1
00:07:30,100 --> 00:07:32,100
>> Paxson: good morning,

2
00:07:32,613 --> 00:07:34,515
everyone.

3
00:07:34,515 --> 00:07:36,383
As mayor pro tem, I call this

4
00:07:36,383 --> 00:07:38,840
meeting to order.

5
00:07:38,840 --> 00:07:39,453
MS. Rebecca, if you can take

6
00:07:39,453 --> 00:07:41,453
roll, please?

7
00:07:55,369 --> 00:07:56,838
[Roll call]

8
00:07:56,838 --> 00:07:58,406
>> Huerta: mayor pro tem and

9
00:07:58,406 --> 00:07:59,206
council, a quorum of the council

10
00:07:59,206 --> 00:08:00,474
and the required charter

11
00:08:00,474 --> 00:08:01,575
officers are present to conduct

12
00:08:01,575 --> 00:08:02,876
the meeting.

13
00:08:02,876 --> 00:08:04,876
>> Paxson: thank you.

14
00:08:05,512 --> 00:08:07,782
At this time, I would like to go

15
00:08:07,782 --> 00:08:08,482
to our next item, which is

16
00:08:08,482 --> 00:08:09,684
public comment.

17
00:08:09,684 --> 00:08:11,852
Public comment will be limited

18
00:08:11,852 --> 00:08:12,753
to one minute per speaker this

19
00:08:12,753 --> 00:08:14,753
morning.

20
00:08:19,461 --> 00:08:22,497
And first we have samuel friar.

21
00:08:22,497 --> 00:08:24,166
>> good morning.

22
00:08:24,166 --> 00:08:26,134
Samuel andre friar.

23
00:08:26,134 --> 00:08:28,169
I just wanted to say I'm neither

24
00:08:28,169 --> 00:08:30,172
here to support the mayor nor am

25
00:08:30,172 --> 00:08:31,807
I here to support those who have

26
00:08:31,807 --> 00:08:33,807
filed the petition.

27
00:08:37,412 --> 00:08:41,120
I'm actually here for one thing,

28
00:08:43,819 --> 00:08:46,287
and that's to encourage the

29
00:08:46,287 --> 00:08:47,550
tribunal to be forthright,

30
00:08:47,550 --> 00:08:48,791
truthful, unbiased, and carry

31
00:08:48,791 --> 00:08:51,791
those procedures in a way

32
00:08:54,129 --> 00:08:55,364
without any ulterior motives.

33
00:08:55,364 --> 00:08:57,199
The good thing is we're doing

34
00:08:57,199 --> 00:08:58,000
this so we can possibly get

35
00:08:58,000 --> 00:08:59,468
things on record.

36
00:08:59,468 --> 00:09:00,536
That's the good thing.

37
00:09:00,536 --> 00:09:01,704
Regardless of the outcome, that

38
00:09:01,704 --> 00:09:03,138
is a very good thing.

39
00:09:03,138 --> 00:09:06,542
I wanted to say one thing, in

40
00:09:06,542 --> 00:09:08,310
the bible, in proverbs 18:17 it

41
00:09:08,310 --> 00:09:12,247
says the first one to plead his

42
00:09:12,247 --> 00:09:14,160
cause seems right until his

43
00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:14,283
neighbor comes and examines

44
00:09:14,283 --> 00:09:16,218
him.

45
00:09:16,218 --> 00:09:18,487
Keep that in mind and I pray we

46
00:09:18,487 --> 00:09:20,210
will do the right thing when it

47
00:09:20,210 --> 00:09:20,356
comes to this.

48
00:09:20,356 --> 00:09:22,356
Thank you.

49
00:09:24,626 --> 00:09:26,626
>> Paxson: thank you.

50
00:09:27,229 --> 00:09:29,629
Melinda de la santos.

51
00:09:29,765 --> 00:09:31,700
>> good morning.

52
00:09:31,700 --> 00:09:31,833
Melinda de la santos, district

53
00:09:31,833 --> 00:09:33,269
2.

54
00:09:33,269 --> 00:09:34,804
I was determined to keep an open

55
00:09:34,804 --> 00:09:35,805
mind until I heard the evidence

56
00:09:35,805 --> 00:09:37,106
on both sides.

57
00:09:37,106 --> 00:09:38,641
However, I didn't think I was

58
00:09:38,641 --> 00:09:39,875
going to hear much evidence

59
00:09:39,875 --> 00:09:41,710
yesterday.

60
00:09:41,710 --> 00:09:44,647
No disrespect, from flood, but

61
00:09:44,647 --> 00:09:45,882
you pulled a DR. Fauci on me.

62
00:09:45,882 --> 00:09:47,117
However, after hearing the

63
00:09:47,117 --> 00:09:49,685
evidence, I was wondering is

64
00:09:49,685 --> 00:09:53,189
there such a thing as a rico

65
00:09:53,189 --> 00:09:54,560
ruling for malfeasance,

66
00:09:54,560 --> 00:09:54,290
incompetence, and willful

67
00:09:54,290 --> 00:09:55,391
neglect?

68
00:09:55,391 --> 00:09:56,792
Throughout this whole process,

69
00:09:56,792 --> 00:09:58,327
from the beginning of this

70
00:09:58,327 --> 00:09:59,963
application all the way to the

71
00:09:59,963 --> 00:10:01,640
signed contract, this appears to

72
00:10:01,640 --> 00:10:03,367
be red flags everywhere.

73
00:10:03,367 --> 00:10:07,470
Just to name a few, you know,

74
00:10:07,470 --> 00:10:07,971
requesting for funds for new

75
00:10:07,971 --> 00:10:09,971
fema requirements.

76
00:10:12,208 --> 00:10:12,508
Disappearance of dates from

77
00:10:12,508 --> 00:10:13,544
screenshots.

78
00:10:13,544 --> 00:10:15,944
Significant disparities of money

79
00:10:16,790 --> 00:10:16,980
granted between agencies.

80
00:10:16,980 --> 00:10:18,648
Fema requirements versus

81
00:10:18,648 --> 00:10:20,350
street-level activation.

82
00:10:20,350 --> 00:10:22,750
Contracts signed before the

83
00:10:23,530 --> 00:10:24,821
second reading of city council.

84
00:10:24,821 --> 00:10:26,990
The four turned into a one.

85
00:10:26,990 --> 00:10:28,626
And the verbiage of the second

86
00:10:28,626 --> 00:10:29,292
reading differing from the

87
00:10:29,292 --> 00:10:31,161
first.

88
00:10:31,161 --> 00:10:32,128
All I'm asking is for truth and

89
00:10:32,128 --> 00:10:32,562
transparency.

90
00:10:32,562 --> 00:10:34,130
Thank you.

91
00:10:34,130 --> 00:10:36,130
>> Paxson: thank you.

92
00:10:46,844 --> 00:10:48,844
Kathy fulton.

93
00:10:51,682 --> 00:10:53,682
>> hi.

94
00:10:55,152 --> 00:10:56,120
My name is kathy fulton.

95
00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:58,588
I'm from port aransas, texas.

96
00:10:58,588 --> 00:10:59,223
I want to say one thing, port

97
00:10:59,223 --> 00:11:00,325
aransas and all the surrounding

98
00:11:00,325 --> 00:11:02,960
communities are affected by what

99
00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:03,828
happens in the city of corpus

100
00:11:03,828 --> 00:11:05,828
christi.

101
00:11:06,765 --> 00:11:06,964
and this matters to us too.

102
00:11:06,964 --> 00:11:08,964
Okay?

103
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:11,400
It really does.

104
00:11:12,903 --> 00:11:14,105
Because your actions impact your

105
00:11:14,105 --> 00:11:16,105
surrounding communities.

106
00:11:16,840 --> 00:11:20,711
And I just want to say that the

107
00:11:20,711 --> 00:11:23,214
poll that was online with kris

108
00:11:23,214 --> 00:11:24,949
news says 70 -- I think it's 72

109
00:11:24,949 --> 00:11:25,516
or 74% of the people aren't

110
00:11:25,516 --> 00:11:26,451
supporting this.

111
00:11:26,451 --> 00:11:28,451
Don't want this.

112
00:11:29,688 --> 00:11:30,689
Only 14% are supporting or say

113
00:11:30,689 --> 00:11:30,955
that this should finish

114
00:11:30,955 --> 00:11:32,323
happening.

115
00:11:32,323 --> 00:11:34,859
I want you to think about that.

116
00:11:34,859 --> 00:11:37,259
Those are your voters.

117
00:11:37,829 --> 00:11:39,464
You know, 74% of your voters are

118
00:11:39,464 --> 00:11:40,665
saying don't do this.

119
00:11:40,665 --> 00:11:42,133
And I think you need to be

120
00:11:42,133 --> 00:11:42,534
paying attention.

121
00:11:42,534 --> 00:11:44,534
Thank you.

122
00:11:53,311 --> 00:11:53,646
>> Paxson: thank you.

123
00:11:53,646 --> 00:11:55,470
Sean merritt.

124
00:11:55,470 --> 00:11:57,447
>> I'm a little sad.

125
00:11:59,284 --> 00:11:59,751
I brought a gift for the hitman

126
00:11:59,751 --> 00:12:00,819
journalist.

127
00:12:00,819 --> 00:12:03,219
So he needs it.

128
00:12:05,257 --> 00:12:06,291
We'll leave that there for him.

129
00:12:06,291 --> 00:12:07,492
Just as soap cleans the body,

130
00:12:07,492 --> 00:12:08,460
tribunal, it is your job to

131
00:12:08,460 --> 00:12:10,460
clean the politics.

132
00:12:14,734 --> 00:12:16,335
This is not corrupt us christi.

133
00:12:16,335 --> 00:12:18,337
If you take the head of the

134
00:12:18,337 --> 00:12:21,240
snake, the body will follow.

135
00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:23,408
Don't let MR. Flood use his 50

136
00:12:23,408 --> 00:12:25,778
days to call 50 more witnesses

137
00:12:25,778 --> 00:12:26,211
and keep us here until the

138
00:12:26,211 --> 00:12:27,946
election.

139
00:12:27,946 --> 00:12:28,981
She'll steal it just like she

140
00:12:28,981 --> 00:12:30,417
did with michael hunter.

141
00:12:30,417 --> 00:12:31,483
Now, that's all I got to say.

142
00:12:31,483 --> 00:12:32,118
I wanted to finish from

143
00:12:32,118 --> 00:12:33,352
yesterday.

144
00:12:33,352 --> 00:12:34,200
Please make sure your minion

145
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:35,554
gets that.

146
00:12:35,554 --> 00:12:37,954
He smells very bad.

147
00:12:38,458 --> 00:12:39,692
Have a good day.

148
00:12:39,692 --> 00:12:41,692
>> Paxson: thank you.

149
00:12:42,662 --> 00:12:44,196
MS. Rebecca, do we have any

150
00:12:44,196 --> 00:12:46,196
other commenters?

151
00:12:46,699 --> 00:12:47,433
>> Huerta: no, ma'am.

152
00:12:47,433 --> 00:12:48,468
>> Paxson: that would conclude

153
00:12:48,468 --> 00:12:49,435
our public comment.

154
00:12:49,435 --> 00:12:50,436
We will have announcements from

155
00:12:50,436 --> 00:12:51,804
the parties.

156
00:12:51,804 --> 00:12:53,106
First from the legal counsel for

157
00:12:53,106 --> 00:12:54,708
the petitioners and then the

158
00:12:54,708 --> 00:12:57,708
legal counsel for the mayor.

159
00:12:57,978 --> 00:12:58,211
MR. Allison, are you ready to

160
00:12:58,211 --> 00:12:59,613
proceed?

161
00:12:59,613 --> 00:13:01,348
>> Allison: ready.

162
00:13:01,348 --> 00:13:02,482
>> Paxson: MR. Flood?

163
00:13:02,482 --> 00:13:04,180
>> Flood: yes, ready.

164
00:13:04,180 --> 00:13:06,190
>> Paxson: MR. Flood, you can

165
00:13:06,190 --> 00:13:08,419
call your next witness.

166
00:13:08,889 --> 00:13:10,691
>> Flood: respondent calls

167
00:13:10,691 --> 00:13:11,324
council member sylvia campos.

168
00:13:11,324 --> 00:13:13,920
>> Allison: we have an

169
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:16,920
objection to that, when it's

170
00:13:18,798 --> 00:13:20,798
timely.

171
00:13:21,680 --> 00:13:23,169
At this time, we would object

172
00:13:23,169 --> 00:13:25,569
to calling any councilperson

173
00:13:26,907 --> 00:13:27,308
that is actively serving as a

174
00:13:27,308 --> 00:13:28,910
judge.

175
00:13:28,910 --> 00:13:32,479
Judges -- I mean, quite frankly

176
00:13:32,479 --> 00:13:33,780
if you were in a real courtroom

177
00:13:33,780 --> 00:13:34,548
over in nueces county court or

178
00:13:34,548 --> 00:13:36,950
anywhere in the state of texas,

179
00:13:36,950 --> 00:13:38,285
if you tried to call a judge

180
00:13:38,285 --> 00:13:39,720
from the bench, which is

181
00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:42,120
essentially what they're trying

182
00:13:44,525 --> 00:13:45,626
to do, then that would just be

183
00:13:45,626 --> 00:13:46,928
immediately denied.

184
00:13:46,928 --> 00:13:49,300
There's actually texas case law

185
00:13:49,300 --> 00:13:53,230
out there that says that if a

186
00:13:53,534 --> 00:13:55,502
judge gets on a witness stand

187
00:13:55,502 --> 00:13:57,571
and testifies, just by doing so,

188
00:13:57,571 --> 00:13:59,773
by acting what MAY be perceived

189
00:13:59,773 --> 00:14:00,874
as their own interests, they

190
00:14:00,874 --> 00:14:01,743
automatically disqualify

191
00:14:01,743 --> 00:14:03,411
themselves.

192
00:14:03,411 --> 00:14:05,790
So just the act of getting on

193
00:14:05,790 --> 00:14:06,681
the stand and testifying and

194
00:14:06,681 --> 00:14:08,150
saying anything that might be

195
00:14:08,150 --> 00:14:10,385
perceived as being in your

196
00:14:10,385 --> 00:14:13,322
interest as opposed to the

197
00:14:13,322 --> 00:14:15,189
interest of the person asking

198
00:14:15,189 --> 00:14:17,725
the questions can be construed

199
00:14:17,725 --> 00:14:19,260
under texas law as a reason for

200
00:14:19,260 --> 00:14:20,295
an automatic disqualification.

201
00:14:20,295 --> 00:14:22,797
that's the law in the state of

202
00:14:22,797 --> 00:14:24,733
texas and that's the law in the

203
00:14:24,733 --> 00:14:28,360
state of texas because we don't

204
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:30,539
let judges step off the bench

205
00:14:30,539 --> 00:14:32,539
and testify.

206
00:14:32,607 --> 00:14:34,876
Specifically, that's also under

207
00:14:34,876 --> 00:14:35,276
rules -- I think 605 in the

208
00:14:35,276 --> 00:14:37,276
federal rules.

209
00:14:38,314 --> 00:14:39,849
It is expressly disallowed and

210
00:14:39,849 --> 00:14:41,250
this tribunal has not adopted

211
00:14:41,250 --> 00:14:43,250
that rule.

212
00:14:43,251 --> 00:14:45,354
But it still offers good

213
00:14:45,354 --> 00:14:47,956
guidance to us in that it very

214
00:14:47,956 --> 00:14:50,956
clearly articulates that a judge

215
00:14:51,593 --> 00:14:53,895
cannot be called as a witness.

216
00:14:53,895 --> 00:14:55,163
Period.

217
00:14:55,163 --> 00:14:57,667
Furthermore, it should not be

218
00:14:57,667 --> 00:15:00,670
allowed because even if you are

219
00:15:00,670 --> 00:15:01,537
witnesses -- and by that I just

220
00:15:01,537 --> 00:15:04,473
mean if you have facts back to

221
00:15:04,473 --> 00:15:07,509
the date and time when some of

222
00:15:07,509 --> 00:15:08,778
these incidents made the subject

223
00:15:08,778 --> 00:15:10,380
of the impeachment occurred,

224
00:15:10,380 --> 00:15:12,482
even if you have some of those

225
00:15:12,482 --> 00:15:15,482
facts, the best evidence of

226
00:15:15,685 --> 00:15:17,519
those facts is actually looking

227
00:15:17,519 --> 00:15:18,822
at the video of what you did.

228
00:15:18,822 --> 00:15:20,230
It's all recorded.

229
00:15:20,230 --> 00:15:20,389
Looking at the video of what you

230
00:15:20,389 --> 00:15:22,389
said.

231
00:15:22,692 --> 00:15:24,461
Looking at the video of your

232
00:15:24,461 --> 00:15:26,861
reasons for whatever you

233
00:15:27,229 --> 00:15:28,297
reasoned or articulated, a lot

234
00:15:28,297 --> 00:15:29,331
of which has already been

235
00:15:29,331 --> 00:15:30,533
played.

236
00:15:30,533 --> 00:15:33,336
So the best evidence of what you

237
00:15:33,336 --> 00:15:35,672
did and why you did it at the

238
00:15:35,672 --> 00:15:37,672
time is recorded.

239
00:15:37,740 --> 00:15:39,709
Finally, the reason to do it is

240
00:15:39,709 --> 00:15:43,120
that there is not any showing

241
00:15:43,120 --> 00:15:45,315
whatsoever that any of you have

242
00:15:45,315 --> 00:15:46,716
unique knowledge, including

243
00:15:46,716 --> 00:15:47,817
MS. Campos, the one he just

244
00:15:47,817 --> 00:15:49,986
called, have any unique

245
00:15:49,986 --> 00:15:54,186
knowledge of any of the facts of

246
00:15:54,457 --> 00:15:55,325
the case that are not either

247
00:15:55,325 --> 00:15:57,927
already in evidence or can be

248
00:15:57,927 --> 00:16:00,196
spoken to by a different witness

249
00:16:00,196 --> 00:16:01,965
who is not sitting as a judge.

250
00:16:01,965 --> 00:16:03,733
In other words, why would you

251
00:16:03,733 --> 00:16:05,350
put a sitting judge on the stand

252
00:16:05,350 --> 00:16:07,203
when you can get the testimony

253
00:16:07,203 --> 00:16:09,203
from other witnesses?

254
00:16:09,207 --> 00:16:11,141
And they've not met their burden

255
00:16:11,141 --> 00:16:12,443
to show that there are no other

256
00:16:12,443 --> 00:16:14,244
witnesses that can be called in

257
00:16:14,244 --> 00:16:15,379
order to address the issues.

258
00:16:15,379 --> 00:16:16,947
For example, if they want to

259
00:16:16,947 --> 00:16:17,848
talk to you about your

260
00:16:17,848 --> 00:16:20,151
discussions with somebody else,

261
00:16:20,151 --> 00:16:22,353
they can call that somebody

262
00:16:22,353 --> 00:16:23,354
else, unless of course it's a

263
00:16:23,354 --> 00:16:25,354
sitting judge.

264
00:16:25,657 --> 00:16:26,524
That's another reason is because

265
00:16:26,524 --> 00:16:28,492
there's a lot of judicial

266
00:16:28,492 --> 00:16:30,662
authority out there that says

267
00:16:30,662 --> 00:16:32,630
when you can go get the

268
00:16:32,630 --> 00:16:33,530
testimony from another witness,

269
00:16:33,530 --> 00:16:35,399
you should go that route.

270
00:16:35,399 --> 00:16:36,367
Here you can do that, whether

271
00:16:36,367 --> 00:16:37,969
it's calling peter zanoni,

272
00:16:37,969 --> 00:16:39,470
whether it's looking at the

273
00:16:39,470 --> 00:16:40,337
video, whether it's looking at

274
00:16:40,337 --> 00:16:40,772
what you said at other

275
00:16:40,772 --> 00:16:42,307
meetings.

276
00:16:42,307 --> 00:16:42,975
All of that's been put in the

277
00:16:42,975 --> 00:16:44,975
record.

278
00:16:45,420 --> 00:16:47,420
It's already there.

279
00:16:47,244 --> 00:16:48,112
That really leads me to my last

280
00:16:48,112 --> 00:16:49,513
point, which is because there's

281
00:16:49,513 --> 00:16:53,713
no need to call you as a

282
00:16:55,219 --> 00:16:57,389
witness, any of you, and because

283
00:16:57,389 --> 00:16:59,789
there is available information

284
00:17:00,240 --> 00:17:02,126
from other sources, what it

285
00:17:02,126 --> 00:17:05,863
really boils down to -- and we

286
00:17:05,863 --> 00:17:07,465
know this -- they've been

287
00:17:07,465 --> 00:17:08,133
stressing it, mayor's counsel

288
00:17:08,133 --> 00:17:08,599
has been stressing it from the

289
00:17:08,599 --> 00:17:09,801
beginning.

290
00:17:09,801 --> 00:17:11,637
What they're really trying to do

291
00:17:11,637 --> 00:17:12,504
is force a square peg in a

292
00:17:12,504 --> 00:17:14,504
wooden hole.

293
00:17:14,506 --> 00:17:15,274
They're trying to pound it in

294
00:17:15,274 --> 00:17:17,274
there.

295
00:17:17,376 --> 00:17:19,911
Because they want to take the

296
00:17:19,911 --> 00:17:21,781
position that somehow you're

297
00:17:21,781 --> 00:17:24,183
witnesses so you can't be fair.

298
00:17:24,183 --> 00:17:25,451
That's an issue that's gone

299
00:17:25,451 --> 00:17:26,840
before the federal judge and the

300
00:17:26,840 --> 00:17:27,987
federal judge already denied

301
00:17:27,987 --> 00:17:29,880
that request for a temporary

302
00:17:29,880 --> 00:17:29,788
restraining order, based on that

303
00:17:29,788 --> 00:17:31,590
ground.

304
00:17:31,590 --> 00:17:32,491
Then they tried again with the

305
00:17:32,491 --> 00:17:34,494
federal judge asking for what we

306
00:17:34,494 --> 00:17:36,663
call a preliminary injunction.

307
00:17:36,663 --> 00:17:38,731
And the federal court denied

308
00:17:38,731 --> 00:17:39,198
that request for preliminary

309
00:17:39,198 --> 00:17:40,933
injunction.

310
00:17:40,933 --> 00:17:42,735
And then they tried to get what

311
00:17:42,735 --> 00:17:44,737
they call a permanent

312
00:17:44,737 --> 00:17:46,239
injunction.

313
00:17:46,239 --> 00:17:47,600
And the federal judge dismissed

314
00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:48,908
their lawsuit.

315
00:17:48,908 --> 00:17:52,978
And then they appealed it to the

316
00:17:52,978 --> 00:17:53,479
federal court, the united states

317
00:17:53,479 --> 00:17:53,713
fifth district court of

318
00:17:53,713 --> 00:17:55,713
appeals.

319
00:17:58,840 --> 00:17:58,718
They appealed it to the U.S.

320
00:17:58,718 --> 00:17:59,351
Fifth district court of appeals

321
00:17:59,351 --> 00:18:00,486
and asked on the same reason,

322
00:18:00,486 --> 00:18:01,755
the same basis that we're

323
00:18:01,755 --> 00:18:03,990
talking about now, they said,

324
00:18:03,990 --> 00:18:07,590
well, you all, this group cannot

325
00:18:09,595 --> 00:18:11,595
be the judges.

326
00:18:12,999 --> 00:18:13,466
And therefore, stopped these

327
00:18:13,466 --> 00:18:13,867
proceedings as

328
00:18:13,867 --> 00:18:15,867
unconstitutional.

329
00:18:16,302 --> 00:18:18,872
But instead the fifth circuit

330
00:18:18,872 --> 00:18:20,240
court of appeals said, no.

331
00:18:20,240 --> 00:18:21,708
Thereby clearly giving their

332
00:18:21,708 --> 00:18:22,442
blessing that these proceedings

333
00:18:22,442 --> 00:18:24,811
are constitutional and that we

334
00:18:24,811 --> 00:18:26,811
should follow accordingly.

335
00:18:28,215 --> 00:18:30,217
So, this argument that they're

336
00:18:30,217 --> 00:18:33,187
making is one that has been

337
00:18:33,187 --> 00:18:33,887
rejected over and over and over

338
00:18:33,887 --> 00:18:35,887
again.

339
00:18:37,758 --> 00:18:39,960
And you might recall, last time

340
00:18:39,960 --> 00:18:41,828
when they called COUNCILMAN Roy,

341
00:18:41,828 --> 00:18:43,130
they said that -- and I don't

342
00:18:43,130 --> 00:18:44,464
know if this is true or not

343
00:18:44,464 --> 00:18:46,864
under the case law.

344
00:18:47,670 --> 00:18:49,360
They said they had an obligation

345
00:18:49,360 --> 00:18:51,400
to -- their words -- try.

346
00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:53,340
They said they had an obligation

347
00:18:53,340 --> 00:18:55,420
to make an attempt.

348
00:18:55,420 --> 00:18:58,420
And that they're doing that,

349
00:18:59,981 --> 00:19:01,950
calling you as witnesses to try

350
00:19:01,950 --> 00:19:04,950
or attempt having you be

351
00:19:05,886 --> 00:19:08,389
witnesses as a means to, what

352
00:19:08,389 --> 00:19:09,357
they think is, preserving error

353
00:19:09,357 --> 00:19:11,458
for some subsequent lawsuit they

354
00:19:11,458 --> 00:19:13,427
want to file in order to, again,

355
00:19:13,427 --> 00:19:13,928
just like they did in federal

356
00:19:13,928 --> 00:19:15,928
court.

357
00:19:16,964 --> 00:19:18,133
They're going to again try to

358
00:19:18,133 --> 00:19:20,133
find these proceedings

359
00:19:20,334 --> 00:19:22,334
unconstitutional.

360
00:19:25,139 --> 00:19:27,910
So it's really just, in that

361
00:19:27,910 --> 00:19:28,943
sense, they're really just more

362
00:19:28,943 --> 00:19:31,846
of a ruse to -- and this goes

363
00:19:31,846 --> 00:19:33,382
back to all of the arguments.

364
00:19:33,382 --> 00:19:34,716
The reason, under the federal

365
00:19:34,716 --> 00:19:36,652
rules and the reason under the

366
00:19:36,652 --> 00:19:38,286
other case law that we don't

367
00:19:38,286 --> 00:19:39,721
allow judges to be called as

368
00:19:39,721 --> 00:19:42,721
witnesses is because it really

369
00:19:45,627 --> 00:19:47,262
is a way to -- if you allowed

370
00:19:47,262 --> 00:19:48,463
that, every criminal defendant

371
00:19:48,463 --> 00:19:50,232
would stand up during a trial

372
00:19:50,232 --> 00:19:51,600
and say I want to call you,

373
00:19:51,600 --> 00:19:53,101
judge, as a witness.

374
00:19:53,101 --> 00:19:55,971
It would just destroy the

375
00:19:55,971 --> 00:19:58,373
decorum of the court if you let

376
00:19:58,373 --> 00:20:00,842
the judge step off the bench and

377
00:20:00,842 --> 00:20:03,813
step on to the witness stand.

378
00:20:03,813 --> 00:20:05,614
It would destroy the integrity

379
00:20:05,614 --> 00:20:06,682
of the process if you let the

380
00:20:06,682 --> 00:20:08,450
judges move from the bench to

381
00:20:08,450 --> 00:20:10,320
the witness stand.

382
00:20:10,320 --> 00:20:11,520
Because, again, the minute the

383
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:12,822
judge says something that

384
00:20:12,822 --> 00:20:15,691
upholds the integrity of the

385
00:20:15,691 --> 00:20:18,691
process or talks about facts

386
00:20:20,162 --> 00:20:21,698
known in the background or the

387
00:20:21,698 --> 00:20:22,565
history of the process, all of a

388
00:20:22,565 --> 00:20:23,766
sudden -- you know how we

389
00:20:23,766 --> 00:20:24,867
lawyers are.

390
00:20:24,867 --> 00:20:25,402
They're going to start asking

391
00:20:25,402 --> 00:20:26,869
pointed questions.

392
00:20:26,869 --> 00:20:29,869
They're going to infer things.

393
00:20:31,140 --> 00:20:33,577
They're going to say things.

394
00:20:33,577 --> 00:20:34,143
They're going to attack the

395
00:20:34,143 --> 00:20:36,312
judge's credibility and the

396
00:20:36,312 --> 00:20:38,514
judge says something honest in

397
00:20:38,514 --> 00:20:39,917
defense of their credibility and

398
00:20:39,917 --> 00:20:40,483
their stance is committed to

399
00:20:40,483 --> 00:20:42,483
unbiased rulings.

400
00:20:44,520 --> 00:20:45,621
It is just a way to destroy the

401
00:20:45,621 --> 00:20:46,356
integrity of the process.

402
00:20:46,356 --> 00:20:47,790
And that's what they're trying

403
00:20:47,790 --> 00:20:49,790
to do, okay?

404
00:20:51,194 --> 00:20:52,729
So there are multiple reasons

405
00:20:52,729 --> 00:20:55,129
really supported by federal

406
00:20:56,766 --> 00:20:59,350
rules, by texas case law, by

407
00:20:59,350 --> 00:21:00,504
also the history of the case.

408
00:21:00,504 --> 00:21:02,139
The judge has already made

409
00:21:02,139 --> 00:21:03,440
rulings that you MAY be the

410
00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:04,941
judges and you MAY proceed.

411
00:21:04,941 --> 00:21:06,810
And once that ruling is made, we

412
00:21:06,810 --> 00:21:09,146
have to protect the integrity of

413
00:21:09,146 --> 00:21:10,614
the process and not allow it to

414
00:21:10,614 --> 00:21:15,414
be the ruse they want it to be,

415
00:21:16,530 --> 00:21:16,687
which is a witch hunt on you

416
00:21:16,687 --> 00:21:18,687
guys.

417
00:21:19,356 --> 00:21:20,991
Rather than focus on the

418
00:21:20,991 --> 00:21:21,625
impeachment and the issues

419
00:21:21,625 --> 00:21:21,892
relating to the impeachment of

420
00:21:21,892 --> 00:21:23,892
the mayor.

421
00:21:24,429 --> 00:21:26,290
For all of those reasons, we

422
00:21:26,290 --> 00:21:28,429
would respectfully request that

423
00:21:28,566 --> 00:21:30,200
the objection I'm now making be

424
00:21:30,200 --> 00:21:32,669
sustained and that if needed

425
00:21:32,669 --> 00:21:33,337
that there be a motion to

426
00:21:33,337 --> 00:21:36,307
sustain the objection and that

427
00:21:36,307 --> 00:21:36,807
it be granted.

428
00:21:36,807 --> 00:21:37,408
Thank you.

429
00:21:37,408 --> 00:21:38,642
>> Paxson: MR. Flood.

430
00:21:38,642 --> 00:21:40,745
>> Flood: a judge who is a

431
00:21:40,745 --> 00:21:42,247
fact witness or has a bias is

432
00:21:42,247 --> 00:21:45,247
required under texas and federal

433
00:21:46,250 --> 00:21:46,651
law to recuse and disqualify

434
00:21:46,651 --> 00:21:48,651
themselves.

435
00:21:49,860 --> 00:21:50,210
So without motion.

436
00:21:50,210 --> 00:21:52,210
COUNCILMAN Barrera and

437
00:21:52,189 --> 00:21:53,591
COUNCILMAN Roy recused

438
00:21:53,591 --> 00:21:54,760
themselves for that very

439
00:21:54,760 --> 00:21:56,760
reason.

440
00:21:56,761 --> 00:21:58,163
That being they are fact

441
00:21:58,163 --> 00:22:00,163
witnesses.

442
00:22:03,836 --> 00:22:04,937
A material fact witness, I'm

443
00:22:04,937 --> 00:22:06,371
calling COUNCILWOMAN Campos

444
00:22:06,371 --> 00:22:07,400
because she is a material fact

445
00:22:07,400 --> 00:22:09,400
witness.

446
00:22:10,576 --> 00:22:12,177
I'm also calling her to elicit

447
00:22:12,177 --> 00:22:13,812
bias testimony.

448
00:22:13,812 --> 00:22:16,114
The questions I would ask her

449
00:22:16,114 --> 00:22:18,917
about the facts that she brought

450
00:22:18,917 --> 00:22:20,510
with her into this proceeding

451
00:22:20,510 --> 00:22:20,752
are those that are unique to

452
00:22:20,752 --> 00:22:22,752
her.

453
00:22:23,555 --> 00:22:27,192
And so I would have to ask her

454
00:22:27,192 --> 00:22:28,361
about any sort of receipt of

455
00:22:28,361 --> 00:22:30,295
confidential edc information

456
00:22:30,295 --> 00:22:31,430
that she might have received

457
00:22:31,430 --> 00:22:33,830
prior to this proceeding.

458
00:22:34,299 --> 00:22:36,703
And the reasoning and knowledge

459
00:22:36,703 --> 00:22:37,470
that she had outside of the

460
00:22:37,470 --> 00:22:39,470
FEBRUARY 20 meeting.

461
00:22:40,105 --> 00:22:42,842
The reasoning and knowledge that

462
00:22:42,842 --> 00:22:43,309
she had outside of the APRIL 23

463
00:22:43,309 --> 00:22:45,309
meeting.

464
00:22:49,849 --> 00:22:50,716
Her reasoning and knowledge

465
00:22:50,716 --> 00:22:53,352
outside of the meetings on the

466
00:22:53,352 --> 00:22:56,188
first reading and the second

467
00:22:56,188 --> 00:22:58,188
reading.

468
00:22:58,358 --> 00:23:01,127
For any reasons outside of what

469
00:23:01,127 --> 00:23:03,329
was stated within the meetings.

470
00:23:03,329 --> 00:23:04,530
I would ask her about her

471
00:23:04,530 --> 00:23:06,530
communication with petitioners

472
00:23:08,340 --> 00:23:09,436
and their counsel.

473
00:23:09,436 --> 00:23:10,360
About the allegations in the

474
00:23:10,360 --> 00:23:11,204
articles.

475
00:23:11,204 --> 00:23:14,204
There is testimony already in

476
00:23:14,708 --> 00:23:15,775
the record that she privately

477
00:23:15,775 --> 00:23:16,309
met with philip ramirez in a

478
00:23:16,309 --> 00:23:18,309
phone call.

479
00:23:19,450 --> 00:23:21,445
He testified about that.

480
00:23:23,449 --> 00:23:23,683
And that was before the APRIL 23

481
00:23:23,683 --> 00:23:24,918
vote.

482
00:23:24,918 --> 00:23:26,787
I could go on.

483
00:23:26,787 --> 00:23:28,822
I'm willing to make a proffer --

484
00:23:28,822 --> 00:23:31,570
or I will make a proffer, if I'm

485
00:23:31,570 --> 00:23:33,226
not able to ask the witness.

486
00:23:33,226 --> 00:23:35,729
But I could -- there's much more

487
00:23:35,729 --> 00:23:37,264
that I will make as part of my

488
00:23:37,264 --> 00:23:40,864
proffer that the fact is that

489
00:23:42,200 --> 00:23:45,839
she is a fact witness, just like

490
00:23:45,839 --> 00:23:48,839
MR. Barrera and MR. Roy.

491
00:23:51,979 --> 00:23:53,470
Both of whom were deposed by

492
00:23:53,470 --> 00:23:54,948
MR. David's counsel in the

493
00:23:54,948 --> 00:23:56,170
parallel david litigation that

494
00:23:56,170 --> 00:23:58,219
contains the same allegations.

495
00:23:58,219 --> 00:23:58,819
They were both listed as

496
00:23:58,819 --> 00:24:00,819
witnesses.

497
00:24:03,690 --> 00:24:05,460
The fact that MS. Campos was

498
00:24:05,460 --> 00:24:06,828
chosen not to be deposed doesn't

499
00:24:06,828 --> 00:24:07,794
mean she was not a fact witness

500
00:24:07,794 --> 00:24:09,197
in that case and in this case.

501
00:24:09,197 --> 00:24:12,000
for the same reasons MR. Barrera

502
00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:14,400
and MR. Roy were.

503
00:24:14,769 --> 00:24:17,404
I am entitled to ask her her

504
00:24:17,404 --> 00:24:19,740
state of mind when she voted to

505
00:24:19,740 --> 00:24:19,908
retain outside counsel, daniel

506
00:24:19,908 --> 00:24:21,908
rey.

507
00:24:22,900 --> 00:24:23,445
When she voted to investigate

508
00:24:23,445 --> 00:24:25,445
the allegations.

509
00:24:30,510 --> 00:24:31,987
Any bias or prejudgment she had

510
00:24:31,987 --> 00:24:32,820
formed at those stages.

511
00:24:32,820 --> 00:24:35,289
Any -- the authorization of

512
00:24:35,289 --> 00:24:37,689
public funds for the

513
00:24:38,894 --> 00:24:41,294
investigation, which we have

514
00:24:44,766 --> 00:24:47,766
heard were -- from council

515
00:24:48,700 --> 00:24:48,669
member cantu and councilmember

516
00:24:48,669 --> 00:24:49,571
vaughn in the JANUARY meeting

517
00:24:49,571 --> 00:24:52,571
were for investigation of the

518
00:24:52,707 --> 00:24:53,441
mayor and other council members

519
00:24:53,441 --> 00:24:55,643
, according to statements by

520
00:24:55,643 --> 00:24:58,430
council members in that

521
00:24:59,815 --> 00:25:01,349
meeting.

522
00:25:01,349 --> 00:25:02,217
I would offer evidence regarding

523
00:25:02,217 --> 00:25:04,617
her private conversations with

524
00:25:05,487 --> 00:25:07,890
the mayor regarding this

525
00:25:07,890 --> 00:25:09,900
proceeding, which are obviously

526
00:25:09,900 --> 00:25:11,900
relevant facts.

527
00:25:14,280 --> 00:25:17,650
There was a MARCH 24 meeting in

528
00:25:17,650 --> 00:25:20,650
this chamber about advancing the

529
00:25:21,102 --> 00:25:23,502
articles of impeachment where

530
00:25:27,420 --> 00:25:28,710
MS. Campos made statements

531
00:25:28,710 --> 00:25:30,879
indicating that she sees this

532
00:25:30,879 --> 00:25:33,816
proceeding as the only way to

533
00:25:33,816 --> 00:25:36,651
address conduct by MR. Ramirez.

534
00:25:36,651 --> 00:25:38,554
And so I would intend to ask her

535
00:25:38,554 --> 00:25:40,924
questions about those beliefs

536
00:25:40,924 --> 00:25:41,690
that she brought with her to

537
00:25:41,690 --> 00:25:43,690
this trial.

538
00:25:44,527 --> 00:25:47,527
That started on JULY 22nd.

539
00:25:47,629 --> 00:25:51,829
And then I would also ask her

540
00:25:52,668 --> 00:25:55,505
about beliefs that she stated on

541
00:25:55,505 --> 00:25:58,408
MARCH 24th that pre-judge the

542
00:25:58,408 --> 00:26:01,244
mayor where she states that she

543
00:26:01,244 --> 00:26:03,546
believes the mayor, quote,

544
00:26:03,546 --> 00:26:05,281
should be sanctioned, end quote,

545
00:26:05,281 --> 00:26:08,881
which is a statement made prior

546
00:26:08,984 --> 00:26:09,285
to the beginning of this

547
00:26:09,285 --> 00:26:11,285
proceeding.

548
00:26:15,426 --> 00:26:17,294
So I would disagree with the

549
00:26:17,294 --> 00:26:18,940
argument that she is not a

550
00:26:18,940 --> 00:26:18,695
material fact witness in this

551
00:26:18,695 --> 00:26:20,229
case.

552
00:26:20,229 --> 00:26:21,564
And I would disagree that I'm

553
00:26:21,564 --> 00:26:22,899
not entitled to ask her

554
00:26:22,899 --> 00:26:25,299
questions about her bias.

555
00:26:29,206 --> 00:26:31,240
The fact that the -- two federal

556
00:26:31,240 --> 00:26:33,743
courts elected to allow this

557
00:26:33,743 --> 00:26:36,743
proceeding to go forward does

558
00:26:37,147 --> 00:26:40,450
not mean that the record is not

559
00:26:40,450 --> 00:26:44,500
allowed to be made in this

560
00:26:48,959 --> 00:26:49,560
proceeding regarding the very

561
00:26:49,560 --> 00:26:50,727
graviman.

562
00:26:50,727 --> 00:26:52,262
It's still there and I'm

563
00:26:52,262 --> 00:26:53,300
entitled to make my record in

564
00:26:53,300 --> 00:26:55,300
that regard.

565
00:26:55,966 --> 00:26:58,368
And that is what I intend to do

566
00:26:58,368 --> 00:27:01,968
and I ask COUNCILWOMAN Campos to

567
00:27:03,640 --> 00:27:04,842
take the stand.

568
00:27:04,842 --> 00:27:05,443
>> Paxson: thank you,

569
00:27:05,443 --> 00:27:06,711
MR. Flood.

570
00:27:06,711 --> 00:27:08,879
I'm going to call for a motion

571
00:27:08,879 --> 00:27:10,514
to either disallow the testimony

572
00:27:10,514 --> 00:27:12,283
or grant the objection.

573
00:27:12,283 --> 00:27:13,884
>> Allison: that would be the

574
00:27:13,884 --> 00:27:14,952
same thing, just so we're

575
00:27:14,952 --> 00:27:16,952
careful on wording.

576
00:27:19,424 --> 00:27:20,580
>> Paxson: thank you.

577
00:27:20,580 --> 00:27:22,493
Motion to sustain the objection

578
00:27:22,493 --> 00:27:22,960
and a second.

579
00:27:22,960 --> 00:27:23,395
All in favor say aye.

580
00:27:23,395 --> 00:27:25,395
>> [Chorus of ayes]

581
00:27:27,398 --> 00:27:27,565
>> Paxson: any opposed say

582
00:27:27,565 --> 00:27:29,565
nay.

583
00:27:29,600 --> 00:27:31,350
>> Scott: nay.

584
00:27:31,350 --> 00:27:31,669
>> Paxson: it's sustained.

585
00:27:31,669 --> 00:27:34,872
MS. Campos, for the record, did

586
00:27:34,872 --> 00:27:39,720
you place a vote on this item?

587
00:27:39,444 --> 00:27:39,710
Abstain.

588
00:27:39,710 --> 00:27:41,710
Thank you.

589
00:27:42,179 --> 00:27:42,614
>> Flood: the last vote just

590
00:27:42,614 --> 00:27:44,614
now?

591
00:27:45,500 --> 00:27:46,550
Was that a reference to a prior

592
00:27:46,550 --> 00:27:47,418
vote or the vote just now?

593
00:27:47,418 --> 00:27:49,220
>> Paxson: just now.

594
00:27:49,220 --> 00:27:49,420
>> Flood: I was just making

595
00:27:49,420 --> 00:27:50,389
sure.

596
00:27:50,389 --> 00:27:51,255
>> Allison: that is, I

597
00:27:51,255 --> 00:27:53,591
believe, the correct thing to

598
00:27:53,591 --> 00:27:53,892
do.

599
00:27:53,892 --> 00:27:55,892
Thank you.

600
00:28:00,866 --> 00:28:01,633
>> Flood: can I make my

601
00:28:01,633 --> 00:28:03,633
proffer now?

602
00:28:04,169 --> 00:28:07,472
Were MS. Campos on the stand, I

603
00:28:07,472 --> 00:28:10,175
would ask her questions about

604
00:28:10,175 --> 00:28:11,777
her receipt of any sort of

605
00:28:11,777 --> 00:28:14,177
information outside of the

606
00:28:15,246 --> 00:28:15,613
record in this case prior to

607
00:28:15,613 --> 00:28:17,613
this proceeding.

608
00:28:19,651 --> 00:28:21,651
Including any information

609
00:28:23,389 --> 00:28:24,689
regarding edc -- I'm sorry.

610
00:28:24,689 --> 00:28:25,124
Regarding type b e session

611
00:28:25,124 --> 00:28:27,124
discussions.

612
00:28:31,531 --> 00:28:32,965
Any sort of edc discussions.

613
00:28:32,965 --> 00:28:35,434
Her -- and communication with --

614
00:28:35,434 --> 00:28:36,836
I would also ask her questions

615
00:28:36,836 --> 00:28:39,836
about her communication with any

616
00:28:40,772 --> 00:28:43,172
of the petitioners, including

617
00:28:45,577 --> 00:28:46,545
MR. David.

618
00:28:46,545 --> 00:28:48,848
Any communication with counsel

619
00:28:48,848 --> 00:28:50,616
for MR. David.

620
00:28:50,616 --> 00:28:52,217
Communications and relationships

621
00:28:52,217 --> 00:28:55,817
regarding whether or not she has

622
00:28:55,854 --> 00:28:56,956
ever been represented by

623
00:28:56,956 --> 00:28:58,956
MR. David's counsel.

624
00:29:00,226 --> 00:29:01,894
I would ask her questions about

625
00:29:01,894 --> 00:29:04,196
the allegations in the articles

626
00:29:04,196 --> 00:29:04,965
and whether or not she's had any

627
00:29:04,965 --> 00:29:06,932
communications with the

628
00:29:06,932 --> 00:29:08,634
petitioners or their counsel

629
00:29:08,634 --> 00:29:11,605
about any of the allegations or

630
00:29:11,605 --> 00:29:14,500
the facts underlying the

631
00:29:14,974 --> 00:29:15,275
allegations in the articles of

632
00:29:15,275 --> 00:29:17,275
impeachment.

633
00:29:17,710 --> 00:29:20,113
I would ask her about her

634
00:29:20,113 --> 00:29:22,513
reasoning behind and knowledge

635
00:29:23,283 --> 00:29:24,918
outside of the the record -- the

636
00:29:24,918 --> 00:29:26,587
public record regarding her

637
00:29:26,587 --> 00:29:26,819
votes on the FEBRUARY 20

638
00:29:26,819 --> 00:29:28,819
meeting.

639
00:29:29,880 --> 00:29:31,291
I would ask her the reasoning

640
00:29:31,291 --> 00:29:34,291
and knowledge outside of the

641
00:29:36,529 --> 00:29:38,331
public record regarding her

642
00:29:38,331 --> 00:29:40,634
comments, both at the

643
00:29:40,634 --> 00:29:42,680
FEBRUARY 20 meeting and the

644
00:29:42,680 --> 00:29:44,680
APRIL 23 meeting.

645
00:29:44,371 --> 00:29:47,371
And the reasoning and knowledge

646
00:29:47,408 --> 00:29:48,942
of information outside of the

647
00:29:48,942 --> 00:29:51,342
record regarding her decisions

648
00:29:53,413 --> 00:29:56,413
at both of those meetings.

649
00:29:58,853 --> 00:29:59,487
Her reasons for voting -- or

650
00:29:59,487 --> 00:30:02,487
facts in this proceeding, based

651
00:30:04,225 --> 00:30:04,792
upon both the facts and the

652
00:30:04,792 --> 00:30:06,126
implications and inferences

653
00:30:06,126 --> 00:30:06,493
raised by the articles of

654
00:30:06,493 --> 00:30:08,493
impeachment.

655
00:30:09,130 --> 00:30:10,970
As I stated earlier, MR. Ramirez

656
00:30:10,970 --> 00:30:11,632
has already testified.

657
00:30:11,632 --> 00:30:15,232
It's already in the record that

658
00:30:16,570 --> 00:30:20,750
he had a conversation, a phone

659
00:30:20,750 --> 00:30:20,942
call with MS. Campos before the

660
00:30:20,942 --> 00:30:22,942
APRIL 23 vote.

661
00:30:25,546 --> 00:30:28,546
This is a private conversation.

662
00:30:28,749 --> 00:30:28,984
And after the controversy had

663
00:30:28,984 --> 00:30:30,318
arisen.

664
00:30:30,318 --> 00:30:31,530
I would ask her questions about

665
00:30:31,530 --> 00:30:32,820
how long it was.

666
00:30:32,820 --> 00:30:34,890
Whether or not she recorded it.

667
00:30:34,890 --> 00:30:37,192
Do you know if he did?

668
00:30:37,192 --> 00:30:38,193
I would ask her the

669
00:30:38,193 --> 00:30:40,593
communication that she received

670
00:30:42,598 --> 00:30:46,468
from him and her receipt of it

671
00:30:46,468 --> 00:30:46,768
and her evaluation of his

672
00:30:46,768 --> 00:30:47,402
credibility.

673
00:30:47,402 --> 00:30:48,804
Whether or not he explained to

674
00:30:48,804 --> 00:30:50,673
her that the alteration of the

675
00:30:50,673 --> 00:30:52,941
slide was a mistake.

676
00:30:52,941 --> 00:30:54,809
That has been suggested by him

677
00:30:54,809 --> 00:30:56,645
in other context.

678
00:30:56,645 --> 00:30:57,746
Whether he denied that the

679
00:30:57,746 --> 00:30:58,647
alteration was done

680
00:30:58,647 --> 00:30:59,180
intentionally.

681
00:30:59,180 --> 00:31:01,517
Whether she believed him.

682
00:31:01,517 --> 00:31:02,918
Whether she asked him any

683
00:31:02,918 --> 00:31:04,119
questions.

684
00:31:04,119 --> 00:31:06,822
Her evaluation of whether or not

685
00:31:06,822 --> 00:31:07,123
his explanations were

686
00:31:07,123 --> 00:31:09,123
believable.

687
00:31:10,292 --> 00:31:11,694
I would confirm that there's no

688
00:31:11,694 --> 00:31:12,861
recording, no transcript, and

689
00:31:12,861 --> 00:31:15,197
today that only she can provide

690
00:31:15,197 --> 00:31:18,166
us with her impressions that she

691
00:31:18,166 --> 00:31:18,700
brought with us to this

692
00:31:18,700 --> 00:31:19,668
proceeding based upon that

693
00:31:19,668 --> 00:31:20,536
private conversation with

694
00:31:20,536 --> 00:31:22,536
MR. Ramirez.

695
00:31:22,572 --> 00:31:24,173
I would also ask her questions

696
00:31:24,173 --> 00:31:25,475
about becoming part of the

697
00:31:25,475 --> 00:31:27,410
investigation and her state of

698
00:31:27,410 --> 00:31:30,612
mind when she voted to retain

699
00:31:30,612 --> 00:31:31,614
outside counsel, daniel rey.

700
00:31:31,614 --> 00:31:34,783
And much of these I'm about to

701
00:31:34,783 --> 00:31:35,885
go over are also reflected in a

702
00:31:35,885 --> 00:31:37,653
later public statement.

703
00:31:37,653 --> 00:31:38,621
And her state of mind in regards

704
00:31:38,621 --> 00:31:40,900
to these issues would be

705
00:31:40,900 --> 00:31:40,656
something I would ask her

706
00:31:40,656 --> 00:31:42,656
about.

707
00:31:44,493 --> 00:31:45,161
You voted to investigate the

708
00:31:45,161 --> 00:31:46,296
allegations against home suites,

709
00:31:46,296 --> 00:31:46,729
participating in executive

710
00:31:46,729 --> 00:31:47,196
sessions, authorized

711
00:31:47,196 --> 00:31:48,832
expenditure.

712
00:31:48,832 --> 00:31:50,600
Those were based in part on her

713
00:31:50,600 --> 00:31:53,000
own understanding of the

714
00:31:53,135 --> 00:31:55,500
underlying facts, which were

715
00:31:55,500 --> 00:31:58,141
uniquely gathered by her in her

716
00:31:58,141 --> 00:32:00,141
private conversation with

717
00:32:01,344 --> 00:32:02,546
MR. Ramirez.

718
00:32:02,546 --> 00:32:03,846
And potentially other

719
00:32:03,846 --> 00:32:06,846
conversations that are not part

720
00:32:07,250 --> 00:32:08,685
of the record with MR. David,

721
00:32:08,685 --> 00:32:10,860
MR. David's counsel

722
00:32:10,860 --> 00:32:11,540
counsel,

723
00:32:11,540 --> 00:32:13,454
petitioners and other persons.

724
00:32:14,491 --> 00:32:18,910
I would ask her questions about

725
00:32:18,629 --> 00:32:20,297
why she made certain comments to

726
00:32:20,297 --> 00:32:20,898
mayor guajardo.

727
00:32:20,898 --> 00:32:23,898
What motivated her to make

728
00:32:27,370 --> 00:32:27,304
certain statements to mayor

729
00:32:27,304 --> 00:32:29,304
guajardo.

730
00:32:32,443 --> 00:32:33,511
And her beliefs that she shared

731
00:32:33,511 --> 00:32:34,645
with mayor guajardo and why she

732
00:32:34,645 --> 00:32:36,645
formulated such beliefs.

