[Pritable Version]

The following list refers to instances where Ramsey stated one thing in her deposition, which you can read yourself as it is on the site, and the facts indicate her testimony was false. These are just some of the instances. The page numbers and line numbers refer to Ramsey’s deposition.

Page 34, Lines 13-25
Ramsey denies having any knowledge of a letter or fax I sent her in 1998.

In 1998 I sent a letter to Ramsey asking I would be able to secure a beer and wine permit at two locations I was considering setting up a convenience store at. I first mailed the letter to her and then faxed it to her a few weeks later after I had received no response. I spoke with her secretary at the time and she informed me that they did receive my letter and it was on her desk. Her secretary finally told me Ramsey informed her “they don’t do that sort of thing” regarding telling someone ahead of time if they would qualify for a permit.
I have a copy of the letter I sent and a phone bill of mine that shows phone calls to her office and to her fax machine during the time period in question.

Page 36, Line 11 to page 37, line 10
Ramsey states City Secretary John Rounsavall asked her to review ordinances of the City of Terrell with regard to alcohol beverage in residential areas.
In his deposition John Rounsavall says he was “acting under the advice of the city attorney when he drafted this.” ( referring to a letter he drafted to the TABC saying the Handy Mart application does not comply with ordinances regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages in residential areas.) Obviously one of them came up with this objection but they both say it was the others idea.

Page 39, lines 16-19
Ramsey says in response to a question regarding a conversation she had with me that I wanted general information and she gave me copies of the ordinances.
This meeting took place March 2, 2000 in her office. Ronnie Britton who worked for me went with me. Ramsey did not give me copies of anything. I had copies of the ordinances, showed them to her and she made copies of them for herself. Britton and myself can both attest to this.

Page 40, lines 5-15
Ramsey states when I came to see her I never made an appointment.
I went to her office on March 1, 2000 to speak with her and she told me she was getting ready to go to court. We agreed I should come back the next morning. This is the meeting Ronnie Britton accompanied me to. She set the time and date herself in person. If she keeps any kind of records this would be in it. If not, Britton can attest to the fact she was expecting us when we arrived the next morning.

Page 55, line 9-page 56, line15
Ramsey says she had seen no evidence of my purchase of the building at 305 Ninth Street.
At the March 2 meeting attended by Ramsey, Ronnie Britton and myself I gave her a copy of the contract between myself and George Calvert and she made a copy of it. The purchase date was January 12, 2000, one day after the city had granted me their version of a beer and wine permit. I had the permit with me and she also made a copy of that. She asked me when she reviewed them, “Are you saying there might be some liability here?”
She did have evidence of my purchase of the property but denies it.

Page 56, line 19-page 60 line 14
Ramsey will not say her original position concerning the objection to issuance of my permit was a concern with a day care center and an athletic field.
She told me at the March 2 meeting that was what she was concerned with. She told this to Mike Wortham, my attorney and he subsequently sent her a letter outlining why this was not a valid objection. Her testimony here is evasive. A rational person can see she is purposefully avoiding answering the question truthfully. She had talked to the city secretary about it, she talked to Ronnie Britton and myself about it and she received a response from my attorney addressing the issue.

Page 95, lines 23 to 25
Ramsey states she asked for additional information from us.
She did not. Wortham can confirm this.

Page 95, line 17
Ramsey says they did not change their position time after time.
The city first objected because the property was too close to a day care and athletic field. The second objection was because it was too close to a private school. The third time they said it was in an area zoned residential when it was in fact zoned retail. The fourth time they came back around and said it was too close to the private school again.

Page 96, line 9 to page 98, line 16
Ramsey says she does not know how the city arrived at the position the property was in an area zoned residential when it was actually in an area zoned retail. John Rounsavall, the city secretary who wrote the letter laying out this position, says he drafted the letter on instructions from Ramsey. (See Rounsavall depo page 64, lines 3-4)

Page 105, lines 23-25
Ramsey states I spoke with Tim Maloney about an alcohol permit being denied at the location in question in the past.
This is false. During the conversations I had with Maloney we never discussed any prior applications. Maloney said the county and city would have to approve the permit and there was no reason the state would object to a permit at this location.

