BHEF v Terri Leo Wilson … Words Matter …

By Gloria Way

  Holly Hansen, reporter for The Texan, a respected online political news source, wrote an article on January 29, 2026, titled “Heated GOP Primary for Southeast Texas House District Draws Scrutiny Over Public School Education Foundation Spending”. The article was about Texas House District 23 incumbent Terri Leo Wilson being challenged by Mont Belvieu developer Nathan Watkins in the Republican primary. Leo Wilson easily won the primary.

 For the article Hansen interviewed both Leo Wilson and Watkins and asked appropriate, probing questions. Hansen asked Watkins about his position as vice-president of Americus Holdings and his position as a director on the Barbers Hill Education Foundation (BHEF). Hansen referred to the business dealings of American Holdings with BHEF, and if there could be a possible conflict of interest in these business dealings since Watkins serves as a foundation director and Americus vice president. Watkins stated emphatically “no”, that there is no conflict of interest.

  Hansen asked Leo Wilson her thoughts on why Watkins is running against her and Leo Wilson responded referring to the revelations of the business dealings between Americus and BHEF, “I think based on what I have discovered between the ISD and the education foundation and his directorship that he is running to make legal what may be illegal.”

  Mostly unknown at the time this statement was made by Leo Wilson, The State of Texas Attorney General Office and the Texas Education Agency were already “investigating” BHEF for questionable financial dealings regarding its $175million net worth and, Barber’s Hill Independent School Districting (BHISD) “gifting” BHEF about $41million in taxpayer money over several years.

  Greg Poole, superintendent of BHISD and executive director of BHEF, said in an affidavit that concerned citizens and BHEF donors read the quote by Leo Wilson on her Facebook page and various social media posts, and immediately filed suit against Leo Wilson. The lawsuit demanded an immediately temporary restraining order and ordered Leo Wilson to take down all postings in which she has made false and defamatory statements about BHEF

  BHEF claims that Leo Wilson’s statement of “illegal” conduct by BHEF constitutes (1) defamation, libel and slander and (2) business disparagement (injurious falsehood) which discourages donations, etc., to BHEF.

  In turn, Leo Wilson sought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit under Texas Citizens Participation Act which states : The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), passed in 2011 and amended in 2019, is an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) that threaten free speech rights, such as defamation or frivolous lawsuits. The law is designed to protect citizens from retaliatory, meritless lawsuits meant to silence free speech on public concerns. It allows for rapid dismissal of such lawsuits within 60 days of service and permits defendants to recover attorney fees.

  After Leo Wilson filed her motion for dismissal, BHEF filed a “non-suit”. A non-suit is a court judgment that terminates a lawsuit, often because the plaintiff fails to prove their case. It can be interpreted that the plaintiff (BHEF) cannot prove its case and wishes to withdraw its lawsuit.

  A hearing was held in the 344^th District Court on Tuesday, April 7^th, with Judge Randy McDonald presiding, to rule on the dismissal of the lawsuit despite the non-suit filed by BHEF.

  After two hours and 15 minutes of arguments and “discussion”, McDonald told the Court that despite wishing this lawsuit by BHEF had never been filed, that some may even consider it a “frivolous” lawsuit, and the defense pleading that BHEF has the burden of proof on their claims that Leo Wilson’s statement has caused donations to dry up and have not presented evidence to prove it, and the plaintiff filed a non-suit, and with McDonald himself questioning whether the timing of the BHEF’s lawsuit was meant to influence the election, and insinuating that despite in whose favor he rules, BHEF should pay Leo Wilson’s attorney fees, McDonald said that his ruling would be based solely on one issue, procedure 166a which states: the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a governs summary judgment practice, allowing a court to decide all or part of a case without a full trial.

  McDonald’s argument is based on Leo Wilson’s statement “I think based on what I have discovered between the ISD and the education foundation and his directorship that he (Watkins) is running to make legal made be illegal.” McDonald asserts that the words “on what I have discovered” can imply that Leo Wilson made inquiries/investigated as to whether BHEF was acting illegally and believes that they are acting illegally, and is therefore, accusing BHEF of acting illegally, or not. During the hearing, McDonald repeatedly said “words matter”.

  McDonald stated that those words need to be interpreted as to whether it was a statement of opinion or a statement of fact, and that only a jury can make that determination. He said, “A judge cannot put his opinion above the decision of a jury.”

  McDonald denied the dismissal request. The District Clerk’s website states that Cause No. 26DCV0142 – Case Disposed. In general, “disposed” can be summed up as “case closed.” Whether the matter will be revisited depends largely on how it was closed and why. One can never assume that the disposition of a case means it is over for good – legal battles are not always so cut and dry. Through the appeals process, the introduction of new evidence, a party not cooperating with a judgment, or by possibly reopening a case in another court, it is entirely possible for disposed cases to require legal attention in the future.

  Leo Wilson told The Seabreeze Beacon that she is seriously considering an appeal.