733
00:32:36,948 --> 00:32:40,452
That she stated to the mayor

734
00:32:40,452 --> 00:32:43,421
that she wanted an apology from

735
00:32:43,421 --> 00:32:45,357
her prior to JULY 22, 2026,

736
00:32:45,357 --> 00:32:47,757
before this trial started.

737
00:32:48,930 --> 00:32:50,395
I would ask her questions about

738
00:32:50,395 --> 00:32:52,300
what was in her state of mind in

739
00:32:52,300 --> 00:32:52,664
that regard.

740
00:32:52,664 --> 00:32:52,997
Whether or not she believes she

741
00:32:52,997 --> 00:32:54,232
received it.

742
00:32:54,232 --> 00:32:56,867
Whether or not that is a bias

743
00:32:56,867 --> 00:32:57,168
that she brought with her to the

744
00:32:57,168 --> 00:32:59,300
proceeding.

745
00:32:59,300 --> 00:33:02,300
In MARCH of this year,

746
00:33:02,339 --> 00:33:03,775
MARCH 24th, there was a

747
00:33:03,775 --> 00:33:05,844
council meeting held four months

748
00:33:05,844 --> 00:33:07,479
before this trial started where

749
00:33:07,479 --> 00:33:08,714
she started publicly certain

750
00:33:08,714 --> 00:33:10,714
beliefs.

751
00:33:11,883 --> 00:33:12,160
she stated -- she used the word

752
00:33:12,160 --> 00:33:12,484
%

753
00:33:12,484 --> 00:33:14,484
"beliefs."

754
00:33:15,419 --> 00:33:17,289
she stated that she believed

755
00:33:17,289 --> 00:33:19,925
that the steps taken by

756
00:33:19,925 --> 00:33:21,893
MR. Ramirez to mislead the

757
00:33:21,893 --> 00:33:22,995
council should be considered

758
00:33:22,995 --> 00:33:24,995
illegal.

759
00:33:25,831 --> 00:33:27,166
She stated the belief that his

760
00:33:27,166 --> 00:33:29,166
steps were intentional.

761
00:33:30,668 --> 00:33:33,668
She spoke to MR. Ramirez.

762
00:33:36,442 --> 00:33:36,976
Again, she spoke on her own,

763
00:33:36,976 --> 00:33:38,543
individually.

764
00:33:38,543 --> 00:33:40,513
And that, without a doubt, would

765
00:33:40,513 --> 00:33:44,382
be part of her state of mind in

766
00:33:44,382 --> 00:33:46,382
formulating that opinion.

767
00:33:46,451 --> 00:33:48,621
She references in her public

768
00:33:48,621 --> 00:33:50,550
statement on MARCH 24th that

769
00:33:50,550 --> 00:33:53,550
MR. Ramirez had contributed to

770
00:33:53,592 --> 00:33:55,360
the mayor's campaign, which is a

771
00:33:55,360 --> 00:33:57,729
state of mind for her that is

772
00:33:57,729 --> 00:33:59,365
some sort of -- apparently some

773
00:33:59,365 --> 00:34:01,765
evidence that helps her

774
00:34:03,335 --> 00:34:05,337
formulate the beliefs that she

775
00:34:05,337 --> 00:34:07,339
shared about the facts

776
00:34:07,339 --> 00:34:07,640
underlying the articles of

777
00:34:07,640 --> 00:34:09,640
impeachment.

778
00:34:10,676 --> 00:34:12,112
Again, she expressed the quote,

779
00:34:12,112 --> 00:34:14,647
belief, end quote, that the only

780
00:34:14,647 --> 00:34:15,949
way to stop these kind of

781
00:34:15,949 --> 00:34:18,785
dealings and business as usual

782
00:34:18,785 --> 00:34:19,953
is to address it directly.

783
00:34:19,953 --> 00:34:22,355
And she believes this proceeding

784
00:34:22,355 --> 00:34:23,590
is the only way to directly deal

785
00:34:23,590 --> 00:34:25,590
with it.

786
00:34:25,992 --> 00:34:27,660
And that for that reason that is

787
00:34:27,660 --> 00:34:28,628
her belief as to why she's

788
00:34:28,628 --> 00:34:29,295
moving forward with the

789
00:34:29,295 --> 00:34:31,970
hearing.

790
00:34:31,970 --> 00:34:34,970
Those beliefs were brought into

791
00:34:35,636 --> 00:34:38,636
this trial on JULY 22nd.

792
00:34:41,108 --> 00:34:43,477
Again, the only wrongdoing

793
00:34:43,477 --> 00:34:45,579
addressed in her statements is

794
00:34:45,579 --> 00:34:47,447
that of MR. Ramirez.

795
00:34:47,447 --> 00:34:48,415
Another belief that she had on

796
00:34:48,415 --> 00:34:49,649
MARCH 24th and that she

797
00:34:49,649 --> 00:34:52,649
brought with her under this

798
00:34:56,756 --> 00:34:57,910
trial is that the mayor should

799
00:34:57,910 --> 00:34:59,910
be sanctioned.

800
00:35:00,261 --> 00:35:03,864
I have a text message that she

801
00:35:03,864 --> 00:35:07,464
sent while sitting on the dais

802
00:35:14,641 --> 00:35:15,209
on MARCH 24th at -- well, no.

803
00:35:15,209 --> 00:35:16,143
The text string begins while

804
00:35:16,143 --> 00:35:18,543
sitting on the dais.

805
00:35:21,482 --> 00:35:22,182
And then that evening at

806
00:35:22,182 --> 00:35:23,150
6:38 she states, I do not

807
00:35:23,150 --> 00:35:25,150
believe in removal.

808
00:35:25,552 --> 00:35:28,156
I do believe in a sanction.

809
00:35:28,156 --> 00:35:28,957
It can't happen unless we move

810
00:35:28,957 --> 00:35:30,957
forward.

811
00:35:31,626 --> 00:35:33,561
And I'm going to mark that as

812
00:35:33,561 --> 00:35:35,561
respondent's exhibit 65.

813
00:35:36,198 --> 00:35:37,198
That is a belief she had on

814
00:35:37,198 --> 00:35:39,835
MARCH 24th that she brought

815
00:35:39,835 --> 00:35:41,350
with her into this trial.

816
00:35:41,350 --> 00:35:42,236
And that is that --

817
00:35:42,236 --> 00:35:43,539
>> Paxson: MR. Flood, could

818
00:35:43,539 --> 00:35:45,206
you provide that date?

819
00:35:45,206 --> 00:35:46,841
>> Flood: yes, I will.

820
00:35:46,841 --> 00:35:50,441
I was going to finish that

821
00:35:51,450 --> 00:35:51,647
sentence.

822
00:35:51,647 --> 00:35:55,830
Is that the sanction that the

823
00:35:55,830 --> 00:35:56,918
mayor deserved, that she

824
00:35:56,918 --> 00:35:58,119
deserved on MARCH 24th of this

825
00:35:58,119 --> 00:36:00,421
year, can only happen if the

826
00:36:00,421 --> 00:36:03,421
council moves forward with this

827
00:36:04,726 --> 00:36:06,726
removal hearing.

828
00:36:07,863 --> 00:36:09,863
>> [Off mic]

829
00:36:10,265 --> 00:36:12,100
>> Allison: and I assume that

830
00:36:12,100 --> 00:36:15,601
the offer is not into evidence

831
00:36:16,171 --> 00:36:17,205
but for purposes of the offer.

832
00:36:17,205 --> 00:36:19,205
Thank you.

833
00:36:44,768 --> 00:36:46,536
>> [Off mic]

834
00:36:46,536 --> 00:36:47,837
>> Flood: my next witness

835
00:36:47,837 --> 00:36:49,772
would be MR. Hernandez.

836
00:36:49,772 --> 00:36:51,140
>> Allison: yes.

837
00:36:51,140 --> 00:36:53,430
>> Paxson: MR. Flood, can you

838
00:36:53,430 --> 00:36:53,843
give us two minutes with this

839
00:36:53,843 --> 00:36:55,450
new information?

840
00:36:55,450 --> 00:36:57,450
>> Flood: sure.

841
00:37:00,117 --> 00:37:02,117
Sure.

842
00:38:27,806 --> 00:38:28,240
>> Paxson: thank you,

843
00:38:28,240 --> 00:38:28,940
MR. Flood.

844
00:38:28,940 --> 00:38:30,940
If you'll proceed.

845
00:38:32,811 --> 00:38:35,811
>> Flood: I'll call my next

846
00:38:36,648 --> 00:38:37,248
witness, council member --

847
00:38:37,248 --> 00:38:38,851
MR. Hernandez, please.

848
00:38:38,851 --> 00:38:39,685
>> Allison: MAY I be heard on

849
00:38:39,685 --> 00:38:41,253
my objection?

850
00:38:41,253 --> 00:38:43,253
With the tribunal's

851
00:38:43,789 --> 00:38:44,389
permission -- I gave a lot of

852
00:38:44,389 --> 00:38:46,292
objections last time and it's

853
00:38:46,292 --> 00:38:47,793
long to explain it all.

854
00:38:47,793 --> 00:38:48,627
MAY I adopt those by reference?

855
00:38:48,627 --> 00:38:50,627
>> Paxson: yes.

856
00:38:50,929 --> 00:38:53,929
>> Allison: I make the same

857
00:38:56,902 --> 00:38:59,372
objections to calling MR. Gil

858
00:38:59,372 --> 00:39:02,541
hernandez as we made a moment

859
00:39:02,541 --> 00:39:03,976
ago when I was making objections

860
00:39:03,976 --> 00:39:04,210
against calling MS. Sylvia

861
00:39:04,210 --> 00:39:04,810
campos.

862
00:39:04,810 --> 00:39:06,779
>> Paxson: MR. Flood.

863
00:39:06,779 --> 00:39:08,648
>> Flood: MR. Hernandez is

864
00:39:08,648 --> 00:39:11,510
called for the same purposes.

865
00:39:11,510 --> 00:39:12,852
And that is to establish that he

866
00:39:12,852 --> 00:39:16,355
is a material fact witness and

867
00:39:16,355 --> 00:39:19,955
also to establish his bias in

868
00:39:22,280 --> 00:39:22,595
regards as a fact finder and

869
00:39:22,595 --> 00:39:23,998
judge in these proceedings.

870
00:39:23,998 --> 00:39:26,998
He'll be asked questions about

871
00:39:27,330 --> 00:39:28,568
the bias and the facts that he

872
00:39:28,568 --> 00:39:31,568
understood that brought him --

873
00:39:32,710 --> 00:39:32,572
that he brought with him into

874
00:39:32,572 --> 00:39:34,274
this proceeding.

875
00:39:34,274 --> 00:39:37,810
A judge is required under texas

876
00:39:37,810 --> 00:39:39,913
and federal law to recuse and

877
00:39:39,913 --> 00:39:41,649
disqualify themselves, much as

878
00:39:41,649 --> 00:39:42,949
MR. Barrera and roy did recuse

879
00:39:42,949 --> 00:39:43,216
themselves because they are fact

880
00:39:43,216 --> 00:39:45,216
witnesses.

881
00:39:45,819 --> 00:39:47,821
I would establish that

882
00:39:47,821 --> 00:39:50,324
MR. Ramirez -- I'm sorry.

883
00:39:50,324 --> 00:39:52,526
MR. Hernandez, my apologies.

884
00:39:52,526 --> 00:39:55,596
Likewise, is a fact witness and

885
00:39:55,596 --> 00:39:55,829
brought with him certain

886
00:39:55,829 --> 00:39:57,829
biases.

887
00:39:58,899 --> 00:40:00,700
I would ask him, like I would

888
00:40:00,700 --> 00:40:02,803
ask MS. Campos, about his

889
00:40:02,803 --> 00:40:05,172
receipt of confidential edc

890
00:40:05,172 --> 00:40:07,307
information that he received

891
00:40:07,307 --> 00:40:08,275
prior to this proceeding.

892
00:40:08,275 --> 00:40:11,275
His reasoning and knowledge and

893
00:40:14,348 --> 00:40:16,917
state of mind outside of the

894
00:40:16,917 --> 00:40:18,520
record, which are obvious --

895
00:40:18,520 --> 00:40:19,486
that are clear from the

896
00:40:19,486 --> 00:40:21,886
FEBRUARY 20 meeting, which I

897
00:40:22,256 --> 00:40:25,856
will get into in a minute.

898
00:40:27,695 --> 00:40:28,329
I'm happy to make my proffer,

899
00:40:28,329 --> 00:40:29,798
have the objection sustained and

900
00:40:29,798 --> 00:40:31,980
then make my proffer, if that's

901
00:40:31,980 --> 00:40:31,899
okay.

902
00:40:31,899 --> 00:40:33,434
>> Paxson: at this time I'll

903
00:40:33,434 --> 00:40:37,634
call for a motion to grant the

904
00:40:38,600 --> 00:40:39,608
objection.

905
00:40:39,608 --> 00:40:40,508
Motion?

906
00:40:40,508 --> 00:40:41,242
>> [Off mic]

907
00:40:41,242 --> 00:40:42,945
>> Paxson: there's a motion

908
00:40:42,945 --> 00:40:43,411
and a second.

909
00:40:43,411 --> 00:40:44,245
All in favor say aye.

910
00:40:44,245 --> 00:40:46,245
>> [Chorus of ayes]

911
00:40:46,247 --> 00:40:46,414
>> Paxson: any opposed say

912
00:40:46,414 --> 00:40:48,414
nay.

913
00:40:53,154 --> 00:40:55,154
>> Scott: nay.

914
00:40:55,490 --> 00:40:55,756
>> Paxson: thank you.

915
00:40:55,756 --> 00:40:57,756
MR. Flood.

916
00:40:58,326 --> 00:40:59,327
>> Flood: as I would have with

917
00:40:59,327 --> 00:41:00,995
MS. Campos, I would ask

918
00:41:00,995 --> 00:41:03,395
MR. Hernandez questions about

919
00:41:04,832 --> 00:41:07,469
his receipt of confidential edc

920
00:41:07,469 --> 00:41:07,769
information prior to this

921
00:41:07,769 --> 00:41:09,605
proceeding.

922
00:41:09,605 --> 00:41:11,340
The knowledge he brought with

923
00:41:11,340 --> 00:41:12,707
him to the FEBRUARY 20 meeting.

924
00:41:12,707 --> 00:41:14,410
His reasoning and knowledge he

925
00:41:14,410 --> 00:41:17,410
obtained outside of this chamber

926
00:41:17,479 --> 00:41:19,347
and meetings prior to the

927
00:41:19,347 --> 00:41:20,882
APRIL 23 meeting.

928
00:41:20,882 --> 00:41:22,852
His reasoning and knowledge that

929
00:41:22,852 --> 00:41:25,852
he received outside of the

930
00:41:26,154 --> 00:41:27,355
record for his decision on the

931
00:41:27,355 --> 00:41:28,991
second reading.

932
00:41:28,991 --> 00:41:30,159
And his reasons for those votes

933
00:41:30,159 --> 00:41:32,600
and the reasoning and knowledge

934
00:41:32,600 --> 00:41:34,830
that he brought with him outside

935
00:41:34,830 --> 00:41:37,230
of the record currently.

936
00:41:38,000 --> 00:41:39,268
Or facts he brought with him

937
00:41:39,268 --> 00:41:41,268
into this proceeding.

938
00:41:41,370 --> 00:41:43,600
On the -- specific to the

939
00:41:43,600 --> 00:41:44,239
FEBRUARY 20 meeting, he pulled

940
00:41:44,239 --> 00:41:44,473
the item from the consent

941
00:41:44,473 --> 00:41:46,473
agenda.

942
00:41:46,976 --> 00:41:47,743
I would ask him reasons why he

943
00:41:47,743 --> 00:41:49,412
did that.

944
00:41:49,412 --> 00:41:51,547
And I would ask him questions

945
00:41:51,547 --> 00:41:54,547
about the preparation that he

946
00:41:55,551 --> 00:41:57,753
made prior to the meeting.

947
00:41:57,753 --> 00:42:00,122
All discussions, his personal

948
00:42:00,122 --> 00:42:03,122
knowledge that he received from

949
00:42:03,326 --> 00:42:05,940
conversations from anyone

950
00:42:05,940 --> 00:42:07,163
outside of the proceeding on

951
00:42:07,163 --> 00:42:10,163
that day that are public.

952
00:42:10,267 --> 00:42:12,234
And I would ask him about his --

953
00:42:12,234 --> 00:42:13,970
that he researched the item

954
00:42:13,970 --> 00:42:16,370
beyond simply reviewing the

955
00:42:19,543 --> 00:42:21,211
agenda packet that contained the

956
00:42:21,211 --> 00:42:22,745
altered slide.

957
00:42:22,745 --> 00:42:24,581
And if you can go to the --

958
00:42:24,581 --> 00:42:26,581
>> [Off mic]

959
00:42:27,650 --> 00:42:29,185
>> Flood: I will play a

960
00:42:29,185 --> 00:42:29,485
portion of exhibit -- what is

961
00:42:29,485 --> 00:42:31,485
it?

962
00:42:34,358 --> 00:42:35,126
What's our number?

963
00:42:35,126 --> 00:42:35,892
Our petitioner's exhibit of the

964
00:42:35,892 --> 00:42:36,693
video that's already been

965
00:42:36,693 --> 00:42:38,693
played.

966
00:42:39,296 --> 00:42:42,896
Can you play that real quick?

967
00:42:43,566 --> 00:42:43,800
Part of exhibit 6.

968
00:42:43,800 --> 00:42:45,800
[Video]

969
00:42:45,802 --> 00:42:46,604
>> by hilton at the corner of

970
00:42:46,604 --> 00:42:48,604
chaparral street.

971
00:42:49,573 --> 00:42:50,407
Who pulled this one?

972
00:42:50,407 --> 00:42:50,975
COUNCILMAN Hernandez.

973
00:42:50,975 --> 00:42:53,375
Your question or comment.

974
00:42:53,544 --> 00:42:53,878
>> Hernandez: yes.

975
00:42:53,878 --> 00:42:55,279
Question.

976
00:42:55,279 --> 00:42:57,679
I'm familiar with this.

977
00:42:59,450 --> 00:43:00,417
I've had a couple of discussions

978
00:43:00,417 --> 00:43:02,285
about it.

979
00:43:02,285 --> 00:43:03,953
We're well aware of the

980
00:43:03,953 --> 00:43:06,124
disparity between what the edc

981
00:43:06,124 --> 00:43:06,890
had recommended and what the

982
00:43:06,890 --> 00:43:08,890
type b had.

983
00:43:09,760 --> 00:43:10,762
My concern is not so much --

984
00:43:10,762 --> 00:43:11,828
[End of video]

985
00:43:11,828 --> 00:43:13,497
>> Flood: I would ask him

986
00:43:13,497 --> 00:43:14,699
questions about how he became

987
00:43:14,699 --> 00:43:16,300
aware of the discrepancy.

988
00:43:16,300 --> 00:43:17,968
I would ask him questions about

989
00:43:17,968 --> 00:43:19,704
the research he had done, simply

990
00:43:19,704 --> 00:43:19,937
beyond reviewing the agenda

991
00:43:19,937 --> 00:43:21,937
packet.

992
00:43:23,440 --> 00:43:24,742
He said he had a couple -- it

993
00:43:24,742 --> 00:43:26,877
sounded like he was about to say

994
00:43:26,877 --> 00:43:27,277
he had a couple of calls about

995
00:43:27,277 --> 00:43:28,712
it.

996
00:43:28,712 --> 00:43:30,140
However he changed that word to

997
00:43:30,140 --> 00:43:31,783
discussions about it.

998
00:43:31,783 --> 00:43:34,318
I would ask whether he had any

999
00:43:34,318 --> 00:43:37,318
phone calls with anybody outside

1000
00:43:38,923 --> 00:43:41,659
of city staff about the item and

1001
00:43:41,659 --> 00:43:42,930
his knowledge outside of the

1002
00:43:42,930 --> 00:43:44,930
public record.

1003
00:43:45,196 --> 00:43:48,800
I would ask him how he -- his

1004
00:43:48,800 --> 00:43:50,334
awareness of the disparity.

1005
00:43:50,334 --> 00:43:53,271
Whether it became knowledge that

1006
00:43:53,271 --> 00:43:54,505
he had outside of the public

1007
00:43:54,505 --> 00:43:56,875
record that was included within

1008
00:43:56,875 --> 00:43:59,875
the agenda memo for the

1009
00:44:01,790 --> 00:44:02,814
FEBRUARY 20 meeting.

1010
00:44:02,814 --> 00:44:04,349
I would ask him questions about

1011
00:44:04,349 --> 00:44:05,650
his knowledge regarding the

1012
00:44:05,650 --> 00:44:08,650
mayor on the edc board.

1013
00:44:08,987 --> 00:44:10,856
I would ask him any questions --

1014
00:44:10,856 --> 00:44:13,424
I would ask him questions about

1015
00:44:13,424 --> 00:44:16,895
his contacts with MR. Hunter or

1016
00:44:16,895 --> 00:44:18,630
anyone else that sits on the edc

1017
00:44:18,630 --> 00:44:18,930
board prior to the FEBRUARY 20

1018
00:44:18,930 --> 00:44:20,930
meeting.

1019
00:44:23,535 --> 00:44:27,406
I would ask him if he was aware

1020
00:44:27,406 --> 00:44:28,841
of any of the discussions within

1021
00:44:28,841 --> 00:44:30,841
the edc meeting.

1022
00:44:31,109 --> 00:44:32,645
Again, this is not evidence

1023
00:44:32,645 --> 00:44:34,646
that's being admitted right now,

1024
00:44:34,646 --> 00:44:35,214
this is just part of my

1025
00:44:35,214 --> 00:44:36,415
proffer.

1026
00:44:36,415 --> 00:44:39,415
And those conversations he had,

1027
00:44:40,685 --> 00:44:43,689
I would ask him what he learned

1028
00:44:43,689 --> 00:44:45,157
about anything that happened,

1029
00:44:45,157 --> 00:44:47,693
both in the edc meetings and in

1030
00:44:47,693 --> 00:44:49,394
the type b meetings, whether

1031
00:44:49,394 --> 00:44:50,963
those were -- the latter, the

1032
00:44:50,963 --> 00:44:52,297
type b meetings being whether he

1033
00:44:52,297 --> 00:44:53,500
learned anything that came from

1034
00:44:53,500 --> 00:44:54,833
closed session or whether he

1035
00:44:54,833 --> 00:44:57,833
learned anything that came from

1036
00:44:58,404 --> 00:45:00,173
the public meetings.

1037
00:45:00,173 --> 00:45:02,274
What he learned about what was

1038
00:45:02,274 --> 00:45:04,674
described as a spirited

1039
00:45:05,578 --> 00:45:05,945
discussion within the edc

1040
00:45:05,945 --> 00:45:07,814
meeting.

1041
00:45:07,814 --> 00:45:09,816
Whether the timing, the fema

1042
00:45:09,816 --> 00:45:10,683
timing narrative was addressed

1043
00:45:10,683 --> 00:45:13,520
at the edc meeting and whether

1044
00:45:13,520 --> 00:45:14,854
he learned anything that

1045
00:45:14,854 --> 00:45:16,723
suggested whether the mayor

1046
00:45:16,723 --> 00:45:19,123
learned anything prior to

1047
00:45:20,126 --> 00:45:20,493
FEBRUARY 20th related to the

1048
00:45:20,493 --> 00:45:22,493
fema narrative.

1049
00:45:22,529 --> 00:45:24,464
Or the slide itself and whether

1050
00:45:24,464 --> 00:45:25,932
he learned anything that

1051
00:45:25,932 --> 00:45:28,568
suggested whether the mayor was

1052
00:45:28,568 --> 00:45:31,710
informed that someone at the edc

1053
00:45:31,710 --> 00:45:31,704
meeting MAY have expressed

1054
00:45:31,704 --> 00:45:31,972
skepticism about the fema

1055
00:45:31,972 --> 00:45:33,673
narrative.

1056
00:45:33,673 --> 00:45:34,107
I would ask him questions about

1057
00:45:34,107 --> 00:45:35,308
that.

1058
00:45:35,308 --> 00:45:36,876
Since he is not allowed to

1059
00:45:36,876 --> 00:45:38,450
testimony, that is not going to

1060
00:45:38,450 --> 00:45:41,450
be part of the record.

1061
00:45:41,347 --> 00:45:43,550
And then I would ask him about

1062
00:45:43,550 --> 00:45:45,653
his conversations with MR. David

1063
00:45:45,653 --> 00:45:49,390
or MR. Gulley or MR. Hunter or

1064
00:45:49,390 --> 00:45:50,240
the mayor or anyone else on the

1065
00:45:50,240 --> 00:45:52,240
edc board.

1066
00:45:52,293 --> 00:45:53,927
And ask him all about the

1067
00:45:53,927 --> 00:45:55,563
concerns that he had about the

1068
00:45:55,563 --> 00:45:58,563
item before the first reading

1069
00:45:59,433 --> 00:46:00,234
because he stated that he had

1070
00:46:00,234 --> 00:46:01,902
concerns.

1071
00:46:01,902 --> 00:46:04,838
And one was why the type b went

1072
00:46:04,838 --> 00:46:05,406
with the requested number and

1073
00:46:05,406 --> 00:46:06,975
doubled the edc.

1074
00:46:06,975 --> 00:46:08,420
I would ask him why it didn't

1075
00:46:08,420 --> 00:46:10,442
sit right with him.

1076
00:46:10,911 --> 00:46:13,547
Why it gave him a concern.

1077
00:46:13,547 --> 00:46:14,983
Even though he understood that

1078
00:46:14,983 --> 00:46:16,830
the type b board does not have

1079
00:46:16,830 --> 00:46:18,483
to give a reason.

1080
00:46:20,688 --> 00:46:21,321
And I would ask him the

1081
00:46:21,321 --> 00:46:23,424
lingering thoughts he had and

1082
00:46:23,424 --> 00:46:24,191
why he pulled the item to try

1083
00:46:24,191 --> 00:46:26,191
and understand.

1084
00:46:26,393 --> 00:46:27,462
And that he was doing more than

1085
00:46:27,462 --> 00:46:27,796
the other members in regards to

1086
00:46:27,796 --> 00:46:29,796
this.

1087
00:46:29,997 --> 00:46:34,197
I would ask him about why he

1088
00:46:35,704 --> 00:46:36,471
spoke to alyssa about the public

1089
00:46:36,471 --> 00:46:37,138
investment and the statements he

1090
00:46:37,138 --> 00:46:39,138
made about that.

1091
00:46:42,760 --> 00:46:44,513
I would ask him his concerns or

1092
00:46:44,513 --> 00:46:46,347
goal, whatever it was in regards

1093
00:46:46,347 --> 00:46:47,415
to being -- that he stated,

1094
00:46:47,415 --> 00:46:48,951
quote, we should be fair and

1095
00:46:48,951 --> 00:46:51,687
have funding come from type b

1096
00:46:51,687 --> 00:46:52,688
for those other hotels as well,

1097
00:46:52,688 --> 00:46:54,688
end quote.

1098
00:46:56,592 --> 00:46:57,893
If we set a standard, make sure

1099
00:46:57,893 --> 00:46:58,159
we adhere to that standard for

1100
00:46:58,159 --> 00:46:59,194
everybody.

1101
00:46:59,194 --> 00:47:01,629
i would ask him about that

1102
00:47:01,629 --> 00:47:04,232
because we know that MR. David

1103
00:47:04,232 --> 00:47:06,334
and rgb had received tirz in the

1104
00:47:06,334 --> 00:47:07,769
past and we know they have

1105
00:47:07,769 --> 00:47:10,710
requested type b since.

1106
00:47:10,710 --> 00:47:12,508
And I would ask him questions

1107
00:47:12,508 --> 00:47:13,642
about whether he was looking out

1108
00:47:13,642 --> 00:47:13,809
for those particular donors of

1109
00:47:13,809 --> 00:47:15,809
his.

1110
00:47:16,878 --> 00:47:18,814
I would ask him whether or not

1111
00:47:18,814 --> 00:47:21,214
MR. Hunter ever expressed

1112
00:47:21,250 --> 00:47:24,850
skepticism to him, prior to the

1113
00:47:25,154 --> 00:47:27,554
FEBRUARY 20 meeting about either

1114
00:47:28,657 --> 00:47:29,910
the fema narrative or perhaps

1115
00:47:29,910 --> 00:47:31,910
the altered slide.

1116
00:47:34,230 --> 00:47:37,830
I would ask him about the

1117
00:47:38,267 --> 00:47:40,736
apparent repeat of the narrative

1118
00:47:40,736 --> 00:47:43,736
by members suckley, roy, the

1119
00:47:44,206 --> 00:47:47,206
mayor, and also MR. Culbertson

1120
00:47:51,248 --> 00:47:51,847
and whether his reaction to

1121
00:47:51,847 --> 00:47:52,115
those repeats of the apparent

1122
00:47:52,115 --> 00:47:54,115
narrative.

1123
00:47:57,586 --> 00:47:59,555
I would ask him about that he

1124
00:47:59,555 --> 00:48:02,292
knew, prior to the FEBRUARY 20

1125
00:48:02,292 --> 00:48:04,260
meeting, that the type b

1126
00:48:04,260 --> 00:48:06,229
rejected general fema compliance

1127
00:48:06,229 --> 00:48:07,230
and was not actually -- and that

1128
00:48:07,230 --> 00:48:10,830
the actual reasoning of the type

1129
00:48:11,167 --> 00:48:11,935
b board was not presented to the

1130
00:48:11,935 --> 00:48:13,269
council.

1131
00:48:13,269 --> 00:48:16,269
Because it wasn't presented to

1132
00:48:17,206 --> 00:48:19,342
the council on FEBRUARY 20th.

1133
00:48:19,342 --> 00:48:20,710
But the record indicates -- and

1134
00:48:20,710 --> 00:48:22,879
I would ask MR. Hernandez about

1135
00:48:22,879 --> 00:48:23,614
it -- that he already knew

1136
00:48:23,614 --> 00:48:25,614
that.

1137
00:48:29,353 --> 00:48:31,321
Because after MR. Hunter brought

1138
00:48:31,321 --> 00:48:32,823
up the incredibility of the fema

1139
00:48:32,823 --> 00:48:34,823
narrative, MR. Hernandez

1140
00:48:38,262 --> 00:48:38,496
stated -- can you put the next

1141
00:48:38,496 --> 00:48:38,729
clip up?

1142
00:48:38,729 --> 00:48:40,729
[Video]

1143
00:48:40,831 --> 00:48:41,364
>> Mayor Guajardo:

1144
00:48:41,364 --> 00:48:42,466
councilmember hernandez.

1145
00:48:42,466 --> 00:48:43,834
>> Hernandez: so every project

1146
00:48:43,834 --> 00:48:45,368
that would be downtown would be

1147
00:48:45,368 --> 00:48:46,837
in a flood zone, right?

1148
00:48:46,837 --> 00:48:47,804
Are we going to give the benefit

1149
00:48:47,804 --> 00:48:49,673
to everybody that's downtown

1150
00:48:49,673 --> 00:48:51,508
that's in a flood zone?

1151
00:48:51,508 --> 00:48:53,544
that's almost incentivizing you

1152
00:48:53,544 --> 00:48:55,279
to build in a flood zone.

1153
00:48:55,279 --> 00:48:56,981
So I don't want to tie it to

1154
00:48:56,981 --> 00:48:59,381
this flood zone thing.

1155
00:49:01,285 --> 00:49:01,886
It's not, and it shouldn't be.

1156
00:49:01,886 --> 00:49:03,886
[End of video]

1157
00:49:05,356 --> 00:49:07,356
]

1158
00:49:07,491 --> 00:49:07,692
>> Flood: it's not were the

1159
00:49:07,692 --> 00:49:09,692
words.

1160
00:49:10,961 --> 00:49:11,762
Where the agenda memo said that

1161
00:49:11,762 --> 00:49:13,397
it was.

1162
00:49:13,397 --> 00:49:15,499
And so COUNCILMAN Hernandez's

1163
00:49:15,499 --> 00:49:17,668
statement makes him a unique

1164
00:49:17,668 --> 00:49:19,972
fact witness because it appears

1165
00:49:19,972 --> 00:49:22,707
that before FEBRUARY 20th he

1166
00:49:22,707 --> 00:49:26,307
knew that the type b board's

1167
00:49:27,450 --> 00:49:27,579
reasoning was not related to

1168
00:49:27,579 --> 00:49:29,579
general fema compliance.

1169
00:49:32,584 --> 00:49:33,510
And that makes him a unique fact

1170
00:49:33,510 --> 00:49:34,452
witness.

1171
00:49:34,452 --> 00:49:37,890
The slide that was displayed,

1172
00:49:37,890 --> 00:49:38,456
the comments from the mayor,

1173
00:49:38,456 --> 00:49:41,456
they didn't reflect what the

1174
00:49:41,893 --> 00:49:43,161
type b based its decision on but

1175
00:49:43,161 --> 00:49:45,561
MR. Hernandez apparently did.

1176
00:49:46,431 --> 00:49:48,199
And that was based on the

1177
00:49:48,199 --> 00:49:51,799
discussions that he had prior to

1178
00:49:53,710 --> 00:49:53,638
the meeting.

1179
00:49:53,638 --> 00:49:54,173
Apparently, it was personal

1180
00:49:54,173 --> 00:49:55,373
knowledge he developed and

1181
00:49:55,373 --> 00:49:57,760
brought with him to that meeting

1182
00:49:57,760 --> 00:49:59,411
that he still has to this day

1183
00:49:59,411 --> 00:50:00,946
that will not be revealed

1184
00:50:00,946 --> 00:50:02,946
through questioning.

1185
00:50:03,548 --> 00:50:05,830
He voted in favor that day

1186
00:50:05,830 --> 00:50:06,510
because he knew the fema

1187
00:50:06,510 --> 00:50:07,619
narrative was not material to

1188
00:50:07,619 --> 00:50:10,619
the type b board's decision.

1189
00:50:13,325 --> 00:50:13,893
I would ask that question

1190
00:50:13,893 --> 00:50:15,893
directly.

1191
00:50:17,830 --> 00:50:20,967
And he voted in favor that the

1192
00:50:20,967 --> 00:50:23,736
council did not disagree with

1193
00:50:23,736 --> 00:50:25,471
his notion to have funding.

1194
00:50:25,471 --> 00:50:27,600
We have to make sure we adhere

1195
00:50:27,600 --> 00:50:29,750
to that standard for everybody.

1196
00:50:29,750 --> 00:50:30,509
I would ask him questions about

1197
00:50:30,509 --> 00:50:30,709
his interactions with MR. David

1198
00:50:30,709 --> 00:50:32,709
.

1199
00:50:33,446 --> 00:50:35,415
I would ask him questions about

1200
00:50:35,415 --> 00:50:38,284
whether he reviewed the type b

1201
00:50:38,284 --> 00:50:40,684
meeting materials, whether he

1202
00:50:40,686 --> 00:50:42,456
met with MS. Hurlbert, whether

1203
00:50:42,456 --> 00:50:43,122
he met with MS. Olivarri, which

1204
00:50:43,122 --> 00:50:44,558
I believe is true.

1205
00:50:44,558 --> 00:50:47,193
I would ask him questions about

1206
00:50:47,193 --> 00:50:48,610
whether he met with miles

1207
00:50:48,610 --> 00:50:50,610
risley.

1208
00:50:51,164 --> 00:50:51,364
Whether he met with peter zanoni

1209
00:50:51,364 --> 00:50:53,133
.

1210
00:50:53,133 --> 00:50:55,635
There is also in the record

1211
00:50:55,635 --> 00:50:58,350
already, from MR. Ramirez's

1212
00:50:58,304 --> 00:50:59,606
deposition, the question/answer

1213
00:50:59,606 --> 00:51:02,809
where he said -- which was

1214
00:51:02,809 --> 00:51:03,243
played earlier that he was in a

1215
00:51:03,243 --> 00:51:05,243
meeting.

1216
00:51:06,450 --> 00:51:09,450
Gil, everett, and MR. Ramirez

1217
00:51:10,160 --> 00:51:13,160
where MR. Ramirez explained to

1218
00:51:14,540 --> 00:51:15,589
them that it was an inadvertent,

1219
00:51:15,589 --> 00:51:17,589
accidental, not intentional

1220
00:51:19,426 --> 00:51:20,895
done -- whatever word -- well,

1221
00:51:20,895 --> 00:51:21,428
whatever words you used to

1222
00:51:21,428 --> 00:51:21,728
describe it.

1223
00:51:21,728 --> 00:51:22,863
Yes.

1224
00:51:22,863 --> 00:51:23,163
That would be accurate.

1225
00:51:23,163 --> 00:51:25,163
Yes.

1226
00:51:25,600 --> 00:51:26,700
And you made it clear in your

1227
00:51:26,700 --> 00:51:29,700
explanation to all of those.

1228
00:51:30,171 --> 00:51:32,173
I would ask MR. Hernandez

1229
00:51:32,173 --> 00:51:34,573
questions about his assessment

1230
00:51:36,710 --> 00:51:37,311
of MR. Ramirez's credibility.

1231
00:51:37,311 --> 00:51:38,512
That he formulated at the time

1232
00:51:38,512 --> 00:51:38,813
and brought with him into this

1233
00:51:38,813 --> 00:51:40,782
proceeding.

1234
00:51:40,782 --> 00:51:43,785
I would ask him about whether or

1235
00:51:43,785 --> 00:51:46,785
not he took any notes.

1236
00:51:47,756 --> 00:51:49,290
If he has any notes related to

1237
00:51:49,290 --> 00:51:51,926
that meeting that he could

1238
00:51:51,926 --> 00:51:53,594
share.

1239
00:51:53,594 --> 00:51:54,962
And so one of the allegations in

1240
00:51:54,962 --> 00:51:57,399
the proceeding -- in this

1241
00:51:57,399 --> 00:51:57,965
proceeding is that mayor

1242
00:51:57,965 --> 00:51:58,400
guajardo somehow improperly

1243
00:51:58,400 --> 00:52:00,102
favored MR. Ramirez.

1244
00:52:00,102 --> 00:52:01,336
I would ask him about that and

1245
00:52:01,336 --> 00:52:04,539
whether or not he had formed

1246
00:52:04,539 --> 00:52:05,206
some opinions about that prior

1247
00:52:05,206 --> 00:52:07,206
to this.

1248
00:52:07,742 --> 00:52:09,944
He got to have a firsthand

1249
00:52:09,944 --> 00:52:10,912
assessment of whether

1250
00:52:10,912 --> 00:52:11,913
MR. Ramirez was telling the

1251
00:52:11,913 --> 00:52:13,181
truth about the slide.

1252
00:52:13,181 --> 00:52:13,448
It wasn't on a phone call or

1253
00:52:13,448 --> 00:52:15,160
anything.

1254
00:52:15,160 --> 00:52:16,584
I would ask him about the

1255
00:52:16,584 --> 00:52:19,584
questions he asked MR. Ramirez.

1256
00:52:22,791 --> 00:52:25,560
Why he asked those questions.

1257
00:52:25,560 --> 00:52:26,795
And that he formulated

1258
00:52:26,795 --> 00:52:27,929
impressions about his

1259
00:52:27,929 --> 00:52:28,229
credibility prior to this

1260
00:52:28,229 --> 00:52:30,133
proceeding.

1261
00:52:30,133 --> 00:52:31,990
And I'd ask him whether or not

1262
00:52:31,990 --> 00:52:33,835
at that time he had seen the

1263
00:52:33,835 --> 00:52:34,636
actual powerpoint at any time

1264
00:52:34,636 --> 00:52:37,360
prior to this proceeding.

1265
00:52:39,642 --> 00:52:41,810
When and in what context.

1266
00:52:41,810 --> 00:52:43,112
I would ask him about the

1267
00:52:43,112 --> 00:52:46,112
impressions that he left with

1268
00:52:48,117 --> 00:52:51,117
the meeting with MR. Ramirez.

1269
00:52:52,288 --> 00:52:56,580
I would ask him if he -- it says

1270
00:52:56,580 --> 00:52:57,427
the articles of impeachment

1271
00:52:57,427 --> 00:52:58,294
assert the mayor was advocating

1272
00:52:58,294 --> 00:52:58,527
for the person and not the

1273
00:52:58,527 --> 00:53:00,296
project.

1274
00:53:00,296 --> 00:53:03,833
I would ask him if he has any

1275
00:53:03,833 --> 00:53:04,667
understanding of what

1276
00:53:04,667 --> 00:53:06,168
MR. Ramirez had said to the

1277
00:53:06,168 --> 00:53:07,704
mayor at any point along the

1278
00:53:07,704 --> 00:53:10,273
way, if he has any knowledge

1279
00:53:10,273 --> 00:53:12,273
about that.

1280
00:53:13,900 --> 00:53:15,412
All fact gathering he engaged in

1281
00:53:15,412 --> 00:53:18,582
that caused him to want to

1282
00:53:18,582 --> 00:53:20,517
postpone the APRIL 23 meeting.

1283
00:53:20,517 --> 00:53:21,852
It revealed the record indicates

1284
00:53:21,852 --> 00:53:24,821
that he said he had two reasons

1285
00:53:24,821 --> 00:53:27,624
to get the unresolved issue

1286
00:53:27,624 --> 00:53:29,393
about how they arrived at the

1287
00:53:29,393 --> 00:53:31,393
$2 million.

1288
00:53:32,295 --> 00:53:32,997
But also for MR. Zanoni to

1289
00:53:32,997 --> 00:53:34,798
complete his investigation.

1290
00:53:34,798 --> 00:53:36,133
I would ask him questions about

1291
00:53:36,133 --> 00:53:37,434
his state of mind at the time in

1292
00:53:37,434 --> 00:53:37,801
regards to both of those

1293
00:53:37,801 --> 00:53:39,801
issues.

1294
00:53:40,637 --> 00:53:43,373
I would ask him questions about

1295
00:53:43,373 --> 00:53:47,573
why he had the type b board

1296
00:53:47,577 --> 00:53:48,545
present on APRIL 23 and he did

1297
00:53:48,545 --> 00:53:50,314
not inquire of that person

1298
00:53:50,314 --> 00:53:51,748
regarding the unresolved issues

1299
00:53:51,748 --> 00:53:53,718
he had about how it is that the

1300
00:53:53,718 --> 00:53:57,318
type b board arrived at the

1301
00:53:58,880 --> 00:53:58,489
$2 million as opposed to the

1302
00:53:58,489 --> 00:54:00,489
$1,043,000.

1303
00:54:01,325 --> 00:54:04,610
And his state of mind and that

1304
00:54:04,610 --> 00:54:04,462
regard and the reasonable

1305
00:54:04,462 --> 00:54:05,296
inferences drawn.

1306
00:54:05,296 --> 00:54:07,732
I would ask him about the

1307
00:54:07,732 --> 00:54:09,330
executive session on APRIL 16

1308
00:54:09,330 --> 00:54:11,235
and whether or not his

1309
00:54:11,235 --> 00:54:14,835
recollection is that of the same

1310
00:54:15,172 --> 00:54:17,408
of other witnesses and the

1311
00:54:17,408 --> 00:54:19,808
presentation that neither peter

1312
00:54:20,111 --> 00:54:21,313
zanoni nor MR. Risley ever --

1313
00:54:21,313 --> 00:54:23,470
whether or not his impressions

1314
00:54:23,470 --> 00:54:24,383
after the meeting are that

1315
00:54:24,383 --> 00:54:27,552
neither -- that he never heard

1316
00:54:27,552 --> 00:54:30,422
in the meeting that -- kind of

1317
00:54:30,422 --> 00:54:32,290
interesting -- to not violate

1318
00:54:32,290 --> 00:54:33,825
the executive session rules in a

1319
00:54:33,825 --> 00:54:35,825
proffer.

1320
00:54:36,428 --> 00:54:38,430
So whether or not he also shared

1321
00:54:38,430 --> 00:54:39,631
other witnesses' formulation

1322
00:54:39,631 --> 00:54:40,832
that they did not leave that

1323
00:54:40,832 --> 00:54:43,235
meeting with the impression that

1324
00:54:43,235 --> 00:54:44,802
any crime had occurred but that

1325
00:54:44,802 --> 00:54:47,202
there were only allegations,

1326
00:54:48,173 --> 00:54:52,373
which is a central fact to the

1327
00:54:52,810 --> 00:54:54,810
articles of impeachment.

1328
00:54:55,981 --> 00:54:58,116
I would also ask him questions

1329
00:54:58,116 --> 00:54:59,718
whether he understood what the

1330
00:54:59,718 --> 00:55:02,118
recommendation was from staff

1331
00:55:02,989 --> 00:55:03,989
and when he entered the APRIL 23

1332
00:55:03,989 --> 00:55:05,524
meeting.

1333
00:55:05,524 --> 00:55:06,492
Whether he understood that it

1334
00:55:06,492 --> 00:55:07,159
was recommended to be

1335
00:55:07,159 --> 00:55:09,159
considered.

1336
00:55:09,795 --> 00:55:10,462
Or whether it was not

1337
00:55:10,462 --> 00:55:12,462
recommended.

1338
00:55:13,533 --> 00:55:15,670
And that is an important fact

1339
00:55:15,670 --> 00:55:15,401
issue regarding one of the

1340
00:55:15,401 --> 00:55:16,602
articles.

1341
00:55:16,602 --> 00:55:18,103
Your understanding about the

1342
00:55:18,103 --> 00:55:20,139
time about why it was being put

1343
00:55:20,139 --> 00:55:21,607
on, I would ask him questions

1344
00:55:21,607 --> 00:55:24,607
about why -- his understanding

1345
00:55:25,278 --> 00:55:27,846
why it was on the agenda and why

1346
00:55:27,846 --> 00:55:31,217
it was not not allowed to be on

1347
00:55:31,217 --> 00:55:33,217
the agenda.

1348
00:55:35,522 --> 00:55:39,250
That -- I would ask him about

1349
00:55:39,250 --> 00:55:40,793
the APRIL 23 -- going back to

1350
00:55:40,793 --> 00:55:42,793
the FEBRUARY 20.

1351
00:55:43,630 --> 00:55:45,798
and he stated on APRIL 23rd

1352
00:55:45,798 --> 00:55:47,267
it's a very long agenda memo

1353
00:55:47,267 --> 00:55:48,468
that talked about all the issues

1354
00:55:48,468 --> 00:55:50,468
that came about.

1355
00:55:50,636 --> 00:55:53,360
You know, unfortunately various

1356
00:55:53,730 --> 00:55:54,675
reasons the presentation didn't

1357
00:55:54,675 --> 00:55:55,476
always match up with what was

1358
00:55:55,476 --> 00:55:56,709
happening, end quote.

1359
00:55:56,709 --> 00:55:59,212
That was a quote of

1360
00:55:59,212 --> 00:56:01,215
MR. Hernandez at the meeting.

1361
00:56:01,215 --> 00:56:05,415
And so I would ask him questions

1362
00:56:05,552 --> 00:56:06,486
about the various reasons and

1363
00:56:06,486 --> 00:56:07,821
whether edc and staff simply

1364
00:56:07,821 --> 00:56:09,456
pulled the edc presentation to

1365
00:56:09,456 --> 00:56:11,856
the council, bypassing the

1366
00:56:12,192 --> 00:56:14,227
actual reason that the type b

1367
00:56:14,227 --> 00:56:15,863
gave, which he called editing of

1368
00:56:15,863 --> 00:56:17,863
the slide.

1369
00:56:19,332 --> 00:56:20,534
And he referenced that

1370
00:56:20,534 --> 00:56:23,534
MR. Ramirez and bhakta hadn't

1371
00:56:23,604 --> 00:56:25,600
responded to the city manager's

1372
00:56:25,600 --> 00:56:26,340
inquiries.

1373
00:56:26,340 --> 00:56:27,942
And because of the -- quote, now

1374
00:56:27,942 --> 00:56:30,978
because of some of the issues

1375
00:56:30,978 --> 00:56:32,613
with the presentation, which

1376
00:56:32,613 --> 00:56:34,382
COUNCILWOMAN Campos had pointed

1377
00:56:34,382 --> 00:56:35,916
out, there was some editing, so

1378
00:56:35,916 --> 00:56:36,683
to speak, and we're waiting on a

1379
00:56:36,683 --> 00:56:38,419
response.

1380
00:56:38,419 --> 00:56:40,587
And he claimed there were muddy

1381
00:56:40,587 --> 00:56:40,988
waters but they were not muddy

1382
00:56:40,988 --> 00:56:42,988
for MR. Hernandez.

1383
00:56:44,158 --> 00:56:46,360
Because he knew, before

1384
00:56:46,360 --> 00:56:49,960
FEBRUARY 20th, that the type b

1385
00:56:52,933 --> 00:56:53,834
board's reasoning was not based

1386
00:56:53,834 --> 00:56:56,234
on general fema compliance

1387
00:56:56,737 --> 00:56:57,606
because his statement was "it

1388
00:56:57,606 --> 00:56:59,606
isn't."

1389
00:57:00,700 --> 00:57:04,207
he made the motion that it was

1390
00:57:04,379 --> 00:57:06,379
for everyone's protection.

1391
00:57:10,840 --> 00:57:11,519
And the motion that he made, the

1392
00:57:11,519 --> 00:57:11,987
second was withdrawn, was for

1393
00:57:11,987 --> 00:57:13,288
everyone's protection.

1394
00:57:13,288 --> 00:57:15,590
I would ask him questions about

1395
00:57:15,590 --> 00:57:17,793
what he meant by that and what

1396
00:57:17,793 --> 00:57:21,993
it is that he was trying to

1397
00:57:24,834 --> 00:57:27,234
protect the public from.

1398
00:57:27,670 --> 00:57:29,670
Let's see...

1399
00:57:31,206 --> 00:57:35,406
And I would ask him about his

1400
00:57:36,178 --> 00:57:38,781
belief at that time, because he

1401
00:57:38,781 --> 00:57:39,548
had -- he stated, quote --

1402
00:57:39,548 --> 00:57:41,416
that's okay.

1403
00:57:41,416 --> 00:57:43,418
I will clarify that in the sense

1404
00:57:43,418 --> 00:57:46,155
the request initially was for

1405
00:57:46,155 --> 00:57:47,689
funding or for flooding

1406
00:57:47,689 --> 00:57:48,223
mitigation, right, which was

1407
00:57:48,223 --> 00:57:49,558
discounted.

1408
00:57:49,558 --> 00:57:51,160
But it's the exact same dollar

1409
00:57:51,160 --> 00:57:53,629
amount as to what was actually

1410
00:57:53,629 --> 00:57:55,364
provided by type b, which is the

1411
00:57:55,364 --> 00:57:57,650
narrative that the petitioners

1412
00:57:57,650 --> 00:57:58,635
in this case have actually put

1413
00:57:58,635 --> 00:58:00,635
on.

1414
00:58:00,970 --> 00:58:01,370
It's the same factual

1415
00:58:01,370 --> 00:58:03,370
narrative.

1416
00:58:03,839 --> 00:58:05,341
It matches the petitioner, so I

1417
00:58:05,341 --> 00:58:07,741
would ask about coordination

1418
00:58:08,210 --> 00:58:09,745
with petitioner, petitioner's

1419
00:58:09,745 --> 00:58:11,745
counsel, any communications

1420
00:58:13,382 --> 00:58:15,782
between himself and council.

1421
00:58:16,585 --> 00:58:17,887
And really any lawyer that is

1422
00:58:17,887 --> 00:58:18,121
associated with petitioner's

1423
00:58:18,121 --> 00:58:20,121
counsel.

1424
00:58:20,590 --> 00:58:21,123
I would ask him questions about

1425
00:58:21,123 --> 00:58:22,358
that.

1426
00:58:22,358 --> 00:58:24,758
Going back to it.

1427
00:58:27,630 --> 00:58:29,499
I will clarify in the sense

1428
00:58:29,499 --> 00:58:29,833
that -- this is MR. Hernandez on

1429
00:58:29,833 --> 00:58:31,468
APRIL 23.

1430
00:58:31,468 --> 00:58:32,668
Was for funding or flooding

1431
00:58:32,668 --> 00:58:34,304
mitigation.

1432
00:58:34,304 --> 00:58:36,172
It's the exact same dollar

1433
00:58:36,172 --> 00:58:36,973
amount as was actually provided

1434
00:58:36,973 --> 00:58:38,973
by type b.

1435
00:58:39,750 --> 00:58:39,575
Just make sure there's no

1436
00:58:39,575 --> 00:58:41,100
confusion, I want some

1437
00:58:41,100 --> 00:58:42,646
documentation as to how they

1438
00:58:42,646 --> 00:58:43,780
arrived at their number for the

1439
00:58:43,780 --> 00:58:45,215
$2 million, just to make sure

1440
00:58:45,215 --> 00:58:47,215
that everybody's protected.

