THE DATES, WITH THEIR SOURCES
This review focuses on temporal proximity to Kyle Moring’s October 22, 2025 criminal-trespass warning: the City instructions, safety complaints, agency findings and other documented activity immediately before and after it. The written warning is timed 9:03 a.m.; the separate investigation’s RMS log shows access at 9:52 a.m. The nearby calendar includes Webster’s October 8, 15 and 16 instructions, Vine’s October 17 email, and the October 20 City records. June and July materials are identified separately as earlier background.
This page puts those records on one calendar so readers can check the dates for themselves. A connection between the separate events has not been established. The timing does not establish coordination, retaliation, intent or the content of a conversation.
Follow the wider Store #131 case path or return to the dated chronology. This dedicated timing review preserves its date-by-date comparisons and source links.
RMS is the police records-management system. DA means District Attorney. Dates below describe events in 2025, even when the records were supplied later.
OCTOBER 22, 2025 · THE FEATURED TIMING COMPARISON
The displayed times place the first RMS access shown that day 49 minutes after the written warning. The log then shows multiple entity/role entries, offense and investigation entries, and primary-report updates.
The written warning carries this time, following the displayed text-message and dispatch sequence.
Reviewed recording and transcript ↗Warning and dispatch source references ↗The Odom account accesses the separate investigation’s record.
Log excerpt · original page 9 ↗The log displays repeated “Insert involved entity” and “Update incident involved entity role” operations.
Log excerpts · original pages 9–8 ↗Several categories of offense-related entries appear, followed by investigation-status and assigned-officer entries.
Log excerpts · original pages 8–7 ↗The Odom account updates the primary report at 1:44 p.m. Nipp-account access and report updates appear later that afternoon.
Log excerpt · original page 7 ↗What the sequence establishes: these actions are recorded on the same date, with the RMS times displayed after the warning time. The 49-minute interval is calculated from the displayed clocks; those clocks have not been independently synchronized. The record does not establish why the activity occurred or a causal connection to the trespass warning.
The log also shows September 19 creation and access before October 22. That context is retained without treating it as an explanation for the October 22 concentration of activity. This page does not establish that the activity was statistically unusual compared with a complete investigation history.
Earlier log activity · original page 10 ↗OCTOBER 8–20, 2025 · BEFORE THE OCTOBER 22 WARNING
The dates below show proximity to the warning. Each direction is tied to its own correspondence and recipients. The October 8 request follow-up, October 15 safety email and October 16 escalation are separate messages.
The instruction accompanies Kyle’s request for receipt confirmation and a tracking number.
Read the dated entry and source ↓The underlying email asks about permits, construction separation and inspection follow-up. TDA’s non-compliant scale-result notice is also dated October 15; the records do not establish that Webster knew that result when writing.
Read the directive and its limits ↓Compare the separate TDA result notice ↓Kyle’s underlying message cites the earlier DSHS asbestos findings and seeks further safety and permit review.
Read the instruction and privacy-corrected source ↓His email directs recipients to avoid back-and-forth. The calendar separately includes the scheduled DSHS–City meeting and Ankrum’s proposed site visit.
Read Vine’s direction and source ↓Compare the meeting arrangements ↓The revised TLE notice retains the fire-related finding. The separate food-permit letters thank Walmart for its inspection cooperation. Each record addresses a different scope.
Compare the TLE notices ↓Read the food-permit letters ↓What this adds: the City’s own written handling instructions beside the surrounding complaint and inspection records. None of these instructions orders a criminal-trespass warning. Proximity alone does not establish that these communications caused the warning or that the officials coordinated the encounter.
DSHS referred concerns in July. Kyle submitted a separate TDA scale complaint on October 6. TDA inspected October 14 and reported a non-compliant result October 15. The scale finding is distinct from the complaint’s other allegations.
Read the TDA complaint-to-result sequence ↓The October 22 RMS activity includes multiple kinds of database operations throughout the day. The source pages show the action labels, accounts and times.
