Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paxton Whistleblower Lawsuit
Paxton Whistleblower Lawsuit
_____________________
“The Texas Whistleblower Act protects public employees who make good faith
reports of violations of law by their employer to an appropriate law enforcement
authority. An employer may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take
other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who makes a report under
the Act.” 1
This correct statement of Texas law is taken directly from the Texas Attorney General’s
website and can be found there as of the date of this pleading. It is sadly ironic, then, that Attorney
General Warren Kenneth Paxton -- the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the State of Texas --
has flagrantly violated and apparently believes he is above the very law he promotes on his own
website. Plaintiffs are dedicated, respected, public servants, officers of the court, and—until the
events that are the basis of this Whistleblower Suit transpired—honorably served in the most senior
1
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/divisions/general-
oag/WhistleblowerPoster.pdf
1
The Texas Legislature passed the Texas Whistleblower Act in 1983 to prevent the very
conduct by Attorney General Ken Paxton that forms the basis of this case. The most senior
members of the OAG believed in good faith that Paxton was breaking the law and abusing his
office to benefit himself as well as his close friend and campaign donor, Austin businessman Nate
Paul, and likely the woman with whom, according to media reports, Paxton has carried on a lengthy
extramarital affair. On September 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs, along with three other Executive
Deputies and the First Assistant Attorney General, reported the facts underlying Paxton’s illegal
conduct to law enforcement, as was their duty. Thus, they became “whistleblowers” (collectively
“Whistleblowers”). On October 1, they reported the fact of their whistleblower report of the
Paxton responded to the report immediately and with ferocity, as though he was trying
consciously to show Texans exactly what retaliation against whistleblowers looks like. Paxton
falsely smeared the whistleblowers publicly in the manner calculated to harm them most,
threatened them, tried to intimidate them, and engaged in all manner of retaliation ranging from
serious to petty to pathetic. Then, within about a month of learning of their whistleblowing, Paxton
and his OAG fired several of the Plaintiffs. Less than six weeks after they reported Paxton’s
wrongdoing, only one of the Whistleblowers remains employed at the OAG, and even he has been
stripped of all responsibility, placed on leave, and constructively discharged. It is hard to imagine
At the crux of this case is Texas’ core and necessary government policies of transparency,
honesty, and integrity—as opposed to corruption and favoritism—within the State’s highest law
enforcement office and instruments. Plaintiffs hope that this lawsuit following upon their direct,
2
good-faith complaints both to the current elected office holder at the helm of the OAG and to
proper law enforcement agencies will help to restore integrity to this exceedingly important office.
Plaintiffs James Blake Brickman, David Maxwell, J. Mark Penley, and Ryan M. Vassar
file this Original Petition against the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Plaintiffs
I. Parties
1. Until they were fired and otherwise retaliated against by the Office of the Attorney
General at the instruction of Ken Paxton shortly after reporting to law enforcement their concerns
about Paxton’s criminal conduct, the four Plaintiffs were among Paxton’s most senior staff, each
of them hand-picked by Paxton himself, and each of whom directly interacted with Paxton on a
frequent basis.
2. Plaintiff James Blake Brickman (“Brickman”) was the Deputy Attorney General
for Policy & Strategy Initiatives from February 2020 until he was wrongfully terminated October
20, 2020. Brickman is a lawyer and veteran public servant. Prior to being recruited to the OAG by
Paxton, Brickman served as the Chief of Staff for the Governor of Kentucky, a Republican, for
four years. Earlier in his career, he also served as Chief of Staff to a United States Senator, a
Republican, in Washington, D.C., attorney in private practice, and as a federal law clerk to the
Honorable Amul R. Thapar (now a sitting judge on the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit).
Before Brickman made a good faith report to an appropriate law enforcement authority of criminal
wrongdoing by Paxton, Paxton regularly and publicly lauded Brickman’s work. Just by way of
example, in May, Paxton publicly praised Mr. Brickman’s work in the monthly meeting of senior
OAG staff. Paxton presented Brickman with a book on which Paxton inscribed a note saying he
was “so grateful [Brickman] joined our team.” Paxton praised Brickman as an “amazing addition”
3
to the AG’s office. Brickman relocated to Austin, with his wife and three young children, to take
his job at OAG at Paxton’s request and is a resident of Travis County, Texas.
professional. Until he was wrongfully terminated on November 2, 2020, Maxwell served as the
Deputy Director, and then the Director, of Law Enforcement Division for the OAG for
approximately 10 years, collectively, where he oversaw 350 employees. Maxwell’s storied 48-
year career in law enforcement in the State of Texas includes over 35 years with the Texas
Department of Public Safety – 24 years as a Texas Ranger. Maxwell has been involved in
investigating some of the most serious criminal matters and conduct in this State for decades and
has a well-earned reputation as an honest, thorough, and tough law enforcement investigator.
4. Plaintiff J. Mark Penley (“Penley”) was the Deputy Attorney General for Criminal
Justice at the OAG from October 8, 2019 until November 2, 2020, when he was wrongfully
terminated. He supervised the Criminal Prosecutions, Special Prosecutions, Criminal Appeals, and
Crime Victims Services Divisions which were comprised of approximately 220 employees. Penley
has 36 years of legal experience and is a retired federal prosecutor. Penley is a resident of Dallas
County, Texas.
5. Plaintiff Ryan M. Vassar (“Vassar”) is the Deputy Attorney General for Legal
Counsel at the OAG. In that role, until he was retaliated against and constructively discharged,
Vassar served as the chief legal officer for the OAG. He represented the OAG before other state
and federal governmental bodies and oversaw 60 attorneys and 30 professional staff across 5
different divisions, which are responsible for rendering approximately 50,000 legal decisions each
year. Vassar served in different roles at the OAG for over 5 years. Before joining the OAG, Vassar
4
served as a law clerk for three years at the Supreme Court of Texas. Vassar is a resident of Travis
County, Texas.
agency of the State of Texas and may be served with process by serving the Attorney General, Ken
Paxton at the Price Daniel Sr. State Building, 209 West 14th Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
7. This Court has jurisdiction because the amount in controversy exceeds the
minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. In addition, the Texas Whistleblower Act waives any
immunity that might otherwise deprive this Court of jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE §554.0035
(“A public employee who alleges a violation of this chapter may sue the employing state or local
governmental entity for the relief provided by this chapter. Sovereign immunity is waived and
abolished to the extent of liability for the relief allowed under this chapter for a violation of this
chapter.”). Furthermore, each of the Plaintiffs exhausted any administrative remedies having
participated in formal complaint procedures within the OAG with such procedures concluding
without resolution.
