>> Paxson: good morning,
everyone.
As mayor pro tem, I call this
meeting to order.
MS. Rebecca, if you can take
roll, please?
[Roll call]
>> Huerta: mayor pro tem and
council, a quorum of the council
and the required charter
officers are present to conduct
the meeting.
>> Paxson: thank you.
At this time, I would like to go
to our next item, which is
public comment.
Public comment will be limited
to one minute per speaker this
morning.
And first we have samuel friar.
>> good morning.
Samuel andre friar.
I just wanted to say I'm neither
here to support the mayor nor am
I here to support those who have
filed the petition.
I'm actually here for one thing,
and that's to encourage the
tribunal to be forthright,
truthful, unbiased, and carry
those procedures in a way
without any ulterior motives.
The good thing is we're doing
this so we can possibly get
things on record.
That's the good thing.
Regardless of the outcome, that
is a very good thing.
I wanted to say one thing, in
the bible, in proverbs 18:17 it
says the first one to plead his
cause seems right until his
neighbor comes and examines
him.
Keep that in mind and I pray we
will do the right thing when it
comes to this.
Thank you.
>> Paxson: thank you.
Melinda de la santos.
>> good morning.
Melinda de la santos, district
2.
I was determined to keep an open
mind until I heard the evidence
on both sides.
However, I didn't think I was
going to hear much evidence
yesterday.
No disrespect, from flood, but
you pulled a DR. Fauci on me.
However, after hearing the
evidence, I was wondering is
there such a thing as a rico
ruling for malfeasance,
incompetence, and willful
neglect?
Throughout this whole process,
from the beginning of this
application all the way to the
signed contract, this appears to
be red flags everywhere.
Just to name a few, you know,
requesting for funds for new
fema requirements.
Disappearance of dates from
screenshots.
Significant disparities of money
granted between agencies.
Fema requirements versus
street-level activation.
Contracts signed before the
second reading of city council.
The four turned into a one.
And the verbiage of the second
reading differing from the
first.
All I'm asking is for truth and
transparency.
Thank you.
>> Paxson: thank you.
Kathy fulton.
>> hi.
My name is kathy fulton.
I'm from port aransas, texas.
I want to say one thing, port
aransas and all the surrounding
communities are affected by what
happens in the city of corpus
christi.
and this matters to us too.
Okay?
It really does.
Because your actions impact your
surrounding communities.
And I just want to say that the
poll that was online with kris
news says 70 -- I think it's 72
or 74% of the people aren't
supporting this.
Don't want this.
Only 14% are supporting or say
that this should finish
happening.
I want you to think about that.
Those are your voters.
You know, 74% of your voters are
saying don't do this.
And I think you need to be
paying attention.
Thank you.
>> Paxson: thank you.
Sean merritt.
>> I'm a little sad.
I brought a gift for the hitman
journalist.
So he needs it.
We'll leave that there for him.
Just as soap cleans the body,
tribunal, it is your job to
clean the politics.
This is not corrupt us christi.
If you take the head of the
snake, the body will follow.
Don't let MR. Flood use his 50
days to call 50 more witnesses
and keep us here until the
election.
She'll steal it just like she
did with michael hunter.
Now, that's all I got to say.
I wanted to finish from
yesterday.
Please make sure your minion
gets that.
He smells very bad.
Have a good day.
>> Paxson: thank you.
MS. Rebecca, do we have any
other commenters?
>> Huerta: no, ma'am.
>> Paxson: that would conclude
our public comment.
We will have announcements from
the parties.
First from the legal counsel for
the petitioners and then the
legal counsel for the mayor.
MR. Allison, are you ready to
proceed?
>> Allison: ready.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood?
>> Flood: yes, ready.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood, you can
call your next witness.
>> Flood: respondent calls
council member sylvia campos.
>> Allison: we have an
objection to that, when it's
timely.
At this time, we would object
to calling any councilperson
that is actively serving as a
judge.
Judges -- I mean, quite frankly
if you were in a real courtroom
over in nueces county court or
anywhere in the state of texas,
if you tried to call a judge
from the bench, which is
essentially what they're trying
to do, then that would just be
immediately denied.
There's actually texas case law
out there that says that if a
judge gets on a witness stand
and testifies, just by doing so,
by acting what MAY be perceived
as their own interests, they
automatically disqualify
themselves.
So just the act of getting on
the stand and testifying and
saying anything that might be
perceived as being in your
interest as opposed to the
interest of the person asking
the questions can be construed
under texas law as a reason for
an automatic disqualification.
that's the law in the state of
texas and that's the law in the
state of texas because we don't
let judges step off the bench
and testify.
Specifically, that's also under
rules -- I think 605 in the
federal rules.
It is expressly disallowed and
this tribunal has not adopted
that rule.
But it still offers good
guidance to us in that it very
clearly articulates that a judge
cannot be called as a witness.
Period.
Furthermore, it should not be
allowed because even if you are
witnesses -- and by that I just
mean if you have facts back to
the date and time when some of
these incidents made the subject
of the impeachment occurred,
even if you have some of those
facts, the best evidence of
those facts is actually looking
at the video of what you did.
It's all recorded.
Looking at the video of what you
said.
Looking at the video of your
reasons for whatever you
reasoned or articulated, a lot
of which has already been
played.
So the best evidence of what you
did and why you did it at the
time is recorded.
Finally, the reason to do it is
that there is not any showing
whatsoever that any of you have
unique knowledge, including
MS. Campos, the one he just
called, have any unique
knowledge of any of the facts of
the case that are not either
already in evidence or can be
spoken to by a different witness
who is not sitting as a judge.
In other words, why would you
put a sitting judge on the stand
when you can get the testimony
from other witnesses?
And they've not met their burden
to show that there are no other
witnesses that can be called in
order to address the issues.
For example, if they want to
talk to you about your
discussions with somebody else,
they can call that somebody
else, unless of course it's a
sitting judge.
That's another reason is because
there's a lot of judicial
authority out there that says
when you can go get the
testimony from another witness,
you should go that route.
Here you can do that, whether
it's calling peter zanoni,
whether it's looking at the
video, whether it's looking at
what you said at other
meetings.
All of that's been put in the
record.
It's already there.
That really leads me to my last
point, which is because there's
no need to call you as a
witness, any of you, and because
there is available information
from other sources, what it
really boils down to -- and we
know this -- they've been
stressing it, mayor's counsel
has been stressing it from the
beginning.
What they're really trying to do
is force a square peg in a
wooden hole.
They're trying to pound it in
there.
Because they want to take the
position that somehow you're
witnesses so you can't be fair.
That's an issue that's gone
before the federal judge and the
federal judge already denied
that request for a temporary
restraining order, based on that
ground.
Then they tried again with the
federal judge asking for what we
call a preliminary injunction.
And the federal court denied
that request for preliminary
injunction.
And then they tried to get what
they call a permanent
injunction.
And the federal judge dismissed
their lawsuit.
And then they appealed it to the
federal court, the united states
fifth district court of
appeals.
They appealed it to the U.S.
Fifth district court of appeals
and asked on the same reason,
the same basis that we're
talking about now, they said,
well, you all, this group cannot
be the judges.
And therefore, stopped these
proceedings as
unconstitutional.
But instead the fifth circuit
court of appeals said, no.
Thereby clearly giving their
blessing that these proceedings
are constitutional and that we
should follow accordingly.
So, this argument that they're
making is one that has been
rejected over and over and over
again.
And you might recall, last time
when they called COUNCILMAN Roy,
they said that -- and I don't
know if this is true or not
under the case law.
They said they had an obligation
to -- their words -- try.
They said they had an obligation
to make an attempt.
And that they're doing that,
calling you as witnesses to try
or attempt having you be
witnesses as a means to, what
they think is, preserving error
for some subsequent lawsuit they
want to file in order to, again,
just like they did in federal
court.
They're going to again try to
find these proceedings
unconstitutional.
So it's really just, in that
sense, they're really just more
of a ruse to -- and this goes
back to all of the arguments.
The reason, under the federal
rules and the reason under the
other case law that we don't
allow judges to be called as
witnesses is because it really
is a way to -- if you allowed
that, every criminal defendant
would stand up during a trial
and say I want to call you,
judge, as a witness.
It would just destroy the
decorum of the court if you let
the judge step off the bench and
step on to the witness stand.
It would destroy the integrity
of the process if you let the
judges move from the bench to
the witness stand.
Because, again, the minute the
judge says something that
upholds the integrity of the
process or talks about facts
known in the background or the
history of the process, all of a
sudden -- you know how we
lawyers are.
They're going to start asking
pointed questions.
They're going to infer things.
They're going to say things.
They're going to attack the
judge's credibility and the
judge says something honest in
defense of their credibility and
their stance is committed to
unbiased rulings.
It is just a way to destroy the
integrity of the process.
And that's what they're trying
to do, okay?
So there are multiple reasons
really supported by federal
rules, by texas case law, by
also the history of the case.
The judge has already made
rulings that you MAY be the
judges and you MAY proceed.
And once that ruling is made, we
have to protect the integrity of
the process and not allow it to
be the ruse they want it to be,
which is a witch hunt on you
guys.
Rather than focus on the
impeachment and the issues
relating to the impeachment of
the mayor.
For all of those reasons, we
would respectfully request that
the objection I'm now making be
sustained and that if needed
that there be a motion to
sustain the objection and that
it be granted.
Thank you.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood.
>> Flood: a judge who is a
fact witness or has a bias is
required under texas and federal
law to recuse and disqualify
themselves.
So without motion.
COUNCILMAN Barrera and
COUNCILMAN Roy recused
themselves for that very
reason.
That being they are fact
witnesses.
A material fact witness, I'm
calling COUNCILWOMAN Campos
because she is a material fact
witness.
I'm also calling her to elicit
bias testimony.
The questions I would ask her
about the facts that she brought
with her into this proceeding
are those that are unique to
her.
And so I would have to ask her
about any sort of receipt of
confidential edc information
that she might have received
prior to this proceeding.
And the reasoning and knowledge
that she had outside of the
FEBRUARY 20 meeting.
The reasoning and knowledge that
she had outside of the APRIL 23
meeting.
Her reasoning and knowledge
outside of the meetings on the
first reading and the second
reading.
For any reasons outside of what
was stated within the meetings.
I would ask her about her
communication with petitioners
and their counsel.
About the allegations in the
articles.
There is testimony already in
the record that she privately
met with philip ramirez in a
phone call.
He testified about that.
And that was before the APRIL 23
vote.
I could go on.
I'm willing to make a proffer --
or I will make a proffer, if I'm
not able to ask the witness.
But I could -- there's much more
that I will make as part of my
proffer that the fact is that
she is a fact witness, just like
MR. Barrera and MR. Roy.
Both of whom were deposed by
MR. David's counsel in the
parallel david litigation that
contains the same allegations.
They were both listed as
witnesses.
The fact that MS. Campos was
chosen not to be deposed doesn't
mean she was not a fact witness
in that case and in this case.
for the same reasons MR. Barrera
and MR. Roy were.
I am entitled to ask her her
state of mind when she voted to
retain outside counsel, daniel
rey.
When she voted to investigate
the allegations.
Any bias or prejudgment she had
formed at those stages.
Any -- the authorization of
public funds for the
investigation, which we have
heard were -- from council
member cantu and councilmember
vaughn in the JANUARY meeting
were for investigation of the
mayor and other council members
, according to statements by
council members in that
meeting.
I would offer evidence regarding
her private conversations with
the mayor regarding this
proceeding, which are obviously
relevant facts.
There was a MARCH 24 meeting in
this chamber about advancing the
articles of impeachment where
MS. Campos made statements
indicating that she sees this
proceeding as the only way to
address conduct by MR. Ramirez.
And so I would intend to ask her
questions about those beliefs
that she brought with her to
this trial.
That started on JULY 22nd.
And then I would also ask her
about beliefs that she stated on
MARCH 24th that pre-judge the
mayor where she states that she
believes the mayor, quote,
should be sanctioned, end quote,
which is a statement made prior
to the beginning of this
proceeding.
So I would disagree with the
argument that she is not a
material fact witness in this
case.
And I would disagree that I'm
not entitled to ask her
questions about her bias.
The fact that the -- two federal
courts elected to allow this
proceeding to go forward does
not mean that the record is not
allowed to be made in this
proceeding regarding the very
graviman.
It's still there and I'm
entitled to make my record in
that regard.
And that is what I intend to do
and I ask COUNCILWOMAN Campos to
take the stand.
>> Paxson: thank you,
MR. Flood.
I'm going to call for a motion
to either disallow the testimony
or grant the objection.
>> Allison: that would be the
same thing, just so we're
careful on wording.
>> Paxson: thank you.
Motion to sustain the objection
and a second.
All in favor say aye.
>> [Chorus of ayes]
>> Paxson: any opposed say
nay.
>> Scott: nay.
>> Paxson: it's sustained.
MS. Campos, for the record, did
you place a vote on this item?
Abstain.
Thank you.
>> Flood: the last vote just
now?
Was that a reference to a prior
vote or the vote just now?
>> Paxson: just now.
>> Flood: I was just making
sure.
>> Allison: that is, I
believe, the correct thing to
do.
Thank you.
>> Flood: can I make my
proffer now?
Were MS. Campos on the stand, I
would ask her questions about
her receipt of any sort of
information outside of the
record in this case prior to
this proceeding.
Including any information
regarding edc -- I'm sorry.
Regarding type b e session
discussions.
Any sort of edc discussions.
Her -- and communication with --
I would also ask her questions
about her communication with any
of the petitioners, including
MR. David.
Any communication with counsel
for MR. David.
Communications and relationships
regarding whether or not she has
ever been represented by
MR. David's counsel.
I would ask her questions about
the allegations in the articles
and whether or not she's had any
communications with the
petitioners or their counsel
about any of the allegations or
the facts underlying the
allegations in the articles of
impeachment.
I would ask her about her
reasoning behind and knowledge
outside of the the record -- the
public record regarding her
votes on the FEBRUARY 20
meeting.
I would ask her the reasoning
and knowledge outside of the
public record regarding her
comments, both at the
FEBRUARY 20 meeting and the
APRIL 23 meeting.
And the reasoning and knowledge
of information outside of the
record regarding her decisions
at both of those meetings.
Her reasons for voting -- or
facts in this proceeding, based
upon both the facts and the
implications and inferences
raised by the articles of
impeachment.
As I stated earlier, MR. Ramirez
has already testified.
It's already in the record that
he had a conversation, a phone
call with MS. Campos before the
APRIL 23 vote.
This is a private conversation.
And after the controversy had
arisen.
I would ask her questions about
how long it was.
Whether or not she recorded it.
Do you know if he did?
I would ask her the
communication that she received
from him and her receipt of it
and her evaluation of his
credibility.
Whether or not he explained to
her that the alteration of the
slide was a mistake.
That has been suggested by him
in other context.
Whether he denied that the
alteration was done
intentionally.
Whether she believed him.
Whether she asked him any
questions.
Her evaluation of whether or not
his explanations were
believable.
