Sworn Affidavit for Documentation-
The Defendants in the state case are REPRESENTED BY what you would classify as ‘smoking guns’ and, in-spite of the fact they KNOW their clients are GUILTY and ARE officers of the court; will do anything and everything to shut us up, deny us of our rights to be present for court hearing, and try to block me from placing a sworn affidavit to the court…
The following is my sworn affidavit, written to the best of my ability, presented to the 276th District Court of Texas and the Honorable Judge Rolston-ALL eyes should be focused on this case-Concern is for media trespass, right to privacy, trespass during search and seize by the media, theft of images-NO claim of defamation as the statute of limitations is up and we could care less about the stories themselves-damage done -there’s no taking that back…However their stories were done during CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND THERE’S NO DENYING WHAT OCCURED. The case is explained in my sworn affidavit-I find it interesting that the Defendants in the case are trying to block this from the record and continually attempting to sanction Pro se Plaintiffs-if this is all they have then should be obvious to the court and everyone who reads the case including a panel of appeal judges that the rights of pro se Plaintiffs have been trampled and what would follow would be a loss of protection from the media…
Sworn Affidavit of Barbara Hoffmann, regarding
Defendant motions for dismissal and for Summary Judgment:
I am an adult over 21 years of age. The statements made here are true and to the best of my knowledge; written to the best of my ability, to present to The 276th District Court of Texas.
To the Attention of the Honorable Judge Rolston of the 276th District Court of Texas:
On January 27th, 2010, I was served with a search and seize warrant by Sheriff’s Deputy David McKnight on private property located at 950 Lewis Chapel Rd., Jefferson, Texas 75657.
Deputy McKnight called me on my cell phone, before his arrival, for the purpose of asking me to open my gate. He stated that he was on his way to the property -NOT stating that he was serving a search and seize warrant for my animals or that the media was in tow with him; as well as District Attorney Gleason and many others who normally would not allowed to be in attendance for the purpose of issuing a search and seize, this is a matter of law. MANY of the people that came onto the property that day, would not be allowed to be in attendance of a search and seize warrant and is a matter before the federal courts since January 2012.
The case before this court is not about WHY there was a search and seize warrant but is before this Honorable Court for the trespass, invasion of privacy, unauthorized partiscipation in serving a search warranty, and the theft of images by KYTX-19, KLTV-7 and Marshall News Messenger (MNM).
This case is NOT about defamation, although it was massive; it is beyond the statute of limitations for a defamation suit. The duress continues as it is still published for free viewing or for purchase by these media defendants and posted on the World Wide Web by many others. This news did draw INTERNATIONAL attention once picked up by the Associated Press who is not part of this suit.
Defamation is NOT being claimed in this suit, no matter the claim by the media and their attorneys,and is NOT one of the causes of action. The articles, photos and videos are being presented to this court as the PROOF of the causes of action; TRESPASS, INVASION OF PRIVACY , UNAUTHORIZED PARTISCIPATION IN SERVING A WARRANT AND THEFT (UNAUTHORIZED) OF IMAGES from Plaintiffs private property during a search and seize warrant.
We, the Plaintiffs, have agreed to drop the Deceptive Trade Act as part of their causes of action. As Pro Se Plaintiffs we do not claim to be skilled or educated in law, as the attorneys who represent these Defendants, and therefore would not be able to properly argue this point. However this court might decide to rule on this matter when the case goes to trial, as a matter of law.
After receiving the call from McKnight, I advised Mr. Lulling that Sheriff Deputy McKnight was on his way for yet another invasion into our privacy and that I was asked to go and open the gate.
I waited at the gate for his arrival and opened it per his request when he arrived. There had been several unlawful unwarranted searches of the property previously on the three days prior to this and believed this was yet another unwarranted search of the property. I unlocked the chain and opened the gate to give Sheriff Deputy McKnight entry and closed the gate behind his entry while he parked his vehicle. Following him down the road were several vehicles and as they got out, I saw news crews with large cameras, to cover the story as they had caravaned to the property WITH/BY/or ARRANGMENTS MADE by Marion County law enforcement and/or District Attorney Gleason.