1441
00:58:47,417 --> 00:58:48,519
So that's my motion, even though

1442
00:58:48,519 --> 00:58:49,587
the type b board was present

1443
00:58:49,587 --> 00:58:51,540
right there.

1444
00:58:51,540 --> 00:58:55,254
When she said, quote, I would be

1445
00:58:55,992 --> 00:58:57,128
happy to answer any questions.

1446
00:58:57,128 --> 00:58:58,428
MR. Hernandez later on said, I

1447
00:58:58,428 --> 00:58:58,629
don't need to say anything

1448
00:58:58,629 --> 00:59:00,629
more.

1449
00:59:02,532 --> 00:59:05,532
Rather than asking her questions

1450
00:59:05,569 --> 00:59:09,507
on the record on the very issue

1451
00:59:09,507 --> 00:59:09,973
he espoused was important to

1452
00:59:09,973 --> 00:59:11,908
him.

1453
00:59:11,908 --> 00:59:12,910
He made a motion for the type b

1454
00:59:12,910 --> 00:59:14,345
to state its reasons.

1455
00:59:14,345 --> 00:59:15,779
I'm looking at this to protect

1456
00:59:15,779 --> 00:59:17,748
us as an organization, as a

1457
00:59:17,748 --> 00:59:18,148
city.

1458
00:59:18,148 --> 00:59:18,482
Again, I'm quoting

1459
00:59:18,482 --> 00:59:19,850
MR. Hernandez.

1460
00:59:19,850 --> 00:59:21,419
I'm looking at this to protect

1461
00:59:21,419 --> 00:59:23,687
us as an organization, as a city

1462
00:59:23,687 --> 00:59:25,223
so we don't have any, you know,

1463
00:59:25,223 --> 00:59:25,522
lingering thoughts of

1464
00:59:25,522 --> 00:59:27,522
malfeasance.

1465
00:59:29,193 --> 00:59:30,227
I would ask him his preparation

1466
00:59:30,227 --> 00:59:32,227
for that meeting.

1467
00:59:32,630 --> 00:59:33,530
That he had sit down with

1468
00:59:33,530 --> 00:59:35,632
MR. Ramirez, studied the issue

1469
00:59:35,632 --> 00:59:38,690
for two months, and he had the

1470
00:59:38,690 --> 00:59:39,270
chair of the board there and he

1471
00:59:39,270 --> 00:59:41,372
didn't ask her any questions

1472
00:59:41,372 --> 00:59:43,107
about how it is that the number

1473
00:59:43,107 --> 00:59:45,107
was arrived at.

1474
00:59:46,211 --> 00:59:48,346
The $2 million, the basis for

1475
00:59:48,346 --> 00:59:50,346
it.

1476
00:59:51,682 --> 00:59:53,584
In AUGUST of 2025,

1477
00:59:53,584 --> 00:59:54,753
AUGUST 29th, 2025, I would ask

1478
00:59:54,753 --> 00:59:56,554
MR. Hernandez about an e-mail

1479
00:59:56,554 --> 00:59:58,220
that he received that contained

1480
00:59:58,220 --> 00:59:59,624
the petition for removal that

1481
00:59:59,624 --> 00:59:59,957
had been filed with the city

1482
00:59:59,957 --> 01:00:01,957
secretary.

1483
01:00:04,229 --> 01:00:07,320
I would ask him about the news

1484
01:00:07,320 --> 01:00:09,301
breaking the following day that

1485
01:00:09,301 --> 01:00:11,603
the petition alleged that mayor

1486
01:00:11,603 --> 01:00:12,470
was guilty of, quote,

1487
01:00:12,470 --> 01:00:14,306
malfeasance, end quote.

1488
01:00:14,306 --> 01:00:14,606
The word he used at the APRIL 23

1489
01:00:14,606 --> 01:00:16,606
meeting.

1490
01:00:19,430 --> 01:00:20,713
I would ask him questions about

1491
01:00:20,713 --> 01:00:21,846
how five months later, in

1492
01:00:21,846 --> 01:00:22,681
JANUARY, when the corpus christi

1493
01:00:22,681 --> 01:00:24,450
police department was on the

1494
01:00:24,450 --> 01:00:27,450
agenda to publicly discuss its

1495
01:00:27,987 --> 01:00:28,319
findings and the project elevate

1496
01:00:28,319 --> 01:00:30,189
investigation.

1497
01:00:30,189 --> 01:00:31,790
Chief markle was there,

1498
01:00:31,790 --> 01:00:32,992
investigator garcia was there.

1499
01:00:32,992 --> 01:00:34,626
Breedlove was there.

1500
01:00:34,626 --> 01:00:36,628
And there was a presentation for

1501
01:00:36,628 --> 01:00:37,930
public consumption for the

1502
01:00:37,930 --> 01:00:39,930
investigation details.

1503
01:00:39,999 --> 01:00:42,467
And I would ask MR. Hernandez

1504
01:00:42,467 --> 01:00:46,667
about the fact that he had read

1505
01:00:46,938 --> 01:00:49,575
the report and he knew that the

1506
01:00:49,575 --> 01:00:50,509
police were there to answer

1507
01:00:50,509 --> 01:00:52,509
questions.

1508
01:00:52,512 --> 01:00:53,779
But something happened at that

1509
01:00:53,779 --> 01:00:55,779
meeting.

1510
01:00:55,848 --> 01:00:59,318
MR. Hernandez made a motion to

1511
01:00:59,318 --> 01:00:59,652
postpone the police department's

1512
01:00:59,652 --> 01:01:01,200
presentation.

1513
01:01:01,200 --> 01:01:02,821
Even though the police

1514
01:01:02,821 --> 01:01:05,221
department had completed its

1515
01:01:05,824 --> 01:01:07,270
investigation.

1516
01:01:07,270 --> 01:01:08,328
And the report had been

1517
01:01:08,328 --> 01:01:09,862
delivered and he understood the

1518
01:01:09,862 --> 01:01:12,262
investigation had been closed.

1519
01:01:14,167 --> 01:01:15,167
And that he understood that the

1520
01:01:15,167 --> 01:01:16,360
presentation concerned the

1521
01:01:16,360 --> 01:01:18,360
police department's findings.

1522
01:01:20,720 --> 01:01:21,407
But he also, at the same time,

1523
01:01:21,407 --> 01:01:23,175
understood that the council

1524
01:01:23,175 --> 01:01:24,443
hired outside counsel to conduct

1525
01:01:24,443 --> 01:01:25,678
a separate investigation.

1526
01:01:25,678 --> 01:01:26,980
He stated he expected that to be

1527
01:01:26,980 --> 01:01:29,980
delivered in FEBRUARY and he

1528
01:01:30,517 --> 01:01:33,153
moved to delay it, which was a

1529
01:01:33,153 --> 01:01:33,753
successful motion to delay the

1530
01:01:33,753 --> 01:01:35,121
police presentation.

1531
01:01:35,121 --> 01:01:37,323
He explained that he didn't want

1532
01:01:37,323 --> 01:01:38,324
to put the police department in

1533
01:01:38,324 --> 01:01:40,324
a bad position.

1534
01:01:40,560 --> 01:01:42,495
And that he didn't want the

1535
01:01:42,495 --> 01:01:45,232
police department report to be

1536
01:01:45,232 --> 01:01:46,330
utilized for public purposes,

1537
01:01:46,330 --> 01:01:48,433
which were his words.

1538
01:01:49,936 --> 01:01:51,771
I don't want the police

1539
01:01:51,771 --> 01:01:52,773
department and the law

1540
01:01:52,773 --> 01:01:54,107
enforcement investigation to be

1541
01:01:54,107 --> 01:01:54,574
used, quote, for political

1542
01:01:54,574 --> 01:01:56,574
purposes.

1543
01:01:57,745 --> 01:01:59,947
And I would ask him questions

1544
01:01:59,947 --> 01:02:01,482
about the political purposes he

1545
01:02:01,482 --> 01:02:03,450
was referring to.

1546
01:02:03,450 --> 01:02:06,450
And those were asking questions

1547
01:02:07,387 --> 01:02:08,989
about whether they referred to

1548
01:02:08,989 --> 01:02:10,524
the controversy involving the

1549
01:02:10,524 --> 01:02:11,258
articles of impeachment that are

1550
01:02:11,258 --> 01:02:14,258
before this proceeding right now

1551
01:02:14,461 --> 01:02:15,863
in which he is sitting on the

1552
01:02:15,863 --> 01:02:18,165
dais as a juror in.

1553
01:02:18,165 --> 01:02:19,166
He, at that time, knew that the

1554
01:02:19,166 --> 01:02:20,350
removal petition had been filed

1555
01:02:20,350 --> 01:02:22,350
against the mayor.

1556
01:02:22,136 --> 01:02:23,103
He knew that the police

1557
01:02:23,103 --> 01:02:25,103
department investigation had

1558
01:02:25,539 --> 01:02:26,708
become part of the public

1559
01:02:26,708 --> 01:02:27,700
discussion surrounding this

1560
01:02:27,700 --> 01:02:28,410
proceeding.

1561
01:02:28,410 --> 01:02:29,677
And he was concerned -- I was

1562
01:02:29,677 --> 01:02:31,479
ask him questions about the fact

1563
01:02:31,479 --> 01:02:32,813
that whether he was concerned

1564
01:02:32,813 --> 01:02:33,881
about how the police

1565
01:02:33,881 --> 01:02:35,881
department's findings might

1566
01:02:37,184 --> 01:02:37,919
affect those discussions

1567
01:02:37,919 --> 01:02:39,919
regarding this proceeding.

1568
01:02:40,989 --> 01:02:42,957
I would ask him questions about

1569
01:02:42,957 --> 01:02:45,626
whether he wanted to wait,

1570
01:02:45,626 --> 01:02:46,227
because the attorney's report,

1571
01:02:46,227 --> 01:02:47,294
quote, might be contradictory,

1572
01:02:47,294 --> 01:02:48,300
end quote, to the police

1573
01:02:48,300 --> 01:02:49,964
department's report.

1574
01:02:49,964 --> 01:02:52,734
And those were his words.

1575
01:02:52,734 --> 01:02:53,801
So before either presentation

1576
01:02:53,801 --> 01:02:56,201
occurred, he anticipated that

1577
01:02:56,872 --> 01:02:57,339
the lawyer's conclusions could

1578
01:02:57,339 --> 01:02:58,506
differ from the police

1579
01:02:58,506 --> 01:03:00,141
department's and believed that

1580
01:03:00,141 --> 01:03:00,742
the lawyer might reach findings

1581
01:03:00,742 --> 01:03:02,710
that the police department had

1582
01:03:02,710 --> 01:03:04,546
not and that that expectation

1583
01:03:04,546 --> 01:03:06,810
was the reason he wanted to

1584
01:03:06,810 --> 01:03:06,548
postpone the police department

1585
01:03:06,548 --> 01:03:08,548
presentation.

1586
01:03:10,285 --> 01:03:10,919
Even though it was ready to be

1587
01:03:10,919 --> 01:03:12,821
presented.

1588
01:03:12,821 --> 01:03:15,457
Because it would counter the

1589
01:03:15,457 --> 01:03:17,292
narrative that had begun after

1590
01:03:17,292 --> 01:03:17,659
the articles of impeachment --

1591
01:03:17,659 --> 01:03:19,361
I'm sorry.

1592
01:03:19,361 --> 01:03:20,629
After the petition for removal

1593
01:03:20,629 --> 01:03:23,599
had been filed months later.

1594
01:03:23,599 --> 01:03:25,900
I would ask him questions about

1595
01:03:25,900 --> 01:03:27,670
whether the police department,

1596
01:03:27,670 --> 01:03:28,360
he understood were ready to

1597
01:03:28,360 --> 01:03:29,505
present.

1598
01:03:29,505 --> 01:03:30,406
I would ask him to confirm that

1599
01:03:30,406 --> 01:03:32,174
the police department did not

1600
01:03:32,174 --> 01:03:33,642
ask for a postponement.

1601
01:03:33,642 --> 01:03:35,177
instead, that he did.

1602
01:03:35,177 --> 01:03:36,578
And that the only -- and I would

1603
01:03:36,578 --> 01:03:38,580
ask him questions about the fact

1604
01:03:38,580 --> 01:03:39,849
that what he wanted to do was

1605
01:03:39,849 --> 01:03:41,350
change the timing of when the

1606
01:03:41,350 --> 01:03:44,350
public would hear the police

1607
01:03:46,955 --> 01:03:47,557
department's conclusions to fit

1608
01:03:47,557 --> 01:03:49,910
the impeachment narrative that

1609
01:03:49,910 --> 01:03:50,193
was initiated in the petition

1610
01:03:50,193 --> 01:03:51,861
for removal.

1611
01:03:51,861 --> 01:03:54,196
I would ask him questions about

1612
01:03:54,196 --> 01:03:56,933
that he knew the removal

1613
01:03:56,933 --> 01:03:58,330
proceeding against the mayor was

1614
01:03:58,330 --> 01:03:58,868
pending at that time,

1615
01:03:58,868 --> 01:04:00,470
obviously.

1616
01:04:00,470 --> 01:04:03,405
I would ask him that he

1617
01:04:03,405 --> 01:04:04,140
understood, prior to that

1618
01:04:04,140 --> 01:04:06,242
meeting, that there had been no

1619
01:04:06,242 --> 01:04:09,120
finding of criminal conduct by

1620
01:04:09,120 --> 01:04:09,312
anybody involved, by the police

1621
01:04:09,312 --> 01:04:10,914
department.

1622
01:04:10,914 --> 01:04:13,914
And that he expected the

1623
01:04:13,951 --> 01:04:15,284
lawyer's report to address

1624
01:04:15,284 --> 01:04:15,718
alleged misconduct by elected

1625
01:04:15,718 --> 01:04:17,718
officials.

1626
01:04:19,422 --> 01:04:23,622
And that was the reason to delay

1627
01:04:24,861 --> 01:04:26,363
to try and manipulate the

1628
01:04:26,363 --> 01:04:28,763
narrative regarding the pretrial

1629
01:04:29,365 --> 01:04:31,765
proceedings in this matter.

1630
01:04:32,969 --> 01:04:34,971
I would ask him to confirm his

1631
01:04:34,971 --> 01:04:36,373
state of mind, that the

1632
01:04:36,373 --> 01:04:38,275
investigations involved many of

1633
01:04:38,275 --> 01:04:40,675
the same underlying events.

1634
01:04:41,111 --> 01:04:43,948
And I would ask him questions

1635
01:04:43,948 --> 01:04:45,882
regarding whether his intent was

1636
01:04:45,882 --> 01:04:47,584
to have them released together

1637
01:04:47,584 --> 01:04:48,552
rather than allowing the police

1638
01:04:48,552 --> 01:04:50,321
department conclusions to stand

1639
01:04:50,321 --> 01:04:53,624
on their own in order to match

1640
01:04:53,624 --> 01:04:54,125
the narrative surrounding the

1641
01:04:54,125 --> 01:04:55,292
articles of impeachment.

1642
01:04:55,292 --> 01:04:57,595
And they were done all in an

1643
01:04:57,595 --> 01:05:00,998
effort to try and shape the

1644
01:05:00,998 --> 01:05:01,366
narrative, leading up to this

1645
01:05:01,366 --> 01:05:02,967
trial.

1646
01:05:02,967 --> 01:05:04,569
I would ask him to confirm that

1647
01:05:04,569 --> 01:05:06,637
his concern was not whether the

1648
01:05:06,637 --> 01:05:09,370
police department had actually

1649
01:05:09,240 --> 01:05:11,309
completed its work but that his

1650
01:05:11,309 --> 01:05:12,877
concern was how its conclusions

1651
01:05:12,877 --> 01:05:13,979
would be received before the

1652
01:05:13,979 --> 01:05:16,379
lawyer's report was released.

1653
01:05:16,481 --> 01:05:17,140
And that is why he sought the

1654
01:05:17,140 --> 01:05:18,950
delay.

1655
01:05:18,950 --> 01:05:21,218
He stated, quote, I don't want

1656
01:05:21,218 --> 01:05:22,420
to put you in a bad spot or have

1657
01:05:22,420 --> 01:05:23,855
you utilize for political

1658
01:05:23,855 --> 01:05:24,922
purpose, so I want to make sure

1659
01:05:24,922 --> 01:05:25,623
we have all the information at

1660
01:05:25,623 --> 01:05:27,591
the same time.

1661
01:05:27,591 --> 01:05:28,459
And one of the justifications

1662
01:05:28,459 --> 01:05:30,394
was that the police findings

1663
01:05:30,394 --> 01:05:31,496
would be used for political

1664
01:05:31,496 --> 01:05:33,496
purposes.

1665
01:05:33,665 --> 01:05:36,100
And MR. Hernandez has publicly

1666
01:05:36,100 --> 01:05:36,801
confirmed that this removal

1667
01:05:36,801 --> 01:05:39,201
proceeding is a political

1668
01:05:40,805 --> 01:05:41,139
process and not a legal

1669
01:05:41,139 --> 01:05:43,139
process.

1670
01:05:43,741 --> 01:05:45,911
I would ask him to confirm that

1671
01:05:45,911 --> 01:05:47,450
a policy is something that

1672
01:05:47,450 --> 01:05:49,114
focuses on written rules and

1673
01:05:49,114 --> 01:05:50,181
guidelines and goals and it

1674
01:05:50,181 --> 01:05:53,181
answers what actions will be

1675
01:05:54,153 --> 01:05:55,753
taken to fix an issue.

1676
01:05:55,753 --> 01:05:57,456
And politics focuses on power,

1677
01:05:57,456 --> 01:05:58,757
campaigns, elections.

1678
01:05:58,757 --> 01:06:00,492
It involves conflict, debate,

1679
01:06:00,492 --> 01:06:02,795
and compromise between people.

1680
01:06:02,795 --> 01:06:05,197
It answers who gets to rule and

1681
01:06:05,197 --> 01:06:07,597
how they win support.

1682
01:06:10,168 --> 01:06:11,136
And I would then return to the

1683
01:06:11,136 --> 01:06:12,337
facts of the petition -- the

1684
01:06:12,337 --> 01:06:14,339
timing of the petition for

1685
01:06:14,339 --> 01:06:16,740
removal.

1686
01:06:16,740 --> 01:06:18,211
The postponement, the corpus

1687
01:06:18,211 --> 01:06:18,744
christi police department,

1688
01:06:18,744 --> 01:06:19,110
daniel rey presentation in

1689
01:06:19,110 --> 01:06:21,110
FEBRUARY.

1690
01:06:25,317 --> 01:06:27,853
And that less than a month later

1691
01:06:27,853 --> 01:06:30,490
I would ask him about his state

1692
01:06:30,490 --> 01:06:31,791
of mind about signing the

1693
01:06:31,791 --> 01:06:32,791
three-signature memo,

1694
01:06:32,791 --> 01:06:35,191
adopting -- I'm sorry.

1695
01:06:36,897 --> 01:06:37,330
The three-signature memo dated

1696
01:06:37,330 --> 01:06:39,298
MARCH 11, 2026.

1697
01:06:39,298 --> 01:06:41,701
And I would ask him questions

1698
01:06:41,701 --> 01:06:44,701
about his public expressions of

1699
01:06:46,473 --> 01:06:48,675
a willingness to run for mayor.

1700
01:06:48,675 --> 01:06:50,743
I would ask him questions about

1701
01:06:50,743 --> 01:06:52,412
his decision and state of mind

1702
01:06:52,412 --> 01:06:54,547
to sign the three-signature memo

1703
01:06:54,547 --> 01:06:55,649
and to put this removal

1704
01:06:55,649 --> 01:06:57,183
proceeding on the agenda to

1705
01:06:57,183 --> 01:06:59,183
start the process.

1706
01:07:00,254 --> 01:07:02,555
And that it was a political

1707
01:07:02,555 --> 01:07:03,957
decision to sign the

1708
01:07:03,957 --> 01:07:05,957
three-signature memo.

1709
01:07:08,261 --> 01:07:09,696
And I would ask him -- do you

1710
01:07:09,696 --> 01:07:11,696
have the clip?

1711
01:07:12,966 --> 01:07:13,200
Ask him about a --

1712
01:07:13,200 --> 01:07:14,434
[Video]

1713
01:07:14,434 --> 01:07:15,502
>> Hernandez: the city

1714
01:07:15,502 --> 01:07:18,720
secretary has the authority to

1715
01:07:18,720 --> 01:07:19,305
put stuff on the agenda.

1716
01:07:19,305 --> 01:07:20,908
[End of video]

1717
01:07:20,908 --> 01:07:22,310
>> Flood: I'm going to ask him

1718
01:07:22,310 --> 01:07:24,645
questions about his state of

1719
01:07:24,645 --> 01:07:24,911
mind on -- do you know the

1720
01:07:24,911 --> 01:07:26,246
date?

1721
01:07:26,246 --> 01:07:28,246
That's okay.

1722
01:07:31,519 --> 01:07:32,853
On APRIL 29th, just six weeks

1723
01:07:32,853 --> 01:07:34,853
after signing the

1724
01:07:35,823 --> 01:07:37,823
three-signature memo.

1725
01:07:38,425 --> 01:07:42,625
And his state of mind in signing

1726
01:07:42,731 --> 01:07:45,133
the signature memo was not

1727
01:07:45,133 --> 01:07:48,470
founded on policy and it was not

1728
01:07:48,470 --> 01:07:49,370
founded on anything other than

1729
01:07:49,370 --> 01:07:51,720
politics.

1730
01:07:51,720 --> 01:07:52,706
I would confront him with this

1731
01:07:52,706 --> 01:07:52,940
public statement he made.

1732
01:07:52,940 --> 01:07:54,476
[Video]

1733
01:07:54,476 --> 01:07:55,710
>> Hernandez: the city

1734
01:07:55,710 --> 01:07:58,710
secretary has some authority to

1735
01:07:59,213 --> 01:08:00,949
put stuff on the agenda, but she

1736
01:08:00,949 --> 01:08:02,170
just wasn't going to.

1737
01:08:02,170 --> 01:08:04,170
[End of video]

1738
01:08:04,190 --> 01:08:04,986
>> Flood: I would confirm with

1739
01:08:04,986 --> 01:08:08,586
MR. Hernandez that that is his

1740
01:08:09,230 --> 01:08:09,223
voice that we hear in that

1741
01:08:09,223 --> 01:08:09,457
clip.

1742
01:08:09,457 --> 01:08:11,457
[Video]

1743
01:08:13,940 --> 01:08:13,594
>> Hernandez: it really is a

1744
01:08:13,594 --> 01:08:14,930
political process.

1745
01:08:14,930 --> 01:08:16,864
>> not a legal process?

1746
01:08:16,864 --> 01:08:18,864
>> Hernandez: well, the

1747
01:08:19,734 --> 01:08:21,670
charter is an ordinance, right?

1748
01:08:21,670 --> 01:08:22,537
Or it's voted on by the

1749
01:08:22,537 --> 01:08:24,600
citizens, right?

1750
01:08:24,600 --> 01:08:26,406
So we're following that

1751
01:08:27,410 --> 01:08:29,410
process.

1752
01:08:29,445 --> 01:08:31,112
But any kind of -- to put stuff

1753
01:08:31,112 --> 01:08:33,181
on the agenda is by the policies

1754
01:08:33,181 --> 01:08:34,450
that we have in place.

1755
01:08:34,450 --> 01:08:36,450
[End of video]

1756
01:08:36,485 --> 01:08:37,453
>> Flood: I would ask him to

1757
01:08:37,453 --> 01:08:40,890
confirm that the memo itself is

1758
01:08:40,890 --> 01:08:43,625
the policy but the decision that

1759
01:08:43,625 --> 01:08:45,127
he made and his state of mind

1760
01:08:45,127 --> 01:08:47,530
when signing it was as he

1761
01:08:47,530 --> 01:08:49,530
stated, publicly, political.

1762
01:08:52,368 --> 01:08:55,368
I would ask him questions

1763
01:08:58,574 --> 01:08:59,408
about -- in NOVEMBER, the

1764
01:08:59,408 --> 01:09:00,843
NOVEMBER 7, 2023, proposition a,

1765
01:09:00,843 --> 01:09:01,810
that voters in corpus christi

1766
01:09:01,810 --> 01:09:03,810
considered proposition a.

1767
01:09:04,980 --> 01:09:06,116
I'll ask him questions about

1768
01:09:06,116 --> 01:09:08,516
proposition a would have

1769
01:09:09,719 --> 01:09:10,521
supported the renewing of a

1770
01:09:10,521 --> 01:09:13,355
25-cent sales tax and dedicated

1771
01:09:13,355 --> 01:09:14,557
the revenue to constructing and

1772
01:09:14,557 --> 01:09:14,924
renovating parks, convention

1773
01:09:14,924 --> 01:09:16,924
center complex.

1774
01:09:19,129 --> 01:09:23,233
I would ask him to confirm that

1775
01:09:23,233 --> 01:09:24,568
MR. Ajit david, a petitioner,

1776
01:09:24,568 --> 01:09:27,236
person in this case, who has

1777
01:09:27,236 --> 01:09:29,636
identified himself as a

1778
01:09:29,973 --> 01:09:32,973
petitioner, who is sitting right

1779
01:09:33,420 --> 01:09:34,100
now next to petitioner's

1780
01:09:34,100 --> 01:09:36,100
counsel.

1781
01:09:39,449 --> 01:09:40,500
Who is a -- who has been at

1782
01:09:40,500 --> 01:09:41,285
these proceedings, as far as I

1783
01:09:41,285 --> 01:09:44,285
can tell, every single day.

1784
01:09:46,422 --> 01:09:50,260
And I would ask him to confirm

1785
01:09:50,260 --> 01:09:52,162
that MR. David and MR. Bhakta

1786
01:09:52,162 --> 01:09:53,463
were opposed to proposition a

1787
01:09:53,463 --> 01:09:55,463
back in 2023.

1788
01:09:56,733 --> 01:09:58,350
I would ask him to confirm that

1789
01:09:58,350 --> 01:09:59,360
in 2024 he was the chair of the

1790
01:09:59,360 --> 01:10:01,360
audit committee.

1791
01:10:02,873 --> 01:10:06,143
And I would ask him to confirm

1792
01:10:06,143 --> 01:10:08,543
that on AUGUST 28, 2024 the

1793
01:10:09,214 --> 01:10:10,146
auditor's office received an

1794
01:10:10,146 --> 01:10:12,146
allegation regarding a

1795
01:10:12,449 --> 01:10:13,518
$2 million incentive to the

1796
01:10:13,518 --> 01:10:17,118
homewood suites by hilton at the

1797
01:10:18,560 --> 01:10:19,390
corner of north chaparral and

1798
01:10:19,390 --> 01:10:22,226
lomax street in corpus christi.

1799
01:10:22,226 --> 01:10:23,928
And a government document was

1800
01:10:23,928 --> 01:10:24,528
altered to obtain tax dollars

1801
01:10:24,528 --> 01:10:27,528
from the type b corporation.

1802
01:10:29,701 --> 01:10:30,835
I would ask him to confirm,

1803
01:10:30,835 --> 01:10:32,336
based on his personal knowledge

1804
01:10:32,336 --> 01:10:33,704
and in his capacity as chair of

1805
01:10:33,704 --> 01:10:35,906
the audit committee, that

1806
01:10:35,906 --> 01:10:36,207
MR. David is who made that

1807
01:10:36,207 --> 01:10:37,676
allegation.

1808
01:10:37,676 --> 01:10:40,478
And MR. David -- I would ask him

1809
01:10:40,478 --> 01:10:41,312
to confirm his personal

1810
01:10:41,312 --> 01:10:44,912
knowledge that MR. David is a

1811
01:10:45,500 --> 01:10:46,384
partner in or affiliated with

1812
01:10:46,384 --> 01:10:46,918
bayfront marina investments,

1813
01:10:46,918 --> 01:10:48,190
lp.

1814
01:10:48,190 --> 01:10:50,254
And that he was chair of the

1815
01:10:50,254 --> 01:10:53,254
audit committee, as I stated.

1816
01:10:54,559 --> 01:10:57,829
And that the following day, the

1817
01:10:57,829 --> 01:10:59,829
day after AUGUST 28, 2024.

1818
01:11:05,437 --> 01:11:07,437
On AUGUST 29, 2024, bayfront

1819
01:11:07,505 --> 01:11:08,907
marina investments donated $1500

1820
01:11:08,907 --> 01:11:10,907
to MR. Hernandez.

1821
01:11:16,715 --> 01:11:17,383
And then a month later they

1822
01:11:17,383 --> 01:11:20,383
donated -- one month later.

1823
01:11:22,822 --> 01:11:25,900
I would ask him questions

1824
01:11:25,900 --> 01:11:27,493
regarding his statement that he

1825
01:11:27,493 --> 01:11:28,360
made and that has been

1826
01:11:28,360 --> 01:11:30,360
published.

1827
01:11:31,898 --> 01:11:32,231
That regarding that payment he

1828
01:11:32,231 --> 01:11:34,231
denied.

1829
01:11:34,800 --> 01:11:38,971
I would ask him to confirm that

1830
01:11:38,971 --> 01:11:41,274
he has denied that the money

1831
01:11:41,274 --> 01:11:44,274
related to the audit complaint,

1832
01:11:44,276 --> 01:11:45,711
even though it was paid the day

1833
01:11:45,711 --> 01:11:46,913
after.

1834
01:11:46,913 --> 01:11:48,314
MR. David made the complaint.

1835
01:11:48,314 --> 01:11:49,949
That the other payment was made

1836
01:11:49,949 --> 01:11:52,349
only a month later.

1837
01:11:54,530 --> 01:11:56,220
And ask him to confirm that he

1838
01:11:56,220 --> 01:11:58,458
affirmatively -- that it was his

1839
01:11:58,458 --> 01:11:59,725
state of mind, prior to this

1840
01:11:59,725 --> 01:12:01,662
proceeding where MR. David is a

1841
01:12:01,662 --> 01:12:04,662
petitioner and has been sitting

1842
01:12:05,980 --> 01:12:05,398
here as a party in this

1843
01:12:05,398 --> 01:12:07,367
proceeding.

1844
01:12:07,367 --> 01:12:10,967
Ask him to confirm that the

1845
01:12:12,372 --> 01:12:14,974
money was paid to MR. Hernandez,

1846
01:12:14,974 --> 01:12:17,440
quote, for, end quote, his

1847
01:12:17,440 --> 01:12:19,346
opposition to proposition a,

1848
01:12:19,346 --> 01:12:22,946
which had been voted down over

1849
01:12:24,117 --> 01:12:24,951
nine months earlier.

1850
01:12:24,951 --> 01:12:27,951
And the incredibility of the

1851
01:12:31,910 --> 01:12:31,526
timing of a payment of $1500 on

1852
01:12:31,526 --> 01:12:32,893
AUGUST 29th.

1853
01:12:32,893 --> 01:12:35,129
And its relation to something

1854
01:12:35,129 --> 01:12:38,129
that happened on AUGUST 28th.

1855
01:12:39,633 --> 01:12:40,401
And his statement that it was

1856
01:12:40,401 --> 01:12:40,868
for opposition to proposition

1857
01:12:40,868 --> 01:12:42,868
a.

1858
01:12:45,239 --> 01:12:45,539
Can you play that clip, please?

1859
01:12:45,539 --> 01:12:47,475
[Audio clip]

1860
01:12:47,475 --> 01:12:47,775
>> was that timing just a

1861
01:12:47,775 --> 01:12:49,743
coincidence?

1862
01:12:49,743 --> 01:12:50,440
>> Hernandez: just

1863
01:12:50,440 --> 01:12:52,440
retaliation.

1864
01:12:52,247 --> 01:12:53,470
>> I'm talking about the

1865
01:12:53,470 --> 01:12:53,981
contribution.

1866
01:12:53,981 --> 01:12:55,817
>> Hernandez: no.

1867
01:12:55,817 --> 01:12:57,219
It was for something different.

1868
01:12:57,219 --> 01:12:57,918
>> had nothing to do with what

1869
01:12:57,918 --> 01:12:59,587
was going on?

1870
01:12:59,587 --> 01:13:01,587
>> Hernandez: no.

1871
01:13:06,600 --> 01:13:09,600
We didn't support proposition a

1872
01:13:13,202 --> 01:13:16,370
in 2023, which was funding for a

1873
01:13:16,370 --> 01:13:16,371
hotel, a convention center

1874
01:13:16,371 --> 01:13:17,472
hotel.

1875
01:13:17,472 --> 01:13:19,400
It was funding for a convention

1876
01:13:19,400 --> 01:13:19,307
center hotel that we are didn't

1877
01:13:19,307 --> 01:13:21,307
support.

1878
01:13:22,210 --> 01:13:25,810
>> Flood: and I would ask him

1879
01:13:26,247 --> 01:13:28,683
to confirm that the person -- or

1880
01:13:28,683 --> 01:13:32,283
the entity that paid the money

1881
01:13:32,320 --> 01:13:35,390
on AUGUST 29th and a month

1882
01:13:35,390 --> 01:13:36,324
later on SEPTEMBER 30th, I

1883
01:13:36,324 --> 01:13:37,359
believe, something like that,

1884
01:13:37,359 --> 01:13:39,359
approximately.

1885
01:13:39,996 --> 01:13:40,863
Is an entity -- was number one,

1886
01:13:40,863 --> 01:13:42,863
an entity.

1887
01:13:43,933 --> 01:13:44,966
And, number two, bayfront

1888
01:13:44,966 --> 01:13:46,966
investments lp.

1889
01:13:47,836 --> 01:13:51,436
And a principal of that entity,

1890
01:13:52,508 --> 01:13:53,108
MR. David, signed the articles

1891
01:13:53,108 --> 01:13:56,108
of impeachment in this case.

1892
01:13:57,647 --> 01:13:59,810
Finally, I would ask

1893
01:13:59,810 --> 01:14:01,481
MR. Hernandez questions about

1894
01:14:02,251 --> 01:14:04,651
very recent statements made

1895
01:14:05,855 --> 01:14:08,390
after the initiation of this

1896
01:14:08,390 --> 01:14:10,390
trial, specifically last

1897
01:14:12,562 --> 01:14:14,300
thursday, the 30th at the del

1898
01:14:14,300 --> 01:14:14,297
mar small business center on

1899
01:14:14,297 --> 01:14:15,999
kostoryz.

1900
01:14:15,999 --> 01:14:19,335
I would ask him to confirm

1901
01:14:19,335 --> 01:14:20,503
whether or not he made the

1902
01:14:20,503 --> 01:14:23,390
public statement that when asked

1903
01:14:23,390 --> 01:14:24,207
if he's going to run for mayor,

1904
01:14:24,207 --> 01:14:27,110
whether or not he said, quote,

1905
01:14:27,110 --> 01:14:28,444
first we have to get rid of

1906
01:14:28,444 --> 01:14:30,444
paulette, end quote.

1907
01:14:31,214 --> 01:14:34,814
And that ends my proffer of

1908
01:14:37,870 --> 01:14:39,870
MR. Hernandez's testimony.

1909
01:14:39,555 --> 01:14:40,990
And with that -- I want to make

1910
01:14:40,990 --> 01:14:43,990
sure that the affidavit of

1911
01:14:44,594 --> 01:14:46,796
compliance, which was marked as

1912
01:14:46,796 --> 01:14:48,796
exhibit 64?

1913
01:14:55,710 --> 01:14:55,505
I think that was 64.

1914
01:14:55,505 --> 01:14:56,373
Yeah.

1915
01:14:56,373 --> 01:14:58,643
That's what I mean.

1916
01:14:58,643 --> 01:14:59,310
The affidavit of compliance is

1917
01:14:59,310 --> 01:15:01,310
exhibit 64.

1918
01:15:01,745 --> 01:15:02,450
I'm going to go ahead and offer

1919
01:15:02,450 --> 01:15:04,450
exhibit 64.

1920
01:15:05,416 --> 01:15:06,583
>> Allison: no objection.

1921
01:15:06,583 --> 01:15:09,583
The only housekeeping item I

1922
01:15:09,586 --> 01:15:10,421
have with that is -- go ahead.

1923
01:15:10,421 --> 01:15:12,421
>> [Off mic]

1924
01:15:14,725 --> 01:15:14,992
>> Flood: I ask that 64 be

1925
01:15:14,992 --> 01:15:16,930
admitted.

1926
01:15:16,930 --> 01:15:18,493
>> Paxson: sorry about that.

1927
01:15:21,132 --> 01:15:21,532
>> Flood: with that,

1928
01:15:21,532 --> 01:15:23,532
respondent rests.

1929
01:15:23,634 --> 01:15:23,901
>> Paxson: thank you.

1930
01:15:23,901 --> 01:15:25,470
Rebuttal?

1931
01:15:25,470 --> 01:15:27,470
>> Allison: yes.

1932
01:15:27,705 --> 01:15:27,939
At this time we call brian

1933
01:15:27,939 --> 01:15:28,840
gulley.

1934
01:15:28,840 --> 01:15:31,840
>> Flood: I have an objection

1935
01:15:33,811 --> 01:15:35,647
to the rebuttal that needs to be

1936
01:15:35,647 --> 01:15:36,848
heard before MR. Gulley is

1937
01:15:36,848 --> 01:15:37,490
brought in.

1938
01:15:37,490 --> 01:15:37,749
Okay?

1939
01:15:37,749 --> 01:15:40,149
Let me grab that.

1940
01:15:45,456 --> 01:15:47,225
>> Paxson: okay.

1941
01:15:47,225 --> 01:15:48,993
While we allow him to prepare,

1942
01:15:48,993 --> 01:15:49,228
we'll take a five-minute

1943
01:15:49,228 --> 01:15:51,228
recess.

1944
01:16:11,319 --> 01:16:14,319
>> I turned off his sound,

1945
01:16:14,756 --> 01:16:16,891
his sound, and the video --

1946
01:16:16,891 --> 01:16:18,260
>> Paxson: there we go.

1947
01:16:18,260 --> 01:16:19,994
Everything is in order now.

1948
01:16:19,994 --> 01:16:20,229
So we will call this meeting

1949
01:16:20,229 --> 01:16:21,864
resumed.

1950
01:16:21,864 --> 01:16:23,565
thank you.

1951
01:16:23,565 --> 01:16:25,565
Yes, MR. Flood

1952
01:16:27,102 --> 01:16:29,102
>> Flood: respondent

1953
01:16:29,270 --> 01:16:30,706
having rested, it has been

1954
01:16:30,706 --> 01:16:32,107
indicated that there is

1955
01:16:32,107 --> 01:16:34,507
rebuttal evidence that is

1956
01:16:35,444 --> 01:16:36,644
going to be at least

1957
01:16:36,644 --> 01:16:38,280
offered.

1958
01:16:38,280 --> 01:16:40,680
The rebuttal evidence that

1959
01:16:40,682 --> 01:16:42,117
I've received notice of is

1960
01:16:42,117 --> 01:16:44,520
not rebuttal evidence, so

1961
01:16:44,520 --> 01:16:46,288
respondent objects to this

1962
01:16:46,288 --> 01:16:47,589
improper rebuttal.

1963
01:16:47,589 --> 01:16:50,589
The concern is that there

1964
01:16:51,860 --> 01:16:53,929
are two areas that MR.

1965
01:16:53,929 --> 01:16:56,665
MR. Gulley would be asked

1966
01:16:56,665 --> 01:16:59,665
about, both of which are

1967
01:16:59,935 --> 01:17:01,269
part of petitioner's burden,

1968
01:17:01,269 --> 01:17:04,269
that they've had to carry

1969
01:17:05,174 --> 01:17:07,275
all along, and neither of

1970
01:17:07,275 --> 01:17:09,110
which arose for the first

1971
01:17:09,110 --> 01:17:11,113
time in the mayor -- in the

1972
01:17:11,113 --> 01:17:12,414
mayor's case.

1973
01:17:12,414 --> 01:17:14,150
First of all, first one

1974
01:17:14,150 --> 01:17:16,550
being any evidence related

1975
01:17:18,220 --> 01:17:18,988
to the article iii

1976
01:17:18,988 --> 01:17:20,823
confidentiality violation.

1977
01:17:20,823 --> 01:17:22,958
And any evidence regarding

1978
01:17:22,958 --> 01:17:25,228
what the mayor knew or did

1979
01:17:25,228 --> 01:17:27,630
not know about the fema

1980
01:17:27,630 --> 01:17:29,932
narrative, or any sort of

1981
01:17:29,932 --> 01:17:30,600
slide alteration before

1982
01:17:30,600 --> 01:17:32,368
FEBRUARY 20th.

1983
01:17:32,368 --> 01:17:34,704
That one is -- that issue is

1984
01:17:34,704 --> 01:17:36,704
central to petitioner's

1985
01:17:37,607 --> 01:17:38,241
article I charge.

1986
01:17:38,241 --> 01:17:38,675
Petitioners new both

1987
01:17:38,675 --> 01:17:40,675
issues.

1988
01:17:41,644 --> 01:17:42,445
They bore the burden on both

1989
01:17:42,445 --> 01:17:44,845
issues, put on their

1990
01:17:45,810 --> 01:17:47,810
evidence and rested.

1991
01:17:47,684 --> 01:17:48,852
The mayor's denial of

1992
01:17:48,852 --> 01:17:51,252
allegations does not convert

1993
01:17:51,320 --> 01:17:53,356
evidence they failed to

1994
01:17:53,356 --> 01:17:55,125
offer in -- does not -- I'm

1995
01:17:55,125 --> 01:17:56,560
sorry, does not convert

1996
01:17:56,560 --> 01:17:58,940
evidence that petitioner's

1997
01:17:58,940 --> 01:17:59,295
failed to offer in their

1998
01:17:59,295 --> 01:17:59,729
case in chief into

1999
01:17:59,729 --> 01:18:01,430
rebuttal.

2000
01:18:01,430 --> 01:18:03,566
they cannot wait until the

2001
01:18:03,566 --> 01:18:04,667
mayor rests and then fill

2002
01:18:04,667 --> 01:18:04,967
holes in their affirmative

2003
01:18:04,967 --> 01:18:06,967
case.

2004
01:18:07,536 --> 01:18:08,605
The order of proof matters

2005
01:18:08,605 --> 01:18:10,340
and the rules of procedure

2006
01:18:10,340 --> 01:18:12,975
in this court, in this case

2007
01:18:12,975 --> 01:18:14,511
that were adopted by this

2008
01:18:14,511 --> 01:18:16,780
tribunal specifically

2009
01:18:16,780 --> 01:18:18,780
reference rebuttal.

2010
01:18:19,148 --> 01:18:21,548
So rebuttal means rebuttal.

2011
01:18:22,186 --> 01:18:23,353
First, they MAY intend to

2012
01:18:23,353 --> 01:18:25,353
elicit something occurred

2013
01:18:28,250 --> 01:18:29,226
during the NOVEMBER 9,

2014
01:18:29,226 --> 01:18:30,326
ccredc meeting that

2015
01:18:30,326 --> 01:18:32,610
supposedly put the mayor on

2016
01:18:32,610 --> 01:18:33,263
notice that the fema

2017
01:18:33,263 --> 01:18:34,831
narrative was false or that

2018
01:18:34,831 --> 01:18:36,660
there was an altered slide

2019
01:18:36,660 --> 01:18:38,660
or both.

2020
01:18:39,200 --> 01:18:40,937
That would not be rebuttal.

2021
01:18:40,937 --> 01:18:42,839
That goes directly to the

2022
01:18:42,839 --> 01:18:43,940
knowledge element of

2023
01:18:43,940 --> 01:18:45,900
petitioner's article I

2024
01:18:45,900 --> 01:18:47,900
theory, and petitioners

2025
01:18:47,610 --> 01:18:48,645
can't reopen their case to

2026
01:18:48,645 --> 01:18:51,450
put on evidence regarding

2027
01:18:51,348 --> 01:18:52,682
that issue.

2028
01:18:52,682 --> 01:18:54,552
Second, petitioners MAY

2029
01:18:54,552 --> 01:18:56,286
intend to ask this witness

2030
01:18:56,286 --> 01:18:58,210
irrelevant opinion testimony

2031
01:18:58,210 --> 01:19:00,210
about confidentiality and

2032
01:19:00,390 --> 01:19:01,258
whether the mayor breached

2033
01:19:01,258 --> 01:19:02,225
confidentiality provision,

2034
01:19:02,225 --> 01:19:04,625
that's not rebuttal either.

2035
01:19:04,895 --> 01:19:05,963
That is the alleged act

2036
01:19:05,963 --> 01:19:07,832
constituting article iii

2037
01:19:07,832 --> 01:19:09,467
itself, and petitioners

2038
01:19:09,467 --> 01:19:10,367
cannot reopen their case in

2039
01:19:10,367 --> 01:19:12,367
that regard.

2040
01:19:14,405 --> 01:19:15,372
Neither issue was created by

2041
01:19:15,372 --> 01:19:17,372
the defense case.

2042
01:19:17,475 --> 01:19:18,676
Both existed before this

2043
01:19:18,676 --> 01:19:20,744
proceeding began, both were

2044
01:19:20,744 --> 01:19:22,460
known to petitioners, both

2045
01:19:22,460 --> 01:19:23,915
were part of the allegations

2046
01:19:23,915 --> 01:19:25,115
they chose to bring and both

2047
01:19:25,115 --> 01:19:26,317
belonged in their case in

2048
01:19:26,317 --> 01:19:27,417
chief, in fact I would state

2049
01:19:27,417 --> 01:19:28,286
on the record I believe that

2050
01:19:28,286 --> 01:19:30,388
the indication that there

2051
01:19:30,388 --> 01:19:31,789
would be a rebuttal witness

2052
01:19:31,789 --> 01:19:33,224
was actually projected prior

2053
01:19:33,224 --> 01:19:33,791
to the resting to have

2054
01:19:33,791 --> 01:19:35,791
petitioner's case.

2055
01:19:35,859 --> 01:19:36,928
So to the extent this

2056
01:19:36,928 --> 01:19:38,620
witness provides any

2057
01:19:38,620 --> 01:19:41,620
evidence that relates to any

2058
01:19:41,232 --> 01:19:43,101
of those issues I just

2059
01:19:43,101 --> 01:19:44,836
described, it is by

2060
01:19:44,836 --> 01:19:46,836
definition not rebuttal.

2061
01:19:47,271 --> 01:19:49,807
A rebuttal permit as party

2062
01:19:49,807 --> 01:19:50,908
to answer new material

2063
01:19:50,908 --> 01:19:51,308
raised by the opposing

2064
01:19:51,308 --> 01:19:53,144
party.

2065
01:19:53,144 --> 01:19:54,746
It doesn't permit the party

2066
01:19:54,746 --> 01:19:56,113
with the burden of proof to

2067
01:19:56,113 --> 01:19:57,682
wait until the defense has

2068
01:19:57,682 --> 01:20:00,682
rested and then fill holes

2069
01:20:00,953 --> 01:20:03,254
in its affirmative case.

2070
01:20:03,254 --> 01:20:04,556
That -- this body adopted

2071
01:20:04,556 --> 01:20:05,958
rebuttal as part of the

2072
01:20:05,958 --> 01:20:06,958
procedure, it was adopting

2073
01:20:06,958 --> 01:20:08,493
that particular part of

2074
01:20:08,493 --> 01:20:09,994
texas law.

2075
01:20:09,994 --> 01:20:11,897
We object to the witness in

2076
01:20:11,897 --> 01:20:14,166
its entirety as improper

2077
01:20:14,166 --> 01:20:15,368
rebuttal and an improper

2078
01:20:15,368 --> 01:20:17,236
reopening of petitioner's

2079
01:20:17,236 --> 01:20:20,236
case in chief after the

2080
01:20:20,906 --> 01:20:22,906
respondent has rested.

2081
01:20:25,478 --> 01:20:26,479
And if this objection is not

2082
01:20:26,479 --> 01:20:28,647
sustained, and before the

2083
01:20:28,647 --> 01:20:31,470
witness testifies, we would

2084
01:20:31,183 --> 01:20:32,518
ask petitioners to identify

2085
01:20:32,518 --> 01:20:34,918
the particular evidence that

2086
01:20:34,921 --> 01:20:36,888
was introduced for the first

2087
01:20:36,888 --> 01:20:38,657
time during the mayor's case

2088
01:20:38,657 --> 01:20:39,759
that the proposed area of

2089
01:20:39,759 --> 01:20:42,159
testimony is offered to

2090
01:20:44,563 --> 01:20:46,563
rebut.

2091
01:20:46,732 --> 01:20:48,834
I ask that that objection be

2092
01:20:48,834 --> 01:20:50,302
sustained and that this

2093
01:20:50,302 --> 01:20:51,804
rebuttal witness not be

2094
01:20:51,804 --> 01:20:53,206
allowed to testify.

2095
01:20:53,206 --> 01:20:54,173
>> Paxson: MR. Allison, do

2096
01:20:54,173 --> 01:20:56,573
you have a response?

2097
01:21:00,146 --> 01:21:02,146
>> Allison: yes.

2098
01:21:03,884 --> 01:21:07,484
We heard hours and hours of

2099
01:21:07,921 --> 01:21:10,230
testimony from leah olivarri

2100
01:21:10,230 --> 01:21:12,859
that promoted this idea and

2101
01:21:12,859 --> 01:21:15,261
talked over and over and

2102
01:21:15,261 --> 01:21:18,261
over again that the reason

2103
01:21:19,767 --> 01:21:21,735
for this was the retail and

2104
01:21:21,735 --> 01:21:24,735
public spaces, and that that

2105
01:21:24,905 --> 01:21:25,205
is the reason behind the

2106
01:21:25,205 --> 01:21:27,205
ordinance.

2107
01:21:27,241 --> 01:21:29,476
That calls into question,

2108
01:21:29,476 --> 01:21:32,278
again, and it is primary to

2109
01:21:32,278 --> 01:21:33,847
their defense, that calls

2110
01:21:33,847 --> 01:21:35,749
into question the -- and it

2111
01:21:35,749 --> 01:21:38,149
actually was spoken about

2112
01:21:40,453 --> 01:21:42,322
also with the -- with leah

2113
01:21:42,322 --> 01:21:43,623
olivarri and also their

2114
01:21:43,623 --> 01:21:44,825
other witness who was

2115
01:21:44,825 --> 01:21:46,825
COUNCILMAN Roy barrera.

2116
01:21:47,661 --> 01:21:48,429
All of that led to further

2117
01:21:48,429 --> 01:21:50,429
testimony about what

2118
01:21:51,364 --> 01:21:52,699
happened at crredc which was

2119
01:21:52,699 --> 01:21:53,567
specifically discussed in

2120
01:21:53,567 --> 01:21:54,868
all of the testimony, and

2121
01:21:54,868 --> 01:21:56,403
there was this debate and

2122
01:21:56,403 --> 01:21:58,403
dispute about that.

2123
01:21:59,574 --> 01:22:00,875
Those disputes that were

2124
01:22:00,875 --> 01:22:02,900
raised, this different

2125
01:22:02,900 --> 01:22:04,111
narrative that they have

2126
01:22:04,111 --> 01:22:06,111
raised throughout their

2127
01:22:06,146 --> 01:22:07,181
defense is I believe will be

2128
01:22:07,181 --> 01:22:09,317
specifically rebutted by the

2129
01:22:09,317 --> 01:22:11,717
testimony of DR. Gulley.

2130
01:22:13,530 --> 01:22:15,220
The rules expressly allow

2131
01:22:15,220 --> 01:22:16,757
for rebuttal testimony.

2132
01:22:16,757 --> 01:22:18,425
And therefore we think that

2133
01:22:18,425 --> 01:22:20,361
this witness does have

2134
01:22:20,361 --> 01:22:21,462
evidence of value for this

2135
01:22:21,462 --> 01:22:23,862
tribunal, and in the

2136
01:22:25,000 --> 01:22:26,434
interest of transparency,

2137
01:22:26,434 --> 01:22:29,700
and pursuant to the express

2138
01:22:29,700 --> 01:22:31,472
rules of this tribunal, we

2139
01:22:31,472 --> 01:22:32,673
ask that their motion be

2140
01:22:32,673 --> 01:22:34,342
denied or that their

2141
01:22:34,342 --> 01:22:36,342
objection be denied.

2142
01:22:36,944 --> 01:22:38,180
>> Paxson: MR. Flood.

2143
01:22:38,180 --> 01:22:40,580
>> Flood: there was no

2144
01:22:41,116 --> 01:22:43,116
evidence offered through

2145
01:22:44,619 --> 01:22:46,254
leah olivarri or every roy

2146
01:22:46,254 --> 01:22:47,220
about what happened at the

2147
01:22:47,220 --> 01:22:49,220
ccredc.