Read the featured same-day sequence ↑The City Hall-number matches span September 5 through October 30. Two October 21 rows may describe one call. Three October 23 entries last 3, 0 and 0 seconds.
Inspect every matched City Hall row ↓A COMMON CALENDAR
Columns distinguish the evidence types. Their placement does not draw a causal link. Within a date, cards are grouped by record type—not by a verified minute-by-minute sequence.
44 selected entries across 18 dates · Earlier RMS activity and the full City–DA row list remain available on this page.
Agency & City records
At 12:24 p.m., Kyle reports a torn or illegible consumer-information sticker at Register 29 and recurring self-checkout weighing or pricing problems, including Registers 27 and 28. At 12:31 p.m., the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) acknowledges the complaint and says an inspector will be assigned.
What this does not establishThe complaint records Kyle’s observations; the acknowledgment records receipt and an intended inspection. Neither is an agency finding. The later inspection and result notice are separate records.
Agency & City records
Fourteen days before the warning, Webster writes, “Do not respond to the message.” Her October 8, 6:13 p.m. email copies Lynn Barrett, John Ankrum and Austin Beck. The quoted 5:53 p.m. message from Kyle follows up on his October 6 TLE records request and asks for receipt confirmation and a tracking number.
What this does not establishThe instruction concerns this identified correspondence. The thread does not establish that it directed a later police response or that no City action occurred afterward. The times are as displayed in the email copy.
Call-log entries
City Hall main number: 1:27 recorded duration.
What this does not establishThe records match the DA office number. They do not identify a speaker, subject, answered call or relationship to another event. Older log timestamps have no stated timezone.
Agency & City records
DSHS says it is keeping the complaint closed while awaiting federal-agency communication to avoid interference or delay.
What this does not establishThis records DSHS’s stated rationale. It does not establish that a federal agency requested a stop. DSHS’s subsequent October 28 inspection is included below.
Agency & City records
TDA’s Store 131 complaint inspection records Scale 28 at 7.03 pounds using a 7-pound test weight, an error of +0.03 pounds marked “OW” (overweight in excess of tolerance). The report identifies one device affected by one out-of-order report. It also says all scales had legible consumer-information stickers at the inspection.
What this does not establishThis substantiates a specific scale noncompliance, not every allegation in the complaint. It does not establish earlier transaction losses, how long the condition existed, or a connection to the later trespass warning. The inspection date is October 14; the report was supplied later.
RMS activity
The Odom account records access at 10:56.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Agency & City records
At 6:28 a.m., Nathan Wilson tells Kyle that TDA completed the Store 131 complaint inspection and that the inspection result was non-compliant. The preceding day’s inspection report provides the device-specific findings.
What this does not establishThis is an agency result notice, distinct from Kyle’s complaint and from receipt of the detailed report. It does not say every reported concern was substantiated or establish a causal link to later City or police activity.
The supplied call transcript records Kyle reporting TLE construction conditions and a garden-center entrance door frame clamped to shelving. He says employees reported that condition had existed for some time and requests field verification because his OSHA emails were receiving funding-lapse automatic responses. His October 15 photographs show the clamps.
What this does not establishThese document Kyle’s report and the visible condition, not an OSHA finding. The photos alone do not establish how long the condition existed or whether this doorway was designated an emergency exit. The linked transcript documents Kyle’s report; no OSHA finding is included.
Seven days before the warning, Webster writes, “Please do not respond to this message,” and characterizes Kyle’s message as an attempt to avoid the Public Information Act process. The email addresses Barrett, Ankrum and Beck, copying the Fire Department and Vine. Kyle’s quoted October 14 message asks about permits, construction separation, egress, hot work, dust control and inspection follow-up during the federal funding lapse.