8. Venue is proper in Travis County because the Texas Whistleblower Act provides
that a public employee of a state governmental entity may sue in a district court of the county in
which the cause of action arises or in a district court of Travis County. TEX. GOV’T CODE
§554.007(a). This cause of action arises in Travis County, Texas as all Plaintiffs were employed
in Travis County, and worked at OAG offices near the Capitol Building in Austin, Texas in Travis
County, were fired or constructively terminated in Travis County, and were subject to acts of
retaliation in Travis County. Venue is also proper under §15.002 TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
5
because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in
$1,000,000.
10. Plaintiffs intend for discovery to be conducted in accordance with a discovery control
III. Facts
11. On August 14, 2019, FBI agents executed a search warrant at the home of Austin
real-estate investor Nate Paul. That same day, agents executed search warrants at two separate
office locations of Nate Paul’s real estate business, World Class Holdings. A long-serving and
highly respected United States Magistrate Judge issued those warrants on August 12. A fourth
search warrant was executed a few days later at a records storage unit rented by Paul’s company.
12. Paul has had many well-documented troubles in 2019 and 2020 in addition to the
execution of search warrants at his home and offices by federal law enforcement. Paul is an Austin
businessman who invests in real estate through his company, World Class Holdings and through
single-purpose limited liability companies controlled by Paul and/or World Class Holdings. In
2019 and 2020, according to media reports, at least 16 Paul-controlled entities have filed for
bankruptcy protection, and lenders have initiated foreclosure proceedings on over $250 million in
13. Also in 2020, Paul created a company for the purpose of suing a local charity, the
charity’s lawyer, and a court-appointed receiver. The district judge presiding over the case
dismissed the case shortly after the suit was filed, ruled that the suit was groundless and filed in
6
bad faith for the purpose of harassment, and sanctioned Paul’s company and his lawyer over
$225,000 for the frivolous and malicious use of the justice system.
14. Mr. Paul also spent time in 2020 making requests—both formally and informally—
that the Travis County District Attorney and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of
Texas launch criminal investigations of Mr. Paul’s perceived adversaries. By way of example, Mr.
a. The federal magistrate judge who issued the search warrants authorizing the search
of Paul’s offices and homes;
b. The FBI agents and state law enforcement agents who carried out the searches;
c. The Assistant United States Attorney who had obtained the search warrants from
the federal magistrate judge;
g. A credit union that held a lien on one of Paul’s entities’ properties; and
h. The receiver appointed by the Travis County Court to take control of certain
properties pending resolution of the lawsuit between the charity and Paul-controlled
entities.
15. Despite a very busy 2019 and 2020, Mr. Paul, age 33, also found time to enjoy his
personal friendship with the Attorney General of the State of Texas, Ken Paxton, age 57.
16. Just by way of example, in 2020, Paxton and Paul met regularly in Austin, Texas,
in meetings usually without Paxton’s staff or security detail present, and in meetings that were not
17. Nate Paul is also a major donor to Paxton’s campaign. On or about October 29,
7
18. According to an Associated Press article dated November 5, 2020, Paxton “had an
extramarital affair with a woman whom he later recommended for a job” with Paul, and whom
Paul in fact employed. According to the same news article, the woman previously worked for a
Paxton Abused the Office of the Texas Attorney General to Benefit Paul
19. During the Spring and Summer of 2020, Paxton began taking more interest in legal
matters involving Nate Paul and applying more pressure on the Plaintiffs and the other
Whistleblowers to use the personnel, legal authority and other resources of the OAG to advance
the legal and personal interests of Nate Paul and his business activities. Paxton showed a pattern
of not listening to the Whistleblowers, including Plaintiffs, when they raised valid objections to
his instructions regarding Nate Paul’s legal matters that were brought before the OAG. Plaintiffs,
along with the other Whistleblowers, became increasingly concerned over time as the Attorney
General became less rational in his decision making and more unwilling to listen to reasonable
objections to his instructions, and placed increasing, unusual priority on matters involving Paul.
20. The Whistleblowers, including Plaintiffs, ultimately formed a good faith belief that
Paxton had violated Texas criminal law, including but not limited to the laws regarding bribery,
a. Texas Penal Code section 36.02 defines bribery as a second degree felony. The
accepts or agrees to accept from another: (1) any benefit as consideration for the
as a public servant . . .; and (3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty
8
b. Texas Penal Code, section 36.03, Coercion of Public Servant or Voter, states that
servant to violate the public servant’s known legal duty.” An offense under TPC
c. Texas Penal Code, section 39.02(a)(2) Abuse of Official Capacity, states that a
any other thing of value belonging to the government . . . .” If the value of the
thing misused is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000, the offense is classified as
21. Paxton’s abuse of the OAG to benefit Paul began in or around November 2019. But
as 2020 progressed, Paxton’s efforts on Paul’s behalf became increasingly reckless, bold, and
apparent to Plaintiffs.
22. A state agency that receives a request for records under the Texas Public
Information Act and wishes to withhold documents responsive to that request based on statutory
exceptions must request a ruling from the OAG as to whether the asserted exceptions are
applicable. The OAG issues approximately 30,000 to 40,000 open records decisions each year, but
Plaintiffs are only aware of Paxton taking a personal interest in decisions that related to Paul.