2148
01:22:49,910 --> 01:22:50,920
There is a transcript at

2149
01:22:50,920 --> 01:22:50,926
yesterday's hearing and that

2150
01:22:50,926 --> 01:22:52,461
evidence will not be found.

2151
01:22:52,461 --> 01:22:53,495
So this is improper

2152
01:22:53,495 --> 01:22:55,495
rebuttal.

2153
01:22:55,997 --> 01:22:57,199
This is evidence that

2154
01:22:57,199 --> 01:22:57,967
clearly could have been

2155
01:22:57,967 --> 01:22:59,967
presented during

2156
01:23:00,350 --> 01:23:02,435
petitioner's case in chief,

2157
01:23:02,771 --> 01:23:05,740
and we would again reurge

2158
01:23:05,740 --> 01:23:08,740
our objection that it is

2159
01:23:08,577 --> 01:23:11,179
simply not true that the

2160
01:23:11,179 --> 01:23:13,179
evidence yesterday included

2161
01:23:13,615 --> 01:23:14,382
evidence about -- from

2162
01:23:14,382 --> 01:23:16,382
witnesses about what

2163
01:23:16,551 --> 01:23:18,187
happened.

2164
01:23:18,187 --> 01:23:19,655
MR. Roy was not at the

2165
01:23:19,655 --> 01:23:20,756
meeting.

2166
01:23:20,756 --> 01:23:21,560
MS. Olivarri was not at the

2167
01:23:21,560 --> 01:23:23,560
meeting.

2168
01:23:23,859 --> 01:23:25,495
And that was not evidence

2169
01:23:25,495 --> 01:23:26,261
offered -- none of that was

2170
01:23:26,261 --> 01:23:27,897
offered by the mayor.

2171
01:23:27,897 --> 01:23:30,297
So this is improper

2172
01:23:35,238 --> 01:23:36,639
rebuttal.

2173
01:23:36,639 --> 01:23:38,641
>> Paxson: do we have

2174
01:23:38,641 --> 01:23:40,641
yesterday's transcript?

2175
01:23:41,440 --> 01:23:42,878
>> Flood: I received a

2176
01:23:42,878 --> 01:23:43,746
rough draft from the court

2177
01:23:43,746 --> 01:23:46,146
reporter last night, I'm

2178
01:23:46,382 --> 01:23:46,649
happy to forward it for

2179
01:23:46,649 --> 01:23:47,183
review --

2180
01:23:47,183 --> 01:23:47,383
>> Allison: I don't have

2181
01:23:47,383 --> 01:23:49,152
it.

2182
01:23:49,152 --> 01:23:53,352
I will tell you that I know

2183
01:23:53,789 --> 01:23:55,292
we went specifically over

2184
01:23:55,292 --> 01:23:57,260
the crredc meeting, that we

2185
01:23:57,260 --> 01:23:59,262
have the meetings from

2186
01:23:59,262 --> 01:24:00,930
executive session on, and we

2187
01:24:00,930 --> 01:24:02,432
went specifically over

2188
01:24:02,432 --> 01:24:03,533
those, so it has absolutely

2189
01:24:03,533 --> 01:24:06,970
been a part of their case

2190
01:24:06,970 --> 01:24:09,970
that we are now rebutting.

2191
01:24:09,973 --> 01:24:11,574
>> Flood: in the record

2192
01:24:11,574 --> 01:24:13,477
there will not by (B)

2193
01:24:13,477 --> 01:24:14,911
Be

2194
01:24:14,911 --> 01:24:16,446
found any offer.

2195
01:24:16,446 --> 01:24:17,547
That is not true, to the

2196
01:24:17,547 --> 01:24:19,183
extent council wanted to

2197
01:24:19,183 --> 01:24:20,851
inject part of its case into

2198
01:24:20,851 --> 01:24:21,818
the mayor's case, that's

2199
01:24:21,818 --> 01:24:23,354
fine, that's different,

2200
01:24:23,354 --> 01:24:24,321
that's not the same thing as

2201
01:24:24,321 --> 01:24:26,123
something new and different

2202
01:24:26,123 --> 01:24:29,723
offered by the mayor in her

2203
01:24:30,795 --> 01:24:31,361
defense, so it -- that is a

2204
01:24:31,361 --> 01:24:31,996
mischaracterization of the

2205
01:24:31,996 --> 01:24:33,764
testimony yesterday I

2206
01:24:33,764 --> 01:24:35,764
believe.

2207
01:24:36,500 --> 01:24:38,135
And that there has not been

2208
01:24:38,135 --> 01:24:39,937
grounds laid for this

2209
01:24:39,937 --> 01:24:42,139
rebuttal witness, simply --

2210
01:24:42,139 --> 01:24:43,640
I did not lay that.

2211
01:24:43,640 --> 01:24:45,143
>> Allison: to the extent

2212
01:24:45,143 --> 01:24:46,778
he brings up an issue, which

2213
01:24:46,778 --> 01:24:47,711
he did, which is this second

2214
01:24:47,711 --> 01:24:48,413
narrative they want

2215
01:24:48,413 --> 01:24:49,714
everybody to believe now, to

2216
01:24:49,714 --> 01:24:51,282
the extent they bring up

2217
01:24:51,282 --> 01:24:52,917
that issue and we tried to

2218
01:24:52,917 --> 01:24:55,420
refute it by going into the

2219
01:24:55,420 --> 01:24:57,820
actual meeting minutes of

2220
01:24:58,257 --> 01:25:00,240
the crredc meeting, that was

2221
01:25:00,240 --> 01:25:02,860
not even objected to by then

2222
01:25:02,860 --> 01:25:04,261
at the time because it tends

2223
01:25:04,261 --> 01:25:05,597
to rebut what that witness

2224
01:25:05,597 --> 01:25:07,165
was testifying to, they know

2225
01:25:07,165 --> 01:25:08,899
that, and that opens the

2226
01:25:08,899 --> 01:25:11,299
door and absolutely allows

2227
01:25:11,736 --> 01:25:12,937
me to bring a witness to

2228
01:25:12,937 --> 01:25:14,937
fortify that information

2229
01:25:15,400 --> 01:25:16,875
which is the same rebuttal

2230
01:25:16,875 --> 01:25:18,410
to what leah olivarri said.

2231
01:25:18,410 --> 01:25:19,944
So we would ask that the

2232
01:25:19,944 --> 01:25:21,679
motion to overrule their

2233
01:25:21,679 --> 01:25:23,748
objection be made and that

2234
01:25:23,748 --> 01:25:25,416
the objection be overruled.

2235
01:25:25,416 --> 01:25:27,385
>> Flood: what I just

2236
01:25:27,385 --> 01:25:29,354
heard is that it was an

2237
01:25:29,354 --> 01:25:31,656
attempt to inject by the

2238
01:25:31,656 --> 01:25:34,560
petitioner, and so, again,

2239
01:25:34,159 --> 01:25:34,493
that is not the way rebuttal

2240
01:25:34,493 --> 01:25:36,461
works.

2241
01:25:36,461 --> 01:25:38,763
It is to deny -- it is to

2242
01:25:38,763 --> 01:25:40,999
respond to new evidence

2243
01:25:40,999 --> 01:25:41,934
provided by the defendant or

2244
01:25:41,934 --> 01:25:42,701
respondent, and that that

2245
01:25:42,701 --> 01:25:44,701
did not occur.

2246
01:25:45,737 --> 01:25:48,737
And there was no testimony

2247
01:25:49,609 --> 01:25:51,243
at all about internal edc

2248
01:25:51,243 --> 01:25:52,444
meetings offered by the

2249
01:25:52,444 --> 01:25:54,444
mayor.

2250
01:25:57,516 --> 01:25:59,850
it was new evidence.

2251
01:25:59,850 --> 01:26:00,553
>> was the specific evidence

2252
01:26:00,553 --> 01:26:00,887
brought up that nested to be

2253
01:26:00,887 --> 01:26:02,887
rebutted?

2254
01:26:03,622 --> 01:26:05,124
Because I thought the two

2255
01:26:05,124 --> 01:26:06,593
witness, one was what

2256
01:26:06,593 --> 01:26:07,326
happened at council and the

2257
01:26:07,326 --> 01:26:09,195
other is what happened at

2258
01:26:09,195 --> 01:26:11,830
the type b board, that is

2259
01:26:11,830 --> 01:26:12,970
her particular scope of

2260
01:26:12,970 --> 01:26:13,933
knowledge.

2261
01:26:13,933 --> 01:26:15,901
>> Allison: right, her --

2262
01:26:15,901 --> 01:26:17,304
but she had a narrative so

2263
01:26:17,304 --> 01:26:19,272
to speak that talked about

2264
01:26:19,272 --> 01:26:20,473
why she voted for it, and

2265
01:26:20,473 --> 01:26:22,108
she tried to say that's why

2266
01:26:22,108 --> 01:26:23,843
other people voted for it,

2267
01:26:23,843 --> 01:26:25,711
and I'll remind you that

2268
01:26:25,711 --> 01:26:27,147
we've never deposed her.

2269
01:26:27,147 --> 01:26:27,914
First time we've ever heard

2270
01:26:27,914 --> 01:26:29,115
from that witness.

2271
01:26:29,115 --> 01:26:30,116
There was a tremendous

2272
01:26:30,116 --> 01:26:32,516
amount of new information

2273
01:26:33,419 --> 01:26:35,288
about that, that tended to

2274
01:26:35,288 --> 01:26:37,688
discredit or undermine what

2275
01:26:37,791 --> 01:26:39,859
happened at the ccredc.

2276
01:26:39,859 --> 01:26:41,762
Because of that, I went into

2277
01:26:41,762 --> 01:26:43,863
the notes we have, or the

2278
01:26:43,863 --> 01:26:45,698
meeting minutes that we have

2279
01:26:45,698 --> 01:26:48,502
from ccredc with her to

2280
01:26:48,502 --> 01:26:50,204
refute what she said, but

2281
01:26:50,204 --> 01:26:52,406
I'm entitled then, when that

2282
01:26:52,406 --> 01:26:54,410
is the first time I've ever

2283
01:26:54,410 --> 01:26:54,808
heard that evidence, I'm

2284
01:26:54,808 --> 01:26:55,909
entitled then to have a

2285
01:26:55,909 --> 01:26:57,978
witness come and support

2286
01:26:57,978 --> 01:26:59,412
what I think is in those

2287
01:26:59,412 --> 01:27:01,812
notes from ccredc as

2288
01:27:02,160 --> 01:27:03,917
additional evidence to rebut

2289
01:27:03,917 --> 01:27:05,753
what see said for the first

2290
01:27:05,753 --> 01:27:05,987
time, never heard it

2291
01:27:05,987 --> 01:27:07,622
before.

2292
01:27:07,622 --> 01:27:07,955
>> what did she say

2293
01:27:07,955 --> 01:27:09,955
specifically?

2294
01:27:11,225 --> 01:27:12,526
What did she say

2295
01:27:12,526 --> 01:27:14,526
specifically, because her

2296
01:27:15,163 --> 01:27:17,465
knowledge was limited to, my

2297
01:27:17,465 --> 01:27:19,465
understanding, how they

2298
01:27:19,766 --> 01:27:20,301
voted --

2299
01:27:20,301 --> 01:27:22,301
>>

2300
01:27:22,603 --> 01:27:23,438
>> Allison: actually goes

2301
01:27:23,438 --> 01:27:25,106
back to the same staff

2302
01:27:25,106 --> 01:27:26,441
people if you'll recall.

2303
01:27:26,441 --> 01:27:28,275
The ccredc prepares what

2304
01:27:28,275 --> 01:27:30,411
goes in front of ccredc, and

2305
01:27:30,411 --> 01:27:32,613
the ccredc staff prepares

2306
01:27:32,613 --> 01:27:35,316
what goes in front of type

2307
01:27:35,316 --> 01:27:37,151
b, and the ccredc staff

2308
01:27:37,151 --> 01:27:38,180
prepares what goes in front

2309
01:27:38,180 --> 01:27:40,321
of the city here.

2310
01:27:40,321 --> 01:27:41,522
So there is a common thread

2311
01:27:41,522 --> 01:27:44,159
there throughout that that I

2312
01:27:44,159 --> 01:27:44,426
think needs to be rebut and

2313
01:27:44,426 --> 01:27:45,359
clarified.

2314
01:27:45,359 --> 01:27:46,995
>> Flood: all that

2315
01:27:46,995 --> 01:27:48,290
evidence was included in the

2316
01:27:48,290 --> 01:27:48,996
petitioner's case in chief,

2317
01:27:48,996 --> 01:27:51,365
what I just heard.

2318
01:27:51,365 --> 01:27:53,267
All of that -- every single

2319
01:27:53,267 --> 01:27:55,336
one of those facts he just

2320
01:27:55,336 --> 01:27:57,736
stated was contained in

2321
01:28:02,610 --> 01:28:04,512
petitioner's case in chief.

2322
01:28:04,512 --> 01:28:06,512
>> wouldn't that --

2323
01:28:07,383 --> 01:28:07,549
>> Allison: I can't hear

2324
01:28:07,549 --> 01:28:09,549
you.

2325
01:28:09,885 --> 01:28:11,885
>> push the button.

2326
01:28:12,887 --> 01:28:14,887
Push it.

2327
01:28:15,590 --> 01:28:17,990
>> I didn't hear anything

2328
01:28:18,460 --> 01:28:20,395
what you testified to that

2329
01:28:20,395 --> 01:28:22,397
contradicted the position of

2330
01:28:22,397 --> 01:28:25,397
the prior testimony of what

2331
01:28:26,269 --> 01:28:28,538
might have happened at edc.

2332
01:28:28,538 --> 01:28:32,138
That only that when it came

2333
01:28:32,942 --> 01:28:35,110
to them it was a

2334
01:28:35,110 --> 01:28:37,110
presentation asking for

2335
01:28:37,780 --> 01:28:39,780
money form infrastructure

2336
01:28:41,250 --> 01:28:44,250
and then the street issue

2337
01:28:44,553 --> 01:28:47,690
and they only voted on the

2338
01:28:47,690 --> 01:28:50,900
street issue and disregarded

2339
01:28:51,995 --> 01:28:52,962
the element or consideration

2340
01:28:52,962 --> 01:28:54,962
of infrastructure.

2341
01:28:55,131 --> 01:28:56,866
So she had no personal

2342
01:28:56,866 --> 01:28:59,266
knowledge, and didn't really

2343
01:29:00,737 --> 01:29:02,238
tie back into the previous

2344
01:29:02,238 --> 01:29:03,906
edc meetings.

2345
01:29:03,906 --> 01:29:06,306
That's my recollection of

2346
01:29:08,511 --> 01:29:09,846
her testimony.

2347
01:29:09,846 --> 01:29:10,714
>> Allison: I think her

2348
01:29:10,714 --> 01:29:12,714
testimony brings into

2349
01:29:13,250 --> 01:29:14,551
question all of that with

2350
01:29:14,551 --> 01:29:15,852
this same staff members that

2351
01:29:15,852 --> 01:29:16,853
worked on exactly that piece

2352
01:29:16,853 --> 01:29:18,853
of it.

2353
01:29:19,550 --> 01:29:21,225
She repeatedly took the

2354
01:29:21,225 --> 01:29:22,759
position that she was very

2355
01:29:22,759 --> 01:29:24,294
clear and everybody else was

2356
01:29:24,294 --> 01:29:26,162
very confused.

2357
01:29:26,162 --> 01:29:27,564
And that is the first time

2358
01:29:27,564 --> 01:29:29,500
we've ever heard that and I

2359
01:29:29,500 --> 01:29:31,900
think we're entitled to

2360
01:29:33,970 --> 01:29:35,672
rebut it.

2361
01:29:35,672 --> 01:29:37,241
>> Flood: not evidence

2362
01:29:37,241 --> 01:29:39,242
offered by the mayor in her

2363
01:29:39,242 --> 01:29:39,876
case in chief, that is

2364
01:29:39,876 --> 01:29:41,311
simply inaccurate.

2365
01:29:41,311 --> 01:29:44,311
The fact of the matter

2366
01:29:46,550 --> 01:29:48,285
remains that the attempt to

2367
01:29:48,285 --> 01:29:50,685
elicit testimony about what

2368
01:29:50,821 --> 01:29:52,230
happened during the

2369
01:29:52,230 --> 01:29:54,324
NOVEMBER 9edc meeting and is

2370
01:29:54,324 --> 01:29:57,261
not in rebuttal to anything

2371
01:29:57,261 --> 01:29:59,663
that the mayor placed into

2372
01:29:59,663 --> 01:30:01,432
evidence during her case in

2373
01:30:01,432 --> 01:30:04,601
chief, it only relates to an

2374
01:30:04,601 --> 01:30:06,570
issue that was raised and

2375
01:30:06,570 --> 01:30:08,970
was attempted to be

2376
01:30:09,730 --> 01:30:10,641
addressed in petitioner's

2377
01:30:10,641 --> 01:30:12,641
case in chief.

2378
01:30:12,810 --> 01:30:15,213
Rebuttal is not available to

2379
01:30:15,213 --> 01:30:16,848
fill a hole that is

2380
01:30:16,848 --> 01:30:17,716
contained within

2381
01:30:17,716 --> 01:30:18,850
petitioner's case, and

2382
01:30:18,850 --> 01:30:19,784
that's what they're

2383
01:30:19,784 --> 01:30:22,784
attempting to do, and we

2384
01:30:23,654 --> 01:30:26,540
object for that reason.

2385
01:30:26,691 --> 01:30:28,691
>> Allison: did roy

2386
01:30:29,327 --> 01:30:30,528
everett ever express any

2387
01:30:30,528 --> 01:30:32,528
personal knowledge about

2388
01:30:34,599 --> 01:30:37,599
what happened at edc serve.

2389
01:30:38,169 --> 01:30:39,371
>> Allison: he definitely

2390
01:30:39,371 --> 01:30:40,471
testified what happened at

2391
01:30:40,471 --> 01:30:40,872
ccredc, he was not

2392
01:30:40,872 --> 01:30:42,207
personally there.

2393
01:30:42,207 --> 01:30:44,607
>> Flood: the answer to

2394
01:30:50,150 --> 01:30:51,549
that question was no.

2395
01:30:51,549 --> 01:30:52,751
>> I don't see rebuttal.

2396
01:30:52,751 --> 01:30:55,151
That is y'all's decision.

2397
01:30:55,153 --> 01:30:55,821
I don't see it.

2398
01:30:55,821 --> 01:30:58,221
>> Paxson: is there a

2399
01:30:58,224 --> 01:31:00,624
sentiment from this board

2400
01:31:02,610 --> 01:31:03,290
whether to sustain or to

2401
01:31:03,290 --> 01:31:05,290
allow the rebuttal?

2402
01:31:05,330 --> 01:31:07,232
It's been presented, both

2403
01:31:07,232 --> 01:31:09,632
arguments, and we've heard

2404
01:31:10,836 --> 01:31:12,137
from our counsel.

2405
01:31:12,137 --> 01:31:14,537
And for clarification, this

2406
01:31:14,873 --> 01:31:17,843
is to -- to allow the

2407
01:31:17,843 --> 01:31:19,346
rebuttal so there's a motion

2408
01:31:19,346 --> 01:31:21,113
and a second to allow the

2409
01:31:21,113 --> 01:31:22,548
rebuttal to continue, all in

2410
01:31:22,548 --> 01:31:23,616
favor say aye.

2411
01:31:23,616 --> 01:31:25,616
(Chorus of ayes.)

2412
01:31:26,510 --> 01:31:27,120
All opposed say nay.

2413
01:31:27,120 --> 01:31:28,587
>> nay.

2414
01:31:28,587 --> 01:31:29,889
>> Paxson: yes, sir.

2415
01:31:29,889 --> 01:31:31,324
>> Allison: I'm going to

2416
01:31:31,324 --> 01:31:33,600
do a quick sound check and

2417
01:31:33,600 --> 01:31:37,196
see if I can also do video,

2418
01:31:37,196 --> 01:31:38,998
hold on one second.

2419
01:31:38,998 --> 01:31:40,660
DR. Gulley, we are in

2420
01:31:40,660 --> 01:31:42,402
session, can you hear me?

2421
01:31:42,402 --> 01:31:44,802
We are in session.

2422
01:31:48,509 --> 01:31:49,943
>> yeah, I hear you well.

2423
01:31:49,943 --> 01:31:51,440
>> Allison: can you

2424
01:31:51,440 --> 01:31:51,911
hear -- DR. Gulley, can you

2425
01:31:51,911 --> 01:31:53,113
hear me okay.

2426
01:31:53,113 --> 01:31:53,380
>> Gulley: I can hear you

2427
01:31:53,380 --> 01:31:54,681
perfectly.

2428
01:31:54,681 --> 01:31:57,810
>> Paxson: MR. Allison, if

2429
01:31:57,584 --> 01:31:58,318
we can allow MS. Rebecca to

2430
01:31:58,318 --> 01:31:59,686
swear in the witness.

2431
01:31:59,686 --> 01:32:00,987
>> Flood: I'm going to

2432
01:32:00,987 --> 01:32:02,880
simply object to the

2433
01:32:02,880 --> 01:32:02,856
witness's remote swearing

2434
01:32:02,856 --> 01:32:04,825
in.

2435
01:32:04,825 --> 01:32:07,225
It's improper under the

2436
01:32:07,894 --> 01:32:09,429
ordinance, under the city

2437
01:32:09,429 --> 01:32:11,231
ordinances and the city

2438
01:32:11,231 --> 01:32:13,330
charter, and it's also --

2439
01:32:13,330 --> 01:32:15,769
there's no precedent for it

2440
01:32:15,769 --> 01:32:17,700
under the city charter, and

2441
01:32:17,700 --> 01:32:19,439
it's also improper under

2442
01:32:19,439 --> 01:32:21,439
texas law.

2443
01:32:21,742 --> 01:32:22,909
>> Paxson: okay, I don't

2444
01:32:22,909 --> 01:32:23,911
know of anything under the

2445
01:32:23,911 --> 01:32:25,911
city charter.

2446
01:32:26,313 --> 01:32:28,382
We allow for remote

2447
01:32:28,382 --> 01:32:28,649
participation in our regular

2448
01:32:28,649 --> 01:32:30,486
meetings.

2449
01:32:30,486 --> 01:32:31,285
>> but there's no vote, so i

2450
01:32:31,285 --> 01:32:34,285
can double check with our

2451
01:32:34,388 --> 01:32:34,621
city attorney, if you would

2452
01:32:34,621 --> 01:32:36,560
like --

2453
01:32:36,560 --> 01:32:36,858
>> Paxson: do we have our

2454
01:32:36,858 --> 01:32:38,592
city attorney present?

2455
01:32:38,592 --> 01:32:39,960
>> we have assistant city

2456
01:32:39,960 --> 01:32:41,830
attorney present.

2457
01:32:41,830 --> 01:32:43,300
>> Paxson: okay.

2458
01:32:43,300 --> 01:32:46,300
Our city manager is bringing

2459
01:32:59,614 --> 01:33:01,480
her out.

2460
01:33:01,480 --> 01:33:02,684
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, if

2461
01:33:02,684 --> 01:33:02,950
you will hold on one moment,

2462
01:33:02,950 --> 01:33:04,185
please.

2463
01:33:04,185 --> 01:33:06,321
We are still in open

2464
01:33:06,321 --> 01:33:08,321
session.

2465
01:33:09,824 --> 01:33:11,392
>> Paxson: hi, MS. Lisa.

2466
01:33:11,392 --> 01:33:13,620
>> I was checking.

2467
01:33:13,620 --> 01:33:13,862
I didn't find anything that

2468
01:33:13,862 --> 01:33:15,300
would prohibit it.

2469
01:33:15,300 --> 01:33:16,899
>> Flood: objection.

2470
01:33:16,899 --> 01:33:18,968
There's nothing that permits

2471
01:33:18,968 --> 01:33:23,168
it, and so this is a --

2472
01:33:23,872 --> 01:33:25,173
there is -- there are

2473
01:33:25,173 --> 01:33:25,874
definitely -- under the

2474
01:33:25,874 --> 01:33:27,909
articles I'm sorry, under

2475
01:33:27,909 --> 01:33:29,100
the rules of procedure,

2476
01:33:29,100 --> 01:33:31,646
allowed for the calling or

2477
01:33:31,646 --> 01:33:33,416
witnesses, subpoenaing

2478
01:33:33,416 --> 01:33:34,617
witnesses, and MR. Gulley,

2479
01:33:34,617 --> 01:33:36,252
DR. Gulley is not here in

2480
01:33:36,252 --> 01:33:37,186
the chambers, so there's

2481
01:33:37,186 --> 01:33:39,221
nothing in the rules of

2482
01:33:39,221 --> 01:33:40,889
procedure that afford a

2483
01:33:40,889 --> 01:33:43,158
remote swearing in of a

2484
01:33:43,158 --> 01:33:45,128
witness, and there is

2485
01:33:45,128 --> 01:33:46,729
nothing in the city charter

2486
01:33:46,729 --> 01:33:49,598
that allows the swearing in

2487
01:33:49,598 --> 01:33:51,000
of a remote witness, and

2488
01:33:51,000 --> 01:33:54,000
there is nothing under texas

2489
01:33:54,471 --> 01:33:56,380
law that allows the witness

2490
01:33:56,380 --> 01:33:58,908
in this situation to be

2491
01:33:58,908 --> 01:34:01,177
sworn in remotely, and so

2492
01:34:01,177 --> 01:34:01,544
respondent objects for that

2493
01:34:01,544 --> 01:34:02,678
reason.

2494
01:34:02,678 --> 01:34:03,613
>> Allison: and I would

2495
01:34:03,613 --> 01:34:05,348
respond to that by saying

2496
01:34:05,348 --> 01:34:06,216
that the rules adopted here

2497
01:34:06,216 --> 01:34:08,216
are

2498
01:34:09,520 --> 01:34:11,520
expressly allowed to

2499
01:34:12,389 --> 01:34:15,910
witnesses who can be called

2500
01:34:15,910 --> 01:34:16,626
to be sworn to identify an

2501
01:34:16,626 --> 01:34:17,560
oath, we can do that here,

2502
01:34:17,560 --> 01:34:17,960
nothing allowing it in texas

2503
01:34:17,960 --> 01:34:19,562
law.

2504
01:34:19,562 --> 01:34:21,565
We do it all the time at the

2505
01:34:21,565 --> 01:34:23,565
courthouse.

2506
01:34:24,834 --> 01:34:25,935
>> Paxson: MS. City

2507
01:34:25,935 --> 01:34:28,138
attorney, do you have --

2508
01:34:28,138 --> 01:34:28,338
>> no further comments

2509
01:34:28,338 --> 01:34:29,973
so --

2510
01:34:29,973 --> 01:34:30,974
>> Paxson: based on

2511
01:34:30,974 --> 01:34:32,974
interpretation of the

2512
01:34:33,276 --> 01:34:33,510
adopted rules, can you

2513
01:34:33,510 --> 01:34:35,510
advise?

2514
01:34:36,546 --> 01:34:36,913
>> I'm -- I think it's fine

2515
01:34:36,913 --> 01:34:38,315
to proceed.

2516
01:34:38,315 --> 01:34:39,315
>> Paxson: fine to proceed

2517
01:34:39,315 --> 01:34:40,350
to allow remote.

2518
01:34:40,350 --> 01:34:41,785
>> yes, ma'am, yes, yes.

2519
01:34:41,785 --> 01:34:44,185
>> Paxson: should we allow

2520
01:34:45,880 --> 01:34:46,623
the remote, in addition to

2521
01:34:46,623 --> 01:34:48,623
certifying location, I

2522
01:34:50,995 --> 01:34:53,564
believe it was said that

2523
01:34:53,564 --> 01:34:54,632
MS. Rebecca huerta, who is

2524
01:34:54,632 --> 01:34:56,330
administering oaths through

2525
01:34:56,330 --> 01:34:57,340
these proceedings can do

2526
01:34:57,340 --> 01:34:57,901
that remotely.

2527
01:34:57,901 --> 01:34:59,336
Is there any other

2528
01:34:59,336 --> 01:35:01,336
information she should

2529
01:35:01,972 --> 01:35:03,972
obtain?

2530
01:35:04,375 --> 01:35:06,544
>> I don't believe so, no.

2531
01:35:06,544 --> 01:35:08,112
>> Paxson: MS. Rebecca.

2532
01:35:08,112 --> 01:35:09,548
>> I'm a notary public.

2533
01:35:09,548 --> 01:35:09,880
>> Flood: and I renew my

2534
01:35:09,880 --> 01:35:11,880
objection.

2535
01:35:13,317 --> 01:35:16,860
There is -- there is simply

2536
01:35:16,860 --> 01:35:18,860
no empowering ordinance.

2537
01:35:18,557 --> 01:35:19,323
There's no empowering code

2538
01:35:19,323 --> 01:35:21,323
provision.

2539
01:35:21,526 --> 01:35:22,560
There's no empowering

2540
01:35:22,560 --> 01:35:24,960
provision of the city

2541
01:35:25,997 --> 01:35:27,832
charter that allows for this

2542
01:35:27,832 --> 01:35:28,733
particular form of

2543
01:35:28,733 --> 01:35:30,435
testimony, and so I would

2544
01:35:30,435 --> 01:35:31,402
object to it on that basis

2545
01:35:31,402 --> 01:35:33,271
and also it does not meet

2546
01:35:33,271 --> 01:35:35,671
the requirements under texas

2547
01:35:37,442 --> 01:35:39,945
law for a remote swearing.

2548
01:35:39,945 --> 01:35:41,212
And I'm asking for a ruling,

2549
01:35:41,212 --> 01:35:43,212
please, yes.

2550
01:35:43,248 --> 01:35:44,483
>> do we have a ruling from

2551
01:35:44,483 --> 01:35:46,483
the board?

2552
01:35:46,851 --> 01:35:47,853
I'm sorry? Motion and

2553
01:35:47,853 --> 01:35:49,853
second to overrule.

2554
01:35:50,356 --> 01:35:50,922
All in favor say aye.

2555
01:35:50,922 --> 01:35:52,922
(Chorus of ayes.)

2556
01:35:53,325 --> 01:35:54,226
Any opposed say nay.

2557
01:35:54,226 --> 01:35:56,226
>> nay.

2558
01:35:56,428 --> 01:35:58,640
>> Paxson: motion carries,

2559
01:35:58,640 --> 01:35:59,197
thank you, MS. Rebecca.

2560
01:35:59,197 --> 01:36:00,567
>> Flood: I do have one

2561
01:36:00,567 --> 01:36:02,534
more objection, I'm sorry,

2562
01:36:02,534 --> 01:36:04,403
my apologies, quickly, I

2563
01:36:04,403 --> 01:36:05,737
object because it violates

2564
01:36:05,737 --> 01:36:07,607
my client's fundamental

2565
01:36:07,607 --> 01:36:10,700
right of confrontation to

2566
01:36:10,843 --> 01:36:12,878
not have MR. -- to have --

2567
01:36:12,878 --> 01:36:14,380
not have DR. Gulley in

2568
01:36:14,380 --> 01:36:16,449
chambers for an examination,

2569
01:36:16,449 --> 01:36:17,216
and for that reason I

2570
01:36:17,216 --> 01:36:18,384
also -- and that is more of

2571
01:36:18,384 --> 01:36:20,253
a constitutional violation,

2572
01:36:20,253 --> 01:36:23,253
and that is separate and

2573
01:36:23,856 --> 01:36:25,424
apart from the code and

2574
01:36:25,424 --> 01:36:27,260
statutory provisions I

2575
01:36:27,260 --> 01:36:28,494
object to earlier.

2576
01:36:28,494 --> 01:36:29,895
This would be inability to

2577
01:36:29,895 --> 01:36:31,864
confront the witness and so

2578
01:36:31,864 --> 01:36:33,165
that is a separate

2579
01:36:33,165 --> 01:36:36,765
objection, I ask it be ruled

2580
01:36:37,570 --> 01:36:39,338
upon.

2581
01:36:39,338 --> 01:36:40,574
>>

2582
01:36:40,574 --> 01:36:40,873
>> do you have a response?

2583
01:36:40,873 --> 01:36:41,441
>> sure.

2584
01:36:41,441 --> 01:36:43,441
Hatches

2585
01:36:43,843 --> 01:36:45,946
happens all the time.

2586
01:36:45,946 --> 01:36:46,713
You can confront people over a

2587
01:36:46,713 --> 01:36:48,315
video conference.

2588
01:36:48,315 --> 01:36:48,881
You can examine them.

2589
01:36:48,881 --> 01:36:50,683
You can cross-examine them.

2590
01:36:50,683 --> 01:36:50,984
We do it all the time in civil

2591
01:36:50,984 --> 01:36:52,285
cases.

2592
01:36:52,285 --> 01:36:53,520
They do it all the time in

2593
01:36:53,520 --> 01:36:54,521
criminal cases.

2594
01:36:54,521 --> 01:36:56,289
It is something that occurs

2595
01:36:56,289 --> 01:36:58,240
frequently and is a courtesy

2596
01:36:58,240 --> 01:37:00,240
extended to witnesses.

2597
01:37:00,427 --> 01:37:02,950
And I think we need all of those

2598
01:37:02,950 --> 01:37:03,964
program -- meet all of those

2599
01:37:03,964 --> 01:37:06,964
parameters, and as such, there's

2600
01:37:09,769 --> 01:37:11,605
no fundamental defamation of any

2601
01:37:11,605 --> 01:37:12,706
constitutional right.

2602
01:37:12,706 --> 01:37:14,341
>> Flood: without the ability

2603
01:37:14,341 --> 01:37:16,309
to tender exhibits to him or

2604
01:37:16,309 --> 01:37:17,845
anything like that.

2605
01:37:17,845 --> 01:37:19,813
>> Allison: we have the

2606
01:37:19,813 --> 01:37:20,214
ability to tender exhibits by

2607
01:37:20,214 --> 01:37:21,982
zoom.

2608
01:37:21,982 --> 01:37:22,316
>> Flood: I stand in my

2609
01:37:22,316 --> 01:37:24,316
objection.

2610
01:37:26,487 --> 01:37:27,621
Ask that it be ruled upon.

2611
01:37:27,621 --> 01:37:29,123
>> Paxson: we have a motion to

2612
01:37:29,123 --> 01:37:31,523
overrule and a second.

2613
01:37:31,726 --> 01:37:34,726
All in favor say aye.

2614
01:37:36,564 --> 01:37:38,766
Any opposed say nay.

2615
01:37:38,766 --> 01:37:40,901
>> Paxson: MAY I proceed?

2616
01:37:40,901 --> 01:37:41,802
>> I think so.

2617
01:37:41,802 --> 01:37:44,802
>> Allison: I think she needs

2618
01:37:46,307 --> 01:37:48,242
to swear him in.

2619
01:37:48,242 --> 01:37:50,112
>> DR. Bryan gulley, do you

2620
01:37:50,112 --> 01:37:51,112
solemnly swear or affirm that

2621
01:37:51,112 --> 01:37:52,547
the testimony you are about to

2622
01:37:52,547 --> 01:37:55,817
give is the truth, the whole

2623
01:37:55,817 --> 01:37:56,284
truth, and nothing but the

2624
01:37:56,284 --> 01:37:58,284
truth?

2625
01:37:58,753 --> 01:38:00,753
>> Gulley: I do.

2626
01:38:01,356 --> 01:38:03,356
>> thank you.

2627
01:38:03,358 --> 01:38:03,558
>> Allison: can you hear us

2628
01:38:03,558 --> 01:38:04,960
okay?

2629
01:38:04,960 --> 01:38:06,610
>> I can.

2630
01:38:06,610 --> 01:38:06,261
>> Allison: we can hear you

2631
01:38:06,261 --> 01:38:07,562
fine.

2632
01:38:07,562 --> 01:38:08,597
This is doug ail

2633
01:38:08,597 --> 01:38:10,597
allison.

2634
01:38:10,733 --> 01:38:11,934
I'm going to ask you to state

2635
01:38:11,934 --> 01:38:13,934
your name of

2636
01:38:16,105 --> 01:38:16,571
name.

2637
01:38:16,571 --> 01:38:18,507
>> Gulley: DR. Gulley.

2638
01:38:18,507 --> 01:38:20,907
>> Allison: where do you

2639
01:38:24,130 --> 01:38:25,413
reside?

2640
01:38:25,413 --> 01:38:26,470
>> Gulley: corpus christi.

2641
01:38:26,470 --> 01:38:27,816
>> Allison: how long have you

2642
01:38:27,816 --> 01:38:30,519
been a resident of this

2643
01:38:30,519 --> 01:38:31,654
community?

2644
01:38:31,654 --> 01:38:32,421
>> Gulley: 73 years.

2645
01:38:32,421 --> 01:38:34,230
>> Allison: okay.

2646
01:38:34,230 --> 01:38:37,920
And go ahead and tell us what

2647
01:38:37,920 --> 01:38:37,459
your background is

2648
01:38:37,459 --> 01:38:39,459
professionally.

2649
01:38:39,628 --> 01:38:41,196
>> Gulley: my training and

2650
01:38:41,196 --> 01:38:43,596
occupation, oral and facial

2651
01:38:45,100 --> 01:38:45,602
surgeon, and a businessman.

2652
01:38:45,602 --> 01:38:47,602
>> Allison: and specifically,

2653
01:38:49,710 --> 01:38:52,241
have you been active in some of

2654
01:38:52,241 --> 01:38:55,241
the local community boards, and

2655
01:38:57,813 --> 01:38:59,148
maybe even city or port boards?

2656
01:38:59,148 --> 01:39:01,951
>> Gulley: two terms as port

2657
01:39:01,951 --> 01:39:04,951
commissioner, and serving on the

2658
01:39:08,124 --> 01:39:10,927
edc, the type a board, isac

2659
01:39:10,927 --> 01:39:12,962
board, chamber of commerce,

2660
01:39:12,962 --> 01:39:14,431
multiple boards.

2661
01:39:14,431 --> 01:39:15,598
>> Allison: yeah.

2662
01:39:15,598 --> 01:39:17,598
>> Gulley: the aquarium

2663
01:39:18,368 --> 01:39:20,737
executive board, and I'm on the

2664
01:39:20,737 --> 01:39:22,138
advisory board of the university

2665
01:39:22,138 --> 01:39:23,473
of texas marine science

2666
01:39:23,473 --> 01:39:24,307
institute currently.

2667
01:39:24,307 --> 01:39:25,800
>> Allison: going to get right

2668
01:39:25,800 --> 01:39:27,800
to the point.

2669
01:39:28,845 --> 01:39:32,349
Did you serve on what we call

2670
01:39:32,349 --> 01:39:34,180
the ccredc board in 2023?

2671
01:39:34,180 --> 01:39:35,853
>> Gulley: yes, I did.

2672
01:39:35,853 --> 01:39:38,253
>> Allison: and were you

2673
01:39:40,123 --> 01:39:40,757
serving on that board when the

2674
01:39:40,757 --> 01:39:42,760
homewood suites project -- if I

2675
01:39:42,760 --> 01:39:44,962
call it that, do you know what

2676
01:39:44,962 --> 01:39:45,429
I'm referring to?

2677
01:39:45,429 --> 01:39:46,363
>> Gulley: yes.

2678
01:39:46,363 --> 01:39:47,865
I was.

2679
01:39:47,865 --> 01:39:49,666
>> Allison: when the homewood

2680
01:39:49,666 --> 01:39:52,660
suites project made their

2681
01:39:52,369 --> 01:39:54,369
application for $2 million

2682
01:40:00,377 --> 01:40:01,440
through the edc, or regional

2683
01:40:01,440 --> 01:40:01,346
economic development

2684
01:40:01,346 --> 01:40:02,914
corporation.

2685
01:40:02,914 --> 01:40:06,514
Were you on that ccredc board

2686
01:40:07,619 --> 01:40:08,652
when they made the application?

2687
01:40:08,652 --> 01:40:10,652
>> Gulley: yes.

2688
01:40:12,657 --> 01:40:13,290
I was vice chair, I think.

2689
01:40:13,290 --> 01:40:13,925
>> Allison: was mayor guajardo

2690
01:40:13,925 --> 01:40:15,925
serving on that

2691
01:40:16,127 --> 01:40:16,961
at that time?

2692
01:40:16,961 --> 01:40:18,229
>> Gulley: yes.

2693
01:40:18,229 --> 01:40:21,132
>> Allison: I will tell you

2694
01:40:21,132 --> 01:40:22,766
that this tribunal, the city

2695
01:40:22,766 --> 01:40:25,766
council members before us right

2696
01:40:26,438 --> 01:40:28,406
now, this tribunal has already

2697
01:40:28,406 --> 01:40:30,806
received into evidence the

2698
01:40:31,476 --> 01:40:32,244
meeting minutes from the

2699
01:40:32,244 --> 01:40:34,244
confidential meeting that

2700
01:40:35,980 --> 01:40:37,382
occurred when a vote happened on

2701
01:40:37,382 --> 01:40:39,500
that project.

2702
01:40:39,500 --> 01:40:40,451
Do you understand what I'm

2703
01:40:40,451 --> 01:40:41,519
referring to?

2704
01:40:41,519 --> 01:40:42,120
>> Gulley: yes.

2705
01:40:42,120 --> 01:40:44,520
>> Allison: usually there is

2706
01:40:44,623 --> 01:40:45,924
some sort of a confidentiality

2707
01:40:45,924 --> 01:40:47,959
privilege, but those documents

2708
01:40:47,959 --> 01:40:50,428
have already been produced to us

2709
01:40:50,428 --> 01:40:52,697
about what happened inside that

2710
01:40:52,697 --> 01:40:53,232
confidential meeting, and

2711
01:40:53,232 --> 01:40:55,232
admitted into evidence.

2712
01:40:55,434 --> 01:40:55,935
There's no longer, I think, a

2713
01:40:55,935 --> 01:40:56,969
confidentiality issue.

2714
01:40:56,969 --> 01:40:59,805
Do you understand what I'm

2715
01:40:59,805 --> 01:41:00,238
saying?

2716
01:41:00,238 --> 01:41:00,705
>> Flood: objection.

2717
01:41:00,705 --> 01:41:02,705
>> Gulley: yes.

2718
01:41:02,775 --> 01:41:05,775
>> Allison: let me just ask

2719
01:41:06,578 --> 01:41:07,446
you --

2720
01:41:07,446 --> 01:41:07,747
>> MR. Flood.

2721
01:41:07,747 --> 01:41:09,482
>> pardon?

2722
01:41:09,482 --> 01:41:11,450
>> a little bit of time to make

2723
01:41:11,450 --> 01:41:12,170
an objection before you answer.

2724
01:41:12,170 --> 01:41:13,453
>> Flood: my objection was

2725
01:41:13,453 --> 01:41:16,453
that the premise that he

2726
01:41:17,690 --> 01:41:18,390
presented the witness with was a

2727
01:41:18,390 --> 01:41:20,260
mis-characterization of the

2728
01:41:20,260 --> 01:41:22,260
prior testimony.

2729
01:41:25,264 --> 01:41:28,264
So that specifically, that the

2730
01:41:30,937 --> 01:41:33,337
confidentiality related to the

2731
01:41:33,673 --> 01:41:36,730
information received as opposed

2732
01:41:36,976 --> 01:41:39,312
to the actual meeting itself.

2733
01:41:39,312 --> 01:41:43,512
And so -- and the only premise

2734
01:41:47,540 --> 01:41:50,654
for that was a question of

2735
01:41:51,240 --> 01:41:51,758
MR. Culberson that counsel asked

2736
01:41:51,758 --> 01:41:53,527
MR. Culberson, are those

2737
01:41:53,527 --> 01:41:55,527
meetings public.

2738
01:41:55,596 --> 01:41:59,196
And MR. Culberson said, no, we

2739
01:42:00,000 --> 01:42:02,400
are a private 501c6.

2740
01:42:02,736 --> 01:42:04,705
So that is not testimony that

2741
01:42:04,705 --> 01:42:05,238
establishes that the meeting was

2742
01:42:05,238 --> 01:42:07,107
confidential.

2743
01:42:07,107 --> 01:42:10,440
And so I'm objecting to it on

2744
01:42:10,440 --> 01:42:10,810
that basis.

2745
01:42:10,810 --> 01:42:11,912
>> Allison: I've asked it,

2746
01:42:11,912 --> 01:42:13,912
he's answered it.

2747
01:42:14,215 --> 01:42:15,182
I'll go to the next question.

2748
01:42:15,182 --> 01:42:16,816
>> Flood: I ask that the

2749
01:42:16,816 --> 01:42:17,918
objection be sustained, because

2750
01:42:17,918 --> 01:42:18,586
it was a false premise presented

2751
01:42:18,586 --> 01:42:20,586
to the witness.

2752
01:42:21,122 --> 01:42:22,756
So I ask that the question

2753
01:42:22,756 --> 01:42:23,825
itself, that the objection be

2754
01:42:23,825 --> 01:42:24,591
sustained and a different

2755
01:42:24,591 --> 01:42:25,560
question be asked.

2756
01:42:25,560 --> 01:42:26,600
>> Allison: I think the

2757
01:42:26,600 --> 01:42:28,460
correct response to that

2758
01:42:29,197 --> 01:42:32,197
probably is that the tribunal

2759
01:42:36,804 --> 01:42:37,238
will recall the evidence.

2760
01:42:37,238 --> 01:42:38,940
>> Paxson: okay.

2761
01:42:38,940 --> 01:42:41,340
We'll sustain the objection.

2762
01:42:41,509 --> 01:42:42,760
Thank you.

2763
01:42:42,760 --> 01:42:44,476
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, were

2764
01:42:45,747 --> 01:42:46,815
you at that meeting when there

2765
01:42:46,815 --> 01:42:49,150
was discussion about whether or

2766
01:42:49,150 --> 01:42:51,319
not to approve an incentive

2767
01:42:51,319 --> 01:42:51,552
award for the homewood suites

2768
01:42:51,552 --> 01:42:53,552
project?

2769
01:42:55,289 --> 01:42:56,824
And by that meeting, I mean at

2770
01:42:56,824 --> 01:42:58,492
ccredc.

2771
01:42:58,492 --> 01:43:00,395
>> Gulley: yes.

2772
01:43:00,395 --> 01:43:01,763
>> Allison: was mayor paulette

2773
01:43:01,763 --> 01:43:02,630
guajardo at that meeting?

2774
01:43:02,630 --> 01:43:03,631
>> Gulley: yes.

2775
01:43:03,631 --> 01:43:06,631
>> Allison: who else, if you

2776
01:43:07,803 --> 01:43:09,338
recall, would have been at that

2777
01:43:09,338 --> 01:43:10,339
meeting?

2778
01:43:10,339 --> 01:43:12,739
>> Gulley: there's about more

2779
01:43:14,577 --> 01:43:18,177
than a dozen people at that

2780
01:43:18,847 --> 01:43:20,847
meeting.

2781
01:43:23,885 --> 01:43:26,880
Barb, sarah, who was presiding

2782
01:43:26,880 --> 01:43:29,240
as head staff member, because

2783
01:43:29,240 --> 01:43:29,324
mike culberson wasn't at that

2784
01:43:29,324 --> 01:43:31,324
meeting.

2785
01:43:31,894 --> 01:43:32,628
And there would have been -- I

2786
01:43:32,628 --> 01:43:33,728
don't remember which meeting

2787
01:43:33,728 --> 01:43:35,798
people were there, but there was

2788
01:43:35,798 --> 01:43:36,310
quite a few of the regular

2789
01:43:36,310 --> 01:43:38,310
members.

2790
01:43:42,871 --> 01:43:43,473
I think dennis black was... I

2791
01:43:43,473 --> 01:43:44,239
don't remember everybody that

2792
01:43:44,239 --> 01:43:45,508
was there.

2793
01:43:45,508 --> 01:43:45,774
I didn't pay that much attention

2794
01:43:45,774 --> 01:43:47,410
to it.

2795
01:43:47,410 --> 01:43:47,644
But there was a pretty full

2796
01:43:47,644 --> 01:43:49,379
meeting.

2797
01:43:49,379 --> 01:43:51,130
We had a quorum.

2798
01:43:51,130 --> 01:43:52,248
>> Allison: would you rely on

2799
01:43:52,248 --> 01:43:53,849
the meeting minutes to identify

2800
01:43:53,849 --> 01:43:55,850
who was actually there?

2801
01:43:55,850 --> 01:43:56,919
>> Gulley: I would have to,

2802
01:43:56,919 --> 01:43:57,320
yes.

2803
01:43:57,320 --> 01:43:59,320
>> Allison: okay.

2804
01:44:00,624 --> 01:44:03,693
And so, do you recall there

2805
01:44:03,693 --> 01:44:05,996
being a debate about whether or

2806
01:44:05,996 --> 01:44:08,764
not to give any incentive award

2807
01:44:08,764 --> 01:44:09,932
to the homewood suites?

2808
01:44:09,932 --> 01:44:12,436
>> Gulley: we had a strong

2809
01:44:12,436 --> 01:44:13,536
discussion.

2810
01:44:13,536 --> 01:44:16,536
>> Allison: and was the mayor

2811
01:44:17,141 --> 01:44:19,541
advocating for any position?

2812
01:44:21,210 --> 01:44:23,610
>> Gulley: she was advocating

2813
01:44:23,947 --> 01:44:24,181
for the $2 million for the

2814
01:44:24,181 --> 01:44:26,181
project.

2815
01:44:26,383 --> 01:44:26,616
I think she had seconded the

2816
01:44:26,616 --> 01:44:28,616
motion.

2817
01:44:28,885 --> 01:44:31,221
There was a motion made and she

2818
01:44:31,221 --> 01:44:31,622
seconded it.

2819
01:44:31,622 --> 01:44:33,622
>> Allison: okay.

2820
01:44:35,126 --> 01:44:36,127
And did you support that or

2821
01:44:36,127 --> 01:44:37,427
oppose it?

2822
01:44:37,427 --> 01:44:39,827
>> Gulley: I opposed it.

2823
01:44:39,830 --> 01:44:41,799
>> Allison: and why did you

2824
01:44:41,799 --> 01:44:43,434
oppose it?

2825
01:44:43,434 --> 01:44:43,667
>> Gulley: for numerous

2826
01:44:43,667 --> 01:44:45,667
reasons.

2827
01:44:48,380 --> 01:44:50,475
You know, although the two

2828
01:44:50,475 --> 01:44:51,775
people, philip and his partner,

2829
01:44:51,775 --> 01:44:53,945
deven, I consider friends of

2830
01:44:53,945 --> 01:44:56,413
mine, I didn't like the project

2831
01:44:56,413 --> 01:44:58,215
for multiple reasons.

2832
01:44:58,215 --> 01:44:59,384
I don't think it was a good look

2833
01:44:59,384 --> 01:45:02,486
that philip had just come off

2834
01:45:02,486 --> 01:45:06,860
our board a few months ago.

2835
01:45:06,124 --> 01:45:10,324
I thought that if you look at

2836
01:45:13,397 --> 01:45:15,199
economic development programs,

2837
01:45:15,199 --> 01:45:18,135
it starts -- the best projects

2838
01:45:18,135 --> 01:45:19,704
all the way down to the worst

2839
01:45:19,704 --> 01:45:20,204
projects for economic

2840
01:45:20,204 --> 01:45:22,730
development.

2841
01:45:22,730 --> 01:45:25,730
And these hotels are considered

2842
01:45:25,176 --> 01:45:26,477
down towards the bottom as the

2843
01:45:26,477 --> 01:45:28,477
least-desirable projects.

2844
01:45:29,213 --> 01:45:32,213
That was the main reason.

2845
01:45:32,817 --> 01:45:36,655
I felt like it was way too much

2846
01:45:36,655 --> 01:45:40,255
money for one project like that,

2847
01:45:41,193 --> 01:45:44,793
because I'm not in favor of

2848
01:45:44,896 --> 01:45:45,531
projects that aren't somewhat

2849
01:45:45,531 --> 01:45:48,330
unique, in other words, using

2850
01:45:48,330 --> 01:45:49,569
taxpayer money to incentivize

2851
01:45:49,569 --> 01:45:51,137
one project that competes with

2852
01:45:51,137 --> 01:45:54,137
other projects, like the other

2853
01:45:55,608 --> 01:45:56,742
hotels in the area.

2854
01:45:56,742 --> 01:45:59,742
And they had already received

2855
01:46:01,647 --> 01:46:03,683
quite a bit of taxpayer money in

2856
01:46:03,683 --> 01:46:05,451
the tirs fund.

2857
01:46:05,451 --> 01:46:08,451
And I gave several reasons.