What this does not establishThe characterization is Webster’s. The message documents an internal instruction, not a substantiated finding about Kyle’s purpose or a direction to issue a trespass warning. The export displays 09:37:41+00:00; it is not used to order this instruction against the TDA result notice or other same-day records.
Call-log entries
Other City line ending 4193: 4:37 recorded duration.
What this does not establishThe records match the DA office number. They do not identify a speaker, subject, answered call or relationship to another event. Older log timestamps have no stated timezone.
Agency & City records
At 1:31 p.m., Webster tells Barrett and Ankrum, “Please do not reply to this email,” copying the Fire Department, Vine and Lyon. The quoted 1:22 p.m. email from Kyle asks about TLE permits, phasing and enforcement follow-up.
What this does not establishThis establishes the written instruction and its recipients; it does not establish every response or action officials took afterward.
Call-log entries
The 9:49 a.m. invitation email and a 2:25 Building & Code call from the correspondent’s listed number align at 9:51:44 a.m. only if the older call log is interpreted as UTC.
What this does not establishUnder that interpretation, the call is before Moring’s 1:22:27 p.m. Council email. The vendor heading does not confirm timezone; neither caller nor call content is independently authenticated.
Agency & City records
In the reviewed call, Moring reports current work in the tire-and-lube area. Ankrum says he will visit that day.
What this does not establishA stated intention to visit is distinct from the inspection’s actual findings. The October 20 notice separately documents an October 17 visit.
Milan Patel copies DSHS’s Eric Martinez when asking Ankrum to discuss a complaint in the City’s jurisdiction. The invitation schedules October 17, 10–11 a.m. Central, with Patel organizing; Eric Martinez, Lynn Barrett and John Ankrum are required invitees, and Candias Webster is optional. Before these arrangements, Kyle had sought supervisory review of the complaint’s closure and newer refrigeration concerns, copying Eric Martinez and Lewis Ressler. Sofia Stifflemire declined further intervention on October 9 and reaffirmed closure on October 13. Kyle identifies the scheduled meeting as the Teams discussion of his complaints before the October 28 joint inspection.
What this does not establishThe records establish the invitation and earlier closure dispute. Kyle reports the meeting occurred, but the scheduling records do not establish everyone who attended or what was decided. Eric Martinez of DSHS is different from Osiel Martinez, the City employee named in the October 28 inspection report.
Vine’s internal email addresses complaints from Kyle about Walmart, OSHA or other violations, and construction practices at that location. He directs the named recipients to forward those emails to him, avoid back-and-forth, and notes Webster’s work with an attorney regarding Kyle’s continued requests for information.
What this does not establishThe direction concerns the described complaints and actual recipients. It does not, by itself, establish a direction never to produce responsive records. Later meeting offers, the December meeting and subsequent responses remain part of the chronology.
Agency & City records
At 9:46 p.m., TCEQ’s automated confirmation acknowledges Kyle’s complaint about an uncovered construction roll-off near a storm drain at Store 131. He reports powder-like materials and concern about runoff after rain.
What this does not establishThe acknowledgment documents receipt of the complaint, not sampling results or a substantiated contamination finding.
Agency & City records
The retained complaint is dated October 20, with 18:25 shown in the saved record in Eastern time; it is not a verified Central-time clock.
What this does not establishThe complaint records Kyle’s allegations and requested review, not an agency violation finding.
Kyle’s short video shows caution tape, ladders, removed components and work around a garden-center doorway. Its embedded Apple capture date is October 20 at 5:59:30 p.m. Central.
What this does not establishThis records the visible work area; it does not establish completion of repairs, code compliance or why police attended two days later.
In the supplied call transcript, Fisher explains the limits of the stormwater program she describes, identifies the concerns primarily as waste issues and says she will send the complaint information to TCEQ’s waste program.
What this does not establishThis documents the stated explanation and proposed routing; it does not establish that an inspection or enforcement action followed. Full 6:21 recording; a personal passage at 00:17.800–00:29.300 is silenced for privacy. Original timing is preserved.
