CourtListener 10745019

Full text

ACCEPTED
15-25-00142-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. 15-25-00142-CV 11/25/2025 10:03 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
ROBERT EDWARD BATTAILE, Appellant/Relator
11/25/2025 10:03:36 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
v.

SECRETARY OF STATE, JANE NELSON, AND TRAVIS COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, JEFFREY TRAVILLION,

Appellees/Respondents

APPELLANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER BRIEF

Ultra Vires Annexation (Ordinance No. 774), Failure of Vested Rights Under Tex.

Loc. Gov’t Code § 43.002(a)(2), Systemic Due-Process Violations, and Structural

Separation-of-Powers Defects in the City of Manor; Errata and Related Items

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant/Relator Robert Edward Battaile, appearing pro se, respectfully submits this

Supplemental Filing containing newly developed evidence, structural analysis, and

preserved statutory arguments relevant to the above-referenced cause. This Letter Brief

supplements the previously filed Appellate Brief on the Merits and Original Petition for

– 1 – 15-25-001420CV
Writ of Mandamus and is intended to assist the Court in understanding the continuing

pattern of ultra vires conduct, systemic due-process failures, and structural defects in the

City of Manor’s governance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

SECTION 1 — NEWLY DISCOVERED CONTINUING MISCONDUCT ............6

A. 11/16/2025 Unrecorded Unlawful Charter Review Commission

Meetings (Exhibit A) .........................................................................................................6

B. 11/13/2025 City Secretary Interference With Public Access Charter Review

Commission & Misbehavior (Exhibit C) ..........................................................................6

C. 10/21/2025 and 10/27/2025 Selective Enforcement and Failure to Enforce Against

Staff (Exhibits D–E) ..........................................................................................................7

D. 11/03/2025 Disorderly Conduct by Senior City Staff ..................................................8

E. 10/27/2025 TOMA Violations – Secret CRC Meetings (Exhibit G) ............................8

F. 11/17/2025 Interference With Recording and Public Information Rights

(Complaints 11172025-01 & -02 — Exhibits J & K) .......................................................9

G. 11/16/2025 Failure to Convene the Ethics Commission (Exhibit I) ..........................10

– 2 – 15-25-001420CV
H. 11/21/2025 Continued Interference With Audio Recording (Exhibit L) ...................11

I. 11/21/2025 Suppression of Public-Speaking Rights (Exhibit M) ................................11

SECTION 2 — STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS IN

MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................11

A. Citizens Are Structurally Excluded From Governance ............................................. 11

B. Mayor and City Council Wield Power Without Accountability ................................12

C. Judicial Functions Subordinated to the Finance Department .....................................12

D. Charter Review Commission Is Staff-Controlled, Not Independent …......................13

E. Ethics Commission Is Nonfunctional by Design ........................................................14

F. City Attorneys Are Structurally Conflicted ................................................................14

G. Statewide Implications and Need for Structural Remedies ........................................15

SECTION 3 — DALFEN / MANOR DOWNS ANNEXATION AND

VESTING DEFECTS ....................................................................................................16

(See EXHIBIT B.1. Austin CETJ-2024-0001 Report (Vesting / ETJ) …......46

Photos EXHIBIT B.2. ….............pg 42

Plus photos in Mandamus Supplemental – See also ERRATA NO. 2 — pg 26

A. Statutory Prerequisites ................................................................................................17

– 3 – 15-25-001420CV
B. Missing Completed Application .................................................................................17

C. No Vested Rights ........................................................................................................18

D. Ultra Vires Action ......................................................................................................18

E. Inconsistent Prior Use .................................................................................................19

F. Legal Consequences ....................................................................................................19

SECTION 4 — MUNICIPAL COMPLAINTS DEMONSTRATING SYSTEMIC

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, RETALIATION, AND CITYWIDE

BREAKDOWN OF LAWFUL PROCESS .................................................................20

SECTION 5 — PRESERVATION OF APPELLATE ISSUES ................................23

A. Completeness of the Transferred Record ...................................................................23

B. Context Regarding Public Statements About the Fifteenth Court of Appeals ...........23

SECTION 6 — ERRATA

Errata 1. – Monarch Ranch developers left off list of Defendants by Appellant and owes

several hundred thousand dollar of In-Leu Parkland Fees..............................................24

Errata 2. – Manor Downs incorrect filed de-annexation information clarified by SB2038

process and other documentation.....................................................................................26

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................27

– 4 – 15-25-001420CV
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................29

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..........................................................................29

EXHIBITS ......................................................................................................................30

– 5 – 15-25-001420CV
SECTION 1 — NEWLY DISCOVERED OR CONTINUING MISCONDUCT

A. Unrecorded and Unlawful Charter Review Commission Meetings (Exhibit A)

Appellant submits Exhibit A pg 31 (Ethics Commission Complaint, filed November 16,

2025) as newly developed evidence demonstrating a continuing, deliberate pattern of

municipal secrecy and staff harassment. As detailed in Exhibit A, the City of Manor

conducted four consecutive Charter Review Commission (“CRC”) meetings without any

livestream, audio, video, minutes, or archival record, despite fully functional AV

infrastructure used routinely for other public meetings.

