Texas Office of the Attorney General

CHRONOLOGY

Key dates & context

1. Oct 22, 2025Source record

   Walmart code-compliance documentation

   Webster’s signed form for OR-25-034390-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 8/13/25. Compare the certified production assertion with the scope and actual code-compliance delivery.

   Context, limits & source references

   The full August 13 payload has not been exhaustively reconciled here; July 28 follow-up existence alone does not prove it was omitted. September 22 complaint is later than July 18–30 scope. Duplicate p424 is the same certification.

   • Signed certification · source PDF p. 401 · OR-25-034390-IC
2. October 30 & November 24, 2025Source record

   Early DA response and request for supporting documents

   On October 30 Bailey says MPPD consulted him, that he requested continued investigation and that he requested a report. Separately, his November 24 reply to Kyle’s November 17 City-conduct and records-practices complaint asks Kyle to forward documents for review.

   Context, limits & source references

   These are separate investigative-status and City-complaint exchanges. They document engagement; they do not establish completed review or identify the substance of a particular 2025 City Hall–DA call-log entry.

   • J001, October 30 response, page 1; J002, November 24 response and quoted complaint, pages 1–2
3. Dec 15, 2025Author’s account

   Kyle supplements the City complaint with inspection and records concerns

   Kyle sends a section 552.3215 supplement addressing the October 28 inspection, his October 29 request, omitted coordination records and electronic formats. This continues the November complaint and the submission of material for DA review.

   Context, limits & source references

   The submission documents the issues raised. An attachment icon does not establish that its full contents were reviewed by the DA or cleared in this audit.

   • J003, December 15 supplement, PDF page 1
4. Jan 8, 2026Recorded conversation

   January voicemail asks Bailey to return a call about TPIA correspondence

   The corrected handset screenshot shows an outgoing call to the DA main number, 903-577-6726, on January 8, 2026, at 11:57 AM for 56 seconds. Kyle confirms the office’s automated greeting, that he presses zero, and his message seeking a callback from Mr. Bailey about their correspondence regarding TPIA issues and concerns.

   Context, limits & source references

   Words and Kyle’s identity/action confirmed by Kyle on September 20. The opening contains only a mic test and the ending is background noise. The screenshot timezone and precise alignment of the 91-second recording with the handset’s 56-second call remain unverified. Leaving a message does not establish Bailey listened to it.

   • January 8 DA Phone Call (Voicemail), original audio
   • Corrected screenshot PDF, date-folder copy, page 1; County phone directory, District Attorney Office entry
5. Feb 9, 2026Recorded conversation

   TCDA Staff confirms receipt and says the documents have not yet been reviewed

   TCDA Staff says, “Sir? Yes he has them.” Kyle asks, “He still hasn’t reviewed them?” TCDA Staff answers, “No,” and describes court and trial backlog. Kyle says he will follow up next week; no review deadline is promised.

   Context, limits & source references

   The staff member reports receipt and the review status on February 9. The recording does not establish a conversation with Bailey, a promised review deadline or whether review occurred later.

   • February 9 Phone Call Transcript (TCDA Staff), PDF pages 1–5; relevant exchange 02:43–03:37
6. Mar 30, 2026Author’s account

   Escalation to OAG and a separate complaint against the DA

   Kyle’s March 12 submission recounts a February 24 mailed binder and more than 90 days without local enforcement; Intake confirms receipt and says an attorney will be assigned. On March 30 Kyle sends a complaint against TCDA. On April 2 Richardson separately directs the TOMA matter toward local law enforcement or the prosecutor.

   Context, limits & source references

   The binder mailing history is Kyle’s account; March 12 receipt is acknowledged. The City PIA complaint, complaint against TCDA and TOMA complaint have different scopes and dispositions.

   • March 12 complaint submission and intake acknowledgment; March 30 separate TCDA complaint transmittal; April 2 Richardson response on open-meetings routing.
7. Apr 17, 2026Source record

   OAG identifies two apparent TCDA violations, then declines action as cured

   OAG’s signed April 17 determination identifies an apparent missing section 552.221(d) certification and an apparent failure to determine the City complaint or provide a conflict notice within the stated period. It concludes these appeared cured and declines action, relying on TCDA’s production representation and preliminary determination.