23. In the Fall of 2019, lawyers for Paul issued an open records request to the Texas
State Securities Board for records related to the search of Paul’s properties in August 2019 and the
9
Board requested an open records decision from the OAG. On or about November 25, 2019, and
despite Paxton’s pressure on Whistleblower Ryan Bangert to release the records, OAG issued a
ruling that all records related to this request were not subject to disclosure due to a pending
24. On or about March 13, 2020, lawyers for Paul issued an open records request to the
Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for records related to the search of Paul’s properties
in August 2019. Because the search of Paul’s properties in August 2019 was conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI filed a brief with the OAG concerning this request, and
25. Paxton contacted Ryan Vassar, Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel,
several times related to this request. In meetings between Paxton and Vassar, Paxton revealed that
he had spoken personally with Paul about the activities that occurred on the day the search warrants
of Paul’s properties were executed. Paxton stated that he did not want to use the OAG to help the
26. Longstanding OAG precedent and sound principles indicated that disclosure of the
documents should be prevented, but Paxton directed Vassar to find a way to release the
information. Vassar struggled with this directive because allowing disclosure of the information
requested by Paul would overturn decades of settled expectations among sister law enforcement
agencies, compromise the OAG’s own law enforcement information, and likely spark innumerable
27. Paxton then personally took the file, including all the responsive documents, which
included documents sealed by a federal court, and did not return it for approximately seven to ten
10
days. Paxton also directed that the final opinion, issued on June 2, 2020, take no position on
28. On or about May 20, 2020, lawyers for Paul issued an open records request to the
OAG for the un-redacted FBI brief referenced above. Paxton asked Vassar for a copy of the un-
redacted FBI brief, and directed Vassar to find a way to release the un-redacted FBI brief in a July
24, 2020 opinion, which ultimately concluded that the FBI brief must be released.
29. The OAG has approximately 35,000 open civil litigation cases each year, but
Paxton has only taken a personal interest in one case. That case involves Paul.
30. The Roy F. and Joann Cole Mitte Foundation (“Mitte Foundation”) is a non-profit
corporation and charitable foundation located in Austin, Texas. The Mitte Foundation invested in
and was a limited partner of several entities associated with World Class Holdings, Nate Paul’s
company. In 2018, the Mitte Foundation filed suit against several of those entities controlled by
Paul’s World Class Holdings claiming, among other things, that the Mitte Foundation was being
denied access to the books and records of the companies. That litigation grew and ultimately
resulted in the court appointment of a receiver over the World Class entities.
31. The Financial Litigation and Charitable Trust Division of the OAG has the power
to intervene in any litigation involving charities if doing so will protect the assets of the charity. 2
Around January 2020, lawyers in the Charitable Trust division of the OAG filed a notice with the
court declining to intervene in the case. Paxton was not involved in this decision. However, Paxton
began to take a deep personal interest in this case in May and June of 2020 and had several
discussions with OAG staff about intervening in the case. OAG staff advised Paxton that OAG
2
See Tex. Prop. Code § 123.001, et seq
11
had no interest in intervening in the case, as the Mitte Foundation was the plaintiff in the case and
instituted the suit to protect the charity’s interest, making OAG’s intervention unnecessary.
32. Against the advice of OAG staff, including some of the Whistleblowers, and
contrary to OAG’s prior decision not to intervene, Paxton directed the Charitable Trusts Division
to intervene in the lawsuit on or about June 8, 2020 in order to exert pressure on the parties to
settle.
33. On or about July 6, 2020, Paxton asked Brickman to review the pleadings in the
case. On or about July 6, 2020, Brickman informed Paxton that OAG had no interest in the case
and should not waste resources of the OAG intervening in a dispute in which the charity – which
the OAG should have wanted to protect – was the plaintiff and represented by capable counsel in
a legitimate dispute. Additionally, Brickman informed Paxton that the parties reached a settlement
34. On or about July 22, 2020, then-First Assistant Jeff Mateer and Brickman talked
Paxton out of personally attending and appearing before the Travis County District Court in this
matter, which would have been an unprecedented event as Paxton has not appeared in any court
35. Plaintiffs saw that Paxton was seeking to exert influence in the case not to assist
the charity, but to pressure the charity to reach a settlement favorable to the World Class entities.
36. On or about October 1, 2020, then-Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
and Whistleblower Darren McCarty directed the Financial Litigation and Charitable Trusts
12
Paxton Directed a Legal Opinion to Benefit Nate Paul
37. On or about July 31, 2020, Paxton contacted Whistleblower Bangert and asked him
to look into whether restrictions on in-person gatherings due to COVID prevented the foreclosure
sales of properties. Bangert consulted Vassar. After hearing their researched views on this subject,
Paxton made clear that he wanted OAG to express a specific conclusion: that foreclosure sales
should not be permitted to continue. On August 2, 2020 at approximately 1:00 a.m., OAG issued
an informal legal opinion concluding that foreclosure sales should not be permitted to continue in
light of the then-existing restrictions on in-person gatherings to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs at the time, this opinion favored persons such as Paul who hoped to
stave off foreclosure sales. According to media reporting, on the very next day, Monday, August
3, 2020, lawyers for Paul showed Paul’s creditors a copy of Paxton’s opinion to prevent the
foreclosure sales of Paul’s properties that were scheduled for August 4, 2020.
38. The OAG has approximately 400 open criminal cases and 2,000 open criminal
investigations each year. Paxton rarely showed an interest in any pending criminal investigations,
39. In May of 2020, Paxton contacted the Travis County District Attorney and
requested a meeting to help Nate Paul present a criminal complaint. A meeting was held with the
DA’s staff. Paxton attended the meeting along with Paul and his attorney. Paul also submitted a
written complaint accusing federal law enforcement, a federal magistrate judge, Texas state law
enforcement, and a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office of violating his rights.
13
40. By letter dated June 10, 2020, The Travis County DA’s Office referred Paul’s
criminal complaint to the OAG. Paxton assigned the matter to Plaintiffs Maxwell and Penley for
investigation.
41. Maxwell scheduled an initial meeting with Paul and his attorney, Michael Wynne,
at which they stated their contentions that the federal search warrants executed in August 2019 had
been altered by a federal prosecutor after they were signed by the federal magistrate judge.