Page 111, line 11 to page 112, line 14
Ramsey will not admit to taking the position that the location was in an area zoned residential.
My attorney first found out about this position on March 23, 2000. He called me and asked if it was true. I went to the city building inspectors office and confirmed that we were in an area zoned retail. I relayed this finding to my attorney. He called Ramsey’s office and could not get in contact with her. She rarely took his calls or returned phone calls. He then faxed her a letter saying it was zoned retail. The position she takes saying she does not remember is not believable.

Page 127, line 9
Ramsey says she did not know of a beer and wine permit at 307 Ninth (my previous location) until she received a letter from Grady Lawson’s (the property owner) attorney. She again asserts this is the first she knew of it on page 130, lines 4-6.
This is false. She spoke with Lawson before this and according to Lawson’s deposition Ramsey advised him TO GET AN ATTORNEY. Lawson did and this attorney subsequently wrote the letter they are talking about in this passage. She also knew of this from the city secretary according to his deposition.

Page 131, lines 21-23
Page 147, lines 1-3
Ramsey states she was not asked an opinion on the beer and wine permit at 307 Ninth (Lawson/Rodriguez location) by city secretary Rounsavall.
In his deposition Rounsavall states he did in fact consult the city attorney.
Ramsey also states the city was represented by other counsel. She continued to take phone calls from my attorney and a copy of a letter from the firm she says was representing them is available. This letter was sent on May 9, 2000. It states they were NOT representing the city at the time and all questions should be directed to Ramsey.

Page 134, lines 9-21
Page 141, line 18 to 142, line 5
Page 144, lines 6-8
Page 147, lines 7-9
Ramsey asserts the city was represented by another attorney, Jason Marshall, after March 14, 2000.
We had petitioned the state court for a writ of mandamus and the hearing was May 31, 2000. At the hearing was the first my attorney or anyone else knew they were represented by another attorney in this matter. Marshall himself told Wortham, my attorney, that he had first received knowledge of the case the day before the hearing! This firms non involvement can be confirmed with the previously mentioned letter of May 2, 2000.

Page 150, line 23 to 151, line 4
Ramsey says I told her I had a disagreement with Lawson and he was increasing my rent and I was “not going to stand for it.”
There is no truth at all to this passage. The only time I got to speak with Ramsey at length was the meeting on March 2, 2000. I remember what was discussed. I even wrote notes about it afterward. This is part of what I recorded;

March 2, 10:00 a.m.-Ronnie Britton, who works for me at Handy Mart, and myself met with Mrs. Ramsey. In this meeting she told us there were some issues she would need to look at. She mentioned an athletic field and a day care facility. (Objection #1) I asked when I could find out exactly what the problem was and she said she would probably let me know next week. I said next week would be OK but I would hate to be waiting a long time. Then she said “This thing will raise it’s head before that.”
She also seemed to have an unusual interest in me taking the name Handy Mart with me when I moved next door. She brought it up out of the blue and after I told her I had bought Handy Mart from Stewart David she said “That’s between you and Grady Lawson.” This stuck in my mind because it was really no concern of hers and shouldn’t even have been noticed unless of course she had been talking to Grady Lawson. I asked her “Have you been talking to Grady Lawson?” She said “no”.
I did have my copies of the state and city code and went over them with her to hopefully quell any legitimate objections. She made copies of these as well as my contract with George Calvert to buy the property and the permit the city had issued me on Jan. 11. When she was looking this over she asked me something like “Are you saying there may be some liability here?” I replied, “You’d know more about that than me.”
I asked her if the state code conflicted with the city code which one would overrule. She told me whichever is the most strict. The actual law states that citys may make their code less restrictive than the state law but not any more strict.
She mentioned George Calvert had been turned down for a permit there before. I told her he told me he never had. She insisted he had. The city has never been able to produce any paperwork to this effect and the TABC in Austin has no record of a permit being applied for before mine.
The city code also states “shall be amended to comply with current law.” I asked her what law she was complying with. She said the “state law.”

We NEVER discussed any disagreement I had with Grady Lawson or rent. I DID NOT say I wasn’t going to stand for it. That’s not a phrase I can ever remember using.
Ronnie Britton can attest to what was discussed at this meeting.

165, line 13 to 166, line3
167, lines 5-6
Ramsey says she never said anything with regard to when I would get my permit.
See the previously mentioned notes on the March 2 meeting.
Notes from meeting; “I asked when I could find out exactly what the problem was and she said she would probably let me know next week. I said next week would be OK but I would hate to be waiting a long time. Then she said “This thing will raise it’s head before that.”