   Context, limits & source references

   Both the adverse findings and the cure/no-action rationale belong in the account. This PIA determination does not decide every criminal allegation or establish independently that production was complete.

   • J036, April 17 determination, PDF pages 1–2; J006 transmittal
8. Apr 27, 2026Source record

   Walmart, CT and MPPD communications

   Webster’s signed form for OR-25-055840-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 12/2/25. Compare the certification with official correspondence, RMS activity and the particular records produced. Keep minor-sensitive material separately flagged.

   Context, limits & source references

   Original request permits PDF/MSG/EML; metadata where feasible. Existing emails and the City’s explanation warrant comparison, but exact delivery reconciliation and knowing-falsity findings are not established. Whole case file is not selected.

   • Signed certification · source PDF p. 309 · OR-25-055840-IC
9. Apr 27, 2026Source record

   Ordinance 2025-24 records

   Webster’s signed form for OR-25-057987-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 11/26/25. Connect the certification to the Council and ordinance correspondence requested.

   Context, limits & source references

   Read the certification alongside the November 25 evening correspondence, paying attention to the request’s cutoff date and what the City says it had already supplied.

   • Signed certification · source PDF p. 90 · OR-25-057987-IC
10. Apr 27, 2026Source record

    Aggregate public-information request data

    Webster’s signed form for OR-25-058955-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 12/11/25. Compare the production assertion with the requested 2024–2025 request data.

    Context, limits & source references

    A checkbox/response discrepancy needs explanation but does not itself establish concealed records: all existing records could mean zero. Stated counts or later timekeeping rules do not prove a preexisting historical master log.

    • Signed certification · source PDF p. 22 · OR-25-058955-IC
11. Apr 27, 2026Source record

    Chief Buhman’s phone history

    Webster’s signed form for OR-25-059503-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 12/17/26 [as written]. Compare asserted delivery dates with the later screenshot correspondence and retained image evidence.

    Context, limits & source references

    The stated production date is after the signature date. Preserve it as written; cause unresolved. May 12 attachment labels do not prove Kyle received images. This personal-phone request differs from the Citywide provider CDR format/fee issue.

    • Signed certification · source PDF p. 16 · OR-25-059503-IC
12. Apr 27, 2026Source record

    January 13 City-official Walmart visit

    Webster’s signed form for OR-26-004942-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 1/21/26. Connect the certified assertion to the visit records and the corresponding production.

    Context, limits & source references

    Three listed attachments are not the entire requested universe; software capabilities and request wording do not prove particular media were created. Form’s title says Assistant City Manager/ City Manager; retain as written.

    • Signed certification · source PDF p. 70 · OR-26-004942-IC
13. Apr 27, 2026Source record

    City email search for Moring, whistleblower and OSHA

    Webster’s signed form for OR-26-006368-IC represents that all existing responsive information was made available. Production date written on the form: 2/2/26. Compare the certification with search scope, later-located correspondence and completeness objections.

    Context, limits & source references

    Request subject ends December 29 but body includes December 30; PDFs allowed if native infeasible. Kyle’s 366/19 counts and later claimed missing native emails are not independently reconciled here. Companion Walmart OR-26-006369 is separate; no signed form located for it.

    • Signed certification · source PDF p. 75 · OR-26-006368-IC
14. May 28, 2026Source record

    Disclosure concerns repeatedly sent to the DA and OAG

    The reviewed sequence includes April 28–29 OpenGov and forensic-payment notices, May 21–22 Schneider customer/payment notices to both offices, and May 28 notice to Bailey copying Richardson about an unredacted MPPD report. A later May 28 binder transmittal includes the LES-related concerns. Beck’s reply acknowledges apparent inadvertent disclosure, requests deletion and offers a redacted replacement.

    Context, limits & source references

    A sent notice is not proof each recipient read every attachment. The disclosed report was 25-15902, distinct from the grooming and CT cases. These entries address City disclosure handling; raw identifiers, authentication values and the unredacted report are not reproduced.

    • J011/J043 and J014, April notices; J015–J016, Schneider notices; J020/J044, May 28 notices and binder; J039 page 3, Beck response
15. May 29, 2026Source record

    Bailey adopts OAG’s City findings and describes the scope of his review

    Bailey issues a City PIA no-violation/no-action letter adopting OAG’s May 22 findings. He separately says he holds the USB drives and reviewed the case file, then clarifies that PIA submissions were evaluated while no other evaluations were yet complete. OAG’s underlying determination explains its reliance on City completeness and rolling-production representations, separate ORD processes and jurisdictional limits.