This omission is not clerical; it is policy-level suppression of public access, violating the

Texas Constitution, the Texas Open Meetings Act, the City’s Ethics Code, and the

City’s Personnel Manual. Commissioners admitted they could not recall prior actions

because no minutes, no recording, and no record of any kind existed. The conduct

described in Exhibit A—including a direct, public act of disparagement by the City

Secretary—shows ongoing retaliation and obstruction relevant to this appeal.

B. City Secretary Harassment and Interference With Public Access

During the November 13, 2025 CRC meeting, Appellant lawfully requested an audio-

out feed from the PA system so that proceedings could be recorded without disruption.

– 6 – 15-25-001420CV
Before the responding staff member could even answer, City Secretary Lluvia Almaraz

crossed the room, escalated the encounter, and stated mockingly: “You’re NOT a

newspaper.” Multiple witnesses were present.

This behavior violated TOMA § 551.023 and satisfies elements of attempted Official

Oppression, because it intentionally interfered with Appellant’s statutory right to non-

disruptive recording of a public meeting. The setting makes the misconduct more grave:

the City was in the process of rewriting its own Charter. (Exhibit C)

C. Selective Enforcement and Failure to Enforce Against Staff

1.Citizen Complaint 11072025 – TC 545.303(b) Parking Violations (Exhibit D)

On October 21, two City Public Works vehicles were photographed parked

directly beneath posted “NO PARKING” signs. The violation is strict-liability

under the Transportation Code. Evidence is indisputable. Yet no citation was

issued, no independent prosecutor was appointed, and the City Attorney—who

represents the violators—took no action. Manor PD likewise took no action.

2.Citizen Complaint 10272025-01 – PC 39.02(b)(1) Abuse of Official Capacity

(Exhibit D and E)

Related to the same October 21 parking violations, this complaint alleges Abuse

– 7 – 15-25-001420CV
of Official Capacity. Again: no action, no review, no accountability.

Systemic meaning: ordinances enforced against residents are quietly ignored when City

employees are the violators. Equal protection is effectively dead on arrival.

D. Disorderly Conduct by Senior City Staff (Exhibit D)

Citizen Complaint 11032025 – PC 42.01(a)(4), (8) (Disorderly Conduct) documents an

encounter in which City Manager Scott Moore and City Secretary Almaraz engaged in

behavior meeting multiple statutory elements of Disorderly Conduct: raised voices,

aggressive posture, physical approach toward Appellant, and mocking, escalating

remarks. The incident is captured on video and violates multiple provisions of the City

Personnel Manual.

Despite clear evidence, neither Manor PD nor the City Attorney initiated any action. A

prior ethics complaint regarding similar conduct, filed more than a year earlier, was also

ignored.

Systemic meaning: When Appellant commits no violation, he is punished. When staff

commit documented violations, the enforcement system becomes inert. This disparity

evidences selective enforcement and retaliation rather than neutral application of law.

E. TOMA Violations – Secret CRC Meetings (Exhibit G)

– 8 – 15-25-001420CV
Citizen Complaint 10272025-02 – TOMA Violations shows that by November 13, 2025,

the CRC had conducted four consecutive meetings with:

•No livestream

•No audio

•No video

•No minutes

•No public record or archive of any kind

Commissioners themselves acknowledged that they could not recall earlier actions

because the City produced no record.

Systemic meaning: The City eliminated public oversight at precisely the moment when

legal oversight was most required—during a comprehensive Charter rewrite. This is not

accident; it is an engineered blackout.

F. Interference With Recording and Public Information Rights

(Complaints 11172025-01 & -02 — Exhibits J & K)

Morning — IT Denial of Audio Access (Exhibit J)

On November 17, 2025, Appellant requested a simple audio-out feed from the Council

Chambers sound board. IT Director Phil Green refused: “We don’t do that in

– 9 – 15-25-001420CV
Manor,” and incorrectly claimed the connection would “tap into the network.” He acted

without consulting legal counsel and contrary to TOMA § 551.023.

Late Morning — Police Denial of Public Information Act Rights (Exhibit K)

Later the same day, Manor PD staff refused to provide Appellant’s own report result in

person, insisting that requests “must be made online,” contrary to Government Code §

552.221. This encounter was audio-recorded.

Systemic meaning: Two departments—IT and Police—blocked two separate statutory

rights (recording and PIA access) within hours of each other. This is not coincidence; it

is structural suppression.