Sheriff Deputy McKnight proceeded to open the gate for these people to enter and I proceeded to close it. This is even pictured by the media in their REPORT and included in one of the news articles written by Robin Richardson in the published article from MNM -this was NOT an editorial with carton drawings with funny captions but was real life pictures and news article that will be presented to this court at trial as proof of what occurred. Robin Richardson told me that the District Attorny’s office had notified MNM of the search and seize warrant service and also made follow up calls to attend the hearing in both the JP Court and the County Court of Marion County.
The argument between myself and McKnight continued as I did not agree to the media entering onto the property although, by then, they already were on the property or approaching and preparing t enter through the gate. It should also be noted that there were and are No Trespassing signs posted at the gate to the property and on the property itself. The unauthorized sheriff’s video will also be presented at trial.
I stated it clearly and loudly, within hearing range of ALL including Sheriff McKay, DA Gleason and other law enforcement personal who were in plain view and hearing range I noticed that law enforcement officers were carrying assault rifles. Ito this day I have no idea as to fathom why it would be deemed necessary for assault rifles would be considered as needed with the captive wildlife contained and locked inside their transport cages as we had only arrived a few weeks earlier and the facilities were not complete but in plan view that the compound was under construction.
McKnight opened the gate once again as I, once again attempted to close it behind the cars/trucks that were now streaming onto the property and even more were parking in the road. Anyone and everyone who came was permitted onto the property whether just a curious passerby or there by request from the District Attorneys office.
There was no control what so ever as to who was entering the property. I had no idea who most of these people were. However, I knew that the media was present, accompanied law enforcement, and saw that they were provided a actual ‘tour’ of the property and premises by those in charge of the search and seize (It should be noted that Sheriff Deputy Sean Cox stated in his report that it was District Attorney Gleason’s search and seize)-evidence of this can be seen even in the sheriff’s video taken by Sean Cox; the real and actual media news article publications that will be presented at trial.
I was threatened with handcuffs and arrest by Sheriff Deputy McKnight if I touched the gate once again. Not wishing for physical confrontation, and in fear of my life considering there were assault rifles present, I backed off and quit my attempt to close the gate.
I began to read the search warrant and noticed that nowhere did it state that the media personal were granted entry onto the property for any reason whatsoever. I stated this to Sheriff Deputy McKnight who really wasn’t paying attention to anything I had to say about anything, including the days prior.
The search warrant was issued by the honorable Magistrate Lex Jones and I suspect that his testimony will reveal that he was not consulted by District Attorney Gleason to allow for the media or others from outside the county who should NOT have accompanied them for the purpose of serving a search and seize (see Chapter 18, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).
Meanwhile, Mr. Lulling was staging a protest of his own having not been served properly himself. He too did not give permission for the media to enter the property and or anyone else for that matter. This too can be heard on the sheriff’s video and published in MNM story of the service of a search and seize warrant.
We were then placed into ‘custody’ of Captain Hindsman and were not to leave where we were placed, under armed guard by Captain Hindsman, although, no arrest was attached to the warrant. It should also be noted that we were NOT Mirandized at any time by anyone. The media being on the property was discussed with Captain Hindsman as well as the taking of property that was NOT authorized by the warrant (which, by the way, actually excluded the farm animals that were also seized) Captain Hindsman said it was a matter we would have to address in court. Little did I know then that there were to be so many issues that needed to be addressed as unlawful; now in two courts concerning the search and seize warrant service and what began on January 24, 2010 on our private property in Marion County, Texas and concluded on appeal in the County Court of Marion County that was out of it’s jurisdiction to hear a civil matter (Texas Government Code 26.258). On appeal the criminal docket miraculously became a civil case and issued a civil case number; there is no mistake or denying this fact.
Besides the press, anyone who felt like entering the property did so as there was no one guarding the property or the evidence listed on the warrant; everyone was roaming at will, streaming onto the property, going through our trailers and our residence that I shared with Mr. Lulling, the administrator of the animal shelter -Mr Lulling had full authority which I gave to him. We had discussed this at length befor we listed the Not-For-Profit status with the Secretary of the State of Texas.
