Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2/12/2018 4:33 PM
Donna Kay McKinney
Bexar County District Clerk
Accepted By: Krystal Gonzalez
2018CI02586
CAUSE NO. _________________
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Raymond Ford, and files this Original Petition complaining of
Bexar County Constable Michelle Barrientes Vela, both personally and in her official capacity as
the Bexar County Constable, Precinct 2, would show the Honorable Court the following:
3. Defendant Michelle Barrientes Vela is the Bexar County Constable of Precinct 2, and is
being sued both personally and in her official capacity. Defendant may be served at the
Precinct 2 Constable’s Office at, 7723 Guilbeau Rd., Suite 105, San Antonio, Texas 78250.
Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Ford Page 1 of 8
Service of said Defendant as described above can be effected by personal delivery.
Defendant may also be served through her representative Ms. Kristin K. Bloodworth,
Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Civil Section at 101 W. Nueva St., 7th Floor, San
4. The damages sought in this case exceed the minimal jurisdictional limits of Bexar County
5. Venue is proper in Bexar County, Texas, because a suit for damages for libel or slander shall
be brought, and can only be maintained in the county in which the plaintiff resided at the
time of the accrual of the cause of action, or in the county in which the defendant resided at
the time of filing suit, or in the county of the residence of the defendant, or the domicile of
§15.017.
6. Venue is proper in Bexar County, Texas because the Defendant resides in Bexar County,
Texas. Venue is also proper because Plaintiff resides and did reside in Bexar County, Texas
at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, and one of the claims or causes of action is
7. Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is seeking relief over
V. FACTUAL SUMMARY
9. On February 13th, 2017, Deputy Constable Raymond Ford, Plaintiff, was served with a
hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A, and incorporated by reference. Her letter failed to specify any
“Effective immediately as of February 10, 2017, you are terminated base (sic) on the
following concerns: No (sic) confidence, not trustworthy, dishonesty and conduct which
are (sic) detrimental to or have (sic) adverse effect for (sic) the Department (sic) and
place (sic) this department and myself (sic) in a liability situation. All county issued
items/property must be turned in immediately; (sic) including your credentials and all
work permits are now void.”
10. Defendant fired Plaintiff, using the allegations in the letter as her basis.
11. Defendant placed the Letter of Termination in Plaintiff’s permanent employment file.
12. The Letter of Termination was dated February 10th, 2017. Defendant served it on Plaintiff on
13. Defendant then submitted and signed an F-5 Separation of Licensee form to the Texas
by reference.
14. In the F-5 Separation of Licensee form, Defendant listed Plaintiff’s discharge date of
15. In the F-5 Separation of Licensee form, Defendant states the reason for separation, as “while
in good standing and not because of pending or final disciplinary actions or a documented
performance problem.”
16. Defendant told other officers that she had fired Plaintiff for being “dishonest” and
“untrustworthy.”
17. Plaintiff appealed his termination to the Bexar County Civil Service Commission on or about
18. On or about March 20th, 2017, after consultation with the Bexar County District Attorney’s
Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Ford Page 3 of 8
Office, Civil Section, Defendant served on Plaintiff a “Notice of Rescinded Termination”
19. While the letter rescinded termination, Defendant never removed or retracted the defamatory
20. Upon his return to service, Defendant routinely berated Plaintiff and said to him in front
of other officers, “I still do not trust you” and “Next time, I won’t make the same mistake,”
21. On April 7th, 2017, Defendant made and published statements to news reporter, James Keith,
of Kens-5 News that characterized conduct by her officers as “stealing and unethical as an
officer.”
22. Citing the Termination Letter and her published statements to Kens-5 News, on or about
April 19th 2017, Plaintiff submitted to Defendant a “Request for Correction, Clarification or
Retraction, In Accordance with Rule 73.055 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and
23. On May 1st, 2017, Defendant’s representative with the Bexar County District Attorney’s
Office Civil section, responded to Plaintiff’s Request in writing, attached hereto as Plaintiff’s
24. To date, Defendant has made no correction, clarification or retraction of her defamatory
statements against Plaintiff in accordance with Rule 73.055 Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code.
25. Defendant had absolutely no basis to make and publish the statements in the Termination
26. Defendant had absolutely no basis to continually accuse Plaintiff of dishonesty and
Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Ford Page 4 of 8
untrustworthiness in the presence of other officers after he returned to service in March of
2017.
27. Defendant had absolutely no basis to make and publish the statements to Kens-5 News,
28. When Defendant made the above-referenced claims, she knew she lacked any evidence or
basis in support.
30. Mr. Ford is a private individual and is neither a public official nor a public figure for any
purpose.
32. The foregoing statements, made and published by Defendant were statements of fact that
were false, both in their particular details and in their main point, essence, or gist in the
33. The foregoing statements made and published by Defendant directly and/or indirectly
34. The foregoing statements made and published by Defendant were libelous per se because
they injured Mr. Ford’s reputation and have exposed Mr. Ford to public hatred, contempt or
35. The foregoing statements made and published by Defendant were libelous per se because
36. The foregoing statements made and published by Defendant were libelous per se and
Plaintiff’s Original Petition, Ford Page 5 of 8
slanderous per se because they injured Mr. Ford in his office, profession, and/or occupation.
37. The foregoing statements made and published by Defendant were libelous per se and
slanderous per se to the extent they falsely charged Mr. Ford with the commission of a crime
38. In the alternative, the foregoing statements made and published by Defendant were libelous
39. Defendant is strictly liable for damages caused by libel and/or slander.
40. Alternatively, Defendant knew the foregoing defamatory statements were false or was
41. Alternatively, Defendant knew or should have known the defamatory statements were false.
42. Mr. Ford is entitled to recover nominal damages, special damages, and/or exemplary
damages.
RETRACTION
44. Pursuant to the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Mr. Ford requests that Defendant
correct, clarify or retract the statements detailed above. The statements were defamatory by:
(1) injuring Mr. Ford’s reputation and have exposed Mr. Ford to public hatred, contempt or
ridicule and/or financial injury; (2) by impeaching Mr. Ford’s honesty, integrity, virtue,
and/or reputation; (3) by injuring Mr. Ford in his office, profession, and/or occupation; and
(4) by falsely charging Mr. Ford with the commission of a crime or failing to report a crime.
VII. DAMAGES
Defendant’s libel and slander, including compensation for injury to his reputation.
47. Mr. Ford is entitled to exemplary damages pursuant to Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice
PRAYER
the Court issue citation for the Defendant to appear and answer, and that the Plaintiff be awarded
a. Nominal damages;
b. General damages;
c. Actual damages;
d. Special damages;
e. Exemplary damages;
h. Such further relief, both general and special, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served via
electronic filing service provider, e-mail, Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, and/or
Mac Bozza