42. Penley and Maxwell held a second meeting, at which Paul and Wynne gave a
further explanation of their complaints and produced a thumb drive containing documents which
they contended would support their claims. Wynne conveyed that he had presented his concerns
about the alleged alterations of the search warrants, which were under seal at the federal District
Clerk’s office, to the magistrate judge at a hearing in February 2020, and that the judge had
released some documents to him. Maxwell and Penley advised that many of Paul’s complaints
were outside state jurisdiction, as Paul and Wynne were relating alleged violations of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that their complaint that some or all of the search warrants had
allegedly been altered by a federal prosecutor after they were signed by the federal magistrate
judge could be best investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General’s Office
(“DOJ IG”).
43. The next day, Maxwell and Penley consulted with forensic experts in the OAG
Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”) and determined that no credible evidence existed to
44. In or around this time, Paul leaked the fact that the OAG was investigating his
14
45. Soon thereafter, Paxton, Paxton’s assistant, Penley, Maxwell, Paul, Wynne, and
two CID forensic experts attended a third meeting regarding Paul’s complaints. When Penley
announced his recommendation that the investigation be closed, Paul, Paul’s attorney and Paxton
pushed back. As a result of Paxton’s surprising response, Penley thereafter requested additional
documents from Paul’s counsel, but the attorney never provided those documents despite repeated
requests. After the third meeting, it was obvious that Paxton was dissatisfied with Maxwell’s and
46. On August 18, 2020, Paxton contacted Vassar, asking him to explain how the OAG
could retain outside legal counsel. Vassar obliged, explaining that the OAG’s approval process
requires authorization from no less than 10 different OAG personnel. Various stages throughout
the OAG’s review process provide that: a contract must be drafted; it must be approved; conflicts
must be cleared; and funding must be obligated. Vassar also explained that retaining outside
counsel is usually limited to matters in which the OAG does not have the necessary experience
(e.g., patent law), license requirements (e.g., patent law or pro hac vice admission), or where an
47. On or about August 26, 2020, Paxton contacted Vassar again and asked if retaining
outside counsel to investigate criminal allegations was permissible. Vassar explained that Texas
law contemplates two unique scenarios involving the appointment of a special or outside
prosecutor. The first scenario involves a situation where a prosecutor may recuse herself to allow
the trial court to appoint an attorney pro tem as a prosecuting attorney. Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art.
2.07(a); see also Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. KP-0273 (2019). Paxton stated that a court-appointed
attorney pro tem was not acceptable. The second scenario involves a situation where a prosecuting
attorney may “request the assistance of the attorney general, and the attorney general may offer to
15
the prosecuting attorney the assistance of his office.” Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 41.102(b); 402.028(a).
Vassar cautioned, however, that he would need to defer to Penley on whether engaging outside
counsel in this situation would be appropriate, based on the allegations that had been made. Paxton
then asked Vassar to contact two potential candidates who may be willing to serve as outside legal
counsel.
48. On or about August 26, 2020, Vassar began contacting the two potential candidates
who Paxton said might be willing to serve as outside counsel. During these contacts, Vassar
explained the outside counsel process and asked both potential candidates to provide him with
their proposed hourly rates and an estimate of the cost for conducting an investigation. One of the
candidates was Brandon R. Cammack, a Houston criminal defense attorney who had been licensed
only 5 years and never served as a prosecutor. The other candidate was a veteran former state and
49. On or about September 3, 2020, Paxton announced his decision to retain Cammack
as outside counsel. Paxton instructed Vassar to draft an outside counsel contract and send it to
Cammack that same day. Paxton stated that this needed to be done immediately because the Travis
County District Attorney-elect would not be cooperative with this investigation and may rescind
the referral to the OAG. Vassar followed Paxton’s order, obtained a copy of the criminal referral,
for the first time, and prepared a draft contract for Cammack to review. At Paxton’s direction,
Vassar also sent a copy of the draft agreement to Paxton that same day.
50. On or about September 4, 2020, Cammack notified Vassar that the contract terms
were acceptable. Vassar then forwarded the draft agreement to the General Counsel Division to
16
51. On or about September 23, 2020, Cammack contacted Vassar and asked him if
Cammack could obtain an email address from the OAG or some other official documentation to
identify himself as an attorney working for the OAG, because a certain prosecutor’s office was
asking for verification of Cammack’s relationship with the OAG. Vassar explained to Cammack
that his contract had not been approved yet, but that he would discuss potential ways to document
Cammack’s involvement in an investigation with relevant OAG personnel. Later that same day,
Paxton called Vassar, asking if Cammack could obtain an OAG email address and asking why
Cammack’s contract had not been approved yet. Vassar explained that the process can take time
due to the multiple approvals required. Paxton asked who was currently reviewing the agreement
and exclaimed that he was “tired of his people not doing what he had asked.” Upon checking the
OAG’s contract-approval application, Vassar identified that Penley was currently reviewing the
52. On or about September 24, 2020, Penley refused to sign a memo to approve the
hiring of Cammack to take over the investigation of Paul’s complaint. Penley believed that the
53. Plaintiffs later learned that, on or about September 3, 2020, Paxton had asked
Cammack, to begin work as an outside counsel despite not having a contract approved to retain
him.
54. Matters came to a head during the week of September 28, when Cammack obtained
39 grand jury subpoenas from the Travis County Grand Jury. All of the subpoenas were outside
the appropriate scope of the June 10 referral from the Travis County District Attorney’s office
concerning Paul’s complaints against federal law enforcement and judicial officials. Some of the
subpoenas caused the Whistleblowers, including Plaintiffs, to believe Cammack, Paul and Paxton
17
were using them to obtain documents related to Paul’s civil cases. The Whistleblowers learned
that one of the subpoenas was served on an entity that was involved with one of Paul’s properties
and Cammack was accompanied by Paul’s attorney, Michael Wynne, when that subpoena was
served. On September 30, the Whistleblowers learned of a second grand jury subpoena served on
an entity that had business dealings with Paul. Other subpoenas were designed to harass law
enforcement agents and federal prosecutors. The subpoenas shocked the Whistleblowers because
they were highly improper and far outside the bounds of any reasonable investigation. Paxton and
Paul were using their so-called “special prosecutor” to bring the weight of the OAG to bear on
Paul’s enemies.