This search and seize on private property has been compared to a ‘mobbing’ and lynching by the government and anyone else who tagged along whether authorized or not to be present. US citizens are granted their right to privacy even with the serving of a search and seize warrant. Would any of these people have even attempted t go onto private property during the service of a search warrant for a murder investigation? I truly doubt it, even with public concern!
On the way out, after gathering her ‘news’, while still trespassing on the property, after already invading our right to privacy on our private property and in our residence, while actually breaking the law -as she was LEAVING the property, ShaVon Herndon with KYTX-19 stopped and asked if I had anything to say. I asked who she was and if she was the ‘Welcome Wagon’, explaining that we had just arrived a few weeks prior and had remained in transport status to protect the animals from the inclement weather and was now concerned my animals welfare that was placed in the custody of the Humane Society of Marion County.
During the hearing in the Justice of the Peace Court on February 4, 2010, I learned that 1/3 of my animals had been euthanized by Dr. Carol Hedges. This was done without any scientific evidence, without permission from Judge Lex Jones or myself, while in the custody of the Humane Society of Marion county under the direction of and aided by Carolyn Wedding. Carolyn Wedding has claimed that she was ‘animal control for the county’ and introduced to me during an unlawful unwarranted search, by Sheriff Deputy McKnight, during the first search of the property after dark, Sunday, January 24, 2010. I first met Dr. Carol Hedges after she came onto the property for an unlawful and unwarranted exhumation of a dead lion.
It is not a far stretch of anyone’s mind that media ‘unlawfully’ came onto the property at an invite from the District Attorney’s office, once seeing all the irregularities of what occurred that began on January 24, 2010 and ended with the civil hearing in the County Court of Marion County.
The damage was already done and I was certain that the media would be painting a rather poor presentation of what was really going on. They, the media, the Defendants in this case, already had their story and images. I figured, what would it hurt to speak with this woman so, I agreed to speak with her. This cannot and should not be perceived by this court and any other court, including an appeals court should it be necessary, that it gave some sort of retroactive permission for their coming onto the property. This occurred -AFTER THE FACT, NOT as granting prior permission. I am certain that a jury would agree that it certainly did NOT! Everyone involved in this search and seize, and others, will be called to testify in this case, should it go to trial, rather than be settled out of court. Each unlawful incident demonstrates the unlawfulness of what went on, includes the media defendants in this case, during a search and seize on private property.
You do not buy a license to hunt after you bag the deer; you purchase the license before you go hunting-same thing in this case. You do not trespass to get the story and figure if you speak with the owner AFTER THE FACT, that it grants anyone permission previously.
The media has hired attorneys that apparently do not know how to read court summons and causes of action. They have incriminated themselves and their clients by presenting evidence to this Honorable Court that actually supports their trespass. HOWEVER, there has been tampering of evidence by KYTX-19 who did not provide the true and correct copy of their video to their attorney.
The most shocking deception upon this court is by MNM and KLTV-7 who did not provide true and correct copies of ALL of their news reports to this Honorable Court. By omitting some of it; it clearly demonstrates an attempt to conceal evidence and should NOT be tolerated by this court!
In Mr. Lulling’s deposition, Attorney Anderson presented a doctored version of the KYTX-19 broadcast, which cut off Mr. Lulling’s face, and then asked if Mr. Lulling could see himself in that video. Transcript of this deposition has never been provided to us for verification and corrections as required by law. Considering that the deposition was based on incorrect information provided to Attorney Anderson by KYTX-19, we, as the Plaintiffs in this case will object to the use of the entire deposition.
The news archives of KLTV-7 have recently changed with their Chopper 7 report/coverage that is now only their helicopter circling the property for approximately 2 minutes with ‘elevator music playing’ and nowhere near the coverage they published and had left it on the World Wide Web for approximately 3 years. Marshall News Messenger (MNM) has intentionally left out the pictures contained in the news article that they published, and is an issue before this court. True and correct copies of the original news articles, photos and publications should be demanded to be presented to this court by these Defendants by Judge Rolston, along with the copy shown to the Plaintiffs, in the deposition by Attorney Anderson. This will clearly demonstrate to the court that the evidence has been tampered with, or an attempt to conceal evidence by the media and/or their attorneys in an attempt to be dismissed; as well as the attempt to have Mr. Lulling to be dismissed from the case by KYTX-19.