I would confirm that there's no
recording, no transcript, and
today that only she can provide
us with her impressions that she
brought with us to this
proceeding based upon that
private conversation with
MR. Ramirez.
I would also ask her questions
about becoming part of the
investigation and her state of
mind when she voted to retain
outside counsel, daniel rey.
And much of these I'm about to
go over are also reflected in a
later public statement.
And her state of mind in regards
to these issues would be
something I would ask her
about.
You voted to investigate the
allegations against home suites,
participating in executive
sessions, authorized
expenditure.
Those were based in part on her
own understanding of the
underlying facts, which were
uniquely gathered by her in her
private conversation with
MR. Ramirez.
And potentially other
conversations that are not part
of the record with MR. David,
MR. David's counsel
counsel,
petitioners and other persons.
I would ask her questions about
why she made certain comments to
mayor guajardo.
What motivated her to make
certain statements to mayor
guajardo.
And her beliefs that she shared
with mayor guajardo and why she
formulated such beliefs.
That she stated to the mayor
that she wanted an apology from
her prior to JULY 22, 2026,
before this trial started.
I would ask her questions about
what was in her state of mind in
that regard.
Whether or not she believes she
received it.
Whether or not that is a bias
that she brought with her to the
proceeding.
In MARCH of this year,
MARCH 24th, there was a
council meeting held four months
before this trial started where
she started publicly certain
beliefs.
she stated -- she used the word
%
"beliefs."
she stated that she believed
that the steps taken by
MR. Ramirez to mislead the
council should be considered
illegal.
She stated the belief that his
steps were intentional.
She spoke to MR. Ramirez.
Again, she spoke on her own,
individually.
And that, without a doubt, would
be part of her state of mind in
formulating that opinion.
She references in her public
statement on MARCH 24th that
MR. Ramirez had contributed to
the mayor's campaign, which is a
state of mind for her that is
some sort of -- apparently some
evidence that helps her
formulate the beliefs that she
shared about the facts
underlying the articles of
impeachment.
Again, she expressed the quote,
belief, end quote, that the only
way to stop these kind of
dealings and business as usual
is to address it directly.
And she believes this proceeding
is the only way to directly deal
with it.
And that for that reason that is
her belief as to why she's
moving forward with the
hearing.
Those beliefs were brought into
this trial on JULY 22nd.
Again, the only wrongdoing
addressed in her statements is
that of MR. Ramirez.
Another belief that she had on
MARCH 24th and that she
brought with her under this
trial is that the mayor should
be sanctioned.
I have a text message that she
sent while sitting on the dais
on MARCH 24th at -- well, no.
The text string begins while
sitting on the dais.
And then that evening at
6:38 she states, I do not
believe in removal.
I do believe in a sanction.
It can't happen unless we move
forward.
And I'm going to mark that as
respondent's exhibit 65.
That is a belief she had on
MARCH 24th that she brought
with her into this trial.
And that is that --
>> Paxson: MR. Flood, could
you provide that date?
>> Flood: yes, I will.
I was going to finish that
sentence.
Is that the sanction that the
mayor deserved, that she
deserved on MARCH 24th of this
year, can only happen if the
council moves forward with this
removal hearing.
>> [Off mic]
>> Allison: and I assume that
the offer is not into evidence
but for purposes of the offer.
Thank you.
>> [Off mic]
>> Flood: my next witness
would be MR. Hernandez.
>> Allison: yes.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood, can you
give us two minutes with this
new information?
>> Flood: sure.
Sure.
>> Paxson: thank you,
MR. Flood.
If you'll proceed.
>> Flood: I'll call my next
witness, council member --
MR. Hernandez, please.
>> Allison: MAY I be heard on
my objection?
With the tribunal's
permission -- I gave a lot of
objections last time and it's
long to explain it all.
MAY I adopt those by reference?
>> Paxson: yes.
>> Allison: I make the same
objections to calling MR. Gil
hernandez as we made a moment
ago when I was making objections
against calling MS. Sylvia
campos.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood.
>> Flood: MR. Hernandez is
called for the same purposes.
And that is to establish that he
is a material fact witness and
also to establish his bias in
regards as a fact finder and
judge in these proceedings.
He'll be asked questions about
the bias and the facts that he
understood that brought him --
that he brought with him into
this proceeding.
A judge is required under texas
and federal law to recuse and
disqualify themselves, much as
MR. Barrera and roy did recuse
themselves because they are fact
witnesses.
I would establish that
MR. Ramirez -- I'm sorry.
MR. Hernandez, my apologies.
Likewise, is a fact witness and
brought with him certain
biases.
I would ask him, like I would
ask MS. Campos, about his
receipt of confidential edc
information that he received
prior to this proceeding.
His reasoning and knowledge and
state of mind outside of the
record, which are obvious --
that are clear from the
FEBRUARY 20 meeting, which I
will get into in a minute.
I'm happy to make my proffer,
have the objection sustained and
then make my proffer, if that's
okay.
>> Paxson: at this time I'll
call for a motion to grant the
objection.
Motion?
>> [Off mic]
>> Paxson: there's a motion
and a second.
All in favor say aye.
>> [Chorus of ayes]
>> Paxson: any opposed say
nay.
>> Scott: nay.
>> Paxson: thank you.
MR. Flood.
>> Flood: as I would have with
MS. Campos, I would ask
MR. Hernandez questions about
his receipt of confidential edc
information prior to this
proceeding.
The knowledge he brought with
him to the FEBRUARY 20 meeting.
His reasoning and knowledge he
obtained outside of this chamber
and meetings prior to the
APRIL 23 meeting.
His reasoning and knowledge that
he received outside of the
record for his decision on the
second reading.
And his reasons for those votes
and the reasoning and knowledge
that he brought with him outside
of the record currently.
Or facts he brought with him
into this proceeding.
On the -- specific to the
FEBRUARY 20 meeting, he pulled
the item from the consent
agenda.
I would ask him reasons why he
did that.
And I would ask him questions
about the preparation that he
made prior to the meeting.
All discussions, his personal
knowledge that he received from
conversations from anyone
outside of the proceeding on
that day that are public.
And I would ask him about his --
that he researched the item
beyond simply reviewing the
agenda packet that contained the
altered slide.
And if you can go to the --
>> [Off mic]
>> Flood: I will play a
portion of exhibit -- what is
it?
What's our number?
Our petitioner's exhibit of the
video that's already been
played.
Can you play that real quick?
Part of exhibit 6.
[Video]
>> by hilton at the corner of
chaparral street.
Who pulled this one?
COUNCILMAN Hernandez.
Your question or comment.
>> Hernandez: yes.
Question.
I'm familiar with this.
I've had a couple of discussions
about it.
We're well aware of the
disparity between what the edc
had recommended and what the
type b had.
My concern is not so much --
[End of video]
>> Flood: I would ask him
questions about how he became
aware of the discrepancy.
I would ask him questions about
the research he had done, simply
beyond reviewing the agenda
packet.
He said he had a couple -- it
sounded like he was about to say
he had a couple of calls about
it.
However he changed that word to
discussions about it.
I would ask whether he had any
phone calls with anybody outside
of city staff about the item and
his knowledge outside of the
public record.
I would ask him how he -- his
awareness of the disparity.
Whether it became knowledge that
he had outside of the public
record that was included within
the agenda memo for the
FEBRUARY 20 meeting.
I would ask him questions about
his knowledge regarding the
mayor on the edc board.
I would ask him any questions --
I would ask him questions about
his contacts with MR. Hunter or
anyone else that sits on the edc
board prior to the FEBRUARY 20
meeting.
I would ask him if he was aware
of any of the discussions within
the edc meeting.
Again, this is not evidence
that's being admitted right now,
this is just part of my
proffer.
And those conversations he had,
I would ask him what he learned
about anything that happened,
both in the edc meetings and in
the type b meetings, whether
those were -- the latter, the
type b meetings being whether he
learned anything that came from
closed session or whether he
learned anything that came from
the public meetings.
What he learned about what was
described as a spirited
discussion within the edc
meeting.
Whether the timing, the fema
timing narrative was addressed
at the edc meeting and whether
he learned anything that
suggested whether the mayor
learned anything prior to
FEBRUARY 20th related to the
fema narrative.
Or the slide itself and whether
he learned anything that
suggested whether the mayor was
informed that someone at the edc
meeting MAY have expressed
skepticism about the fema
narrative.
I would ask him questions about
that.
Since he is not allowed to
testimony, that is not going to
be part of the record.
And then I would ask him about
his conversations with MR. David
or MR. Gulley or MR. Hunter or
the mayor or anyone else on the
edc board.
And ask him all about the
concerns that he had about the
item before the first reading
because he stated that he had
concerns.
And one was why the type b went
with the requested number and
doubled the edc.
I would ask him why it didn't
sit right with him.
Why it gave him a concern.
Even though he understood that
the type b board does not have
to give a reason.
And I would ask him the
lingering thoughts he had and
why he pulled the item to try
and understand.
And that he was doing more than
the other members in regards to
this.
I would ask him about why he
spoke to alyssa about the public
investment and the statements he
made about that.
I would ask him his concerns or
goal, whatever it was in regards
to being -- that he stated,
quote, we should be fair and
have funding come from type b
for those other hotels as well,
end quote.
If we set a standard, make sure
we adhere to that standard for
everybody.
i would ask him about that
because we know that MR. David
and rgb had received tirz in the
past and we know they have
requested type b since.
And I would ask him questions
about whether he was looking out
for those particular donors of
his.
I would ask him whether or not
MR. Hunter ever expressed
skepticism to him, prior to the
FEBRUARY 20 meeting about either
the fema narrative or perhaps
the altered slide.
I would ask him about the
apparent repeat of the narrative
by members suckley, roy, the
mayor, and also MR. Culbertson
and whether his reaction to
those repeats of the apparent
narrative.
I would ask him about that he
knew, prior to the FEBRUARY 20
meeting, that the type b
rejected general fema compliance
and was not actually -- and that
the actual reasoning of the type
b board was not presented to the
council.
Because it wasn't presented to
the council on FEBRUARY 20th.
But the record indicates -- and
I would ask MR. Hernandez about
it -- that he already knew
that.
Because after MR. Hunter brought
up the incredibility of the fema
narrative, MR. Hernandez
stated -- can you put the next
clip up?
[Video]
>> Mayor Guajardo:
councilmember hernandez.
>> Hernandez: so every project
that would be downtown would be
in a flood zone, right?
Are we going to give the benefit
to everybody that's downtown
that's in a flood zone?
that's almost incentivizing you
to build in a flood zone.
So I don't want to tie it to
this flood zone thing.
It's not, and it shouldn't be.
[End of video]
]
>> Flood: it's not were the
words.
Where the agenda memo said that
it was.
And so COUNCILMAN Hernandez's
statement makes him a unique
fact witness because it appears
that before FEBRUARY 20th he
knew that the type b board's
reasoning was not related to
general fema compliance.
And that makes him a unique fact
witness.
The slide that was displayed,
the comments from the mayor,
they didn't reflect what the
type b based its decision on but
MR. Hernandez apparently did.
And that was based on the
discussions that he had prior to
the meeting.
Apparently, it was personal
knowledge he developed and
brought with him to that meeting
that he still has to this day
that will not be revealed
through questioning.
He voted in favor that day
because he knew the fema
narrative was not material to
the type b board's decision.
I would ask that question
directly.
And he voted in favor that the
council did not disagree with
his notion to have funding.
We have to make sure we adhere
to that standard for everybody.
I would ask him questions about
his interactions with MR. David
.
I would ask him questions about
whether he reviewed the type b
meeting materials, whether he
met with MS. Hurlbert, whether
he met with MS. Olivarri, which
I believe is true.
I would ask him questions about
whether he met with miles
risley.
Whether he met with peter zanoni
.
There is also in the record
already, from MR. Ramirez's
deposition, the question/answer
where he said -- which was
played earlier that he was in a
meeting.
Gil, everett, and MR. Ramirez
where MR. Ramirez explained to
them that it was an inadvertent,
accidental, not intentional
done -- whatever word -- well,
whatever words you used to
describe it.
Yes.
That would be accurate.
Yes.
And you made it clear in your
explanation to all of those.
I would ask MR. Hernandez
questions about his assessment
of MR. Ramirez's credibility.
That he formulated at the time
and brought with him into this
proceeding.
I would ask him about whether or
not he took any notes.
If he has any notes related to
that meeting that he could
share.
And so one of the allegations in
the proceeding -- in this
proceeding is that mayor
guajardo somehow improperly
favored MR. Ramirez.
I would ask him about that and
whether or not he had formed
some opinions about that prior
to this.
He got to have a firsthand
assessment of whether
MR. Ramirez was telling the
truth about the slide.
It wasn't on a phone call or
anything.
I would ask him about the
questions he asked MR. Ramirez.
Why he asked those questions.
And that he formulated
impressions about his
credibility prior to this
proceeding.
And I'd ask him whether or not
at that time he had seen the
actual powerpoint at any time
prior to this proceeding.
When and in what context.
I would ask him about the
impressions that he left with
the meeting with MR. Ramirez.
I would ask him if he -- it says
the articles of impeachment
assert the mayor was advocating
for the person and not the
project.
I would ask him if he has any
understanding of what
MR. Ramirez had said to the
mayor at any point along the
way, if he has any knowledge
about that.
All fact gathering he engaged in
that caused him to want to
postpone the APRIL 23 meeting.
It revealed the record indicates
that he said he had two reasons
to get the unresolved issue
about how they arrived at the
$2 million.
But also for MR. Zanoni to
complete his investigation.
I would ask him questions about
his state of mind at the time in
regards to both of those
issues.
I would ask him questions about
why he had the type b board
present on APRIL 23 and he did
not inquire of that person
regarding the unresolved issues
he had about how it is that the
type b board arrived at the
$2 million as opposed to the
$1,043,000.
And his state of mind and that
regard and the reasonable
inferences drawn.
I would ask him about the
executive session on APRIL 16
and whether or not his
recollection is that of the same
of other witnesses and the
presentation that neither peter
zanoni nor MR. Risley ever --
whether or not his impressions
after the meeting are that
neither -- that he never heard
in the meeting that -- kind of
interesting -- to not violate
the executive session rules in a
proffer.
So whether or not he also shared
other witnesses' formulation
that they did not leave that
meeting with the impression that
any crime had occurred but that
there were only allegations,
which is a central fact to the
articles of impeachment.
I would also ask him questions
whether he understood what the
recommendation was from staff
and when he entered the APRIL 23
meeting.
Whether he understood that it
was recommended to be
considered.
Or whether it was not
recommended.
And that is an important fact
issue regarding one of the
articles.
Your understanding about the
time about why it was being put
on, I would ask him questions
about why -- his understanding
why it was on the agenda and why
it was not not allowed to be on
the agenda.
That -- I would ask him about
the APRIL 23 -- going back to
the FEBRUARY 20.
and he stated on APRIL 23rd
it's a very long agenda memo
that talked about all the issues
that came about.
You know, unfortunately various
reasons the presentation didn't
always match up with what was
happening, end quote.