G. Failure to Convene the Ethics Commission (Exhibit I)

Citizen Complaint 11042025 – Ethics Commission Non-Activation shows that on

November 16, 2025 Appellant submitted an Ethics Complaint detailing secret CRC

meetings, staff hostility, and multiple Ethics Code violations. Manor Code § 12.02.041

requires the City Manager to convene the Ethics Commission upon receipt of such a

complaint. No Commission was convened. A prior ethics complaint filed more than a

year earlier was also ignored.

Systemic meaning: The Ethics Commission is a fiction—an empty box on an org chart

– 10 – 15-25-001420CV
with no legal function in practice. Mandatory review never occurs. Misconduct cannot

be investigated from within the City’s own framework.

H. 11/21/2025 Continued Interference With Audio Recording (Exhibit L)

City again denies audio feed; Appellant forced to create sole public record manually.

I. 11/21/2025 Suppression of Public-Speaking Rights (Exhibit M)

New speaking rules cut time, limit agenda, and suppress nonprofit participation.

SECTION 2 — STRUCTURAL CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECTS IN

MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE

A. Citizens Are Structurally Excluded From Governance

On the Organization Chart, “Citizens of Manor” appear in a detached bubble with no

lines connecting them to any department, board, commission, or official function.

•No upward supervisory path from citizens,

•No advisory line to any decision-maker,

•No participatory placement for citizens in the governance loop.

This structural exclusion is the root cause of exclusion from CRC meetings, lack of

notice, lack of recordings, denial of access, staff retaliation, and Appellant’s inability to

– 11 – 15-25-001420CV
obtain basic information. The sovereigns—the people—do not appear anywhere in the

actual chain of command. This offends basic constitutional norms of local government.

B. Mayor and City Council Wield Power Without Accountability

The chart places the Mayor and Council at the top, but their connections flow only

downward and primarily into staff and the City Attorney. There is no upward

accountability to citizens, no independent oversight body, and no structural

counterweight.

This helps explain:

•Refusal to record meetings,

•Refusal to convene the Ethics Commission,

•Tolerance of staff retaliation,

•Denial of information, and

•Approval of contested annexations and development approvals.

This is the classic profile of concentrated power without checks.

C. Judicial Functions Subordinated to the Finance Department ..............

Most alarming, the Organization Chart places the Municipal Court—a judicial body—

under the Finance Director violating separation-of-powers principles undermining:

– 12 – 15-25-001420CV
•Judicial independence,

•Neutrality of the tribunal, and

•Due process of law.

When courts report to finance, the system effectively becomes a revenue arm, not a

neutral adjudicator. This structure explains:

•“Courts of No Record,”

•Lack of transcripts,

•Bail abuses,

•Selective prosecutions, and

•Non-enforcement of violations committed by City staff.

Appellant’s own experiences are the predictable output of this unconstitutional design.

D. Charter Review Commission Is Staff-Controlled, Not Independent

The CRC—which rewrites the City Charter—appears on the chart as an appendage of

staff, particularly the City Secretary and City Manager, rather than as an independent

citizen body. This structure guarantees:

•Staff control of agendas,

•Staff influence over commissioners,

– 13 – 15-25-001420CV
•Staff gatekeeping of access, and

•Unrecorded, opaque deliberations.

These design flaws directly produced the four secret CRC meetings described in Section

1.CRC is not a citizen oversight body; it is a staff-dominated shell.

E. Ethics Commission Is Nonfunctional by Design

The Ethics Commission appears on the chart in an isolated box, with:

•No reporting line,

•No operational authority,

•No ability to convene itself, and

•No assigned oversight.

A commission with no connections cannot function. That is precisely what has

happened: no Ethics Commission has ever been convened despite multiple complaints.

This structure makes internal accountability impossible and violates due process.

F. City Attorneys Are Structurally Conflicted

The chart shows the City Attorneys:

•Advising the City Manager,

•Advising the Mayor and Council,

– 14 – 15-25-001420CV
•Advising staff during Charter Review,

•Acting as prosecutors in Municipal Court,

•Influencing Public Information Act compliance, and

•Defending the same staff who are the subject of complaints.

This is an irreconcilable conflict of interest. A single law firm cannot fairly represent the

violators, the enforcers, the prosecutors, and the decision-makers at once. This structure

guarantees:

•Suppression of ethics complaints,

•Selective enforcement,

•Retaliation against citizens, and

•Due-process violations like those suffered by Appellant.

G. Statewide Implications and Need for Structural Remedies

These governance defects are not unique to Manor. They recur across similar fast-

growth, corridor cities. Under its equitable powers, this Court may consider regional

rotation of prosecutors, independent judicial assignments, mandatory recording rules,

neutral ethics-commission appointment mechanisms, and structural reforms to prevent

political capture.

