thomas Earnshaw and Thompson’s many emails sent to
communicate with Aubrey.
B. The ENTERPRISE
489. At all times relevant herein, the Defendants associated in fact for the common
purpose of furthering and engaging in the Scheme to Defraud. The scheme sought to frame
Plaintiffs for the capital arson/murder of Ira Tobolowsky by using perjured search warrant
affidavits, leaking information on time and place of the execution of the search warrants to the
press, and causing a public smear campaign of hatred and public ridicule of Plaintiffs.
490. The ENTERPRISE is an association-in-fact, an entity separate from and bigger
than any of the “persons” (the Defendants and other members of the Enterprise) comprising the
same; where, at all times relevant herein, these “persons” were systematically linked with
overlapping leadership, structural and financial ties, and continuing coordination.
491. At all times relevant herein, the ENTERPRISE is composed by the association in
fact of the CITY OF DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT,
DALLAS FIRE-RESCUE, DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, DET. ROBERT
ERMATINGER, DET. SCOTT SAYERS, CAPT. MARCUS STEPHENSON, LT. DERRICK
CHERRY, SGT. TRACY DOTSON, D MAGAZINE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLISON MEDIA,
112
INC., JAMIE L. THOMPSON, and other unnamed and yet unknown individuals, partnerships,
corporations or associations (the “ENTERPRISE”).34 It includes the forenamed Defendants and
associated individuals, as well as persons who have not violated RICO.
492. Structurally, the ENTERPRISE is an association comprised of the Defendants and
other persons and entities whose common link is the purpose and nature of their business, i.e.,
promoting perjured search warrant affidavits, in which some “evidence” was false, and the
publication of those falsified affidavits by D Magazine defendants.
493. The association-in-fact ENTERPRISE is a formal legitimate ongoing
organization, functioning as a continuing unit, pursuing an interrelated course of conduct, and
with a common or shared purpose and continuity of structure and personnel.
494. The forenamed Defendants, as members of the ENTERPRISE, used said formal
and legitimate association-in-fact ENTERPRISE as an instrument to perpetrate the scheme to
defraud, through the pattern of racketeering activity, as fully described herein after. The aim of
the scheme to defraud was to frame Plaintiffs, two elderly married men, for the capital
arson/murder of Ira Tobolowsky.
495. The following individuals and entities (or any combination thereof) constituted an
ENTERPRISE within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) & 1962(c), in that they are “a group
of individuals associated in fact”: City Defendants and County Defendants.
496. Pleading alternatively, the following individuals and entities (or any combination
thereof) constituted an ENTERPRISE within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) & 1962(c), in
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: City Defendants.

34
Plaintiffs previously defined the City Defendants to include the unidentified Doe Defendants and
previously defined the County Defendants to include the unidentified Doe Defendants as well.
113
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: County Defendants.
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: Capt. Stephenson, Lt. Cherry, Det.
Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers.
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: DPD and the Dallas County Sherriff’s
Office.
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: DPD and Dallas Fire-Rescue
Department.
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: City Defendants and D Magazine
Defendants.
that they are “a group of individuals associated in fact”: County Defendants and D Magazine
Defendants
114
503. Pleading alternatively, the Defendants are an ENTERPRISE within the meaning
of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4).
504. The ENTERPRISE is engaged in interstate commerce through the activities of its
associates, as described herein before.
C. Defendants’ Operation and Management of the ENTERPRISE
505. Defendants acquired and/or maintained control over said ENTERPRISE through a
pattern of racketeering activities, as set forth herein below, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b).
Defendants, being associated with said ENTERPRISE, conducted and/or participated in said
ENTERPRISE affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1962(c).
506. Each of the defendants conspired with the other members of the ENTERPRISE
through a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).
D. Predicate Acts of Racketeering
Extortion 1
507. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference paragraphs 120–229 above as
though fully set forth herein.
508. On May 16, 2016, under color of official right, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, and
Lt. Cherry began obtaining Plaintiffs’ property without their consent in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1951. Through a series of eleven (11) perjured and falsified affidavits for search warrants, the
City Defendants continually extorted Plaintiffs’ property including: cell phone data, credit card
data, email data, computers, cell phones, cars, clothing, power tools, car accessories, and other
personal property for a period of approximately five months.
115
Extortion 2
510. On May 19, 2016, under color of official right, threatened force, violence, and
fear, the City Defendants and the County Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ property without their
consent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. This act of extortion was based on unlawful search
warrants obtained as a result of perjured and falsified search warrant affidavits. In addition to
taking Plaintiffs’ property specified in the unlawful search warrants, the City Defendants took
illegally impounded their cars and illegally searched them, with a search warrant.
511. The cars were taken under color of official right while loaded guns were pointed
at Plaintiffs’ heads.
Extortion 3
513. On October 20, 2016, under color of official right, City Defendants falsely
arrested and falsely imprisoned Aubrey. Without a lawful search warrant, the City Defendants
used force and fear to take Aubrey’s car, cell phone, massage table, other personal property, and
$500 in payment for a bond to get out of jail, where he should never have been.
116
Robbery
515. On May 19, 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, City Defendants and County
Defendants assaulted Plaintiffs with a preplanned violent attack that include loaded firearms
pointed at their heads. and taking their personal property against their will. Without an arrest
warrant, City Defendants arrested Plaintiffs, and without a warrant, City Defendants took their
cars, without consent. Using force and the threat of death, Plaintiffs property was unlawfully
taken by the City Defendants, under color of official right.
Bribery of Public Officials
517. Upon information and belief, by means of bribery, Judge Eric V. Moyé directly or
indirectly, corruptly gave, offered or promised something of value to a City and/or County
official(s) to avoid the damage that would be caused by an investigation into his May 13, 2016,
incident of the North Dallas Tollway. Though the victim of Judge Moyé’s alleged assault asked
DPD for help, it would not. Further, any record of the incident has been destroyed by the City
Defendants and the County Defendants, indicating that Judge Moyé bribed an official in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201.
518. Upon information and belief, Judge Moyé uses bribery to ensure he is not
required to live by the same laws he is sworn to uphold. In May 2009, Moyé assaulted a fellow
judge, The Honorable Carlos Cortez; as described by witnesses. (The Dallas Morning News
story “Texas Rangers to Look at Dallas County Courts Building Confrontation between Judges
117
Cortez, Moyé” describes the event.) However, upon information and belief, Judge Moyé bribed
the necessary official(s), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201, and there was no investigation in the
incident.
Obstruction of Justice – Destruction of Governmental Records
520. Following Judge Moyé’s May 13, 2016 incident on the North Dallas Tollway, his
victim contacted the Dallas Police Department. She forwarded to DPD a photo of Judge Moyé’s
license plate. All calls of this nature create a report with DPD. Following an open records request
upon the City for this record, the response was that DPD has no record regarding Judge Moyé’s
incident, which was publicized by the media.
521. On May 19, 2019, the City Defendants and the County Defendants conspired to
work together on a preplanned stake out and high-risk apprehension of Plaintiffs. Without cause,
the City Defendants and the County Defendants assaulted Plaintiffs, who were forced face down
to the concrete with multiple loaded firearms pointed at their heads. Neither the City nor the
County have any record of the event, including the identities of the more than 15 officers and
deputies who participated.
522. The City Defendants and the County Defendants destroyed governmental records
concerning Judge Moyé’s incident on May 13, 2016 and the high-risk apprehension used to
illegally arrest Plaintiffs on May 19, 2016, seeking to alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an
object with intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(B). These acts of destroying governmental records were
118
the City Defendants’ and the County Defendants’ corrupt endeavors to influence a judge in the
discharge of his/her duties in this case, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, obstruction of justice.
Obstruction of Justice – Perjured Affidavits for Search Warrants
524. Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, and Lt. Cherry violated 18 U.S.C. § 1503 when,
each of them independent of one another, submitted perjured search warrant affidavits to various
Dallas County criminal district court judges. Lt. Cherry credits much of the falsity in his perjured
search warrant affidavits to Capt. Stephenson, and both obstructed justice by corruptly
influencing the various judges in the discharge of their duties.
525. Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, and Lt. Cherry submitted 11 falsified search warrant
affidavits that yielded 11 unlawful search warrants, which were used by Det. Ermatinger, Det.
Sayers, and Lt. Cherry to execute 11 unlawful searches and seizures, which obstructed justice 11
times.
Obstruction of Criminal Investigations
527. Following Judge Moyé’s May 13, 2016 incident on the North Dallas Tollway, his
victim contacted the Dallas Police Department. She forwarded to DPD a photo of Judge Moyé’s
license plate. According to the media stories that followed, DPD ignored the victim’s plea for
help. Only by means of bribery could Judge Moyé obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication
of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute to a City Defendant or a County
119
Defendant criminal investigator, constituting obstruction of criminal investigations, a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1510.
528. The same result occurred following Judge Moyé’s assault in May 2009 on fellow
judge, The Honorable Carlos Cortez. The publically witnessed assault was reported in the media.
yet that incident was not subject to investigation, as well.35
Laundering of Monetary Instruments
530. Following Aubrey’s unlawful false arrest and false imprisonment on October 20,
2016, Aubrey was required to pay Dallas County $500 for a bond to get out of jail and pay over
$200 to release his car from the pound. The $700 represents proceeds derived from the City
Defendants’ unlawful activity with the intent to promote the unlawful arrest and imprisonment
and constitutes laundering of monetary instruments, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
Mail Fraud
531. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference paragraphs 297–313 and 399–474
above as though fully set forth herein.
532. City Defendants conspired with D Magazine Defendants to devise a scheme to
frame Plaintiffs for the murder of Ira Tobolowsky. D Magazine Defendants published City
Defendants’ defamatory statements concerning Plaintiffs and detailed information from the Det.
Ermatinger’s and Det. Sayers’ perjured affidavits in furtherance of obstructing justice in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