2858
01:46:08,487 --> 01:46:11,487
But really, because the low

2859
01:46:11,758 --> 01:46:13,260
wages that hotels generate, and

2860
01:46:13,260 --> 01:46:14,694
the fact that they don't bring

2861
01:46:14,694 --> 01:46:15,461
any new business to town, they

2862
01:46:15,461 --> 01:46:17,861
just accommodate business that's

2863
01:46:19,650 --> 01:46:20,599
already coming to town.

2864
01:46:20,599 --> 01:46:21,901
So I had several reasons.

2865
01:46:21,901 --> 01:46:22,101
I thought it was way too much

2866
01:46:22,101 --> 01:46:23,970
money.

2867
01:46:23,970 --> 01:46:25,838
And I thought there were much

2868
01:46:25,838 --> 01:46:26,600
better projects to use the money

2869
01:46:26,600 --> 01:46:28,600
on.

2870
01:46:29,241 --> 01:46:32,178
And I disagreed with the reasons

2871
01:46:32,178 --> 01:46:33,814
they gave why they needed that

2872
01:46:33,814 --> 01:46:34,814
much money.

2873
01:46:34,814 --> 01:46:35,448
>> Flood: I'm going to level

2874
01:46:35,448 --> 01:46:37,150
an objection.

2875
01:46:37,150 --> 01:46:38,852
The testimony is not in rebuttal

2876
01:46:38,852 --> 01:46:40,186
to anything that was in the

2877
01:46:40,186 --> 01:46:41,454
mayor's case.

2878
01:46:41,454 --> 01:46:42,589
This examination proves the

2879
01:46:42,589 --> 01:46:43,890
point as to why this witness

2880
01:46:43,890 --> 01:46:46,226
should not be allowed to

2881
01:46:46,226 --> 01:46:48,395
continue testifying in rebuttal.

2882
01:46:48,395 --> 01:46:49,696
There is no attempt to rebut

2883
01:46:49,696 --> 01:46:51,565
anything, because they can't.

2884
01:46:51,565 --> 01:46:53,565
Everything they're offering

2885
01:46:54,101 --> 01:46:56,690
relates to the burden that they

2886
01:46:56,690 --> 01:46:58,905
assumed in their own case.

2887
01:46:58,905 --> 01:47:02,976
So I would object to any further

2888
01:47:02,976 --> 01:47:03,209
testimony from this rebuttal

2889
01:47:03,209 --> 01:47:04,611
witness.

2890
01:47:04,611 --> 01:47:05,780
>> you're renewing your

2891
01:47:05,780 --> 01:47:06,780
objection?

2892
01:47:06,780 --> 01:47:07,981
>> Flood: I'm renewing my

2893
01:47:07,981 --> 01:47:09,984
objection based upon the

2894
01:47:09,984 --> 01:47:12,384
testimony that's been elicited.

2895
01:47:13,254 --> 01:47:13,520
Once again, it is not in

2896
01:47:13,520 --> 01:47:15,156
rebuttal.

2897
01:47:15,156 --> 01:47:16,556
Not one thing has been in

2898
01:47:16,556 --> 01:47:17,325
rebuttal to anything in the

2899
01:47:17,325 --> 01:47:19,325
mayor's case.

2900
01:47:21,695 --> 01:47:22,997
i object to it going forward.

2901
01:47:22,997 --> 01:47:23,297
>> Allison: my response is

2902
01:47:23,297 --> 01:47:25,165
very simple.

2903
01:47:25,165 --> 01:47:25,967
And that is at this point, I'm

2904
01:47:25,967 --> 01:47:27,690
just laying predicate.

2905
01:47:27,690 --> 01:47:28,703
I'm trying to get to the point

2906
01:47:28,703 --> 01:47:32,303
that we're trying to make here

2907
01:47:33,608 --> 01:47:34,509
that I've articulated already.

2908
01:47:34,509 --> 01:47:36,778
>> Paxson: I'll go ahead and

2909
01:47:36,778 --> 01:47:38,680
call the motion.

2910
01:47:38,680 --> 01:47:39,648
I have a motion and a second to

2911
01:47:39,648 --> 01:47:41,615
overrule the objection.

2912
01:47:41,615 --> 01:47:44,615
All in favor say aye.

2913
01:47:46,870 --> 01:47:46,754
Any opposed, say nay.

2914
01:47:46,754 --> 01:47:49,154
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, the

2915
01:47:49,290 --> 01:47:50,593
things you articulated, did you

2916
01:47:50,593 --> 01:47:51,627
voice those concerns during the

2917
01:47:51,627 --> 01:47:52,260
meeting?

2918
01:47:52,260 --> 01:47:52,894
>> Gulley: yes.

2919
01:47:52,894 --> 01:47:54,629
>> Allison: one of the things

2920
01:47:54,629 --> 01:47:55,830
you just said, and now said you

2921
01:47:55,830 --> 01:47:58,132
voiced that concern during the

2922
01:47:58,132 --> 01:47:58,800
meeting was the reason that they

2923
01:47:58,800 --> 01:47:59,901
were asking.

2924
01:47:59,901 --> 01:48:02,304
Did you understand during the

2925
01:48:02,304 --> 01:48:04,839
meeting that the reason the

2926
01:48:04,839 --> 01:48:06,675
applicant was asking for the

2927
01:48:06,675 --> 01:48:08,309
$2 million was for what was

2928
01:48:08,309 --> 01:48:10,709
characterized as newly defined

2929
01:48:10,946 --> 01:48:11,980
and recent changes to fema

2930
01:48:11,980 --> 01:48:12,681
rules?

2931
01:48:12,681 --> 01:48:13,248
>> Gulley: yes.

2932
01:48:13,248 --> 01:48:14,215
>> Allison: was that very

2933
01:48:14,215 --> 01:48:16,485
clear to the meeting that that

2934
01:48:16,485 --> 01:48:18,530
was the reason for the ask for

2935
01:48:18,530 --> 01:48:18,486
the 2 million?

2936
01:48:18,486 --> 01:48:19,488
>> Flood: objection.

2937
01:48:19,488 --> 01:48:20,388
The question is vague.

2938
01:48:20,388 --> 01:48:22,591
He simply said it

2939
01:48:22,591 --> 01:48:23,291
was it clear to

2940
01:48:23,291 --> 01:48:24,960
the meeting.

2941
01:48:24,960 --> 01:48:25,194
That is clearly asking for

2942
01:48:25,194 --> 01:48:26,461
hearsay.

2943
01:48:26,461 --> 01:48:27,896
He's asking for other people's

2944
01:48:27,896 --> 01:48:28,898
state of mind.

2945
01:48:28,898 --> 01:48:30,732
There's no --

2946
01:48:30,732 --> 01:48:31,734
>> Paxson: restate your

2947
01:48:31,734 --> 01:48:32,935
question.

2948
01:48:32,935 --> 01:48:35,370
>> Allison: was there debate

2949
01:48:35,370 --> 01:48:38,370
about that issue, about whether

2950
01:48:40,576 --> 01:48:42,111
or not the fema rules were, or

2951
01:48:42,111 --> 01:48:44,681
had been newly defined and were

2952
01:48:44,681 --> 01:48:46,681
recent changes?

2953
01:48:47,317 --> 01:48:47,684
>> Flood: objection, hearsay.

2954
01:48:47,684 --> 01:48:49,185
>> Allison: yes.

2955
01:48:49,185 --> 01:48:50,953
>> I'm going to ask the witness

2956
01:48:50,953 --> 01:48:52,254
be instructed to not answer

2957
01:48:52,254 --> 01:48:53,656
questions until after objections

2958
01:48:53,656 --> 01:48:55,656
are ruled upon.

2959
01:48:55,858 --> 01:48:58,610
The witness was asked a hearsay

2960
01:48:58,610 --> 01:49:00,229
question and I'm objecting under

2961
01:49:00,229 --> 01:49:01,264
this procedure's rules against

2962
01:49:01,264 --> 01:49:02,865
hearsay.

2963
01:49:02,865 --> 01:49:03,899
Objection, hearsay.

2964
01:49:03,899 --> 01:49:05,134
>> Gulley: understood.

2965
01:49:05,134 --> 01:49:06,268
>> Allison: he heard you.

2966
01:49:06,268 --> 01:49:08,538
>> Flood: I ask my objection

2967
01:49:08,538 --> 01:49:09,973
to be sustained.

2968
01:49:09,973 --> 01:49:12,373
My hearsay objection be

2969
01:49:13,143 --> 01:49:15,878
sustained and the answer by the

2970
01:49:15,878 --> 01:49:18,878
witness that was rushed --

2971
01:49:21,500 --> 01:49:21,351
>> Allison: the only

2972
01:49:21,351 --> 01:49:23,319
question --

2973
01:49:23,319 --> 01:49:25,319
[Crosstalk]

2974
01:49:26,390 --> 01:49:26,624
>> Paxson: I have a motion to

2975
01:49:26,624 --> 01:49:27,824
sustain.

2976
01:49:27,824 --> 01:49:29,659
We have a second.

2977
01:49:29,659 --> 01:49:32,659
All in favor say aye.

2978
01:49:33,960 --> 01:49:33,364
Any opposed, nay.

2979
01:49:33,364 --> 01:49:35,364
Sustained.

2980
01:49:35,465 --> 01:49:36,533
Thank you.

2981
01:49:36,533 --> 01:49:38,335
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, what

2982
01:49:38,335 --> 01:49:40,735
was your personal experience

2983
01:49:41,204 --> 01:49:45,800
with regard to how long or any

2984
01:49:45,800 --> 01:49:46,944
of your knowledge during that

2985
01:49:46,944 --> 01:49:50,544
meeting about when or whether or

2986
01:49:53,316 --> 01:49:54,850
not there were new fema rules?

2987
01:49:54,850 --> 01:49:56,860
>> Gulley: when the comments

2988
01:49:56,860 --> 01:49:57,721
were made that this project was

2989
01:49:57,721 --> 01:50:00,123
going to cost more money because

2990
01:50:00,123 --> 01:50:02,326
of the recent changes in the

2991
01:50:02,326 --> 01:50:03,927
fema rules, and it was related

2992
01:50:03,927 --> 01:50:06,163
to the base flood elevation.

2993
01:50:06,163 --> 01:50:09,967
I made a comment that I knew

2994
01:50:09,967 --> 01:50:12,603
personally for a fact that

2995
01:50:12,603 --> 01:50:14,471
MR. Ramirez was aware of that

2996
01:50:14,471 --> 01:50:16,540
quite some time ago, because I

2997
01:50:16,540 --> 01:50:18,943
had personally made him aware of

2998
01:50:18,943 --> 01:50:21,579
that, because I had sole him -- sold

2999
01:50:21,579 --> 01:50:22,913
him some of that property.

3000
01:50:22,913 --> 01:50:25,415
>> Allison: did you sell him

3001
01:50:25,415 --> 01:50:28,386
some of the property the project

3002
01:50:28,386 --> 01:50:29,153
is located on?

3003
01:50:29,153 --> 01:50:29,987
>> Gulley: yes.

3004
01:50:29,987 --> 01:50:32,987
>> Allison: back at that time,

3005
01:50:33,625 --> 01:50:34,959
which was I guess 2021-ish, does

3006
01:50:34,959 --> 01:50:35,960
that sound right?

3007
01:50:35,960 --> 01:50:36,694
>> Gulley: yeah somewhere back

3008
01:50:36,694 --> 01:50:37,929
then.

3009
01:50:37,929 --> 01:50:40,929
>> Allison: back at that time,

3010
01:50:41,199 --> 01:50:43,235
did you make it very clear to

3011
01:50:43,235 --> 01:50:46,471
MR. Ramirez that the new fema

3012
01:50:46,471 --> 01:50:49,207
rules were in effect in 2021?

3013
01:50:49,207 --> 01:50:50,642
>> Gulley: yes, I did, because

3014
01:50:50,642 --> 01:50:51,976
at the discussion, he was

3015
01:50:51,976 --> 01:50:52,377
talking about tearing the

3016
01:50:52,377 --> 01:50:54,377
buildings down.

3017
01:50:55,130 --> 01:50:56,781
And I was asking for a little

3018
01:50:56,781 --> 01:50:58,650
more money, because one of the

3019
01:50:58,650 --> 01:51:01,500
buildings had been renovated.

3020
01:51:01,720 --> 01:51:03,889
And he said we're just going to

3021
01:51:03,889 --> 01:51:04,656
tear -- and I said if you tear

3022
01:51:04,656 --> 01:51:07,525
them down, you're going to have

3023
01:51:07,525 --> 01:51:07,793
to raise the base flood

3024
01:51:07,793 --> 01:51:09,793
elevation.

3025
01:51:10,362 --> 01:51:12,564
And he acknowledged he was aware

3026
01:51:12,564 --> 01:51:14,564
of that.

3027
01:51:14,667 --> 01:51:16,201
>> Allison: now, did you share

3028
01:51:16,201 --> 01:51:17,335
that discussion that you had

3029
01:51:17,335 --> 01:51:20,500
with philip ramirez back at the

3030
01:51:20,500 --> 01:51:20,906
time of his purchase, did you

3031
01:51:20,906 --> 01:51:23,308
share that discussion with the

3032
01:51:23,308 --> 01:51:24,510
people at the ccredc meeting

3033
01:51:24,510 --> 01:51:27,510
when this was being debated,

3034
01:51:28,140 --> 01:51:28,480
including the mayor?

3035
01:51:28,480 --> 01:51:30,480
>> Gulley: yeah.

3036
01:51:31,351 --> 01:51:34,951
Everyone at the meeting, I made

3037
01:51:35,687 --> 01:51:38,991
it clear that he knew that that

3038
01:51:38,991 --> 01:51:40,826
was going to be a issue, a

3039
01:51:40,826 --> 01:51:41,930
problem back when I sold him the

3040
01:51:41,930 --> 01:51:42,696
property.

3041
01:51:42,696 --> 01:51:44,263
Because at the time I sold him

3042
01:51:44,263 --> 01:51:46,431
the property, he said he was

3043
01:51:46,431 --> 01:51:47,650
going to build a building for

3044
01:51:47,650 --> 01:51:49,650
the university.

3045
01:51:49,568 --> 01:51:51,804
And at that time, I told him,

3046
01:51:51,804 --> 01:51:53,539
you know, you need to -- you are

3047
01:51:53,539 --> 01:51:56,750
aware that you're going to have

3048
01:51:56,750 --> 01:51:56,408
to raise the base flood

3049
01:51:56,408 --> 01:51:57,476
elevation.

3050
01:51:57,476 --> 01:51:58,811
he's a friend of mine.

3051
01:51:58,811 --> 01:52:01,848
I did not want to sell him a

3052
01:52:01,848 --> 01:52:04,830
piece of property that he didn't

3053
01:52:04,830 --> 01:52:04,718
understand, or had an issue

3054
01:52:04,718 --> 01:52:05,217
with.

3055
01:52:05,217 --> 01:52:07,217
>> Allison: okay.

3056
01:52:07,887 --> 01:52:09,189
When you were in the ccredc

3057
01:52:09,189 --> 01:52:11,858
meeting, within earshot of the

3058
01:52:11,858 --> 01:52:14,260
mayor, did you make it clear to

3059
01:52:14,260 --> 01:52:15,828
the mayor, at least from your

3060
01:52:15,828 --> 01:52:17,963
intention in making speech or

3061
01:52:17,963 --> 01:52:20,363
providing information, did you

3062
01:52:22,690 --> 01:52:25,669
make it clear that philip had

3063
01:52:26,773 --> 01:52:27,841
long known about the fema rules?

3064
01:52:27,841 --> 01:52:29,841
>> Allison: yes,

3065
01:52:32,812 --> 01:52:33,546
>> Gulley: I did.

3066
01:52:33,546 --> 01:52:35,348
>> Allison: was the mayor

3067
01:52:35,348 --> 01:52:36,350
within earshot of you explaining

3068
01:52:36,350 --> 01:52:38,750
that to the group?

3069
01:52:38,952 --> 01:52:40,540
>> Gulley: I think I made

3070
01:52:40,540 --> 01:52:42,540
everyone career

3071
01:52:42,389 --> 01:52:44,789
-- clear about that

3072
01:52:44,892 --> 01:52:46,125
when I said it.

3073
01:52:46,125 --> 01:52:46,760
I thought it was important.

3074
01:52:46,760 --> 01:52:48,628
>> Allison: do you think you

3075
01:52:48,628 --> 01:52:51,464
made it clear that the changes

3076
01:52:51,464 --> 01:52:52,999
in fema rules were not new, so

3077
01:52:52,999 --> 01:52:53,501
to speak?

3078
01:52:53,501 --> 01:52:54,735
>> Flood: objection.

3079
01:52:54,735 --> 01:52:57,735
There's been no predicate laid

3080
01:52:58,772 --> 01:52:58,972
for the question about changes,

3081
01:52:58,972 --> 01:53:00,407
zero.

3082
01:53:00,407 --> 01:53:01,575
>> Allison: I'll rephrase.

3083
01:53:01,575 --> 01:53:03,543
We're talking about -- do you

3084
01:53:03,543 --> 01:53:05,813
understand that we're talking

3085
01:53:05,813 --> 01:53:08,820
about fema rules that the

3086
01:53:08,820 --> 01:53:09,617
changes had been initiated in

3087
01:53:09,617 --> 01:53:10,283
2020, does that sound right to

3088
01:53:10,283 --> 01:53:11,152
you?

3089
01:53:11,152 --> 01:53:11,752
>> Gulley: yes.

3090
01:53:11,752 --> 01:53:14,655
>> Allison: and did you make

3091
01:53:14,655 --> 01:53:17,292
it clear to the group that there

3092
01:53:17,292 --> 01:53:18,759
were no new changes, that the

3093
01:53:18,759 --> 01:53:21,759
changes had been around for

3094
01:53:24,990 --> 01:53:26,433
years during the ccredc meeting?

3095
01:53:26,433 --> 01:53:28,369
>> Gulley: yes.

3096
01:53:28,369 --> 01:53:30,137
>> Allison: did the mayor then

3097
01:53:30,137 --> 01:53:32,106
back down from wanting

3098
01:53:32,106 --> 01:53:32,673
$2 million for the project?

3099
01:53:32,673 --> 01:53:33,641
>> Flood: objection.

3100
01:53:33,641 --> 01:53:36,641
there's been -- the predicate

3101
01:53:37,344 --> 01:53:39,346
laid for the timing of his

3102
01:53:39,346 --> 01:53:42,149
statement that was argument by

3103
01:53:42,149 --> 01:53:44,185
counsel, so I object to facts

3104
01:53:44,185 --> 01:53:47,422
not in evidence and I object to

3105
01:53:47,422 --> 01:53:48,856
the argument.

3106
01:53:48,856 --> 01:53:50,856
>> Allison: I'll rephrase.

3107
01:53:51,250 --> 01:53:54,625
During the meeting, who made the

3108
01:53:58,934 --> 01:53:59,934
motion to award $2 million?

3109
01:53:59,934 --> 01:54:00,535
>> Gulley: bart.

3110
01:54:00,535 --> 01:54:02,360
>> Allison: are you familiar

3111
01:54:02,360 --> 01:54:04,436
that the highest recommendation

3112
01:54:04,939 --> 01:54:08,539
for a dollar amount from ccredc

3113
01:54:10,112 --> 01:54:10,812
staff was about 1,043,000?

3114
01:54:10,812 --> 01:54:12,812
>> Flood: objection.

3115
01:54:13,748 --> 01:54:14,683
The word recommendation is a

3116
01:54:14,683 --> 01:54:15,950
mis-characterization.

3117
01:54:15,950 --> 01:54:18,350
That was the model.

3118
01:54:19,254 --> 01:54:19,988
That was a product of the rims

3119
01:54:19,988 --> 01:54:21,900
ii model.

3120
01:54:21,900 --> 01:54:24,900
>> Allison: are you aware the

3121
01:54:25,560 --> 01:54:26,328
model recommended at most

3122
01:54:26,328 --> 01:54:27,629
1,043,000?

3123
01:54:27,629 --> 01:54:28,630
>> Gulley: yes.

3124
01:54:28,630 --> 01:54:31,300
>> Allison: and who seconded

3125
01:54:32,567 --> 01:54:34,102
the motion for 2 million?

3126
01:54:34,102 --> 01:54:36,102
>> Gulley: mayor guajardo.

3127
01:54:36,639 --> 01:54:38,274
>> Allison: did your providing

3128
01:54:38,274 --> 01:54:39,374
the information about hey, these

3129
01:54:39,374 --> 01:54:42,974
are not new rules, they've been

3130
01:54:43,313 --> 01:54:45,547
around for a while, did that

3131
01:54:45,547 --> 01:54:47,490
dissuade the mayor at all from

3132
01:54:47,490 --> 01:54:49,490
the vote?

3133
01:54:49,518 --> 01:54:49,986
>> Flood: objection.

3134
01:54:49,986 --> 01:54:50,420
>> Gulley: no.

3135
01:54:50,420 --> 01:54:52,420
>> Flood: objection.

3136
01:54:52,522 --> 01:54:55,570
There's not evidence that he

3137
01:54:55,570 --> 01:54:55,391
stated those words in the

3138
01:54:55,391 --> 01:54:57,391
meeting.

3139
01:55:01,164 --> 01:55:01,630
So, that's a

3140
01:55:01,630 --> 01:55:03,630
mis-characterization.

3141
01:55:03,933 --> 01:55:04,834
>> Allison: if I MISS

3142
01:55:04,834 --> 01:55:05,367
Mis-characterize your testimony,

3143
01:55:05,367 --> 01:55:07,336
let me know.

3144
01:55:07,336 --> 01:55:08,672
Did any of the things that you

3145
01:55:08,672 --> 01:55:10,306
told them during the executive

3146
01:55:10,306 --> 01:55:13,175
session, that you told to the

3147
01:55:13,175 --> 01:55:15,679
mayor, dissuade her from pushing

3148
01:55:15,679 --> 01:55:17,679
for $2 million?

3149
01:55:18,414 --> 01:55:19,282
>> Gulley: no. Apparently.

3150
01:55:19,282 --> 01:55:20,583
>> Allison: was there a

3151
01:55:20,583 --> 01:55:23,554
discussion about hey, maybe you

3152
01:55:23,554 --> 01:55:24,420
should pull down your motion?

3153
01:55:24,420 --> 01:55:26,420
>> Gulley: yeah.

3154
01:55:26,522 --> 01:55:31,695
And I'm not sure if I said it or

3155
01:55:31,695 --> 01:55:32,280
one of the other meetings, but,

3156
01:55:32,280 --> 01:55:33,230
yeah.

3157
01:55:33,230 --> 01:55:36,166
The mutual decision was to let

3158
01:55:36,166 --> 01:55:36,733
it go to a vote.

3159
01:55:36,733 --> 01:55:38,368
>> Allison: okay.

3160
01:55:38,368 --> 01:55:41,805
And did that vote for 2 million

3161
01:55:41,805 --> 01:55:43,805
fail or succeed?

3162
01:55:45,409 --> 01:55:47,111
>> Gulley: it failed.

3163
01:55:47,111 --> 01:55:48,345
>> Allison: do you have any

3164
01:55:48,345 --> 01:55:50,647
doubt in your mind, and you can

3165
01:55:50,647 --> 01:55:51,881
only speak for what you perceive

3166
01:55:51,881 --> 01:55:53,250
during the meeting.

3167
01:55:53,250 --> 01:55:55,510
Do you have any doubt you made

3168
01:55:55,510 --> 01:55:58,321
it very clear to the mayor that

3169
01:55:58,321 --> 01:56:00,490
the idea that this was new rules

3170
01:56:00,490 --> 01:56:02,360
by fema was untrue, or did you

3171
01:56:02,360 --> 01:56:03,460
make that clear?

3172
01:56:03,460 --> 01:56:05,229
>> Gulley: I feel like I made

3173
01:56:05,229 --> 01:56:06,960
it clear to everyone.

3174
01:56:06,960 --> 01:56:06,364
>> Allison: okay.

3175
01:56:06,364 --> 01:56:08,364
Thank you.

3176
01:56:14,205 --> 01:56:15,405
No further questions.

3177
01:56:15,405 --> 01:56:19,500
>> MR. Gulley, you feel like you

3178
01:56:19,677 --> 01:56:20,678
did, but you can't say for sure?

3179
01:56:20,678 --> 01:56:21,879
>> Gulley: from the vote and

3180
01:56:21,879 --> 01:56:24,279
comments that other members

3181
01:56:26,450 --> 01:56:26,650
made, you get a feel for the

3182
01:56:26,650 --> 01:56:28,619
room.

3183
01:56:28,619 --> 01:56:31,823
And, of course, the vote tells

3184
01:56:31,823 --> 01:56:34,492
you exactly what they feel.

3185
01:56:34,492 --> 01:56:37,492
>> it would be your testimony

3186
01:56:39,630 --> 01:56:42,300
that if MR. Ramirez -- if his

3187
01:56:42,300 --> 01:56:43,968
presentation to the edc board

3188
01:56:43,968 --> 01:56:46,968
was -- contained a narrative

3189
01:56:50,108 --> 01:56:51,409
that he was surprised by -- in

3190
01:56:51,409 --> 01:56:53,809
2022 to alleged changes, what

3191
01:56:53,846 --> 01:56:56,480
you're saying is that would

3192
01:56:56,480 --> 01:56:59,840
be -- it was discussed according

3193
01:56:59,840 --> 01:57:00,752
to your testimony that that

3194
01:57:00,752 --> 01:57:02,487
particular issue was discussed.

3195
01:57:02,487 --> 01:57:03,210
Is that what you're saying?

3196
01:57:03,210 --> 01:57:05,157
>> Allison: I'm going to

3197
01:57:05,157 --> 01:57:06,425
object to the question.

3198
01:57:06,425 --> 01:57:08,425
It's confusing.

3199
01:57:10,128 --> 01:57:10,729
>> Gulley: it is confusing.

3200
01:57:10,729 --> 01:57:11,896
>> Flood: DR. Gulley, at that

3201
01:57:11,896 --> 01:57:14,896
meeting, is it your testimony

3202
01:57:16,368 --> 01:57:19,368
that the narrative, that in 2022

3203
01:57:20,238 --> 01:57:22,307
there had been -- that

3204
01:57:22,307 --> 01:57:23,142
MR. Ramirez was surprised in

3205
01:57:23,142 --> 01:57:25,142
2022.

3206
01:57:29,614 --> 01:57:31,617
Was that exact narrative

3207
01:57:31,617 --> 01:57:32,117
discussed?

3208
01:57:32,117 --> 01:57:34,517
>> Gulley: it's kind of

3209
01:57:37,457 --> 01:57:39,158
confusing, but at the time...

3210
01:57:39,158 --> 01:57:40,250
>> Flood: I'm sorry.

3211
01:57:40,250 --> 01:57:41,326
>> Gulley: MR. Ramirez about

3212
01:57:41,326 --> 01:57:44,731
the fema rules, then at that

3213
01:57:44,731 --> 01:57:46,320
time he did not seem surprised.

3214
01:57:46,320 --> 01:57:48,168
>> Flood: is it -- I'm sorry.

3215
01:57:48,168 --> 01:57:51,168
Is it your testimony that

3216
01:57:51,437 --> 01:57:52,105
MR. Ramirez was at the

3217
01:57:52,105 --> 01:57:53,439
NOVEMBER 9 meeting?

3218
01:57:53,439 --> 01:57:54,641
>> Gulley: excuse me again?

3219
01:57:54,641 --> 01:57:57,641
>> Flood: is it your testimony

3220
01:57:58,578 --> 01:57:59,345
that MR. Ramirez was at the

3221
01:57:59,345 --> 01:58:02,480
NOVEMBER 9 meeting that you were

3222
01:58:02,480 --> 01:58:02,382
just talking about?

3223
01:58:02,382 --> 01:58:03,849
>> Gulley: no.

3224
01:58:03,849 --> 01:58:07,449
He was not at that meeting.

3225
01:58:07,988 --> 01:58:08,355
He was not at the edc meetings.

3226
01:58:08,355 --> 01:58:09,522
>> Flood: right.

3227
01:58:09,522 --> 01:58:09,956
I want to make sure the record

3228
01:58:09,956 --> 01:58:11,956
was clear.

3229
01:58:14,193 --> 01:58:18,393
So my question to you is, is

3230
01:58:18,965 --> 01:58:20,300
it -- are you telling this

3231
01:58:20,300 --> 01:58:20,901
tribunal that the issue of

3232
01:58:20,901 --> 01:58:22,602
surprise -- do you understand

3233
01:58:22,602 --> 01:58:23,770
when I say that?

3234
01:58:23,770 --> 01:58:25,204
>> Gulley: the issue of

3235
01:58:25,204 --> 01:58:27,204
surprise about what?

3236
01:58:28,242 --> 01:58:31,242
>> Flood: about changes in a

3237
01:58:31,312 --> 01:58:32,746
fema floodplain maps.

3238
01:58:32,746 --> 01:58:36,346
Does that narrative ring a bell

3239
01:58:39,519 --> 01:58:40,788
in your mind at all?

3240
01:58:40,788 --> 01:58:42,823
>> Gulley: I don't... I'm

3241
01:58:42,823 --> 01:58:44,458
not sure I completely understand

3242
01:58:44,458 --> 01:58:46,427
what you said.

3243
01:58:46,427 --> 01:58:48,195
You mean in that meeting, was

3244
01:58:48,195 --> 01:58:48,528
anyone surprised about that?

3245
01:58:48,528 --> 01:58:50,310
>> Flood: no.

3246
01:58:50,310 --> 01:58:53,310
I'm asking, in that meeting

3247
01:58:53,868 --> 01:58:56,470
where you say this issue of --

3248
01:58:56,470 --> 01:58:59,439
where fema maps was discussed in

3249
01:58:59,439 --> 01:59:02,176
an edc meeting on NOVEMBER 9th,

3250
01:59:02,176 --> 01:59:03,440
right, NOVEMBER 9, 2023?

3251
01:59:03,440 --> 01:59:05,380
>> Gulley: that was the

3252
01:59:05,380 --> 01:59:06,481
meeting we voted on it.

3253
01:59:06,481 --> 01:59:08,481
>> Flood: exactly.

3254
01:59:09,450 --> 01:59:11,586
In that meeting, it is -- would

3255
01:59:11,586 --> 01:59:14,880
it be your testimony that there

3256
01:59:14,880 --> 01:59:17,688
is some sort of discussion about

3257
01:59:17,858 --> 01:59:21,458
whether or not it would be

3258
01:59:21,795 --> 01:59:24,795
credible that MR. Ramirez was

3259
01:59:25,634 --> 01:59:27,703
surprised in 2022 about alleged

3260
01:59:27,703 --> 01:59:30,703
changes in the fema map?

3261
01:59:32,541 --> 01:59:32,808
Was that particular issue

3262
01:59:32,808 --> 01:59:34,808
discussed?

3263
01:59:36,100 --> 01:59:38,113
It's a yes or no question.

3264
01:59:38,113 --> 01:59:41,113
>> Gulley: no, I don't believe

3265
01:59:41,682 --> 01:59:42,683
that detail, was he surprised.

3266
01:59:42,683 --> 01:59:44,119
I don't think we discussed that

3267
01:59:44,119 --> 01:59:44,552
particular part of it.

3268
01:59:44,552 --> 01:59:46,552
>> Flood: okay.

3269
01:59:48,623 --> 01:59:50,391
And at the NOVEMBER 9 edc

3270
01:59:50,391 --> 01:59:51,926
meeting, there was absolutely no

3271
01:59:51,926 --> 01:59:54,362
discussion regarding any sort of

3272
01:59:54,362 --> 01:59:56,231
altered slide or anything like

3273
01:59:56,231 --> 01:59:56,564
that, right?

3274
01:59:56,564 --> 01:59:58,564
>> Gulley: no.

3275
01:59:59,167 --> 01:59:59,501
Not to my knowledge, no.

3276
01:59:59,501 --> 02:00:01,501
>> Flood: no.

3277
02:00:04,773 --> 02:00:08,511
And so what we know is that on

3278
02:00:08,511 --> 02:00:11,379
NOVEMBER 9th, 2023, at an edc

3279
02:00:11,379 --> 02:00:12,582
meeting that convened at

3280
02:00:12,582 --> 02:00:15,582
8:00 A.M., there was a

3281
02:00:16,852 --> 02:00:18,852
discussion, a spirited

3282
02:00:19,521 --> 02:00:22,521
discussion about whether or not

3283
02:00:25,827 --> 02:00:28,364
the edc board would recommend

3284
02:00:28,364 --> 02:00:30,232
1,043,000, which was the model,

3285
02:00:30,232 --> 02:00:31,867
or $2 million, which was the

3286
02:00:31,867 --> 02:00:34,867
request, or some other number.

3287
02:00:36,572 --> 02:00:37,700
Is that fair to say?

3288
02:00:37,700 --> 02:00:38,874
>> Gulley: yes.

3289
02:00:38,874 --> 02:00:42,144
But it went in an order.

3290
02:00:42,144 --> 02:00:45,514
First the motion was made and

3291
02:00:45,514 --> 02:00:46,682
voted on.

3292
02:00:46,682 --> 02:00:47,150
>> Flood: okay.

3293
02:00:47,150 --> 02:00:48,351
Object, nonresponse to

3294
02:00:48,351 --> 02:00:50,351
everything after yes.

3295
02:00:50,587 --> 02:00:53,490
So we know -- and that was the

3296
02:00:53,490 --> 02:00:55,392
spirited discussion, correct?

3297
02:00:55,392 --> 02:00:57,861
>> Gulley: it was a spirited

3298
02:00:57,861 --> 02:01:00,196
discussion I would say, yes.

3299
02:01:00,196 --> 02:01:02,596
>> Flood: and MR. Brasleton,

3300
02:01:04,200 --> 02:01:07,704
fair to say, was kind of

3301
02:01:07,704 --> 02:01:09,105
espousing the approval of the

3302
02:01:09,105 --> 02:01:10,707
2 million, and was advocating

3303
02:01:10,707 --> 02:01:11,642
that we need to support projects

3304
02:01:11,642 --> 02:01:13,642
like that.

3305
02:01:16,379 --> 02:01:17,381
Is that fair to say?

3306
02:01:17,381 --> 02:01:18,314
>> Gulley: probably, yes.

3307
02:01:18,314 --> 02:01:21,551
>> Flood: and it is also true

3308
02:01:21,551 --> 02:01:23,287
that you do not have any

3309
02:01:23,287 --> 02:01:25,220
specific recollection of the

3310
02:01:25,220 --> 02:01:26,590
mayor and her words advocating

3311
02:01:26,590 --> 02:01:28,990
one way or another.

3312
02:01:30,527 --> 02:01:32,629
She simply seconded and voted in

3313
02:01:32,629 --> 02:01:33,496
favor of the one that failed

3314
02:01:33,496 --> 02:01:34,640
3-6?

3315
02:01:34,640 --> 02:01:36,464
>> Gulley: no, they both

3316
02:01:37,100 --> 02:01:37,235
seemed to be supporting the

3317
02:01:37,235 --> 02:01:39,235
project.

3318
02:01:39,436 --> 02:01:40,637
>> Flood: who was the third

3319
02:01:40,637 --> 02:01:41,972
person that voted?

3320
02:01:41,972 --> 02:01:44,207
The minutes don't reflect it.

3321
02:01:44,207 --> 02:01:46,100
Based on your recollection, who

3322
02:01:46,100 --> 02:01:48,780
was the other member that voted?

3323
02:01:48,780 --> 02:01:48,512
>> Gulley: you know, I don't

3324
02:01:48,512 --> 02:01:50,512
remember.

3325
02:01:53,160 --> 02:01:53,551
But it was on my side of the

3326
02:01:53,551 --> 02:01:55,850
row.

3327
02:01:55,850 --> 02:01:56,520
And therefore, I might not have

3328
02:01:56,520 --> 02:01:57,488
been able to see them, because

3329
02:01:57,488 --> 02:01:58,356
other people between me and

3330
02:01:58,356 --> 02:01:59,924
them.

3331
02:01:59,924 --> 02:02:02,930
But it was someone on my side of

3332
02:02:02,930 --> 02:02:02,459
the row.

3333
02:02:02,459 --> 02:02:04,459
>> Flood: okay.

3334
02:02:05,830 --> 02:02:08,830
And so most definitely when

3335
02:02:10,634 --> 02:02:13,171
y'all voted to support that

3336
02:02:13,171 --> 02:02:14,573
1,043,000, you absolutely, under

3337
02:02:14,573 --> 02:02:16,573
no circumstances, were

3338
02:02:16,974 --> 02:02:18,743
supporting any sort of false

3339
02:02:18,743 --> 02:02:21,143
narrative regarding fema flood

3340
02:02:21,779 --> 02:02:23,214
maps, fair to say?

3341
02:02:23,214 --> 02:02:25,214
In

3342
02:02:26,584 --> 02:02:28,520
>> Gulley: I was not aware of

3343
02:02:28,520 --> 02:02:29,588
anyone mentioning any date, or

3344
02:02:29,588 --> 02:02:32,588
maps, or anything at that

3345
02:02:32,591 --> 02:02:33,759
meeting.

3346
02:02:33,759 --> 02:02:35,759
>> Flood: okay.

3347
02:02:38,430 --> 02:02:39,331
And was MR. Almaguer at that

3348
02:02:39,331 --> 02:02:41,331
meeting?

3349
02:02:41,833 --> 02:02:44,233
>> Gulley: I believe so.

3350
02:02:44,603 --> 02:02:46,400
i believe he was there.

3351
02:02:46,400 --> 02:02:50,204
He would have been at the far

3352
02:02:53,578 --> 02:02:58,378
end of the row that I was on.

3353
02:03:07,359 --> 02:03:09,359
>> Flood: okay.

3354
02:03:09,862 --> 02:03:12,262
As the petitioner's counsel

3355
02:03:13,132 --> 02:03:14,133
asked you questions, has he ever

3356
02:03:14,133 --> 02:03:16,133
represented you?

3357
02:03:17,103 --> 02:03:18,604
Has MR. Allison ever been your

3358
02:03:18,604 --> 02:03:19,505
lawyer?

3359
02:03:19,505 --> 02:03:21,474
>> Gulley: yes, he has.

3360
02:03:21,474 --> 02:03:22,141
>> Flood: is he currently your

3361
02:03:22,141 --> 02:03:22,475
lawyer?

3362
02:03:22,475 --> 02:03:24,475
>> Gulley: no.

3363
02:03:25,645 --> 02:03:26,112
That was a case some time ago.

3364
02:03:26,112 --> 02:03:28,112
>> Flood: okay.

3365
02:03:28,682 --> 02:03:30,784
Are y'all in any -- are y'all

3366
02:03:30,784 --> 02:03:32,784
business partners?

3367
02:03:33,186 --> 02:03:33,886
>> Gulley: in no way.

3368
02:03:33,886 --> 02:03:35,886
>> Flood: okay.

3369
02:03:37,691 --> 02:03:40,426
This past MAY, MR. Allison was

3370
02:03:40,426 --> 02:03:41,428
married in italy, correct?

3371
02:03:41,428 --> 02:03:42,729
>> Gulley: yes, he was.

3372
02:03:42,729 --> 02:03:44,697
>> Flood: and you went to that

3373
02:03:44,697 --> 02:03:45,898
wedding, didn't you?

3374
02:03:45,898 --> 02:03:48,298
>> Gulley: yes, I did.

3375
02:03:50,403 --> 02:03:53,403
>> Flood: and where was it?

3376
02:03:54,740 --> 02:03:55,509
>> Gulley: in italy.

3377
02:03:55,509 --> 02:03:57,509
Someplace in italy.

3378
02:03:57,844 --> 02:03:59,279
I've never been to italy before.

3379
02:03:59,279 --> 02:04:00,681
>> Flood: it was an

3380
02:04:00,681 --> 02:04:00,881
extraordinarily beautiful place,

3381
02:04:00,881 --> 02:04:02,216
right?

3382
02:04:02,216 --> 02:04:03,550
>> Gulley: it was a beautiful

3383
02:04:03,550 --> 02:04:03,984
place.

3384
02:04:03,984 --> 02:04:05,984
>> Flood: all right.

3385
02:04:06,720 --> 02:04:08,888
And at that wedding that you

3386
02:04:08,888 --> 02:04:11,958
attended, it was a small group

3387
02:04:11,958 --> 02:04:13,600
from corpus christi that went?

3388
02:04:13,600 --> 02:04:14,280
>> Gulley: yeah, pretty

3389
02:04:14,280 --> 02:04:15,996
good-sized group.

3390
02:04:15,996 --> 02:04:18,996
>> Flood: and at that wedding

3391
02:04:21,903 --> 02:04:24,105
that you attended a few months

3392
02:04:24,105 --> 02:04:25,600
ago in MAY --

3393
02:04:25,600 --> 02:04:26,940
>> Gulley: yes.

3394
02:04:26,940 --> 02:04:27,709
>> Flood: at that wedding --

3395
02:04:27,709 --> 02:04:28,276
>> Allison: I'll interpose an

3396
02:04:28,276 --> 02:04:30,276
objection.

3397
02:04:30,777 --> 02:04:31,145
At some point it gets too

3398
02:04:31,145 --> 02:04:32,846
off-track.

3399
02:04:32,846 --> 02:04:33,847
He's made the point in terms of

3400
02:04:33,847 --> 02:04:35,249
we definitely know each other

3401
02:04:35,249 --> 02:04:36,251
and have a relationship.

3402
02:04:36,251 --> 02:04:38,651
>> Flood: a couple more

3403
02:04:39,860 --> 02:04:41,860
followups on that.

3404
02:04:43,891 --> 02:04:45,760
And at that wedding, the

3405
02:04:45,760 --> 02:04:48,760
officiant at that wedding, who

3406
02:04:49,497 --> 02:04:51,233
was the officiant at the

3407
02:04:51,233 --> 02:04:54,233
wedding, who married MR. Allison

3408
02:04:56,704 --> 02:04:58,339
and his new bride, was tammy

3409
02:04:58,339 --> 02:04:59,107
watts, correct?

3410
02:04:59,107 --> 02:05:00,709
>> Gulley: yes.

3411
02:05:00,709 --> 02:05:03,709
>> Flood: and tammy watts is

3412
02:05:05,470 --> 02:05:06,981
the wife of local lawyer michael

3413
02:05:06,981 --> 02:05:08,981
watts, correct?

3414
02:05:08,984 --> 02:05:10,984
>> Gulley: yes.

3415
02:05:11,921 --> 02:05:13,489
>> Flood: and MR. And

3416
02:05:13,489 --> 02:05:16,489
MRS. Watts were there, right?

3417
02:05:16,658 --> 02:05:19,580
>> Gulley: michael and tammy,

3418
02:05:20,696 --> 02:05:22,696
yes.

3419
02:05:22,798 --> 02:05:26,100
>> Flood: and -- I have one

3420
02:05:26,100 --> 02:05:28,604
more question for MR. Gulley.

3421
02:05:28,604 --> 02:05:31,604
MR. Watts' mother is judge

3422
02:05:31,740 --> 02:05:32,107
sander watts, correct?

3423
02:05:32,107 --> 02:05:34,107
>> Gulley: yes.

3424
02:05:37,346 --> 02:05:39,346
>> Flood: all right.

3425
02:05:44,120 --> 02:05:46,120
Now,

3426
02:05:46,121 --> 02:05:47,756
-- can I have a minute to

3427
02:05:47,756 --> 02:05:49,291
confer?

3428
02:05:49,291 --> 02:05:51,291
Just one second.

3429
02:05:55,431 --> 02:05:56,832
>> Paxson: a quick second.

3430
02:05:56,832 --> 02:05:57,700
>> Flood: I pass.

3431
02:05:57,700 --> 02:05:59,700
>> Allison: you pass?

3432
02:06:00,502 --> 02:06:00,903
>> Flood: yes.

3433
02:06:00,903 --> 02:06:01,837
>> Allison: okay.

3434
02:06:01,837 --> 02:06:03,172
>> Flood: I was going to show

3435
02:06:03,172 --> 02:06:03,772
pictures of the wedding, because

3436
02:06:03,772 --> 02:06:05,772
it was fantastic.

3437
02:06:05,808 --> 02:06:07,310
It was beautiful.

3438
02:06:07,310 --> 02:06:08,645
>> Allison: thank you.

3439
02:06:08,645 --> 02:06:11,148
And you are out of the country

3440
02:06:11,148 --> 02:06:12,381
right now, correct?

3441
02:06:12,381 --> 02:06:13,250
>> Gulley: yes.

3442
02:06:13,250 --> 02:06:15,551
>> Allison: why are you out of

3443
02:06:15,551 --> 02:06:17,551
the country?

3444
02:06:19,288 --> 02:06:20,690
>> Gulley: my son -- it's his

3445
02:06:20,690 --> 02:06:22,325
birthday also, but he's

3446
02:06:22,325 --> 02:06:22,992
proposing to his girlfriend of

3447
02:06:22,992 --> 02:06:24,293
eight years.

3448
02:06:24,293 --> 02:06:24,961
They've been together since 10th

3449
02:06:24,961 --> 02:06:26,620
grade.

3450
02:06:26,620 --> 02:06:28,799
>> Allison: I hope she found

3451
02:06:28,799 --> 02:06:30,533
out before we just found out.

3452
02:06:30,533 --> 02:06:31,669
[Laughing]

3453
02:06:31,669 --> 02:06:32,302
>> Gulley: yes.

3454
02:06:32,302 --> 02:06:32,936
>> Allison: okay.

3455
02:06:32,936 --> 02:06:35,572
>> Gulley: it was very nice.

3456
02:06:35,572 --> 02:06:36,940
>> Allison: all of those

3457
02:06:36,940 --> 02:06:38,776
relationships being considered,

3458
02:06:38,776 --> 02:06:41,770
I think the implication is that

3459
02:06:41,770 --> 02:06:43,280
somehow you would maybe be

3460
02:06:43,280 --> 02:06:45,149
untruthful because you and I are

3461
02:06:45,149 --> 02:06:46,450
friends, and I have represented

3462
02:06:46,450 --> 02:06:47,984
you in that case years ago.

3463
02:06:47,984 --> 02:06:50,822
Have you done -- said anything

3464
02:06:50,822 --> 02:06:51,889
in your testimony that is

3465
02:06:51,889 --> 02:06:52,222
untruthful?

3466
02:06:52,222 --> 02:06:54,222
>> Gulley: no.

3467
02:06:55,525 --> 02:06:57,761
>> Allison: thank you, sir.

3468
02:06:57,761 --> 02:07:00,761
>> where are you right now?

3469
02:07:02,367 --> 02:07:02,833
>> Allison: I pass.

3470
02:07:02,833 --> 02:07:03,467
>> Gulley: st. Lucia.

3471
02:07:03,467 --> 02:07:04,502
>> you're not in the united

3472
02:07:04,502 --> 02:07:05,200
states.

3473
02:07:05,200 --> 02:07:07,200
>> Gulley: no.

3474
02:07:12,676 --> 02:07:13,770
>> Flood: when did you go?

3475
02:07:13,770 --> 02:07:13,877
>> Gulley: friday?

3476
02:07:13,877 --> 02:07:15,212
>> Flood: all right.

3477
02:07:15,212 --> 02:07:15,980
>> Gulley: I'm coming back

3478
02:07:15,980 --> 02:07:16,347
tomorrow.

3479
02:07:16,347 --> 02:07:18,347
>> Flood: okay.

3480
02:07:19,250 --> 02:07:22,253
And today is friday the 7th.

3481
02:07:22,253 --> 02:07:23,687
This trial started back on

3482
02:07:23,687 --> 02:07:24,321
JULY 22nd, which is two weeks

3483
02:07:24,321 --> 02:07:26,321
ago.

3484
02:07:26,991 --> 02:07:30,591
Were you in corpus christi on

3485
02:07:33,966 --> 02:07:35,966
JULY 22 and 23?

3486
02:07:36,667 --> 02:07:38,770
>> Gulley: I might have been.

3487
02:07:38,770 --> 02:07:41,770
I was in south texas.

3488
02:07:44,275 --> 02:07:46,478
I was not in corpus.

3489
02:07:46,478 --> 02:07:46,845
>> Flood: you were on a ranch?

3490
02:07:46,845 --> 02:07:48,546
>> Gulley: yeah.

3491
02:07:48,546 --> 02:07:50,946
>> Flood: where is that?

3492
02:07:52,283 --> 02:07:53,251
>> Gulley: it's west of

3493
02:07:53,251 --> 02:07:54,886
fremont.

3494
02:07:54,886 --> 02:07:56,789
>> Flood: not too far.

3495
02:07:56,789 --> 02:07:58,290
Less than 150 miles from corpus

3496
02:07:58,290 --> 02:07:58,657
christi?

3497
02:07:58,657 --> 02:07:59,910
>> Gulley: yes.

3498
02:07:59,910 --> 02:08:01,910
>> Flood: all right.

3499
02:08:03,270 --> 02:08:04,290
So that's where you were on JULY 22nd and 23rd.

3500
02:08:04,290 --> 02:08:05,163
>> Gulley: yes.

3501
02:08:05,163 --> 02:08:07,163
>> Flood: okay.

3502
02:08:07,933 --> 02:08:08,600
I pass.

3503
02:08:08,600 --> 02:08:10,600
>> Allison: nothing further.

3504
02:08:11,803 --> 02:08:14,803
MAY this witness be excused?

3505
02:08:16,308 --> 02:08:17,760
>> Flood: go to the beach.

3506
02:08:17,760 --> 02:08:18,177
>> Paxson: yes.

3507
02:08:18,177 --> 02:08:18,344
>> Allison: I'm going to sign

3508
02:08:18,344 --> 02:08:19,578
off.

3509
02:08:19,578 --> 02:08:21,978
Thank you very much.

3510
02:08:24,283 --> 02:08:24,851
>> Gulley: thank you.

3511
02:08:24,851 --> 02:08:27,251
>> Paxson: MR. Allison, you

3512
02:08:29,421 --> 02:08:30,355
have any more witnesses?

3513
02:08:30,355 --> 02:08:32,355
>> Allison: close.

3514
02:08:33,250 --> 02:08:34,793
I would request a break to

3515
02:08:34,793 --> 02:08:37,296
assess whether or not I need to

3516
02:08:37,296 --> 02:08:37,664
call a rebuttal to a rebuttal.

3517
02:08:37,664 --> 02:08:39,664
>> Paxson: okay.

3518
02:08:40,177 --> 02:08:40,544
I think we're all back.

3519
02:08:40,544 --> 02:08:42,544
All right.

3520
02:08:45,349 --> 02:08:45,581
Then we will reconvene this

3521
02:08:45,581 --> 02:08:46,683
meeting.

3522
02:08:46,683 --> 02:08:48,117
MR. Flood --

3523
02:08:48,117 --> 02:08:50,117
>> Flood: respond.

3524
02:08:50,320 --> 02:08:51,387
>> Paxson: MR. Allison -- on

3525
02:08:51,387 --> 02:08:52,188
your microphone.

3526
02:08:52,188 --> 02:08:54,188
>> Allison: nothing further

3527
02:08:54,257 --> 02:08:55,258
from petitioners.

3528
02:08:55,258 --> 02:08:57,461
>> Paxson: do you rest?

3529
02:08:57,461 --> 02:08:57,927
>> Allison: we rest and close.

3530
02:08:57,927 --> 02:08:59,195
>> Paxson: MR. Flood?

3531
02:08:59,195 --> 02:08:59,662
>> Flood: rest and close.

3532
02:08:59,662 --> 02:09:01,298
>> Paxson: okay.

3533
02:09:01,298 --> 02:09:04,670
At this time, I would like to

3534
02:09:04,670 --> 02:09:06,212
recess until 3:00 P.M.

3535
02:09:06,212 --> 02:09:07,280
We'll call this meeting back in

3536
02:09:07,280 --> 02:09:08,248
session.

3537
02:09:08,248 --> 02:09:10,216
And at this time, I would like

3538
02:09:10,216 --> 02:09:13,216
to recess for 45 minutes to

3539
02:09:13,386 --> 02:09:16,386
allow the attorneys to confer

3540
02:09:16,648 --> 02:09:18,150
>> Paxson: okay.

3541
02:09:18,150 --> 02:09:19,417
We'll call this meeting back

3542
02:09:19,417 --> 02:09:20,652
to session and at this time

3543
02:09:20,652 --> 02:09:21,586
we will go into closing

3544
02:09:21,586 --> 02:09:23,586
statements.

3545
02:09:33,565 --> 02:09:34,333
Gentlemen -- gentlemen, have

3546
02:09:34,333 --> 02:09:36,100
you both reached and

3547
02:09:36,100 --> 02:09:38,401
agreement on the charge?