– 15 – 15-25-001420CV
The defects undermine public trust, deny due process, and create exactly the type of

systemic abuse that justifies mandamus-level relief.

SECTION 3 — DALFEN / MANOR DOWNS ANNEXATION AND VESTING

DEFECTS

(See EXHIBIT B.1. Austin CETJ-2024-0001 Report (Vesting / ETJ) and

Photos EXHIBIT B.2. Pg 56; Plus Mandamus Supplemental

– See also ERRATA NO. 2 — pg 26

Appellant incorporates Exhibit B.1. And B.2. (City of Austin Staff Report

CETJ-2024-0001 dated October 15, 2024, and attachments), Petition for Writ of

Mandamus pgs previously filed in this cause, rather than re-attaching duplicative copies.

That record establishes that Dalfen Industrial never satisfied the vesting requirements of

Texas Local Government Code § 43.002(a)(2), because no completed application for

development existed at least ninety days before annexation proceedings were instituted.

Accordingly, the only legally protected use is the prior, existing use: racetrack, open-

space, and event grounds. The City of Manor lacked authority to authorize demolition,

mass grading, or large-scale warehouse development inconsistent with that use.

– 16 – 15-25-001420CV
Ordinance No. 774 and its companion approvals therefore operate ultra vires.

A. Statutory Prerequisites Under Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 43.002(a)(2)

Texas Local Government Code § 43.002(a)(2) provides that a landowner may carry

forward a planned future use of land only if the landowner filed a completed application

for development at least 90 days before annexation proceedings were instituted. If this

condition is not met, no future use vests, and the municipality may not authorize

development inconsistent with the prior, existing use.

Annexation proceedings for Ordinance No. 774 were initiated in January 2025,

culminating in the January 15, 2025 vote. Backdating 90 days sets the statutory vesting

deadline at October 17, 2024. No completed development application existed by that

date.

B. Missing Completed Application

The record—including the City of Austin CETJ Staff Report (Exhibit B) and the

developer’s own presentations—shows that as of mid-October 2024:

•Parcel boundaries were still being reconfigured,

•Civil engineering plans were not submitted,

•Tree, drainage, grading, hydrological, and landscape plans were absent,

– 17 – 15-25-001420CV
•Required Manor Code items (tree survey, heritage-tree documentation,

bufferyards, cultural/historical survey) were not provided,

•The nine-acre park dedication area was not yet platted,

•The development agreement itself acknowledged that Dalfen “intends to submit”

plans in the future—confirming none had been submitted.

A conceptual site plan with “Plans subject to change” is not a completed application

under Texas law.

C. No Vested Rights

Because no completed development application existed on or before the October 17

statutory deadline, no industrial or warehouse use vested under § 43.002(a)(2). Only

the existing use at the time of annexation—Manor Downs racetrack, open-space, and

event grounds—remains legally protected.

All post-annexation development approvals must conform to that existing use. Industrial

build-out is not protected and cannot vest retroactively.

D. Ultra Vires Action by the City of Manor

By approving demolition, mass grading, warehouse construction, and Chapter 380

incentive structures premised on unvested industrial use, the City of Manor acted ultra

– 18 – 15-25-001420CV
vires—outside its lawful authority. A municipality cannot authorize development

that state law forbids or for which no vested rights exist.

This includes (but is not limited to):

•Demolition of racetrack structures,

•Removal of historic and heritage trees (including the 29-inch pecan),

•Approval of grading permits,

•Warehouse hardscape approvals,

•Tax abatements and subsidies premised on unlawful land use.

E. Inconsistent Prior Use

The legally protected pre-annexation use—racetrack, event grounds, open space, creek-

buffered agricultural land—is incompatible with six concrete warehouse footprints,

heavy truck circulation, and removal of watershed protections.

Texas law favors continuation of the existing use until lawful vesting is established.

No such vesting occurred here.

F. Legal Consequences

Because:

1.No completed application existed by October 17, 2024;

– 19 – 15-25-001420CV
2.Industrial/warehouse use did not vest under § 43.002(a)(2); and

3.Annexation was adopted by an unlawfully constituted governing body,

Every subsequent action is void or voidable, including:

•Ordinance No. 774 (ultra vires annexation),

•All development approvals,

•Site demolition and tree-removal authorizations,

•All Chapter 380 subsidies tied to unvested industrial use,

•All staff and Council actions premised on the assumption of vested industrial

rights.