That was a quote of
MR. Hernandez at the meeting.
And so I would ask him questions
about the various reasons and
whether edc and staff simply
pulled the edc presentation to
the council, bypassing the
actual reason that the type b
gave, which he called editing of
the slide.
And he referenced that
MR. Ramirez and bhakta hadn't
responded to the city manager's
inquiries.
And because of the -- quote, now
because of some of the issues
with the presentation, which
COUNCILWOMAN Campos had pointed
out, there was some editing, so
to speak, and we're waiting on a
response.
And he claimed there were muddy
waters but they were not muddy
for MR. Hernandez.
Because he knew, before
FEBRUARY 20th, that the type b
board's reasoning was not based
on general fema compliance
because his statement was "it
isn't."
he made the motion that it was
for everyone's protection.
And the motion that he made, the
second was withdrawn, was for
everyone's protection.
I would ask him questions about
what he meant by that and what
it is that he was trying to
protect the public from.
Let's see...
And I would ask him about his
belief at that time, because he
had -- he stated, quote --
that's okay.
I will clarify that in the sense
the request initially was for
funding or for flooding
mitigation, right, which was
discounted.
But it's the exact same dollar
amount as to what was actually
provided by type b, which is the
narrative that the petitioners
in this case have actually put
on.
It's the same factual
narrative.
It matches the petitioner, so I
would ask about coordination
with petitioner, petitioner's
counsel, any communications
between himself and council.
And really any lawyer that is
associated with petitioner's
counsel.
I would ask him questions about
that.
Going back to it.
I will clarify in the sense
that -- this is MR. Hernandez on
APRIL 23.
Was for funding or flooding
mitigation.
It's the exact same dollar
amount as was actually provided
by type b.
Just make sure there's no
confusion, I want some
documentation as to how they
arrived at their number for the
$2 million, just to make sure
that everybody's protected.
So that's my motion, even though
the type b board was present
right there.
When she said, quote, I would be
happy to answer any questions.
MR. Hernandez later on said, I
don't need to say anything
more.
Rather than asking her questions
on the record on the very issue
he espoused was important to
him.
He made a motion for the type b
to state its reasons.
I'm looking at this to protect
us as an organization, as a
city.
Again, I'm quoting
MR. Hernandez.
I'm looking at this to protect
us as an organization, as a city
so we don't have any, you know,
lingering thoughts of
malfeasance.
I would ask him his preparation
for that meeting.
That he had sit down with
MR. Ramirez, studied the issue
for two months, and he had the
chair of the board there and he
didn't ask her any questions
about how it is that the number
was arrived at.
The $2 million, the basis for
it.
In AUGUST of 2025,
AUGUST 29th, 2025, I would ask
MR. Hernandez about an e-mail
that he received that contained
the petition for removal that
had been filed with the city
secretary.
I would ask him about the news
breaking the following day that
the petition alleged that mayor
was guilty of, quote,
malfeasance, end quote.
The word he used at the APRIL 23
meeting.
I would ask him questions about
how five months later, in
JANUARY, when the corpus christi
police department was on the
agenda to publicly discuss its
findings and the project elevate
investigation.
Chief markle was there,
investigator garcia was there.
Breedlove was there.
And there was a presentation for
public consumption for the
investigation details.
And I would ask MR. Hernandez
about the fact that he had read
the report and he knew that the
police were there to answer
questions.
But something happened at that
meeting.
MR. Hernandez made a motion to
postpone the police department's
presentation.
Even though the police
department had completed its
investigation.
And the report had been
delivered and he understood the
investigation had been closed.
And that he understood that the
presentation concerned the
police department's findings.
But he also, at the same time,
understood that the council
hired outside counsel to conduct
a separate investigation.
He stated he expected that to be
delivered in FEBRUARY and he
moved to delay it, which was a
successful motion to delay the
police presentation.
He explained that he didn't want
to put the police department in
a bad position.
And that he didn't want the
police department report to be
utilized for public purposes,
which were his words.
I don't want the police
department and the law
enforcement investigation to be
used, quote, for political
purposes.
And I would ask him questions
about the political purposes he
was referring to.
And those were asking questions
about whether they referred to
the controversy involving the
articles of impeachment that are
before this proceeding right now
in which he is sitting on the
dais as a juror in.
He, at that time, knew that the
removal petition had been filed
against the mayor.
He knew that the police
department investigation had
become part of the public
discussion surrounding this
proceeding.
And he was concerned -- I was
ask him questions about the fact
that whether he was concerned
about how the police
department's findings might
affect those discussions
regarding this proceeding.
I would ask him questions about
whether he wanted to wait,
because the attorney's report,
quote, might be contradictory,
end quote, to the police
department's report.
And those were his words.
So before either presentation
occurred, he anticipated that
the lawyer's conclusions could
differ from the police
department's and believed that
the lawyer might reach findings
that the police department had
not and that that expectation
was the reason he wanted to
postpone the police department
presentation.
Even though it was ready to be
presented.
Because it would counter the
narrative that had begun after
the articles of impeachment --
I'm sorry.
After the petition for removal
had been filed months later.
I would ask him questions about
whether the police department,
he understood were ready to
present.
I would ask him to confirm that
the police department did not
ask for a postponement.
instead, that he did.
And that the only -- and I would
ask him questions about the fact
that what he wanted to do was
change the timing of when the
public would hear the police
department's conclusions to fit
the impeachment narrative that
was initiated in the petition
for removal.
I would ask him questions about
that he knew the removal
proceeding against the mayor was
pending at that time,
obviously.
I would ask him that he
understood, prior to that
meeting, that there had been no
finding of criminal conduct by
anybody involved, by the police
department.
And that he expected the
lawyer's report to address
alleged misconduct by elected
officials.
And that was the reason to delay
to try and manipulate the
narrative regarding the pretrial
proceedings in this matter.
I would ask him to confirm his
state of mind, that the
investigations involved many of
the same underlying events.
And I would ask him questions
regarding whether his intent was
to have them released together
rather than allowing the police
department conclusions to stand
on their own in order to match
the narrative surrounding the
articles of impeachment.
And they were done all in an
effort to try and shape the
narrative, leading up to this
trial.
I would ask him to confirm that
his concern was not whether the
police department had actually
completed its work but that his
concern was how its conclusions
would be received before the
lawyer's report was released.
And that is why he sought the
delay.
He stated, quote, I don't want
to put you in a bad spot or have
you utilize for political
purpose, so I want to make sure
we have all the information at
the same time.
And one of the justifications
was that the police findings
would be used for political
purposes.
And MR. Hernandez has publicly
confirmed that this removal
proceeding is a political
process and not a legal
process.
I would ask him to confirm that
a policy is something that
focuses on written rules and
guidelines and goals and it
answers what actions will be
taken to fix an issue.
And politics focuses on power,
campaigns, elections.
It involves conflict, debate,
and compromise between people.
It answers who gets to rule and
how they win support.
And I would then return to the
facts of the petition -- the
timing of the petition for
removal.
The postponement, the corpus
christi police department,
daniel rey presentation in
FEBRUARY.
And that less than a month later
I would ask him about his state
of mind about signing the
three-signature memo,
adopting -- I'm sorry.
The three-signature memo dated
MARCH 11, 2026.
And I would ask him questions
about his public expressions of
a willingness to run for mayor.
I would ask him questions about
his decision and state of mind
to sign the three-signature memo
and to put this removal
proceeding on the agenda to
start the process.
And that it was a political
decision to sign the
three-signature memo.
And I would ask him -- do you
have the clip?
Ask him about a --
[Video]
>> Hernandez: the city
secretary has the authority to
put stuff on the agenda.
[End of video]
>> Flood: I'm going to ask him
questions about his state of
mind on -- do you know the
date?
That's okay.
On APRIL 29th, just six weeks
after signing the
three-signature memo.
And his state of mind in signing
the signature memo was not
founded on policy and it was not
founded on anything other than
politics.
I would confront him with this
public statement he made.
[Video]
>> Hernandez: the city
secretary has some authority to
put stuff on the agenda, but she
just wasn't going to.
[End of video]
>> Flood: I would confirm with
MR. Hernandez that that is his
voice that we hear in that
clip.
[Video]
>> Hernandez: it really is a
political process.
>> not a legal process?
>> Hernandez: well, the
charter is an ordinance, right?
Or it's voted on by the
citizens, right?
So we're following that
process.
But any kind of -- to put stuff
on the agenda is by the policies
that we have in place.
[End of video]
>> Flood: I would ask him to
confirm that the memo itself is
the policy but the decision that
he made and his state of mind
when signing it was as he
stated, publicly, political.
I would ask him questions
about -- in NOVEMBER, the
NOVEMBER 7, 2023, proposition a,
that voters in corpus christi
considered proposition a.
I'll ask him questions about
proposition a would have
supported the renewing of a
25-cent sales tax and dedicated
the revenue to constructing and
renovating parks, convention
center complex.
I would ask him to confirm that
MR. Ajit david, a petitioner,
person in this case, who has
identified himself as a
petitioner, who is sitting right
now next to petitioner's
counsel.
Who is a -- who has been at
these proceedings, as far as I
can tell, every single day.
And I would ask him to confirm
that MR. David and MR. Bhakta
were opposed to proposition a
back in 2023.
I would ask him to confirm that
in 2024 he was the chair of the
audit committee.
And I would ask him to confirm
that on AUGUST 28, 2024 the
auditor's office received an
allegation regarding a
$2 million incentive to the
homewood suites by hilton at the
corner of north chaparral and
lomax street in corpus christi.
And a government document was
altered to obtain tax dollars
from the type b corporation.
I would ask him to confirm,
based on his personal knowledge
and in his capacity as chair of
the audit committee, that
MR. David is who made that
allegation.
And MR. David -- I would ask him
to confirm his personal
knowledge that MR. David is a
partner in or affiliated with
bayfront marina investments,
lp.
And that he was chair of the
audit committee, as I stated.
And that the following day, the
day after AUGUST 28, 2024.
On AUGUST 29, 2024, bayfront
marina investments donated $1500
to MR. Hernandez.
And then a month later they
donated -- one month later.
I would ask him questions
regarding his statement that he
made and that has been
published.
That regarding that payment he
denied.
I would ask him to confirm that
he has denied that the money
related to the audit complaint,
even though it was paid the day
after.
MR. David made the complaint.
That the other payment was made
only a month later.
And ask him to confirm that he
affirmatively -- that it was his
state of mind, prior to this
proceeding where MR. David is a
petitioner and has been sitting
here as a party in this
proceeding.
Ask him to confirm that the
money was paid to MR. Hernandez,
quote, for, end quote, his
opposition to proposition a,
which had been voted down over
nine months earlier.
And the incredibility of the
timing of a payment of $1500 on
AUGUST 29th.
And its relation to something
that happened on AUGUST 28th.
And his statement that it was
for opposition to proposition
a.
Can you play that clip, please?
[Audio clip]
>> was that timing just a
coincidence?
>> Hernandez: just
retaliation.
>> I'm talking about the
contribution.
>> Hernandez: no.
It was for something different.
>> had nothing to do with what
was going on?
>> Hernandez: no.
We didn't support proposition a
in 2023, which was funding for a
hotel, a convention center
hotel.
It was funding for a convention
center hotel that we are didn't
support.
>> Flood: and I would ask him
to confirm that the person -- or
the entity that paid the money
on AUGUST 29th and a month
later on SEPTEMBER 30th, I
believe, something like that,
approximately.
Is an entity -- was number one,
an entity.
And, number two, bayfront
investments lp.
And a principal of that entity,
MR. David, signed the articles
of impeachment in this case.
Finally, I would ask
MR. Hernandez questions about
very recent statements made
after the initiation of this
trial, specifically last
thursday, the 30th at the del
mar small business center on
kostoryz.
I would ask him to confirm
whether or not he made the
public statement that when asked
if he's going to run for mayor,
whether or not he said, quote,
first we have to get rid of
paulette, end quote.
And that ends my proffer of
MR. Hernandez's testimony.
And with that -- I want to make
sure that the affidavit of
compliance, which was marked as
exhibit 64?
I think that was 64.
Yeah.
That's what I mean.
The affidavit of compliance is
exhibit 64.
I'm going to go ahead and offer
exhibit 64.
>> Allison: no objection.
The only housekeeping item I
have with that is -- go ahead.
>> [Off mic]
>> Flood: I ask that 64 be
admitted.
>> Paxson: sorry about that.
>> Flood: with that,
respondent rests.
>> Paxson: thank you.
Rebuttal?
>> Allison: yes.
At this time we call brian
gulley.
>> Flood: I have an objection
to the rebuttal that needs to be
heard before MR. Gulley is
brought in.
Okay?
Let me grab that.
>> Paxson: okay.
While we allow him to prepare,
we'll take a five-minute
recess.
>> I turned off his sound,
his sound, and the video --
>> Paxson: there we go.
Everything is in order now.
So we will call this meeting
resumed.
thank you.
Yes, MR. Flood
>> Flood: respondent
having rested, it has been
indicated that there is
rebuttal evidence that is
going to be at least
offered.
The rebuttal evidence that
I've received notice of is
not rebuttal evidence, so
respondent objects to this
improper rebuttal.
The concern is that there
are two areas that MR.
MR. Gulley would be asked
about, both of which are
part of petitioner's burden,
that they've had to carry
all along, and neither of
which arose for the first
time in the mayor -- in the
mayor's case.
First of all, first one
being any evidence related
to the article iii
confidentiality violation.
And any evidence regarding
what the mayor knew or did
not know about the fema
narrative, or any sort of
slide alteration before
FEBRUARY 20th.
That one is -- that issue is
central to petitioner's
article I charge.
Petitioners new both
issues.
They bore the burden on both
issues, put on their
evidence and rested.
The mayor's denial of
allegations does not convert
evidence they failed to
offer in -- does not -- I'm
sorry, does not convert
evidence that petitioner's
failed to offer in their
case in chief into
rebuttal.
they cannot wait until the
mayor rests and then fill
holes in their affirmative
case.
The order of proof matters
and the rules of procedure
in this court, in this case
that were adopted by this
tribunal specifically
reference rebuttal.
So rebuttal means rebuttal.
First, they MAY intend to
elicit something occurred
during the NOVEMBER 9,
ccredc meeting that
supposedly put the mayor on
notice that the fema
narrative was false or that
there was an altered slide
or both.
That would not be rebuttal.
That goes directly to the
knowledge element of
petitioner's article I
theory, and petitioners
can't reopen their case to
put on evidence regarding
that issue.
Second, petitioners MAY
intend to ask this witness
irrelevant opinion testimony
about confidentiality and
whether the mayor breached
confidentiality provision,
that's not rebuttal either.
That is the alleged act
constituting article iii
itself, and petitioners
cannot reopen their case in
that regard.
Neither issue was created by
the defense case.
Both existed before this
proceeding began, both were
known to petitioners, both
were part of the allegations
they chose to bring and both
belonged in their case in
chief, in fact I would state
on the record I believe that
the indication that there
would be a rebuttal witness
was actually projected prior
to the resting to have
petitioner's case.