3548
02:09:41,139 --> 02:09:43,139
>> yes.

3549
02:09:43,409 --> 02:09:45,277
>> yes, there's not a need

3550
02:09:45,277 --> 02:09:45,577
for formal charge conference

3551
02:09:45,577 --> 02:09:46,144
conference.

3552
02:09:46,144 --> 02:09:47,346
>> Paxson: thank you.

3553
02:09:47,346 --> 02:09:48,380
And how much time?

3554
02:09:48,380 --> 02:09:50,249
Would 30 minutes work for

3555
02:09:50,249 --> 02:09:51,583
closing statements for both?

3556
02:09:51,583 --> 02:09:53,583
>> I believe so.

3557
02:09:55,187 --> 02:09:57,187
>> yes.

3558
02:10:00,759 --> 02:10:05,559
Then at this time>> Paxson: then at this

3559
02:10:06,598 --> 02:10:07,466
time -- do either parties

3560
02:10:07,466 --> 02:10:09,866
have anything further before

3561
02:10:11,837 --> 02:10:13,806
we go to closing?

3562
02:10:13,806 --> 02:10:15,240
>> Flood: no.

3563
02:10:15,240 --> 02:10:15,975
>> Allison: no.

3564
02:10:15,975 --> 02:10:17,975
>> Paxson: then MR.

3565
02:10:19,712 --> 02:10:21,712
MR. Allison.

3566
02:10:21,914 --> 02:10:23,916
>> Allison: MAY I proceed?

3567
02:10:23,916 --> 02:10:25,840
>> Paxson: yes.

3568
02:10:25,840 --> 02:10:26,185
>> Allison: first of all,

3569
02:10:26,185 --> 02:10:26,753
thank you for your time and

3570
02:10:26,753 --> 02:10:28,753
your attention.

3571
02:10:29,989 --> 02:10:32,592
To say that this has been

3572
02:10:32,592 --> 02:10:33,926
acrimonious at times, not

3573
02:10:33,926 --> 02:10:36,128
the proceedings, per se, but

3574
02:10:36,128 --> 02:10:38,631
in the community is a

3575
02:10:38,631 --> 02:10:40,631
massive understatement.

3576
02:10:41,300 --> 02:10:42,836
It takes real fortitude so I

3577
02:10:42,836 --> 02:10:46,600
thank each of you for your

3578
02:10:46,600 --> 02:10:48,700
fortitude in staying the

3579
02:10:48,700 --> 02:10:49,208
course, following what's

3580
02:10:49,208 --> 02:10:51,345
required according to the

3581
02:10:51,345 --> 02:10:53,313
city's charter and being

3582
02:10:53,313 --> 02:10:54,140
willing to hear some hard

3583
02:10:54,140 --> 02:10:56,140
truths.

3584
02:10:58,885 --> 02:11:00,754
And it leads us to a moment

3585
02:11:00,754 --> 02:11:01,855
where there is a very

3586
02:11:01,855 --> 02:11:03,824
serious matter that has

3587
02:11:03,824 --> 02:11:06,427
really been a cancer in this

3588
02:11:06,427 --> 02:11:09,427
community for a long time.

3589
02:11:12,866 --> 02:11:14,866
That's the truth.

3590
02:11:15,402 --> 02:11:15,770
We have -- we have

3591
02:11:15,770 --> 02:11:17,704
corruption.

3592
02:11:17,704 --> 02:11:20,807
And it does not -- it's not

3593
02:11:20,807 --> 02:11:22,375
words I like to say.

3594
02:11:22,375 --> 02:11:23,110
It's not something I'm proud

3595
02:11:23,110 --> 02:11:24,778
of.

3596
02:11:24,778 --> 02:11:27,381
It's not something I wish we

3597
02:11:27,381 --> 02:11:29,830
had to deal with.

3598
02:11:29,830 --> 02:11:32,683
It has been so much easier

3599
02:11:33,420 --> 02:11:36,624
for years to go along, get

3600
02:11:36,624 --> 02:11:39,624
along, scratch a back, keep

3601
02:11:39,894 --> 02:11:41,895
the ball moving, and this

3602
02:11:41,895 --> 02:11:44,895
group, though, has had the

3603
02:11:44,965 --> 02:11:47,100
courage to say we have to

3604
02:11:47,100 --> 02:11:49,100
face it.

3605
02:11:49,337 --> 02:11:51,205
I have zero personally -- I

3606
02:11:51,205 --> 02:11:52,373
cannot be more candid than

3607
02:11:52,373 --> 02:11:54,773
to just be blunt.

3608
02:11:59,848 --> 02:12:01,383
I have zero desire to do

3609
02:12:01,383 --> 02:12:03,783
anything but enrich and

3610
02:12:05,200 --> 02:12:08,200
improve my community, and it

3611
02:12:08,189 --> 02:12:10,358
is painful, it hurts to have

3612
02:12:10,358 --> 02:12:13,958
to face these issues and be

3613
02:12:13,962 --> 02:12:16,231
the ones to say that's wrong

3614
02:12:16,231 --> 02:12:17,140
and we can't do that anymore

3615
02:12:17,140 --> 02:12:19,140
anymore.

3616
02:12:19,601 --> 02:12:21,300
In a criminal case -- again,

3617
02:12:21,300 --> 02:12:24,300
we've said a thousand times,

3618
02:12:24,911 --> 02:12:27,947
this is not a criminal case.

3619
02:12:27,947 --> 02:12:29,110
No one wants for there to be

3620
02:12:29,110 --> 02:12:30,470
a verdict that sends

3621
02:12:30,470 --> 02:12:31,524
somebody to jail.

3622
02:12:31,524 --> 02:12:33,148
That's just putting a life

3623
02:12:33,148 --> 02:12:33,449
in jail is a hard thing to

3624
02:12:33,449 --> 02:12:35,323
do.

3625
02:12:35,323 --> 02:12:35,751
Of course, we're not doing

3626
02:12:35,751 --> 02:12:37,751
that here.

3627
02:12:38,124 --> 02:12:41,924
In a civil case no one wants

3628
02:12:41,924 --> 02:12:43,668
to -- they really don't.

3629
02:12:43,668 --> 02:12:44,659
Large verdicts or sending

3630
02:12:44,659 --> 02:12:47,590
the aggrieved family members

3631
02:12:47,230 --> 02:12:49,465
in a death case home is

3632
02:12:49,465 --> 02:12:51,865
painful for a jury.

3633
02:12:51,901 --> 02:12:53,936
No one wants to do that.

3634
02:12:53,936 --> 02:12:57,536
Just like here, no one wants

3635
02:12:58,207 --> 02:13:01,277
to really have to deal with

3636
02:13:01,277 --> 02:13:03,114
the underbelly of this city,

3637
02:13:03,114 --> 02:13:06,114
which has been the breeding

3638
02:13:06,216 --> 02:13:09,816
ground for the mayor for too

3639
02:13:10,486 --> 02:13:12,430
long.

3640
02:13:12,430 --> 02:13:15,430
It is serious, and it

3641
02:13:15,629 --> 02:13:17,593
requires serious people, and

3642
02:13:17,593 --> 02:13:18,762
you have and are stepping up

3643
02:13:18,762 --> 02:13:20,463
to that task.

3644
02:13:20,463 --> 02:13:20,831
I mean, no one wants to do

3645
02:13:20,831 --> 02:13:22,364
it.

3646
02:13:22,364 --> 02:13:24,504
No one wants to have to deal

3647
02:13:24,504 --> 02:13:25,201
with the cancer, but we have

3648
02:13:25,201 --> 02:13:27,201
to.

3649
02:13:29,172 --> 02:13:30,807
In this case it is very

3650
02:13:30,807 --> 02:13:32,807
straightforward.

3651
02:13:33,513 --> 02:13:35,446
I mean, look at all the

3652
02:13:35,446 --> 02:13:37,150
things, the fights that have

3653
02:13:37,150 --> 02:13:39,415
happened in connection with

3654
02:13:43,386 --> 02:13:45,386
what happened here.

3655
02:13:46,289 --> 02:13:48,689
It is manifestly evident

3656
02:13:48,925 --> 02:13:51,325
that bad things, wrong

3657
02:13:51,327 --> 02:13:53,327
things, any inappropriate

3658
02:13:53,631 --> 02:13:55,499
things, unlawful things,

3659
02:13:55,499 --> 02:13:57,134
altering of documents,

3660
02:13:57,134 --> 02:13:59,134
intentional changing of

3661
02:13:59,336 --> 02:14:01,571
documents that are from a

3662
02:14:01,571 --> 02:14:02,706
federal website.

3663
02:14:02,706 --> 02:14:04,140
They don't like the word

3664
02:14:04,140 --> 02:14:05,343
documents sometimes, federal

3665
02:14:05,343 --> 02:14:08,579
writing is the way it is

3666
02:14:08,579 --> 02:14:10,579
under the statute.

3667
02:14:11,182 --> 02:14:13,182
That is horrific.

3668
02:14:16,820 --> 02:14:18,889
And the idea that somebody

3669
02:14:18,889 --> 02:14:21,259
would go to you all and run

3670
02:14:21,259 --> 02:14:22,194
through a process and be

3671
02:14:22,194 --> 02:14:24,328
arrogant enough that they

3672
02:14:24,328 --> 02:14:26,630
can do that, I can walk

3673
02:14:26,630 --> 02:14:29,630
through this process, I get

3674
02:14:29,900 --> 02:14:32,203
to lie to ccrecd, they said,

3675
02:14:32,203 --> 02:14:33,204
and lie to type b and send

3676
02:14:33,204 --> 02:14:36,804
the lie to the city council

3677
02:14:37,842 --> 02:14:40,778
so I can get $2 million.

3678
02:14:40,778 --> 02:14:42,780
That is in the most horrific

3679
02:14:42,780 --> 02:14:44,815
way the greatest offense

3680
02:14:44,815 --> 02:14:46,350
when you all have such a

3681
02:14:46,350 --> 02:14:48,350
huge responsibility to

3682
02:14:49,720 --> 02:14:51,720
protect taxpayer money.

3683
02:14:58,763 --> 02:14:59,765
And they tricked you 90

3684
02:14:59,765 --> 02:15:00,999
shame on them.

3685
02:15:00,999 --> 02:15:03,768
Let them not trick you again

3686
02:15:03,768 --> 02:15:05,536
again, which is what we're

3687
02:15:05,536 --> 02:15:07,373
here for now because everett

3688
02:15:07,373 --> 02:15:08,573
roy is correct, it's never

3689
02:15:08,573 --> 02:15:12,760
too wrong to make the right

3690
02:15:12,760 --> 02:15:14,613
decision, and we have to,

3691
02:15:14,613 --> 02:15:17,613
because what we tolerate we

3692
02:15:18,490 --> 02:15:20,490
become.

3693
02:15:21,954 --> 02:15:23,855
If we don't act -- and I say

3694
02:15:23,855 --> 02:15:26,255
we because it's we.

3695
02:15:26,525 --> 02:15:26,725
You've seen me, I don't move

3696
02:15:26,725 --> 02:15:28,725
move.

3697
02:15:28,727 --> 02:15:31,664
I move one direction slowly

3698
02:15:31,664 --> 02:15:32,165
and steady, and you have too

3699
02:15:32,165 --> 02:15:34,165
too.

3700
02:15:36,802 --> 02:15:41,200
if we do not act, we become

3701
02:15:46,279 --> 02:15:47,880
the problem.

3702
02:15:47,880 --> 02:15:49,581
I want to make sure I don't

3703
02:15:49,581 --> 02:15:51,490
take too much time.

3704
02:15:51,490 --> 02:15:52,618
And I'm going to avoid some

3705
02:15:52,618 --> 02:15:54,530
of my slides here for a

3706
02:15:54,530 --> 02:15:56,255
minute because it is so

3707
02:15:56,255 --> 02:15:57,757
important to just be honest

3708
02:15:57,757 --> 02:15:59,757
about it.

3709
02:16:00,460 --> 02:16:03,763
If we do not act, we become

3710
02:16:03,763 --> 02:16:05,763
the problem.

3711
02:16:05,965 --> 02:16:08,965
And we cannot do that.

3712
02:16:09,302 --> 02:16:12,302
It has hurt this community

3713
02:16:12,371 --> 02:16:14,700
too hard for too long.

3714
02:16:14,700 --> 02:16:17,700
And what do we know?

3715
02:16:17,243 --> 02:16:18,712
We know that -- we know

3716
02:16:18,712 --> 02:16:20,680
phillip knew.

3717
02:16:20,680 --> 02:16:22,382
Of course he knew.

3718
02:16:22,382 --> 02:16:24,117
He lies to you and he says I

3719
02:16:24,117 --> 02:16:26,587
had no -- I'm an architect,

3720
02:16:26,587 --> 02:16:27,788
I've been here all my life,

3721
02:16:27,788 --> 02:16:30,560
I do all this work for the

3722
02:16:30,560 --> 02:16:30,857
city and I had no idea about

3723
02:16:30,857 --> 02:16:32,857
floodplains.

3724
02:16:41,168 --> 02:16:43,370
You are killing me.

3725
02:16:43,370 --> 02:16:44,905
Golly, that man could not

3726
02:16:44,905 --> 02:16:47,308
take a risk for litigation

3727
02:16:47,308 --> 02:16:48,676
if his life depended on it.

3728
02:16:48,676 --> 02:16:49,977
It's in a floodplain, you

3729
02:16:49,977 --> 02:16:51,578
know it's in a flood, you

3730
02:16:51,578 --> 02:16:52,512
will have to raise base

3731
02:16:52,512 --> 02:16:54,115
elevation.

3732
02:16:54,115 --> 02:16:54,581
He told them, of course he

3733
02:16:54,581 --> 02:16:56,581
did.

3734
02:16:58,585 --> 02:16:59,420
And I went to the ccrecd

3735
02:16:59,420 --> 02:17:00,854
meeting and of course he

3736
02:17:00,854 --> 02:17:02,220
told the mayor.

3737
02:17:02,220 --> 02:17:03,658
So of course she knew from

3738
02:17:03,658 --> 02:17:04,925
the beginning.

3739
02:17:04,925 --> 02:17:06,930
Even if you give her the

3740
02:17:06,930 --> 02:17:07,928
benefit of the doubt of all

3741
02:17:07,928 --> 02:17:08,729
the phone calls in the

3742
02:17:08,729 --> 02:17:10,630
record, I think there was

3743
02:17:10,630 --> 02:17:11,298
about 100 of them, we just

3744
02:17:11,298 --> 02:17:12,967
focused on the ones that are

3745
02:17:12,967 --> 02:17:14,370
closer in time to certain

3746
02:17:14,370 --> 02:17:17,370
critical dates, even if you

3747
02:17:18,205 --> 02:17:19,673
say that phillip and devin

3748
02:17:19,673 --> 02:17:22,110
bhakta didn't tell her, we

3749
02:17:22,110 --> 02:17:22,911
know beginning from the

3750
02:17:22,911 --> 02:17:25,311
ccrecd process when they

3751
02:17:25,713 --> 02:17:28,713
voted on it, she knew.

3752
02:17:28,817 --> 02:17:30,618
She knew about the lie.

3753
02:17:30,618 --> 02:17:34,818
She knew when it says in the

3754
02:17:34,855 --> 02:17:35,289
application, quote, newly

3755
02:17:35,289 --> 02:17:36,158
defined.

3756
02:17:36,158 --> 02:17:37,291
That's a lie.

3757
02:17:37,291 --> 02:17:40,629
We know when you look at the

3758
02:17:40,629 --> 02:17:40,962
slide, it was intentionally

3759
02:17:40,962 --> 02:17:42,962
offered.

3760
02:17:43,300 --> 02:17:45,667
Not according to doug, but

3761
02:17:45,667 --> 02:17:47,468
according to police,

3762
02:17:47,468 --> 02:17:49,137
according to the independent

3763
02:17:49,137 --> 02:17:51,137
evaluation, according to

3764
02:17:51,272 --> 02:17:51,673
every one of your common

3765
02:17:51,673 --> 02:17:53,575
sense.

3766
02:17:53,575 --> 02:17:56,311
I know you know it was

3767
02:17:56,311 --> 02:17:58,311
intentionally altered and

3768
02:17:59,810 --> 02:18:01,810
they removed dates

3769
02:18:01,149 --> 02:18:02,217
specifically to give it the

3770
02:18:02,217 --> 02:18:03,785
appearance that it was not

3771
02:18:03,785 --> 02:18:05,654
published in advance of

3772
02:18:05,654 --> 02:18:07,223
their project being

3773
02:18:07,223 --> 02:18:09,223
conceived.

3774
02:18:09,791 --> 02:18:11,626
That is certain, and she,

3775
02:18:11,626 --> 02:18:14,626
the mayor, knew about it.

3776
02:18:15,130 --> 02:18:16,264
She was told about it.

3777
02:18:16,264 --> 02:18:18,133
And we know that they

3778
02:18:18,133 --> 02:18:21,133
persisted in the lie that

3779
02:18:21,637 --> 02:18:24,940
she aided the fraud that she

3780
02:18:24,940 --> 02:18:25,408
aided through the ccrecd

3781
02:18:25,408 --> 02:18:27,408
process.

3782
02:18:28,410 --> 02:18:31,280
We know they perpetuateed it

3783
02:18:31,280 --> 02:18:31,781
because we have it on video

3784
02:18:31,781 --> 02:18:33,583
tape.

3785
02:18:33,583 --> 02:18:33,983
Phillip says fema, fema,

3786
02:18:33,983 --> 02:18:35,983
fema.

3787
02:18:36,552 --> 02:18:39,388
And we know that he used a

3788
02:18:39,388 --> 02:18:40,355
slide, at ted slide, forged

3789
02:18:40,355 --> 02:18:42,355
slide, because he

3790
02:18:42,825 --> 02:18:44,394
intentionally altered it.

3791
02:18:44,394 --> 02:18:44,793
We know that he did that

3792
02:18:44,793 --> 02:18:46,229
fraud.

3793
02:18:46,229 --> 02:18:47,263
It's certainly -- we're not

3794
02:18:47,263 --> 02:18:49,198
here on the criminal part of

3795
02:18:49,198 --> 02:18:50,266
it, but it is certainly

3796
02:18:50,266 --> 02:18:51,668
civil fraud, which is

3797
02:18:51,668 --> 02:18:53,870
defined in the paperwork you

3798
02:18:53,870 --> 02:18:55,238
have, an intentional

3799
02:18:55,238 --> 02:18:56,105
misrepresentation.

3800
02:18:56,105 --> 02:18:58,407
you've already found that it

3801
02:18:58,407 --> 02:19:00,811
is essentially fraud by your

3802
02:19:00,811 --> 02:19:02,545
finding that they were in

3803
02:19:02,545 --> 02:19:04,945
default of the agreement

3804
02:19:06,115 --> 02:19:08,515
with type b board.

3805
02:19:10,120 --> 02:19:11,153
That fraud got perpetuateed

3806
02:19:11,153 --> 02:19:13,553
through ccrecd, through type

3807
02:19:14,560 --> 02:19:16,126
b, and then came here on a

3808
02:19:16,126 --> 02:19:16,659
first reading and was

3809
02:19:16,659 --> 02:19:18,561
continued.

3810
02:19:18,561 --> 02:19:19,896
You all -- not you all, but

3811
02:19:19,896 --> 02:19:23,100
that council was lied to at

3812
02:19:23,100 --> 02:19:25,368
the time, relied upon that

3813
02:19:25,368 --> 02:19:26,770
false representation, relied

3814
02:19:26,770 --> 02:19:28,539
upon the false slide, which

3815
02:19:28,539 --> 02:19:31,539
is the definition of fraud

3816
02:19:31,875 --> 02:19:33,477
in the paperwork before you.

3817
02:19:33,477 --> 02:19:35,746
And you voted to approve it

3818
02:19:35,746 --> 02:19:37,746
in reading one.

3819
02:19:38,214 --> 02:19:40,785
Then they got caught and

3820
02:19:40,785 --> 02:19:42,520
then everything changed.

3821
02:19:42,520 --> 02:19:44,354
Before that let me make sure

3822
02:19:44,354 --> 02:19:46,924
I say this on reading one

3823
02:19:46,924 --> 02:19:48,793
because what we know

3824
02:19:48,793 --> 02:19:49,793
happened is that the mayor

3825
02:19:49,793 --> 02:19:51,529
mayor -- it's on video and

3826
02:19:51,529 --> 02:19:53,529
you've seen it.

3827
02:19:54,532 --> 02:19:57,167
She is the only person who

3828
02:19:57,167 --> 02:19:58,135
took that $2 million for her

3829
02:19:58,135 --> 02:20:00,471
friends by the hand

3830
02:20:00,471 --> 02:20:02,720
6ing

3831
02:20:02,720 --> 02:20:04,720
6,

3832
02:20:04,275 --> 02:20:05,909
starting at ccrecd, came

3833
02:20:05,909 --> 02:20:09,509
here and sat here in that

3834
02:20:09,514 --> 02:20:11,149
chair at council on FEBRUARY 20, 2024, and said

3835
02:20:11,149 --> 02:20:11,782
to michael hunter, it

3836
02:20:11,782 --> 02:20:13,617
changed.

3837
02:20:13,617 --> 02:20:15,617
Fema changed.

3838
02:20:16,721 --> 02:20:19,121
It changed, it changed.

3839
02:20:19,590 --> 02:20:22,590
Even though gulley had told

3840
02:20:23,695 --> 02:20:26,398
her the exact opposite in

3841
02:20:26,398 --> 02:20:27,898
NOVEMBER of 2023 to her face

3842
02:20:27,898 --> 02:20:29,768
face.

3843
02:20:29,768 --> 02:20:31,836
She came in and she advocate

3844
02:20:31,836 --> 02:20:33,639
advocated for that which she

3845
02:20:33,639 --> 02:20:36,390
had specifically been told

3846
02:20:36,541 --> 02:20:38,541
was false.

3847
02:20:40,212 --> 02:20:43,212
And then when ajit david

3848
02:20:43,382 --> 02:20:44,449
brought it to light, what do

3849
02:20:44,449 --> 02:20:46,217
we see?

3850
02:20:46,217 --> 02:20:47,886
14 phone calls in one day

3851
02:20:47,886 --> 02:20:50,488
before they withdraw it on

3852
02:20:50,488 --> 02:20:52,240
FEBRUARY 27th because they

3853
02:20:52,240 --> 02:20:54,240
realized, peter realizes

3854
02:20:55,794 --> 02:20:57,429
there's a fraud.

3855
02:20:57,429 --> 02:21:01,133
And he sums it up this way.

3856
02:21:01,133 --> 02:21:02,100
Let me see if I can play.

3857
02:21:02,100 --> 02:21:02,734
>> the request of

3858
02:21:02,734 --> 02:21:04,469
information from the

3859
02:21:04,469 --> 02:21:04,670
applicant, I don't have that

3860
02:21:04,670 --> 02:21:06,670
that.

3861
02:21:06,805 --> 02:21:08,700
They haven't given it to me.

3862
02:21:08,700 --> 02:21:08,607
I'm not giving any

3863
02:21:08,607 --> 02:21:09,975
recommendation.

3864
02:21:09,975 --> 02:21:10,809
I'm putting it on the agenda

3865
02:21:10,809 --> 02:21:12,100
agenda, I was asked to.

3866
02:21:12,100 --> 02:21:14,346
So you consider it.

3867
02:21:14,346 --> 02:21:15,800
You have to make your

3868
02:21:15,800 --> 02:21:17,800
recommendation.

3869
02:21:18,785 --> 02:21:21,654
>> but you did let the city

3870
02:21:21,654 --> 02:21:22,989
council know that there were

3871
02:21:22,989 --> 02:21:24,357
some -- you know, some

3872
02:21:24,357 --> 02:21:25,570
improper information, some

3873
02:21:25,570 --> 02:21:26,125
tampering and all that

3874
02:21:26,125 --> 02:21:27,359
involved.

3875
02:21:27,359 --> 02:21:28,428
You let them know?

3876
02:21:28,428 --> 02:21:29,795
>> I let them know.

3877
02:21:29,795 --> 02:21:30,630
We're going to let them know

3878
02:21:30,630 --> 02:21:30,863
again tomorrow in executive

3879
02:21:30,863 --> 02:21:31,931
session.

3880
02:21:31,931 --> 02:21:32,532
I already have an executive

3881
02:21:32,532 --> 02:21:33,166
session posted.

3882
02:21:33,166 --> 02:21:34,801
>> okay.

3883
02:21:34,801 --> 02:21:35,267
Peter, when does executive

3884
02:21:35,267 --> 02:21:36,569
session happen?

3885
02:21:36,569 --> 02:21:37,336
Does it happen towards the

3886
02:21:37,336 --> 02:21:39,336
end?

3887
02:21:39,839 --> 02:21:41,440
>> you know, no.

3888
02:21:41,440 --> 02:21:43,543
When we break for lunch most

3889
02:21:43,543 --> 02:21:44,110
likely.

3890
02:21:44,110 --> 02:21:44,977
I can't remember how many

3891
02:21:44,977 --> 02:21:46,345
items are on there.

3892
02:21:46,345 --> 02:21:49,345
Probably on the first break,

3893
02:21:49,415 --> 02:21:50,616
the lunch break.

3894
02:21:50,616 --> 02:21:51,518
So 2:30.

3895
02:21:51,518 --> 02:21:52,180
>> is it after public

3896
02:21:52,180 --> 02:21:53,720
comment or before?

3897
02:21:53,720 --> 02:21:54,388
>> no, it's after public

3898
02:21:54,388 --> 02:21:55,455
comment.

3899
02:21:55,455 --> 02:21:57,230
>> okay, no problem.

3900
02:21:57,230 --> 02:21:59,230
>> yeah, after public

3901
02:21:59,626 --> 02:22:01,600
comment.

3902
02:22:01,600 --> 02:22:04,600
>> I was just surprised that

3903
02:22:05,164 --> 02:22:06,990
council is still willing to

3904
02:22:06,990 --> 02:22:07,967
consider this after they

3905
02:22:07,967 --> 02:22:10,367
know what was done?

3906
02:22:10,703 --> 02:22:12,873
And on that website, on the

3907
02:22:12,873 --> 02:22:14,740
fema website, it seven says

3908
02:22:14,740 --> 02:22:15,609
this is a united states

3909
02:22:15,609 --> 02:22:16,143
government portal.

3910
02:22:16,143 --> 02:22:17,911
>> yeah.

3911
02:22:17,911 --> 02:22:19,680
>> on the very top.

3912
02:22:19,680 --> 02:22:22,830
>> right, it was -- and when

3913
02:22:22,830 --> 02:22:23,817
you read the entire

3914
02:22:23,817 --> 02:22:25,152
powerpoint, it's so obvious

3915
02:22:25,152 --> 02:22:26,853
that the reader or the

3916
02:22:26,853 --> 02:22:28,589
writer wanted one to be led

3917
02:22:28,589 --> 02:22:30,240
to believe that the fema was

3918
02:22:30,240 --> 02:22:31,892
just recent, even words like

3919
02:22:31,892 --> 02:22:32,226
recently released and this

3920
02:22:32,226 --> 02:22:33,894
and that.

3921
02:22:33,894 --> 02:22:34,995
And part of it goes back to

3922
02:22:34,995 --> 02:22:36,995
the narrative, mike

3923
02:22:36,997 --> 02:22:38,499
culberson said hey, this has

3924
02:22:38,499 --> 02:22:40,534
to be tied to infrastructure

3925
02:22:40,534 --> 02:22:42,236
infrastructure, and so then

3926
02:22:42,236 --> 02:22:43,937
they catch the scheme that

3927
02:22:43,937 --> 02:22:45,937
okay, fema floodplain,

3928
02:22:48,175 --> 02:22:50,175
that's infrastructure.

3929
02:22:50,745 --> 02:22:52,745
[Indiscernible].

3930
02:22:52,947 --> 02:22:54,549
And they stuck with it.

3931
02:22:54,549 --> 02:22:56,785
And then they developed a

3932
02:22:56,785 --> 02:22:58,252
narrative to fit it, but

3933
02:22:58,252 --> 02:23:00,221
they just found -- people

3934
02:23:00,221 --> 02:23:01,556
would say, shit they should

3935
02:23:01,556 --> 02:23:03,858
have known about this a long

3936
02:23:03,858 --> 02:23:06,258
time ago, like councilmember

3937
02:23:10,832 --> 02:23:12,000
hunter.

3938
02:23:12,000 --> 02:23:12,934
>> Allison: here's where

3939
02:23:12,934 --> 02:23:14,870
you need to be praised

3940
02:23:14,870 --> 02:23:15,971
because it's so difficult.

3941
02:23:15,971 --> 02:23:17,171
It was learned.

3942
02:23:17,171 --> 02:23:20,171
It was figured out what

3943
02:23:21,810 --> 02:23:23,245
happened a long time ago,

3944
02:23:23,245 --> 02:23:25,645
okay, but this community

3945
02:23:33,210 --> 02:23:35,925
toll rates and we become.

3946
02:23:35,925 --> 02:23:37,560
-- tolerates and we become.

3947
02:23:37,560 --> 02:23:40,560
If we continue to tolerate,

3948
02:23:44,833 --> 02:23:46,335
all we do -- next time we

3949
02:23:46,335 --> 02:23:47,369
might as well say hey, you

3950
02:23:47,369 --> 02:23:48,704
forged the document, I know

3951
02:23:48,704 --> 02:23:49,710
you forged it, I know it's a

3952
02:23:49,710 --> 02:23:50,240
crime.

3953
02:23:50,240 --> 02:23:51,273
I know it's wrong even if

3954
02:23:51,273 --> 02:23:52,374
it's not a criminal act.

3955
02:23:52,374 --> 02:23:54,477
I know that it's fraud.

3956
02:23:54,477 --> 02:23:54,777
I know that you want your

3957
02:23:54,777 --> 02:23:56,777
$2 million.

3958
02:23:59,480 --> 02:24:00,215
I know you're my friend.

3959
02:24:00,215 --> 02:24:04,415
And I'm going to give it to

3960
02:24:04,654 --> 02:24:06,654
you.

3961
02:24:08,792 --> 02:24:11,192
We cannot be that.

3962
02:24:13,196 --> 02:24:15,698
And the mayor was told by

3963
02:24:15,698 --> 02:24:16,899
zanoni in no uncertain terms

3964
02:24:16,899 --> 02:24:18,334
terms, said it several times

3965
02:24:18,334 --> 02:24:20,503
in his testimony, and the

3966
02:24:20,503 --> 02:24:21,837
mayor was told by ajit in

3967
02:24:21,837 --> 02:24:23,240
public comment, and the

3968
02:24:23,240 --> 02:24:26,240
mayor was told in executive

3969
02:24:28,780 --> 02:24:30,913
session and the mayor was

3970
02:24:30,913 --> 02:24:33,182
told again by ajit and the

3971
02:24:33,182 --> 02:24:36,185
mayor was told again by ajit

3972
02:24:36,185 --> 02:24:37,955
ajit's email to her, and it

3973
02:24:37,955 --> 02:24:40,490
was spelled out in another

3974
02:24:40,490 --> 02:24:42,325
email, all of this is in

3975
02:24:42,325 --> 02:24:45,325
evidence by ajit to peter

3976
02:24:47,463 --> 02:24:49,132
zanoni on MAY 7th.

3977
02:24:49,132 --> 02:24:50,333
And what does she do?

3978
02:24:50,333 --> 02:24:52,302
She gets in her deposition

3979
02:24:52,302 --> 02:24:53,938
and she says two things,

3980
02:24:53,938 --> 02:24:56,473
both of which were a lie,

3981
02:24:56,473 --> 02:24:57,740
either one of which is

3982
02:24:57,740 --> 02:24:58,309
perjury.

3983
02:24:58,309 --> 02:24:59,709
She says I wasn't kept in

3984
02:24:59,709 --> 02:25:00,510
the loop.

3985
02:25:00,510 --> 02:25:01,678
I don't know how much more

3986
02:25:01,678 --> 02:25:05,830
you can be in the loop.

3987
02:25:05,830 --> 02:25:08,553
And she said, I had no idea

3988
02:25:08,553 --> 02:25:10,554
there was anything illegal.

3989
02:25:10,554 --> 02:25:13,554
I guess what the definition

3990
02:25:15,659 --> 02:25:17,659
of "is" is.

3991
02:25:17,995 --> 02:25:18,295
No one said the word illegal

3992
02:25:18,295 --> 02:25:20,295
illegal.

3993
02:25:20,432 --> 02:25:22,330
Just because I got told,

3994
02:25:22,330 --> 02:25:23,340
from the mayor's perspective

3995
02:25:23,340 --> 02:25:25,434
perspective, just because I

3996
02:25:26,671 --> 02:25:28,406
got told at ccrecd that it

3997
02:25:28,406 --> 02:25:30,708
was false, just because I

3998
02:25:30,708 --> 02:25:31,676
knew they were getting

3999
02:25:31,676 --> 02:25:32,977
$2 million based on a false

4000
02:25:32,977 --> 02:25:35,377
statement, just because now

4001
02:25:35,379 --> 02:25:36,580
it's getting revealed that

4002
02:25:36,580 --> 02:25:38,480
they altered a slide.

4003
02:25:38,480 --> 02:25:39,170
No one said there was

4004
02:25:39,170 --> 02:25:39,650
anything bad about it or

4005
02:25:39,650 --> 02:25:40,185
illegal.

4006
02:25:40,185 --> 02:25:42,185
Shucks.

4007
02:25:42,220 --> 02:25:43,721
She has two choices, both of

4008
02:25:43,721 --> 02:25:46,910
which qualify for removal.

4009
02:25:46,910 --> 02:25:47,425
She's either just grossly

4010
02:25:47,425 --> 02:25:49,161
incompetent, really just

4011
02:25:49,161 --> 02:25:50,695
have to be incompetent to be

4012
02:25:50,695 --> 02:25:52,764
removed, or what's more

4013
02:25:52,764 --> 02:25:55,164
likely is she participated

4014
02:25:56,368 --> 02:25:57,302
clearly in the malfeasance.

4015
02:25:57,302 --> 02:25:59,702
She participated by advocate

4016
02:25:59,904 --> 02:26:01,206
advocating at ccrecd, she

4017
02:26:01,206 --> 02:26:03,206
participated by seconding

4018
02:26:04,242 --> 02:26:05,477
the motion, she participated

4019
02:26:05,477 --> 02:26:08,477
while she was violating her

4020
02:26:08,780 --> 02:26:11,180
oath of confidentiality by

4021
02:26:12,384 --> 02:26:14,753
texting did he veteran

4022
02:26:14,753 --> 02:26:15,854
texting deven bhakta when

4023
02:26:15,854 --> 02:26:16,955
there was a closed meeting

4024
02:26:16,955 --> 02:26:17,823
and on the phone with him

4025
02:26:17,823 --> 02:26:18,823
for 14 minutes.

4026
02:26:18,823 --> 02:26:20,492
And you are absolutely and

4027
02:26:20,492 --> 02:26:21,560
should infer that she of

4028
02:26:21,560 --> 02:26:22,995
course talked to him about

4029
02:26:22,995 --> 02:26:23,662
what happened at the meeting

4030
02:26:23,662 --> 02:26:25,530
meeting.

4031
02:26:25,530 --> 02:26:28,330
That is your prerogative as

4032
02:26:28,330 --> 02:26:30,360
the judges is to infer.

4033
02:26:30,360 --> 02:26:30,769
There's a definition of

4034
02:26:30,769 --> 02:26:31,870
circumstantial evidence in

4035
02:26:31,870 --> 02:26:33,720
the documents in front of

4036
02:26:33,720 --> 02:26:34,740
you, and you are free to

4037
02:26:34,740 --> 02:26:36,542
make the inference that she

4038
02:26:36,542 --> 02:26:38,110
talked about what happened

4039
02:26:38,110 --> 02:26:39,311
at that meeting on NOVEMBER

4040
02:26:39,311 --> 02:26:41,713
NOVEMBER 9th after she left

4041
02:26:41,713 --> 02:26:43,149
it and probably told deven

4042
02:26:43,149 --> 02:26:44,250
we didn't get a vote for a

4043
02:26:44,250 --> 02:26:45,652
million, but don't worry,

4044
02:26:45,652 --> 02:26:47,119
we're going to carry it on.

4045
02:26:47,119 --> 02:26:48,287
Of course she talked about

4046
02:26:48,287 --> 02:26:50,287
confidential information.

4047
02:26:55,610 --> 02:26:56,830
Aiding, promoting the fraud.

4048
02:26:56,830 --> 02:26:59,365
And then she came in front

4049
02:26:59,365 --> 02:27:00,900
and sat in that chair and

4050
02:27:00,900 --> 02:27:02,101
said to michael hunter and

4051
02:27:02,101 --> 02:27:04,804
everybody, knowing it to be

4052
02:27:04,804 --> 02:27:06,380
unclue, she said, it changed

4053
02:27:06,380 --> 02:27:07,106
changed, it changed, it

4054
02:27:07,106 --> 02:27:08,475
changed.

4055
02:27:08,475 --> 02:27:10,577
And then when peter said we

4056
02:27:10,577 --> 02:27:11,770
have a problem, what did she

4057
02:27:11,770 --> 02:27:13,770
do?

4058
02:27:13,790 --> 02:27:13,613
She said I want it on the

4059
02:27:13,613 --> 02:27:15,282
agenda anyway.

4060
02:27:15,282 --> 02:27:18,282
We're going to give my

4061
02:27:18,852 --> 02:27:20,852
friends $2 million.

4062
02:27:21,221 --> 02:27:24,821
I want this project that can

4063
02:27:26,326 --> 02:27:27,761
balance

4064
02:27:27,761 --> 02:27:29,761
cannibalizes, doesn't

4065
02:27:30,598 --> 02:27:32,998
qualify, that would get

4066
02:27:33,100 --> 02:27:34,670
twice as much as the model

4067
02:27:34,670 --> 02:27:35,101
on ccrecd.

4068
02:27:35,101 --> 02:27:36,350
Doesn't qualify.

4069
02:27:36,350 --> 02:27:37,904
I want this project, she

4070
02:27:37,904 --> 02:27:39,600
said, that has low-paying

4071
02:27:39,600 --> 02:27:41,108
jobs compared to what we

4072
02:27:41,108 --> 02:27:41,908
normally give projects --

4073
02:27:41,908 --> 02:27:43,377
give awards to.

4074
02:27:43,377 --> 02:27:44,712
I want this project that

4075
02:27:44,712 --> 02:27:46,113
even though it's already

4076
02:27:46,113 --> 02:27:48,282
coming in the words of

4077
02:27:48,282 --> 02:27:48,582
everett roy, it's already

4078
02:27:48,582 --> 02:27:49,550
coming.

4079
02:27:49,550 --> 02:27:51,585
And if you look at the

4080
02:27:51,585 --> 02:27:52,586
emails, they say yeah, we're

4081
02:27:52,586 --> 02:27:54,122
still coming.

4082
02:27:54,122 --> 02:27:56,900
We MAY have to finish out

4083
02:27:56,900 --> 02:27:56,424
the shell on the rooftop bar

4084
02:27:56,424 --> 02:27:57,391
later.

4085
02:27:57,391 --> 02:27:59,391
It's coming.

4086
02:27:59,393 --> 02:28:01,395
She wants this project that

4087
02:28:01,395 --> 02:28:02,663
does not qualify for any of

4088
02:28:02,663 --> 02:28:05,600
the reasons that you are

4089
02:28:05,600 --> 02:28:06,367
supposed to award an

4090
02:28:06,367 --> 02:28:08,367
incentive award.

4091
02:28:09,503 --> 02:28:10,971
And she kept promoteing it.

4092
02:28:10,971 --> 02:28:12,774
And when she was told don't

4093
02:28:12,774 --> 02:28:14,142
put it on the agenda, and I

4094
02:28:14,142 --> 02:28:16,778
don't recommend it by peter,

4095
02:28:16,778 --> 02:28:18,512
she said, I want it on the

4096
02:28:18,512 --> 02:28:19,714
agenda anyway and she got

4097
02:28:19,714 --> 02:28:21,382
her way because that is the

4098
02:28:21,382 --> 02:28:24,452
power of the office of pair

4099
02:28:24,452 --> 02:28:25,987
mayor office of mayor

4100
02:28:25,987 --> 02:28:29,587
and that is abused by this

4101
02:28:34,296 --> 02:28:35,831
repetitive conduct.

4102
02:28:35,831 --> 02:28:38,660
I think I've spoke to all

4103
02:28:38,660 --> 02:28:40,466
three of the articles.

4104
02:28:41,350 --> 02:28:43,472
She was aiding a fraud, and

4105
02:28:43,472 --> 02:28:45,441
that is incompetence, it is

4106
02:28:45,441 --> 02:28:47,910
neglect of -- it's a willful

4107
02:28:47,910 --> 02:28:50,310
neglect of her duties.

4108
02:28:50,545 --> 02:28:52,545
It is malfeasance.

4109
02:28:53,415 --> 02:28:55,317
It is misconduct to aid

4110
02:28:55,317 --> 02:28:56,952
somebody getting $2 million

4111
02:28:56,952 --> 02:28:58,153
in taxpayer money knowing

4112
02:28:58,153 --> 02:29:00,553
there's a false narrative

4113
02:29:01,560 --> 02:29:03,456
and a false document.

4114
02:29:04,293 --> 02:29:06,293
That's article number 1.

4115
02:29:06,395 --> 02:29:08,795
She's committed perjury by

4116
02:29:09,298 --> 02:29:11,166
lying, acting like she

4117
02:29:11,166 --> 02:29:13,269
doesn't know when of course

4118
02:29:13,269 --> 02:29:15,104
she knew what the results of

4119
02:29:15,104 --> 02:29:16,639
the investigation were.

4120
02:29:16,639 --> 02:29:18,674
And of course she knew there

4121
02:29:18,674 --> 02:29:20,843
was illegal or wrongful or

4122
02:29:20,843 --> 02:29:22,843
inappropriate conduct, and

4123
02:29:23,112 --> 02:29:25,447
don't let them parse words.

4124
02:29:25,447 --> 02:29:26,749
And of course she knows when

4125
02:29:26,749 --> 02:29:27,850
she's at the ccrecd meeting

4126
02:29:27,850 --> 02:29:29,385
she's not supposed to leave

4127
02:29:29,385 --> 02:29:32,621
there and call her buddy and

4128
02:29:32,621 --> 02:29:34,423
give them an update.

4129
02:29:34,423 --> 02:29:36,423
On those articles,

4130
02:29:36,926 --> 02:29:37,226
respectfully, follow the

4131
02:29:37,226 --> 02:29:39,226
evidence.

4132
02:29:39,729 --> 02:29:40,997
Make the hard findings.

4133
02:29:40,997 --> 02:29:43,833
And she should be removed

4134
02:29:43,833 --> 02:29:46,833
because if we don't, she

4135
02:29:49,138 --> 02:29:50,607
laughs her way to the next.

4136
02:29:50,607 --> 02:29:51,207
And what we tolerate we

4137
02:29:51,207 --> 02:29:52,743
become.

4138
02:29:52,743 --> 02:29:54,210
I'm going to reserve some

4139
02:29:54,210 --> 02:29:54,978
time, thank you.

4140
02:29:54,978 --> 02:29:57,378
>> Paxson: thank you, MR.

4141
02:30:03,854 --> 02:30:05,289
MR. Allison.

4142
02:30:05,289 --> 02:30:06,824
>> Flood: MAY I proceed?

4143
02:30:06,824 --> 02:30:07,457
I'll wait until my clock

4144
02:30:07,457 --> 02:30:08,892
gets up.

4145
02:30:08,892 --> 02:30:11,292
>> Paxson: yes, thank you.

4146
02:30:15,232 --> 02:30:17,232
>> Flood: thank you.

4147
02:30:18,435 --> 02:30:19,303
We have spent days hearing

4148
02:30:19,303 --> 02:30:20,270
evidence about events that

4149
02:30:20,270 --> 02:30:22,439
happened more than two years

4150
02:30:22,439 --> 02:30:23,341
ago and now all that

4151
02:30:23,341 --> 02:30:24,941
evidence comes down to

4152
02:30:24,941 --> 02:30:26,177
something very simple.

4153
02:30:26,177 --> 02:30:26,910
And there were four articles

4154
02:30:26,910 --> 02:30:28,379
articles.

4155
02:30:28,379 --> 02:30:29,481
Now there are three.

4156
02:30:29,481 --> 02:30:30,470
Petitioners brought them.

4157
02:30:30,470 --> 02:30:30,914
They have the burden to

4158
02:30:30,914 --> 02:30:31,815
prove them.

4159
02:30:31,815 --> 02:30:32,916
And after all this evidence

4160
02:30:32,916 --> 02:30:34,218
you're going to ask yourself

4161
02:30:34,218 --> 02:30:35,620
one question on each one,

4162
02:30:35,620 --> 02:30:36,820
did they prove it?

4163
02:30:36,820 --> 02:30:38,355
And when you do that, what

4164
02:30:38,355 --> 02:30:38,656
you do is you use the jury

4165
02:30:38,656 --> 02:30:39,891
charge.

4166
02:30:39,891 --> 02:30:42,594
And that is the document

4167
02:30:42,594 --> 02:30:43,861
that's been handed to you.

4168
02:30:43,861 --> 02:30:45,364
After all of this evidence

4169
02:30:45,364 --> 02:30:46,697
you're going to ask yourself

4170
02:30:46,697 --> 02:30:49,567
that one question, it all

4171
02:30:49,567 --> 02:30:51,967
started with that altered

4172
02:30:52,837 --> 02:30:53,404
screenshot of the fema

4173
02:30:53,404 --> 02:30:54,205
document that was turned

4174
02:30:54,205 --> 02:30:55,606
into a powerpoint slide and

4175
02:30:55,606 --> 02:30:57,375
the narrative it supported.

4176
02:30:57,375 --> 02:30:58,876
The mayor did not create

4177
02:30:58,876 --> 02:30:59,811
that slide.

4178
02:30:59,811 --> 02:31:01,313
She didn't create the

4179
02:31:01,313 --> 02:31:02,313
narrative around it, she

4180
02:31:02,313 --> 02:31:04,313
didn't prepare the

4181
02:31:04,716 --> 02:31:06,716
presentation, she didn't

4182
02:31:08,286 --> 02:31:09,186
write the agenda memorandum.

4183
02:31:09,186 --> 02:31:10,522
And most importantly, where

4184
02:31:10,522 --> 02:31:12,490
is the evidence that on

4185
02:31:12,490 --> 02:31:15,490
FEBRUARY 20th she knew the

4186
02:31:16,427 --> 02:31:17,396
false narrative that is the

4187
02:31:17,396 --> 02:31:19,164
key to the case?

4188
02:31:19,164 --> 02:31:20,499
I want you to go straight to

4189
02:31:20,499 --> 02:31:22,499
question number 1 because

4190
02:31:22,567 --> 02:31:25,170
there's a reason why the

4191
02:31:25,170 --> 02:31:26,371
petitioner's brought DR. Gul

4192
02:31:26,371 --> 02:31:27,706
DR. Gulley to you in

4193
02:31:27,706 --> 02:31:29,241
rebuttal because they didn't

4194
02:31:29,241 --> 02:31:32,841
meet this in their case and

4195
02:31:33,412 --> 02:31:34,980
chief and that is did she

4196
02:31:34,980 --> 02:31:37,449
aid a fraud because of the

4197
02:31:37,449 --> 02:31:38,650
the -- if you read the last

4198
02:31:38,650 --> 02:31:40,519
sentence on question number

4199
02:31:40,519 --> 02:31:41,620
1 on that last part of it,

4200
02:31:41,620 --> 02:31:44,123
it says alleged need for

4201
02:31:44,123 --> 02:31:46,123
complying with newly-defined

4202
02:31:46,725 --> 02:31:47,727
fema flood maps and/or alter

4203
02:31:47,727 --> 02:31:48,927
altered fema screenshot.

4204
02:31:48,927 --> 02:31:50,263
That was the narrative.

4205
02:31:50,263 --> 02:31:51,698
And the narrative was

4206
02:31:51,698 --> 02:31:51,997
informed by this altered

4207
02:31:51,997 --> 02:31:53,997
screenshot.

4208
02:31:54,534 --> 02:31:57,534
And there's no doubt that

4209
02:31:59,873 --> 02:32:00,640
screenshot was altered for

4210
02:32:00,640 --> 02:32:01,607
sure.

4211
02:32:01,607 --> 02:32:02,742
DR. Gulley declined to

4212
02:32:02,742 --> 02:32:03,809
testify that that narrative

4213
02:32:03,809 --> 02:32:05,809
was discussed.

4214
02:32:06,546 --> 02:32:07,781
That's the fraud.

4215
02:32:07,781 --> 02:32:08,182
You just saw him this

4216
02:32:08,182 --> 02:32:10,182
morning.

4217
02:32:10,183 --> 02:32:11,250
He said no, the narrative

4218
02:32:11,250 --> 02:32:13,250
wasn't discussed.

4219
02:32:13,586 --> 02:32:16,586
What he discussed was that

4220
02:32:16,722 --> 02:32:16,924
fema maps had changed in

4221
02:32:16,924 --> 02:32:18,924
2020.

4222
02:32:19,693 --> 02:32:21,227
And also you heard counsel a

4223
02:32:21,227 --> 02:32:22,962
few minutes ago say that on

4224
02:32:22,962 --> 02:32:23,596
FEBRUARY 20th they tricked

4225
02:32:23,596 --> 02:32:25,596
the council.

4226
02:32:27,968 --> 02:32:29,770
Well, yeah, they sure did.

4227
02:32:29,770 --> 02:32:33,140
You heard and you have it in

4228
02:32:33,140 --> 02:32:34,674
your record what MR. Pusley

4229
02:32:34,674 --> 02:32:35,308
said about it, MR. Roy said

4230
02:32:35,308 --> 02:32:36,409
about it.

4231
02:32:36,409 --> 02:32:37,744
Obviously we know what the

4232
02:32:37,744 --> 02:32:39,245
mayor said, but also

4233
02:32:39,245 --> 02:32:40,714
remember you know that MR.

4234
02:32:40,714 --> 02:32:42,482
MR. Culberson was standing

4235
02:32:42,482 --> 02:32:44,785
right here and when the

4236
02:32:44,785 --> 02:32:46,860
mayor espouseed this false

4237
02:32:46,860 --> 02:32:48,488
narrative that she had been

4238
02:32:48,488 --> 02:32:50,223
sold in the agenda memo and

4239
02:32:50,223 --> 02:32:52,459
said it changed, it changed.

4240
02:32:52,459 --> 02:32:55,459
Well, we weren't here, we

4241
02:32:55,462 --> 02:32:57,131
were at the rta building.

4242
02:32:57,131 --> 02:32:58,332
MR. Culberson said yeah, it

4243
02:32:58,332 --> 02:32:59,566
changed, it changed.

4244
02:32:59,566 --> 02:33:00,867
So the idea that she was

4245
02:33:00,867 --> 02:33:02,603
promoteing a false narrative

4246
02:33:02,603 --> 02:33:04,380
on FEBRUARY 20th would

4247
02:33:04,380 --> 02:33:06,106
require you to have a

4248
02:33:06,106 --> 02:33:07,641
witness who comes and says

4249
02:33:07,641 --> 02:33:11,241
that she was informed of it

4250
02:33:12,279 --> 02:33:13,147
before that, and DR. Gulley

4251
02:33:13,147 --> 02:33:14,381
couldn't do that.

4252
02:33:14,381 --> 02:33:15,583
He was incapable of agreeing

4253
02:33:15,583 --> 02:33:16,417
that she was told about the

4254
02:33:16,417 --> 02:33:18,417
false narrative.

4255
02:33:18,852 --> 02:33:20,188
So on question number one,

4256
02:33:20,188 --> 02:33:21,822
the answer, because it's

4257
02:33:21,822 --> 02:33:22,657
dependent on that, it's

4258
02:33:22,657 --> 02:33:24,657
dependent on that.

4259
02:33:25,660 --> 02:33:28,290
The answer is no on question

4260
02:33:28,290 --> 02:33:30,290
number one.

4261
02:33:31,632 --> 02:33:33,734
And think about it.

4262
02:33:33,734 --> 02:33:35,737
If a false narrative was

4263
02:33:35,737 --> 02:33:38,137
really actually discussed at

4264
02:33:39,407 --> 02:33:40,842
the edc meeting, really,

4265
02:33:40,842 --> 02:33:42,978
they approved a false

4266
02:33:42,978 --> 02:33:44,580
narrative for a million

4267
02:33:44,580 --> 02:33:45,213
dollars 43,000, what are we

4268
02:33:45,213 --> 02:33:47,820
doing here?