SECTION 4 — MUNICIPAL COMPLAINTS DEMONSTRATING SYSTEMIC

SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT, RETALIATION, AND CITYWIDE

BREAKDOWN OF LAWFUL PROCESS

Throughout Fall 2025, Appellant submitted multiple municipal complaints documenting

statutory violations across different City departments. Each incident was independently

witnessed, recorded, or documented, and each is attached as a separately labeled Exhibit

(D through M). Individually, they show discrete statutory violations. Collectively, they

– 20 – 15-25-001420CV
demonstrate a structural, citywide breakdown of lawful municipal process and a pattern

of selective enforcement against Appellant, contrasted with protectionism and non-

enforcement toward City staff.

The complaints are not speculative or rhetorical—they consist of sworn statements,

timestamped photographs, audio recordings, video evidence, and mandatory-reporting

failures by municipal officials. The pattern is unmistakable: violations by City insiders

receive zero review, while Appellant’s lawful conduct triggers hostility, retaliation, and

system-wide obstruction. These incidents provide crucial context for Appellant’s due-

process arguments and demonstrate why structural remedies, not individual corrections,

are necessary.

SECTION 4 — Municipal Complaints (Selective Enforcement & Retaliation)

1.Exhibit D — Public Works Vehicle Parking Violations at inner-city Art Park.

City vehicles under “NO PARKING” signs; no citations, no review, no accountability.

2.Exhibit E — Abuse of Official Capacity. Appellant's Same Disorderly Conduct

charges AGAINST City Employees Ignored by Police. City Attorney shields staff;

identical violations punished only when citizens alleged to commit them.

3.Exhibit F — Disorderly Conduct by Senior Staff. After Appellant witnessed

– 21 – 15-25-001420CV
crime of Election Coercion by City Manager and City Secretary; recorded

confrontation by City Manager & Secretary ensued; evidence ignored and staff

never charged.

4.Exhibit G — Secret Charter Review Commission Meetings (TOMA). Four mtgs

no record, no minutes, no oversight. Appellant/Relator felt this violation so

egregious that he filed a SUPPLEMENTAL to the MANDAMUS Petition on

Sunday, Nov 23, 2025..

5.Exhibit H — Interference With Recording Rights. City Secretary blocks legal

audio access; attempted Official Oppression.

6.Exhibit I — Ethics Commission Non-Activation. Mandatory Commission never

convened despite repeated complaints.

7.Exhibit J — IT Denial of Audio Feed. Director blocks simple audio-out jack;

direct violation of TOMA § 551.023.

8.Exhibit K — Police Denial of PIA Rights.

PD refuses in-person access to Appellant’s own report; statute violated.

9.Exhibit L — Forced Boom-Pole Recording.

City again denies audio feed; Appellant forced to create sole public record manually.

10.Exhibit M — Suppression of Public-Speaking Rights.

– 22 – 15-25-001420CV
New speaking rules cut time, limit agenda, and suppress nonprofit participation.

11.Exhibit N — Monarch Ranch paying no in-lieu Parkland fees despite

developer's

own siteplan not containing any “parkland” color code in the legend.

12.Exhibit O — Misuse of City funds to mow private developer's lots.

SECTION 5 — PRESERVATION OF APPELLATE ISSUES

A. Completeness of the Transferred Record.

For preservation only, Appellant respectfully notes that certain filings and exhibits were

not included in the initial transfer of the record from the Third Court of Appeals.

Appellant has filed a Motion to Supplement the Record to ensure completeness for any

future review. Appellant does not allege that this Court acted improperly or without full

information; this paragraph exists solely to avoid waiver if a higher court later inquires

about the timing of the record transfer.

B. Structural Context Regarding Public Statements About Fifteenth Court of

Appeals.

For preservation only, Appellant notes that public statements by political officials about

– 23 – 15-25-001420CV
the intended purpose of the Fifteenth Court of Appeals have been the subject of

statewide discussion. Appellant expressly states that he alleges no personal bias,

misconduct, or impropriety by any Justice of this Court. This contextual point is

preserved only so that, if structural-impartiality issues are ever raised by others or

reviewed by higher courts in unrelated cases, it is not deemed waived as to this matter.

SECTION 6. ERRATA

ERRATA NO. 1 — Monarch Ranch (Missing From Appellant's prior filing to

Clarify the Number of Defendant)

Omission of Monarch Ranch and Its Relevance to Defendant Count and Systemic

Parkland Violations

Appellant clarifies that Monarch Ranch was inadvertently omitted from the October 17

Letter regarding the Court’s reference to “approximately forty-two defendants.”

Monarch Ranch is among the core development entities referenced from the inception of

this litigation, and its exclusion created the mistaken impression that the developer list

was shorter than in fact. This was a clerical error on Appellant's part, but very important

to correct. Monarch Ranch therefore should be included as an additional real party in

interest under the umbrella of land-use, parkland-dedication, and public-trust claims.