So to the extent this
witness provides any
evidence that relates to any
of those issues I just
described, it is by
definition not rebuttal.
A rebuttal permit as party
to answer new material
raised by the opposing
party.
It doesn't permit the party
with the burden of proof to
wait until the defense has
rested and then fill holes
in its affirmative case.
That -- this body adopted
rebuttal as part of the
procedure, it was adopting
that particular part of
texas law.
We object to the witness in
its entirety as improper
rebuttal and an improper
reopening of petitioner's
case in chief after the
respondent has rested.
And if this objection is not
sustained, and before the
witness testifies, we would
ask petitioners to identify
the particular evidence that
was introduced for the first
time during the mayor's case
that the proposed area of
testimony is offered to
rebut.
I ask that that objection be
sustained and that this
rebuttal witness not be
allowed to testify.
>> Paxson: MR. Allison, do
you have a response?
>> Allison: yes.
We heard hours and hours of
testimony from leah olivarri
that promoted this idea and
talked over and over and
over again that the reason
for this was the retail and
public spaces, and that that
is the reason behind the
ordinance.
That calls into question,
again, and it is primary to
their defense, that calls
into question the -- and it
actually was spoken about
also with the -- with leah
olivarri and also their
other witness who was
COUNCILMAN Roy barrera.
All of that led to further
testimony about what
happened at crredc which was
specifically discussed in
all of the testimony, and
there was this debate and
dispute about that.
Those disputes that were
raised, this different
narrative that they have
raised throughout their
defense is I believe will be
specifically rebutted by the
testimony of DR. Gulley.
The rules expressly allow
for rebuttal testimony.
And therefore we think that
this witness does have
evidence of value for this
tribunal, and in the
interest of transparency,
and pursuant to the express
rules of this tribunal, we
ask that their motion be
denied or that their
objection be denied.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood.
>> Flood: there was no
evidence offered through
leah olivarri or every roy
about what happened at the
ccredc.
There is a transcript at
yesterday's hearing and that
evidence will not be found.
So this is improper
rebuttal.
This is evidence that
clearly could have been
presented during
petitioner's case in chief,
and we would again reurge
our objection that it is
simply not true that the
evidence yesterday included
evidence about -- from
witnesses about what
happened.
MR. Roy was not at the
meeting.
MS. Olivarri was not at the
meeting.
And that was not evidence
offered -- none of that was
offered by the mayor.
So this is improper
rebuttal.
>> Paxson: do we have
yesterday's transcript?
>> Flood: I received a
rough draft from the court
reporter last night, I'm
happy to forward it for
review --
>> Allison: I don't have
it.
I will tell you that I know
we went specifically over
the crredc meeting, that we
have the meetings from
executive session on, and we
went specifically over
those, so it has absolutely
been a part of their case
that we are now rebutting.
>> Flood: in the record
there will not by (B)
Be
found any offer.
That is not true, to the
extent council wanted to
inject part of its case into
the mayor's case, that's
fine, that's different,
that's not the same thing as
something new and different
offered by the mayor in her
defense, so it -- that is a
mischaracterization of the
testimony yesterday I
believe.
And that there has not been
grounds laid for this
rebuttal witness, simply --
I did not lay that.
>> Allison: to the extent
he brings up an issue, which
he did, which is this second
narrative they want
everybody to believe now, to
the extent they bring up
that issue and we tried to
refute it by going into the
actual meeting minutes of
the crredc meeting, that was
not even objected to by then
at the time because it tends
to rebut what that witness
was testifying to, they know
that, and that opens the
door and absolutely allows
me to bring a witness to
fortify that information
which is the same rebuttal
to what leah olivarri said.
So we would ask that the
motion to overrule their
objection be made and that
the objection be overruled.
>> Flood: what I just
heard is that it was an
attempt to inject by the
petitioner, and so, again,
that is not the way rebuttal
works.
It is to deny -- it is to
respond to new evidence
provided by the defendant or
respondent, and that that
did not occur.
And there was no testimony
at all about internal edc
meetings offered by the
mayor.
it was new evidence.
>> was the specific evidence
brought up that nested to be
rebutted?
Because I thought the two
witness, one was what
happened at council and the
other is what happened at
the type b board, that is
her particular scope of
knowledge.
>> Allison: right, her --
but she had a narrative so
to speak that talked about
why she voted for it, and
she tried to say that's why
other people voted for it,
and I'll remind you that
we've never deposed her.
First time we've ever heard
from that witness.
There was a tremendous
amount of new information
about that, that tended to
discredit or undermine what
happened at the ccredc.
Because of that, I went into
the notes we have, or the
meeting minutes that we have
from ccredc with her to
refute what she said, but
I'm entitled then, when that
is the first time I've ever
heard that evidence, I'm
entitled then to have a
witness come and support
what I think is in those
notes from ccredc as
additional evidence to rebut
what see said for the first
time, never heard it
before.
>> what did she say
specifically?
What did she say
specifically, because her
knowledge was limited to, my
understanding, how they
voted --
>>
>> Allison: actually goes
back to the same staff
people if you'll recall.
The ccredc prepares what
goes in front of ccredc, and
the ccredc staff prepares
what goes in front of type
b, and the ccredc staff
prepares what goes in front
of the city here.
So there is a common thread
there throughout that that I
think needs to be rebut and
clarified.
>> Flood: all that
evidence was included in the
petitioner's case in chief,
what I just heard.
All of that -- every single
one of those facts he just
stated was contained in
petitioner's case in chief.
>> wouldn't that --
>> Allison: I can't hear
you.
>> push the button.
Push it.
>> I didn't hear anything
what you testified to that
contradicted the position of
the prior testimony of what
might have happened at edc.
That only that when it came
to them it was a
presentation asking for
money form infrastructure
and then the street issue
and they only voted on the
street issue and disregarded
the element or consideration
of infrastructure.
So she had no personal
knowledge, and didn't really
tie back into the previous
edc meetings.
That's my recollection of
her testimony.
>> Allison: I think her
testimony brings into
question all of that with
this same staff members that
worked on exactly that piece
of it.
She repeatedly took the
position that she was very
clear and everybody else was
very confused.
And that is the first time
we've ever heard that and I
think we're entitled to
rebut it.
>> Flood: not evidence
offered by the mayor in her
case in chief, that is
simply inaccurate.
The fact of the matter
remains that the attempt to
elicit testimony about what
happened during the
NOVEMBER 9edc meeting and is
not in rebuttal to anything
that the mayor placed into
evidence during her case in
chief, it only relates to an
issue that was raised and
was attempted to be
addressed in petitioner's
case in chief.
Rebuttal is not available to
fill a hole that is
contained within
petitioner's case, and
that's what they're
attempting to do, and we
object for that reason.
>> Allison: did roy
everett ever express any
personal knowledge about
what happened at edc serve.
>> Allison: he definitely
testified what happened at
ccredc, he was not
personally there.
>> Flood: the answer to
that question was no.
>> I don't see rebuttal.
That is y'all's decision.
I don't see it.
>> Paxson: is there a
sentiment from this board
whether to sustain or to
allow the rebuttal?
It's been presented, both
arguments, and we've heard
from our counsel.
And for clarification, this
is to -- to allow the
rebuttal so there's a motion
and a second to allow the
rebuttal to continue, all in
favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
All opposed say nay.
>> nay.
>> Paxson: yes, sir.
>> Allison: I'm going to
do a quick sound check and
see if I can also do video,
hold on one second.
DR. Gulley, we are in
session, can you hear me?
We are in session.
>> yeah, I hear you well.
>> Allison: can you
hear -- DR. Gulley, can you
hear me okay.
>> Gulley: I can hear you
perfectly.
>> Paxson: MR. Allison, if
we can allow MS. Rebecca to
swear in the witness.
>> Flood: I'm going to
simply object to the
witness's remote swearing
in.
It's improper under the
ordinance, under the city
ordinances and the city
charter, and it's also --
there's no precedent for it
under the city charter, and
it's also improper under
texas law.
>> Paxson: okay, I don't
know of anything under the
city charter.
We allow for remote
participation in our regular
meetings.
>> but there's no vote, so i
can double check with our
city attorney, if you would
like --
>> Paxson: do we have our
city attorney present?
>> we have assistant city
attorney present.
>> Paxson: okay.
Our city manager is bringing
her out.
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, if
you will hold on one moment,
please.
We are still in open
session.
>> Paxson: hi, MS. Lisa.
>> I was checking.
I didn't find anything that
would prohibit it.
>> Flood: objection.
There's nothing that permits
it, and so this is a --
there is -- there are
definitely -- under the
articles I'm sorry, under
the rules of procedure,
allowed for the calling or
witnesses, subpoenaing
witnesses, and MR. Gulley,
DR. Gulley is not here in
the chambers, so there's
nothing in the rules of
procedure that afford a
remote swearing in of a
witness, and there is
nothing in the city charter
that allows the swearing in
of a remote witness, and
there is nothing under texas
law that allows the witness
in this situation to be
sworn in remotely, and so
respondent objects for that
reason.
>> Allison: and I would
respond to that by saying
that the rules adopted here
are
expressly allowed to
witnesses who can be called
to be sworn to identify an
oath, we can do that here,
nothing allowing it in texas
law.
We do it all the time at the
courthouse.
>> Paxson: MS. City
attorney, do you have --
>> no further comments
so --
>> Paxson: based on
interpretation of the
adopted rules, can you
advise?
>> I'm -- I think it's fine
to proceed.
>> Paxson: fine to proceed
to allow remote.
>> yes, ma'am, yes, yes.
>> Paxson: should we allow
the remote, in addition to
certifying location, I
believe it was said that
MS. Rebecca huerta, who is
administering oaths through
these proceedings can do
that remotely.
Is there any other
information she should
obtain?
>> I don't believe so, no.
>> Paxson: MS. Rebecca.
>> I'm a notary public.
>> Flood: and I renew my
objection.
There is -- there is simply
no empowering ordinance.
There's no empowering code
provision.
There's no empowering
provision of the city
charter that allows for this
particular form of
testimony, and so I would
object to it on that basis
and also it does not meet
the requirements under texas
law for a remote swearing.
And I'm asking for a ruling,
please, yes.
>> do we have a ruling from
the board?
I'm sorry? Motion and
second to overrule.
All in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Any opposed say nay.
>> nay.
>> Paxson: motion carries,
thank you, MS. Rebecca.
>> Flood: I do have one
more objection, I'm sorry,
my apologies, quickly, I
object because it violates
my client's fundamental
right of confrontation to
not have MR. -- to have --
not have DR. Gulley in
chambers for an examination,
and for that reason I
also -- and that is more of
a constitutional violation,
and that is separate and
apart from the code and
statutory provisions I
object to earlier.
This would be inability to
confront the witness and so
that is a separate
objection, I ask it be ruled
upon.
>>
>> do you have a response?
>> sure.
Hatches
happens all the time.
You can confront people over a
video conference.
You can examine them.
You can cross-examine them.
We do it all the time in civil
cases.
They do it all the time in
criminal cases.
It is something that occurs
frequently and is a courtesy
extended to witnesses.
And I think we need all of those
program -- meet all of those
parameters, and as such, there's
no fundamental defamation of any
constitutional right.
>> Flood: without the ability
to tender exhibits to him or
anything like that.
>> Allison: we have the
ability to tender exhibits by
zoom.
>> Flood: I stand in my
objection.
Ask that it be ruled upon.
>> Paxson: we have a motion to
overrule and a second.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed say nay.
>> Paxson: MAY I proceed?
>> I think so.
>> Allison: I think she needs
to swear him in.
>> DR. Bryan gulley, do you
solemnly swear or affirm that
the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the
truth?
>> Gulley: I do.
>> thank you.
>> Allison: can you hear us
okay?
>> I can.
>> Allison: we can hear you
fine.
This is doug ail
allison.
I'm going to ask you to state
your name of
name.
>> Gulley: DR. Gulley.
>> Allison: where do you
reside?
>> Gulley: corpus christi.
>> Allison: how long have you
been a resident of this
community?
>> Gulley: 73 years.
>> Allison: okay.
And go ahead and tell us what
your background is
professionally.
>> Gulley: my training and
occupation, oral and facial
surgeon, and a businessman.
>> Allison: and specifically,
have you been active in some of
the local community boards, and
maybe even city or port boards?
>> Gulley: two terms as port
commissioner, and serving on the
edc, the type a board, isac
board, chamber of commerce,
multiple boards.
>> Allison: yeah.
>> Gulley: the aquarium
executive board, and I'm on the
advisory board of the university
of texas marine science
institute currently.
>> Allison: going to get right
to the point.
Did you serve on what we call
the ccredc board in 2023?
>> Gulley: yes, I did.
>> Allison: and were you
serving on that board when the
homewood suites project -- if I
call it that, do you know what
I'm referring to?
>> Gulley: yes.
I was.
>> Allison: when the homewood
suites project made their
application for $2 million
through the edc, or regional
economic development
corporation.
Were you on that ccredc board
when they made the application?
>> Gulley: yes.
I was vice chair, I think.
>> Allison: was mayor guajardo
serving on that
at that time?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: I will tell you
that this tribunal, the city
council members before us right
now, this tribunal has already
received into evidence the
meeting minutes from the
confidential meeting that
occurred when a vote happened on
that project.
Do you understand what I'm
referring to?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: usually there is
some sort of a confidentiality
privilege, but those documents
have already been produced to us
about what happened inside that
confidential meeting, and
admitted into evidence.
There's no longer, I think, a
confidentiality issue.
Do you understand what I'm
saying?
>> Flood: objection.
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: let me just ask
you --
>> MR. Flood.
>> pardon?
>> a little bit of time to make
an objection before you answer.
>> Flood: my objection was
that the premise that he
presented the witness with was a
mis-characterization of the
prior testimony.
So that specifically, that the
confidentiality related to the
information received as opposed
to the actual meeting itself.
And so -- and the only premise
for that was a question of
MR. Culberson that counsel asked
MR. Culberson, are those
meetings public.
And MR. Culberson said, no, we
are a private 501c6.
So that is not testimony that
establishes that the meeting was
confidential.
And so I'm objecting to it on
that basis.
>> Allison: I've asked it,
he's answered it.
I'll go to the next question.
>> Flood: I ask that the
objection be sustained, because
it was a false premise presented
to the witness.
So I ask that the question
itself, that the objection be
sustained and a different
question be asked.
>> Allison: I think the
correct response to that
probably is that the tribunal
will recall the evidence.
>> Paxson: okay.
We'll sustain the objection.
Thank you.
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, were
you at that meeting when there
was discussion about whether or
not to approve an incentive
award for the homewood suites
project?
And by that meeting, I mean at
ccredc.
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: was mayor paulette
guajardo at that meeting?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: who else, if you
recall, would have been at that
meeting?
>> Gulley: there's about more
than a dozen people at that
meeting.
Barb, sarah, who was presiding
as head staff member, because
mike culberson wasn't at that
meeting.
And there would have been -- I
don't remember which meeting
people were there, but there was
quite a few of the regular
members.