The original October 20 notice expressly records a complaint about auto-lube work before the October 17 visit and identifies a fire-alarm issue and correction. Ankrum’s email says Barrett suggested removing the work-without-permit reference; the revised notice retains the fire-related finding.
What this does not establishThe original also says “No permits are required” and cites a lake-property provision. Both notices retain the fire-related citation and correction. This is not proof that a valid permit violation was knowingly erased.
Two days before the warning, separate letters bearing John Ankrum’s name as Building Official address Walmart’s bakery, deli and grocery permit renewals. Each thanks Walmart for providing a “safe and healthy environment” and working with inspectors on food-rule compliance. The letters are dated October 20.
What this does not establishThese are renewal letters for food permits. Their wording is not an inspection finding covering the TLE work or every condition in the store, and it does not explain the police encounter two days later. The separate TLE notice and its revision remain visible on this date.
RMS activity
The Odom account records access at 08:25.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Agency & City records
An October 21 photograph at 8:32:38 p.m. Central shows a trash can positioned immediately in front of the sliding doorway. Kyle reports it was there to prevent use of that door.
What this does not establishThe photograph documents the position of the trash can. Its purpose, the door’s operation and its designated emergency-exit status are not established by the image alone.
Call-log entries
Three City Hall-number entries: 0:03, 13:22 and 13:21. The longer two start one second apart and calculate to the same end time; they may describe one call.
What this does not establishThe records match the DA office number. They do not identify a speaker, subject, answered call or relationship to another event. Older log timestamps have no stated timezone.
Agency & City records
At 6:55 a.m., Kyle emails Commissioner Jennifer Shuford seeking oversight of continuing Store 131 hazards and inspection documentation. This follows his challenge to DSHS’s complaint closure and Stifflemire’s refusal to reopen it. The email precedes the later morning texts, dispatch and trespass warning shown below.
What this does not establishThe email documents Kyle’s submission, not whether City or police recipients knew about it before the encounter.
At 8:47 a.m., a text attributed to Carrie Mahon asks Chief Buhman to call. Produced call-history images display calls to Mahon at 8:48 and Beasley at 8:51. Dispatch opens at 8:53:41; the written warning is timed 9:03. Beasley’s later message characterizes Kyle’s remarks as threatening to sue the City over inspections. Kyle says his concern was the whistleblower context and the separate OSHA inspection, and regards this as a difference in context rather than personal criticism of Beasley.
What this does not establishThese are timestamps from separate sources, without synchronized clocks. A later litigation comment is not a prior instruction. The sequence does not establish retaliation or DA involvement.
An October 22 photograph has a capture time of 8:54:55 a.m. Central and shows a handwritten “Use Other Door” sign and a trash can beside the garden-center doorway. Kyle identifies it as taken before he received the trespass warning. The displayed capture time falls after dispatch opened at 8:53:41 and before the warning’s recorded 9:03 time.
What this does not establishThe photograph is cropped to exclude an employee. Camera and police-system times are separate clocks; their apparent order is presented without claiming independent synchronization. These visible conditions support a safety concern, not a finding of a particular violation.
RMS activity
The Odom account records access at 09:52, entity/role entries beginning at 10:03, offense-related entries at 12:38–12:40, and a primary-report update at 13:44. Nipp-account access and report updates follow later that afternoon.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Agency & City records
The quoted email chain records EPA’s referral to TCEQ.
What this does not establishThe correspondence establishes routing or a requested next step. It does not establish who viewed the material, the content of any telephone call, or an investigation outcome.
The next narrative paragraph says Odom went and spoke with District Attorney Charles Bailey. An October 24 follow-up appears afterward. The contact account sits in the October 23 narrative sequence.
What this does not establishNarrative-context placement only: the DA conversation has no separate date or time. This is not an identified telephone call or proof of a connection to the October 22 warning.