Appellant further supplements this Errata with Exhibit N pg 127 — Monarch Ranch

– 24 – 15-25-001420CV
Land Use Map, showing the four land-use classifications proposed for the subdivision:

•(SF-2) Residential — 101.0 acres

•(C-2) Medium Commercial — 11.3 acres

•Floodplain — 13.6 acres

•Open Space — 8.6 acres

There is zero parkland dedication anywhere in the 134.5-acre site plan.

No acreage is allocated to public parkland, nor for public recreation dedication

consistent with Chapter 9, parkland requirements under Manor Code, or public-amenity

obligations commonly applied to all other residential developers. This omission is

directly relevant to Appellant’s claims of unequal enforcement, selective waiver of

municipal obligations for preferred developers, and the City’s continuing pattern of

eliminating public space while rapidly expanding residential population.

Therefore, this developer owes easily over $100,000 of IN-LIEU Park Fees, along with

Developer Park Fees; or to dedicate acres of land for a city park at a location on-site of

the city's choice. A required water retention pond also doesn't count as parkland.

The omission of Monarch Ranch from the earlier Defendant-Clarification Letter is

corrected here so that the record accurately reflects all real-party development actors

whose approvals, omissions, and incentives form part of Appellant’s public-trust and

ultra vires claims.

– 25 – 15-25-001420CV
ERRATA NO. 2 — Correction Regarding different Austin ETJ De-Annexation;

and SB 2038 Petition used by Dalfen Industrial

Appellant previously believed that the DG Manor Downs / Dalfen Industrial tract was

undergoing a formal City of Austin ETJ de-annexation process at the same time as a

similarly sized 48-acre parcel on Littig Road. Appellant now corrects the record: the

Littig Road parcel was different parcel by a different developer involved in a different

Austin ETJ de-annexation process — not the Dalfen Industrial tract.

Upon further review, Appellant confirms that:

•Dalfen Industrial withdrew its Austin de-annexation application,

•and instead invoked Texas Senate Bill 2038,

•which enabled Dalfen to unilaterally force removal from the Austin ETJ after the

statutory protest window expired.

This correction is significant because:

1.Austin’s environmental, watershed, and roadway-mitigation

requirements (including millions in required improvements related to Gilleland

Creek, floodplain, and traffic impacts) were avoided entirely — obligations

estimated in the range of $3–5 million.

2.Rather than exercising caution, the City of Manor rushed to accept the

development, granting:

– 26 – 15-25-001420CV
•a Chapter 380 financial concession package valued at up to $8.5 million,

•an abbreviated approval timeline,

•and no meaningful review of environmental, historical, landscaping,

watershed, traffic or to any ignored “Comprehensive Plan” concerns.

3.As a direct result of this rushed and poorly vetted action, the City is

enabling imminent and irreparable destruction of:

•the historic covered stadium bleachers at Manor Downs,

•heritage and riparian trees,

•and established Gilleland Creek watershed protection zones on agricultural

and rural parcels wholly unsuited for a massive warehouse district.

This Errata corrects the mistaken assumption that Dalfen followed the normal Austin

ETJ de-annexation review path. Instead, Dalfen used SB 2038 to bypass Austin’s

regulatory safeguards and then received an extraordinary financial subsidy and near-total

waiver of public-interest protections from the City of Manor.

PRAYER

Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:

1.Take judicial notice of the structural defects, constitutional violations, and

statutory errors documented herein and in the attached Exhibits A–M;

– 27 – 15-25-001420CV
2.Correct the unlawful annexation and unvested development approvals associated

with Ordinance No. 774 and the Dalfen/Manor Downs project, including by

recognizing that only racetrack/open-space use is vested under Tex. Loc. Gov’t

Code § 43.002(a)(2);

3.Address the systemic due-process concerns documented in Appellant’s

municipal-complaint chronology, including selective enforcement, retaliation, and

the non-functioning Ethics and Charter-oversight structures;

4.Require the creation of a record in all dispositive and absent-party hearings, and

in particular in all proceedings materially affecting Appellant’s rights or the rights

of the public to heritage, parkland, and election integrity;

5.Grant such further relief as justice requires, including (as appropriate) remand

with instructions, temporary or permanent injunctive relief, limited discovery into

2024 planning intake records, structural or mandamus-type directives to ensure

compliance with TOMA and the Public Information Act, and any other orders

necessary to restore meaningful review and public trust.

– 28 – 15-25-001420CV
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert Edward Battaile
Robert Edward Battaile, Appellant / Relator / Plaintiff Pro Se
502 E Eggleston St., Unit B Manor, Texas 78653
robert@manortx.us 512-662-2955

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this Supplemental Letter Brief was served on all

parties through the eFileTexas system and by email where applicable on November

25th, 2025.