I think dennis black was... I
don't remember everybody that
was there.
I didn't pay that much attention
to it.
But there was a pretty full
meeting.
We had a quorum.
>> Allison: would you rely on
the meeting minutes to identify
who was actually there?
>> Gulley: I would have to,
yes.
>> Allison: okay.
And so, do you recall there
being a debate about whether or
not to give any incentive award
to the homewood suites?
>> Gulley: we had a strong
discussion.
>> Allison: and was the mayor
advocating for any position?
>> Gulley: she was advocating
for the $2 million for the
project.
I think she had seconded the
motion.
There was a motion made and she
seconded it.
>> Allison: okay.
And did you support that or
oppose it?
>> Gulley: I opposed it.
>> Allison: and why did you
oppose it?
>> Gulley: for numerous
reasons.
You know, although the two
people, philip and his partner,
deven, I consider friends of
mine, I didn't like the project
for multiple reasons.
I don't think it was a good look
that philip had just come off
our board a few months ago.
I thought that if you look at
economic development programs,
it starts -- the best projects
all the way down to the worst
projects for economic
development.
And these hotels are considered
down towards the bottom as the
least-desirable projects.
That was the main reason.
I felt like it was way too much
money for one project like that,
because I'm not in favor of
projects that aren't somewhat
unique, in other words, using
taxpayer money to incentivize
one project that competes with
other projects, like the other
hotels in the area.
And they had already received
quite a bit of taxpayer money in
the tirs fund.
And I gave several reasons.
But really, because the low
wages that hotels generate, and
the fact that they don't bring
any new business to town, they
just accommodate business that's
already coming to town.
So I had several reasons.
I thought it was way too much
money.
And I thought there were much
better projects to use the money
on.
And I disagreed with the reasons
they gave why they needed that
much money.
>> Flood: I'm going to level
an objection.
The testimony is not in rebuttal
to anything that was in the
mayor's case.
This examination proves the
point as to why this witness
should not be allowed to
continue testifying in rebuttal.
There is no attempt to rebut
anything, because they can't.
Everything they're offering
relates to the burden that they
assumed in their own case.
So I would object to any further
testimony from this rebuttal
witness.
>> you're renewing your
objection?
>> Flood: I'm renewing my
objection based upon the
testimony that's been elicited.
Once again, it is not in
rebuttal.
Not one thing has been in
rebuttal to anything in the
mayor's case.
i object to it going forward.
>> Allison: my response is
very simple.
And that is at this point, I'm
just laying predicate.
I'm trying to get to the point
that we're trying to make here
that I've articulated already.
>> Paxson: I'll go ahead and
call the motion.
I have a motion and a second to
overrule the objection.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed, say nay.
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, the
things you articulated, did you
voice those concerns during the
meeting?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: one of the things
you just said, and now said you
voiced that concern during the
meeting was the reason that they
were asking.
Did you understand during the
meeting that the reason the
applicant was asking for the
$2 million was for what was
characterized as newly defined
and recent changes to fema
rules?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: was that very
clear to the meeting that that
was the reason for the ask for
the 2 million?
>> Flood: objection.
The question is vague.
He simply said it
was it clear to
the meeting.
That is clearly asking for
hearsay.
He's asking for other people's
state of mind.
There's no --
>> Paxson: restate your
question.
>> Allison: was there debate
about that issue, about whether
or not the fema rules were, or
had been newly defined and were
recent changes?
>> Flood: objection, hearsay.
>> Allison: yes.
>> I'm going to ask the witness
be instructed to not answer
questions until after objections
are ruled upon.
The witness was asked a hearsay
question and I'm objecting under
this procedure's rules against
hearsay.
Objection, hearsay.
>> Gulley: understood.
>> Allison: he heard you.
>> Flood: I ask my objection
to be sustained.
My hearsay objection be
sustained and the answer by the
witness that was rushed --
>> Allison: the only
question --
[Crosstalk]
>> Paxson: I have a motion to
sustain.
We have a second.
All in favor say aye.
Any opposed, nay.
Sustained.
Thank you.
>> Allison: DR. Gulley, what
was your personal experience
with regard to how long or any
of your knowledge during that
meeting about when or whether or
not there were new fema rules?
>> Gulley: when the comments
were made that this project was
going to cost more money because
of the recent changes in the
fema rules, and it was related
to the base flood elevation.
I made a comment that I knew
personally for a fact that
MR. Ramirez was aware of that
quite some time ago, because I
had personally made him aware of
that, because I had sole him -- sold
him some of that property.
>> Allison: did you sell him
some of the property the project
is located on?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: back at that time,
which was I guess 2021-ish, does
that sound right?
>> Gulley: yeah somewhere back
then.
>> Allison: back at that time,
did you make it very clear to
MR. Ramirez that the new fema
rules were in effect in 2021?
>> Gulley: yes, I did, because
at the discussion, he was
talking about tearing the
buildings down.
And I was asking for a little
more money, because one of the
buildings had been renovated.
And he said we're just going to
tear -- and I said if you tear
them down, you're going to have
to raise the base flood
elevation.
And he acknowledged he was aware
of that.
>> Allison: now, did you share
that discussion that you had
with philip ramirez back at the
time of his purchase, did you
share that discussion with the
people at the ccredc meeting
when this was being debated,
including the mayor?
>> Gulley: yeah.
Everyone at the meeting, I made
it clear that he knew that that
was going to be a issue, a
problem back when I sold him the
property.
Because at the time I sold him
the property, he said he was
going to build a building for
the university.
And at that time, I told him,
you know, you need to -- you are
aware that you're going to have
to raise the base flood
elevation.
he's a friend of mine.
I did not want to sell him a
piece of property that he didn't
understand, or had an issue
with.
>> Allison: okay.
When you were in the ccredc
meeting, within earshot of the
mayor, did you make it clear to
the mayor, at least from your
intention in making speech or
providing information, did you
make it clear that philip had
long known about the fema rules?
>> Allison: yes,
>> Gulley: I did.
>> Allison: was the mayor
within earshot of you explaining
that to the group?
>> Gulley: I think I made
everyone career
-- clear about that
when I said it.
I thought it was important.
>> Allison: do you think you
made it clear that the changes
in fema rules were not new, so
to speak?
>> Flood: objection.
There's been no predicate laid
for the question about changes,
zero.
>> Allison: I'll rephrase.
We're talking about -- do you
understand that we're talking
about fema rules that the
changes had been initiated in
2020, does that sound right to
you?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: and did you make
it clear to the group that there
were no new changes, that the
changes had been around for
years during the ccredc meeting?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: did the mayor then
back down from wanting
$2 million for the project?
>> Flood: objection.
there's been -- the predicate
laid for the timing of his
statement that was argument by
counsel, so I object to facts
not in evidence and I object to
the argument.
>> Allison: I'll rephrase.
During the meeting, who made the
motion to award $2 million?
>> Gulley: bart.
>> Allison: are you familiar
that the highest recommendation
for a dollar amount from ccredc
staff was about 1,043,000?
>> Flood: objection.
The word recommendation is a
mis-characterization.
That was the model.
That was a product of the rims
ii model.
>> Allison: are you aware the
model recommended at most
1,043,000?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: and who seconded
the motion for 2 million?
>> Gulley: mayor guajardo.
>> Allison: did your providing
the information about hey, these
are not new rules, they've been
around for a while, did that
dissuade the mayor at all from
the vote?
>> Flood: objection.
>> Gulley: no.
>> Flood: objection.
There's not evidence that he
stated those words in the
meeting.
So, that's a
mis-characterization.
>> Allison: if I MISS
Mis-characterize your testimony,
let me know.
Did any of the things that you
told them during the executive
session, that you told to the
mayor, dissuade her from pushing
for $2 million?
>> Gulley: no. Apparently.
>> Allison: was there a
discussion about hey, maybe you
should pull down your motion?
>> Gulley: yeah.
And I'm not sure if I said it or
one of the other meetings, but,
yeah.
The mutual decision was to let
it go to a vote.
>> Allison: okay.
And did that vote for 2 million
fail or succeed?
>> Gulley: it failed.
>> Allison: do you have any
doubt in your mind, and you can
only speak for what you perceive
during the meeting.
Do you have any doubt you made
it very clear to the mayor that
the idea that this was new rules
by fema was untrue, or did you
make that clear?
>> Gulley: I feel like I made
it clear to everyone.
>> Allison: okay.
Thank you.
No further questions.
>> MR. Gulley, you feel like you
did, but you can't say for sure?
>> Gulley: from the vote and
comments that other members
made, you get a feel for the
room.
And, of course, the vote tells
you exactly what they feel.
>> it would be your testimony
that if MR. Ramirez -- if his
presentation to the edc board
was -- contained a narrative
that he was surprised by -- in
2022 to alleged changes, what
you're saying is that would
be -- it was discussed according
to your testimony that that
particular issue was discussed.
Is that what you're saying?
>> Allison: I'm going to
object to the question.
It's confusing.
>> Gulley: it is confusing.
>> Flood: DR. Gulley, at that
meeting, is it your testimony
that the narrative, that in 2022
there had been -- that
MR. Ramirez was surprised in
2022.
Was that exact narrative
discussed?
>> Gulley: it's kind of
confusing, but at the time...
>> Flood: I'm sorry.
>> Gulley: MR. Ramirez about
the fema rules, then at that
time he did not seem surprised.
>> Flood: is it -- I'm sorry.
Is it your testimony that
MR. Ramirez was at the
NOVEMBER 9 meeting?
>> Gulley: excuse me again?
>> Flood: is it your testimony
that MR. Ramirez was at the
NOVEMBER 9 meeting that you were
just talking about?
>> Gulley: no.
He was not at that meeting.
He was not at the edc meetings.
>> Flood: right.
I want to make sure the record
was clear.
So my question to you is, is
it -- are you telling this
tribunal that the issue of
surprise -- do you understand
when I say that?
>> Gulley: the issue of
surprise about what?
>> Flood: about changes in a
fema floodplain maps.
Does that narrative ring a bell
in your mind at all?
>> Gulley: I don't... I'm
not sure I completely understand
what you said.
You mean in that meeting, was
anyone surprised about that?
>> Flood: no.
I'm asking, in that meeting
where you say this issue of --
where fema maps was discussed in
an edc meeting on NOVEMBER 9th,
right, NOVEMBER 9, 2023?
>> Gulley: that was the
meeting we voted on it.
>> Flood: exactly.
In that meeting, it is -- would
it be your testimony that there
is some sort of discussion about
whether or not it would be
credible that MR. Ramirez was
surprised in 2022 about alleged
changes in the fema map?
Was that particular issue
discussed?
It's a yes or no question.
>> Gulley: no, I don't believe
that detail, was he surprised.
I don't think we discussed that
particular part of it.
>> Flood: okay.
And at the NOVEMBER 9 edc
meeting, there was absolutely no
discussion regarding any sort of
altered slide or anything like
that, right?
>> Gulley: no.
Not to my knowledge, no.
>> Flood: no.
And so what we know is that on
NOVEMBER 9th, 2023, at an edc
meeting that convened at
8:00 A.M., there was a
discussion, a spirited
discussion about whether or not
the edc board would recommend
1,043,000, which was the model,
or $2 million, which was the
request, or some other number.
Is that fair to say?
>> Gulley: yes.
But it went in an order.
First the motion was made and
voted on.
>> Flood: okay.
Object, nonresponse to
everything after yes.
So we know -- and that was the
spirited discussion, correct?
>> Gulley: it was a spirited
discussion I would say, yes.
>> Flood: and MR. Brasleton,
fair to say, was kind of
espousing the approval of the
2 million, and was advocating
that we need to support projects
like that.
Is that fair to say?
>> Gulley: probably, yes.
>> Flood: and it is also true
that you do not have any
specific recollection of the
mayor and her words advocating
one way or another.
She simply seconded and voted in
favor of the one that failed
3-6?
>> Gulley: no, they both
seemed to be supporting the
project.
>> Flood: who was the third
person that voted?
The minutes don't reflect it.
Based on your recollection, who
was the other member that voted?
>> Gulley: you know, I don't
remember.
But it was on my side of the
row.
And therefore, I might not have
been able to see them, because
other people between me and
them.
But it was someone on my side of
the row.
>> Flood: okay.
And so most definitely when
y'all voted to support that
1,043,000, you absolutely, under
no circumstances, were
supporting any sort of false
narrative regarding fema flood
maps, fair to say?
In
>> Gulley: I was not aware of
anyone mentioning any date, or
maps, or anything at that
meeting.
>> Flood: okay.
And was MR. Almaguer at that
meeting?
>> Gulley: I believe so.
i believe he was there.
He would have been at the far
end of the row that I was on.
>> Flood: okay.
As the petitioner's counsel
asked you questions, has he ever
represented you?
Has MR. Allison ever been your
lawyer?
>> Gulley: yes, he has.
>> Flood: is he currently your
lawyer?
>> Gulley: no.
That was a case some time ago.
>> Flood: okay.
Are y'all in any -- are y'all
business partners?
>> Gulley: in no way.
>> Flood: okay.
This past MAY, MR. Allison was
married in italy, correct?
>> Gulley: yes, he was.
>> Flood: and you went to that
wedding, didn't you?
>> Gulley: yes, I did.
>> Flood: and where was it?
>> Gulley: in italy.
Someplace in italy.
I've never been to italy before.
>> Flood: it was an
extraordinarily beautiful place,
right?
>> Gulley: it was a beautiful
place.
>> Flood: all right.
And at that wedding that you
attended, it was a small group
from corpus christi that went?
>> Gulley: yeah, pretty
good-sized group.
>> Flood: and at that wedding
that you attended a few months
ago in MAY --
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Flood: at that wedding --
>> Allison: I'll interpose an
objection.
At some point it gets too
off-track.
He's made the point in terms of
we definitely know each other
and have a relationship.
>> Flood: a couple more
followups on that.
And at that wedding, the
officiant at that wedding, who
was the officiant at the
wedding, who married MR. Allison
and his new bride, was tammy
watts, correct?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Flood: and tammy watts is
the wife of local lawyer michael
watts, correct?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Flood: and MR. And
MRS. Watts were there, right?
>> Gulley: michael and tammy,
yes.
>> Flood: and -- I have one
more question for MR. Gulley.
MR. Watts' mother is judge
sander watts, correct?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Flood: all right.
Now,
-- can I have a minute to
confer?
Just one second.
>> Paxson: a quick second.
>> Flood: I pass.
>> Allison: you pass?
>> Flood: yes.
>> Allison: okay.
>> Flood: I was going to show
pictures of the wedding, because
it was fantastic.
It was beautiful.
>> Allison: thank you.
And you are out of the country
right now, correct?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: why are you out of
the country?
>> Gulley: my son -- it's his
birthday also, but he's
proposing to his girlfriend of
eight years.
They've been together since 10th
grade.
>> Allison: I hope she found
out before we just found out.
[Laughing]
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Allison: okay.
>> Gulley: it was very nice.
>> Allison: all of those
relationships being considered,
I think the implication is that
somehow you would maybe be
untruthful because you and I are
friends, and I have represented
you in that case years ago.