35
See “A Judicial Smackdown in Dallas … Literally,” by Kashmir Hill at abovethelaw.com, May 7,
2009, as well as “Smackdown in the Dallas County Courthouse: Two Judges Go after Each Other” and
“Texas Rangers to look at Dallas County Courts Building Confrontation between Judges Cortez, Moyé”
in the Dallas Morning News.
120
533. D Magazine then mailed the City Defendants’ defamatory statements and
information concerning Plaintiffs to various states outside of Texas, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1341, mail fraud.
534. County Defendants conspired with the Dallas Morning News to publish
statements that contributed to framing Plaintiffs for the murder to further obstruct justice and
those papers were mailed to other states outside of Texas, which constitutes mail fraud.
535. The County Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and committed mail fraud
when they mailed $500 (minus a fee) to Aubrey in Florida after the district attorney let the
statute of limitations run out on the false prostitution charge.
536. City Defendants and County Defendants leaked some information and released
statements to various media to obstruct justice, and the information was published in newspapers
and magazines and then mailed to various subscribers. D Magazine Defendants conspired with
City Defendants, published their statements that defamed Plaintiffs, and then mailed 124 printed
copies of its May 2017 issue to regular subscribers in Florida.
537. D Magazine Defendants also mailed published information from City Defendants’
perjured affidavits for search warrants in furtherance of obstructing justice in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1503.
538. The City Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and committed mail fraud when
they devised a scheme to defraud Aubrey when they falsely arrested and imprisoned him for a
baseless prostitution charge. The County helped execute the scheme by putting Aubrey in its jail
and then requiring Aubrey to pay $500 for bond before release. The County’s final act as part of
the scheme to defraud Aubrey was to mail $500 (minus a fee), in the form of a check, to him
after holding the money for a period of over two years.
121
E. Patterns of Racketeering Activity
539. In the Scheme to Defraud, the predicate racketeering acts detailed herein below
form a pattern, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1961(5), inasmuch as they have been committed by the
Defendants and the other members of the ENTERPRISE, through continuous, uninterrupted,
criminal activity, which began on or around 1998, which has continued up to the present year,
2019, and which has a high risk of continuing into the future.
Franks Violations under Illegal Searches and Seizures Pattern
541. City Defendants have a rich history of submitting perjured affidavits for search
warrants in a scheme to defraud Dallas state criminal court judges, beginning well before they
submitted 11 falsified affidavits against Plaintiffs in this case.
542. On June 9, 2010, Dallas Police Department homicide detective Dwayne
Thompson violated Hephzibah Olivia Lord’s rights by maliciously having her arrested for a
murder she did not commit. In Hephzibah Olivia Lord v. Dwayne Thompson, Case No. 3:11-cv-
3241-M, the jury in federal civil court awarded Lord approximately $800,000.
543. Discussing the judgement, the Dallas Morning News reported in “Jury Says
Dallas Detective Acted with Malice in Woman’s False Arrest,” by Dallas News Administrator,
on January 18, 2014, that:
“The city will have to pay the award because Thompson was acting in his capacity as a
city employee” [Lord’s lawyer stated]. … Few false arrest claims ever make it to trial
because plaintiffs have the burden of proving officers acted with malice and weren’t just
doing their jobs. At trial, Lord had the benefit in this case of being able to question every
decision Thompson made in asking a judge for a warrant for her arrest.
122
“It’s not the first time, however, that Dallas police officers have lost such cases. A federal
jury in 2012 ordered two Dallas police officers to pay a 42-year-old felon a total of
$169,000 for arresting him on false charges.
“Thompson and his murder cases have been featured prominently on the popular A&E
reality show The First 48. The show’s premise is that officers’ chances of solving a
murder are “cut in half if they don’t get a lead within the first 48 hours.”
544. The acts of racketeering committed by Capt. Stephenson, Lt. Cherry, Det.
Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers were related in that their purpose was to extort Plaintiffs of their
property and obstruct justice through the use of perjured affidavits.
545. Capt. Stephenson, Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers were acting in
their capacity as City employees.
546. Plaintiffs can prove Capt. Stephenson, Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det.
Sayers acted with malice and were not simply doing their jobs.
547. Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers and their homicide cases have also been featured
prominently on the A&E reality show “The First 48,” as was true of Det. Thompson, who falsely
arrested Hephzibah Olivia Lord. The show’s premise is that officers’ chances of solving a
murder are “cut in half if they don’t get a lead within the first 48 hours.”
Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers produced the same result for all victims, with unlawful searches,
unlawful seizures, false arrests, and false imprisonment.
Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers were also sufficiently continuous and extended over a substantial
period of time, beginning from at least June 2010 and continuing through at least October 2016.
123
In the alternative, the continuity was open-ended because the criminal conduct threatened to
extend indefinitely into the future at the time it was occurring.
550. All of this indicates that the acts of racketeering committed by Capt. Stephenson,
Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers have become a regular way of conducting their
work and threaten to continue indefinitely, unless stopped by law enforcement or the courts. If
some or all of these City Defendants are no longer engaged in the acts of racketeering described
herein, it is only because they have retired or their Scheme has been fortuitously interrupted by
investigations, lawsuits, or other legal actions. The fortuitous interruption of a pattern of
racketeering activity by law enforcement or litigation does not obviate the threat of indefinite
duration otherwise posed by the acts of racketeering.
551. Under Franks v. Delaware, a plaintiff may challenge the presumption of validity
afforded a warrant where the magistrate was misled by information contained in the affidavit that
the affiant either 1) knew was false or 2) would have known was false had s/he not recklessly
disregarded the truth.
552. State and federal law enforcement officers may be sued for violating a person’s
Fourth Amendment rights under either Section 1983 or Bivens. When such suits are brought, the
officer may be entitled to qualified immunity in situations where the arrest was based on a valid
warrant. However, qualified immunity will not be granted in those cases where the magistrate or
judge issuing the warrant was misled by information contained in the affidavit that the affiant
either 1) knew was false or 2) would have known was false had he not recklessly disregarded the
truth.
124
Excessive Force Pattern
554. City Defendants and County Defendants have a rich history of unlawful use of
excessive force in Dallas, Texas.
555. In July 2011, surveillance video showed Dallas County jailer Rachel Graham
slamming a handcuffed Wells to the floor, face first. Rhonda Wells filed an excessive force
federal lawsuit against Graham.
556. In July 2012, DPD officers unlawfully shot and killed James Harper.
557. In March 2013, a DPD officer shot Clinton Allen, despite the fact that he had
raised both hands.
558. In October 2013, a DPD officer shot unarmed Bobby Bennett, and the officer then
attempted to falsify the police report, until a video exposed the attempted coverup.
559. In October 2013, two DPD officers first unlawfully harassed unarmed David Blair
for and then shot him 14 times.
560. In December 2013, a DPD officer shot Kelvion Walker, who was in his vehicle
with his hands up.
561. In August 2015, DPD officer Matthew Terry fatally shot unarmed Bertrand
Syjuan Davis after he immediately arrived at the scene.
562. On May 19, 2016, City Defendants and County Defendants conducted a high-risk
apprehension of Plaintiffs. Without cause, City Defendants and County Defendants attacked
Plaintiffs, who were unarmed and posing no threat, forcing them to the ground with loaded guns
pointed at their heads.
125
563. In January 2017, DPD Officers Christopher Hess and Jason Kimpel used
excessive and deadly force, resulting in the death of 21-year-old Genevive Dawes and injuries to
Virgilio Rosales.
564. In July 2017, a jailer at the Dallas County beat Jesse Soria while he was being
booked for criminal trespass. A handcuffed Soria was placed on the ground for a body search,
and the jailer punched him in the head and slammed his face against the floor, as captured by
video.
565. In September 2018, DPD Officer Amber Guyger used excessive and deadly force
and killed Botham Jean, who was lawfully in his apartment, unarmed.
566. City John Does’ and County John Does’ acts of racketeering were related in that
their purpose was to harass Plaintiffs and to extort Plaintiffs of their property through the
unlawful use of excessive force, followed by falsely arresting and falsely imprisoning Plaintiffs.
567. City John Does and County John Does were acting in their capacities as City and
County employees.
568. Plaintiffs can prove City Defendants and County Defendants acted with malice
and were not simply doing their jobs.
569. City Defendants’ and County Defendant’s acts of racketeering had results for all
victims that included excessive force, unlawful searches, unlawful seizures, false arrests, false
imprisonment, and/or death.
570. City Defendants’ and County Defendant’s acts of racketeering were also
sufficiently continuous and extended over a substantial period of time, beginning in at least July
2011 and continuing through at least September 2018. In the alternative, the continuity was
126
open-ended because the criminal conduct threatened to extend indefinitely into the future at the
time it was occurring.
571. All of this demonstrates that acts of racketeering committed by City Defendants
and County Defendants have become a regular way of conducting their work and threaten to
continue indefinitely, unless stopped by law enforcement or the courts. If some or all of these
City Defendants and County Defendants are no longer engaged in the acts of racketeering
described herein, it is only because their Scheme has been fortuitously interrupted by
572. These cases demonstrate the City and the County have a long-standing history of
using excessive force and each case need not be restated herein.
Extortion Pattern
Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers were related in that their purpose was to obtain Plaintiffs’ property
without their consent through the unlawful use of 11 perjured and falsified affidavits for search
warrants.
575. Capt. Stephenson, Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers were acting in
their capacities as City employees.
576. On May 19, 2016, under color of official right, threatened force, violence, and
fear, the City Defendants and the County Defendants obtained Plaintiffs’ property without their
127
consent when they conducted a baseless premeditated high-risk apprehension in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951. Without a search warrant, City Defendants seized Plaintiffs’ cars, illegally
impounding and searching them.
577. On October 20, 2016, under color of official right, City Defendants falsely
arrested and falsely imprisoned Aubrey. Without a lawful search warrant, the City Defendants
used force and fear to take Aubrey’s car, other personal property, and $500 cash in payment for a
bond to get out of jail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
578. Plaintiffs can prove that City Defendants acted with malice and we not simply
doing their jobs.
579. City Defendants’ acts of racketeering had results for victims that included
harassment, excessive force, unlawful searches, unlawful seizures, false arrests, and/or false
imprisonment.
580. City Defendants’ acts of racketeering were also sufficiently continuous and
extended over a substantial period of time, beginning in at least May 2016 and continuing
through at least October 2016. In the alternative, the continuity was open-ended because the
criminal conduct threatened to extend indefinitely into the future at the time it was occurring.
581. All of this demonstrates that acts of racketeering committed by Capt. Stephenson,
Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, and Det. Sayers have become a regular way of conducting their
work and threaten to continue indefinitely, unless stopped by law enforcement or the courts. If
some or all of these City Defendants are no longer engaged in the acts of racketeering described
herein, it is only because they have retired or their Scheme has been fortuitously interrupted by
128
582. These cases demonstrate the City has a long-standing history of using extortion
and each case need not be restated herein.
Mail Fraud Pattern
584. D Magazine, City Defendants, and County Defendants have a history of unlawful
use of the mail to frame victims for criminal conduct.
585. In March 2013, D Magazine published an article ridiculing Janay Rosenthal in
“The Park Cities Welfare Queen,” subtitled “One University Park Mom Has Figured Out How to
Get Food Stamps While Living in the Lap of Luxury,” by “An Anonymous Park Cities Parent.”
The defamatory article accused Rosenthal of criminality and was mailed to various states, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Rosenthal brought suit against D Magazine is state court.
586. In May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published “A Place Where Something Evil
Happened” and mailed it to various states, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. D Magazine
Defendants devised a scheme with City Defendants to include false and defamatory statements
concerning Plaintiffs and detailed information from Det. Ermatinger’s and Det. Sayers’ perjured
affidavits to further obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503.
587. County Defendants conspired with the Dallas Morning News to publish
statements that contributed to implicating Plaintiffs for the murder to further obstruct justice, and
those papers were mailed to other states outside of Texas.
129
588. The County Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and committed mail fraud
when they mailed Aubrey’s $500 bond (minus a fee) to Aubrey in Florida after the district
attorney declined to press charges on the false prostitution charge, two years after the fact.
589. Plaintiffs can prove that City Defendants and D Magazine Defendants acted with
malice and were not simply doing their jobs.
590. City Defendants’ and D Magazine Defendants’ acts of racketeering injured
victims by way of defamation, mail fraud, and obstruction of justice.
591. City Defendants’ acts of racketeering were also sufficiently continuous and
extended over a substantial period of time, beginning in at least March 2013 and continuing
through at least May 2017. In the alternative, the continuity was open-ended because the criminal
conduct threatened to extend indefinitely into the future at the time it was occurring.
592. All of this demonstrates acts of racketeering committed by D Magazine
Defendants, City Defendants, and County Defendants have become a regular way in which they
do business and threaten to continue indefinitely, unless stopped by law enforcement or the
courts. If some or all of these D Magazine Defendants, City Defendants, and County Defendants
are no longer engaged in the acts of racketeering described herein, it is only because they have
retired or their Scheme has been fortuitously interrupted by investigations, lawsuits, or other
legal actions. The fortuitous interruption of a pattern of racketeering activity by law enforcement
or litigation does not obviate the threat of indefinite duration otherwise posed by the acts of
racketeering.
593. These cases demonstrate that D Magazine, the City, and the County have long-
standing histories of using the mails for fraudulent purposes and each case need not be restated
herein.
130
F. Proximate Cause and RICO Damages
594. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of Defendants
and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Plaintiffs were injured in their business or
property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Among other things, Plaintiffs suffered
damages and Defendants were enriched, to the extent that D Magazine through mail fraud and
obstruction of justice realized profits as a result. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover
treble damages they sustained together with disgorgement of all profits of the Scheme, the costs
of the suit, including costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of investigation, and reasonable
experts’ fees.
595. Among other forms of injuries, Plaintiffs lost employment, employment
opportunities, credit reputation, and the wages and other compensation associated with said
employment and opportunities. Plaintiffs were unable to pursue gainful in employment in Dallas,
Texas, while defending themselves against unjust charges and/or while unjustly incarcerated.
City Defendants distributed false information to D Magazine Defendants that severely damaged
Plaintiffs in their business and trade as well as future employment opportunities.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Unconstitutional Searches and Seizures – False Affidavits
Plaintiffs Against City Defendants and County Defendants
596. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1–595, specifically ¶¶ 120–229
above, as though fully set forth herein.
597. Acting under the color of law, the Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of the rights and
privileges secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
131
by other laws of the United States to be free from undue harassment and abuse by manufacturing
perjured search warrant affidavits.
598. Plaintiffs had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from
unreasonable searches. The defendants’ conduct violated a clearly established constitutional
right—the right to be free from unreasonable searches—that was established well before May 18,
2016, the date of the first of five known search warrants affidavits that caused Dallas County
criminal court Judge Jeanine Howard and Judge Jennifer Bennett to issue unlawful search
warrants. Eleven search warrant affidavits against Plaintiffs and their property lacked probable
cause in that each contained fabricated, falsified, or misleading material facts. Additionally, each
failed to include known exculpatory evidence, omitting known material facts. Each affidavit
indicates the facts were not verified but sworn to nonetheless.
599. The defendants’ actions were not objectively reasonable because no public
official should appear before a magistrate or judge and falsely swear to fabricated facts. The
defendants embarked on a willful, malicious, reckless, and outrageous course of conduct that was
intended to cause and did proximately cause Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages accordingly.
600. When the Defendants applied for their respective search warrants, they knowingly
and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, misstated the facts (as described
herein) to cause Judge Howard and Judge Bennett to issue search warrants upon Plaintiffs, their
residences, phone providers, and email providers, although probable cause did not otherwise
exist.
601. Additionally, the Defendants knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless
disregard for the truth, omitted from their affidavits material facts within their knowledge, which
would have negated probable cause.
132
602. Moreover, as a result of the unlawfully obtained search warrants upon Plaintiffs
and their residences, the defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their liberties without due process of
law and deprived them of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
603. Aubrey’s complaint to the Public Integrity Unit about the City Defendants’
fraudulent search warrant affidavits was ignored, indicating an accepted policy and custom of
DPD and the City. Sgt. Dotson of the unit told Aubrey that he had spoken with DPD, which had
informed him that DPD had done nothing wrong.
604. The Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs in that they knowingly and intentionally, or
with reckless disregard for the truth, presented facially deficient warrant affidavits to the judges.
As a direct result of City Defendants’ and County Defendants’ conduct and actions, Plaintiffs
were arrested without probable cause and without an arrest warrant. Additionally, the City
Defendants impounded Plaintiffs’ cars without a warrant.
605. The Defendants’ actions and omissions deprived Plaintiffs of their Constitutional
right to bodily privacy, liberty, due process, and equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
606. In paragraphs 120–229 above, Plaintiffs plead civil liability against the City based
on a “Franks” violation by the City. See, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57
L. Ed.2d 667 (1978). See also, Hale v. Fish, 899 F.2d 390, 400 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990).
133
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Unconstitutional Searches – Warrantless Search
Vodicka Against City Defendants
607. Vodicka repeats and incorporates by reference ¶¶ 1–606, specifically ¶¶ 320–337
608. Vodicka had a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. On
October 20, 2016, the Defendants’ conduct violated Vodicka’s constitutional right to be free
from unreasonable searches.
609. Moreover, as a result of the unlawful search of Vodicka, the Defendants deprived
Vodicka of his liberty without due process of law and deprived him of equal protection of the
laws, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
610. The Defendants’ actions were not objectively reasonable because no public
official would enter the residence of a private citizen without a warrant without reason or cause
to do so. There is no evidence that Vodicka was in any danger or in need of assistance. The
defendants embarked on a willful, malicious, reckless, and outrageous course of conduct that was
intended to cause and did proximately cause Vodicka’s injuries and damages accordingly.
611. The defendants were acting under the color of law and acting pursuant to customs,
practices and policies of the City of Dallas and DPD in regard to illegal warrantless searches
when there is lack of probable cause, authorized and/or ratified by the Dallas City Council and
Chief Brown. Vodicka was deprived of rights and privileges secured to him by the United States
Constitution and by other laws of the United States, and by the City of Dallas for failing to
provide proper training, adequate supervision, or discipline in interactions with individuals such
134
as Vodicka in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and related provisions of federal law and in violation
of the above-cited constitutional provisions.
612. Acting under the color of law, the defendants deprived Vodicka of the rights and
privileges secured to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by
other laws of the United States to be free from undue harassment and abuse by their illegal
warrantless search.
613. The defendants’ actions and omissions deprived Vodicka of his Constitutional
right to bodily privacy, liberty, due process, and equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Unreasonable Searches
Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services
Plaintiffs Against City Defendants
above, as though fully set forth herein, and asserts that the same are moving factors which have
resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights.
615. The City is liable for all damages suffered by Plaintiffs pursuant to Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an official policy or
custom of the Dallas Police Department of which the City Council, City Manager, Mayor, and
Chief of Police Brown all had actual or constructive knowledge that was a moving force behind
the constitutional violations alleged herein. Specifically, DPD policy concerning the authoring
and use of fraudulent and perjured search warrant affidavits allows police officers to violate
citizens’ constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
135
616. The City made the actual decision to create, verify, and swear to material
fabricated, falsified, and misleading facts, acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The City knew this practice and custom would
likely lead to Plaintiffs being emotionally injured and publicly humiliated, but intentionally,
deliberately, or recklessly disregarded that risk.
617. When the City applied for their respective search warrants, it knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, misrepresented the facts (as described
above) in an effort to cause Dallas County criminal court Judges Howard and Bennett to issue
search warrants upon Plaintiffs and their residences, even though probable cause did not
otherwise exist.
618. Additionally, the City knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for
the truth, omitted from its affidavits material facts within its knowledge, which would have
negated probable cause.
619. Moreover, as a result of the unlawfully obtained search warrants upon Plaintiffs
and their residences, the City deprived Plaintiffs of their liberties without due process of law and
deprived them of equal protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
620. The City knew or should have known that this situation had the real potential for
injury and/or serious harm to a citizen. Despite that, the City retained its policy while it provided
no or inadequate training to its officers on how to properly handle the situation.
621. The City maintains and implements a policy and practice of fabricating facts or
falsifying facts in its search warrant affidavits to unlawfully obtain search warrants from local
Dallas County criminal judges or magistrates. In addition, the City has failed to properly train
136
and supervise its detectives to: (a) understand the significance of giving an oath to a judge; (b)
distinguish between truthful and untruthful facts; (c) verify facts before presenting them in sworn
affidavits to Dallas County criminal judges; (d) avoid relying on untruthful hearsay in affidavits
to Dallas County criminal judges; and (e) to properly update its presentation of “facts” to Dallas
County criminal judges based upon subsequently learned truth.
622. The above practices, policies, and customs, as well as the constitutionally
inadequate training, by the City constituted deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights. The subsequent violation of those constitutionally protected rights
(including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) was a direct and foreseeable cause of
Plaintiffs’ injuries. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual damages as a matter of
law. Plaintiffs sue the City for actual and exemplary damages. The practices, policies, and
customs and/or the constitutionally inadequate training were the moving forces behind the
constitutional violations that resulted in the mental/emotional injuries of Plaintiff.
623. In paragraphs 120–229 above, Plaintiffs plead civil liability against the City based
on a “Franks” violation by the City. See, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57
L. Ed.2d 667 (1978). See also, Hale v. Fish, 899 F.2d 390, 400 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990).
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Unconstitutional Searches and Seizures – Excessive Force
Plaintiffs Against the City, the County and John Does
above, as though fully set forth herein, and asserts that the same are moving factors which have
resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights.
137
625. The City is liable for damages suffered by Plaintiffs pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an official policy or custom
of the Dallas Police Department of which the City Council, the City Manager, the Mayor, and
Chief of Police Brown all had actual or constructive knowledge that was a moving force behind
the constitutional violations alleged herein. Specifically, DPD’s policy concerning the use of
deadly force to examine, photograph, and fingerprint allows police officers to violate citizens’
constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.
626. The County is liable for damages suffered by Plaintiffs pursuant to Monell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an official policy or
custom of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department of which the Dallas County Commissioners
Court, and Dallas County Sheriff Valdez all had actual or constructive knowledge that was a
moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein. Specifically, the Sheriff’s
policy concerning the use of deadly force examine, photograph and fingerprint, allows deputies
to violate citizens’ constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment even when there was no
perceived threat to anybody.
A. The City and the County failed to properly train its officers on use of force
627. The City and the County were acting under color of law and acting pursuant to
customs, practices, and policies of the City, County, DPD, and the Sheriff’s in regards to the use
of deadly force as authorized and/or ratified by the Dallas City Council, Mayor Rawlings, Chief
Brown, Dallas County Commissioners Court and Dallas County Sheriff Valdez. Plaintiffs were
deprived of rights and privileges secured to them by the United States Constitution and by other
laws of the United States, by the City and the County failing to provide proper training, adequate
supervision or discipline in dealing with individuals such as Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
138
1983 and related provisions of federal law and in violation of the above cited constitutional
provisions.
628. There is no evidence that DPD officers, Sheriff’s deputies, and any other person
were in imminent danger or in fear of serious bodily injury on May 19, 2016, when Plaintiffs
were illegally apprehended. There were no signs of any danger that would indicate or suggest
that the use of deadly force was justified. The City and the County failed to implement the
knock-and-announce requirement.
629. With respect to the claims made the basis of this lawsuit, the City and County
failed to adequately train its officers and deputies on how to engage with individuals in broad
daylight, in public sight, and posing no threat to any person, specifically to only examine,
photograph, and fingerprint them, and using deadly force as described above. The failure to
properly train its officers and deputies in a relevant respect reflects a deliberate indifference by
the City and the County to the rights of the City’s inhabitants and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.
630. The City and DPD, by and through Chief Brown and the Dallas City Council,
have an inadequate policy of training officers regarding the following areas of law enforcement:
1. The use of proper and appropriate detention and seizure procedures.