Plaintiffs Make a Good Faith Reports about Paxton’s Abuse of Power to Law Enforcement
concluded that Paxton appeared to be using the resources and authority of the OAG to benefit the
personal and financial interests of his friend and campaign donor, Nate Paul, made good faith
seven of the Whistleblowers signed and sent to the OAG’s Director of Human Resources a letter
notifying OAG that they had reported to an appropriate law enforcement authority a good faith
belief of suspected violations of law committed by Paxton and OAG. Plaintiff Maxwell did not
sign the October 1 letter because he was out of state on vacation at the time the letter was drafted,
but he was in complete agreement with the letter. He sent a separate written notice to Human
Plaintiff Maxwell would have signed the letter had he been present to do so. The October 1 letter
states:
18
Paxton and OAG Take Immediate Adverse Employment Actions
56. Paxton swiftly began retaliating against the Whistleblowers both individually and
as a group. Paxton’s acts were deliberately calculated to try to impugn these public servants,
denigrate their legitimate, good-faith complaints about Paxton’s corruption, attempt to silence or
divide them, and deter others from making such complaints about Paxton’s unlawful conduct.
Friday, October 2 -- Paxton Suspends and Later Terminates Penley and Maxwell
57. On October 2, one day after the letter to OAG Human Resources, Plaintiffs Penley
and Maxwell were placed on “investigative leave” at the direction of Paxton. Their email accounts
and building access badges were disabled. Paxton and the OAG refused to tell Penley or Maxwell
what was being investigated or even whether they were accused of wrongdoing of any kind. For
the next 2 weeks, the OAG made no attempts to interview Penley or Maxell as part of any alleged
investigation. On October 15, newly appointed First Assistant Brent Webster 3 extended Penley’s
and Maxwell’s respective investigative leaves to Monday, November 2, again without giving any
explanation for placing them on that status or disclosing the reason for the investigation or the
scope of it. Penley made several requests, by phone call and email, seeking that information, but
never received a response from Paxton, Webster or anyone else at the OAG.
3
Whistleblower Jeff Mateer, the previous First Assistant Attorney General, resigned on October 2, 2020.
19
Saturday, October 3 – Paxton and OAG Smear the Whistleblowers
following statement:
The complaint filed against Attorney General Paxton was done to impede an
ongoing investigation into criminal wrongdoing by public officials including
employees of this office. Making false claims is a very serious matter and we plan
to investigate this to the fullest extent of the law.
59. This statement was blatantly false in numerous respects and clearly intended to
intimidate and retaliate against the Whistleblowers. First, the reports to law enforcement were not
made “to impede an ongoing criminal investigation.” Rather, the Whistleblowers’ reports to law
enforcement were made based on their good faith belief that Attorney General Paxton was abusing
the Office of Attorney General to benefit a campaign donor and private individual.
60. Further, there was no OAG investigation into “employees of this office” as Paxton
claimed in his press release. Paxton was trying to mislead the public into believing that the
Whistleblowers themselves were under investigation for criminal misconduct when they went to
law enforcement with their concerns about Paxton. This false statement was clearly intended to
61. Paxton also asserted in the October 3 statement that the Whistleblowers made “false
claims” to law enforcement. This too was a lie. The Whistleblowers provided only accurate
information to law enforcement. Moreover, Paxton did not even know on October 3 what
information the Whistleblowers had provided to law enforcement. Paxton was certainly aware of
his own corrupt conduct and worried about it being exposed, but he did not know what specifically
the Whistleblowers had reported and therefore had no basis upon which to accuse seven of his
most senior staff of making false claims to law enforcement. Nor did he seek any transparency,
20
the appointment of any truly neutral or objective special investigator, contact any proper law
enforcement agency, or act in any way as a proper steward of the OAG would act.
62. Paxton punctuated his October 3 statement by threatening the Whistleblowers. The
final sentence of his official statement read, “Making false claims is a serious matter and we plan
63. It is hard to imagine a more egregious act of retaliation against a whistleblower than
what Paxton began on Saturday morning, October 3. The life’s work of each of the Whistleblowers
was the law or law enforcement or both. Their credibility and integrity are their essential stock-in-
trade. Paxton’s statement was a pack of lies intended to hit the Whistleblowers where he thought
it would hurt them most: false claims that the Whistleblowers made untrue accusations to law
enforcement and had impeded a lawful investigation and a threat of investigation and legal
consequences. The potential and certainly-intended effect would be to chill further revelations
about Paxton’s wrongdoing and try to smear the good name, character, and reputation of these
public servants. Paxton’s actions were straight out of the playbook he had been running against
the enemies of his friend and donor Nate Paul. Now, on a Saturday morning less than 48 hours
after learning of the Whistleblowers’ reports to law enforcement, Paxton was running the same
64. Over the weekend of October 3-4, media continued reporting about the relationship
and connections between Paxton and Nate Paul and Paxton’s personal involvement in the use of
his office to investigate and attack Paul’s enemies. In response to this more detailed reporting,
Paxton again treated the official, taxpayer-funded Communications Department of the OAG as an
21
instrument of retaliation. The OAG Communications Division released this official statement on
The Texas attorney general’s office was referred a case from Travis county
regarding allegations of crimes relating to the FBI, other government agencies and
individuals. My obligation as attorney general is to conduct an investigation upon
such referral. Because employees from my office impeded the investigation and
because I knew Nate Paul I ultimately decided to hire an outside independent
prosecutor to make his own independent determination. Despite the effort by rogue
employees and their false allegations I will continue to seek justice in Texas and
will not be resigning.
65. The first two sentences of Paxton’s October 5 statement were intended to mislead
the public into believing that, in conducting the investigations of Nate Paul’s enemies, OAG was
merely carrying out a legal obligation to investigate a matter referred from the Travis County
District Attorney. Of course, this lie by Paxton was calculated to counter the emerging truth that
Paxton was personally orchestrating the use of the OAG to attack Paul’s enemies.
66. Two days later, the OAG Communications Division released another official
statement at Paxton’s direction, reiterating some of the prior statement’s untruths and falsely
implying that the Cammack contract had been approved through proper OAG procedures:
Employee, Ryan Vassar, drafted the contract for outside counsel and communicated
directly with Independent Counsel Brandon Cammock to assist in the execution of
the contract. The Attorney General signed the contract.