Behind the scenes, this case has indeed become an issue, as these Defendants have KNOWN for sometime that there is important family business of the Plaintiffs that needed to be addressed in July and August. So far, those plans had to be canceled or changed and I believe that this was intentional by both Attorneys Anderson and Starr.
We have filed for default judgment against MNM and KLTV-7 Defendants to this court matter as these matters of law have been delayed by their shenanigans long enough and that we, the Plaintiffs in this case, should be granted default judgment. The Defendants claim that they either did not receive the court summons and/or that the Clerk of this Honorable Court did not properly serve them. This is totally absurd and an insult to the Clerk of this Court who has been serving summons for nineteen years. The proof is in the green cards and in the Defendants’ own statements already submitted to this court. (Attorneys Starr and McCown representing KLTV-7 and MNM) Therefore, if ruled otherwise, we will have to appeal any decision not granting default judgment against MNM and KLTV-7. Such shenanigans should NOT be tolerated by this Honorable Court.
The media Defendants, in this case, believe that because law enforcement issued a search and seize warrant of various allegations, although lacking a probable cause, that we, the Plaintiffs in this case, are not entitled to be protected by US and state laws.
Whether there was a conviction of any crime or not, is not the issue. However, it should be noted here that we were not convicted, no criminal trial, and all charges against us were dropped BEFORE the first hearing in the Justice of the Peace Court.
Frankly, the Justice of the Peace Court had no authority to issue such a warrant in the first place as a matter of law, on review of the laws that govern a search and seize and the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court just as the County Court of Marion County has NO authority or jurisdiction to hear a civil matter (Gov. Code 26.258).
There was no levy of the property before issuing a warrant on property valued at more than $200,000.00. Never has any Justice of the Peace Court been allowed to rule on property of such great value.
Furthermore, not only was the press forced upon us and our private property, there was no one guarding the property to protect the property, the evidence law enforcement was to gather or as stipulated in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures. Many things were allowed/permitted to be taken by the Humane Society that were not described on the warrant, no inventory list was provided or left on the property until the first CIVIL hearing in Justice of the Peace Court, February 4, 2010, that was held on a criminal docket with a criminal docket number -further demonstrating that the entire matter was unlawful and well-orchestrated by District Attorney Gleason, The charges had been dropped before the civil hearing. He knew that he had not issued any civil citation or petition for a civil hearing. He also knew that both of these courts had no jurisdiction in this matter.
Furthermore the 821 Texas Health and Safety Statute states, that without a criminal conviction, the animals are to be returned. The animals have not been returned and some property remains missing to this day and unaccounted for.
I mention only a few of these irregularities in that they form a picture of this case that demonstrates to this court, in this sworn affidavit, that it is my belief, that because the District Attorney’s office invited the media to join them in the service of a search ad seize on January 27, 2010, the media Defendants in this case, KYTX-19, KTLA-7 and Marshall News Messenger, likely assumed they were permitted/allowed to be there and reason not any one of them even concerned themselves with asking us, the property owners/Plaintiff’s in this case, for permission to enter our private property. Their managers/supervisors sent them for the news article and to join in on a search and seize with the District Attorney’s notification and invite, so it had their stamp of approval. These media Defendants must be held accountable for their actions and in so doing, as a matter of law, and our right as Plaintiffs in this case, to take action and seek relief.
Why would any news media send a helicopter at such great distance to cover the story if they weren’t invited by the District Attorney? -Or had prior assurance of entry to the property…? -In short, they wouldn’t!
Common sense leads any reasonable person to realize that they would not be in attendance of a search and seize warrant on private property otherwise. Search and seize warrants for animals are a common occurrence in Texas as Animal Rights is running rampant throughout the state. It is wuite common to perceive that because a person is accused of such a crime then it must be true -especially if was/as is reported by the media.