Have you done -- said anything
in your testimony that is
untruthful?
>> Gulley: no.
>> Allison: thank you, sir.
>> where are you right now?
>> Allison: I pass.
>> Gulley: st. Lucia.
>> you're not in the united
states.
>> Gulley: no.
>> Flood: when did you go?
>> Gulley: friday?
>> Flood: all right.
>> Gulley: I'm coming back
tomorrow.
>> Flood: okay.
And today is friday the 7th.
This trial started back on
JULY 22nd, which is two weeks
ago.
Were you in corpus christi on
JULY 22 and 23?
>> Gulley: I might have been.
I was in south texas.
I was not in corpus.
>> Flood: you were on a ranch?
>> Gulley: yeah.
>> Flood: where is that?
>> Gulley: it's west of
fremont.
>> Flood: not too far.
Less than 150 miles from corpus
christi?
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Flood: all right.
So that's where you were on JULY 22nd and 23rd.
>> Gulley: yes.
>> Flood: okay.
I pass.
>> Allison: nothing further.
MAY this witness be excused?
>> Flood: go to the beach.
>> Paxson: yes.
>> Allison: I'm going to sign
off.
Thank you very much.
>> Gulley: thank you.
>> Paxson: MR. Allison, you
have any more witnesses?
>> Allison: close.
I would request a break to
assess whether or not I need to
call a rebuttal to a rebuttal.
>> Paxson: okay.
I think we're all back.
All right.
Then we will reconvene this
meeting.
MR. Flood --
>> Flood: respond.
>> Paxson: MR. Allison -- on
your microphone.
>> Allison: nothing further
from petitioners.
>> Paxson: do you rest?
>> Allison: we rest and close.
>> Paxson: MR. Flood?
>> Flood: rest and close.
>> Paxson: okay.
At this time, I would like to
recess until 3:00 P.M.
We'll call this meeting back in
session.
And at this time, I would like
to recess for 45 minutes to
allow the attorneys to confer
>> Paxson: okay.
We'll call this meeting back
to session and at this time
we will go into closing
statements.
Gentlemen -- gentlemen, have
you both reached and
agreement on the charge?
>> yes.
>> yes, there's not a need
for formal charge conference
conference.
>> Paxson: thank you.
And how much time?
Would 30 minutes work for
closing statements for both?
>> I believe so.
>> yes.
Then at this time>> Paxson: then at this
time -- do either parties
have anything further before
we go to closing?
>> Flood: no.
>> Allison: no.
>> Paxson: then MR.
MR. Allison.
>> Allison: MAY I proceed?
>> Paxson: yes.
>> Allison: first of all,
thank you for your time and
your attention.
To say that this has been
acrimonious at times, not
the proceedings, per se, but
in the community is a
massive understatement.
It takes real fortitude so I
thank each of you for your
fortitude in staying the
course, following what's
required according to the
city's charter and being
willing to hear some hard
truths.
And it leads us to a moment
where there is a very
serious matter that has
really been a cancer in this
community for a long time.
That's the truth.
We have -- we have
corruption.
And it does not -- it's not
words I like to say.
It's not something I'm proud
of.
It's not something I wish we
had to deal with.
It has been so much easier
for years to go along, get
along, scratch a back, keep
the ball moving, and this
group, though, has had the
courage to say we have to
face it.
I have zero personally -- I
cannot be more candid than
to just be blunt.
I have zero desire to do
anything but enrich and
improve my community, and it
is painful, it hurts to have
to face these issues and be
the ones to say that's wrong
and we can't do that anymore
anymore.
In a criminal case -- again,
we've said a thousand times,
this is not a criminal case.
No one wants for there to be
a verdict that sends
somebody to jail.
That's just putting a life
in jail is a hard thing to
do.
Of course, we're not doing
that here.
In a civil case no one wants
to -- they really don't.
Large verdicts or sending
the aggrieved family members
in a death case home is
painful for a jury.
No one wants to do that.
Just like here, no one wants
to really have to deal with
the underbelly of this city,
which has been the breeding
ground for the mayor for too
long.
It is serious, and it
requires serious people, and
you have and are stepping up
to that task.
I mean, no one wants to do
it.
No one wants to have to deal
with the cancer, but we have
to.
In this case it is very
straightforward.
I mean, look at all the
things, the fights that have
happened in connection with
what happened here.
It is manifestly evident
that bad things, wrong
things, any inappropriate
things, unlawful things,
altering of documents,
intentional changing of
documents that are from a
federal website.
They don't like the word
documents sometimes, federal
writing is the way it is
under the statute.
That is horrific.
And the idea that somebody
would go to you all and run
through a process and be
arrogant enough that they
can do that, I can walk
through this process, I get
to lie to ccrecd, they said,
and lie to type b and send
the lie to the city council
so I can get $2 million.
That is in the most horrific
way the greatest offense
when you all have such a
huge responsibility to
protect taxpayer money.
And they tricked you 90
shame on them.
Let them not trick you again
again, which is what we're
here for now because everett
roy is correct, it's never
too wrong to make the right
decision, and we have to,
because what we tolerate we
become.
If we don't act -- and I say
we because it's we.
You've seen me, I don't move
move.
I move one direction slowly
and steady, and you have too
too.
if we do not act, we become
the problem.
I want to make sure I don't
take too much time.
And I'm going to avoid some
of my slides here for a
minute because it is so
important to just be honest
about it.
If we do not act, we become
the problem.
And we cannot do that.
It has hurt this community
too hard for too long.
And what do we know?
We know that -- we know
phillip knew.
Of course he knew.
He lies to you and he says I
had no -- I'm an architect,
I've been here all my life,
I do all this work for the
city and I had no idea about
floodplains.
You are killing me.
Golly, that man could not
take a risk for litigation
if his life depended on it.
It's in a floodplain, you
know it's in a flood, you
will have to raise base
elevation.
He told them, of course he
did.
And I went to the ccrecd
meeting and of course he
told the mayor.
So of course she knew from
the beginning.
Even if you give her the
benefit of the doubt of all
the phone calls in the
record, I think there was
about 100 of them, we just
focused on the ones that are
closer in time to certain
critical dates, even if you
say that phillip and devin
bhakta didn't tell her, we
know beginning from the
ccrecd process when they
voted on it, she knew.
She knew about the lie.
She knew when it says in the
application, quote, newly
defined.
That's a lie.
We know when you look at the
slide, it was intentionally
offered.
Not according to doug, but
according to police,
according to the independent
evaluation, according to
every one of your common
sense.
I know you know it was
intentionally altered and
they removed dates
specifically to give it the
appearance that it was not
published in advance of
their project being
conceived.
That is certain, and she,
the mayor, knew about it.
She was told about it.
And we know that they
persisted in the lie that
she aided the fraud that she
aided through the ccrecd
process.
We know they perpetuateed it
because we have it on video
tape.
Phillip says fema, fema,
fema.
And we know that he used a
slide, at ted slide, forged
slide, because he
intentionally altered it.
We know that he did that
fraud.
It's certainly -- we're not
here on the criminal part of
it, but it is certainly
civil fraud, which is
defined in the paperwork you
have, an intentional
misrepresentation.
you've already found that it
is essentially fraud by your
finding that they were in
default of the agreement
with type b board.
That fraud got perpetuateed
through ccrecd, through type
b, and then came here on a
first reading and was
continued.
You all -- not you all, but
that council was lied to at
the time, relied upon that
false representation, relied
upon the false slide, which
is the definition of fraud
in the paperwork before you.
And you voted to approve it
in reading one.
Then they got caught and
then everything changed.
Before that let me make sure
I say this on reading one
because what we know
happened is that the mayor
mayor -- it's on video and
you've seen it.
She is the only person who
took that $2 million for her
friends by the hand
6ing
6,
starting at ccrecd, came
here and sat here in that
chair at council on FEBRUARY 20, 2024, and said
to michael hunter, it
changed.
Fema changed.
It changed, it changed.
Even though gulley had told
her the exact opposite in
NOVEMBER of 2023 to her face
face.
She came in and she advocate
advocated for that which she
had specifically been told
was false.
And then when ajit david
brought it to light, what do
we see?
14 phone calls in one day
before they withdraw it on
FEBRUARY 27th because they
realized, peter realizes
there's a fraud.
And he sums it up this way.
Let me see if I can play.
>> the request of
information from the
applicant, I don't have that
that.
They haven't given it to me.
I'm not giving any
recommendation.
I'm putting it on the agenda
agenda, I was asked to.
So you consider it.
You have to make your
recommendation.
>> but you did let the city
council know that there were
some -- you know, some
improper information, some
tampering and all that
involved.
You let them know?
>> I let them know.
We're going to let them know
again tomorrow in executive
session.
I already have an executive
session posted.
>> okay.
Peter, when does executive
session happen?
Does it happen towards the
end?
>> you know, no.
When we break for lunch most
likely.
I can't remember how many
items are on there.
Probably on the first break,
the lunch break.
So 2:30.
>> is it after public
comment or before?
>> no, it's after public
comment.
>> okay, no problem.
>> yeah, after public
comment.
>> I was just surprised that
council is still willing to
consider this after they
know what was done?
And on that website, on the
fema website, it seven says
this is a united states
government portal.
>> yeah.
>> on the very top.
>> right, it was -- and when
you read the entire
powerpoint, it's so obvious
that the reader or the
writer wanted one to be led
to believe that the fema was
just recent, even words like
recently released and this
and that.
And part of it goes back to
the narrative, mike
culberson said hey, this has
to be tied to infrastructure
infrastructure, and so then
they catch the scheme that
okay, fema floodplain,
that's infrastructure.
[Indiscernible].
And they stuck with it.
And then they developed a
narrative to fit it, but
they just found -- people
would say, shit they should
have known about this a long
time ago, like councilmember
hunter.
>> Allison: here's where
you need to be praised
because it's so difficult.
It was learned.
It was figured out what
happened a long time ago,
okay, but this community
toll rates and we become.
-- tolerates and we become.
If we continue to tolerate,
all we do -- next time we
might as well say hey, you
forged the document, I know
you forged it, I know it's a
crime.
I know it's wrong even if
it's not a criminal act.
I know that it's fraud.
I know that you want your
$2 million.
I know you're my friend.
And I'm going to give it to
you.
We cannot be that.
And the mayor was told by
zanoni in no uncertain terms
terms, said it several times
in his testimony, and the
mayor was told by ajit in
public comment, and the
mayor was told in executive
session and the mayor was
told again by ajit and the
mayor was told again by ajit
ajit's email to her, and it
was spelled out in another
email, all of this is in
evidence by ajit to peter
zanoni on MAY 7th.
And what does she do?
She gets in her deposition
and she says two things,
both of which were a lie,
either one of which is
perjury.
She says I wasn't kept in
the loop.
I don't know how much more
you can be in the loop.
And she said, I had no idea
there was anything illegal.
I guess what the definition
of "is" is.
No one said the word illegal
illegal.
Just because I got told,
from the mayor's perspective
perspective, just because I
got told at ccrecd that it
was false, just because I
knew they were getting
$2 million based on a false
statement, just because now
it's getting revealed that
they altered a slide.
No one said there was
anything bad about it or
illegal.
Shucks.
She has two choices, both of
which qualify for removal.
She's either just grossly
incompetent, really just
have to be incompetent to be
removed, or what's more
likely is she participated
clearly in the malfeasance.
She participated by advocate
advocating at ccrecd, she
participated by seconding
the motion, she participated
while she was violating her
oath of confidentiality by
texting did he veteran
texting deven bhakta when
there was a closed meeting
and on the phone with him
for 14 minutes.
And you are absolutely and
should infer that she of
course talked to him about
what happened at the meeting
meeting.
That is your prerogative as
the judges is to infer.
There's a definition of
circumstantial evidence in
the documents in front of
you, and you are free to
make the inference that she
talked about what happened
at that meeting on NOVEMBER
NOVEMBER 9th after she left
it and probably told deven
we didn't get a vote for a
million, but don't worry,
we're going to carry it on.
Of course she talked about
confidential information.
Aiding, promoting the fraud.
And then she came in front
and sat in that chair and
said to michael hunter and
everybody, knowing it to be
unclue, she said, it changed
changed, it changed, it
changed.
And then when peter said we
have a problem, what did she
do?
She said I want it on the
agenda anyway.
We're going to give my
friends $2 million.
I want this project that can
balance
cannibalizes, doesn't
qualify, that would get
twice as much as the model
on ccrecd.
Doesn't qualify.
I want this project, she
said, that has low-paying
jobs compared to what we
normally give projects --
give awards to.
I want this project that
even though it's already
coming in the words of
everett roy, it's already
coming.
And if you look at the
emails, they say yeah, we're
still coming.
We MAY have to finish out
the shell on the rooftop bar
later.
It's coming.
She wants this project that
does not qualify for any of
the reasons that you are
supposed to award an
incentive award.
And she kept promoteing it.
And when she was told don't
put it on the agenda, and I
don't recommend it by peter,
she said, I want it on the
agenda anyway and she got
her way because that is the
power of the office of pair
mayor office of mayor
and that is abused by this
repetitive conduct.
I think I've spoke to all
three of the articles.
She was aiding a fraud, and
that is incompetence, it is
neglect of -- it's a willful
neglect of her duties.
It is malfeasance.
It is misconduct to aid
somebody getting $2 million
in taxpayer money knowing
there's a false narrative
and a false document.
That's article number 1.
She's committed perjury by
lying, acting like she
doesn't know when of course
she knew what the results of
the investigation were.
And of course she knew there
was illegal or wrongful or
inappropriate conduct, and
don't let them parse words.
And of course she knows when
she's at the ccrecd meeting
she's not supposed to leave
there and call her buddy and
give them an update.
On those articles,
respectfully, follow the
evidence.
Make the hard findings.
And she should be removed
because if we don't, she
laughs her way to the next.
And what we tolerate we
become.
I'm going to reserve some
time, thank you.
>> Paxson: thank you, MR.
MR. Allison.
>> Flood: MAY I proceed?
I'll wait until my clock
gets up.
>> Paxson: yes, thank you.
>> Flood: thank you.
We have spent days hearing
evidence about events that
happened more than two years
ago and now all that
evidence comes down to
something very simple.
And there were four articles
articles.
Now there are three.
Petitioners brought them.
They have the burden to
prove them.
And after all this evidence
you're going to ask yourself
one question on each one,
did they prove it?
And when you do that, what
you do is you use the jury
charge.
And that is the document
that's been handed to you.
After all of this evidence
you're going to ask yourself
that one question, it all
started with that altered
screenshot of the fema
document that was turned
into a powerpoint slide and
the narrative it supported.
The mayor did not create
that slide.
She didn't create the
narrative around it, she
didn't prepare the
presentation, she didn't
write the agenda memorandum.
And most importantly, where
is the evidence that on
FEBRUARY 20th she knew the
false narrative that is the
key to the case?