Mr. Vassar included the job description in this contract that legally authorized
Independent Counsel Brandan Cammock to act. Mr. Vassar also provided this
contract directly to Attorney General Paxton for his signature.
67. This official communication omits the key facts that what Vassar circulated to both
Cammack and Paxton was clearly labeled a “draft” contract, prepared at Paxton’s direct command;
that (as Paxton well knows) Vassar lacks authority to individually authorize retention of outside
counsel; and that the required OAG approvals for the Cammack contract were never obtained.
Vassar demanded correction of the false statement, but his request was ignored.
22
68. It was not only the Whistleblowers who were alarmed by Paxton’s false October 5
and 7 statements. Margaret Moore, the District Attorney of Travis County, rightly and justly called
Paxton out on his misleading statements. In response to Paxton’s October 5 and 7 statements,
On June 10, 2020, my office sent to David Maxwell [the then-current Deputy
Director of Law Enforcement Division for the OAG] a letter referring a Request to
Investigate (RTI) filed in our office by Nate Paul. You asked my office to hear his
complaints. The referral to the OAG was made with your approval. We did not
conduct any investigation into the merits of the matters complained of….
The referral cannot and should not be used as any indication of a need for
investigation, a desire on the Travis County D.A.’s part for an investigation to take
place, or an endorsement of your acceptance of the referral.
My office has closed this file and will take no further action. Furthermore, I have
instructed my employees to have no further contact with you or your office
regarding this matter.
69. The District Attorney closed her letter to Paxton by expressing her evident alarm at
Paxton’s conduct:
70. As recently as yesterday, November 11, 2020, Paxton repeated in the New York
Times the lie that that his investigation of the magistrate judge and state and federal law
23
Monday, October 5 – Wednesday, October 28 –
Paxton Removes Duties, Tries to Intimidate Whistleblowers
71. On Friday October 2, 2020, First Assistant Attorney General Jeff Mateer, who was
one of the Whistleblowers, resigned. Paxton quickly hired Brent Webster, who was previously
with the Williamson County, Texas D.A.’s office, to replace Mateer as First Assistant Attorney
General. October 5 was Webster’s first day on the job. At 9:00 a.m., Webster began his first day
by dismissing Plaintiff Brickman from a very important legislative meeting with Attorney General
Paxton. In an obvious effort to embarrass Brickman, Webster waited until the meeting began and
then instructed Brickman, with great ceremony but without explanation, to leave the meeting. As
the Deputy Attorney General for Policy and Strategic Initiatives, Brickman had always participated
in these meetings with the First Assistant and/or Attorney General Paxton. Removing Brickman
from the meeting was clearly intended to diminish Brickman’s duties and responsibilities to punish
him, to try to intimidate and embarrass or humiliate him, and to send a message to other employees
that Brickman was being punished and stripped of responsibilities and thereby deter similar
attempts to complain about or hold Paxton accountable for his official misconduct.
72. Later that same morning, First Assistant Brent Webster arrived at Brickman’s office
escorted by an armed peace officer who identified herself as Sergeant Amy Biggs. Mr. Webster
repeatedly insisted that he speak alone with Brickman. Brickman politely offered to meet with Mr.
Webster in the presence of other deputies but prudently and respectfully declined to meet with Mr.
Webster alone or in the presence only of the armed guard accompanying Webster. Confronting
Brickman – in needless and unprecedented, banana republic-like, fashion with an armed guard –
and insisting on meeting alone for unspecified reasons was clearly an attempt by Webster to
intimidate Brickman.
24
73. About thirty minutes later, Webster came by Brickman’s office, saw him talking on
his cell phone, and instructed Brickman to take his cell phone to his car and leave it there. At the
time, Brickman was talking on his cell phone with a colleague, Senior Counsel to Attorney General
Paxton, Zina Bash. Webster’s instruction to take the phone to the car was not consistent with any
rule or policy of the office. Other employees also carry and use personal cell phones. In fact, Paxton
himself carries multiple personal cell phones, including routinely cycling through “burner” cell
phones. This needless instruction to Brickman was not just a bush-league attempt at intimidation;
not having his cell phone posed a significant issue for Brickman because his school-age children
only have his personal cell phone number. Additionally, Brickman is the guardian for his 96 year-
old grandmother who suffered a recent fall and broke her back, and Brickman coordinates her care.
74. Still on Monday, October 5, Brickman learned that the Scheduler, a position that
reported to Brickman, had been replaced without any involvement by Brickman. This was yet
another power play by Webster, clearly intended to demote and demean Brickman by removing
responsibilities.
75. After Mateer resigned and Maxwell and Penley were placed on leave, the remaining
Whistleblowers and other employees of the OAG watched as their colleagues were systematically
76. On October 8, 2020, during a regular meeting of the OAG’s deputies, directors, and
other senior members, Whistleblower McCarty asked Webster and Paxton whether the OAG
would continue to make disparaging remarks to the media about the Whistleblowers. Paxton did
25
77. On October 13, Paxton conducted an interview with the Southeast Texas Record in
which he once again maligned the Whistleblowers, stating that his deputies and former first
assistant engaged in “an effort to cover up the reality of what really happened [with Paul].”