No retraction or correction of any of their ‘news articles’ has ever been made or offered. No settlement was offered before the summons was served and two of the three Defendants in this case totally ignored it. They did not file a timely reply, giving this court meritless excuses and frivolous defenses well beyond the time limit to file an Answer. No defense has been offered for the ACTUAL causes of action in this case.
The media does not always report the truth, a common occurrence, and with the use of their descriptive words for such cases because it heightens and sells their stories so that that can attract advertisers and sponsors. The Trayvon Martin case is a prime example of the media distorting a story. Yet again, I remind this court that while these ‘news articles’ were not truthful; no defamation is claimed and because they were not written as editorials, the SLAPP Act does NOT apply and reason for my comments about the articles themselves, the history of the incident with the current matter before this court.
Whether or not the reports from the media were entirely true or not is NOT at issue in this case and only these news articles that presented to this court as evidence, is mentioned here in my affidavit, is an indication as to why they were in attendance. These ‘news articles’ along with the history of the incident, indicates that my statements made in this sworn affidavit are the truth. It is of no significance what the reports state; although may be an issue with this court.
The attorneys for these media Defendants are attempting to twist what this case is about. It is my belief that the ACTUAL causes of action in this case are clear and should be easily understood by anyone reading the complaint/petition -especially an educated and trained attorney.
For this court to dismiss this case, would be a slap in the face to our entire government system of laws and statutes and would allow for media searches on private property during a search and seize. Such a ruling would be go against the ruling and jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. As a matter of law, that the media is NOT allowed onto private property for any search and seize without reason and permission from the court.
The media personal were transported to the property by the very people who invited them and were asked to join the service of a search and seize warrant service. They landed their helicopter (KLTV-7) onto Sheriff Deputy McKnight’s family property approximately 1 mile from the Lewis Chapel Road property. This too is a fact that cannot be ignored by this court.
I believe that Courtney Lane’s comment (KLTV-7) of her excitement about joining in a search and seize warrant service is/was truthful. The media has already stated that they received an invite by the District Attorney’s office.
The argument between Sheriff’s Deputy McKnight and myself is also pictured (MNM) and witnessed. Whether any of the witnesses that we, the Plaintiff’s, will present at trial, will be honest and truthful with this Honorable Court is about the only issue that is unknown as much of the time they will state they do not recall and a common way of not supplying a direct answer to the court.
This animal seizure involved a large number of animals; domestic, farm and very expensive exotic animals from a longstanding animal owner, licensed by the USDA for more than 2 decades. This search and seize would most certainly be a remember-able occasion for everyone involved.
Since that time, in 2011, another unlawful unwarranted search and seize of valuable animals from a longstanding animal owner occurred in Marion County and was covered by MNM and other media representatives on private property without permission of the property owner and with the full knowledge of District Attorney Gleason. There was no search and seize and no hearing or permission given by the actual owner of the property and animals, yet these animals were given away by Carolyn Wedding of the Humane Society of Marion County as an emergency evacuation as she stated ‘the owner of the animals was getting out of the hospital and is angry’. Not because there was any reason to take the animals and with full knowledge and assistance by Sheriff Deputy David McKnight. After the animals were gone and immediately taken out of the state of Texas, once the owner of these animals was released from the hospital, the District Attorney issued an arrest warrant although there was no police report. This must not be ignored by this court that many actions of District Attorney Gleason were unlawful and includes that he gave permission for the media to be in attendance of a search and seize on private property. Sheriff David McKnight was given an award by the Humane Society of Marion County for what appears to be his participation, cooperation, and willingness to unlawfully take valuable animals from their longstanding owners.
It is extremely uncommon for a District Attorney to speak with the press in such fashion stating that we were without documents when, in fact, he had those documents in hand and already on file. What he presented as reasoning for a search and seize, lacks probable cause and not a single member of the media questioned any of it…They came and wrote their stories quoting and defaming the accused but please remember, this is NOT an issue in this case although the duress continues. As pro se Plaintiffs, we realize our limitations and capabilities.
