02/03/2810 05:02 —210-9246344 ALMA LAGUADO.MD PAGE 02/07 02/09/2010 10:59 TAX ooa/007 02) 09788 2 “9 Atrio: CAUSE NUMBER rUboe wo TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS: STAR LOCKE, ALMA AGUANDO, FELIX ALVARADO & CLEMENT GLENN, PLAINTIFFS vs NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING Inc., Defendant. VIOLATION OF FIRST AMMENMENT RIGHTS VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHT UNDER RACIAL DESCRIMINATION VIOLATON OF DUE PROCESS CALUSE OF THE US. CONSTUTION VIOLATION OF CITIZEN RIGHTS TO RUN FOR AND SEEK PUBLIC OFFICE VIOLATION OF CITIZEN RIGHTS TO LIVE IN A DEMOCRATIC STATE COMES NOW STAR LOCKE, ALMA AGUADO, FELIX ALVARADO, & CLEMENT GLENN [plaintiffs] ‘each & all citizens of TEKAS and each properly certified & filed democratic candidates for Governor of Texas in the 2010 primary and complains of the NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING tn: follows: the many above mentioned CONSTITIUTIONAL RIGHTS violations as A That citizen & Plaintiff Star Locke can be served at 108 Spencer's Landing, Port Aransas, Tx 78373 [361 $58 522%] & citizen & Plaintiff Alma Aguado can be served at 43 Stonewall Bend,a2/ea/2e10 as:a2 —210-S2468344 ALMA L_ AGUIADO, MD PAGE 03/07 02/09/2010 10:54 FAX (@1903/007 san Antonio, Tx 78256 { 210-698-0468 } & Plaintiff & Citizen Fellx Avarada can served at P.O ox 276663 San Antonio, Tx 78227 { 817-657-7369 ] & Plaintiff & Citizen Clement Glenn can be served at 104 Dove Trail, Navasota, Tx 77868 { 936-825-6300 } each are plaintiffs and are all citizens of TEXAS and of the United States are under the Jurisdiction of this court and entitled to protections of this Court and Protection under the U.S. CONSTITUTION. b. that Defendant, NORT+ TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING Inc. isa Texas Corporation and who's service agent is Mary Alhadeff to be served at 3000 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas TEXAS 75210 teh 214-740-9284 fax 214-740-9967 and that this nity is operating inside the State of TEXAS under the laws of the State of TEXAS and also must abide and operate under the Laws of the US, CONSTITUTION and is under the jurisdiction of this court. Comes now Plaintiffs and complain that Defendant NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING Inc. is sponsoring and producing a DEBATE OF DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR of Texas the 8! of Feb, 2010 in Dallas Texas and had “excluded!” all 4 plaintiffs candidates from particiention in this debate and has thus damaged and ruined any chance Plaintiffs woule/could ied have had of winning the Democratic Primary by exclusion. This exclusion debate was ca dant have UPLOADED this debate to a satellite that was put in orbit by State Wide as de NASA which is paid for by Taxpayers dollars which comes from taxes paid for by Plaintiffs. ‘Once uploaded any market or station can download and carry this world wide debate as it2/09 1d 08:82 -210-9245344 ALMA L AGUADO, MD PAGE 04/07 02/09/2010 10:54 FAX oo4/007 chooses, The defendant also plans to re-run this Demoerati¢ Governor Debate in one week ‘and many other TEXAS stations have already informed the public that they not only will run this DEBATE LIVE but also re-run this debate ‘This PUBLIC FREE AIRING of this DEMOCRATIC DEBATE by defendant fs worth MILLIONS of Dollars in sir time should any candidate wish to purchase AIR TIME which is charged per 30 seconds or per minute degending on the market. These actual figures will be know after the debate ang the extent ofthis part of the VIOLATION & DAMAGE will depend on that figure winieh is in addition to the damages listed below. This damage is well in access of '$400,000,000.00 {four hundred million dollars. | a By excluding Plaintiffs from the debate 98 % ofall TV stations in the state virtually IGNORE Plaintiffs and do not even mention the fact that there are other candidates running for Governor nor that they have views nor that these views even exist. By “disqualifying ” & ‘excluding “plaintiffs {rom these debates the ‘melt down effect” takes place across Texas with sil the media, Each ‘mea viewer sees the many ANOUNCEMENTS of these debates and only sees two photographs and the two names on the ather 2 candidates who did “qualify” to participate in the Public Debates.....then each plaintiff is further ignored and dismissed by the public as “no-bodies” and “not important” or “of no consequence”. Each time this happens plaintiffs are ignored and even experience abuse by voters or groups or members of the Democrat Party, voters or would be voters. The “snow ball effect” comes into play and soon all efforts by Plaintiffs to speak or be heard ar campaign turns into a joke and Plaintiffs are even02/09/2010 08:02 02/08/2010 10:54 PAX 46344 ALMA L ASUADO.MD PAGE 05/ oos./007 ridiculed as “publicity seakers” or “even weird”. ONCE PLAINTIFFS are excluded from these State Wide Debates they have “no chance” of being heard or of “being