    Context, limits & source references

    The PIA disposition contains an adopted rationale. It should not be described as no response or as a documented dismissal of every criminal or disclosure issue.

    • J021–J023, May 29; C201 pages 3–6, May 22 City determination; J017 transmittal
16. Jun 6, 2026Source record

    TOMA complaint receives a no-action letter without issue-specific analysis

    After acknowledging the complaint on May 8, Bailey’s June 6 letter states he finds no violation in the complaint or supplemental materials and will take no action. The letter does not explain how he resolved each allegation about the March 17 meeting.

    Context, limits & source references

    This supports the specific criticism that the TOMA letter lacks issue-by-issue explanation. It does not make the separate May 29 PIA disposition unexplained or establish that no review occurred.

    • J009, May 8 acknowledgment; J025, June 6 determination, page 1
17. Jul 22, 2026Source record

    Later OAG correspondence narrows what was closed and what was considered

    On July 7–8 Richardson closes further City review in deference to the mandamus case, leaving the May 22 determination operative unless amended. July 20–22 messages separately address the TCDA complaint, reported record completeness and section 552.328 routing. Richardson declines to consider a later disclosure issue within that complaint because it involved subsequent circumstances and a separate request.

    Context, limits & source references

    A scope decision is not a finding that the later disclosure was proper. The July procedural explanation should be presented alongside, rather than substituted for, the April 17 determination.

    • J037 pages 1–2; J033 page 1; J035 page 1
18. Aug 3, 2026Records request / response

    Historical OAG decision-search snapshot

    A saved search-results page records a query concerning Mount Pleasant on August 3, 2026.

    Context, limits & source references

    It is not an OAG determination or proof that a ruling request was never filed. Search coverage, filters and later updates affect the result.

    • R011 · Revised Exhibit S; source S01 · OAG search page retained by Moring
19. Sep 10, 2026Author’s account

    Separate follow-ups seek the DA’s written determinations

    Kyle followed up with Titus County DA Bailey about the August 13 complaints involving OR2026-018153 and OR2026-027532, requesting filing-date confirmation and written determinations.

    Context, limits & source references

    Each complaint remains separately identified. The emails’ deadline positions and claimed omissions are Kyle’s assertions.

    • Kyle’s two September 10 emails to Bailey
20. Sep 15, 2026Source record

    Beck transmits records under the Rodriguez ruling

    On September 15, Beck transmits what he describes as all responsive information deemed releasable under OR2026-018153. The quoted chain includes Bailey’s September 13 inquiry and Beck’s September 14 statement that the City had located the files and was separating withheld from releasable pages. This production follows the June 2 ruling, June 4 demand and August 13 complaint. Kyle’s September 16 notice separately describes the supplied pages and an October 23 Rodriguez email.

    Context, limits & source references

    The chronology documents production after the complaint and Bailey’s inquiry. Counsel’s completeness statement remains attributed to counsel; it does not independently resolve every requested category or establish why the earlier delay occurred.

    • Beck’s September 15 production email
    • Kyle’s September 16 supplemental notice transmittal
21. Sep 18, 2026Author’s account

    Later mandamus update sent to OAG

    Kyle told OAG that he agreed to dismiss the mandamus proceeding based on the City’s agreement to rerun one identified search. He continued to dispute production completeness and the asserted chronology of the Chief’s phone screenshots.

    Context, limits & source references

    The email is Kyle’s account. A signed disposition and the search’s completion have not been verified in this update.

    • Kyle’s September 18 mandamus update to Kent Richardson
22. Sep 18, 2026Source record

    CRIMES records dispute reaches OAG briefing

    SHSU reported submitting its brief on September 17. Kyle sent requestor comments on September 18 concerning OAG reference OR-26-051837-RR and SHSU File 25-3848. SHSU acknowledged receiving his submission.

    Context, limits & source references

    The acknowledgment is not a ruling on the requested records.

    • SHSU September 17 brief-transmittal email
    • Kyle’s September 18 comments transmittal
    • SHSU September 18 acknowledgment