RMS activity
At 12:32 the log says “Change report status to OA from IP.” Other field-operation labels appear nearby.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Call-log entries
City Hall main number: 0:03 recorded duration; City Hall main number: 0:00 recorded duration; City Hall main number: 0:00 recorded duration.
What this does not establishThe records match the DA office number. They do not identify a speaker, subject, answered call or relationship to another event. Older log timestamps have no stated timezone.
RMS activity
The Yates account records access at 22:53.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Agency & City records
Hodo emails James; James forwards the chain that evening to Bryan Denney and Code Enforcement, copying Buhman.
What this does not establishThe correspondence establishes routing or a requested next step. It does not establish who viewed the material, the content of any telephone call, or an investigation outcome.
RMS activity
The Odom account records access at 08:30 and “Change report status to IP from OA” at 08:31. An offense update appears at 08:55.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Call-log entries
One incoming entry to the MPPD main line matches the cell number Hodo lists in the October 27 email thread. The log records 472 seconds (7 minutes 52 seconds) and a timestamp of 21:57:11. If that timestamp is UTC, the call starts at 4:57:11 p.m. Central, before Hodo’s 5:12 p.m. email to Amber James.
What this does not establishThe older log does not state its timezone. The number match and recorded duration do not independently identify a speaker or prove what was discussed. The call’s relationship to the forwarded complaint is not independently established.
Agency & City records
DSHS names Webster, Barrett, Ankrum and City Code Enforcement Officer Osiel Martinez at the joint inspection. Its report says a new “shell” continues the earlier complaint because new complaints were received from the same complainant. Kyle’s preceding correspondence requested action on refrigeration, drainage and other newer conditions. The report lists temperature photographs as well as photographs showing no debris, but calls the triggering complaint unsubstantiated while its separate notice records eight observation categories. The City marks Passed, records a hot-water issue and gives a November 7 compliance date.
What this does not establishThe complaint disposition does not erase the eight observations. The records raise a question about how the newer concerns were evaluated under the continued complaint; they do not show that inspectors looked only for roof debris. A work order alone does not prove a repair was completed. Later City copies differ in assignment or identifier fields, and the November 12 delivery includes the October 30 HSCloud printout and five photographs but still has cut-off comments. Receiving those files does not establish that the request was complete.
James asks Hodo to send the video to the Chief because she cannot forward it.
What this does not establishThe correspondence establishes routing or a requested next step. It does not establish who viewed the material, the content of any telephone call, or an investigation outcome.
Agency & City records
At 9:37 a.m., Kyle asks whether the matter was referred and seeks intake if not. At 9:44 a.m., Bailey says MPPD consulted him and he requested continued investigation and a report when completed.
What this does not establishTimes are as displayed, without a stated timezone. The reply does not date the consultation, identify the officer, establish it was Odom’s reported conversation or connect it to the trespass warning.
RMS activity
The Nipp account records access at 14:16.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Call-log entries
City Hall main number: 6:01 recorded duration.
What this does not establishThe records match the DA office number. They do not identify a speaker, subject, answered call or relationship to another event. Older log timestamps have no stated timezone.
RMS activity
The Odom account records access at 10:27.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
Agency & City records
At 8:19 p.m., Kyle sends Candias Webster a preservation notice, copying Austin Beck and Rob Vine. It covers Store 131 and related City/MPPD communications from June 1 forward, including email, texts, call records, dispatch, body-camera video and RMS history. He asks that records and native metadata be preserved and that automatic deletion be suspended.
What this does not establishThe email establishes that Kyle requested preservation. It does not establish when each recipient read it, whether a hold was implemented, or whether all covered records survived.
RMS activity
Access is recorded at 10:39; at 10:41 the log says “Change report status to OA from IP,” with investigation and report updates.
What this does not establishDisplayed system times are not independently synchronized with other records. Action labels do not reveal changed field contents or reasons. The status-code definitions have not been independently verified.