78. Several of the Whistleblowers had job duties removed, were excluded from regular
meetings, and encountered the armed guard that had begun accompanying Webster. Some
indicated in formal complaints to the OAG that they believed their OAG issued electronic devices
were being monitored and were told that they were “under investigation.” The Whistleblowers
also received “litigation hold” letters concerning Paul that instructed them to preserve all
correspondence and documents related to his complaints. Someone even placed empty boxes near
the offices of some of the Whistleblowers. All of these actions were overt and intended to dissuade
other OAG employees from engaging in protected conduct and to create a hostile work
79. On October 19, Ryan Vassar, one of the Whistleblowers, received an email from
Webster asking to meet in Webster’s office at 1:00. Vassar, who was working remotely at the time,
acknowledged Webster’s email and reported to Webster’s office. Webster invited Vassar into his
office and left the door open while armed guard, Amy Biggs, sat in a chair outside the door. After
investigative leave for two weeks. Vassar asked multiple times why he was being investigated, but
Webster refused to answer. Webster, instead, said that the investigation was “open-ended.” At the
end of the meeting, Webster directed Vassar to leave his agency-issued laptop and cell phone on
Webster’s desk. Webster and Sergeant Biggs then escorted Vassar to his office to collect his
personal belongings, parading him around the building in front of his colleagues in what could
have only been intended to demean Vassar and intimidate him and the other Whistleblowers. After
26
collecting his belongings, Sergeant Biggs then accompanied Vassar in the elevator and escorted
him outside the building. Vassar’s leave was supposed to end on November 2, 2020, but his earlier
request for clarification went unanswered by anyone at the OAG until the next day, November 3,
2020, when the Human Resources Division notified him that his leave had been extended for
another 80 hours. Thus, Vassar has, without justification or explanation, been completely stripped
80. On October 20, Plaintiff Brickman and Whistleblowers Lacey Mase were
wrongfully terminated by Paxton and Webster for making their whistleblower report.
83. As of the date of this filing, less than six weeks after they in good faith reported
Paxton’s wrongdoing to appropriate law enforcement authorities, Vassar is the only Whistleblower
who remains technically employed at OAG, although he remains placed on leave without
explanation.
Paxton Uses His Report to the Texas Legislature as a Tool to Further Retaliate
Against the Whistleblowers.
84. Texas State Representative Jeff Leach is the Republican Chairman of the House
Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. Rep. Leach represents parts of Collin County,
where Paxton is from. Rep. Leach has been a political ally of Paxton’s. On October 9, 2010, Rep.
Leach wrote to Paxton, “Texans have good reason to be concerned that the important work of [the
Office of the Attorney General] may not be possible under your continued leadership. If there is
any truth whatsoever to the factual and legal claims of your own senior staff, I believe you must
27
85. Rep. Leach expressed that his paramount concern was that the operations of the
OAG “continue without interruption and the trust of the people of Texas in their Chief Law
Enforcement Officer must be restored.” Rep. Leach requested that Paxton provide a written report
to all members of the Texas Legislature as to what specific steps are being taken by Paxton and
Brent Webster to ensure that the effective operation of the OAG continue in full force and effect.
Rep. Leach asked for the report to be provided within seven (7) days.
86. OAG Director of Legislative Affairs Ryan Fisher emailed various staffers
requesting their input into the letter. Although several of the Whistleblowers raised concerns with
the operation of the office and the effect of the retaliation on pending matters, none of this criticism
made its way into the response to Chairman Leach, which on information and belief was written
87. Paxton sent his written report to Chairman Leach and the 181 members of Texas
Legislature on October 16, 2020. The report was a barely-two-page, self-aggrandizing letter that
failed to respond to Rep. Leach’s inquiry in any substantive respect. The letter was a combination
of misleading statements, material omissions, and praise for work that mostly began well before
First Assistant Webster assumed his new role on October 5, 2020 and that had no bearing on the
88. Paxton used the report requested by Rep. Leach to again defame and retaliate
against the Whistleblowers. Paxton’s letter began with a lie and a smear: “Thank you for your
October 9 letter asking whether OAG operations continue apace despite the false claims made by
some OAG employees.” Rep. Leach never said the allegations the Whistleblowers took to law
enforcement were “false claims.” Paxton was yet again making that allegation to smear and
28
discredit the Whistleblowers, and he was using a formal, written report requested by a leader in
89. Notably, in his response to a request for specific steps he was taking to ensure the
office was functioning effectively, Paxton failed to even inform Rep. Leach that at least five of the
Whistleblowers had recently filed formal internal grievances alleging that Paxton was harassing
and using his office to punish the Whistleblowers. Those complaints from high-ranking deputies
were filed in writing and addressed serious concerns about the functioning of the Office of
Attorney General. Yet Paxton’s report to the Legislature made no mention of the complaints.
Paxton’s report to the Legislature was to the effect of, “all is well.”
October 9 -- Paxton Claims to Shut Down Cammack Investigation of Nate Paul Enemies
90. At the end of a busy Friday, October 9, Paxton claimed to be concluding the
Cammack investigation of Nate Paul’s enemies. OAG issued a statement from Paxton saying, “In
this case, we can only investigate in response to a request for assistance from the District
Attorney’s office. This investigation is now closed.” Subsequent events suggest this was yet
91. Although Paxton told the public on October 9 that the investigation into Nate Paul’s
enemies “is now closed,” after 9:00 p.m. on October 19, several of the Whistleblowers received
an odd email from First Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster. It read in part, “Given your
conflicts, you are instructed not to work on any OAG business relating to your allegations against
92. Plaintiffs were puzzled by what matters still pending in the OAG might relate to
Nate Paul or Paxton. One Plaintiff, Blake Brickman, wrote back the next morning seeking
29
clarification. Brickman wrote to Webster:
Webster wrote, “Let’s meet at 1:30 in my office to discuss this.” Brickman expressed reluctance
to meet with Webster to speak about Nate Paul related matters. Brickman offered to meet with
Webster at 1:30 with a fellow deputy attorney general present. Brickman also pointed out that,
since the directive to stay away from Nate Paul or “related” matters was made in writing, it was
appropriate that he receive in writing a response identifying those matters. But Webster was
adamant that they meet alone to discuss these unknown Nate Paul related matters that Webster was
94. Webster had no intention of telling Brickman about the Nate Paul matters he was
referring to in his email from the night before. When Brickman arrived at Webster’s office,
30
Webster, an armed guard, and a human resources employee were present. Webster brought
Brickman into the office and fired him. Webster said Brickman had been “insubordinate.”
95. On or about October 23, 2020, 3 weeks after Maxwell was put on investigative
leave, the OAG collected Maxwell’s agency issued laptop and cell phone. On October 28, nearly
1 month after he was put on investigative leave, the OAG requested Maxwell provide his
passwords.