I want you to go straight to
question number 1 because
there's a reason why the
petitioner's brought DR. Gul
DR. Gulley to you in
rebuttal because they didn't
meet this in their case and
chief and that is did she
aid a fraud because of the
the -- if you read the last
sentence on question number
1 on that last part of it,
it says alleged need for
complying with newly-defined
fema flood maps and/or alter
altered fema screenshot.
That was the narrative.
And the narrative was
informed by this altered
screenshot.
And there's no doubt that
screenshot was altered for
sure.
DR. Gulley declined to
testify that that narrative
was discussed.
That's the fraud.
You just saw him this
morning.
He said no, the narrative
wasn't discussed.
What he discussed was that
fema maps had changed in
2020.
And also you heard counsel a
few minutes ago say that on
FEBRUARY 20th they tricked
the council.
Well, yeah, they sure did.
You heard and you have it in
your record what MR. Pusley
said about it, MR. Roy said
about it.
Obviously we know what the
mayor said, but also
remember you know that MR.
MR. Culberson was standing
right here and when the
mayor espouseed this false
narrative that she had been
sold in the agenda memo and
said it changed, it changed.
Well, we weren't here, we
were at the rta building.
MR. Culberson said yeah, it
changed, it changed.
So the idea that she was
promoteing a false narrative
on FEBRUARY 20th would
require you to have a
witness who comes and says
that she was informed of it
before that, and DR. Gulley
couldn't do that.
He was incapable of agreeing
that she was told about the
false narrative.
So on question number one,
the answer, because it's
dependent on that, it's
dependent on that.
The answer is no on question
number one.
And think about it.
If a false narrative was
really actually discussed at
the edc meeting, really,
they approved a false
narrative for a million
dollars 43,000, what are we
doing here?
We've got a whole board over
there we have to talk about.
So we know that cannot be,
that cannot be the basis of
this aiding the false
narrative.
It really was a swing and a
MISS.
There's a reason they
brought them.
They don't meet.
And the reason I bring that
up is that, again, I
suggested it a minute ago.
What you have to do is
you've got to look at each
one and you've got to think
about all the evidence that
you've gotten.
You've gotten a lot of
evidence and you've got to
say where is it?
You've got to be able to
point to the thing that
proves by a preponderance of
the evidence that she can be
removed from office or
suspended or disqualified or
censureed for promoteing
something that council even
agrees and admits that the
council got tricked on.
And MR. Culberson agreed, no
no, it changed, it changed,
yeah.
So that is -- plus there's
also a very important part
and the definition of fraud
is included in your jury
charge.
I'm going to recommend to
you when you go back, go
back, get the jury charge
out, read it all through.
What usually happens is you
you -- in regular cases we
get -- I can't see my clock.
Thank you.
Sorry, I apologize, thank
you.
You just read the whole
thing through.
So one of the important
parts about fraud is that
there has to be reliance.
And I know this that you've
already heard about that,
you've heard about that from
daniel ray and I just will
say I empathize with the
issue of there's got to be
be -- we've got to be able
to do something about this.
I know COUNCILMAN Campos
said something about that in
her statements I brought up
earlier and I understand
that.
But fraud is fraud and
you're working with a legal
definition.
And the definition requires
reliance.
And we know there was no
reliance because the type b
board did not recommend the
incentive based on the
narrative.
We know that.
She came and testified.
MR. Roy agreed that was not
the reason for it.
So the causeal connection
between the false narrative
that existed, there's a
break in the causation
between that, what we
lawyers call causation.
There's not a connection
between that and the
incentive.
And so a bad slide and the
narrative it supported, not
done by the mayor, not
promoteed by her.
Once it's found out there's
an investigation, an
investigation that by all
accounts everybody agrees
that it was not completed by
APRIL 23rd, we know that.
In fact, there were motions
made here to complete it
before there was ever a vote
vote.
Which takes us to question
number 2 -- which takes us
to question number 2, and
again, when counsel just now
argued the [Indiscernible]
Thing, he went didn't bring
up the jury charge.
Let's look at it.
Did pallet guajardo, when
testifying at mayor, perjure
herself on AUGUST 6th, the
date of the deposition, by
stating, so I think what
you're telling me is during
that time frame, which is
not defined, so you are
being asked to guess, I
guess, what that question is
is, you were not in the loop
as to what the findings were
for the investigation.
I do invite you to read that
deposition.
Officer garcia, corpus
christi police department,
if you look at the police
department records that you
have, he spent AUGUST 8th,
9th and 11th -- or maybe it
was OCTOBER 8th, 9th and
and -- sorry, I'm getting my
dates mixed up.
OCTOBER taking that
deposition.
What you find out when you
read the entire deposition
is that the word findings
was entirely consistent with
the term conclusions that
was used by the witness over
and over and over again.
And so the question, so what
you're telling me is that
during that time frame
you're not in loop for what
the conclusions were for the
investigation, that's a
completely different
question.
It's not a completely
different question.
The word findings was
absolutely, it's an easy
inference to take from the
testimony that obviously
what she was referring to is
is, well, no, there were no
conclusions, we all know
that.
That was said by MR. Zanoni
and by council members on
APRIL 23rd.
Also, we know that on APRIL
APRIL 16th it wasn't
complete.
It was -- in fact, that was
the whole point of maybe we
should delay this thing so
they can complete the
investigation.
So whether or not there were
findings on APRIL 23rd
when that vote took place or
before, we know that there
weren't.
Were there facts?
yes.
Were there things that they
were learning?
Yes.
But were there findings or
conclusions?
Absolutely not.
There's no evidence that
there was.
There's zero.
So next question.
And again, I'm on page 6 of
the jury charge, question
number two.
So therefore you had no
knowledge that it was
something illegal in the
process that you were voting
on.
Again, I invite you to read
that deposition because in
the context illegal was a
finding or a conclusion of
illegality, and there wasn't
wasn't.
There simply was not.
The idea behind the petition
petitioner's theory is that
when she denied knowledge of
this criminal wrongdoing
that was discussed in
depositions in 2025 that
they tried to put their own
conclusions about criminal
findings, they tried to
shove that in her mouth.
And she simply refused to do
that.
So that is not percentage.
And I talked about that in
my opening.
That's a witness using the
correct language that, no, I
had not received any
findings and I had not
received any conclusions.
So the answer on number 2 is
that no, she did not commit
perjury by answering those
questions that way.
the facts date that she
didn't.
Three is an interesting
question.
So what it is is we're now
down to the -- a phone call
and a text message.
And the proposal is that a
sitting mayor elected,
properly elected, is removed
from office for that text
message and a phone call.
And that is something that I
hope this body takes very,
very seriously and strongly
considers what that means.
And what you have to do is
you have to understand that
the confidentiality
agreement was not broken
they want you to believe
that there's something
sinister about a text
message by by an he could
member by by an edc member
what is the item number?
He was not a member and the
edc is a membership board,
every member gets an agenda
that tells them what's on
there.
So what you have to do --
and the text messages were
what is the economic impact
of your project?
So it wasn't, hey, the board
is leaning this way.
This is what's happening in
our meeting.
Here's what everyone said.
This is what people are
saying.
What is the economic impact
of your project?
That question does not
reveal confidential
information.
He didn't respond.
It seeks information from
the person who already
possesses it.
And then they point to a
telephone call and they ask
you to assume, they ask you
to assume.
You can't.
When there is evidence you
can't assume.
Our system doesn't decide
cases on assumptions, it
decides them on evidence.
So ask yourself what is the
evidence?
There is exactly one witness
who testified about the
content of that conversation
and that was mayor paulette
guajardo.
And she was asked directly
what happened during the edc
meeting, I mean what
happened -- she was asked
directly whether she
revealed to MR. Bhakta what
happened during the edc
meeting, and her answer was
a very simple one, she said
I would not have done that,
no.
That's evidence.
In fact, it's the only
evidence you have.
They could have subpoenaed
MR. Bhakta to come in here
and ask him a bunch of
questions about that.
They chose not to.
There is no inference
available -- and you are
allowed reasonable inference
inferences, however when
there's direct evidence of
something you candidate.
So there is direct evidence
in this record about what
was said and it was not
whether she discussed what
happened.
That's the only evidence
before you about what was
actually said, that's it.
There is no other evidence.
There's no witness who
testified that she disclosed
confidential deliberations.
There's no documents showing
it, there's no text message
revealing it, there's no
recording, no email, no
admission.
And what's interesting,
there's no evidence that the
applicant did anything
differently after that.
So that is a pillar of their
case, and we don't -- you
don't have any additional
evidence than what the
petitioner's put on in their
own case.
They could have presented
some other evidence about it
it, like I mentioned earlier
earlier, and they chose not
to.
Instead they're asking you
to replace evidence with
suspicion.
And that is not how justice
works.
The confidentiality
agreement does not prohibit
her from asking an applicant
a question, it doesn't.
It doesn't -- it prohibits
disclosing confidential
information obtained as a
director.
And they have shown you the
communication occurred, but
they have not shown you that
it included any protected
confidential information.
They haven't.
The only evidence is, again,
I would not have done that,
no.
And so they're asking you to
reject sworn testimony, not
because they proveed it's
false, but because they want
you to speculate.
And speculation is not proof
in a law, under the law.
It's not.
Suspicion is not proof.
Speculation's not proof.
When you strip around the
rhetoric and you look only
at the evidence, this
accusation has no foundation
whatsoever.
So the answer on question
number 3 is no.
Answer of whether or not the
text message and phone call
on NOVEMBER 9th with the
[Indiscernible], whether it
was disclosed edc
confidential information,
there's no evidence to
answer yes.
The easiest thing in the
world is to punish someone
that you've already judged.
The hardest thing to do and
a brave thing to do is to
lay down that judgment long
enough to listen, and really
listen.
And that is what due process
requires you to do.
It is humility made into law
law.
And it asks only one thing:
do not decide first and then
listen later.
Because this is that
situation the hearing is
over before the first
witness ever even takes the
stand.
And if that happens, we
haven't removed a mayor, we
have removed the promise
that justice belongs to
everyone, all of us, every
one of us.
So before you cast your vote
votes, I want to ask you to
think about something larger
than paulette guajardo, I
want you to ask yourself how
much evidence is it going to
take for a handful of
elected officials to remove
another elected official
from office?
Because whatever rule you
create this evening does not
belong only to paulette
guajardo, it belongs to the
next mayor and the mayor
after that and it belongs to
every person who ever
accepts the responsibility
of public office in this
city ever.
And ultimately it belongs to
the people who elected them.
And you have heard words in
this proceeding that would
frighten any public official
official: fraud, crime,
perjury, malfeasance.
Those are powerful words and
powerful words require power
powerful proof, not
suspicion, not biased
assumptions, not -- when we
finally get past the words
and ask a simple question,
what did she know, what
confidential information did
she disclose, the answers
aren't there.
There is a temptation in a
case like this to say, well,
you know, something went
wrong and there's no doubt
that things went wrong in
this.
There was an altered fema
press release, there was a
false narrative.
There was confusion.
And there were questions
that should have been asked
sooner and resolved sooner.
There were people who could
have handled things
differently.
A lot of people who could
have handled things
differently.
But government is run by
human beings.
But that's not the question
you promised to answer when
you took your seats as
judges in this proceeding.
The question is whether the
evidence, the evidence in
this case, proves that the
mayor committed the acts in
this jury charge.
And you're limited to those
that are in in that jury charge
charge.
And there's a difference, a
profound, profound
difference, between saying
something went wrong and
saying she did wrong.
That distance can only be
crossed by evidence.
That's the only way you get
from something went wrong to
she did wrong, and it's not
suspicion, it's not
association, because that's
what a big part of the
petitioner's case is, it's
just association.
It's not hindsight.
It's not because she knew
somebody or because she
voted for something and it's
not because someone donated
to her campaign.
What you have to do to make
that bridge, to bridge that,
is evidence.
And if the evidence does not
carry you across that
distance, your duty is not
to finish the journey for
the petitioners, your duty
is to stop right there.
because that's what the
situation is.
There is no shame in saying
an accuse accusation was not proved
proved.
There's no shame in that.
There is honor in it.
Because the hardest exercise
of governmental power and
one of the things that is
remarkable about this is
that -- is this is an
incredible potential
exercise of governmental
power, an amazeing exercise
of power that you have in
your hands.
The hardest exercise of
governmental power is
sometimes refuseing to use it
it.
You were not elected to
protect paulette guajardo
and you were not elected to
punish paulette guajardo.
You were elected to protect
something much more
important: the integrity of
the office you yourselves
hold and the right of the
people of corpus christi to
choose who holds it.
The voters gave mayor
guajardo the office.
You have been asked to take
it away.
If you're going to do that,
then when you leave this
chamber tonight, you must be
able to say something much,
much more than, I suspected.
I wondered.
I had a feeling.
I thought, you know, maybe.
You have to be able to say I
know exactly what she did
and I can point to the
evidence.
In my opening I said you
will need to be able to look
at it and point at it and
show it.
If you cannot say these
things, and you cannot based
on the record, that the
petitioners have tried to --
have attempted to get into
this record, then the answer
to the questions is not a
difficult one.
It is no on every single one
of them.
And it's a no on every
single one of them not as a
favor to paulette guajardo,
not because you agree with
her, not because you approve
of every decision she's ever
made or any decision she's
ever made for that matter,
but because that is what the
evidence requires.
That's what you're limited
to, the evidence.
And you were told -- you
were told the instructions,
do not let bias play a part
in your deliberations, non-,
zero.
It cannot play a part.
And because when the
evidence ends, accusations
end with it.
And you have to go by
evidence.
Question number 1 is no.
Question number 2 is no.
And question number 3 is no.
I want to make sure because
we did some renumbering and
I want to make sure I've got
my numbers all right there
when we worked on this
earlier.
After you retire and you go
through this charge and
council's going to get up
and make -- and counsel's going
to get up and make another
argument, I will invite you
to leave the final judgment
about paulette guajardo
where it has always belonged
belonged, with voters.
And I'm going to take a
personal privilege here for
a minute and I'm going to
read -- these are cards that
I keep in my pocket that I
give out sometimes.
And it's one of my favorite
quotes.
It is, if we have no peace,
it is because we have
forgotten we belong to each
other.
Mother theresa said that.
And when you go back and you
assess this evidence, I
invite you to remember those
words.
And I'm saying this kind of
as a citizen myself too.
Peace, if we have no peace,
it's because we have
forgotten we belong to each
other.
My opposing counsel thanked
you at the beginning and I
want to thank you too.
And I also at the beginning
of this you might remember,
I said if any of you were
sitting over here, I would
proudly represent you.
I think I'm kind of
reconsidering that now.
And it's not you, it's me.
[Laughter].
I'm just kidding.
It has been an honor, it has
been an honor, to be part of
this proceeding, and I do
want to thank all of you for
your service to this city,
and I hope that you have
understood my job throughout
this project and what it is
that justice required of me.
I'm actually going to give
some of my time back, but,
again, if you look at the
evidence and you don't use
suspicion and you don't try
to use, you know, maybes,
but you actually look at
what was proven through the
evidence, the answer to
every single one of the
questions is no.
Thank you.