This Honorable Court should also know that this matter was already presented as part of a federal suit, with these defendants dismissed as the federal court lacked jurisdiction on these media defendants. The federal court concerned with this matter is the Eastern District Court in Marshall, Texas. However, it is our intention of using the actual publications along with the permission granted by the District Attorney’s office to be in attendance of a search and seize warrant service onto private property to search at will, photographing at will with no authority to so, as proof that no permission was ever granted by us, the Plaintiffs in this case or Justice of the Peace Magistrate, Judge Lex Jones and therefore within our rights to seek retribution for damage…The trespass by these media defendants is the damage being presented before this court, invasion of our privacy, participation in a warrant service and the theft of images without authorization as these are the ONLY causes of action in this case.
There are search and seize warrants issued every day in our nation. No one perceives anyone guilty of any crime. The media is not allowed or can be granted permission by the District Attorney or his representatives allowed to grant permission for free access onto private property.
People in our country are considered innocent until proven guilty which is a matter of law.
No defense has ever been offered for these causes of action by any of these media Defendants has ever been offered, nor have they denied these causes of action and should be noted by this court as a matter of law, for possible summary judgment against these media Defendants.
The US Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of the presence by the media onto private property as illegal as a matter of law. These Defendants in this case did so with no authority and without remorse for having done it.
Any reasonable person would realize that this case should have been quietly settled out of court when the we, the Plaintiffs, first sent a letter stating our intentions. The attorneys for these defendants, while knowing what the truth is in this case, have done a grave injustice to their clients stating anything and everything that they can pull out of some ‘magic hat’ in an attempt to get their clients dismissed. This is at the expense of their clients and the taxpayers with their frivolous defenses against us, the Plaintiffs, with causes of action that do not exist; including using the SLAPP Act which does not protect their clients against the trespass, the invasion of privacy, participation of a warrant service and the theft of unauthorized images taken on our private property. This is wasting valuable time as well as pushing the intelligence of this court and therefore, must be denied as a matter of law.
The damage is the trespass itself and the invasion of privacy.
In cases of trespass a landowner may be entitled to compensation even though no loss has been suffered by the injured party. In Stadium Capital Holdings (No 2) Ltd v St Marylebone Property Company plc, the High Court ordered that the Defendant pay damages to a Claimant for its trespass into the Claimant’s air space by the Defendant’s advertising board.
The proof is their stories and the theft of images regardless of whether these articles and stories were truthful or not. The Plaintiffs were never convicted and the charges were dropped so any reasonable person would realize that these stores as they are now presenting as ‘evidence’ in no way indicate that the reporters were allowed by us onto our private property and into our home.
Trespass to land involves the “wrongful interference with one’s possessory rights in [real] property.”Robert’s River Rides v. Steamboat Dev., 520 N.W.2d 294, 301 (Iowa 1994) It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se.
As a matter of law, the Anti-Slapp Act does not apply to the media (with the possible exception of an editorial written by the media -and their ‘news articles’ were NOT presented as an editorial) or this case. Its purpose is to protect private citizens who speak out against government or big business abuses, not to protect big businesses who trespass on the property of private citizens.
Any reasonable person would realize that this Honorable Court must allow this case to continue with discovery, issue a Discovery Order and be allowed to continue to go to jury trial as a matter of law or rule summary judgment in our favor.
As of the writing of this affidavit, we the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dropped the Deceptive Trade Practices Act as a cause of action in this suit. Thus, like defamation, it is a non-issue in this case.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter that is important to us, Texas, and the United States. All eyes are upon this Honorable Court to allow this case to continue and not be dismissed, as this presents a serious injustice to be allowed, which will continue, if allowed in this case.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Barbara E. Hoffmann
County of Chocktaw, State of Oklahoma;
Signed and sworn before me this _____ day of July, 2013.
DISCLAIMER CONNECTED TO THIS BLOG…THINGS SAID ARE OF MY OPINION AND THE OPINION OF OTHERS…THIS IS A COMPLETE COPY OF MY SWORN AFFIDAVIT AS PRESENTED TO THE 276th DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS-POSTED HERE FOR DOCUMENTATION AND MY RIGHT TO PRODUCE ON MY PERSONAL BLOG AS DOCUMENTATION AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES FOR OTHERS PLANNING ON GOING PRO SE…BEST TO ANYONE WHO TRIES -B (PROTECTED BY TEXAS CHAPTER 27)