4269
02:33:47,820 --> 02:33:47,949
We've got a whole board over

4270
02:33:47,949 --> 02:33:49,517
there we have to talk about.

4271
02:33:49,517 --> 02:33:51,386
So we know that cannot be,

4272
02:33:51,386 --> 02:33:54,355
that cannot be the basis of

4273
02:33:54,355 --> 02:33:54,656
this aiding the false

4274
02:33:54,656 --> 02:33:56,191
narrative.

4275
02:33:56,191 --> 02:33:56,591
It really was a swing and a

4276
02:33:56,591 --> 02:33:58,591
MISS.

4277
02:33:58,827 --> 02:33:59,328
There's a reason they

4278
02:33:59,328 --> 02:33:59,895
brought them.

4279
02:33:59,895 --> 02:34:01,895
They don't meet.

4280
02:34:02,731 --> 02:34:04,632
And the reason I bring that

4281
02:34:04,632 --> 02:34:06,768
up is that, again, I

4282
02:34:06,768 --> 02:34:07,803
suggested it a minute ago.

4283
02:34:07,803 --> 02:34:08,904
What you have to do is

4284
02:34:08,904 --> 02:34:10,106
you've got to look at each

4285
02:34:10,106 --> 02:34:10,773
one and you've got to think

4286
02:34:10,773 --> 02:34:11,607
about all the evidence that

4287
02:34:11,607 --> 02:34:12,708
you've gotten.

4288
02:34:12,708 --> 02:34:14,420
You've gotten a lot of

4289
02:34:14,420 --> 02:34:15,111
evidence and you've got to

4290
02:34:15,111 --> 02:34:16,144
say where is it?

4291
02:34:16,144 --> 02:34:17,313
You've got to be able to

4292
02:34:17,313 --> 02:34:19,548
point to the thing that

4293
02:34:19,548 --> 02:34:21,183
proves by a preponderance of

4294
02:34:21,183 --> 02:34:22,684
the evidence that she can be

4295
02:34:22,684 --> 02:34:24,887
removed from office or

4296
02:34:24,887 --> 02:34:27,287
suspended or disqualified or

4297
02:34:28,590 --> 02:34:30,590
censureed for promoteing

4298
02:34:31,193 --> 02:34:32,950
something that council even

4299
02:34:32,950 --> 02:34:33,830
agrees and admits that the

4300
02:34:33,830 --> 02:34:35,497
council got tricked on.

4301
02:34:35,497 --> 02:34:37,266
And MR. Culberson agreed, no

4302
02:34:37,266 --> 02:34:39,336
no, it changed, it changed,

4303
02:34:39,336 --> 02:34:41,336
yeah.

4304
02:34:44,474 --> 02:34:46,175
So that is -- plus there's

4305
02:34:46,175 --> 02:34:47,209
also a very important part

4306
02:34:47,209 --> 02:34:48,311
and the definition of fraud

4307
02:34:48,311 --> 02:34:48,611
is included in your jury

4308
02:34:48,611 --> 02:34:49,645
charge.

4309
02:34:49,645 --> 02:34:50,946
I'm going to recommend to

4310
02:34:50,946 --> 02:34:52,114
you when you go back, go

4311
02:34:52,114 --> 02:34:54,717
back, get the jury charge

4312
02:34:54,717 --> 02:34:56,850
out, read it all through.

4313
02:34:56,850 --> 02:34:58,388
What usually happens is you

4314
02:34:58,388 --> 02:35:00,756
you -- in regular cases we

4315
02:35:00,756 --> 02:35:01,191
get -- I can't see my clock.

4316
02:35:01,191 --> 02:35:03,191
Thank you.

4317
02:35:03,294 --> 02:35:04,694
Sorry, I apologize, thank

4318
02:35:04,694 --> 02:35:05,762
you.

4319
02:35:05,762 --> 02:35:06,529
You just read the whole

4320
02:35:06,529 --> 02:35:08,529
thing through.

4321
02:35:08,765 --> 02:35:10,401
So one of the important

4322
02:35:10,401 --> 02:35:11,668
parts about fraud is that

4323
02:35:11,668 --> 02:35:13,903
there has to be reliance.

4324
02:35:13,903 --> 02:35:15,400
And I know this that you've

4325
02:35:15,400 --> 02:35:16,105
already heard about that,

4326
02:35:16,105 --> 02:35:17,507
you've heard about that from

4327
02:35:17,507 --> 02:35:19,277
daniel ray and I just will

4328
02:35:19,277 --> 02:35:20,677
say I empathize with the

4329
02:35:20,677 --> 02:35:21,879
issue of there's got to be

4330
02:35:21,879 --> 02:35:24,347
be -- we've got to be able

4331
02:35:24,347 --> 02:35:26,483
to do something about this.

4332
02:35:26,483 --> 02:35:28,119
I know COUNCILMAN Campos

4333
02:35:28,119 --> 02:35:29,320
said something about that in

4334
02:35:29,320 --> 02:35:30,321
her statements I brought up

4335
02:35:30,321 --> 02:35:30,721
earlier and I understand

4336
02:35:30,721 --> 02:35:31,922
that.

4337
02:35:31,922 --> 02:35:33,230
But fraud is fraud and

4338
02:35:33,230 --> 02:35:33,557
you're working with a legal

4339
02:35:33,557 --> 02:35:35,557
definition.

4340
02:35:36,793 --> 02:35:37,828
And the definition requires

4341
02:35:37,828 --> 02:35:39,296
reliance.

4342
02:35:39,296 --> 02:35:41,899
And we know there was no

4343
02:35:41,899 --> 02:35:43,567
reliance because the type b

4344
02:35:43,567 --> 02:35:46,567
board did not recommend the

4345
02:35:46,603 --> 02:35:46,937
incentive based on the

4346
02:35:46,937 --> 02:35:47,805
narrative.

4347
02:35:47,805 --> 02:35:49,673
We know that.

4348
02:35:49,673 --> 02:35:51,776
She came and testified.

4349
02:35:51,776 --> 02:35:52,877
MR. Roy agreed that was not

4350
02:35:52,877 --> 02:35:55,277
the reason for it.

4351
02:35:56,914 --> 02:35:59,314
So the causeal connection

4352
02:35:59,518 --> 02:36:01,686
between the false narrative

4353
02:36:01,686 --> 02:36:04,220
that existed, there's a

4354
02:36:04,220 --> 02:36:05,890
break in the causation

4355
02:36:05,890 --> 02:36:07,925
between that, what we

4356
02:36:07,925 --> 02:36:09,827
lawyers call causation.

4357
02:36:09,827 --> 02:36:11,797
There's not a connection

4358
02:36:11,797 --> 02:36:12,363
between that and the

4359
02:36:12,363 --> 02:36:14,363
incentive.

4360
02:36:15,500 --> 02:36:19,170
And so a bad slide and the

4361
02:36:19,170 --> 02:36:21,139
narrative it supported, not

4362
02:36:21,139 --> 02:36:23,941
done by the mayor, not

4363
02:36:23,941 --> 02:36:25,941
promoteed by her.

4364
02:36:27,378 --> 02:36:28,780
Once it's found out there's

4365
02:36:28,780 --> 02:36:30,215
an investigation, an

4366
02:36:30,215 --> 02:36:31,516
investigation that by all

4367
02:36:31,516 --> 02:36:33,516
accounts everybody agrees

4368
02:36:33,818 --> 02:36:35,860
that it was not completed by

4369
02:36:35,860 --> 02:36:37,122
APRIL 23rd, we know that.

4370
02:36:37,122 --> 02:36:38,523
In fact, there were motions

4371
02:36:38,523 --> 02:36:41,523
made here to complete it

4372
02:36:41,793 --> 02:36:41,993
before there was ever a vote

4373
02:36:41,993 --> 02:36:43,128
vote.

4374
02:36:43,128 --> 02:36:45,764
Which takes us to question

4375
02:36:45,764 --> 02:36:47,100
number 2 -- which takes us

4376
02:36:47,100 --> 02:36:48,901
to question number 2, and

4377
02:36:48,901 --> 02:36:51,203
again, when counsel just now

4378
02:36:51,203 --> 02:36:53,203
argued the [Indiscernible]

4379
02:36:54,207 --> 02:36:55,808
Thing, he went didn't bring

4380
02:36:55,808 --> 02:36:57,342
up the jury charge.

4381
02:36:57,342 --> 02:36:58,677
Let's look at it.

4382
02:36:58,677 --> 02:37:00,546
Did pallet guajardo, when

4383
02:37:00,546 --> 02:37:02,649
testifying at mayor, perjure

4384
02:37:02,649 --> 02:37:03,850
herself on AUGUST 6th, the

4385
02:37:03,850 --> 02:37:06,251
date of the deposition, by

4386
02:37:06,251 --> 02:37:08,210
stating, so I think what

4387
02:37:08,210 --> 02:37:09,222
you're telling me is during

4388
02:37:09,222 --> 02:37:10,890
that time frame, which is

4389
02:37:10,890 --> 02:37:12,658
not defined, so you are

4390
02:37:12,658 --> 02:37:15,127
being asked to guess, I

4391
02:37:15,127 --> 02:37:17,764
guess, what that question is

4392
02:37:17,764 --> 02:37:21,501
is, you were not in the loop

4393
02:37:21,501 --> 02:37:24,771
as to what the findings were

4394
02:37:24,771 --> 02:37:26,771
for the investigation.

4395
02:37:27,307 --> 02:37:27,907
I do invite you to read that

4396
02:37:27,907 --> 02:37:29,907
deposition.

4397
02:37:29,909 --> 02:37:30,511
Officer garcia, corpus

4398
02:37:30,511 --> 02:37:32,110
christi police department,

4399
02:37:32,110 --> 02:37:32,878
if you look at the police

4400
02:37:32,878 --> 02:37:35,278
department records that you

4401
02:37:36,416 --> 02:37:39,416
have, he spent AUGUST 8th,

4402
02:37:39,519 --> 02:37:40,921
9th and 11th -- or maybe it

4403
02:37:40,921 --> 02:37:42,990
was OCTOBER 8th, 9th and

4404
02:37:42,990 --> 02:37:46,590
and -- sorry, I'm getting my

4405
02:37:48,394 --> 02:37:49,329
dates mixed up.

4406
02:37:49,329 --> 02:37:49,764
OCTOBER taking that

4407
02:37:49,764 --> 02:37:50,764
deposition.

4408
02:37:50,764 --> 02:37:51,932
What you find out when you

4409
02:37:51,932 --> 02:37:53,466
read the entire deposition

4410
02:37:53,466 --> 02:37:56,200
is that the word findings

4411
02:37:56,200 --> 02:37:56,971
was entirely consistent with

4412
02:37:56,971 --> 02:37:58,738
the term conclusions that

4413
02:37:58,738 --> 02:38:00,474
was used by the witness over

4414
02:38:00,474 --> 02:38:03,474
and over and over again.

4415
02:38:05,946 --> 02:38:07,281
And so the question, so what

4416
02:38:07,281 --> 02:38:09,483
you're telling me is that

4417
02:38:09,483 --> 02:38:10,518
during that time frame

4418
02:38:10,518 --> 02:38:13,187
you're not in loop for what

4419
02:38:13,187 --> 02:38:14,870
the conclusions were for the

4420
02:38:14,870 --> 02:38:14,554
investigation, that's a

4421
02:38:14,554 --> 02:38:14,822
completely different

4422
02:38:14,822 --> 02:38:15,723
question.

4423
02:38:15,723 --> 02:38:16,456
It's not a completely

4424
02:38:16,456 --> 02:38:18,456
different question.

4425
02:38:20,270 --> 02:38:21,962
The word findings was

4426
02:38:21,962 --> 02:38:23,297
absolutely, it's an easy

4427
02:38:23,297 --> 02:38:24,650
inference to take from the

4428
02:38:24,650 --> 02:38:25,232
testimony that obviously

4429
02:38:25,232 --> 02:38:26,701
what she was referring to is

4430
02:38:26,701 --> 02:38:28,569
is, well, no, there were no

4431
02:38:28,569 --> 02:38:29,503
conclusions, we all know

4432
02:38:29,503 --> 02:38:31,503
that.

4433
02:38:31,606 --> 02:38:33,274
That was said by MR. Zanoni

4434
02:38:33,274 --> 02:38:34,342
and by council members on

4435
02:38:34,342 --> 02:38:36,342
APRIL 23rd.

4436
02:38:36,777 --> 02:38:37,779
Also, we know that on APRIL

4437
02:38:37,779 --> 02:38:38,313
APRIL 16th it wasn't

4438
02:38:38,313 --> 02:38:39,747
complete.

4439
02:38:39,747 --> 02:38:41,182
It was -- in fact, that was

4440
02:38:41,182 --> 02:38:42,584
the whole point of maybe we

4441
02:38:42,584 --> 02:38:43,384
should delay this thing so

4442
02:38:43,384 --> 02:38:44,552
they can complete the

4443
02:38:44,552 --> 02:38:45,554
investigation.

4444
02:38:45,554 --> 02:38:49,154
So whether or not there were

4445
02:38:49,891 --> 02:38:51,426
findings on APRIL 23rd

4446
02:38:51,426 --> 02:38:54,950
when that vote took place or

4447
02:38:54,950 --> 02:38:55,196
before, we know that there

4448
02:38:55,196 --> 02:38:56,831
weren't.

4449
02:38:56,831 --> 02:38:58,330
Were there facts?

4450
02:38:58,330 --> 02:38:59,101
yes.

4451
02:38:59,101 --> 02:39:00,135
Were there things that they

4452
02:39:00,135 --> 02:39:00,536
were learning?

4453
02:39:00,536 --> 02:39:01,904
Yes.

4454
02:39:01,904 --> 02:39:03,304
But were there findings or

4455
02:39:03,304 --> 02:39:03,839
conclusions?

4456
02:39:03,839 --> 02:39:05,730
Absolutely not.

4457
02:39:05,730 --> 02:39:05,674
There's no evidence that

4458
02:39:05,674 --> 02:39:06,909
there was.

4459
02:39:06,909 --> 02:39:08,277
There's zero.

4460
02:39:08,277 --> 02:39:10,277
So next question.

4461
02:39:10,846 --> 02:39:12,381
And again, I'm on page 6 of

4462
02:39:12,381 --> 02:39:13,715
the jury charge, question

4463
02:39:13,715 --> 02:39:14,850
number two.

4464
02:39:14,850 --> 02:39:15,618
So therefore you had no

4465
02:39:15,618 --> 02:39:16,718
knowledge that it was

4466
02:39:16,718 --> 02:39:18,454
something illegal in the

4467
02:39:18,454 --> 02:39:18,621
process that you were voting

4468
02:39:18,621 --> 02:39:20,621
on.

4469
02:39:20,922 --> 02:39:21,691
Again, I invite you to read

4470
02:39:21,691 --> 02:39:23,558
that deposition because in

4471
02:39:23,558 --> 02:39:26,558
the context illegal was a

4472
02:39:26,729 --> 02:39:28,664
finding or a conclusion of

4473
02:39:28,664 --> 02:39:29,310
illegality, and there wasn't

4474
02:39:29,310 --> 02:39:31,310
wasn't.

4475
02:39:32,502 --> 02:39:34,370
There simply was not.

4476
02:39:34,370 --> 02:39:37,390
The idea behind the petition

4477
02:39:37,390 --> 02:39:39,800
petitioner's theory is that

4478
02:39:39,800 --> 02:39:41,770
when she denied knowledge of

4479
02:39:41,770 --> 02:39:41,844
this criminal wrongdoing

4480
02:39:41,844 --> 02:39:44,244
that was discussed in

4481
02:39:44,647 --> 02:39:46,349
depositions in 2025 that

4482
02:39:46,349 --> 02:39:49,185
they tried to put their own

4483
02:39:49,185 --> 02:39:50,820
conclusions about criminal

4484
02:39:50,820 --> 02:39:52,555
findings, they tried to

4485
02:39:52,555 --> 02:39:54,223
shove that in her mouth.

4486
02:39:54,223 --> 02:39:55,591
And she simply refused to do

4487
02:39:55,591 --> 02:39:57,591
that.

4488
02:39:58,127 --> 02:39:59,695
So that is not percentage.

4489
02:39:59,695 --> 02:40:00,563
And I talked about that in

4490
02:40:00,563 --> 02:40:02,990
my opening.

4491
02:40:02,990 --> 02:40:05,990
That's a witness using the

4492
02:40:06,469 --> 02:40:07,237
correct language that, no, I

4493
02:40:07,237 --> 02:40:09,637
had not received any

4494
02:40:09,840 --> 02:40:11,410
findings and I had not

4495
02:40:11,410 --> 02:40:13,410
received any conclusions.

4496
02:40:16,112 --> 02:40:17,848
So the answer on number 2 is

4497
02:40:17,848 --> 02:40:19,516
that no, she did not commit

4498
02:40:19,516 --> 02:40:20,683
perjury by answering those

4499
02:40:20,683 --> 02:40:22,353
questions that way.

4500
02:40:22,353 --> 02:40:25,880
the facts date that she

4501
02:40:25,880 --> 02:40:27,880
didn't.

4502
02:40:31,361 --> 02:40:31,995
Three is an interesting

4503
02:40:31,995 --> 02:40:33,864
question.

4504
02:40:33,864 --> 02:40:38,640
So what it is is we're now

4505
02:40:38,135 --> 02:40:41,938
down to the -- a phone call

4506
02:40:41,938 --> 02:40:44,141
and a text message.

4507
02:40:44,141 --> 02:40:45,676
And the proposal is that a

4508
02:40:45,676 --> 02:40:47,644
sitting mayor elected,

4509
02:40:47,644 --> 02:40:49,279
properly elected, is removed

4510
02:40:49,279 --> 02:40:52,279
from office for that text

4511
02:40:53,751 --> 02:40:54,885
message and a phone call.

4512
02:40:54,885 --> 02:40:57,188
And that is something that I

4513
02:40:57,188 --> 02:40:59,456
hope this body takes very,

4514
02:40:59,456 --> 02:41:01,856
very seriously and strongly

4515
02:41:05,130 --> 02:41:06,465
considers what that means.

4516
02:41:06,465 --> 02:41:10,340
And what you have to do is

4517
02:41:10,340 --> 02:41:10,835
you have to understand that

4518
02:41:10,835 --> 02:41:12,835
the confidentiality

4519
02:41:16,674 --> 02:41:17,776
agreement was not broken

4520
02:41:17,776 --> 02:41:18,976
they want you to believe

4521
02:41:18,976 --> 02:41:20,178
that there's something

4522
02:41:20,178 --> 02:41:22,480
sinister about a text

4523
02:41:22,480 --> 02:41:26,800
message by by an he could

4524
02:41:28,821 --> 02:41:32,390
member by by an edc member

4525
02:41:32,390 --> 02:41:33,626
what is the item number?

4526
02:41:33,626 --> 02:41:36,261
He was not a member and the

4527
02:41:36,261 --> 02:41:37,762
edc is a membership board,

4528
02:41:37,762 --> 02:41:39,970
every member gets an agenda

4529
02:41:39,970 --> 02:41:39,330
that tells them what's on

4530
02:41:39,330 --> 02:41:41,330
there.

4531
02:41:43,468 --> 02:41:46,400
So what you have to do --

4532
02:41:46,400 --> 02:41:47,773
and the text messages were

4533
02:41:47,773 --> 02:41:50,773
what is the economic impact

4534
02:41:51,760 --> 02:41:52,511
of your project?

4535
02:41:52,511 --> 02:41:55,213
So it wasn't, hey, the board

4536
02:41:55,213 --> 02:41:56,214
is leaning this way.

4537
02:41:56,214 --> 02:41:56,982
This is what's happening in

4538
02:41:56,982 --> 02:41:57,950
our meeting.

4539
02:41:57,950 --> 02:41:58,751
Here's what everyone said.

4540
02:41:58,751 --> 02:41:59,151
This is what people are

4541
02:41:59,151 --> 02:42:01,530
saying.

4542
02:42:01,530 --> 02:42:02,554
What is the economic impact

4543
02:42:02,554 --> 02:42:03,455
of your project?

4544
02:42:03,455 --> 02:42:04,424
That question does not

4545
02:42:04,424 --> 02:42:05,924
reveal confidential

4546
02:42:05,924 --> 02:42:07,693
information.

4547
02:42:07,693 --> 02:42:08,827
He didn't respond.

4548
02:42:08,827 --> 02:42:09,829
It seeks information from

4549
02:42:09,829 --> 02:42:11,297
the person who already

4550
02:42:11,297 --> 02:42:13,297
possesses it.

4551
02:42:13,834 --> 02:42:15,000
And then they point to a

4552
02:42:15,000 --> 02:42:18,000
telephone call and they ask

4553
02:42:19,104 --> 02:42:22,704
you to assume, they ask you

4554
02:42:23,777 --> 02:42:24,643
to assume.

4555
02:42:24,643 --> 02:42:26,643
You can't.

4556
02:42:26,746 --> 02:42:29,746
When there is evidence you

4557
02:42:29,782 --> 02:42:30,850
can't assume.

4558
02:42:30,850 --> 02:42:32,418
Our system doesn't decide

4559
02:42:32,418 --> 02:42:33,653
cases on assumptions, it

4560
02:42:33,653 --> 02:42:36,530
decides them on evidence.

4561
02:42:37,257 --> 02:42:37,924
So ask yourself what is the

4562
02:42:37,924 --> 02:42:39,924
evidence?

4563
02:42:43,930 --> 02:42:45,265
There is exactly one witness

4564
02:42:45,265 --> 02:42:46,900
who testified about the

4565
02:42:46,900 --> 02:42:49,300
content of that conversation

4566
02:42:51,137 --> 02:42:51,972
and that was mayor paulette

4567
02:42:51,972 --> 02:42:53,740
guajardo.

4568
02:42:53,740 --> 02:42:54,741
And she was asked directly

4569
02:42:54,741 --> 02:42:55,909
what happened during the edc

4570
02:42:55,909 --> 02:42:57,477
meeting, I mean what

4571
02:42:57,477 --> 02:42:58,679
happened -- she was asked

4572
02:42:58,679 --> 02:43:00,679
directly whether she

4573
02:43:01,248 --> 02:43:02,482
revealed to MR. Bhakta what

4574
02:43:02,482 --> 02:43:04,585
happened during the edc

4575
02:43:04,585 --> 02:43:07,554
meeting, and her answer was

4576
02:43:07,554 --> 02:43:09,523
a very simple one, she said

4577
02:43:09,523 --> 02:43:11,591
I would not have done that,

4578
02:43:11,591 --> 02:43:13,560
no.

4579
02:43:13,560 --> 02:43:15,229
That's evidence.

4580
02:43:15,229 --> 02:43:18,229
In fact, it's the only

4581
02:43:18,399 --> 02:43:19,867
evidence you have.

4582
02:43:19,867 --> 02:43:21,401
They could have subpoenaed

4583
02:43:21,401 --> 02:43:23,136
MR. Bhakta to come in here

4584
02:43:23,136 --> 02:43:24,405
and ask him a bunch of

4585
02:43:24,405 --> 02:43:25,405
questions about that.

4586
02:43:25,405 --> 02:43:27,175
They chose not to.

4587
02:43:27,175 --> 02:43:28,609
There is no inference

4588
02:43:28,609 --> 02:43:29,610
available -- and you are

4589
02:43:29,610 --> 02:43:31,345
allowed reasonable inference

4590
02:43:31,345 --> 02:43:33,345
inferences, however when

4591
02:43:36,500 --> 02:43:37,117
there's direct evidence of

4592
02:43:37,117 --> 02:43:38,186
something you candidate.

4593
02:43:38,186 --> 02:43:39,187
So there is direct evidence

4594
02:43:39,187 --> 02:43:42,187
in this record about what

4595
02:43:43,491 --> 02:43:45,526
was said and it was not

4596
02:43:45,526 --> 02:43:45,993
whether she discussed what

4597
02:43:45,993 --> 02:43:46,995
happened.

4598
02:43:46,995 --> 02:43:48,529
That's the only evidence

4599
02:43:48,529 --> 02:43:49,931
before you about what was

4600
02:43:49,931 --> 02:43:51,565
actually said, that's it.

4601
02:43:51,565 --> 02:43:52,900
There is no other evidence.

4602
02:43:52,900 --> 02:43:54,970
There's no witness who

4603
02:43:54,970 --> 02:43:55,937
testified that she disclosed

4604
02:43:55,937 --> 02:43:57,710
confidential deliberations.

4605
02:43:57,710 --> 02:43:59,700
There's no documents showing

4606
02:43:59,700 --> 02:43:59,707
it, there's no text message

4607
02:43:59,707 --> 02:44:01,810
revealing it, there's no

4608
02:44:01,810 --> 02:44:02,978
recording, no email, no

4609
02:44:02,978 --> 02:44:03,879
admission.

4610
02:44:03,879 --> 02:44:05,180
And what's interesting,

4611
02:44:05,180 --> 02:44:06,615
there's no evidence that the

4612
02:44:06,615 --> 02:44:08,615
applicant did anything

4613
02:44:12,153 --> 02:44:14,153
differently after that.

4614
02:44:14,489 --> 02:44:17,660
So that is a pillar of their

4615
02:44:17,660 --> 02:44:19,195
case, and we don't -- you

4616
02:44:19,195 --> 02:44:20,161
don't have any additional

4617
02:44:20,161 --> 02:44:22,497
evidence than what the

4618
02:44:22,497 --> 02:44:23,331
petitioner's put on in their

4619
02:44:23,331 --> 02:44:24,133
own case.

4620
02:44:24,133 --> 02:44:25,534
They could have presented

4621
02:44:25,534 --> 02:44:27,168
some other evidence about it

4622
02:44:27,168 --> 02:44:28,403
it, like I mentioned earlier

4623
02:44:28,403 --> 02:44:28,904
earlier, and they chose not

4624
02:44:28,904 --> 02:44:29,739
to.

4625
02:44:29,739 --> 02:44:32,139
Instead they're asking you

4626
02:44:32,140 --> 02:44:33,750
to replace evidence with

4627
02:44:33,750 --> 02:44:35,750
suspicion.

4628
02:44:38,247 --> 02:44:38,881
And that is not how justice

4629
02:44:38,881 --> 02:44:40,449
works.

4630
02:44:40,449 --> 02:44:41,684
The confidentiality

4631
02:44:41,684 --> 02:44:43,419
agreement does not prohibit

4632
02:44:43,419 --> 02:44:46,419
her from asking an applicant

4633
02:44:46,856 --> 02:44:49,256
a question, it doesn't.

4634
02:44:49,558 --> 02:44:51,394
It doesn't -- it prohibits

4635
02:44:51,394 --> 02:44:53,394
disclosing confidential

4636
02:44:53,930 --> 02:44:54,564
information obtained as a

4637
02:44:54,564 --> 02:44:56,320
director.

4638
02:44:56,320 --> 02:44:57,233
And they have shown you the

4639
02:44:57,233 --> 02:44:59,233
communication occurred, but

4640
02:45:00,690 --> 02:45:01,937
they have not shown you that

4641
02:45:01,937 --> 02:45:03,106
it included any protected

4642
02:45:03,106 --> 02:45:04,640
confidential information.

4643
02:45:04,640 --> 02:45:06,408
They haven't.

4644
02:45:06,408 --> 02:45:08,440
The only evidence is, again,

4645
02:45:08,440 --> 02:45:08,678
I would not have done that,

4646
02:45:08,678 --> 02:45:10,580
no.

4647
02:45:10,580 --> 02:45:12,883
And so they're asking you to

4648
02:45:12,883 --> 02:45:14,518
reject sworn testimony, not

4649
02:45:14,518 --> 02:45:15,419
because they proveed it's

4650
02:45:15,419 --> 02:45:16,920
false, but because they want

4651
02:45:16,920 --> 02:45:18,920
you to speculate.

4652
02:45:22,525 --> 02:45:24,227
And speculation is not proof

4653
02:45:24,227 --> 02:45:25,128
in a law, under the law.

4654
02:45:25,128 --> 02:45:26,630
It's not.

4655
02:45:26,630 --> 02:45:28,732
Suspicion is not proof.

4656
02:45:28,732 --> 02:45:30,301
Speculation's not proof.

4657
02:45:30,301 --> 02:45:31,601
When you strip around the

4658
02:45:31,601 --> 02:45:33,270
rhetoric and you look only

4659
02:45:33,270 --> 02:45:35,105
at the evidence, this

4660
02:45:35,105 --> 02:45:37,505
accusation has no foundation

4661
02:45:37,841 --> 02:45:39,743
whatsoever.

4662
02:45:39,743 --> 02:45:42,743
So the answer on question

4663
02:45:45,182 --> 02:45:45,949
number 3 is no.

4664
02:45:45,949 --> 02:45:47,284
Answer of whether or not the

4665
02:45:47,284 --> 02:45:50,284
text message and phone call

4666
02:45:52,323 --> 02:45:55,323
on NOVEMBER 9th with the

4667
02:45:56,427 --> 02:45:58,427
[Indiscernible], whether it

4668
02:45:59,963 --> 02:46:00,765
was disclosed edc

4669
02:46:00,765 --> 02:46:02,700
confidential information,

4670
02:46:02,700 --> 02:46:05,100
there's no evidence to

4671
02:46:10,307 --> 02:46:12,307
answer yes.

4672
02:46:12,777 --> 02:46:15,777
The easiest thing in the

4673
02:46:16,747 --> 02:46:19,584
world is to punish someone

4674
02:46:19,584 --> 02:46:21,984
that you've already judged.

4675
02:46:23,788 --> 02:46:25,791
The hardest thing to do and

4676
02:46:25,791 --> 02:46:29,261
a brave thing to do is to

4677
02:46:29,261 --> 02:46:32,261
lay down that judgment long

4678
02:46:32,864 --> 02:46:33,264
enough to listen, and really

4679
02:46:33,264 --> 02:46:35,264
listen.

4680
02:46:35,633 --> 02:46:39,233
And that is what due process

4681
02:46:39,237 --> 02:46:41,637
requires you to do.

4682
02:46:45,144 --> 02:46:45,376
It is humility made into law

4683
02:46:45,376 --> 02:46:47,376
law.

4684
02:46:48,413 --> 02:46:52,130
And it asks only one thing:

4685
02:46:52,584 --> 02:46:56,184
do not decide first and then

4686
02:46:57,189 --> 02:46:57,657
listen later.

4687
02:46:57,657 --> 02:46:58,624
Because this is that

4688
02:46:58,624 --> 02:47:00,493
situation the hearing is

4689
02:47:00,493 --> 02:47:02,893
over before the first

4690
02:47:03,161 --> 02:47:03,863
witness ever even takes the

4691
02:47:03,863 --> 02:47:05,863
stand.

4692
02:47:07,566 --> 02:47:10,566
And if that happens, we

4693
02:47:10,669 --> 02:47:13,669
haven't removed a mayor, we

4694
02:47:14,307 --> 02:47:15,309
have removed the promise

4695
02:47:15,309 --> 02:47:17,709
that justice belongs to

4696
02:47:18,377 --> 02:47:19,579
everyone, all of us, every

4697
02:47:19,579 --> 02:47:21,514
one of us.

4698
02:47:21,514 --> 02:47:23,583
So before you cast your vote

4699
02:47:23,583 --> 02:47:25,840
votes, I want to ask you to

4700
02:47:25,840 --> 02:47:27,484
think about something larger

4701
02:47:29,421 --> 02:47:31,821
than paulette guajardo, I

4702
02:47:32,191 --> 02:47:33,920
want you to ask yourself how

4703
02:47:33,920 --> 02:47:34,293
much evidence is it going to

4704
02:47:34,293 --> 02:47:36,196
take for a handful of

4705
02:47:36,196 --> 02:47:37,831
elected officials to remove

4706
02:47:37,831 --> 02:47:38,698
another elected official

4707
02:47:38,698 --> 02:47:39,932
from office?

4708
02:47:39,932 --> 02:47:42,332
Because whatever rule you

4709
02:47:42,669 --> 02:47:44,400
create this evening does not

4710
02:47:44,400 --> 02:47:45,404
belong only to paulette

4711
02:47:45,404 --> 02:47:46,706
guajardo, it belongs to the

4712
02:47:46,706 --> 02:47:48,775
next mayor and the mayor

4713
02:47:48,775 --> 02:47:50,544
after that and it belongs to

4714
02:47:50,544 --> 02:47:52,846
every person who ever

4715
02:47:52,846 --> 02:47:54,846
accepts the responsibility

4716
02:47:55,150 --> 02:47:55,983
of public office in this

4717
02:47:55,983 --> 02:47:57,983
city ever.

4718
02:47:58,751 --> 02:48:01,321
And ultimately it belongs to

4719
02:48:01,321 --> 02:48:03,356
the people who elected them.

4720
02:48:03,356 --> 02:48:04,991
And you have heard words in

4721
02:48:04,991 --> 02:48:07,391
this proceeding that would

4722
02:48:08,328 --> 02:48:09,596
frighten any public official

4723
02:48:09,596 --> 02:48:11,596
official: fraud, crime,

4724
02:48:11,865 --> 02:48:13,865
perjury, malfeasance.

4725
02:48:14,935 --> 02:48:17,935
Those are powerful words and

4726
02:48:19,306 --> 02:48:21,408
powerful words require power

4727
02:48:21,408 --> 02:48:23,408
powerful proof, not

4728
02:48:24,278 --> 02:48:26,278
suspicion, not biased

4729
02:48:29,717 --> 02:48:31,840
assumptions, not -- when we

4730
02:48:31,840 --> 02:48:34,840
finally get past the words

4731
02:48:34,455 --> 02:48:36,900
and ask a simple question,

4732
02:48:36,900 --> 02:48:37,191
what did she know, what

4733
02:48:37,191 --> 02:48:39,191
confidential information did

4734
02:48:42,230 --> 02:48:42,830
she disclose, the answers

4735
02:48:42,830 --> 02:48:44,299
aren't there.

4736
02:48:44,299 --> 02:48:45,933
There is a temptation in a

4737
02:48:45,933 --> 02:48:47,469
case like this to say, well,

4738
02:48:47,469 --> 02:48:49,869
you know, something went

4739
02:48:50,304 --> 02:48:53,304
wrong and there's no doubt

4740
02:48:53,374 --> 02:48:54,242
that things went wrong in

4741
02:48:54,242 --> 02:48:56,100
this.

4742
02:48:56,100 --> 02:48:58,314
There was an altered fema

4743
02:48:58,314 --> 02:49:00,248
press release, there was a

4744
02:49:00,248 --> 02:49:01,683
false narrative.

4745
02:49:01,683 --> 02:49:03,117
There was confusion.

4746
02:49:03,117 --> 02:49:05,517
And there were questions

4747
02:49:05,653 --> 02:49:08,653
that should have been asked

4748
02:49:08,689 --> 02:49:09,957
sooner and resolved sooner.

4749
02:49:09,957 --> 02:49:10,726
There were people who could

4750
02:49:10,726 --> 02:49:12,726
have handled things

4751
02:49:14,630 --> 02:49:16,298
differently.

4752
02:49:16,298 --> 02:49:17,732
A lot of people who could

4753
02:49:17,732 --> 02:49:18,901
have handled things

4754
02:49:18,901 --> 02:49:20,469
differently.

4755
02:49:20,469 --> 02:49:23,171
But government is run by

4756
02:49:23,171 --> 02:49:24,973
human beings.

4757
02:49:24,973 --> 02:49:26,241
But that's not the question

4758
02:49:26,241 --> 02:49:27,575
you promised to answer when

4759
02:49:27,575 --> 02:49:29,878
you took your seats as

4760
02:49:29,878 --> 02:49:31,380
judges in this proceeding.

4761
02:49:31,380 --> 02:49:33,182
The question is whether the

4762
02:49:33,182 --> 02:49:34,617
evidence, the evidence in

4763
02:49:34,617 --> 02:49:36,585
this case, proves that the

4764
02:49:36,585 --> 02:49:38,521
mayor committed the acts in

4765
02:49:38,521 --> 02:49:40,389
this jury charge.

4766
02:49:40,389 --> 02:49:42,992
And you're limited to those

4767
02:49:42,992 --> 02:49:43,225
that are in in that jury charge

4768
02:49:43,225 --> 02:49:44,560
charge.

4769
02:49:44,560 --> 02:49:46,295
And there's a difference, a

4770
02:49:46,295 --> 02:49:47,496
profound, profound

4771
02:49:47,496 --> 02:49:48,497
difference, between saying

4772
02:49:48,497 --> 02:49:50,800
something went wrong and

4773
02:49:50,800 --> 02:49:53,200
saying she did wrong.

4774
02:49:53,436 --> 02:49:55,804
That distance can only be

4775
02:49:55,804 --> 02:49:57,473
crossed by evidence.

4776
02:49:57,473 --> 02:49:59,809
That's the only way you get

4777
02:49:59,809 --> 02:50:01,343
from something went wrong to

4778
02:50:01,343 --> 02:50:03,513
she did wrong, and it's not

4779
02:50:03,513 --> 02:50:04,947
suspicion, it's not

4780
02:50:04,947 --> 02:50:06,282
association, because that's

4781
02:50:06,282 --> 02:50:07,918
what a big part of the

4782
02:50:07,918 --> 02:50:09,419
petitioner's case is, it's

4783
02:50:09,419 --> 02:50:11,387
just association.

4784
02:50:11,387 --> 02:50:12,822
It's not hindsight.

4785
02:50:12,822 --> 02:50:14,624
It's not because she knew

4786
02:50:14,624 --> 02:50:17,240
somebody or because she

4787
02:50:17,994 --> 02:50:18,995
voted for something and it's

4788
02:50:18,995 --> 02:50:19,763
not because someone donated

4789
02:50:19,763 --> 02:50:21,970
to her campaign.

4790
02:50:21,970 --> 02:50:22,632
What you have to do to make

4791
02:50:22,632 --> 02:50:23,700
that bridge, to bridge that,

4792
02:50:23,700 --> 02:50:25,700
is evidence.

4793
02:50:25,703 --> 02:50:27,337
And if the evidence does not

4794
02:50:27,337 --> 02:50:29,737
carry you across that

4795
02:50:30,106 --> 02:50:32,876
distance, your duty is not

4796
02:50:32,876 --> 02:50:35,545
to finish the journey for

4797
02:50:35,545 --> 02:50:37,945
the petitioners, your duty

4798
02:50:39,482 --> 02:50:40,384
is to stop right there.

4799
02:50:40,384 --> 02:50:41,485
because that's what the

4800
02:50:41,485 --> 02:50:43,186
situation is.

4801
02:50:43,186 --> 02:50:45,589
There is no shame in saying

4802
02:50:45,589 --> 02:50:46,323
an accuse accusation was not proved

4803
02:50:46,323 --> 02:50:47,625
proved.

4804
02:50:47,625 --> 02:50:49,392
There's no shame in that.

4805
02:50:49,392 --> 02:50:51,595
There is honor in it.

4806
02:50:51,595 --> 02:50:52,596
Because the hardest exercise

4807
02:50:52,596 --> 02:50:54,131
of governmental power and

4808
02:50:54,131 --> 02:50:57,501
one of the things that is

4809
02:50:57,501 --> 02:50:59,901
remarkable about this is

4810
02:51:00,771 --> 02:51:01,672
that -- is this is an

4811
02:51:01,672 --> 02:51:03,672
incredible potential

4812
02:51:04,374 --> 02:51:06,374
exercise of governmental

4813
02:51:06,477 --> 02:51:08,113
power, an amazeing exercise

4814
02:51:08,113 --> 02:51:08,746
of power that you have in

4815
02:51:08,746 --> 02:51:10,746
your hands.

4816
02:51:11,516 --> 02:51:12,716
The hardest exercise of

4817
02:51:12,716 --> 02:51:14,716
governmental power is

4818
02:51:14,719 --> 02:51:17,719
sometimes refuseing to use it

4819
02:51:17,822 --> 02:51:19,822
it.

4820
02:51:20,192 --> 02:51:23,940
You were not elected to

4821
02:51:23,940 --> 02:51:25,940
protect paulette guajardo

4822
02:51:26,297 --> 02:51:27,932
and you were not elected to

4823
02:51:27,932 --> 02:51:29,932
punish paulette guajardo.

4824
02:51:30,234 --> 02:51:31,869
You were elected to protect

4825
02:51:31,869 --> 02:51:33,869
something much more

4826
02:51:35,573 --> 02:51:37,241
important: the integrity of

4827
02:51:37,241 --> 02:51:39,443
the office you yourselves

4828
02:51:39,443 --> 02:51:40,311
hold and the right of the

4829
02:51:40,311 --> 02:51:42,714
people of corpus christi to

4830
02:51:42,714 --> 02:51:45,114
choose who holds it.

4831
02:51:48,853 --> 02:51:50,289
The voters gave mayor

4832
02:51:50,289 --> 02:51:52,560
guajardo the office.

4833
02:51:52,560 --> 02:51:52,557
You have been asked to take

4834
02:51:52,557 --> 02:51:54,557
it away.

4835
02:51:54,993 --> 02:51:57,195
If you're going to do that,

4836
02:51:57,195 --> 02:51:59,398
then when you leave this

4837
02:51:59,398 --> 02:52:01,933
chamber tonight, you must be

4838
02:52:01,933 --> 02:52:04,933
able to say something much,

4839
02:52:06,371 --> 02:52:07,472
much more than, I suspected.

4840
02:52:07,472 --> 02:52:09,472
I wondered.

4841
02:52:10,209 --> 02:52:12,609
I had a feeling.

4842
02:52:13,450 --> 02:52:14,513
I thought, you know, maybe.

4843
02:52:14,513 --> 02:52:16,490
You have to be able to say I

4844
02:52:16,490 --> 02:52:18,584
know exactly what she did

4845
02:52:18,584 --> 02:52:19,451
and I can point to the

4846
02:52:19,451 --> 02:52:20,653
evidence.

4847
02:52:20,653 --> 02:52:21,888
In my opening I said you

4848
02:52:21,888 --> 02:52:23,856
will need to be able to look

4849
02:52:23,856 --> 02:52:24,490
at it and point at it and

4850
02:52:24,490 --> 02:52:26,490
show it.

4851
02:52:26,726 --> 02:52:28,127
If you cannot say these

4852
02:52:28,127 --> 02:52:29,562
things, and you cannot based

4853
02:52:29,562 --> 02:52:32,531
on the record, that the

4854
02:52:32,531 --> 02:52:34,670
petitioners have tried to --

4855
02:52:34,670 --> 02:52:35,836
have attempted to get into

4856
02:52:35,836 --> 02:52:38,836
this record, then the answer

4857
02:52:39,839 --> 02:52:41,340
to the questions is not a

4858
02:52:41,340 --> 02:52:43,900
difficult one.

4859
02:52:43,900 --> 02:52:43,977
It is no on every single one

4860
02:52:43,977 --> 02:52:45,745
of them.

4861
02:52:45,745 --> 02:52:47,947
And it's a no on every

4862
02:52:47,947 --> 02:52:50,350
single one of them not as a

4863
02:52:50,350 --> 02:52:52,186
favor to paulette guajardo,

4864
02:52:52,186 --> 02:52:54,487
not because you agree with

4865
02:52:54,487 --> 02:52:55,922
her, not because you approve

4866
02:52:55,922 --> 02:52:57,123
of every decision she's ever

4867
02:52:57,123 --> 02:52:59,392
made or any decision she's

4868
02:52:59,392 --> 02:53:02,392
ever made for that matter,

4869
02:53:03,300 --> 02:53:03,963
but because that is what the

4870
02:53:03,963 --> 02:53:05,990
evidence requires.

4871
02:53:05,990 --> 02:53:06,166
That's what you're limited

4872
02:53:06,166 --> 02:53:08,166
to, the evidence.

4873
02:53:08,234 --> 02:53:11,834
And you were told -- you

4874
02:53:12,205 --> 02:53:14,605
were told the instructions,

4875
02:53:14,642 --> 02:53:16,176
do not let bias play a part

4876
02:53:16,176 --> 02:53:17,244
in your deliberations, non-,

4877
02:53:17,244 --> 02:53:18,646
zero.

4878
02:53:18,646 --> 02:53:19,446
It cannot play a part.

4879
02:53:19,446 --> 02:53:21,810
And because when the

4880
02:53:21,810 --> 02:53:23,810
evidence ends, accusations

4881
02:53:23,383 --> 02:53:25,383
end with it.

4882
02:53:25,719 --> 02:53:26,219
And you have to go by

4883
02:53:26,219 --> 02:53:28,219
evidence.

4884
02:53:28,322 --> 02:53:30,722
Question number 1 is no.

4885
02:53:30,824 --> 02:53:33,224
Question number 2 is no.

4886
02:53:35,530 --> 02:53:36,864
And question number 3 is no.

4887
02:53:36,864 --> 02:53:38,499
I want to make sure because

4888
02:53:38,499 --> 02:53:40,601
we did some renumbering and

4889
02:53:40,601 --> 02:53:41,669
I want to make sure I've got

4890
02:53:41,669 --> 02:53:43,204
my numbers all right there

4891
02:53:43,204 --> 02:53:46,204
when we worked on this

4892
02:53:51,612 --> 02:53:53,612
earlier.

4893
02:53:53,615 --> 02:53:54,583
After you retire and you go

4894
02:53:54,583 --> 02:53:55,716
through this charge and

4895
02:53:55,716 --> 02:53:58,716
council's going to get up

4896
02:53:59,654 --> 02:54:00,955
and make -- and counsel's going

4897
02:54:00,955 --> 02:54:02,290
to get up and make another

4898
02:54:02,290 --> 02:54:05,290
argument, I will invite you

4899
02:54:06,395 --> 02:54:08,763
to leave the final judgment

4900
02:54:08,763 --> 02:54:10,763
about paulette guajardo

4901
02:54:13,568 --> 02:54:16,568
where it has always belonged

4902
02:54:17,405 --> 02:54:19,405
belonged, with voters.

4903
02:54:22,511 --> 02:54:23,812
And I'm going to take a

4904
02:54:23,812 --> 02:54:26,212
personal privilege here for

4905
02:54:26,214 --> 02:54:28,284
a minute and I'm going to

4906
02:54:28,284 --> 02:54:30,850
read -- these are cards that

4907
02:54:30,850 --> 02:54:34,285
I keep in my pocket that I

4908
02:54:34,522 --> 02:54:36,522
give out sometimes.

4909
02:54:36,892 --> 02:54:37,826
And it's one of my favorite

4910
02:54:37,826 --> 02:54:39,826
quotes.

4911
02:54:41,664 --> 02:54:42,330
It is, if we have no peace,

4912
02:54:42,330 --> 02:54:45,330
it is because we have

4913
02:54:46,335 --> 02:54:46,535
forgotten we belong to each

4914
02:54:46,535 --> 02:54:48,535
other.

4915
02:54:48,671 --> 02:54:51,600
Mother theresa said that.

4916
02:54:51,600 --> 02:54:54,430
And when you go back and you

4917
02:54:54,430 --> 02:54:56,443
assess this evidence, I

4918
02:54:56,578 --> 02:54:57,790
invite you to remember those

4919
02:54:57,790 --> 02:54:59,790
words.

4920
02:54:59,516 --> 02:55:03,116
And I'm saying this kind of

4921
02:55:03,452 --> 02:55:05,221
as a citizen myself too.

4922
02:55:05,221 --> 02:55:06,210
Peace, if we have no peace,

4923
02:55:06,210 --> 02:55:08,421
it's because we have

4924
02:55:09,325 --> 02:55:12,325
forgotten we belong to each

4925
02:55:13,429 --> 02:55:15,429
other.

4926
02:55:15,531 --> 02:55:16,566
My opposing counsel thanked

4927
02:55:16,566 --> 02:55:18,368
you at the beginning and I

4928
02:55:18,368 --> 02:55:20,370
want to thank you too.

4929
02:55:20,370 --> 02:55:21,804
And I also at the beginning

4930
02:55:21,804 --> 02:55:24,740
of this you might remember,

4931
02:55:24,740 --> 02:55:26,610
I said if any of you were

4932
02:55:26,610 --> 02:55:29,446
sitting over here, I would

4933
02:55:29,446 --> 02:55:30,379
proudly represent you.

4934
02:55:30,379 --> 02:55:31,548
I think I'm kind of

4935
02:55:31,548 --> 02:55:33,516
reconsidering that now.

4936
02:55:33,516 --> 02:55:35,585
And it's not you, it's me.

4937
02:55:35,585 --> 02:55:36,787
[Laughter].

4938
02:55:36,787 --> 02:55:38,787
I'm just kidding.

4939
02:55:39,724 --> 02:55:41,725
It has been an honor, it has

4940
02:55:41,725 --> 02:55:42,726
been an honor, to be part of

4941
02:55:42,726 --> 02:55:44,361
this proceeding, and I do

4942
02:55:44,361 --> 02:55:48,561
want to thank all of you for

4943
02:55:49,733 --> 02:55:51,969
your service to this city,

4944
02:55:51,969 --> 02:55:55,569
and I hope that you have

4945
02:55:55,639 --> 02:55:57,708
understood my job throughout

4946
02:55:57,708 --> 02:56:00,311
this project and what it is

4947
02:56:00,311 --> 02:56:01,212
that justice required of me.

4948
02:56:01,212 --> 02:56:03,180
I'm actually going to give

4949
02:56:03,180 --> 02:56:04,949
some of my time back, but,

4950
02:56:04,949 --> 02:56:07,651
again, if you look at the

4951
02:56:07,651 --> 02:56:10,651
evidence and you don't use

4952
02:56:10,722 --> 02:56:12,356
suspicion and you don't try

4953
02:56:12,356 --> 02:56:14,240
to use, you know, maybes,

4954
02:56:14,240 --> 02:56:16,627
but you actually look at

4955
02:56:16,627 --> 02:56:17,929
what was proven through the

4956
02:56:17,929 --> 02:56:19,263
evidence, the answer to

4957
02:56:19,263 --> 02:56:20,698
every single one of the

4958
02:56:20,698 --> 02:56:22,698
questions is no.

4959
02:56:50,295 --> 02:56:52,295
Thank you.

4960
02:56:56,969 --> 02:56:58,636
>> Paxson: there should be

4961
02:56:58,636 --> 02:57:00,500
10:minutes and 30 seconds

4962
02:57:00,500 --> 02:57:02,405
remaining for the petitioner

4963
02:57:08,114 --> 02:57:10,114
petitioners.

4964
02:57:10,115 --> 02:57:12,115
>> probably 60 seconds I

4965
02:57:12,618 --> 02:57:12,918
will go into this, thank you

4966
02:57:12,918 --> 02:57:14,353
you.

4967
02:57:14,353 --> 02:57:18,553
I'll wait for her to get set

4968
02:57:24,663 --> 02:57:25,231
set.

4969
02:57:25,231 --> 02:57:26,532
Thank you.

4970
02:57:26,532 --> 02:57:27,767
>> Allison: you were just

4971
02:57:27,767 --> 02:57:31,360
told that you're not here to

4972
02:57:31,360 --> 02:57:34,360
basically judge or to punish

4973
02:57:35,875 --> 02:57:36,141
or to protect mayor guajardo

4974
02:57:36,141 --> 02:57:36,976
guajardo.

4975
02:57:36,976 --> 02:57:37,977
Like somehow it's not your

4976
02:57:37,977 --> 02:57:39,712
job and he refers to the

4977
02:57:39,712 --> 02:57:40,813
voters, let the voters.

4978
02:57:40,813 --> 02:57:42,140
You've heard that theme at

4979
02:57:42,140 --> 02:57:43,950
different times, let the

4980
02:57:43,950 --> 02:57:45,818
voters decide.

4981
02:57:45,818 --> 02:57:49,355
Let me be very, very clear.

4982
02:57:49,355 --> 02:57:51,230
The answer to that is

4983
02:57:51,230 --> 02:57:52,425
there's supposition when we

4984
02:57:52,425 --> 02:57:53,860
say this is absolutely wrong

4985
02:57:53,860 --> 02:57:54,594
and let me tell you what I

4986
02:57:54,594 --> 02:57:55,795
mean by that.

4987
02:57:55,795 --> 02:57:58,795
You were voted to your

4988
02:57:59,433 --> 02:58:02,835
office and each of you took

4989
02:58:02,835 --> 02:58:06,435
an oath to enforce the city

4990
02:58:07,106 --> 02:58:09,843
charter and the city charter

4991
02:58:09,843 --> 02:58:11,812
requires the removal of the

4992
02:58:11,812 --> 02:58:13,812
mayor for malfeasance,

4993
02:58:14,347 --> 02:58:16,347
misconduct, for willful

4994
02:58:19,352 --> 02:58:20,870
neglect or for improper

4995
02:58:20,870 --> 02:58:21,188
conduct.