>> Paxson: there should be
10:minutes and 30 seconds
remaining for the petitioner
petitioners.
>> probably 60 seconds I
will go into this, thank you
you.
I'll wait for her to get set
set.
Thank you.
>> Allison: you were just
told that you're not here to
basically judge or to punish
or to protect mayor guajardo
guajardo.
Like somehow it's not your
job and he refers to the
voters, let the voters.
You've heard that theme at
different times, let the
voters decide.
Let me be very, very clear.
The answer to that is
there's supposition when we
say this is absolutely wrong
and let me tell you what I
mean by that.
You were voted to your
office and each of you took
an oath to enforce the city
charter and the city charter
requires the removal of the
mayor for malfeasance,
misconduct, for willful
neglect or for improper
conduct.
You were elected.
The voters put you here.
You are the voice of the
voters.
And this is exactly what you
are required to do under the
charter, period.
Then he said, and I think
it's so important, he said
how much -- and I'm quoting.
How much evidence is it
going to take to remove
paulette guajardo?
He used throughout his time
with you words like
speculation, association,
suspicion, assume, like
there's no evidence.
The answer to your question
is in the document in front
of you.
How much evidence does it
take?
It says it takes a
preponderance of the
evidence, which means the
greater way of credible
evidence presented in the
case.
And then it says in the
document in front of you,
you must find that the fact
is more likely true than not
not.
If the evidence in the
record is that it's more
likely, not certain, not
beyond a reasonable doubt,
this is not a criminal case.
If you think it's more
likely than not, that's a
preponderance of the
evidence.
And it is way more likely
than not that she aided the
fraud.
It is way more likely than
not that she was not being
candid and truthful when she
gave her testimony, and it
is way more likely than not
that she violated her
confidentiality pledge to
erc.
And then he wants to use
words like assume like
there's no evidence on the
violation with the erc, and
the very document in front
of you, the charge, says a
fact MAY be established by
direct or circumstantial
evidence.
It's not assumption.
It says, quote, a fact, a
fact is established.
I'm reading, by
circumstantial evidence when
it MAY be fairly and
reasonably inferred from the
other facts.
When you have her texting texting de
deven bhakta during a closed
confidential meeting,
leaving there after having
suffered the defeat of
wanting a 2-million-dollar
vote and only getting brian
gulley's 1-million-dollar
vote and calling and talking
to deven bhakta for 14
minutes, it is correct for
you to infer that she likely
talked to him about what
happened at the meeting.
Again, quote, a fact is
established by
circumstantial evidence when
it MAY be fairly and
reasonably inferred from the
other facts proved.
And we have absolutely proof
of the text messages and the
phone calls, and we know
what the mayor is capable of
when you look at her phone
call records from FEBRUARY
FEBRUARY 25 and 26 when
there's 14 calls before the
ordinance is withdrawn by
the city, only to be pushed
back on by the mayor.
We know she is absolutely
capable of not remembering
anything that would every be
harmful to her, and you MAY
make the right inference
that she likely spoke to him
him, that is a preponderance
of the evidence.
So there is evidence on
every one of the three
counts, and the answers to
those three questions is yes
yes, yes and yes, and each
one of them support removal.
You want to talk about the
evidence?
I'm going to go ahead --
ma'am.
I'm going to go ahead and
play -- he didn't put in any
evidence.
They didn't even hardly call
any witness.
They didn't even call the
mayor.
They would have loved an
impeachment trial where she
didn't answer any questions,
okay?
>> Allison:
>> Flood: it's improper
argument.
No burden of proof.
>> if I give you that
information about forge,
forged document, that forge
means to alter, make
complete, execute or
authenticate any writing,
that happened, right, so far
far?
>> yes.
>> that it purports to be
the act of another, that
happened to be fema, right,
in this case.
>> yes.
>> who did not authorize it.
We talked about fema did not
authorize it, right?
>> yes.
>> that happened in this
case.
>> yes.
>>
>> if that's a definition of
forge, then the facts of
this case meet that
definition.
>> yes.
Yes.
>> Allison: and you know
that exact clip was played
for peter zanoni and he
agreed with it.
And what they asked you to
do is to do nothing, knowing
that there was this forgery
or at least a fraud.
There was this wrongful,
inappropriate conduct, and
they want you to do nothing
about it, even though the
mayor knew about it from
start to finish, they want
her to get a free ride.
>> I think one of the
comments from
[Indiscernible] So my client
was even that you had told
some members of council, hey
hey, don't touch this,
something along those lines.
Did you do that?
>> I can't recall if I said
that exactly, but I would --
let me think of how I can
say this.
Given the -- given what we
knew at the time, given the
fact that it appeared a law,
federal law, had been broken
broken, I wouldn't consider
it yet.
I would not put it on the
agenda.
>> Allison: we know the
mayor is the one that wanted
it on the agenda.
>> after I interviewed
phillip, I did that same
evening I believe have a
conversation with the mayor
on the phone and COUNCILMAN
Pusley was there either in
the room or a three-way call
call, I'm not 100% sure, but
that was after the meeting
with phillip.
So I explained to the mayor
that phillip, who would be
the only one that could
explain what happened to
this document, could not
explain it.
So there was an obvious
change in the document from
the website to the
powerpoint.
And the only person --
probably two people that
could have explained it.
One was mike huckleson and
his team and the other is
phillip ramirez and his team
team.
We had a conversation with
mike culberson to rule him
out and asked for a copy of
his powerpoint presentation
and who created it, did he
create it or did phillip
ramirez create it?
And culberson said that the
powerpoint was created by
phillip ramirez, sent to
mike culberson who did
nothing to change it and
just placed it into a
template that had edc
heading on it.
That's why we ruled out
culberson as somebody that
MAY be aware of or MAY have
changed the document, and
then started working with
phillip ramirez as the sole
person that would know,
should know what happened to
the document.
>> and what you just told me
is what you told the mayor.
>> correct.
>> Allison: of course they
knew, of course she knew, of
course they figured it out.
The same thing that gulley
told them back at the ccrecd
ccrecd, ajit david revealed
the falsity of it.
Ajit david revealed the
forgery of a written
document.
And of course they told her.
And they told her again in
special -- in executive
session.
That's in the evidence.
And ajit david stood in
front of you again and told
her and gave her picture of
it, and ajit david stood in
front of her again on APRIL
APRIL 23rd and told her
and again there were
pictures of it.
>> correct.
>> and so therefore you had
had -- what you're telling
me is during that time frame
you were not in the loop as
to what the findings were
for the investigation?
>> correct.
>> and so therefore you had
no knowledge that it was
something illegal in the
process that you were voting
on.
>> right, there was --
>> okay.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> Allison: she winks at
her lawyer, it's on the
video, right?
It is exactly what peter
zanoni called it early on,
it is a scheme.
She participated in it, she
promoteed, she advocateed, she
lied about it.
[Buzzer].
She did betrayal of ccrecd
confidentiality.
And it's got to stop.
What we tolerate we become.
Thank you.
>> Paxson:thank you, gentlemen.
At this time the council
will now go into executive
session on agenda item 1,
pursuant to texas government
code sections 551.071 and
section 551.074.
Were so that we can mark our
documents and be clear on
what's meant when you do
what you do.
>> Paxson: absolutely.
>> if that makes sense.
>> Paxson: on the cover
page, the first section
relating to number of votes,
this is requiring that five
members vote affirmatively
according to the city
charter the policy would be
a majority, where five would
only be require ford a
required for a removal
action, so we would be
acting ton policy set in the
charter, so outside of a
removal action, we'll let a
majority of the voting body
pre-rail.
>> if I'm hearing you
correctly, so it's clear on
the record, go there to be a
removal, it would have
required five votes is that
right so far.
>> Paxson: yes.
>> and in b, a suspension
for no more than 30 days
that would require four
votes.
>> Paxson: yes.
>> for c, that would be
disqualification for holding
further office with the city
for two years, that will be
two votes.
>> Paxson: I will let the
record show that was our
second item, where it says
ab and c, on charge one, c,
we interpret as actually
being a provision under a,
and so we would strike c,
and it would be a, b, and
then the final option.
>> okay, because c, as I
understood it, would have
been a reprimand option to
say you can't run for
further office.
In other words, you would be
ineligible from running next
cycle as a reprimand.
Not that it's the same -- I
don't think it's the same as
removed from office.
>> Paxson: we interpreted
through the charter that
that language was one of the
options was a removal from
office, which would result
in a time frame of
ineligibility to run.
Another option would be
suspension, up to 30 days.
Another option would be a
reprimand.
>> and did you get advice
from the city attorney on
whether or not there was an
option for a reprimand?
>> Paxson: we did.
MS. Lisa, could you advise
on that distinction?
>> the charter provides for
the -- the council has the
authority to reprimand or
suspend a member for a
period of not more than 30
days if removal is not
warranted.
>> under that charter, would
an available remedy be a
reprimand where you were not
eligible in the next cycle?
>> no.
>> okay, that's what I
wanted --
>> that section is sub
section e, which says a
member who is removed from
office, whether pursuant to
this section by recall or
other legal proceeding or
who resigns after any such
proceeding has been
initiated not be eligible to
be appointed to or run as a
daintd for city office for
two years from the date of
removal, recall or
resignation.
>> when I was trying to
clarify, could you not
remove but still make them
ineligible as a reprimand.
>> Paxson: no.
>> okay, that's what I
wanted to clarify.
>> Paxson: okay, then
last, the options for the
three different charges, use
the word censured, we would
revert back to the charter
that says reprimand.
>> ah, okay.
>> Paxson: okay, thank
you.
Any other questions on
that?
>> none.
Okay.
>> Paxson: we will again
as I stated earlier, we'll
go over each of the charges
and determine whether or not
those are determined or will
stand, and then we will do
vote on the remedy for each
of those in sequence
afterwards.
Mayor and council, on
question one, did paulette
guajardo engage in any
misconduct, malfeasance or
willful neglect in
performance of her official
duties by aiding a fraud
upon the taxpayers of the
city of corpus christi,
related to the alleged need
for complies with newly
defined fema flood maps
and/or altered fema screen
shot?
And if you would please
submit your vote on that.
Okay.
So that's five to one.
Okay.
The second question, we're
ready.
Did paulette guajardo while
testifying in her official
capacity as mayor per
perjure herself on
AUGUST 26, 2025.
What you're telling me is
during that time frame you
were not in the loop as to
what findings were for that
investigation.
Answer correct.
Question, so therefore had
you no knowledge it was
something inlegal in the
process you were voting on.
Answer, right.
And thereby commit
misconduct, malfeasance,
incompetence, inability or
willful neglect of
performance of her official
duties.
Councilmembers, please
vote.
Okay, so that is five-one in
favor.
The last question, question
three is the paulette
guajardo commit misconduct,
malfeasance, incompetence,
or inability or willful
neglect of performance of
her official duties by
failing to hold all
information received from
ccredc activities strictly
confidential.
And you vote on that,
please.
Okay, so that's 4-2.
Okay.
So mayor pro tem, at this
point we're going to go
to -- back to question one
and determine the penalty
for that -- for that
question.
>> Paxson: and so do we
all understand how that
voting will take place
according to the sequence
listed we'll vote each item
in order.
So question one.
>> question one is one a is
paulette guajardo is hereby
removed from office.
Yes, question one, the first
penalty, could vote on that,
please.
Okay.
So that would require five
votes to pass, so that one
fails.
Next is paulette guajardo is
hereby suspended from office
four, and stipulate the
number of days if you were
interested in that option.
>> I'm sorry.
Should we make a motion to
determine the days before
voting, I would imagine.
>> yes, I would, so that's
there and we'll vote on it.
>> Paxson: do we have a
motion to suggest?
>> 30 days.
>> Paxson: we have a
motion and a second for 30
days.
i think that's what she's
queuing up.
>> okay, I think she can --
okay, it's ready.
If you would like to do 30
days, it will reflect that
on your screens.
Okay, so that is 5-1.
So that one passes.
So that makes d, c moot, so
we'll move on to the next
one.
And that's question two.
And the first one is removal
from office on question
two.
Okay, so that is 4-2, so
that requires five votes, so
that fails.
Okay.
Next is paulette guajardo is
hereby suspended from office
for, and if you're
interested in that option,
we would need the number of
days.
>> I think since the first
one -- con kurt.
>> yeah, we can move to the
next options under that
one.
I'm sorry?
[Indistinct chatter]
Okay.
We can --
>> you want to vote on
suspension for this charge?
All right. And the number
of days?
>> Paxson: motion for 30
days, do I have a second,
all in favor -- I'm sorry,
you're going to pull the
vote off...
Okay.
So no.
That fails 4-2.
And then we would go --
yes.
>> okay, the last one is
paulette guajardo is hereby
reprimanded for conduct
beneath the office of
mayor.
Okay, so that passes 5-1.
Okay.
And then on question 3,
question 3 (A), or e, it
says on here, paulette
guajardo is hereby removed
from office.
>> it's my understanding
that one has already been a
4-2 so --
>> Paxson: I'm sorry.
Could you review the vote on
3.
It was 4-2 so the charge
prevailed.
>> yes, the question is four
votes.
>> Paxson: now we'll go
over each.
Is there further question on
that.
>> yes, does that make
sense.
>> I would object to the
removal portion under e,
because that would require
five on the yes, so that's
the only reason --
>> well, the question, we
didn't vote on removal for
this particular charge.
Am I not understanding so
...
>> the predicate question
which would be for -- if
ewas selected under this
predicate question, the
predicate question would
also have to have five votes
because it would be a vote
for removal under question
three, so under the charter,
you couldn't have a
predicate question of -- on
question 3 being four votes
and removal five votes,
because the underlying
conduct is not decided to be
subject to removal,
simply --
>> we're going off what our
city attorney add is
advised
for that, the actual removal
when we vote on that
penalty, that penalty
requires five votes, that's
what we were advised.
>> Allison: I think we
kind of see what probably is
going on there, but I think
the vote is appropriate.
>> Paxson: okay.
Is that all right with
everyone?
So it's MR. Flood.
>> Flood: I'm not sure the
proper procedure here, with
but I think my issue was
addressed, I wanted to point
that out.
>> Paxson: yes, sir, we
did check with the city
attorney on these, in room
city attorney.
So on question 3 (E),
removal of the mayor on that
charge.
Okay.
So that fails.
Okay.
Next is paulette guajardo is
hereby suspended from
office, and looks like 30
days is what would be
working with.
>> I'm so sorry to
interrupt, but could I
just -- I just realized,
could I ask media to be in
media box, I'm so sorry.
Thank you.
Proceed.
Thank you.
>> we've been doing 30 days,
is 30 days by affirmation,
is that acclamation, is that
okay?
Okay, so that fails.
So the last option is
paulette guajardo is hereby
reprimanded for conduct
beneath the office of
mayor.
Okay.
So that is tied, so that
fails.
Okay, and was that all
three?
That was all three.
>> yes, ma'am, there are
just three, yes, ma'am.
>> Paxson: okay.
Then -- MR. Shamsie, is
there -- seeing no further
business, this meeting is