/s/ Robert Edward Battaile
Robert Edward Battaile, Pro Se

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this document contains approximately 4,167 words, excluding the parts

exempted by Rule 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ Robert Edward Battaile
Robert Edward Battaile, Pro Se

– 29 – 15-25-001420CV
EXHIBITS

A. 11/16/2025 – Ethics Complaint (CRC Meetings) ...................................................31

B.1. and B.2. CETJ-2024-1 Austin Planning and other Manor Downs docs...............46

C.1. and C.2. – City Organization Chart (Structural Defects) .....................................56

D. 10/21/2025 – Parking Violations (TC 545.303) .....................................................58

E. 10/27/2025 – Abuse of Official Capacity (PC 39.02) city employees immune.......63

F. 11/03/2025 – Disorderly Conduct (PC 42.01) .........................................................72

G. 10/27/2025 – TOMA Violations (Secret CRC Meetings) ......................................92

H. 11/14/2025 – Recording Rights / Official Oppression ...........................................94

I. 11/16/2025 – Ethics Commission Non-Activation ................................................102

J. 11/17/2025 – IT Denial of Audio Access ..............................................................116

K. 11/17/2025 – Police Denial of PIA Access ..........................................................120

L. 11/21/2025 – Continued Audio-Access Denial .....................................................123

M. 11/21/2025 – Suppression of Public-Speaking Rights .........................................126

N. Monarch Ranch paying no in-lieu Parkland fees despite developer's own siteplan not

containing any “parkland” color code in the legend ..................................................131

O. Misuse of City funds to mow private developer's lots ..........................................132

– 30 – 15-25-001420CV
EXHIBIT A.

For the fourth time in a row, the City of Manor convened its Charter Review

Commission in complete secrecy—no livestream, no audio, no video, no record of

any kind—despite possessing the very equipment used daily to broadcast every other

meeting type. I witnessed not only the City’s deliberate refusal to provide an audio feed

or to document the proceedings but also the unprofessional, hostile conduct of City

Secretary Lluvia Almaraz, who publicly confronted and disparaged me when I

questioned this secrecy and lack of intelligible audio. This pattern of behavior, combined

with the absence of any official record, undermines public trust, violates the City’s

Personnel Manual and Ethics Code, and destroys the integrity required for a commission

tasked with rewriting Manor’s governing Charter.

The inclusion of an ETHICS COMMISSION on the City Organization Chart is

complete PROPAGANDA and deception. City Manager has gone rogue and become an

untethered corrupt city official apparently now in love with and beholden to... Scott

Dunlop. My “official” Ethics Commission complaint follows herewith:

__________________________________________________________________

Attn: Leslie Moore, City of Manor City Manager

ETHICS COMMISSION COMPLAINT

Secret Charter Review Commission Meetings, Retaliatory Conduct by the City

Secretary, and Systemic Transparency Violations

– 31 – 15-25-001420CV
Unsworn Declaration of Robert Edward Battaile

I, Robert Edward Battaile, submit this Ethics Complaint against City Secretary Lluvia

Almaraz, Assistant City Manager Brittany Lopez, and supervisory officials responsible

for the conduct, operation, and record-keeping of the Charter Review Commission

(CRC).

This complaint concerns deliberate secrecy, public intimidation, and retaliatory

conduct in violation of the Personnel Manual, Manor’s Ethics Code, and constitutional

guarantees of transparency.

1. Four Consecutive Secret Charter Review Commission Meetings

The Charter Review Commission has now held FOUR meetings — all without

livestream, without audio, without video, without AV recording, and without the

archived public record the City routinely provides for every other board, commission,

and council meeting.

Manor boasts a state-of-the-art audiovisual system, and

•City Council meetings

•P&Z meetings

•Budget workshops

•Public hearings

are routinely live-streamed, recorded, and archived permanently.

Yet the Charter Review Commission, the body entrusted with rewriting the Constitution

– 32 – 15-25-001420CV
of the City, has been kept entirely off the record.

This is not a glitch — it is policy-level secrecy.

2. Proof the Lack of Recording Harms Governance Itself

At the most recent meeting, one CRC Commissioner, Shervonne James openly admitted

to the group that she had no idea what was decided at the previous meeting. They had no

record to review because the City intentionally produced NONE.

As a result:

•Commissioners wasted significant meeting time

•Other commissioners had to verbally reconstruct past decisions

•No citizen could meaningfully follow the process

•No accountability exists for statements, advice, or votes

A City that claims to support “good governance” cannot operate this way.

If even a Commissioner cannot follow past proceedings, how can the public, press, or

courts? Further, the city has NO MEANS for a citizen to email the Commissioners.

Thus, the city's actions pro-actively discourage citizen input and engagement.

3. I Was the ONLY Citizen Present at the last meeting; and one of two citizens at

this last meeting— Because the City Made Public Access Impossible unless you

attended in person. Further, No Agenda comments were allowed at the meeting.