4996
02:58:21,188 --> 02:58:23,188
You were elected.

4997
02:58:23,590 --> 02:58:24,624
The voters put you here.

4998
02:58:24,624 --> 02:58:25,492
You are the voice of the

4999
02:58:25,492 --> 02:58:27,492
voters.

5000
02:58:27,861 --> 02:58:29,830
And this is exactly what you

5001
02:58:29,830 --> 02:58:33,430
are required to do under the

5002
02:58:34,369 --> 02:58:35,603
charter, period.

5003
02:58:35,603 --> 02:58:37,804
Then he said, and I think

5004
02:58:37,804 --> 02:58:40,174
it's so important, he said

5005
02:58:40,174 --> 02:58:40,941
how much -- and I'm quoting.

5006
02:58:40,941 --> 02:58:43,770
How much evidence is it

5007
02:58:43,770 --> 02:58:46,770
going to take to remove

5008
02:58:46,313 --> 02:58:47,781
paulette guajardo?

5009
02:58:47,781 --> 02:58:48,315
He used throughout his time

5010
02:58:48,315 --> 02:58:50,715
with you words like

5011
02:58:50,719 --> 02:58:52,453
speculation, association,

5012
02:58:52,453 --> 02:58:54,188
suspicion, assume, like

5013
02:58:54,188 --> 02:58:55,990
there's no evidence.

5014
02:58:55,990 --> 02:58:56,924
The answer to your question

5015
02:58:56,924 --> 02:58:58,225
is in the document in front

5016
02:58:58,225 --> 02:58:59,260
of you.

5017
02:58:59,260 --> 02:58:59,460
How much evidence does it

5018
02:58:59,460 --> 02:59:01,460
take?

5019
02:59:01,562 --> 02:59:02,330
It says it takes a

5020
02:59:02,330 --> 02:59:04,650
preponderance of the

5021
02:59:04,650 --> 02:59:05,334
evidence, which means the

5022
02:59:05,334 --> 02:59:06,400
greater way of credible

5023
02:59:06,400 --> 02:59:06,601
evidence presented in the

5024
02:59:06,601 --> 02:59:07,802
case.

5025
02:59:07,802 --> 02:59:09,237
And then it says in the

5026
02:59:09,237 --> 02:59:11,139
document in front of you,

5027
02:59:11,139 --> 02:59:13,608
you must find that the fact

5028
02:59:13,608 --> 02:59:13,842
is more likely true than not

5029
02:59:13,842 --> 02:59:15,276
not.

5030
02:59:15,276 --> 02:59:17,445
If the evidence in the

5031
02:59:17,445 --> 02:59:20,445
record is that it's more

5032
02:59:21,316 --> 02:59:22,116
likely, not certain, not

5033
02:59:22,116 --> 02:59:23,618
beyond a reasonable doubt,

5034
02:59:23,618 --> 02:59:25,386
this is not a criminal case.

5035
02:59:25,386 --> 02:59:28,123
If you think it's more

5036
02:59:28,123 --> 02:59:28,657
likely than not, that's a

5037
02:59:28,657 --> 02:59:29,190
preponderance of the

5038
02:59:29,190 --> 02:59:30,625
evidence.

5039
02:59:30,625 --> 02:59:33,161
And it is way more likely

5040
02:59:33,161 --> 02:59:33,428
than not that she aided the

5041
02:59:33,428 --> 02:59:35,130
fraud.

5042
02:59:35,130 --> 02:59:36,765
It is way more likely than

5043
02:59:36,765 --> 02:59:38,634
not that she was not being

5044
02:59:38,634 --> 02:59:39,968
candid and truthful when she

5045
02:59:39,968 --> 02:59:42,671
gave her testimony, and it

5046
02:59:42,671 --> 02:59:45,740
is way more likely than not

5047
02:59:45,740 --> 02:59:47,474
that she violated her

5048
02:59:48,244 --> 02:59:48,777
confidentiality pledge to

5049
02:59:48,777 --> 02:59:50,212
erc.

5050
02:59:50,212 --> 02:59:51,513
And then he wants to use

5051
02:59:51,513 --> 02:59:52,715
words like assume like

5052
02:59:52,715 --> 02:59:55,715
there's no evidence on the

5053
02:59:56,786 --> 02:59:57,754
violation with the erc, and

5054
02:59:57,754 --> 02:59:59,622
the very document in front

5055
02:59:59,622 --> 03:00:01,357
of you, the charge, says a

5056
03:00:01,357 --> 03:00:03,659
fact MAY be established by

5057
03:00:03,659 --> 03:00:04,930
direct or circumstantial

5058
03:00:04,930 --> 03:00:04,860
evidence.

5059
03:00:04,860 --> 03:00:06,860
It's not assumption.

5060
03:00:07,696 --> 03:00:08,998
It says, quote, a fact, a

5061
03:00:08,998 --> 03:00:10,998
fact is established.

5062
03:00:12,201 --> 03:00:13,102
I'm reading, by

5063
03:00:13,102 --> 03:00:14,771
circumstantial evidence when

5064
03:00:14,771 --> 03:00:15,605
it MAY be fairly and

5065
03:00:15,605 --> 03:00:16,206
reasonably inferred from the

5066
03:00:16,206 --> 03:00:18,206
other facts.

5067
03:00:21,478 --> 03:00:23,946
When you have her texting texting de

5068
03:00:23,946 --> 03:00:24,614
deven bhakta during a closed

5069
03:00:24,614 --> 03:00:26,582
confidential meeting,

5070
03:00:26,582 --> 03:00:27,350
leaving there after having

5071
03:00:27,350 --> 03:00:29,218
suffered the defeat of

5072
03:00:29,218 --> 03:00:31,218
wanting a 2-million-dollar

5073
03:00:35,125 --> 03:00:38,125
vote and only getting brian

5074
03:00:38,561 --> 03:00:40,561
gulley's 1-million-dollar

5075
03:00:42,265 --> 03:00:44,601
vote and calling and talking

5076
03:00:44,601 --> 03:00:45,702
to deven bhakta for 14

5077
03:00:45,702 --> 03:00:48,372
minutes, it is correct for

5078
03:00:48,372 --> 03:00:49,139
you to infer that she likely

5079
03:00:49,139 --> 03:00:49,807
talked to him about what

5080
03:00:49,807 --> 03:00:51,308
happened at the meeting.

5081
03:00:51,308 --> 03:00:54,308
Again, quote, a fact is

5082
03:00:54,478 --> 03:00:55,679
established by

5083
03:00:55,679 --> 03:00:56,980
circumstantial evidence when

5084
03:00:56,980 --> 03:00:58,949
it MAY be fairly and

5085
03:00:58,949 --> 03:01:00,160
reasonably inferred from the

5086
03:01:00,160 --> 03:01:01,351
other facts proved.

5087
03:01:01,351 --> 03:01:03,353
And we have absolutely proof

5088
03:01:03,353 --> 03:01:04,755
of the text messages and the

5089
03:01:04,755 --> 03:01:06,758
phone calls, and we know

5090
03:01:06,758 --> 03:01:08,592
what the mayor is capable of

5091
03:01:08,592 --> 03:01:11,128
when you look at her phone

5092
03:01:11,128 --> 03:01:13,528
call records from FEBRUARY

5093
03:01:14,498 --> 03:01:16,133
FEBRUARY 25 and 26 when

5094
03:01:16,133 --> 03:01:18,533
there's 14 calls before the

5095
03:01:19,403 --> 03:01:20,671
ordinance is withdrawn by

5096
03:01:20,671 --> 03:01:22,906
the city, only to be pushed

5097
03:01:22,906 --> 03:01:24,809
back on by the mayor.

5098
03:01:24,809 --> 03:01:26,110
We know she is absolutely

5099
03:01:26,110 --> 03:01:27,412
capable of not remembering

5100
03:01:27,412 --> 03:01:29,380
anything that would every be

5101
03:01:29,380 --> 03:01:31,148
harmful to her, and you MAY

5102
03:01:31,148 --> 03:01:33,548
make the right inference

5103
03:01:33,751 --> 03:01:35,870
that she likely spoke to him

5104
03:01:35,870 --> 03:01:36,540
him, that is a preponderance

5105
03:01:36,540 --> 03:01:37,155
of the evidence.

5106
03:01:37,155 --> 03:01:38,156
So there is evidence on

5107
03:01:38,156 --> 03:01:39,925
every one of the three

5108
03:01:39,925 --> 03:01:41,260
counts, and the answers to

5109
03:01:41,260 --> 03:01:42,360
those three questions is yes

5110
03:01:42,360 --> 03:01:45,297
yes, yes and yes, and each

5111
03:01:45,297 --> 03:01:46,330
one of them support removal.

5112
03:01:46,330 --> 03:01:46,598
You want to talk about the

5113
03:01:46,598 --> 03:01:48,598
evidence?

5114
03:01:50,535 --> 03:01:51,236
I'm going to go ahead --

5115
03:01:51,236 --> 03:01:53,400
ma'am.

5116
03:01:53,400 --> 03:01:54,740
I'm going to go ahead and

5117
03:01:54,740 --> 03:01:55,374
play -- he didn't put in any

5118
03:01:55,374 --> 03:01:56,609
evidence.

5119
03:01:56,609 --> 03:01:57,342
They didn't even hardly call

5120
03:01:57,342 --> 03:01:59,342
any witness.

5121
03:01:59,645 --> 03:02:00,780
They didn't even call the

5122
03:02:00,780 --> 03:02:01,212
mayor.

5123
03:02:01,212 --> 03:02:03,480
They would have loved an

5124
03:02:03,480 --> 03:02:05,448
impeachment trial where she

5125
03:02:05,684 --> 03:02:06,118
didn't answer any questions,

5126
03:02:06,118 --> 03:02:08,118
okay?

5127
03:02:08,420 --> 03:02:09,722
>> Allison:

5128
03:02:09,722 --> 03:02:10,455
>> Flood: it's improper

5129
03:02:10,455 --> 03:02:11,958
argument.

5130
03:02:11,958 --> 03:02:14,358
No burden of proof.

5131
03:02:14,759 --> 03:02:15,661
>> if I give you that

5132
03:02:15,661 --> 03:02:17,661
information about forge,

5133
03:02:18,263 --> 03:02:20,663
forged document, that forge

5134
03:02:23,202 --> 03:02:24,736
means to alter, make

5135
03:02:24,736 --> 03:02:26,736
complete, execute or

5136
03:02:29,875 --> 03:02:31,177
authenticate any writing,

5137
03:02:31,177 --> 03:02:31,344
that happened, right, so far

5138
03:02:31,344 --> 03:02:33,120
far?

5139
03:02:33,120 --> 03:02:35,120
>> yes.

5140
03:02:36,316 --> 03:02:38,418
>> that it purports to be

5141
03:02:38,418 --> 03:02:39,853
the act of another, that

5142
03:02:39,853 --> 03:02:40,186
happened to be fema, right,

5143
03:02:40,186 --> 03:02:40,586
in this case.

5144
03:02:40,586 --> 03:02:41,655
>> yes.

5145
03:02:41,655 --> 03:02:43,255
>> who did not authorize it.

5146
03:02:43,255 --> 03:02:44,391
We talked about fema did not

5147
03:02:44,391 --> 03:02:44,958
authorize it, right?

5148
03:02:44,958 --> 03:02:46,425
>> yes.

5149
03:02:46,425 --> 03:02:46,625
>> that happened in this

5150
03:02:46,625 --> 03:02:48,625
case.

5151
03:02:54,634 --> 03:02:56,634
>> yes.

5152
03:03:02,909 --> 03:03:04,909
>>

5153
03:03:05,645 --> 03:03:07,513
>> if that's a definition of

5154
03:03:07,513 --> 03:03:09,483
forge, then the facts of

5155
03:03:09,483 --> 03:03:11,118
this case meet that

5156
03:03:11,118 --> 03:03:12,219
definition.

5157
03:03:12,219 --> 03:03:14,219
>> yes.

5158
03:03:15,823 --> 03:03:17,124
Yes.

5159
03:03:17,124 --> 03:03:18,992
>> Allison: and you know

5160
03:03:18,992 --> 03:03:20,940
that exact clip was played

5161
03:03:20,940 --> 03:03:21,610
for peter zanoni and he

5162
03:03:21,610 --> 03:03:22,295
agreed with it.

5163
03:03:22,295 --> 03:03:25,990
And what they asked you to

5164
03:03:25,990 --> 03:03:27,868
do is to do nothing, knowing

5165
03:03:27,868 --> 03:03:30,300
that there was this forgery

5166
03:03:30,300 --> 03:03:31,572
or at least a fraud.

5167
03:03:31,572 --> 03:03:33,141
There was this wrongful,

5168
03:03:33,141 --> 03:03:34,975
inappropriate conduct, and

5169
03:03:34,975 --> 03:03:36,410
they want you to do nothing

5170
03:03:36,410 --> 03:03:38,145
about it, even though the

5171
03:03:38,145 --> 03:03:41,145
mayor knew about it from

5172
03:03:41,282 --> 03:03:44,282
start to finish, they want

5173
03:03:46,888 --> 03:03:50,488
her to get a free ride.

5174
03:03:52,259 --> 03:03:52,694
>> I think one of the

5175
03:03:52,694 --> 03:03:53,994
comments from

5176
03:03:53,994 --> 03:03:55,864
[Indiscernible] So my client

5177
03:03:55,864 --> 03:03:59,464
was even that you had told

5178
03:04:00,869 --> 03:04:02,738
some members of council, hey

5179
03:04:02,738 --> 03:04:04,473
hey, don't touch this,

5180
03:04:04,473 --> 03:04:05,473
something along those lines.

5181
03:04:05,473 --> 03:04:06,474
Did you do that?

5182
03:04:06,474 --> 03:04:10,740
>> I can't recall if I said

5183
03:04:12,247 --> 03:04:13,681
that exactly, but I would --

5184
03:04:13,681 --> 03:04:14,316
let me think of how I can

5185
03:04:14,316 --> 03:04:16,316
say this.

5186
03:04:17,185 --> 03:04:18,386
Given the -- given what we

5187
03:04:18,386 --> 03:04:21,923
knew at the time, given the

5188
03:04:21,923 --> 03:04:25,523
fact that it appeared a law,

5189
03:04:25,594 --> 03:04:27,290
federal law, had been broken

5190
03:04:27,290 --> 03:04:27,996
broken, I wouldn't consider

5191
03:04:27,996 --> 03:04:29,799
it yet.

5192
03:04:29,799 --> 03:04:32,300
I would not put it on the

5193
03:04:32,300 --> 03:04:33,501
agenda.

5194
03:04:33,501 --> 03:04:34,936
>> Allison: we know the

5195
03:04:34,936 --> 03:04:38,536
mayor is the one that wanted

5196
03:04:39,875 --> 03:04:40,976
it on the agenda.

5197
03:04:40,976 --> 03:04:42,944
>> after I interviewed

5198
03:04:42,944 --> 03:04:43,613
phillip, I did that same

5199
03:04:43,613 --> 03:04:44,379
evening I believe have a

5200
03:04:44,379 --> 03:04:46,582
conversation with the mayor

5201
03:04:46,582 --> 03:04:47,883
on the phone and COUNCILMAN

5202
03:04:47,883 --> 03:04:50,385
Pusley was there either in

5203
03:04:50,385 --> 03:04:52,288
the room or a three-way call

5204
03:04:52,288 --> 03:04:53,155
call, I'm not 100% sure, but

5205
03:04:53,155 --> 03:04:54,323
that was after the meeting

5206
03:04:54,323 --> 03:04:55,891
with phillip.

5207
03:04:55,891 --> 03:04:56,759
So I explained to the mayor

5208
03:04:56,759 --> 03:04:58,428
that phillip, who would be

5209
03:04:58,428 --> 03:04:59,295
the only one that could

5210
03:04:59,295 --> 03:05:00,496
explain what happened to

5211
03:05:00,496 --> 03:05:01,364
this document, could not

5212
03:05:01,364 --> 03:05:02,464
explain it.

5213
03:05:02,464 --> 03:05:04,333
So there was an obvious

5214
03:05:04,333 --> 03:05:06,303
change in the document from

5215
03:05:06,303 --> 03:05:06,703
the website to the

5216
03:05:06,703 --> 03:05:08,703
powerpoint.

5217
03:05:08,804 --> 03:05:09,839
And the only person --

5218
03:05:09,839 --> 03:05:11,908
probably two people that

5219
03:05:11,908 --> 03:05:14,308
could have explained it.

5220
03:05:17,280 --> 03:05:18,481
One was mike huckleson and

5221
03:05:18,481 --> 03:05:20,650
his team and the other is

5222
03:05:20,650 --> 03:05:20,851
phillip ramirez and his team

5223
03:05:20,851 --> 03:05:22,318
team.

5224
03:05:22,318 --> 03:05:23,986
We had a conversation with

5225
03:05:23,986 --> 03:05:26,355
mike culberson to rule him

5226
03:05:26,355 --> 03:05:27,890
out and asked for a copy of

5227
03:05:27,890 --> 03:05:28,358
his powerpoint presentation

5228
03:05:28,358 --> 03:05:30,327
and who created it, did he

5229
03:05:30,327 --> 03:05:31,161
create it or did phillip

5230
03:05:31,161 --> 03:05:32,829
ramirez create it?

5231
03:05:32,829 --> 03:05:34,230
And culberson said that the

5232
03:05:34,230 --> 03:05:36,299
powerpoint was created by

5233
03:05:36,299 --> 03:05:38,201
phillip ramirez, sent to

5234
03:05:38,201 --> 03:05:39,102
mike culberson who did

5235
03:05:39,102 --> 03:05:40,536
nothing to change it and

5236
03:05:40,536 --> 03:05:42,573
just placed it into a

5237
03:05:42,573 --> 03:05:43,673
template that had edc

5238
03:05:43,673 --> 03:05:45,109
heading on it.

5239
03:05:45,109 --> 03:05:46,310
That's why we ruled out

5240
03:05:46,310 --> 03:05:48,545
culberson as somebody that

5241
03:05:48,545 --> 03:05:50,460
MAY be aware of or MAY have

5242
03:05:50,460 --> 03:05:51,348
changed the document, and

5243
03:05:51,348 --> 03:05:53,217
then started working with

5244
03:05:53,217 --> 03:05:54,417
phillip ramirez as the sole

5245
03:05:54,417 --> 03:05:55,385
person that would know,

5246
03:05:55,385 --> 03:05:56,253
should know what happened to

5247
03:05:56,253 --> 03:05:57,588
the document.

5248
03:05:57,588 --> 03:05:59,223
>> and what you just told me

5249
03:05:59,223 --> 03:06:02,823
is what you told the mayor.

5250
03:06:02,826 --> 03:06:04,794
>> correct.

5251
03:06:04,794 --> 03:06:07,194
>> Allison: of course they

5252
03:06:08,565 --> 03:06:09,799
knew, of course she knew, of

5253
03:06:09,799 --> 03:06:12,799
course they figured it out.

5254
03:06:13,370 --> 03:06:15,305
The same thing that gulley

5255
03:06:15,305 --> 03:06:17,407
told them back at the ccrecd

5256
03:06:17,407 --> 03:06:18,909
ccrecd, ajit david revealed

5257
03:06:18,909 --> 03:06:20,578
the falsity of it.

5258
03:06:20,578 --> 03:06:22,279
Ajit david revealed the

5259
03:06:22,279 --> 03:06:24,182
forgery of a written

5260
03:06:24,182 --> 03:06:26,182
document.

5261
03:06:26,283 --> 03:06:29,152
And of course they told her.

5262
03:06:29,152 --> 03:06:30,755
And they told her again in

5263
03:06:30,755 --> 03:06:30,988
special -- in executive

5264
03:06:30,988 --> 03:06:32,423
session.

5265
03:06:32,423 --> 03:06:33,991
That's in the evidence.

5266
03:06:33,991 --> 03:06:36,727
And ajit david stood in

5267
03:06:36,727 --> 03:06:38,462
front of you again and told

5268
03:06:38,462 --> 03:06:40,665
her and gave her picture of

5269
03:06:40,665 --> 03:06:43,200
it, and ajit david stood in

5270
03:06:43,200 --> 03:06:44,969
front of her again on APRIL

5271
03:06:44,969 --> 03:06:45,836
APRIL 23rd and told her

5272
03:06:45,836 --> 03:06:48,236
and again there were

5273
03:07:03,200 --> 03:07:03,654
pictures of it.

5274
03:07:03,654 --> 03:07:05,654
>> correct.

5275
03:07:06,757 --> 03:07:08,927
>> and so therefore you had

5276
03:07:08,927 --> 03:07:10,228
had -- what you're telling

5277
03:07:10,228 --> 03:07:11,229
me is during that time frame

5278
03:07:11,229 --> 03:07:13,980
you were not in the loop as

5279
03:07:13,980 --> 03:07:13,831
to what the findings were

5280
03:07:13,831 --> 03:07:14,365
for the investigation?

5281
03:07:14,365 --> 03:07:16,365
>> correct.

5282
03:07:17,336 --> 03:07:18,870
>> and so therefore you had

5283
03:07:18,870 --> 03:07:20,839
no knowledge that it was

5284
03:07:20,839 --> 03:07:23,239
something illegal in the

5285
03:07:23,908 --> 03:07:24,309
process that you were voting

5286
03:07:24,309 --> 03:07:25,644
on.

5287
03:07:25,644 --> 03:07:26,178
>> right, there was --

5288
03:07:26,178 --> 03:07:26,946
>> okay.

5289
03:07:26,946 --> 03:07:28,946
>> right.

5290
03:07:36,789 --> 03:07:38,357
>> okay.

5291
03:07:38,357 --> 03:07:39,225
>> Allison: she winks at

5292
03:07:39,225 --> 03:07:42,225
her lawyer, it's on the

5293
03:07:45,231 --> 03:07:46,965
video, right?

5294
03:07:46,965 --> 03:07:49,301
It is exactly what peter

5295
03:07:49,301 --> 03:07:51,437
zanoni called it early on,

5296
03:07:51,437 --> 03:07:53,139
it is a scheme.

5297
03:07:53,139 --> 03:07:56,139
She participated in it, she

5298
03:07:57,176 --> 03:07:58,100
promoteed, she advocateed, she

5299
03:07:58,100 --> 03:07:59,110
lied about it.

5300
03:07:59,110 --> 03:08:01,110
[Buzzer].

5301
03:08:01,881 --> 03:08:02,914
She did betrayal of ccrecd

5302
03:08:02,914 --> 03:08:04,914
confidentiality.

5303
03:08:07,119 --> 03:08:08,788
And it's got to stop.

5304
03:08:08,788 --> 03:08:11,788
What we tolerate we become.

5305
03:08:17,497 --> 03:08:19,497
Thank you.

5306
03:08:28,800 --> 03:08:28,808
>> Paxson:thank you, gentlemen.

5307
03:08:28,808 --> 03:08:30,100
At this time the council

5308
03:08:30,100 --> 03:08:32,445
will now go into executive

5309
03:08:32,445 --> 03:08:33,680
session on agenda item 1,

5310
03:08:33,680 --> 03:08:36,800
pursuant to texas government

5311
03:08:41,154 --> 03:08:43,154
code sections 551.071 and

5312
03:08:46,930 --> 03:08:48,930
section 551.074.

5313
03:08:50,626 --> 03:08:52,794
Were so that we can mark our

5314
03:08:52,794 --> 03:08:54,664
documents and be clear on

5315
03:08:54,664 --> 03:08:55,396
what's meant when you do

5316
03:08:55,396 --> 03:08:56,732
what you do.

5317
03:08:56,732 --> 03:08:57,966
>> Paxson: absolutely.

5318
03:08:57,966 --> 03:08:59,801
>> if that makes sense.

5319
03:08:59,801 --> 03:09:02,104
>> Paxson: on the cover

5320
03:09:02,104 --> 03:09:03,438
page, the first section

5321
03:09:03,438 --> 03:09:05,173
relating to number of votes,

5322
03:09:05,173 --> 03:09:07,420
this is requiring that five

5323
03:09:07,420 --> 03:09:08,443
members vote affirmatively

5324
03:09:08,443 --> 03:09:10,843
according to the city

5325
03:09:11,546 --> 03:09:13,480
charter the policy would be

5326
03:09:13,480 --> 03:09:16,480
a majority, where five would

5327
03:09:16,252 --> 03:09:19,252
only be require ford a

5328
03:09:19,255 --> 03:09:20,589
required for a removal

5329
03:09:20,589 --> 03:09:22,457
action, so we would be

5330
03:09:22,457 --> 03:09:24,292
acting ton policy set in the

5331
03:09:24,292 --> 03:09:26,496
charter, so outside of a

5332
03:09:26,496 --> 03:09:29,331
removal action, we'll let a

5333
03:09:29,331 --> 03:09:29,598
majority of the voting body

5334
03:09:29,598 --> 03:09:31,660
pre-rail.

5335
03:09:31,660 --> 03:09:32,335
>> if I'm hearing you

5336
03:09:32,335 --> 03:09:34,937
correctly, so it's clear on

5337
03:09:34,937 --> 03:09:36,105
the record, go there to be a

5338
03:09:36,105 --> 03:09:37,540
removal, it would have

5339
03:09:37,540 --> 03:09:37,874
required five votes is that

5340
03:09:37,874 --> 03:09:38,841
right so far.

5341
03:09:38,841 --> 03:09:40,841
>> Paxson: yes.

5342
03:09:42,678 --> 03:09:45,614
>> and in b, a suspension

5343
03:09:45,614 --> 03:09:47,490
for no more than 30 days

5344
03:09:47,490 --> 03:09:47,249
that would require four

5345
03:09:47,249 --> 03:09:48,170
votes.

5346
03:09:48,170 --> 03:09:50,170
>> Paxson: yes.

5347
03:09:51,187 --> 03:09:52,222
>> for c, that would be

5348
03:09:52,222 --> 03:09:54,560
disqualification for holding

5349
03:09:54,560 --> 03:09:56,250
further office with the city

5350
03:09:56,250 --> 03:09:57,494
for two years, that will be

5351
03:09:57,494 --> 03:09:59,494
two votes.

5352
03:09:59,662 --> 03:10:00,830
>> Paxson: I will let the

5353
03:10:00,830 --> 03:10:02,899
record show that was our

5354
03:10:02,899 --> 03:10:05,568
second item, where it says

5355
03:10:05,568 --> 03:10:08,471
ab and c, on charge one, c,

5356
03:10:08,471 --> 03:10:10,871
we interpret as actually

5357
03:10:11,107 --> 03:10:13,443
being a provision under a,

5358
03:10:13,443 --> 03:10:16,130
and so we would strike c,

5359
03:10:16,130 --> 03:10:18,214
and it would be a, b, and

5360
03:10:18,214 --> 03:10:20,350
then the final option.

5361
03:10:20,350 --> 03:10:21,351
>> okay, because c, as I

5362
03:10:21,351 --> 03:10:23,751
understood it, would have

5363
03:10:25,622 --> 03:10:28,224
been a reprimand option to

5364
03:10:28,224 --> 03:10:28,826
say you can't run for

5365
03:10:28,826 --> 03:10:30,660
further office.

5366
03:10:30,660 --> 03:10:32,295
In other words, you would be

5367
03:10:32,295 --> 03:10:33,930
ineligible from running next

5368
03:10:33,930 --> 03:10:36,330
cycle as a reprimand.

5369
03:10:36,330 --> 03:10:37,667
Not that it's the same -- I

5370
03:10:37,667 --> 03:10:38,335
don't think it's the same as

5371
03:10:38,335 --> 03:10:40,335
removed from office.

5372
03:10:40,570 --> 03:10:41,706
>> Paxson: we interpreted

5373
03:10:41,706 --> 03:10:43,641
through the charter that

5374
03:10:43,641 --> 03:10:45,442
that language was one of the

5375
03:10:45,442 --> 03:10:47,177
options was a removal from

5376
03:10:47,177 --> 03:10:49,577
office, which would result

5377
03:10:49,713 --> 03:10:51,215
in a time frame of

5378
03:10:51,215 --> 03:10:52,783
ineligibility to run.

5379
03:10:52,783 --> 03:10:55,183
Another option would be

5380
03:10:55,486 --> 03:10:57,454
suspension, up to 30 days.

5381
03:10:57,454 --> 03:10:57,722
Another option would be a

5382
03:10:57,722 --> 03:10:59,722
reprimand.

5383
03:11:00,900 --> 03:11:00,958
>> and did you get advice

5384
03:11:00,958 --> 03:11:01,826
from the city attorney on

5385
03:11:01,826 --> 03:11:03,360
whether or not there was an

5386
03:11:03,360 --> 03:11:05,760
option for a reprimand?

5387
03:11:06,330 --> 03:11:08,660
>> Paxson: we did.

5388
03:11:08,660 --> 03:11:09,100
MS. Lisa, could you advise

5389
03:11:09,100 --> 03:11:11,100
on that distinction?

5390
03:11:12,703 --> 03:11:15,103
>> the charter provides for

5391
03:11:19,243 --> 03:11:21,130
the -- the council has the

5392
03:11:21,130 --> 03:11:21,979
authority to reprimand or

5393
03:11:21,979 --> 03:11:23,915
suspend a member for a

5394
03:11:23,915 --> 03:11:26,840
period of not more than 30

5395
03:11:26,840 --> 03:11:26,351
days if removal is not

5396
03:11:26,351 --> 03:11:28,120
warranted.

5397
03:11:28,120 --> 03:11:30,520
>> under that charter, would

5398
03:11:31,156 --> 03:11:32,724
an available remedy be a

5399
03:11:32,724 --> 03:11:33,959
reprimand where you were not

5400
03:11:33,959 --> 03:11:34,793
eligible in the next cycle?

5401
03:11:34,793 --> 03:11:36,527
>> no.

5402
03:11:36,527 --> 03:11:37,362
>> okay, that's what I

5403
03:11:37,362 --> 03:11:39,197
wanted --

5404
03:11:39,197 --> 03:11:41,166
>> that section is sub

5405
03:11:41,166 --> 03:11:42,901
section e, which says a

5406
03:11:42,901 --> 03:11:44,337
member who is removed from

5407
03:11:44,337 --> 03:11:45,771
office, whether pursuant to

5408
03:11:45,771 --> 03:11:47,506
this section by recall or

5409
03:11:47,506 --> 03:11:49,906
other legal proceeding or

5410
03:11:50,142 --> 03:11:52,210
who resigns after any such

5411
03:11:52,210 --> 03:11:53,712
proceeding has been

5412
03:11:53,712 --> 03:11:55,948
initiated not be eligible to

5413
03:11:55,948 --> 03:11:57,417
be appointed to or run as a

5414
03:11:57,417 --> 03:11:59,218
daintd for city office for

5415
03:11:59,218 --> 03:12:00,252
two years from the date of

5416
03:12:00,252 --> 03:12:00,553
removal, recall or

5417
03:12:00,553 --> 03:12:02,553
resignation.

5418
03:12:03,388 --> 03:12:04,356
>> when I was trying to

5419
03:12:04,356 --> 03:12:06,459
clarify, could you not

5420
03:12:06,459 --> 03:12:08,628
remove but still make them

5421
03:12:08,628 --> 03:12:09,261
ineligible as a reprimand.

5422
03:12:09,261 --> 03:12:11,261
>> Paxson: no.

5423
03:12:11,730 --> 03:12:13,532
>> okay, that's what I

5424
03:12:13,532 --> 03:12:14,967
wanted to clarify.

5425
03:12:14,967 --> 03:12:16,336
>> Paxson: okay, then

5426
03:12:16,336 --> 03:12:17,770
last, the options for the

5427
03:12:17,770 --> 03:12:20,170
three different charges, use

5428
03:12:20,339 --> 03:12:21,541
the word censured, we would

5429
03:12:21,541 --> 03:12:23,709
revert back to the charter

5430
03:12:23,709 --> 03:12:25,709
that says reprimand.

5431
03:12:32,485 --> 03:12:34,485
>> ah, okay.

5432
03:12:35,789 --> 03:12:37,789
>> Paxson: okay, thank

5433
03:12:38,959 --> 03:12:40,959
you.

5434
03:12:41,995 --> 03:12:42,195
Any other questions on

5435
03:12:42,195 --> 03:12:44,195
that?

5436
03:12:45,532 --> 03:12:45,732
>> none.

5437
03:12:45,732 --> 03:12:47,301
Okay.

5438
03:12:47,301 --> 03:12:48,902
>> Paxson: we will again

5439
03:12:48,902 --> 03:12:50,304
as I stated earlier, we'll

5440
03:12:50,304 --> 03:12:51,710
go over each of the charges

5441
03:12:51,710 --> 03:12:53,506
and determine whether or not

5442
03:12:53,506 --> 03:12:56,506
those are determined or will

5443
03:12:56,643 --> 03:13:00,243
stand, and then we will do

5444
03:13:02,115 --> 03:13:04,552
vote on the remedy for each

5445
03:13:04,552 --> 03:13:06,952
of those in sequence

5446
03:13:08,155 --> 03:13:09,790
afterwards.

5447
03:13:09,790 --> 03:13:12,190
Mayor and council, on

5448
03:13:12,192 --> 03:13:14,161
question one, did paulette

5449
03:13:14,161 --> 03:13:15,696
guajardo engage in any

5450
03:13:15,696 --> 03:13:16,498
misconduct, malfeasance or

5451
03:13:16,498 --> 03:13:17,899
willful neglect in

5452
03:13:17,899 --> 03:13:18,966
performance of her official

5453
03:13:18,966 --> 03:13:20,702
duties by aiding a fraud

5454
03:13:20,702 --> 03:13:22,403
upon the taxpayers of the

5455
03:13:22,403 --> 03:13:24,672
city of corpus christi,

5456
03:13:24,672 --> 03:13:27,672
related to the alleged need

5457
03:13:27,841 --> 03:13:29,577
for complies with newly

5458
03:13:29,577 --> 03:13:31,977
defined fema flood maps

5459
03:13:32,246 --> 03:13:32,547
and/or altered fema screen

5460
03:13:32,547 --> 03:13:33,848
shot?

5461
03:13:33,848 --> 03:13:36,848
And if you would please

5462
03:13:49,297 --> 03:13:50,264
submit your vote on that.

5463
03:13:50,264 --> 03:13:52,264
Okay.

5464
03:13:54,869 --> 03:13:55,870
So that's five to one.

5465
03:13:55,870 --> 03:13:57,605
Okay.

5466
03:13:57,605 --> 03:13:59,807
The second question, we're

5467
03:13:59,807 --> 03:14:01,444
ready.

5468
03:14:01,444 --> 03:14:02,911
Did paulette guajardo while

5469
03:14:02,911 --> 03:14:05,311
testifying in her official

5470
03:14:06,181 --> 03:14:08,581
capacity as mayor per

5471
03:14:10,786 --> 03:14:11,320
perjure herself on

5472
03:14:11,320 --> 03:14:12,688
AUGUST 26, 2025.

5473
03:14:12,688 --> 03:14:13,822
What you're telling me is

5474
03:14:13,822 --> 03:14:15,424
during that time frame you

5475
03:14:15,424 --> 03:14:17,590
were not in the loop as to

5476
03:14:17,590 --> 03:14:17,826
what findings were for that

5477
03:14:17,826 --> 03:14:18,694
investigation.

5478
03:14:18,694 --> 03:14:19,995
Answer correct.

5479
03:14:19,995 --> 03:14:21,196
Question, so therefore had

5480
03:14:21,196 --> 03:14:22,397
you no knowledge it was

5481
03:14:22,397 --> 03:14:24,320
something inlegal in the

5482
03:14:24,320 --> 03:14:25,167
process you were voting on.

5483
03:14:25,167 --> 03:14:26,902
Answer, right.

5484
03:14:26,902 --> 03:14:28,902
And thereby commit

5485
03:14:29,204 --> 03:14:30,306
misconduct, malfeasance,

5486
03:14:30,306 --> 03:14:31,407
incompetence, inability or

5487
03:14:31,407 --> 03:14:32,841
willful neglect of

5488
03:14:32,841 --> 03:14:34,430
performance of her official

5489
03:14:34,430 --> 03:14:34,743
duties.

5490
03:14:34,743 --> 03:14:36,743
Councilmembers, please

5491
03:14:52,461 --> 03:14:54,461
vote.

5492
03:14:55,398 --> 03:14:57,600
Okay, so that is five-one in

5493
03:14:57,600 --> 03:14:59,600
favor.

5494
03:15:00,360 --> 03:15:02,436
The last question, question

5495
03:15:02,739 --> 03:15:05,740
three is the paulette

5496
03:15:05,740 --> 03:15:06,375
guajardo commit misconduct,

5497
03:15:06,375 --> 03:15:08,110
malfeasance, incompetence,

5498
03:15:08,110 --> 03:15:09,345
or inability or willful

5499
03:15:09,345 --> 03:15:10,981
neglect of performance of

5500
03:15:10,981 --> 03:15:11,848
her official duties by

5501
03:15:11,848 --> 03:15:14,248
failing to hold all

5502
03:15:15,251 --> 03:15:17,251
information received from

5503
03:15:18,422 --> 03:15:19,623
ccredc activities strictly

5504
03:15:19,623 --> 03:15:20,690
confidential.

5505
03:15:20,690 --> 03:15:23,690
And you vote on that,

5506
03:15:35,272 --> 03:15:37,272
please.

5507
03:15:45,549 --> 03:15:46,317
Okay, so that's 4-2.

5508
03:15:46,317 --> 03:15:48,317
Okay.

5509
03:15:50,120 --> 03:15:51,688
So mayor pro tem, at this

5510
03:15:51,688 --> 03:15:52,557
point we're going to go

5511
03:15:52,557 --> 03:15:54,959
to -- back to question one

5512
03:15:54,959 --> 03:15:57,261
and determine the penalty

5513
03:15:57,261 --> 03:16:00,231
for that -- for that

5514
03:16:00,231 --> 03:16:02,231
question.

5515
03:16:03,835 --> 03:16:04,835
>> Paxson: and so do we

5516
03:16:04,835 --> 03:16:05,803
all understand how that

5517
03:16:05,803 --> 03:16:07,438
voting will take place

5518
03:16:07,438 --> 03:16:09,740
according to the sequence

5519
03:16:09,740 --> 03:16:10,509
listed we'll vote each item

5520
03:16:10,509 --> 03:16:11,910
in order.

5521
03:16:11,910 --> 03:16:13,910
So question one.

5522
03:16:15,646 --> 03:16:16,982
>> question one is one a is

5523
03:16:16,982 --> 03:16:19,382
paulette guajardo is hereby

5524
03:16:24,289 --> 03:16:26,289
removed from office.

5525
03:16:27,926 --> 03:16:29,494
Yes, question one, the first

5526
03:16:29,494 --> 03:16:32,494
penalty, could vote on that,

5527
03:16:39,137 --> 03:16:40,172
please.

5528
03:16:40,172 --> 03:16:42,172
Okay.

5529
03:16:42,475 --> 03:16:45,475
So that would require five

5530
03:16:45,777 --> 03:16:46,411
votes to pass, so that one

5531
03:16:46,411 --> 03:16:48,281
fails.

5532
03:16:48,281 --> 03:16:51,281
Next is paulette guajardo is

5533
03:16:53,850 --> 03:16:53,852
hereby suspended from office

5534
03:16:53,852 --> 03:16:55,821
four, and stipulate the

5535
03:16:55,821 --> 03:16:59,421
number of days if you were

5536
03:17:01,227 --> 03:17:02,494
interested in that option.

5537
03:17:02,494 --> 03:17:03,696
>> I'm sorry.

5538
03:17:03,696 --> 03:17:05,464
Should we make a motion to

5539
03:17:05,464 --> 03:17:06,265
determine the days before

5540
03:17:06,265 --> 03:17:08,665
voting, I would imagine.

5541
03:17:09,680 --> 03:17:10,569
>> yes, I would, so that's

5542
03:17:10,569 --> 03:17:12,271
there and we'll vote on it.

5543
03:17:12,271 --> 03:17:14,273
>> Paxson: do we have a

5544
03:17:14,273 --> 03:17:15,574
motion to suggest?

5545
03:17:15,574 --> 03:17:16,909
>> 30 days.

5546
03:17:16,909 --> 03:17:18,612
>> Paxson: we have a

5547
03:17:18,612 --> 03:17:20,279
motion and a second for 30

5548
03:17:20,279 --> 03:17:22,279
days.

5549
03:17:24,160 --> 03:17:24,617
i think that's what she's

5550
03:17:24,617 --> 03:17:26,617
queuing up.

5551
03:17:26,852 --> 03:17:27,721
>> okay, I think she can --

5552
03:17:27,721 --> 03:17:29,721
okay, it's ready.

5553
03:17:30,560 --> 03:17:31,657
If you would like to do 30

5554
03:17:31,657 --> 03:17:34,657
days, it will reflect that

5555
03:17:49,309 --> 03:17:51,309
on your screens.

5556
03:17:53,246 --> 03:17:54,548
Okay, so that is 5-1.

5557
03:17:54,548 --> 03:17:56,948
So that one passes.

5558
03:17:58,510 --> 03:17:59,252
So that makes d, c moot, so

5559
03:17:59,252 --> 03:18:01,321
we'll move on to the next

5560
03:18:01,321 --> 03:18:03,321
one.

5561
03:18:06,827 --> 03:18:09,227
And that's question two.

5562
03:18:09,530 --> 03:18:10,998
And the first one is removal

5563
03:18:10,998 --> 03:18:13,398
from office on question

5564
03:18:40,295 --> 03:18:42,295
two.

5565
03:18:42,697 --> 03:18:44,465
Okay, so that is 4-2, so

5566
03:18:44,465 --> 03:18:46,100
that requires five votes, so

5567
03:18:46,100 --> 03:18:46,668
that fails.

5568
03:18:46,668 --> 03:18:48,303
Okay.

5569
03:18:48,303 --> 03:18:51,272
Next is paulette guajardo is

5570
03:18:51,272 --> 03:18:53,542
hereby suspended from office

5571
03:18:53,542 --> 03:18:54,542
for, and if you're

5572
03:18:54,542 --> 03:18:55,610
interested in that option,

5573
03:18:55,610 --> 03:18:55,810
we would need the number of

5574
03:18:55,810 --> 03:18:57,810
days.

5575
03:18:59,140 --> 03:19:00,982
>> I think since the first

5576
03:19:00,982 --> 03:19:02,417
one -- con kurt.

5577
03:19:02,417 --> 03:19:04,953
>> yeah, we can move to the

5578
03:19:04,953 --> 03:19:05,287
next options under that

5579
03:19:05,287 --> 03:19:06,389
one.

5580
03:19:06,389 --> 03:19:07,590
I'm sorry?

5581
03:19:07,590 --> 03:19:07,823
[Indistinct chatter]

5582
03:19:07,823 --> 03:19:08,890
Okay.

5583
03:19:08,890 --> 03:19:10,458
We can --

5584
03:19:10,458 --> 03:19:12,294
>> you want to vote on

5585
03:19:12,294 --> 03:19:13,462
suspension for this charge?

5586
03:19:13,462 --> 03:19:16,462
All right. And the number

5587
03:19:19,768 --> 03:19:21,704
of days?

5588
03:19:21,704 --> 03:19:23,500
>> Paxson: motion for 30

5589
03:19:23,500 --> 03:19:24,440
days, do I have a second,

5590
03:19:24,440 --> 03:19:26,875
all in favor -- I'm sorry,

5591
03:19:26,875 --> 03:19:29,875
you're going to pull the

5592
03:19:45,461 --> 03:19:46,796
vote off...

5593
03:19:46,796 --> 03:19:48,298
Okay.

5594
03:19:48,298 --> 03:19:50,298
So no.

5595
03:19:52,469 --> 03:19:54,469
That fails 4-2.

5596
03:19:55,305 --> 03:19:55,472
And then we would go --

5597
03:19:55,472 --> 03:19:57,306
yes.

5598
03:19:57,306 --> 03:19:59,375
>> okay, the last one is

5599
03:19:59,375 --> 03:20:00,143
paulette guajardo is hereby

5600
03:20:00,143 --> 03:20:01,712
reprimanded for conduct

5601
03:20:01,712 --> 03:20:04,112
beneath the office of

5602
03:20:20,830 --> 03:20:22,830
mayor.

5603
03:20:26,837 --> 03:20:27,938
Okay, so that passes 5-1.

5604
03:20:27,938 --> 03:20:29,938
Okay.

5605
03:20:33,778 --> 03:20:36,146
And then on question 3,

5606
03:20:36,146 --> 03:20:37,381
question 3 (A), or e, it

5607
03:20:37,381 --> 03:20:39,781
says on here, paulette

5608
03:20:39,984 --> 03:20:40,651
guajardo is hereby removed

5609
03:20:40,651 --> 03:20:42,651
from office.

5610
03:20:42,854 --> 03:20:44,854
>> it's my understanding

5611
03:20:46,323 --> 03:20:49,923
that one has already been a

5612
03:20:50,895 --> 03:20:52,230
4-2 so --

5613
03:20:52,230 --> 03:20:54,230
>> Paxson: I'm sorry.

5614
03:20:56,901 --> 03:20:57,368
Could you review the vote on

5615
03:20:57,368 --> 03:20:59,368
3.

5616
03:21:00,204 --> 03:21:00,471
It was 4-2 so the charge

5617
03:21:00,471 --> 03:21:02,440
prevailed.

5618
03:21:02,440 --> 03:21:02,641
>> yes, the question is four

5619
03:21:02,641 --> 03:21:04,276
votes.

5620
03:21:04,276 --> 03:21:05,177
>> Paxson: now we'll go

5621
03:21:05,177 --> 03:21:06,878
over each.

5622
03:21:06,878 --> 03:21:07,780
Is there further question on

5623
03:21:07,780 --> 03:21:08,713
that.

5624
03:21:08,713 --> 03:21:08,914
>> yes, does that make

5625
03:21:08,914 --> 03:21:10,914
sense.

5626
03:21:11,182 --> 03:21:13,151
>> I would object to the

5627
03:21:13,151 --> 03:21:14,686
removal portion under e,

5628
03:21:14,686 --> 03:21:15,887
because that would require

5629
03:21:15,887 --> 03:21:18,356
five on the yes, so that's

5630
03:21:18,356 --> 03:21:20,756
the only reason --

5631
03:21:20,826 --> 03:21:22,794
>> well, the question, we

5632
03:21:22,794 --> 03:21:23,762
didn't vote on removal for

5633
03:21:23,762 --> 03:21:25,762
this particular charge.

5634
03:21:26,731 --> 03:21:27,399
Am I not understanding so

5635
03:21:27,399 --> 03:21:29,399
...

5636
03:21:31,269 --> 03:21:33,269
>> the predicate question

5637
03:21:34,273 --> 03:21:37,420
which would be for -- if

5638
03:21:37,420 --> 03:21:39,311
ewas selected under this

5639
03:21:39,311 --> 03:21:40,790
predicate question, the

5640
03:21:40,790 --> 03:21:41,546
predicate question would

5641
03:21:41,546 --> 03:21:42,715
also have to have five votes

5642
03:21:42,715 --> 03:21:44,683
because it would be a vote

5643
03:21:44,683 --> 03:21:46,218
for removal under question

5644
03:21:46,218 --> 03:21:49,550
three, so under the charter,

5645
03:21:49,550 --> 03:21:51,455
you couldn't have a

5646
03:21:55,428 --> 03:21:56,495
predicate question of -- on

5647
03:21:56,495 --> 03:21:57,931
question 3 being four votes

5648
03:21:57,931 --> 03:21:58,797
and removal five votes,

5649
03:21:58,797 --> 03:22:00,533
because the underlying

5650
03:22:00,533 --> 03:22:03,402
conduct is not decided to be

5651
03:22:03,402 --> 03:22:03,669
subject to removal,

5652
03:22:03,669 --> 03:22:05,669
simply --

5653
03:22:06,673 --> 03:22:07,873
>> we're going off what our

5654
03:22:07,873 --> 03:22:10,273
city attorney add is

5655
03:22:11,760 --> 03:22:12,812
advised

5656
03:22:12,812 --> 03:22:14,247
for that, the actual removal

5657
03:22:14,247 --> 03:22:15,140
when we vote on that

5658
03:22:15,140 --> 03:22:16,449
penalty, that penalty

5659
03:22:16,449 --> 03:22:18,500
requires five votes, that's

5660
03:22:18,500 --> 03:22:18,852
what we were advised.

5661
03:22:18,852 --> 03:22:20,487
>> Allison: I think we

5662
03:22:20,487 --> 03:22:22,540
kind of see what probably is

5663
03:22:22,540 --> 03:22:23,689
going on there, but I think

5664
03:22:23,689 --> 03:22:25,559
the vote is appropriate.

5665
03:22:25,559 --> 03:22:27,127
>> Paxson: okay.

5666
03:22:27,127 --> 03:22:28,610
Is that all right with

5667
03:22:28,610 --> 03:22:30,610
everyone?

5668
03:22:30,697 --> 03:22:33,970
So it's MR. Flood.

5669
03:22:33,233 --> 03:22:34,768
>> Flood: I'm not sure the

5670
03:22:34,768 --> 03:22:37,168
proper procedure here, with

5671
03:22:37,471 --> 03:22:39,339
but I think my issue was

5672
03:22:39,339 --> 03:22:39,606
addressed, I wanted to point

5673
03:22:39,606 --> 03:22:41,207
that out.

5674
03:22:41,207 --> 03:22:42,750
>> Paxson: yes, sir, we

5675
03:22:42,750 --> 03:22:43,610
did check with the city

5676
03:22:43,610 --> 03:22:44,177
attorney on these, in room

5677
03:22:44,177 --> 03:22:46,177
city attorney.

5678
03:22:51,184 --> 03:22:52,185
So on question 3 (E),

5679
03:22:52,185 --> 03:22:55,785
removal of the mayor on that

5680
03:23:07,635 --> 03:23:09,470
charge.

5681
03:23:09,470 --> 03:23:11,470
Okay.

5682
03:23:12,774 --> 03:23:14,175
So that fails.

5683
03:23:14,175 --> 03:23:16,175
Okay.

5684
03:23:16,244 --> 03:23:17,245
Next is paulette guajardo is

5685
03:23:17,245 --> 03:23:19,245
hereby suspended from

5686
03:23:19,714 --> 03:23:22,114
office, and looks like 30

5687
03:23:25,119 --> 03:23:26,688
days is what would be

5688
03:23:26,688 --> 03:23:28,189
working with.

5689
03:23:28,189 --> 03:23:29,390
>> I'm so sorry to

5690
03:23:29,390 --> 03:23:31,790
interrupt, but could I

5691
03:23:31,792 --> 03:23:33,328
just -- I just realized,

5692
03:23:33,328 --> 03:23:35,129
could I ask media to be in

5693
03:23:35,129 --> 03:23:38,129
media box, I'm so sorry.

5694
03:23:38,266 --> 03:23:38,601
Thank you.

5695
03:23:38,601 --> 03:23:40,601
Proceed.

5696
03:23:45,641 --> 03:23:47,641
Thank you.

5697
03:23:48,343 --> 03:23:50,743
>> we've been doing 30 days,

5698
03:23:50,745 --> 03:23:53,145
is 30 days by affirmation,

5699
03:23:54,682 --> 03:23:57,682
is that acclamation, is that

5700
03:24:10,533 --> 03:24:12,533
okay?

5701
03:24:14,436 --> 03:24:16,472
Okay, so that fails.

5702
03:24:16,472 --> 03:24:17,874
So the last option is

5703
03:24:17,874 --> 03:24:19,207
paulette guajardo is hereby

5704
03:24:19,207 --> 03:24:21,207
reprimanded for conduct

5705
03:24:21,410 --> 03:24:23,810
beneath the office of

5706
03:24:58,115 --> 03:24:58,615
mayor.

5707
03:24:58,615 --> 03:25:00,615
Okay.

5708
03:25:02,180 --> 03:25:05,618
So that is tied, so that

5709
03:25:05,923 --> 03:25:07,557
fails.

5710
03:25:07,557 --> 03:25:07,790
Okay, and was that all

5711
03:25:07,790 --> 03:25:08,992
three?

5712
03:25:08,992 --> 03:25:10,194
That was all three.

5713
03:25:10,194 --> 03:25:12,296
>> yes, ma'am, there are

5714
03:25:12,296 --> 03:25:14,696
just three, yes, ma'am.

5715
03:25:18,680 --> 03:25:20,680
>> Paxson: okay.

5716
03:25:20,705 --> 03:25:22,239
Then -- MR. Shamsie, is

5717
03:25:22,239 --> 03:25:24,775
there -- seeing no further

5718
03:25:24,775 --> 03:25:27,175
business, this meeting is