Page 172, line 23 to 173, line 12
Ramsey says none of the Handy Mart permit matters were ever discussed or brought up at the city council meetings.
An email dated July 11, 2000 from Jason Marshall to my attorney says, “Mary Gayle needs to take this to the City Council next Tuesday, just to pass the smell test..”
Another email from Marshall to Wortham dated July 19, 2000 says, “Last night, the council gave their consensus blessing to what we had discussed.”
Copies of the emails are attached. Why would Marshall send these emails if the issue was not discussed at the council meetings?

Page 178, lines 12-15
Ramsey says she called my attorney numerous times and she returned all of his calls.
She returned one phone call out of over 10. Mike Wortham can attest to that.

Page 178, page 18 to 182, page 21
Ramsey is evasive and will not answer the question did she take the position that an athletic field and a daycare violate ordinance 1939.
This is the first objection the city had. John Rounsavall told me this was the problem and it was after he had discussed it with Ramsey. Ramsey told me that was their concern at the meeting on March 2 and she told Mike Wortham that was the issue when she talked to him on the phone. She was presented the letter he sent her afterwards, the letter triggered by their assertions, and she still says she doesn’t remember.
She also says on page 182, lines 16-21 she furnished copies of all their city ordinances. She didn’t. She told him he would have to fill out an open records request. After the request the city secretary sent them to Wortham.

Page 184, line 18 to page 186, line 7
Ramsey says she had not seen a copy of the contract or deed where I purchased the property before March 7, 2000.
When Ronnie Britton and I met with Ramsey on March 3, 2000 I had a copy of the contract with me and the city permit issued the day before the contract was made. She even asked if there might be some kind of liability involved. Ronnie Britton and I can both attest to this.

Page 183, line 24 to page 188, line 1
Ramsey again says the case was handed over to the Texas Municipal League attorneys and she was not involved after March 15.
Rounsavall sent letters after this date and he says in his deposition he sent them at the direction of the city attorney.
The TML attorney, Jason Marshall did not know he was on the case till May 30, 2000.
Again, my attorney received a letter from Peter Smith saying they were not involved in the case in early May and we would need to talk to Ramsey.
When I got one of the letters from Rounsavall, I called to ask him about it since it said on the letter to call if there were any questions. All he would tell me was it was drafted from the city attorney and I would have to talk to her.

Page 188, line 2 to page 190, line 1
Ramsey asserts she never gave him the opinion that the location was zoned residential.
Rounsavall says in his deposition he was acting under the advice of the city attorney when he wrote the letter asserting this. (See page 64, lines 3-4 of the John Rounsavall deposition)

Page 195, line 4 to 196, line 14
Ramsey again asserts she was off the case and the city was represented by other counsel.
Refer to prior instances mentioned above.

Page 197, line 17 to page 201, line 25
Ramsey is answering questions regarding the city’s assertion that the property is in a residential area and says she does not know why John Rounsavall took this position. She claims over and over again she did not tell Rousavall to protest the application because the city was in an area zoned residential.
In Rounsavall’s deposition he says she did. Someone is not telling the truth.

Page 202, line 17 to page 205, line 22
Ramsey again says she has nothing to do with the case at the time in question.
This has been addressed. See prior instances. Jason Marshall, the attorney she says was handling the case, always had to run things by her and get her approval. Mike Wortham can confirm that. I also have emails from Marshall that indicate this.

Page 210, line 13 to page 211, line 6
Ramsey states she always returned phone calls from my attorney, Mike Wortham.
I was in contact with Wortham constantly during this time and numerous times he would tell me he tried to call her and had to leave a message. The phone calls were so rarely returned he mentioned it with surprise the only time I remember he actually got a call back. Wortham can confirm this.

Page 214, line 7
Ramsey says she does not know why Wortham continued to call her instead of Marshall after the city was represented by other counsel, which she says began on March 15, 2000.
She did not inform us of any change. Marshall told Wortham on May 31, 2000 he knew nothing of the case until May 30, 2000.

Page 214, lines 13 to 15
Ramsey says Marshall was hired when they received notice of the lawsuit filed March 15, 2000.
Marshall told Wortham on May 31, 2000 he knew nothing of the case until May 30, 2000.