“No selected entry” means none is displayed from this review. It does not mean no activity occurred.
These entries remain available for comparison. The supplied rows do not establish that these contacts concerned Store 131 or Kyle’s complaints.
Four outgoing record groups fall between 2:19:48 and 2:27:07 p.m. under the working UTC-to-Central conversion.
They overlap and do not establish four conversations, their subject, or their sequence relative to Vine’s email.
Two outgoing City-fax entries match a TCEQ licensing fax; a later incoming Civic Center entry matches a listed watermaster contact number.
These are not established environmental-enforcement calls. A later directory match does not independently establish a number’s 2025 assignment or the contact’s purpose.
Read the three original call-log rows and directory sources · PDF ↗
ODOM’S ACCOUNT AND THE OCTOBER 30, 2025 EMAILS
October 23 narrative sequence · contact not separately timed
Immediately after describing an October 23 interview, Odom writes: “I went and spoke with District Attorney Charles Bailey”. The narrative then moves to an October 24 follow-up. This places the account in the October 23 sequence, one day after the trespass warning, while leaving the DA conversation without a separate date or time.
The source is page 5 of the report attached to Nipp’s February 6, 2026 email to Bailey and forwarded by Bailey on April 5. The saved report exactly matches that native email attachment.
What the source supportsThis is Odom’s account of contact. It is not a separately timestamped record or an identified telephone call. The limited excerpt omits the full case report and private case details.
October 30, 2025 · eight days after the warning
At 9:37 a.m., Kyle emails Bailey to ask whether the matter was referred to the DA and seeks intake if it was not. At 9:44 a.m., Bailey replies: “In brief, MPPD has consulted with me about this case. I requested that they continue to investigate and to provide me their report once completed.”
What the exchange establishesThe supplied headers date both messages October 30, not October 31. The times are displayed without a timezone. Bailey does not identify the officer or date the consultation, so the reply does not establish that it was the same conversation Odom described. Neither source establishes a causal connection to the trespass warning.
LATER RECORDS · JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2026
The separate investigation continued to generate records after the October events. These later sources let readers compare what was supplied, what Kyle questioned and what was documented afterward. The parent’s identity and the details of the separate court matter are omitted.
January 20–21, 2026
The call export shows five Nipp–Odom timestamp groups between 2:27:22 and 2:51:12 p.m. CST on January 20. Each appears as paired incoming and outgoing rows. At 3:17 p.m., Nipp emails Kyle the production, describes the offense report as complete and says there are no supplements. The certification/completeness follow-up located in the correspondence is Kyle’s January 21, 5:40 a.m. reply, seeking written support for the nonexistence and completeness assertions.
Read the sequence carefullyThe five call groups precede both the production email and the next-morning reply; they cannot be described as responses to that later reply. The export does not establish what was discussed. No matching Nipp–Odom number pair was found on January 21 in the examined workbook.
January 22, 2026
The report later supplied through the DA includes a supplement created at 10:37 a.m. stating that the parent arrived at CID and signed a Case Dismissal form that day. A separate court listing shows a scheduled 9 a.m. docket for the parent. At 11:24:56 a.m. CST, the phone export records a 71-second outgoing entry from a CID number to the DA number.
What the comparison establishesThese are same-day records. The docket listing does not confirm attendance, and the telephone row does not establish its subject or a link to the signed form. The form requests no further police action; it is not a court dismissal order. The January 22 supplement did not yet exist on January 20, so its later creation alone does not contradict Nipp’s earlier no-supplements statement.
February 5–6, 2026
Bailey asks Nipp for the case material on February 5 at 9:53 a.m. Nipp replies February 6 at 8:30 a.m., saying the complete report and attachments are included and offering the videos. At 10:53:53 a.m. CST that morning, the phone export records an outgoing entry from the line labelled “Senior Officer” to the DA number, lasting 6 minutes 4 seconds.