96. On or about the afternoon of October 28, 2020, nearly 1 month after Penley was
put on investigative leave, Penley received a request to return the following day his agency issued
97. On Friday October 30, 2020, Penley and Maxwell were instructed to report to
separate buildings at the Austin office of the OAG on November 2, 2020 at 9 a.m. OAG’s Human
Director Maxwell:
Please be advised that you are directed to report to the William P. Clements
Building on Monday , November 2, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. Please proceed to 205J (large
training room) on the 2nd floor. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Thank you for your cooperation.
HR-Help
98. Penley asked what the purpose of the meeting was and was only told it was “work-
related.”
99. Maxwell and Penley appeared as requested at the OAG’s Austin office on
November 2, 2020, and they both experienced even more irregularities, harassment, and
retaliation. Contrary to Texas law and Paxton’s instituted written policy preventing the disarming
of licensed peace officers, Brent Webster issued orders to OAG staff to prevent Maxwell from
31
entering if armed, despite Maxwell’s status and distinguished career. The OAG violated Maxwell’s
rights as a licensed peace officer, with a valid License to Carry, to possess a legal weapon at a
State Office, contrary to Article 30.06. Penley was escorted up the elevator and into the Executive
Conference Room by an armed guard, who remained stationed outside the room throughout the
100. Penley and Maxwell were subjected to hostile conditions and conduct throughout
the entire day. Webster refused to tell Penley or Maxwell why they had been placed on
investigative leave, the reason for the investigation or the scope of it. He also denied Penley’s
request to have one of the other Whistleblowers attend the meeting as a witness. Instead, Webster
proceeded to interrogate Penley and Maxwell in a hostile and aggressive manner. The OAG
engaged in a charade under the guise of an administrative investigation interview, but it was
apparent that the Whistleblowers’ complaints about Paxton’s misconduct were the driving force
for the events of November 2. Webster pressured both Maxwell and Penley to resign, which they
refused to do. At the end of the day, the OAG wrongfully terminated Maxwell’s and Penley’s
101. On October 16 and again on October 29, Plaintiff Brickman initiated action under
any applicable grievance or appeal procedure of the OAG relating to suspension or termination of
employment or adverse personnel action pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE §554.006(a). Although the
agency had 60 days to investigate his complaint pursuant the Whistleblower Act, OAG HR
responded to the October 16 complaint in less than 24 hours stating that there was no complaint
procedure available to Deputy Attorney Generals like Brickman and immediately dismissing the
complaint.
32
102. On October 12 and again on November 10, 2020, Plaintiff Penley initiated action
under any applicable grievance or appeal procedure of the OAG relating to suspension or
§554.006(a). OAG HR responded to the Friday, October 12 complaint by letter dated October 16
stating that there was no complaint procedure available to Deputy Attorney Generals like Penley
and immediately dismissing the complaint. Penley subsequently inquired whether there was
another internal administrative procedure at the OAG by which he could appeal his wrongful
termination claim other than the formal complaint process under which he had attempted to initiate
a complaint on October 12. By letter dated November 10, the Formal Complaint Officer replied:
104. On October 13 and again on November 4, 2020, Plaintiff Maxwell initiated action
under any applicable grievance or appeal procedure of the OAG relating to suspension or
§554.006(a).
105. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff Vassar initiated an action under any applicable
adverse personnel action pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE §554.006(a). His formal complaint
detailed a litany of unlawful and retaliatory actions taken against him by Paxton and OAG since
his good-faith report to appropriate law enforcement authorities of legal violations by the OAG
and by the Attorney General Ken Paxton. Although the agency had 60 days to investigate his
33
complaint pursuant the Whistleblower Act, OAG HR responded to the October 15 complaint the
very next day stating that there was no complaint procedure available to Deputy Attorney Generals
106. On November 5, 2020, Paxton’s campaign spokesperson, Ian Prior, who is not an
OAG employee and is therefore without knowledge on any OAG personnel matters, referred to
Plaintiffs in a news article as “desperate former employees trying to spin a false narrative”.
Mr. Paxton told the New York Times in a statement that the latest controversy was
created by members of his staff who had opposed his decisions without having all
the facts and who made ‘their disagreement noisy and public’ in an attempt to
undermine the integrity of the office.
109. Plaintiffs were all public employees employed by the OAG, which is a state
110. Plaintiffs all in good faith made reports to law enforcement authorities of violations
of criminal law by the OAG and by the Attorney General Ken Paxton. The OAG and Paxton
111. Plaintiffs were subsequently subjected to adverse personnel actions by OAG and
they made. The adverse employment actions would not have been taken against them had they not
made the good-faith reports to law enforcement. Each of the adverse employment actions was
34
committed within 90 days of the reports to law enforcement, and in some cases within 1 business
day of Paxton’s learning of the reports. Thus, under Texas law, there is a presumption that the
adverse employment actions were taken because the employee made the report to law enforcement.
TEX. GOV’T CODE §554.004(a). In addition, the circumstances of the actions prove that the adverse
actions were taken because of the reports of Attorney General Paxton’s criminal conduct to law
enforcement.
112. The adverse employment actions have caused Plaintiffs damages, including but not
limited to past lost wages, past and future lost benefits, loss of future earnings and earning capacity,
harm to his reputation, emotional pain, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.
113. Plaintiffs seek legal and other equitable remedies, reinstatement to their former
positions or equivalent positions and to have lost fringe benefits and seniority rights reinstated,
114. Plaintiffs have all invoked any available grievance or appeal procedure.
115. All conditions precedent have been met, waived, or otherwise been satisfied to
V. Jury Demand
116. Having tendered the appropriate fee, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
117. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned attorneys to prosecute this case and seek to
be awarded their reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs of court.
118. Pursuant to TEX. GOV’T CODE §554.008(a), Plaintiffs hereby request the District
Attorney of Travis County, Texas to intervene in this suit and seek the imposition of a civil penalty
35
of $15,000 against any supervisor, including Ken Paxton, for each adverse personnel action taken
119. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plainitffs request that Defendant
disclose, within fifty (50) days of the service of this request, the information and materials
Plaintiffs respectfully request that they have judgment against Defendants for:
a. Actual damages;
losses.
positions;
e. Exemplary damages;
f. Reasonable attorneys’ fees for prosecution of this case at trial and on appeal;
36
Respectfully submitted,
37