2. The use of excessive and/or deadly force.
3. The proper use of less deadly means.
4. The proper use of cover and the pursuit of a suspect.
5. De-escalation tactics.
631. Likewise, the County and the Sheriff, by and through Dallas County Sheriff
Valdez and the Dallas County Commissioners Court, have an inadequate policy of training
officers regarding the following areas of law enforcement:
139
1. The use of proper and appropriate detention and seizure procedures.

2. The use of excessive and/or deadly force.
3. The proper use of less deadly means.
4. The proper use of cover and the pursuit of a suspect.
5. De-escalation tactics.
632. The City and the County’s policy of inadequate and improper training of police
officers and deputies on proper detention and seizure procedures and the use of excessive and/or
deadly force resulted in the constitutional deprivations and damages alleged herein.
633. As a direct cause and result of the constitutional violations as set forth herein,
Plaintiffs incurred extreme pain, injuries, and trauma for which the Plaintiffs seek compensation,
as set forth more specifically in the section of this Fourth Amended Complaint entitled
“Damages.”
634. DPD and the Sheriff have long-standing records of not providing officers and
deputies with adequate training on de-escalation techniques intended to prevent instances of
excessive and deadly force and extrajudicial killings by DPD officers and the Sheriff’s deputies.
635. The actual practice or custom of DPD and the Sheriff’s regarding the use of
deadly force is to “shoot first and ask questions later.”
636. There exists a persistent, widespread practice of police shootings that results from
the lack of proper training received by DPD officers and Sheriff’s deputies. Upon information
and belief, DPD officers and Sheriff’s deputies were improperly trained by individuals with little
or no experience working in the field.
637. In October 1987, Geoffrey P. Alpert, professor in the Department of Criminology
at the University of South Carolina, recommended a new philosophy to the use of force in his
report “Review of Deadly Force Training and Policies of the Dallas Police Department,”
140
stressing that a new approach to force would be required for the City to overcome its institutional
training flaws.
638. The report further stated that for the City to enter the 1990s with a set of police
policies, procedures, and customs commensurate with its high set of municipal values, a
conscious decision must be made to overhaul a system creaking with age and tradition, and made
obsolete by the challenges of a new generation of citizens.
639. After the death of James Harper in 2012, which was widely seen as yet another
example of a DPD officers’ improper use of excessive force, Chief Brown indicated that the
following policies and procedures would be implemented — but he has yet to do so. Each
previously proposed policy has been removed from the DPD’s website:
a. Formalize a process of concurrent investigative review with the FBI’s

Civil Rights Office of all officer-involved shootings
The intention was to reassure the public that DPD was conducting a detailed and comprehensive
investigation and that the findings are based upon facts uncovered by the investigation. DPD has
requested the FBI to conduct this type of review on several occasions.
b. Implement a more comprehensive Response to Resistance reporting

system
A “Response to Resistance” report details the actions a suspect took against an officer and the
steps an officer was required to take to overcome this resistance. A comprehensive reporting
system was intended to allow for a more detailed analysis of incidents involving violence against
officers and their response. Information gained was intended to be used to assist in developing
and refining tactics, training, and policy. The report was also intended to provide public
transparency regarding the amount of force officers take in the performance of their duties.
141
c. Develop a foot pursuit policy
A formalized foot pursuit policy was intended to enhance officer safety by providing officers
with a foundation on which to make decisions during these high-risk activities with the intent of
reducing hazardous consequences and preventing, when possible, the escalation of enforcement
action into lethal force confrontations.
d. Re-implement the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) Review Team
The DVR Team had been temporarily inactive while a panel of Police Deputy Chiefs reviewed
the proper role for the Team. The dash cam video reviews conducted by this team can serve as a
training tool for the Department while building public confidence that the Department
proactively examines officer performance to ensure compliance with departmental and public
expectations.
e. Implement a mandatory electronic control weapon (Taser) training

policy for all officers
Currently, all officers that are trained with an electronic control weapon are required to carry one
if available.
f. Enhance the Department's consensual search policy to include the

requirement for a written and/or recorded consent
Implementing this step was intended to create greater public confidence in the consensual
searches performed by DPD Officers, protect officers against false allegations of illegal search,
and bolster court cases where the search is critical to proving the charge.
g. Research best practices that have come from critical incidents or

institutional failures in public safety from around the nation
In recent years, several major city police departments have been placed under consent decrees.
DPD proposed to research the positive practices and policies that have been developed as a
response to these failures as a way to improve DPD’s internal training, policy, officer safety and
142
service delivery. This step was intended to include a review of the recommendations stemming
from Congressional hearings that took place in Dallas in 1988.
640. As a direct and proximate result of the City and the County’s conduct, Plaintiffs
have sustained substantial damages and pecuniary loss. Based on these constitutional violations
and the injuries and other damages sustained, Plaintiffs seek compensation as set forth more
specifically in the section of this Fourth Amended Complaint entitled “Damages.”
641. Moreover, no reasonably competent official would have concluded that the
actions of the City and the County described herein would not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights. In other words, no reasonably prudent police officer or sheriff’s deputy under similar
circumstances could have believed that the May 19, 2016 conduct to examine, photograph, and
fingerprint Plaintiffs was justified.
B. The City and the County failed to adequately supervise or discipline its officers and
deputies for violent, aggressive, and excessive force and, in failing to do so, ratified
and encouraged the conduct of its officers and deputies.
642. On Plaintiffs’ governmental liability claim against the City and the County for
failing to supervise and/or discipline its officers and deputies for prior violations and the
resulting lack of supervision:
a. The City, the County, Chief Brown, and Sheriff Valdez failed to
adequately supervise and/or discipline their employees in handling usual
and recurring situations with which they deal;
b. Chief Brown and Sheriff Valdez were deliberately indifferent to the need
to supervise and/or discipline its officers, deputies, and/or employees
adequately; and
c. the failure to adequately supervise and/or discipline its officers and