Why this belongs alongside the correspondenceThe email exchange documents the DA’s request and Nipp’s response. The call row records contact with the DA number later that morning. It does not authenticate the speaker or establish that the call concerned the case or dismissal. This February 6 entry is separate from the January 22 CID-number match.
THE TELEPHONE RECORDS
The selected-source audit found 25 matching row instances. Three November entries were each present in two exports. Counting those duplicate exports once leaves 22 row records: 11 City Hall rows, eight other older-format City-line rows, and three November rows.
These are not 22 proven conversations. The October 21 City Hall pair and a September 25 pair from another City line calculate to identical end times. Both possible pairs remain visible, flagged as possible call legs or duplicates.
The City Hall rows show 903-575-4000 → 903-577-6726. No exact City Hall-number match was located on September 22, October 22 or in November in the scanned files. That finding does not exclude calls from other lines or other kinds of contact.
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A7351:E7351
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A8114:E8114
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A8356:E8356
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A9572:E9572
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A10525:E10525
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
Same calculated end time as row 10530; may be call legs or duplicate records.
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A10529:E10529
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
Same calculated end time as row 10529; may be call legs or duplicate records.
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A10530:E10530
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A10732:E10732
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A10736:E10736
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A10737:E10737
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02132 · Inbound Outbound!A11210:E11210
Copy of CDR_903-575-4000_Jun0225-Nov0625_262298.xlsx
P02093 · Inbound Outbound!A7560:E7560
Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx
P02107 · Inbound Outbound!A154:E154
Copy of CDR_903-575-4187_Jun25-Nov25_262311.xlsx
P02107 · Inbound Outbound!A157:E157
Copy of CDR_903-575-4187_Jun25-Nov25_262311.xlsx
P02107 · Inbound Outbound!A158:E158
Copy of CDR_903-575-4187_Jun25-Nov25_262311.xlsx
Same calculated end time as row 340; may be call legs or duplicate records.
P02109 · Inbound Outbound!A339:E339
Copy of CDR_903-575-4193_Jun25-Nov25_262314.xlsx
Same calculated end time as row 339; may be call legs or duplicate records.
P02109 · Inbound Outbound!A340:E340
Copy of CDR_903-575-4193_Jun25-Nov25_262314.xlsx
P02109 · Inbound Outbound!A341:E341
Copy of CDR_903-575-4193_Jun25-Nov25_262314.xlsx
P02109 · Inbound Outbound!A385:E385
Copy of CDR_903-575-4193_Jun25-Nov25_262314.xlsx
P02083 repeats this P02050 row; counted once.
P02050 · User Phones - Inbnd,Outbnd,Miss!A734:H734
City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx
P02083 repeats this P02050 row; counted once.
P02050 · User Phones - Inbnd,Outbnd,Miss!A1666:H1666
City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx
P02083 repeats this P02050 row; counted once.
P02050 · User Phones - Inbnd,Outbnd,Miss!A1907:H1907
City of Mt. Pleasant - Call Logs from Nov 5th 2025.xlsx
The November labels identify exported City lines, not verified speakers or a physical City Hall location. Personal line names are unnecessary to this comparison and are omitted.
WHAT THE RMS RECORD ESTABLISHES
RMS means records-management system. This is the activity log for the investigation discussed elsewhere as the grooming complaint. The page uses selected action labels and timestamps; it does not publish the allegations, minor-sensitive narrative, case number or internal entity identifiers.
“Insert,” “update,” “delete,” and a status change describe database operations. Without the prior and subsequent field contents, the system’s definitions and an explanation, those labels do not establish why a change occurred or what it meant for the investigation.
The source screenshots overlap. Repeated rows are not counted as new incidents. Earlier September activity and later November changes are included to avoid presenting October 22 in isolation.