The city:

•Provided no livestream

– 33 – 15-25-001420CV
•Provided no recording

•Provided no public notice that the meeting would not be broadcast

•Intentionally created barriers that prevent citizens from monitoring the

proceedings

This violates both the spirit and intent of:

•Texas Constitution Art. I § 8 (open discourse)

•Art. I § 27 (petition clause)

•Open Meetings principles requiring meaningful access to proceedings

When a city secretly revises its Charter — the very document defining the limits of

government power — the public’s trust collapses.

4. Retaliatory Incident with City Secretary Lluvia Almaraz

At this same meeting, I asked Asst. City Secretary, Brittany Lopez a standard

transparency question: “Can I get an audio feed of these meetings?”

Before Assistant City Secretary, Lopez could respond, City Secretary Lluvia

Almaraz loudly and rudely interrupted: “No. We don’t do that in Manor”

I noted that “lots of cities do,” and returned to my camera on the other side of the room.

A few moments later, Almaraz crossed the room in an aggressive posture and declared

loudly: “NO other cities do that.” To which I replied, “Lots of cities provide a news

feed. I’m a newspaper.”

Almaraz responded — loudly, disparagingly: “You’re NOT a newspaper.”

– 34 – 15-25-001420CV
I replied: “My circulation is bigger than the Manor Journal.”

This was witnessed by:

•Commissioner Julie Leonard, whose shocked expression confirmed the

misconduct; the other 3 commissioners and

•Bobby Reese, who also witnessed the inappropriate and uninvited exchange

This was textbook intimidation and in direct violation of the Personnel Manual’s

requirement that staff:

• Treat citizens with courtesy

• Avoid intimidation or disparagement

• Maintain professional decorum

• Support public access and transparency

Complainant notes that: It was Battaile's email Newsletters published about her

alleged Election Coercion that led her to make a false police report that resulted in my

arrest and coercive bail restrictions that negatively impacted my run for Mayor in 2024.

For her to now claim that I'm “not a newspaper” is wishful thinking at best.

5. Violations of the Manor Ethics Code

Manor Ethics Code § 12.02.032 prohibits:

(a) Misuse of Public Office

(b) Abuse of Position

– 35 – 15-25-001420CV
(d) Retaliation against critics or whistleblowers

The secrecy around the Charter Review Commission and Ms. Almaraz’s retaliatory

confrontation constitute all four. The City cannot selectively turn off accountability for

the committee rewriting its Charter.

6. The Law: The City Manager MUST Convene the Ethics Commission

Manor Code of Ordinances § 12.02.041 is mandatory:

“Upon receipt of a written ethics complaint, the City Manager SHALL convene the

Ethics Commission and the Commission SHALL hear the complaint.”

Not optional.

Not conditional.

Not discretionary.

If the City Manager fails to convene the Ethics Commission over this complaint, that

itself is a separate ethics violation and a due process violation under the Texas

Constitution.

7. Constitutional Challenge — Manor’s Ethics Commission Cannot Be Impartial

This complaint highlights a deeper structural defect:

The Ethics Commission is appointed by the Mayor and Council — the very officials

who are accused of wrongdoing.

This makes impartial review impossible and violates:

•Texas Constitution Art. I § 19

– 36 – 15-25-001420CV
•U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment

•Ward v. Monroeville

•Tumey v. Ohio

A tribunal cannot be impartial if the accused appoints the judges.

Because of this: I intend to challenge the constitutionality of Manor’s Ethics

Commission structure in my ongoing litigation.

8. Requested Reform

I request that the City adopt an independent Ethics Commission appointment system,

such as:

A. Appointment by outside municipal attorneys

from Elgin, Pflugerville, Taylor, Austin, etc.

B. Appointment of a Special Master by the Fifteenth Court of Appeals

to oversee ethics matters until Manor reforms its system.

C. Randomized selection from qualified citizen applicants

rather than mayoral, council or city manager appointment.

D. Election by the Voters.

RELIEF REQUESTED

I request that:

1.City Manager immediately convene the Ethics Commission as required by law.

2.The Commission hear this complaint and issue findings.

– 37 – 15-25-001420CV
3.The Commission sanction or reprimand the responsible officials.

4.City create permanent recordings of all Charter Review Commission meetings.

5.City adopt an independent appointment structure for the Ethics Commission.

6.This matter be included as evidence of systemic retaliation and secrecy in future

litigation.

UNSWORN DECLARATION

(Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 132.001)

My name is Robert Edward Battaile, my date of birth is Jaugust 14, 1950, and I live

at 502 E Eggleston St., Unit B, Manor, Texas 78653. My email address

is robert@manortx.us, and my telephone number is 512-662-2955.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 16th day of November, 2025, in Manor, Texas.

/s/

Robert Edward Battaile, Complainant Pro Se

– 38 – 15-25-001420CV
EXHIBIT A.