deputies proximately caused the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights.
143
643. Despite having knowledge of DPD officers’ violations of DPD’s policies and
other best police practices as described above, the City, City Council, and Chief Brown refused
to adequately discipline DPD officers. The City’s failure to adequately supervise and/or
discipline its officers was therefore the moving force behind Plaintiffs’ damages.
644. Likewise, the Sheriff had knowledge of its deputies’ violations of the Sheriff’s
policies and other best deputy practice as described above, the County, the Dallas County
Commissioners Court, and Sheriff Valdez refused to adequately discipline Sheriff’s deputies.
The County’s failure to adequately supervise and/or discipline its deputies was therefore the
moving force behind Plaintiffs’ damages.
COUNT V
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Unconstitutional Searches and Seizures
False Arrest and False Imprisonment
645. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference paragraphs ¶¶ 1–644, specifically ¶¶
242–264 and 297–319 above, as though fully set forth herein.
646. Plaintiffs had clearly established Constitutional rights to be free from the unlawful
warrantless arrests on May 19, 2016, as did Aubrey alone when he was falsely arrest a second
time on October 20, 2016.
647. On May 19, 2016, City Defendants held guns to Plaintiffs’ heads, arrested them,
and took them to police headquarters, where they were held against their will for approximately
nine hours. During Plaintiffs’ imprisonment, City Defendants converted their cars, without
warrants.
648. As a direct result of City Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were falsely arrested,
harassed, and starved as a means of coercing Plaintiffs to confess to a crime they knew nothing
144
about. City Defendants’ conduct, as described above, deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to be
secure in their persons against unreasonable seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
649. On October 20, 2016, City Defendants arrested Aubrey without cause and held
him in jail against his will for 11 hours before extorting $500 of bond monies and setting him
free.
650. As a direct result of City Defendants’ conduct, Aubrey was falsely arrested and
charged with prostitution despite the absence of probable cause to establish that he had
committed a crime. City Defendants conduct, as described above, deprived Aubrey of his right to
be secure in his person against unreasonable seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
651. At the time of City Defendants’ entrapment of Aubrey, it knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, preplanned the violation of Aubrey’s rights
under the Constitution.
652. City Defendants’ actions were not objectively reasonable because no public
official should appear before a magistrate or judge and falsely swear to fabricated facts. City
Defendants embarked on a willful, malicious, reckless and outrageous course of conduct that was
intended to cause and did proximately cause Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages accordingly. On
October 20, 2016, Aubrey’s constitutional right to be free from seizure was well established.
City Defendants’ actions were not objectionably reasonable. Additionally, City Defendants
knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, conducted the entrapment
with knowledge that it lacked probable cause to arrest Aubrey for prostitution.
145
653. Moreover, as a result of the unlawful arrest of Aubrey, City Defendants deprived
Aubrey of his liberty without due process of law and deprived him of equal protection of the
laws, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
654. City Defendants actions that caused Aubrey to be arrested and charged with
prostitution, as described in this Fourth Amended Complaint, were done knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth.
655. As a direct result of City Defendants conduct and actions, as set forth above,
Plaintiffs have suffered mental/emotional injuries and were deprived of their constitutional
rights, all to their damage.
656. As a direct result of City Defendants’ conduct and actions, Plaintiffs were
wrongfully arrested (Aubrey twice) despite the fact that probable cause did not exist.
657. For all the reasons set forth above, these arrests were a violation of Plaintiffs’
Fourth Amendment rights to be free from an unreasonable and illegal seizure of her person. By
this pleading Plaintiffs are invoking the doctrine as set forth in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335,
344–45, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 89 L. Ed.2d 271 (1986), and its progeny.
COUNT VI
Texas State Law Claim – Malicious Prosecution
Aubrey Against City Defendants
659. As set forth above, a criminal prosecution was commenced against Plaintiff, and
City Defendants initiated or procured the prosecution. The prosecution was terminated in
Plaintiff’s favor when the prostitution charge was dropped. Plaintiff is innocent of the charge.
146
660. City Defendants did not have probable cause to initiate or procure the prosecution
of Plaintiff and acted with malice. Plaintiff suffered foreseeable damages as a result of this
malicious prosecution, including harm to his reputation, emotional distress, the cost of defense,
and other damages. Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from City Defendants’ malice, which entitles
Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code § 41.003(a).
661. But for City Defendants’ actions, the prosecution of Aubrey would not have
occurred.
COUNT VII
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Unconstitutional Invasion of Privacy –
Distribution and Misuse of Confidential Information
and 383-391 above, as though fully set forth herein and asserts that the same are moving factors
that have resulted in the violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights.
663. City Defendants are liable for all damages suffered by Plaintiffs pursuant to
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on an official
policy or custom of the Dallas Police Department of which the City Council, the City Manager,
the Mayor, Chief of Police Brown, and Det. Ermatinger all had actual or constructive knowledge
that was a moving force behind the constitutional violations alleged herein. Specifically, DPD’s
policy to distribute to the media confidential information from its active murder investigation,
allows police officers to violate citizens’ constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments and the fundamental constitutional right to privacy.
664. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the majority agreed that the “right to privacy,”
in addition to being “fundamental,” was “substantive.”
147
665. Tex. Govt. Code § 552.305(a) maintains the privacy interests of a third party. Tex.
Govt. Code § 552.352 stipulates that an officer or employee of a governmental body who obtains
access to confidential information commits an offense if the officer or employee knowingly: (1)
uses the confidential information for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information
was received or for a purpose unrelated to the law that permitted the officer or employee to
obtain access to the information; (2) permits inspection of the confidential information by a
person who is not authorized to inspect the information; or (3) discloses the confidential
information to a person who is not authorized to receive the information.
666. The Dallas Police Department General Orders § 323.04(B)(2)(4) provides, in part,
that information will not be released pertaining to personal opinions about the suspect or
evidence of laboratory tests. The Dallas Police Department General Orders § 323.05(A) provides
that departmental employees will not give information from Police Department murder
investigative files to media.
667. Det. Ermatinger violated the City’s general order, the state’s criminal statute, and
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights when he distributed information from DPD files during the course
of his employment with DPD and following his termination of employment with DPD, as he
continued to distribute information from DPD’s murder investigative file for Ira Tobolowsky.
668. The City and Det. Ermatinger made the conscious decision to misuse and
distribute to the media confidential information from the file of its active murder investigation,
acting with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments. The City and Det. Ermatinger knew this practice and custom would likely lead to
public humiliation and emotional injuries of Plaintiffs, yet they intentionally, deliberately, or
recklessly disregarded that risk.
148
669. The City knew or should have known that its employees have access to
confidential investigative files and its officers would have to handle the issue on a regular basis.
Similarly, the City knew or should have known that this situation had the potential for injury
and/or serious harm to a citizen. Despite that, the City retained its policy while providing no or
inadequate training to its officers on how to address this situation.
670. When the City and Det. Ermatinger distributed the confidential information, they
knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard, violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
671. Moreover, as a result of the unlawfully distributed information about Plaintiffs,
the City and Det. Ermatinger deprived Plaintiffs of their privacy and deprived them of equal
protection of the laws, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution
of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
672. The City knew or should have known at the time of the occurrence that this was a
situation in which its officers would encounter on a regular basis. Similarly, the City knew or
should have known that this situation had the potential for injury and/or serious harm to a citizen.
Despite that, the City retained its policy and at the same time failed to properly train its officers
on how to address this situation.
673. The City maintains and implements a policy and practice policy to distribute to
the media confidential information from an active murder investigation. In addition, the City has
failed to properly train and supervise its detectives to: (a) understand the significance of
confidential information; (b) understand that confidential information cannot be used for a
purpose unrelated to the law that permitted the officer or employee to obtain access to the
information; (c) understand that confidential information cannot be inspected by a person who is
149
not authorized to inspect the information; and (d) understand that confidential information cannot
be disclosed to a person who is not authorized to receive the information.
674. The above practices, policies, and customs, as well as the constitutionally
inadequate training by the City, constituted deliberate indifference towards Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights. The subsequent violation of those constitutionally protected rights
(including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) was a direct and foreseeable cause of
Plaintiffs’ injuries. As a result, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual damages as a matter of
law. Plaintiffs sue the City and Det. Ermatinger for actual and exemplary damages. The
practices, policies, and customs and/or the constitutionally inadequate training were the moving
forces behind the constitutional violations that resulted in the mental/emotional injuries of
Plaintiff.
COUNT VIII
Florida State Law Claim – Libel Per Se
Plaintiffs Against D Magazine Defendants
676. Plaintiffs became Florida residents in November 2016.
677. From April 26, 2017 through May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published the
following defamatory articles and video:
a. “Sneak Peek: D Magazine’s May Issue, Which Explores Who Killed Ira
Tobolowsky”
b. “Who Murdered Ira Tobolowsky?”
c. “The Unsolved Murder of Ira Tobolowsky: The prominent lawyer was

burned alive in his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who
did it.”
d. “A Place Where Something Evil Happened”
150
e. “Judge Awards Huge $5.5 Million Verdict in Ira Tobolowsky Defamation

Suit”
678. These digital online publications, as well as the May 2017 print and online
publication of “A Place Where Something Evil Happened” (the “Article”), by Jamie Thompson,
libeled Plaintiffs per se under Florida Statute Chapter 770 and Florida common law.
679. D Magazine Defendants’ false publications were published with malice.
680. These false statements have damaged Plaintiffs because the statements subjected
Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
681. The defamatory and libelous statements constitute libel per se. D Magazine
Defendants have engaged in a pattern of conduct, resulting in publication of defamatory and
libelous statements against Plaintiffs and is liable to Plaintiffs for damages caused by their
conduct. In particular, D Magazine Defendants, as set forth, engaged in the following conduct as
described above:
a. D Magazine published four articles and one video about Plaintiffs which it
alleged were factual;
b. The articles and video referred to Plaintiffs;
c. The articles and video were defamatory;
d. The articles and video were false;
e. D Magazine was acting with actual malice or, in the alternative, was
negligent in publishing the statements contained in the Article;
f. D Magazine’s Article charges that Plaintiffs committed an infamous

crime;
g. D Magazine’s articles and video subjected Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust,

ridicule, contempt or disgrace; and
h. D Magazine’s articles and video injured Plaintiffs in their trades or

professions.
151
682. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants’ malicious per se acts
is that Plaintiffs suffered severe injury including, but not limited to, personal humiliation,
emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss of employment, lost
earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
COUNT IX
Florida State Law Claim – Defamation
Plaintiffs Against D Magazine Defendants and Det. Ermatinger
685. Beginning April 26, 2017 through May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published
the following defamatory articles and video:
Tobolowsky”
c. “The Unsolved Murder of Ira Tobolowsky: The prominent lawyer was burned
alive in his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who did it.”
d. A Place Where Something Evil Happened
e. Judge Awards Huge $5.5 Million Verdict in Ira Tobolowsky Defamation Suit
686. These online publications as well as the May 2017 print and online publication of
the Article defamed Plaintiffs under Florida Statute Chapter 770 and Florida common law.
687. D Magazine Defendants’ false publications and statements were published with
malice.
152
688. Det. Ermatinger’s false statements that appeared in D Magazine Defendants’
Article were made with malice.
689. Plaintiffs have been damaged by these false statements because the statements
subjected Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
690. D Magazine Defendants asserts that their Article is based on the investigation of
who killed Ira Tobolowsky; however, D Magazine Defendants published a fictional crime story
based primarily on stated “opinions” of Tobolowsky family members and the false “facts” of
investigators, all designed to paint Plaintiffs as the murderers of Tobolowsky — and to deflect
attention away from the lack of pursuit of the most obvious avenues of inquiry: Tobolowsky’s
business practices.
691. Det. Ermatinger asserts that his statements and opinions published in the Article
are based on confidential information from DPD’s investigation of the death of Ira Tobolowsky;
however, Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions were fabricated and designed to implicate
Plaintiffs for the murder of Ira Tobolowsky.
692. The statements constitute defamation. D Magazine Defendants and Det.
Ermatinger have engaged in a pattern of conduct, resulting in publication of defamatory and
libelous statements against Plaintiffs and they are liable to Plaintiffs for damages caused by their
described above:
a. D Magazine Defendants published four articles and one video about

Plaintiffs that it alleged were factual;
b. The articles and video referred to Plaintiffs;
153
e. D Magazine Defendants was acting with actual malice or, in the

alternative, was negligent in publishing the statements contained in the
Article;
f. D Magazine Defendants’ Article charges that Aubrey has committed an

infamous crime;
g. D Magazine Defendants’ articles and video subjected Plaintiffs to hatred,

distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace; and
h. D Magazine Defendants’ articles and video injured Plaintiffs in their

trades or professions.
In particular, Det. Ermatinger, as set forth, engaged in the following conduct as described above:
a. Det. Ermatinger gave statements to D Magazine Defendants that were

published in the Article and were alleged to be factual;
b. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions referred to Plaintiffs;
c. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions were defamatory;
d. Det. Ermatinger’s statements were false;
e. Det. Ermatinger was acting with actual malice or, in the alternative, was
negligent in making the statements contained in the Article;
f. Det. Ermatinger charges that Plaintiffs committed an infamous crime;
g. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions contained in the Article

subjected Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace; and
h. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions injured Plaintiffs in their trades

or professions.
693. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants’ and Det.
Ermatinger’s malicious acts is that Plaintiffs suffered severe injury including, but not limited to,
personal humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss
of employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and
condemnation.
154
COUNT X
Florida State Law Claim – Defamation By Implication
696. From April 26, 2017 through May 2017, D Magazine published the following
defamatory articles and video:
Tobolowsky”
alive in his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who did it. “
e. “Judge Awards Huge $5.5 Million Verdict in Ira Tobolowsky Defamation Suit”
the Article by Thompson defamed Plaintiffs under Florida Statute Chapter 770 and Florida
common law.
698. With malice, D Magazine Defendants juxtaposed a series of facts about Plaintiffs
in its publications to imply that Plaintiffs had committed the murder of Ira Tobolowsky and
omitted facts to create a defamatory implication.
699. With malice, Det. Ermatinger omitted facts and fabricated facts about Plaintiffs to
create a defamatory implication.
155
700. D Magazine Defendants published statements and opinions of Det. Ermatinger
and others based on false suggestions, impressions, and implications arising from otherwise
truthful statements.
701. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the implication of these statements because the
statements subjected Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
702. D Magazine Defendants assert that the Article is based on the investigation of
who killed Ira Tobolowsky, however, D Magazine Defendants published a fictional crime story
based on selected facts presented to imply that Plaintiffs are deplorable people who are guilty of
murder.
703. Det. Ermatinger asserts that his statements and opinions published in the Article
are based on confidential information from the DPD investigation into the death of Ira
Tobolowsky; however, Det. Ermatinger’s fabricated statements and opinions were presented in a
way that falsely implicated Plaintiffs for the murder of Ira Tobolowsky.
704. The implication of the statements constitutes defamation. D Magazine Defendants
and Det. Ermatinger have engaged in a pattern of conduct that resulted in publications that
defame Plaintiffs, and they are liable to Plaintiffs for damages caused by their conduct. In
particular, D Magazine Defendants, as set forth, engaged in the following conduct as described
above:
a) D Magazine published four articles and one video which implicated Plaintiffs for
the murder of Ira Tobolowsky;
b) The articles and video referred to Plaintiffs;
c) The articles and video were defamatory;
d) The articles and video were false;
156
e) D Magazine was acting with actual malice or, in the alternative, was negligent in
publishing the statements contained in the Article;
f) D Magazine’s Article charges that Aubrey has committed an infamous crime;
g) D Magazine’s articles and video subjected Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule,

contempt or disgrace; and
h) D Magazine’s articles and video injured Plaintiffs in their trades or professions.
a. Det. Ermatinger gave false statements to D Magazine Defendants that were

b. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions referred to Plaintiffs;
d. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions implied that Plaintiffs were guilty of
capital murder;
e. Det. Ermatinger was acting with actual malice or, in the alternative, was negligent
in making the statements contained in the Article;
f. Det. Ermatinger charges that Plaintiffs committed an infamous crime;
g. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions contained in the Article subjected

Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace; and
h. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions injured Plaintiffs in their trades or

professions.
705. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants’ and Det.
Ermatinger’s malicious acts is that Plaintiffs suffered severe injury including but not limited to
personal humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss
of employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and
condemnation.
157
COUNT XI
Texas State Law Claim – Defamation Per Se
Vodicka Against D Magazine Defendants
706. Vodicka repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs ¶¶ 1–705, specifically
¶¶ 399–474 above, as though fully set forth herein.
707. As a disabled person and pursuant to Section 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code, the statute of limitations has tolled for all of Vodicka’s claims from May
17, 2016, to the present.
708. From April 26, 2017 through May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published the
following defamatory articles and video:
Tobolowsky”
alive in his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who did it.”
the Article by Thompson defamed Vodicka per se under Texas common law.
711. These false statements have damaged Vodicka because the statements subjected
Vodicka to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
712. The defamatory and libelous statements constitute libel per se. D Magazine
libelous statements against Vodicka and is liable to Vodicka for damages caused by their
158
described above:
a. D Magazine Defendants published four articles and one video about Vodicka
which it alleged were factual;
b. The articles and video referred to Vodicka;
e. D Magazine Defendants were acting with actual malice or, in the alternative, was
negligent in publishing the statements contained in the Article;
f. D Magazine Defendants’ Article charges that Vodicka has committed an

infamous crime;
g. D Magazine Defendants’ articles and video subjected Vodicka to hatred, distrust,

ridicule, contempt, or disgrace;
h. D Magazine Defendants’ articles and video injured Vodicka in his trade or

profession;
i. D Magazine Defendants’ Article attacked Vodicka’s character and standing; and
j. D Magazine Defendants’ Article impeached Vodicka’s honesty, integrity, virtue,

and reputation.
713. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants’ malicious per se acts
is that Vodicka suffered severe injury including, but not limited to, personal humiliation,
emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss of employment, lost
earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
COUNT XII
Texas State Law Claim – Defamation Per Quod
Vodicka Against D Magazine Defendants and Det. Ermatinger
714. Vodicka repeats and incorporates by reference paragraphs ¶¶ 1–713, specifically
¶¶ 399–474 above, as though fully set forth herein.
159
715. As a disabled person and pursuant to Section 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice
and Remedies Code, the statute of limitations has tolled for all of Vodicka’s claims from May
17, 2016, to the present.
716. From April 26, 2017 through May 2017, D Magazine published the following
defamatory articles and video:
a. “Sneak Peek: D Magazine’s May Issue, Which Explores Who Killed Ira Tobolowsky”
c. “The Unsolved Murder of Ira Tobolowsky: The prominent lawyer was burned alive in
his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who did it.”
the Article by Thompson defamed Vodicka under Texas common law.
719. These false statements have damaged Vodicka because the statements subjected
Vodicka to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, and disgrace.
720. The false and libelous statements constitute defamation per quod. D Magazine
libelous statements against Vodicka and is liable to Vodicka for damages caused by their
described above:
a. D Magazine Defendants published four articles and one video about Vodicka
which it alleged were factual;
b. The articles and video referred to Vodicka;
160
e. D Magazine Defendants were acting with actual malice or, in the alternative,
was negligent in publishing the statements contained in the Article;
f. D Magazine Defendants’ Article charges that Vodicka has committed an

infamous crime;
g. D Magazine Defendants’ articles and video subjected Vodicka to hatred,

distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace;
h. D Magazine Defendants’ articles and video injured Vodicka in his trade or

profession;
i. D Magazine Defendants’ Article attacked Vodicka’s character and standing;

and
j. D Magazine Defendants’ Article impeached Vodicka’s honesty, integrity,

virtue, and reputation.
a. Det. Ermatinger gave statements to D Magazine Defendants that were

b. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions referred to Vodicka;
d. Det. Ermatinger’s statements were false;
e. Det. Ermatinger was acting with actual malice or, in the alternative, was
negligent in making the statements contained in the Article;
f. Det. Ermatinger charges that Vodicka has committed an infamous crime;
g. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions contained in the Article subjected

Vodicka to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace; and
h. Det. Ermatinger’s statements and opinions injured Vodicka in his trade or

profession.
161
721. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants and Det. Ermatinger’s
malicious acts is that Vodicka suffered severe injury including, but not limited to, personal
humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss of
employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
COUNT XIII
Texas State Law Claim: Civil Conspiracy – Invasion of Privacy
723. In May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published the Article by Thompson.
724. D Magazine Defendants conspired with Det. Ermatinger to publicly disclose
Plaintiffs’ confidential information.
725. Det. Ermatinger arranged with Thompson to perform a criminal offense under
Texas Government Code § 552.352. Det. Ermatinger agreed to knowingly distribute and misuse
the private and confidential information from the DPD investigative file of Ira Tobolowsky’s
death. D Magazine Defendants and Det. Ermatinger’s distribution and publication of confidential
information was offensive to a reasonable person.
726. As a proximate result of D Magazine Defendants and Det. Ermatinger’s
conspiracy to perform the criminal act, Plaintiffs’ privacy was invaded.
727. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants and Det. Ermatinger’s
malicious conspiracy and invasion of privacy is that Plaintiffs suffered severe injury including
but not limited to personal humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense,
legal expense, loss of employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism,
dishonor, and condemnation.
162
COUNT XIV
Texas State Law Claim: Invasion of Privacy – Misappropriation
729. In May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published the Article by Thompson.
730. D Magazine Defendants published modified photos of Aubrey and Vodicka
without their consent to bolster sales and increase profits.
731. D Magazine Defendants modified Plaintiffs’ photos, depicted them as suspects in
a murder investigation, and blurred the names of other persons of interest, presenting Plaintiffs in
a false light.
732. As a proximate result of D Magazine’s misuse and modification of Plaintiffs’
photos, D Magazine Defendants invaded Plaintiffs’ privacy.
733. The direct and proximate result of D Magazine Defendants malicious altering of
Plaintiffs’ photos and invasion of Plaintiffs’ privacy is that Plaintiffs suffered severe injury
including but not limited to personal humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical
expense, legal expense, loss of employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character,
criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
COUNT XV
Texas State Law Claim – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
735. In May 2017, D Magazine Defendants published articles and a video maliciously
defaming Plaintiffs.
163
736. D Magazine Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly when it implicated
Plaintiffs for murder in its defamatory Article.
737. D Magazine Defendants chose profits over truth and intentionally published
falsities about Plaintiffs and murder, conduct that was extreme and outrageous.
738. On March 20, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey alleging she wanted
information from Aubrey to represent his side of the story in the upcoming Article, stating in
pertinent part: “I want to make sure you’re [sic] points are adequately represented.”
739. On March 23, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey, stating in pertinent part:
“Hi Steve, I’d like to write at least one section of the story from your perspective, to let readers
get to know you.”
740. Yet D Magazine Defendants were knowingly setting up the Plaintiffs to serve as
the villains in the Article. D Magazine Defendants baited Aubrey for information and then with
malice used that information to paint Plaintiffs in a false light, intending for Plaintiffs to suffer
emotional distress as a result of the conduct.
741. D Magazine Defendants conduct proximately caused Plaintiffs emotional distress
that has been severe and unceasing.
742. D Magazine Defendants acted with malice. The direct and proximate result of D
Magazine Defendants malicious, outrageous, and severe acts is that Plaintiffs suffered severe
injury including but not limited to personal humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations,
medical expense, legal expense, loss of employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character,
criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
164
COUNT XVI
Texas State Law Claim – Fraudulent Inducement
Aubrey Against D Magazine Defendants
744. On March 20, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey misrepresenting that she
wanted information from Aubrey to represent his side of the story in D Magazine’s upcoming
Article, stating in pertinent part: “I want to make sure you're [sic] points are adequately
represented. It’s a chance to get out there why you shouldn't be considered a suspect -- so
whatever you are able to share, please do.”
745. On March 23, 2017, Thompson sent an email to Aubrey in which she stated in
pertinent part: “Hi Steve, I'd like to write at least one section of the story from your perspective,
to let readers get to know you.”
746. In May 2017, D Magazine published Thompson’s defamatory Article with
material misrepresentations that eviscerated Aubrey.
747. Thompson was aware that D Magazine would publish her material
misrepresentations. D Magazine did publish the misrepresentations with the intent that D
Magazine’s millions of readers would reconfirm or change their mind about Aubrey’s guilt or
innocence regarding the murder of Ira Tobolowsky.
748. D Magazine readers did, in fact, act upon the material misrepresentations that
were made and came to the decision that Aubrey was guilty of the murder.
749. Because the D Magazine readers acted on the material misrepresentations, Aubrey
suffered harm.
165
750. The direct and proximate result of the readers acting on D Magazine’s material
misrepresentations is that Aubrey suffered severe injury, including but not limited to personal
humiliation, emotional distress, loss of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss of
employment, lost earnings capacity, damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
COUNT XVII
Texas State Law Claim: Stalking
751. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1–750, specifically ¶¶ 120–229,
242–264, 297–319, 320–337, 338–369, 366–369, 370–782, 383–391, 392–398, 399–474 above,
as though fully set forth herein.
752. On May 18, 2016, Det. Ermatinger lied in his affidavit for search warrant to a
district criminal court judge so as to gain unlawful entry into Plaintiffs’ residence, Apt 223.
753. On May 19, 2016, City Defendants and County Defendants used premeditated
excessive force on Plaintiffs without cause or an arrest warrant, pinned them to the ground with
loaded guns pointed at their heads, and falsely arrested Plaintiffs to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse,
torment, and/or embarrass them. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 242–264.
754. Plaintiffs believed they would be killed as a result of the excessive force used, and
clearly, DPD officers and sheriff’s deputies had the ability to follow through on the threat. One
unidentified gunman whispered to Vodicka as he was prostrate on the ground, “You know what
you did, faggot.”
755. Following the false arrest, Plaintiffs were taken in separate vehicles to police
headquarters where they were falsely imprisoned by DPD. While held in an interrogation room
for approximately nine hours, Aubrey repeatedly asked and finally demanded to use the
restroom, but he was ignored.
166
756. This marked the beginning of City Defendants’ conduct that constitutes stalking
under Chapter 85 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
757. Five months later, on October 20, 2016, DPD arrested and imprisoned Aubrey for
a second time without cause or an arrest warrant. The unidentified officers were excessively
rough with Aubrey and threatened bodily injury. Aubrey demanded to be released as he had not
committed any offense.
758. On October 20, 2016, without cause or a search warrant, Det. Ermatinger and Det.
Sayers illegally entered Plaintiffs’ apartment while Vodicka was sleeping alone, as they knew he
would be, just as Aubrey was being arrested for prostitution on a false charge. In the darkened
room, Det. Ermatinger sat on the bed next to Vodicka and gently touched his leg to wake him;
Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers knew that Vodicka took multiple prescribed medications.
Vodicka was fearful for his physical safety when he awoke to find the two strange men in his
bedroom, one sitting on the bed next to him.
759. Plaintiffs wrote letters to DPD supervisors as well as the head of the department,
Chief Brown, to report DPD’s stalking and demanded that the illegal arrests and illegal entry into
Plaintiffs’ Apt 223 must stop.
760. DPD stalked Plaintiffs to annoy, embarrass, and harass them. Plaintiffs repeat and
incorporate by reference ¶¶ 120–229, 242–264, 297–319, 320–337, 338–369, 366–369, 370–782,
383–391, 392–398, and 399–474. DPD arrested Aubrey twice and illegally entered Plaintiffs’
apartments on multiple occasions, and converted their cars, among other things.
761. The direct and proximate result of DPD’s malicious stalking is that Plaintiffs
suffered severe injury including but not limited to personal humiliation, emotional distress, loss
167
of reputations, medical expense, legal expense, loss of employment, lost earnings capacity,
damage to character, criticism, dishonor, and condemnation.
COUNT XVIII
Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d)
Plaintiffs Against all Defendants
762. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference paragraphs ¶¶ 1–761, specifically ¶¶
482–595 above, as though fully set forth herein.
763. Defendants unlawfully conspired as set forth hereinabove to violate the provisions
of 18 U.S.C. (a), (b), (c), and (d).
764. City Defendants, County Defendants, and D Magazine Defendants violated 18
U.S.C. § 1962(d) as alleged in this amended complaint.
765. The object of this conspiracy has been and is to conduct or participate in, directly
or indirectly, the conduct of affairs of the ENTERPRISE through a pattern of racketeering
activity.
766. City Defendants, County Defendants, and D Magazine Defendants have engaged
in numerous overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy as described in this Complaint, including
multiple violations including but not limited to:
• Extortion
• Mail fraud
• Laundering of monetary instruments
• Obstruction of justice
767. The nature of the above-described Conspirators’ acts in furtherance of the
conspiracy gave rise to a plausible inference that each of these Defendants agreed to the
objective of violating RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c), and that by conspiring to violate RICO, 18
168
U.S.C. §1962 (c) they were aware that their ongoing fraudulent acts were and are part of an
overall pattern of racketeering activity.
768. Plaintiffs have been injured in their property by reason of the conspiracy alleged
herein in that Plaintiffs provided funds to the ENTERPRISE through conversion of personal
property and monetary profits realized by D Magazine Defendants by way of using Plaintiffs’
reputations to sell its publications, all lost to the Enterprise, that Plaintiffs would not have given
to the ENTERPRISE had Defendants not conspired to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c).
769. The injuries of Plaintiffs were directly and proximately caused by the conspiracy
to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c) as described above.
770. By virtue of these violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (d), Defendants are liable
to Plaintiffs for three times the damages that Plaintiffs have sustained, plus the costs of this suit
including reasonable attorney’s fees.