Open the identifier-masked log excerpts · PDF ↗CONTEXTUAL NUMBER MATCHES
These references reuse the existing call-timing review. They are leads for checking source records, not proof of agency investigations. The displayed Central times for the older logs depend on the same unconfirmed UTC interpretation described above.
Vine’s explanation of the City’s role beside the OSHA-number calls ↗
OSHA Dallas-listed number → Building & Code or Police
12:09:58 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:30326 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1414:E1414
OSHA Dallas-listed number → Building & Code or Police
12:12:26 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:30327 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1415:E1415
OSHA Dallas-listed number → Building & Code or Police
12:13:55 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:30328 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1416:E1416
OSHA Dallas-listed number → Building & Code or Police
12:15:41 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:30329 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1417:E1417
OSHA Dallas-listed number → Building & Code or Police
12:16:12 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:30330 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1418:E1418
Building & Code → number Moring identifies as Greg Wynn’s direct line (contact-card contents pending verification)
01:15:44 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:30370 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1420:E1420
OSHA Dallas-listed number → Building & Code or Police
10:07:05 AM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:32000 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A8543:E8543
DSHS correspondent-listed number → Building & Code
09:51:44 AM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:40734 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4149_Jun25-Nov25_262306.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A1870:E1870
Police → City Hall or a City line
02:19:48 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:41283 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10975:E10975
Police → City Hall or a City line
02:20:41 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:41286 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10976:E10976
Police → City Hall or a City line
02:23:20 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:41292 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10977:E10977
Police → City Hall or a City line
02:27:07 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:41298 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4004_Jun25-Nov25_262299.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A10978:E10978
City fax → TCEQ licensing fax, or listed watermaster number → Civic Center
02:22:36 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:43990 · Copy of CDR_903-577-1828_Jun25-Nov25_262315.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A86:E86
City fax → TCEQ licensing fax, or listed watermaster number → Civic Center
03:59:50 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:44065 · Copy of CDR_903-577-1828_Jun25-Nov25_262315.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A87:E87
City fax → TCEQ licensing fax, or listed watermaster number → Civic Center
04:23:17 PM CDT · conditional Central conversion
vendor:44081 · Copy of CDR_903-575-4190_Jun25-Nov25_262313.xlsx · Inbound Outbound!A906:E906
EARLIER BACKGROUND · JUNE–JULY 2025
These records predate the featured October sequence by months. They explain the earlier permit inquiry and the asbestos findings later cited in Kyle’s October 16 email. They are not presented as events immediately surrounding the trespass warning.
Jun 30, 2025 · earlier background
Webster asks City recipients to provide the information only to her and not reply if Kyle contacts them. The quoted June 28 request concerns Store 131 roofing permits ROOF-35226 and ROOF-33173, including permits, asbestos documentation, inspections and fire-system records.
Scope of this backgroundThis is earlier background, almost four months before October 22. It documents the handling of the roof-permit request; it is not evidence of a plan for the later trespass warning. Repeated production copies are one correspondence event.
Jul 24, 2025 · earlier background
DSHS’s notice identifies a July 1 complaint inspection at Store 131 and is dated July 24. Within that inspection’s scope, it lists the absence of a thorough asbestos survey and required demolition notification. Kyle’s October 16 follow-up later cites these findings.
Scope of this backgroundThis is earlier agency background, not a new October inspection. The notice says the gathered information remains subject to further department review. It is not a final penalty order and does not establish asbestos exposure, City receipt in July, or a causal connection to the warning.
HOW TO READ THIS PAGE
This is a selection of records, not a complete contact or investigation history. Dates refer to the event rather than the later delivery of its record. Duplicate exports and overlapping screenshots are not additional incidents.
Open the linked correspondence, inspection records, telephone rows and RMS excerpts to compare the sources. Call logs identify numbers and recorded durations; they do not establish the speakers or subject. RMS action labels identify system activity; they do not explain the reasons for it.
The linked PDFs provide readable selections from the preserved records. The complete source files remain preserved.