taken seriously” by media or voters. Thess irrefutable and irreconcilable and permanent damages to Plaintiffs ‘campaign are irrevocable and essentially @ "knack out blow” to each Plaintiffs’ campaign and hopes of being heard o: considered as ¢ “serious candidate”. Bottom line is..CAMPAIGN IS over, f Defendant Is aware of te effect and affect of “exclusion " of each certified candidate from these debates and are very aware of the results to each campaign and to each candidate excluded. Defendant, NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING inc. 1s also aware of the POSITIVE effect that INCLUDING candidates in these debates. Once any candidate is give STATE WIDE EXPORSURE to all voters then that candidate has to sink or swim based upon the “Issues as he/she presented them and as perceived by the votes". In this case only two candidates were “chosen” or “allowed” to present themselves or their issues to the voters so theretore it s /ike a "dog & pony show”. Putting one foreign billionaire up against the “chosen candidate so that with only two choices, the WHITE candidate will win the Primary and then be slaughtere:i by Rick Perry.....thus continuing the Reign of the Republic Party and of Rick Perry across TE) AS for 4 more years at the cost of Hundreds of $BILLIONS of dollars. ‘The concept is...."builé a straw man....then knock him down” and the GOP stays in power. & Defendant has violated the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of Plaintifs by “denying reasonable access” and which violates the “censorship” rule and the “non-decimation” rule and the “equat opportunity” rule. Aico defendant, NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING inc., by it actions02/09/2010 05:02 ALMA L_ AGLIADO,MD PAGE 06/07 02/09/2010 10:35 FAK (Goos/007 have violated defendants right to Due Process, Equal Protection under the Law, and Plaintiffs’ right to live ina state which is DEMOCRATIC where any citizen how humble his or her birth or ‘their financial circumstance can file far office and have a chance to be heard and to present the issues to the voters without prejudice because of money or race or birth, bh ‘That Defendant NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC BROADCASTING Inc, Exclusion actions are also based on race and gender discrimination. All 4 plaintiffs candidates are from minority groups in TEXAS , one is black, native American, and 2 Hispanics ..one male and one femate and all excluded trom the debate causing damages of wall over 400,000,000.00 dollars. The only two candidates who “qualified” or “included” in the state wide debate were: .one while male and one green billionaire. [Green meaning rolling in millions of dollars) This is a clear violation of civil rights also is on the discrimination based on Race. 1 4150...Plaintiffs have been denied their “equal protection” under the Constitution by defendant NORTH TEXAS PUBLIC SROADCASTING Inc, action In that UNLESS ANY CANDIDATE has 2 lot of money they are not allowed on this debate. By excluding candidates from Public Debates and presenting their issues to voters, the state of Texas & the Nation and Demccracy is harmed. if these combined criteria of exclusion were applied to the Defendfers of the Alamo and David Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Travis they would not have been allowed in the ‘Alamo nor would there be A TEXAS,io-s2ees ne Lacuna, 02/09/2010 10:56 FAK oe goarran i Plaintiffs as the curt that his case be heard BY AJURY TRIAL, Sue AM FO THEREFORE WE PRAY THE COURT that is finale TUDGEMENT it find FOR the Plaintifts and ORDERS: |A. ISSUES and ORDER to forever ban candidate exclnsion in public debates or by ali media against any certiied candidate for public office and thet any such eNclusion of any candidate based on his or her race, ethnie origin or by the sees ak many a candidate may have or spend in campaigning for public office br by use of and "polls or such devise used 10 exclude unknown oF next Sredidates.. Exclusion of certified candidates for public office isa violation of “Free speech’ & of ‘due process” and fy in the face ofthe right of every citizen te nat for and hold public office no matter how humble their birth or station in ee And ORDER that such practices are “discriminatory” and “a cleat é& present danger” to ous politcal system of Government and is hereby declares UNCONSTITUTIONAL 1B. That Damages for $400,000 000.0% be awarded Plaintiffs For Rights violations € ‘Thot a unspecified amount of PUNITIVE damages be awarded to plaintiffs as to the extent that the jury shall judge fair and heavy enough to send a message to all edi local and nationally so this shall not happen again, 1D ‘That Plaintiffs be awarded al! court cost, all fees, and lege! cost, all collections east ‘of this jucgnnent plus interest at the going legal rate. PO Bos San Antonio 7 ama Aguinke. pro se omewall Send i san Antonio, TX 78286 noni. 79250 oa le se oe Along = he Star Lan PO Bos 338 Port Aransas,