COUNT XIX
Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)
772. RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c) provides that it shall be unlawful to “conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct” of an enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity.
773. Each Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961(3).
774. City Defendants, County Defendants, and D Magazine Defendants participated,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the ENTERPRISE through a pattern of racketeering
activity including but not limited to:
169
• Extortion
• Mail fraud
• Laundering of monetary instruments
• Obstruction of justice
775. The injuries of Plaintiffs were directly and proximately caused by Defendants’
participation in the racketeering activity of the ENTERPRISE, violating RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962
(c), as described above.
776. By virtue of these violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (c), City Defendants,
County Defendants, and D Magazine Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for three times the
damages that Plaintiffs have sustained, plus the costs of this suit including reasonable attorney’s
fees.
COUNT XX
Violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962(b)
and ¶¶ 482–595 above, as though fully set forth herein.
778. D Magazine Defendants received income from the pattern of racketeering
described in this Complaint.
779. D Magazine Defendants used and invested the income from the pattern of
racketeering activity alleged in this amended complaint to invest in the operation of the
ENTERPRISE in order to perpetuate their fraudulent scheme.
780. The Enterprise described in this Complaint affected and continues to affect
interstate commerce.
170
781. By virtue of these violations of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1962 (b), Plaintiffs were
injured in their property by D Magazine Defendants’ use and investment of racketeering income,
and they are liable to Plaintiffs for three times the damages Plaintiffs have sustained, plus costs
of this suit and reasonable attorney’s fees.
782. Plaintiffs were injured in their business or property by reason thereof, and
Plaintiffs are entitled to damages, to be trebled, and all Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief
as requested.
COUNT XXI
Fraud on the Courts
Plaintiffs against City Defendants
297–319, 366–369, 370–382, and 392–398 above, as though fully set forth herein.
784. City Defendants made false material representations in their 11 affidavits for
search warrants discussed herein. They either knew the representations were false when made or
they made them recklessly as a positive assertion without knowledge of its truth. The City
Defendants made the representations with the intent that they would be acted upon and various
judges did, in fact, take action in reliance upon the misrepresentation by issuing search warrants
for each of the 11 perjured affidavits.
785. City Defendants made these representations with the intent to deceive, which
proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
786. By presenting falsified and perjured affidavits to various criminal district court
judges and sharing the false information used, Lt. Cherry, Det. Ermatinger, Det. Sayers, Capt.
Stephenson and the City are liable to Plaintiffs for these frauds. All false and perjured affidavits
were submitted and presented intentionally, maliciously, wantonly, and with reckless disregard
171
for the truth by the City defendants while acting within the scope of their employment, making
the City of Dallas liable for the acts of its employees. Plaintiffs seek damages accordingly as
outlined below.
787. On October 20, 2016, Det. Ermatinger and Det. Sayers conducted an illegal
warrantless search and tortuously interfered with the Plaintiffs’ landlord-tenant relationship at
Apt 223. Their actions proximately caused damage to Plaintiffs’ relationship with their landlord.
Plaintiffs suffered loss of reputation, as well as other damages enumerated below.
COUNT XXII
Estoppel
Plaintiffs against D Magazine Defendants
788. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1–787, specifically ¶¶ 34–37 and
399–474 above, as though fully set forth herein.
789. D Magazine admits that it has minimum contacts in Florida, as it mails its
monthly magazine to subscribers who reside there. In May 2017, D Magazine Defendants
published a defamatory article about Florida residents, Plaintiffs, causing them injury in Florida
to further establish a Florida court’s jurisdiction over the Texas limited partnership.
790. Though the basis for jurisdiction over the other defendants in Plaintiffs’ case in
the Southern District of Florida was shaky at best, the Florida claims against D Magazine were
ripe to be litigated in the Sunshine State. The court erred in its dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims
against D Magazine and now D Magazine tries to rely on that error and escape liability by hiding
behind the Texas statute of limitations that ran after one year.
791. D Magazine Defendants profited from Plaintiffs’ injuries, and it should be
estopped from using the obvious error in the dismissal order as a basis to injure Plaintiffs and not
172
be held responsibility for the injury by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division.
792. Plaintiffs will be injured if D Magazine Defendants are not estopped from
dismissal based on Texas statute of limitations. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief as
requested.
COUNT XXIII
Tortuous Interference with a Business Relationship
Vodicka against City Defendants
383–391, and 392–398 above, as though fully set forth herein.
794. City Defendants destroyed Vodicka’s professional relationship with his own
psychologist, Dallas-based Dr. Paul K. Chafetz, PhD. Dr. Chafetz terminated the relationship
with Vodicka after the arson/murder of Ira Tobolowsky was attributed to Vodicka and/or
Aubrey. This caused immense medical damage to Vodicka, for which he sues for damages as
detailed below.
COUNT XXIV
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Plaintiffs against City Defendants and County Defendants
795. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference ¶¶ 1–794, specifically ¶¶
120–229, 242–264, 297–319, 338–369 and 383–391 above, as though fully set forth herein.
796. On May 19, 2016, City Defendants and County Defendants conspired and
planned to use excessive force on Plaintiffs, without cause. As Plaintiffs casually walked to their
car, wearing shorts and T-shirts, City Defendants and County Defendants attacked Plaintiffs,
forcing them to the ground with guns pointed at their heads. In violation of Plaintiffs’ rights
under the Eighth Amendment to U.S. Constitution, City Defendants and County Defendants
173
subjected Plaintiffs to degrading punishment that was highly disproportionate to the warrants
they were executing to retrieve Plaintiffs’ fingerprints and photographs.
797. City Defendants and County Defendants have policies and guidelines that instruct
the amount of force to be used in various situations, which helps guarantee due process, even to
convicted criminals. In this instance, Plaintiffs were not criminals, convicted or otherwise.
798. On May 19, after Plaintiffs were arrested and imprisoned at DPD headquarters,
City Defendants violated Aubrey’s U.S. Constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment. City Defendants refused to allow Aubrey to urinate for approximately nine hours.
This was cruel and unusual punishment under a prisoner’s right under the Eight Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution.
799. On the night of May 19, 2016 at DPD headquarters, City Defendants violated
Vodicka’s U.S. Constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They refused
to allow Vodicka a necessary meal to digest the toxic medications he is required to take on a
daily basis for HIV/AIDS. This exhibited a deliberate indifference to an illness disclosed to DPD
while Vodicka was cooperating for approximately nine hours. This was cruel and unusual
punishment under a prisoner’s right under the Eight Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
800. The injuries of Plaintiffs were directly and proximately caused by the cruel and
unusual punishment that City Defendants and County Defendants used against them with the
high-risk apprehension, at which time City Defendants orchestrated further cruel and unusual
punishment proximately causing their injuries.
174
COUNT XXV
Fraud
Aubrey against D Magazine Defendants
802. D Magazine Defendants, as principal for its agent Thompson promised Aubrey
she would tell his side of the story. Aubrey relied upon this promise and gave non-monetary
consideration to this contract. Thompson, and vicariously D Magazine Defendants, as liable for
the acts of its agent, made this promise and statement to Aubrey during the course of her
representation and during the course of her relationship with D Magazine Partners L.P.
803. The representation was false and made known while Thompson was spending
extended periods of time with Michael Tobolowsky in his office, admitted by Thompson in her
May 2017 cover story for D Magazine. As well, Thompson would stage and photograph
modified pictures of Plaintiffs while spending time with Michael Tobolowsky,
804. D Magazine Defendants’ fraud proximately caused Aubrey’s injuries.
COUNT XXVI
Civil Theft
806. For each of the 11 perjured affidavits at issue in this suit, City Defendants
unlawfully seized Plaintiffs’ property, including 2 cars, 3 computers, 2 cell phones, power tools,
cell phone data and upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ confidential HIPAA-protected health
records. Plaintiffs owned and had legal possession of the property listed herein.
175
807. City Defendants assumed and exercised dominion and control over the property in
an unlawful and unauthorized manner, to the exclusion of and inconsistent with plaintiff's rights.
Plaintiffs made a demand for the property, yet County Defendants have refused to return much of
the property.
808. On October 20, 2016, City Defendants again exercised dominion and control over
Aubrey’s property in an unlawful manner when they falsely arrested him and confiscated his car,
massage table, and supplies, and then forced Aubrey to post a $500 bond to be released from jail,
where he should never have been. Rather than return the property to Aubrey, City Defendants
forced him to pay over $200 at the pound to retrieve his car.
809. The injuries of Plaintiffs were directly and proximately caused by City
Defendants’ theft of property that Plaintiffs exercised dominion over prior to their illegal theft.
COUNT XXVII
Declaratory Relief
Against All Defendants
810. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration by the Court
that the Defendants violated the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by making false
warrant applications, planting evidence in search warrant affidavits, making false arrests,
conducting illegal searches, making illegal seizures, using excessive force, lying under oath,
suborning perjury, lying as witnesses, obstructing discovery of police criminal conduct, covering
up illegal police activity, participating in a code of silence, defamation including accusations of
criminality, and of the patterns and practices alleged in Count I though Count XXVI, as stated
hereinabove, and for agreeing and conspiring to do these things.
176
COUNT XXVIII
Injunctive Relief
Against City Defendants and County Defendants
811. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651, “The All Writs Act,” and pursuant to Sec 1983,
Plaintiffs are entitled to and request an injunction against City Defendants and County
Defendants enjoining them from engaging in the wrongful conduct enumerated in averments
¶¶120–229, 242–264, 297–319, 320–337, 338–369, 366–369, 370–382, 383–391, and 392–398
hereinabove, because, it is alleged, for the specific purpose of this Court that:
812. Plaintiffs are suffering ongoing, pervasive, and irreparable harm in the form of
violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and are at risk for continued
violations as a result of the illegal scheme and illegal customs hereinabove alleged, and there is a
substantial likelihood of substantial and immediate, irreparable injuries, which will be caused by
and continue to be caused by intentional and/or willfully blind and/or deliberately indifferent
conduct of defendants, and a pervasive pattern of misconduct as alleged herein, which flows
from a custom or plan as alleged herein, all authorized, ordered, condoned, tolerated, acquiesced
in, approved of, and ratified by defendants;
813. There is a direct link between the non-police officer defendants’ conduct and
DPD’s and Sheriff’s custom and practice, and the injuries suffered and continue to be suffered by
Plaintiffs;
814. The incidents alleged hereinabove are of a kind chronically and continually
perpetrated by a relatively large group of DPD officers, who are not so-called “rogue” officers
but who exemplify the DPD and its patterns and practices of constitutional violations, and such
injustices and constitutional violations have been visited on minorities and the poor;
177
815. Plaintiffs have been and are the victims of police misconduct visited by members
of the DPD, which is continuing. For example, the perjured search warrant affidavits used
against Plaintiffs are still publicly available on the Internet, courtesy of D Magazine’s online
publication;
816. There have been repeated instances over many years of the sort of conduct alleged
herein, and the persons allegedly in charge of the DPD have remained willfully blind to such
instances, and tacitly have condoned those instances;
817. There are continuing and present adverse affects and effects of the DPD activities,
and they cause future threatened injuries to be real and immediate;
818. Plaintiffs credibly allege that they would be set up again by DPD with even more
perjured affidavits;
819. The misconduct alleged is purposeful, and such misconduct has been and is
ordered, authorized, approved of, acquiesced in, ratified, condoned, and tacitly authorized by
DPD policy makers and supervisors; and
820. There is a real and immediate threat of serious injury and of death, which presents
a justifiable controversy.
821. Therefore, injunctive relief is sought to prevent defendants from engaging in the
conduct enumerated in Counts II, IV, and V hereinabove, and in the following conduct:
• Illegal searches by DPD officers;
• Illegal seizures by DPD Officers;
• Illegal searches of persons by DPD officers;
• Planting evidence of crimes in search warrant applications;
• Instituting false criminal charges against persons known to be innocent, by DPD

officers;
178
• The City attorney’s office representing DPD/Dallas Fire-Rescue officers who are
defendants in actions in which civil rights violations are alleged against those
officers;
• The City attorney’s office representing more than one DPD/Dallas Fire Rescue
officer in any action in which more than one DPD/DFR engaged in misconduct;
• The City attorney’s office representing any DPD/DFR officer in any action in
which the City of Dallas or any official or officer of the City besides the officer is
a defendant;
• Dallas County attorney’s office representing any Dallas deputy Sheriff in any
action in which Dallas County is a defendant;
• Dallas County attorney’s office representing any Dallas Deputy Sheriff in any
action in which more than one Deputy Sherriff engaged in misconduct;
• Destroying more governmental records;
• Destroying DPD police incident reports;
• Prevent DPD from leaking information from an ongoing criminal investigation

file;
• Prevent retired police officers from making comments to the media about
confidential information learned while employed by DPD, information that is
subject to the law enforcement exception of the Texas Government Code;
and, requiring defendants to do the following:
• Properly train DPD officers to act in accordance with United States Constitution;
• Properly supervise DPD officers with respect to the making of search warrant
applications;
• Properly supervise DPD officers to avoid baseless arrests and malicious

prosecutions;
• Properly train DPD officers to treat detainees in a human fashion, including

bathroom privileges for those held against their will for a period of two or more
hours and certainly within an eight-hour timeframe;
• Properly train DPD officers to follow the medical indications that involve an
HIV/AIDS detainee’s needs when ingesting life threatening prescription
medications;
179
• Properly supervise DPD officers with respect to the making of search warrant
applications;
• Properly train DPD officers to permit the subjects to an official governmental

search upon their cars and personal residences to exercise their rights to observe
the search;
• Properly train DPD officers on when to use a High-Risk Apprehension;
• Properly train DPD and Sheriff deputies the limits of force required in certain
circumstances;
• Properly train DPD officers to avoid homophobic slurs; and
• Any other steps or actions in which the Court deems necessary to affect justice
and prevent further Police/Sheriff misconduct.
COUNT XXIX
Injunctive Relief
Against D Magazine and Allison Media Inc.
822. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651, “The All Writs Act,” Plaintiffs are entitled to and
request an injunction against D Magazine and Allison Media, Inc., from continuing to publish its
online articles with content related to Plaintiffs and enjoin them from engaging in the wrongful
conduct enumerated in ¶¶ 399–474 hereinabove, because, it is alleged, for the specific purpose of
this Court that:
823. Plaintiffs are suffering ongoing, pervasive, and irreparable harm in the form of
violations of libel and have been at risk for continued violations as a result of D Magazine’s
online presence and its illegal scheme and illegal customs hereinabove alleged, and there is a
substantial likelihood of substantial and immediate, irreparable injuries, which will be caused by
and continue to be caused by intentional and/or willfully blind and/or deliberately indifferent
conduct of defendants, and a pervasive pattern of misconduct as alleged herein, which flows
180
from a custom or plan as alleged herein, all authorized, ordered, condoned, tolerated, acquiesced
in, approved of, and ratified by defendants.
824. There is a direct link between the City Defendants misconduct and D Magazine
and Allison Media Defendants and the custom and practice and the injuries suffered and continue
to be suffered by Plaintiffs.
825. The incidents alleged hereinabove are of a kind chronically and continually
perpetrated by D Magazine and Allison Media Defendants violating Art.1, § 8 of the Texas
Constitution and such injustices and constitutional violations have been visited on Plaintiffs’ and
others.
826. Plaintiffs have been and are the victims of police misconduct visited by members
of the DPD, which is continuing. The perjured search warrant affidavits continue to be made
available to the public on the Internet, courtesy of D Magazine’s digital online publication.
827. There have been repeated instances over many years, of the sort of conduct
alleged herein, and the systemic use of perjured affidavits and the persons in charge of the DPD
have remained willfully blind to such instances, and tacitly have condoned those instances.
828. There are continuing and present adverse affects and effects of D Magazine’s
publications including “A Place Where Something Evil Happened,” pre-stories and teaser ads,
and post story follow-ups to generate more reader interest to further the false narrative that
Defendants have created and fostered, and/or ratified in Defendants’ activities, and they cause
future threatened injuries to be real and immediate.
829. The misconduct alleged is purposeful, and such misconduct has been and is
ordered, authorized, approved of, acquiesced in, ratified, condoned, and tacitly authorized by D
181
Magazine’s policy makers and supervisors. The right of free speech is limited to truthful speech,
not false speech.
830. D Magazine’s online Article, with its blatantly false and defamatory statements
concerning Plaintiffs, poses a real and immediate threat of serious injury and of death to Vodicka
and Aubrey, which presents a justifiable controversy. The D Magazine Article itself
foreshadowed this threat of violence and death by members of the Tobolowsky family, when Ira
Tobolowsky’s widow, Debbie Tobolowsky, said of her sons: “I thought they could have very
easily gone and done something stupid,” she says. “I told them, ‘Do you think your father would
want you in jail for the rest of your life?’” Thus, beyond defaming Plaintiffs, D Magazine
delivered implicit death threats to them, as well.
831. Therefore, injunctive relief is sought to prevent D Magazine Defendants from
continuing to publish on-line its salacious articles concerning or alluding to Plaintiffs, including,
but not limited to the following D Magazine digital online articles:
• “Sneak Peek: D Magazine’s May Issue, Which Explores Who Killed Ira
Tobolowsky,” by Matt Goodman, April 26, 2017, in the “FrontBurner” section of
the magazine’s web-based portal
• “The Unsolved Murder of Ira Tobolowsky: The prominent lawyer was burned
alive in his North Dallas garage. The family thinks they know who did it,” by Tim
Rogers, May 8, 2017, “FrontBurner.”
• “A Place Where Something Evil Happened,” by Jamie Thompson, April 26, 2017.
• “Judge Awards Huge $5.5 Million Verdict in Ira Tobolowsky Defamation Suit:
Neither Steve Aubrey or Brian Vodicka, the defendants, appeared in court,” by
Jamie Thompson, May 9, 2017, “FrontBurner”
• “PH Attorney Dies in Suspicious Fire,” by Elizabeth Ygartua, May 24, 2016,
Preston Hollow People (D Magazine affiliate online publication)
• “Mystery Shrouds Lawyer’s Death After Homicide Ruling,” by Joshua Baethge,

