NO. _______________ Adrian Heath, William Berntsen, Tom Curry, and Jim Jenkins, Plaintiffs, vs.

Radar Agency, L.L.C., Capitol Public Affairs Holdings, Inc, and John Does 1-5, Defendants. Plaintiffs Original Petition and Request for Temporary Relief In the _______ District Court Montgomery County, Texas

To the Honorable Judge of Said Court: Now Comes Adrian Heath, William Berntsen, Tom Curry, and Jim Jenkins (collectively Plaintiffs,), complaining of and about Radar Agency, L.L.C., Capitol Public Affairs Holdings, Inc, and John Does 1-5. Plaintiffs cause of action sounds in defamation, libel, and/or slander, and Plaintiffs would show the following: Discovery Control Plan Level 1. Pursuant to Rule 190.1 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this case under Level 3. Parties and Service 2. Plaintiffs Adrian Heath, William Berntsen, Tom Curry, and Jim Jenkins (Plaintiffs) are residents of Montgomery County, Texas. 3. Defendant Radar Agency, L.L.C. (Radar Agency) is a domestic limited liability company which can be served with process through its registered agent, William J. Pritchard, at 4055 International Plaza, Suite 600, Fort Worth, TX 76109 USA. 4. Defendant Capitol Public Affairs Holdings, Inc. (Capitol Public), is a domestic corporation which can be served with process through its registered agent, Brian Eppstein, at 4055 International Plaza, Suite 600, Fort Worth, TX 76109. 5. John Does 1-5 are as yet unidentified individuals who will be served when their identity is revealed during this suit. Jurisdiction and Venue

ORIGINAL PETITION HEATH, ET AL. - PAGE 1 OF 5

6.

The subject matter in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. Venue is mandatory in Montgomery County under Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 15.017 because this suit involves libel and this is the county where Plaintiffs resided when this claim accrued and Plaintiffs so elect to prosecute this claim in Montgomery County. Facts

7.

Plaintiffs are residents of Montgomery County. During the 2010 election cycle they were adjudicated to not be valid voters in a local road utility district election. A true copy of the courts findings are attached as Exhibit 1. At no point were Plaintiffs convicted or found to have committed any fraud.

8.

Subsequent to that time, a website run by Defendants stated that the Plaintiffs has committed voter fraud. A true and correct copy of multiple pages of the website are attached as Exhibit 2.

9.

Voter fraud is a crime under Section 64.012 of the Texas Election Code. Plaintiffs have not been convicted of any crime under the election code.

10. Defendants and John Does 1-5 engaged in defamation on the website that has caused Plaintiffs damages. A. CLAIMS Statutory and Common Law Defamation 11. Defendants published a statement by its website asserting as fact that Plaintiffs had engaged in voter fraud. 12. Defendants statement referred to Plaintiffs by name. 13. Defendants written website statements were libel per se as defined by Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code Section 73.001 and are liable for statutory defamation. 14. Defendants statements injured Plaintiffs reputations and thereby exposed them to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury and impeached their honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputation and exposed Plaintiffs to public hatred, ridicule, and financial injury.

ORIGINAL PETITION HEATH, ET AL. - PAGE 2 OF 5

15. Defendants website statements were defamatory per se under the common law. Defendants statements: 15.1. Falsely accused Plaintiffs of a crime.

16. Defendants statement was false because Plaintiffs were merely found to be invalid voters, not to having committed voter fraud. 17. Defendants false statements were defamation per se, which entitled Plaintiffs to a presumption of general damages. 18. Defendants false statements resulted in the following special damages to Plaintiffs: 18.1. 18.2. 18.3. 18.4. 18.5. Lost salary opportunity (Heath) of $140,000/year. Loss of reputation. Emotional anguish. Lost job opportunities due to the website being found by recruiters. Add those by the other Plaintiffs.

19. Defendants are strictly liable under the common law for the defamation. Exemplary Damages 20. Plaintiffs injury resulted from Defendants malice, knowledge of the statements falsity and/or reckless disregard for the truth, which entitled Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practices & Remedies Code Section 41.003(a)(2). Jury demand 21. A jury demand is made at this time and Plaintiffs hereby tender the jury fee. Request for Disclosure 22. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendants disclose, within 50 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2. B. Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue citation for Defendants to appear and answer, and that Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment against Defendants for the following:

ORIGINAL PETITION HEATH, ET AL. - PAGE 3 OF 5

22.1. 22.2. 22.3. 22.4. 22.5.

Actual damages. Exemplary damages. Prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Court costs. Any other relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled in law or equity. Respectfully submitted, CASEY LAW OFFICE, P.C.

_______________________________ Stephen Casey Texas Bar No. 24065015 600 Round Rock West Drive, Suite 602 Round Rock, Texas 78681 Telephone: 512-257-1324 Fax: 512-853-4098

ORIGINAL PETITION HEATH, ET AL. - PAGE 4 OF 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Original Petition was served upon Defendants by the manner and method indicated below on this day, June 25, 2012. Via private process server _______________________________ Stephen Casey; Counsel for Plaintiffs

ORIGINAL PETITION HEATH, ET AL. - PAGE 5 OF 5