September 23, 2016, Preston Hollow People
182
• “Dallas Police Release Affidavit, Warrant Regarding Tobolowsky Murder,” by

Joshua Baethge, October 27, 2016, Preston Hollow People
832. In addition, a Writ should issue enjoining all Defendants from destroying any
records in this case. A Spoliation writ prevention order is necessary because as members of the
RICO ENTERPRISE, D Magazine and Allison Media Defendants are interlocked with City
Defendants and County Defendants who have already destroyed pertinent and relevant records.
833. Finally, the Court should order any other steps or actions in which the Court
deems necessary to effect justice.
DAMAGES
834. As a result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants described hereinabove,
Plaintiffs sustained damages including, but not limited to, the following:
a. All reasonable and necessary Attorney's fees incurred by or on behalf of

Plaintiffs;
b. All reasonable and necessary costs incurred in pursuit of this suit;
c. Inconvenience;
d. Public ridicule, scorn, and humiliation;
e. Mental anguish in the past;
f. Mental anguish in the future;
g. Loss of reputation;
h. Mental anguish;
i. Emotional distress;
j. Damage to character;
k. Loss of earnings in the past;
183
l. Loss of earning capacity which will, in all probability, be incurred in the
future;
m. Physical pain and suffering in the past;
n. Physical pain and suffering in the future;
o. Physical impairment in the past;
p. Physical impairment which, in all reasonable probability, will be suffered
in the future;
q. Reasonable medical care and expenses in the past. These expenses were
incurred by Plaintiffs and such charges are reasonable and were usual and
customary charges for such services in Dallas County, Texas;
r. Reasonable and necessary medical care and expenses which will in all
reasonable probability be incurred in the future; and
s. Treble damages for all economic and mental anguish damages awarded.
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

835. Plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary damages for the conduct set out in this
Fourth Amended Complaint. All Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous and
conducted with malice toward Plaintiffs as described above — all of which is incorporated by
reference. Plaintiffs will provide clear and convincing evidence of Defendants’ actual malice. In
order to punish said Defendants for engaging in unlawful vicious attacks and to deter such
actions and/or omissions in the future, Plaintiffs intend to seek an award of actual damages based
upon a preponderance of the evidence and an award for exemplary damages with a finding of
malice.
184
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
836. Plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary damages for the conduct set out in this
Fourth Amended Complaint. All Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous and
conducted with malice toward Plaintiffs as described above — all of which is incorporated by
reference. Plaintiffs will provide clear and convincing evidence of Defendants’ actual malice. In
order to punish said Defendants for engaging in unlawful vicious attacks and to deter such
actions and/or omissions in the future, Plaintiffs intend to seek an award of actual damages based
upon a preponderance of the evidence and an award for exemplary damages with a finding of
malice. Plaintiffs reserve their rights to plead and prove the damages to which they are entitled to
at the time of trial. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ recovery have been performed or have
occurred.
PRAYER
Plaintiffs Steven B. Aubrey and Brian E. Vodicka respectfully urge that upon a final
hearing of the case, judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs be awarded damages
against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $25 Million
($25,000,000.00) and exemplary damages, to punish and deter Defendants, jointly and severally,
in an amount not less than $75 Million ($75,000,000.00) and to all other further relief to which
Plaintiffs may be entitled in equity and in law and Grant the following relief:
a. For an immediate, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining All

Defendants from hosting, posting, or in any manner publishing or disseminating,
whether under its legal identity or under any aliases, whether now created or created
in the future, any defamatory or injurious information regarding Plaintiffs; and
185
b. For an Order compelling Defendant D Magazine to immediately remove from its

websites: dmagazine.com, prestonhollowpeople.com and parkcitiespeople.com, as
well as any and all other media and communication conduits, any and all postings of
articles that mention Plaintiffs by name and/or can be attributed to or regarding
either Plaintiff by reasonable logical deductive means.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs request trial by jury in this above-styled action.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Steven B. Aubrey_______

Steven B. Aubrey, Pro Se
2601 NW 3rd Ave.
Wilton Manors, FL 33311
Telephone: (512) 666-8004
defamationperse@gmail.com
By: /s/ Brian E. Vodicka______

Brian Vodicka
2601 NW 3rd Ave.
Wilton Manors, FL 33311
Telephone: (954) 716-9375
defamationperse@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On December 11, 2019, I filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the ECF system. I hereby certify that I
have served all counsel and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner
authorized by FED. R. CIV. P. 5 (b)(2).
/s/ Steven B. Aubrey_______

Steven B. Aubrey
186
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT
STATE OF TEXAS § Steven Benton Aubrey

§ W/M/10-11-1960
COUNTY OF DALLAS § Dallas, Dallas County, Texas
1. There is in Dallas County, Texas, a suspected person described as follows: Steven

Benton Aubrey, a white male with the date of birth 10/11/1960, 6'5" tall, 210 Ibs,
withTexas Driver's License number 03274252.
2. The said suspected person as described in paragraph 1 is believed to have evidence in

the form of injuries or burns and accordingly the affiant in this case requests to
examine and photograph the body of Steven Benton Aubrey within accepted practices.
Additionally, affiant requests to fingerprint subject Aubrey to verify his identity, as well
as compare to any latent prrnts from the crime scene.
3. It is the belief of Affiant, and he hereby charges and accuses that: the above
described individual has evidence on his body in the form of injuries and burns from
an arson/murder offense that occurred on May 13, 2016 at 7435 Kenshire Lane in
Dallas, Dallas County, Texas and documented on Dallas Police case number
114044-2016.
4. Affiant has probable cause for said belief by reason of the following facts: On May
13, 2016 at approximately 7:52 a.m. Dallas Fire Rescue and Dallas Police were
called to a residential structure fire located at 7435 Kenshire Ln, Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas. Fire Rescue discovered the burned body of Ira Tobolowsky in the
garage next to his motor vehicle. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Arson
investigators along with Homicide Detective Sayers #7157 responded to the location
and determined that the victim was burned by criminal means and are investigating
this as a Murder. During the investigation Detectives discovered that the victim Ira
Tobolowsky was involved in a civil defamation lawsuit with Steven Aubrey and his
partner Brian Vodicka who was representing him . Family members advised
detectives that complainant Tobolowskyfeltthreatened by Steve Aubrey because of
a lawsuit that complainant Tobolowsky won when he represented the mother of
Steven Aubrey, Betsy Aubrey. It was alleged in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey
threatened "Jihad" the same words used to describe the wars brought by terrorists,
which was filed in court docket number 15-08135 in the 14th Judicial District Court
Judge Eric Moye presiding. Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descent and felt Jihad was
" an anti-Semitic statement. It is the belief of Detectives in this case as well as Arson
, investigators that the person who set fire to Complainant Tobolowsky could have
burned themselves as the area of the burning was inside the garage in a small
confined space that would not allow for very much movement. It is believed that
whoever set the complainant on fire may have suffered serious burns and is hiding
from public site as to prevent their injuries from being seen by the public as well as
detectives. On May 17, 2016 , Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America
and knocked on the door of #223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and
ask them to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow
detectives to view any injuries that might have been sustained. No one answered
the door. Detective R. Laurence #9191 and Detective D. Richardson #6361 initially
observed the blinds in the window of apartment #223, the first window south of the
front door, were open and slightly angled upwards with a darkened background.
Detectives Laurence and Richardson left the location for a while and when they
returned they observed the blinds to the same window closed and angled downward
with a light on in the background, which indicated that someone had been in the
apartment. Steven Aubrey's white Nissan Murano and Brian Vodicka's white Nissan
Altima were both parked in the parking lot of their apartment. Neighbors stated that
they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or Brian Vodicka since Saturday the 14th
of May 2016 and they have not heard any occupants walking around inside. A court
hearing was scheduled on May 18, 2016 at 11 :00 a.m. in civil suit between
Complainant Tobolowsky and subject Aubrey. Suspect Aubrey and Brian Vodicka
did not appear. On May 18,2016, at approximately 2:50 P.M. Detectives returned to
the apartment of Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka. Detectives observed that
Steven Aubrey's white Nissan Murano was no longer in the parking lot. Detectives
knocked on the door to apartment #223 but there was no answer. Detectives called
both Steven Aubrey's phone number and Brian Vodicka's phone number but there
was no answer, so Detective Ermatinger left them both a voicemail. Detective
Ermatinger also sent a text message to both numbers but he did not receive a reply.
Approximately 2"Y:2 hours after Detective Ermatinger sent the text messages,
Detectives were notified by Steven Aubrey's credit card company that Aubrey's card
was used at a truck stop in Belton, Texas, which is approximately two hours south
of Dallas. A short time later, Detectives were notified that Steven Aubrey's card was
used to book a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Dallas, Texas, but the room
was booked under the name Alexandria Krot. The actions of Steven Aubrey and
Brian Vodicka show that they are intentionally avoiding the Detectives.
Wherefore, Affiant asks for issuance of a warrant that will authorize the search of said
suspected person which will allow affiant to examine, photograph and fingerprint the
subject identified in paragraph 1.
so-s/
S nd sworl} to before me by the said affiant on
- - - L - h - - " - " " * - - , 20 ft2..
T JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Exhibit D
STATE OF TEXAS § Brian Edward Vodicka

§ W/M/08-09-1959
1. There is in Dallas County, Texas, a suspected person described as follows: Brian

Edward Vodicka, a white male with the date of birth 08/09/1959,5'8" tall, 150 Ibs, with
Texas Driver's License number 08474564.
2. The said suspected person as described in paragraph 1 is believed to have evidence in

the form of injuries or burns and accordingly the affiant in this case requests to
examine and photograph the body of Brian Vodicka within accepted practices.
Additionally, affiant requests to fingerprint subject Vodicka to verify his identity, as well
as compare to any latent prints from the crime scene.
described individual has evidence on his body in the form of injuries and burns from
an arson/murder offense that occurred on May 13, 2016 at 7435 Kenshire Lane in
Dallas, Dallas County, Texas and documented on Dallas Police case number
114044-2016.
4. Affiant has probable cause for said belief by reason of the following facts: On May
13, 2016 at approximately 7:52 a.m. Dallas Fire Rescue and Dallas Police were
called to a residential structure fire located at 7435 Kenshire Ln, Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas. Fire Rescue discovered the burned body of Ira Tobolowsky in the
garage next to his motor vehicle. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Arson
investigators along with Homicide Detective Sayers #7157 responded to the location
and determined that the victim was burned by criminal means and are investigating
this as a Murder. During the investigation Detectives discovered that the victim Ira
Tobolowsky was involved in a civil defamation lawsuit with Steven Aubrey and his
partner Brian Vodicka who was representing him. Family members advised
detectives that complainant Tobolowsky felt threatened by Steve Aubrey because of
a lawsuit that complainant Tobolowsky won when he represented the mother of
Steven Aubrey, Betsy Aubrey. It was alleged in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey
which was filed in court docket number 15-08135 in the 14th Judicial District Court
Judge Eric Moye presiding. Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descent and felt Jihad was
an anti-Semitic statement. It is the belief of Detectives in this case as well as Arson
investigators that the person who set fire to Complainant Tobolowsky could have
themselves as the area of the burning was inside the garage in a small
confined space that would not allow for very much movement. It is believed that
whoever set the complainant on fire may have suffered serious burns and is hiding
from public site as to prevent their injuries from being seen by the public as well as
detectives. On May 17, 2016, Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America
and knocked on the door of#223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and
ask them to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow
detectives to view any injuries that might have been sustained. No one answered
the door. Detective R. Laurence #9191 and Detective D. Richa rdson #6361 initially
observed the blinds in the window of apartment #223, the first window south of the
front door, were open and slightly angled upwards with a darkened background.
Detectives Laurence and Richardson left the location for a while and when they
returned they observed the blinds to the same window closed and angled downward
with a light on in the background, which indicated that someone had been in the
apartment. Steven Aubrey's white Nissan Murano and Brian Vodicka's white Nissan
Altima were both parked in the parking lot of their apartment. Neighbors stated that
they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or Brian Vodicka since Saturday the 14th
of May 2016 and they have not heard any occupants walking around inside. A court
hearing was scheduled on May 18, 2016 at 11 :00 a.m. in civil suit between
Complainant Tobolowsky and subject Aubrey. Suspect Aubrey and Brian Vod icka
did not appear. On May 18, 2016, at approximately 2:50 P.M. Detectives returned to
the apartment of Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka. Detectives observed that
Steven Aubrey's white Nissan Murano was no longer in the parking lot. Detectives
knocked on the door to apartment #223 but there was no answer. Detectives called
both Steven Aubrey's phone number and Brian Vodicka's phone number but there
was no answer, so Detective Ermatinger left them both a voicemail. Detective
Ermatinger also sent a text message to both numbers but he did not receive a reply.
Approximately hours after Detective Ermatinger sent the text messages,
Detectives were notified by Steven Aubrey's credit card company that Aubrey's card
was used at a truck stop in Belton , Texas, which is approximately two hours south
of Dallas. A short time later, Detectives were notified that Steven Aubrey's card was
used to book a hotel room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Dallas, Texas, but the room
was booked under the name Alexandria Krot. The actions of Steven Aubrey and
Brian Vodicka show that they are intentionally avoiding the Detectives.
Wherefore , Affiant asks for issuance of a warrant that will authorize the search of said
suspected person which will allow affiant to examine, photograph and fingerprint the
subject identified in paragraph 1. ) /} r-7 0
AFFIAN .p
and sworn
__ ,
Ao
20-1.'1
before me by the said affiant on this 1K day of
T JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Exhibit E
STATE OF TEXAS § Residence located at

§ 7777 Glen America #223
1. There is in Dallas County, Texas, a suspected place and premises described and
located as follows: A private residence located at 7777 Glen America #223 Dallas,
Dallas County, Texas. The residence is an apartment complex called Tonti Lakeside
Apartments. The Apartment in question is located on the second floor and is a red
brick structure the number 223 is located on the top center of the door.
2. There is at said suspected place and premises the following item(s) constituting
evidence of a criminal offense or constituting evidence tending to show that a
particular person committed a criminal offense: Any combustable liquids or empty
containers that are similar to the items found at the crime scene. Any medical
treatment for burn injuries, medical items that could be used to treat injuries as well as
burns. Any receipts that would show any purchases that would be consistent with the
evidence found at the scene like gasoline purchases. Any computers or electronic
devises that can store data or files that might be evidence in this case regarding
threats or research done that is similar to what happened at the crime scene. Cell
phones, clothing, blood,shoes,weapons of any kind. Any egnitable liquids or evidence
of any egnitable liquids that could have been spilled on the floor that can be sent to a
laboratory and compared to evidence found at the scene.
3. Said suspected place and premises are in charge of and controlled by each of the
following persons: Steven Benton Aubrey W /M 10/11/60 and Brian Edward Vodicka
W /M 08/09/59 who are on the lease argeemnent for the address listed in this warrant.
The lease agreement was dated on 2/07/16.
described residence contains evidence, Any combustable liquids or empty
treatment for burn injuries, medical items that could be used to treat injuries as well
as burns. Any receipts that would show any purchases that would be consistent
with the evidence found at the scene like gasoline purchases. Any computers or
electronic devises that can store data or files that might be evidence in this case
regarding threats or research done that is similar to what happened at the crime
scene. Cell phones, clothing, blood,shoes,weapons of any kind. Anyegnitable
liquids or evidence of any egnitable liquids that could have been spilled on the floor
that can be sent to a laboratory and compared to evidence found at the scene.
7777 Glen America #223 Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.
Affiant has probable cause for said belief by reason of the following facts: On May
13,2016 at approximately 7:52 am Dallas Fire Rescue, and Dallas were called
to a residential structure fire located at 7435 Kenshire Ln, Dallas, Dallas County,
Texas. Fire Rescue discovers the burned body of Ira Tobolowsky in the garage next
to his motor vehicle. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Arson investigators
along with Homicide Detective Sayers #7157 responded to the location and
determined that the victim was burned by criminal means and are investigating this as
a Murder. During the investigation Detectives discovered that the victim Ira
Tobolowky was involved in a civil defamation lawsuit with Steven Aubrey and his
a law suit that complainant Tobolowsky won when he represented the mother of
Steven Aubry, Betsy Aubrey. It was aledged in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey
threatened "Jihad" the same words used to describe the wars broughtby terrorists,
and against his life which was filed in court document number 15-08135 in the 14
Judicial district court judge Eric Moye presiding. Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descend
and felt Jihad was an anti-semitic statement. It is the belief of Detectives in this case
as well as Arson investigators that the person who set fire to complainant Tobolowsky
could have been burned themselves as the area of the burning was inside the garage
in a small confined space that would not allow for very much movement. It is believed
that who ever set the complainant on fire may have suffered serious burns and is
hiding from public site as to prevent their injuries from being seen by the public as
well as detectives. Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and
knocked on the door of #223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and ask
them to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow detectives
to view any injuries that might have been sustained. No one answered the door and
neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or Brian Vodicka since
Saturday the 14th of May 2016 and they have not heard any occupants walking
around inside.
suspected place and premises and above described individual(s) for said personal
property and seize the same and to arrest each said described and accused person
who is in violation of the laws of the State of Texas.
:IJ:2 - t? I
e
II - A T
an swop)')o before me by the said affiant on this J of

' 20_'{f/
ICT JUDGE, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Exhibit F
Exhibit G
STATE OF TEXAS § Residence located at

§ 8617 Souhwestern Blvd #911
1. There is in Dallas County, Texas, a suspected place and premises described and
located as follows: A private residence located at 8617 Southwestern Blvd #911
Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. The residence is an apartment complex called The
North Bridge Apartments located in the Village apartment com unity. The Apartment in
question is located on the first floor and is a red brick structure with the top floors being
gray wood. The number 911 is to the right of the door.
2. There is at said suspected place and premises the following item(s) constituting
evidence of a criminal offense or constituting evidence tending to show that a
particular person committed a criminal offense: Any combustable liquids or empty
treatment for burn injuries, medical items that could be used to treat injuries as well as
burns. Any receipts that would show any purchases that would be consistent with the
evidence found at the scene like gasoline purchases. Any computers or electronic
devises that can store data or files that might be evidence in this case regarding
threats or research done that is similar to what happened at the crime scene. Cell
phones, clothing, blood,shoes,weapons of any kind. Tools or drills and drill bits that
could be used to drill a hole in a wood fence. Any ignitable liquids or evidence of any
ignitable liquids that could have been spilled on the floor that can be sent to a
laboratory and compared to evidence found at the scene.
3. Said suspected place and premises are in charge of and controlled by each of the
following persons: StevenBenton Aubrey W 1M 10/11/60 who uses this location for
business purposes to meet clients and give massage therapy. Brian Vodicka who is
steve Aubreys boyfriend stated in an interview that the apartment is used for this
purpose.
4. It is the belief of Affiant, Detective Scott Sayers #7157 who is employed by the
Dallas Police Department for 21 years and who has been assigned to the Homicide
unit does hereby charges and accuses that: the above described residence
contains evidence, Any combustable liquids or empty containers that are similar to
the items found at the crime scene. Any medical treatment for burn injuries,
'!'Tledical i'tems that could be used to treat injuries as well as burns. Any receipts that
would show 9ny purchases that would be consistent with the evidence found at the
scene like gasoline purchases. Any computers or electronic devises that can store
data or fil,es that might be evidence in this case regarding threats or research done
that is similar to what happened at the crime scene. Cell phones, clothing,
blood,shoes,weapons of any kind. Tools or drills and drill bits that could be used to
drill a hole in a wood fence. Any ignitable liquids or evidence of any ignitable liquids
that could have been spilled on the floor that can be sent to a laboratory and
compared to evidence found at the scene. 8617 Southwestern Blvd #911 Dallas,
Dallas County, Texas.
Affiant has probable cause for said belief by reason of the following facts: On May
13,2016 at approximately 7:52 am Dallas Fire Rescue, and Dallas Police were called
to a residential structure fire located at 7435 Kenshire Ln, Dallas, Dallas County,
Texas. Fire Rescue discovers the burned body of Ira Tobo'lowsky in the garage next
to his motor vehicle. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Arson investigators
along with Homicide Detective Sayers #7157 responded to the location and
determined that the victim was burned by criminal means and are investigating this as
a Murder. During the investigation Detectives discovered that the victim Ira
Tobolowky was involved in a civil defamation lawsuit with Steven Aubrey and his
a law suit that complainant Tobolowsky won .when he represented the mother of
Steven Aubry, Betsy Aubrey. It was aledged in the lawsuit that Steven Aubrey
and against his life which was filed in court document number 15-08135 in the 14
Judicial district court judge Eric Moye presiding. Ira Tobolowsky is of Jewish descend
and felt Jihad was an anti-semitic statement. It is the belief of Detectives in this case
as well as Arson investigators that the person who set fire to complainant Tobolowsky
could have been burned themselves as the area of the burning was inside the garage
in a small confined space that would not allow for very much movement. It is believed
that who ever set the complainant on fire may have suffered serious burns and is
hiding from public site as to prevent their injuries from being seen by the public as
well as detectives. Detectives went to the location of 7777 Glen America and
knocked on the door of #223 to confront Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka and ask
them to come to police headquarters and be interviewed as well as allow detectives
to view any injuries that might have been sustained. No one answered the door and
neighbors stated that they have not seen either Steven Aubrey or Brian Vodicka since
Saturday the 14th of May 2016 and they have not heard any occupants walking
around inside.
Detectives executed a search warrant On Steven Aubrey and Brian Vodicka's

th
Apartment located at 7777 Glen America #223 on May 19 2016. After searching the
apartment detectives received information from the complainants family about some
holes that were drilling in the complianants fence so that someone could observe the
complainant coming and going from his residence without being seen. The holes
were located on the far southeastern part of the fence and gave a clear hidden view
from the Alley ofthe complainants garage. Detective Richardson remembers seeing
a dril and, dril bits inside the apartment at the time of the execution of the warrant but
detectives had not received the information about the suspicious holes till after the
warrant was executed. It is believed that the drill and drill bits need to taken for
examination purposes to determine if in fact it was used to drill the suspicious holes
in the complainants fence. Steven Aubrey was finally located coming out of 8617
Southwestern Blvd #911 and was taken to Dallas Headquarters to be photographed
and inteNiewed. The apartment that he came out of was never searched for the
above listed items.
suspected place and premises and above described individual(s) for said personal
property and seize the same and to arrest each said described and accused person
who is in violation of the laws of the State of Texas.
Subscribed and sworn to before me by · the said affiant on this of

COry
DISTRICT JUDGE(DA AS C UNTY, TEXAS
/ Z£,fif
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
Exhibit K

Federal Lawsuit Finally Gives Steve Aubrey and Brian Vodicka A Voice.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Lawsuit Finally Gives Steve Aubrey and Brian Vodicka A Voice.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:19-cv-00056-B Document 120 Filed 12/11/19 Page 20 of 248 PageID 2745

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STEVEN BENTON AUBREY, and §

PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), Plaintiffs STEVEN BENTON AUBREY, and

MAGAZINE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLISON MEDIA, INC., JAMIE L. THOMPSON, ROBERT

L. ERMATINGER, JR., SCOTT ROBERT SAYERS, MARCUS STEPHENSON, DERRICK

respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………...……….….… iii

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ……………………………….………………...……...… 5

TOLLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ………………………………………… 6

FINAL POLICY MAKERS ………………….………………………………..…….…..... 7

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR ……………………………………………………………… 8

FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS ………………………………..……...…………..........… 11

A. The Plaintiffs ……………………………………………………………… 11

B. Litigation Involving Steven Aubrey, Brian Vodicka, and Ira Tobolowsky .. 16

C. Plaintiffs’ Relevant Whereabouts during and after Tobolowsky’s

D. City of Dallas Perjured and Falsified Search Warrant Affidavits………..... 26

E. City of Dallas Customs and Policies ………………………………….....… 57

F. Stakeout, High-Risk Apprehension, and Custodial Interrogation ................. 59

G. Entrapment and Seizure – October 20, 2016………………………………. 70

H. Detective Ermatinger “Just Can’t Quit” Steve and Brian: Coordinated

I. Dallas County Validates City of Dallas Perjured Affidavits ......................... 84

J. Destruction of Government Records - Spoliation ………………………..… 85

K. Distribution and Misuse of Confidential Information …………………..…. 87

L. Malicious Prosecution ……………………………………………….…….. 90

M. D Magazine Defendants …………………………………………………… 91

N. Facts Common to all Counts ……………………….……………………… 109

RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (RICO) …………. 111

A. The Use of Interstate Commerce and the Mails ………………………………….. 111

B. The ENTERPRISE ………………………………………………………… 112

C. Defendants’ Operation and Management of the ENTERPRISE …….……. 115

D. Predicate Acts of Racketeering …………………………………………… 115

E. Predicate Acts of Racketeering ……………………………………………. 122

F. Proximate Cause and RICO Damages …………………………………….. 131

CAUSES OF ACTION…………….............................…….………………….………...… 131

Count I Unconstitutional Searches and Seizures - False Affidavits ………..... 131

Count II Unconstitutional Searches - Warrantless Search…………………....… 134

Count III Monell Claim Against City of Dallas -

Count IV Monell Claim Against City of Dallas and Dallas County -

Count V Monell Claim Against City of Dallas -

Count VI Texas State Law Claim - Malicious Prosecution …………….…..….. 146

Count VII Unconstitutional Invasion of Privacy -

Count IX Florida State Law Claim - Defamation …………………………...… 152

Count X Florida State Law Claim - Defamation By Implication ……….……. 155

Count XI Texas State Law Claim - Defamation Per Se …………………….…. 158

Count XVII Texas State Law Claim - Stalking ………………………..………… 166

Count XVIII Violations of Section 1962(d) of RICO ………………….………... 168

Count XIX Violations of Section 1962(c) of RICO ……………………..…….. 169

Count XX Violations of Section 1962(b) of RICO ………….…..…….…….... 170

Count XXII Texas State Law Claim - Estoppell …………………………...…... 172

Count XXV Texas State Law Claim - Fraud …………………………………… 175

Count XXVII Declaratory Relief - Against All Defendants ……………….….… 176

Count XXIX Injunctive Relief - Against D Magazine Defendants ………….…. 180

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ……………………………………………….……………… 184

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT ……………………………………………….……………. 185

PRAYER ………………..…………………………...........................………………….… 185

JURY DEMAND ……………………….…………………………………………………. 186

opened and then closed with pendulum-like regularity.

of Tobolowsky’s long-time companies as a defendant for its role in a fraudulent mortgage

transaction, a suit filed just weeks before Tobolowsky’s death.

men of modest means as suspects in the high-profile case.