Travis County Commissioners Court
September 18, 2007
Item 40
Why don't we discuss number 40 next in open course. We will need to go into executive session with legal for a discussion of it. But we may as well discuss the other executive session items while in there. But at this time we do call up number 40, consider and take appropriate action in Travis County, et al, versus center hill joint venture, frank yi resale deed. I just note that this matter may be study in executive session pursuant to government code 551.071 consultation with attorney. Let me grab my backup here. We do have mr. Yi and a person who is contesting the proposed action. Mr. Resie, I think he and his wife are here. If you all would come forward. We have mr. Yi and his attorney, bill elshire, you all come forward too. Yes, sir, if you all give them to Commissioner Davis, he will pass them down. Just as matter of background, mr. Rasei visited with me about the recommendation that was about to be played before the court by the county attorney, and I asked him if he wanted an opportunity to address the Commissioners court on the matter, and he said yes. So that's how we got here today. This would, is a recommended resale deed by the county tomorrow's office. We did have it before us once before, and we rejected at that time, I think, we had two bids in dispute.
>> that's correct.
>> we rejected both of those, asked that the policy be looked at, and hopefully simplified, and I understand that was done by the county attorney and the matter was posted. We got a response to that posting.
>> yeah.
>> okay. Some of these facts will be contained in your presentation probably.
>> thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to acknowledge that for two reasons the language I must use might not be very much appropriate for the court for two reasons. This is my first time to be in court, however, I am over 65, and also I am not a legal person (inaudible). And I with like to convey my gratitude for being here and for all of you honorable judges. If you don't mind, I'd like to particularly--
>> can we get your full name again?
>> my full name?
>> yes, sir.
>> resi is my first name, reza. And rej--rezanee my last name. And my wife's name, fat e m e h.
>> welcome to both of you.
>> thank one thing, turn the microphone directly in front of you. Point the top part towards you. Perfect.
>> thank you. Okay. Particularly I would like to appreciate and thank judge Biscoe who paid attention to my notice and made this opportunity possible and allowed me to address my claim and grievance for your attention the, judgment and decision. This case could have been, in my judgment, could have been handled nicely and equitably if the honor able judge acted in the county's truth rather than discriminating against me and overstepping the rights that I had based on the county's own rulings. The information revealed by judge beck clearly proofs that the whole process was to satisfy a special bidder, even with unacceptable bid amount. I will explain that. It is obviously that the righteous decision on a case would be possible when its supporting information is based on truth, otherwise no justice will prevail. For your information again, I made the bid application on March 8, 2007. It was on a resale property identified by a billing number 496453, with minimum bid amount $37,495.42. My application was $40,000 amount was the first bid received by resale office in March 9, 2007. The county publicized rule for resale property said, I'm quoting, the buyer who submits the first payment, minimum bid, you know, that is honored, receives a property. Subsequent bids will be returned. Evidently the check I sent was cashed and honored, and I was the first bidder with the highest bid amount. A few days later, I inquired the status of my bid. The woman who answered the phone confirmed that my bid is the only bid. She added that it might take about two weeks to have a good answer. After about three weeks in April 2, I paid a visit to the resale office where I visited ms. Rebecca. She said that there was one morbid --more, a bid on this property, but it was pulled out and then my bid would be the only one submitted for court decision on April 10 or later. On April 12 in early morning, I received a call from ms. Rebecca. She asked for my fax number and informed me that based on a new decision, I may add to my original bid if I want and hand deliver it in had a sealed unless because it was for next day. The deadline was the next day at three p.m., Friday April 13. She added that if I have any question, I should call on the judge beck. She said that she no longer is in a position to answer any question on this property. This is exactly what happened. The same day I received a call from judge beck. He provided me with the same information and added that the bids on this property and his office would send a fax later to me and other bidders about a new bid agreement or arrangement. He explained that it would be my choice either to add to my bid or not. Soon after his call I received a fax, fax letter signed by judge beck, confirming the bid arrangement for this property. I put that as appendix a. Taken under the county's own resale rules which I quoted before, I perceive this new development an unfair act. Then on April 13, 2007, I hand delivered the returned protest, again addressing judge beck and judge escimillan and reconsidered an appointment. This is appendix b. Judge beck is the one who accepted me in his office where he stressed that things decision about having an open bid is in his office is final. He added that the new bid envelopes, if any, will be opened by him at three p.m. At his office on Friday 13th. The next thing, my wife and I appeared in this court building before three pnl. However, we did not deliver our sealed envelopes until we entered judge beck's office where another bidder with his lawyer was available. I'm talking mr. Y i. Then ms. Rebecca and a female police officer also entered the room at three p.m. And judge beck started bid session by opening mr. Yi's file and his delivered bid envelope. Received on March 12, I'm talking about his bid, you know, three days after my bid, his first bid was $30,000. And this $30,000 was over $7,000 less than minimum bid. On April 3, 2007, one day after my visit with ms. Rebecca, he added $9,000 more. However, this made his total 39,000, still was less than what I had. Finally, his delivered envelope included a check in amount of $12,000 which made his total bid $51,000 judge beck then opened my file and my delivered envelope. My original bid for $40,000 received on March 9, 2007, he confirmed that, and my delivered envelope included a check in amount of $20,000. It is on appendix 6 c is the letter attached to the check, which made my final bid $9,000 more than the other bidder. At this time the other bidder, mr. Yi, nicely came the my wife and me, shook our hands, and conveyed his congratulations. My wife and I left judge beck's office after he said that I might receive some sale documents or information in about five days. Sorry, five days. On may 2, 2007, I made the letter to judge beck, first to thank him for the opportunity. Second, I did ask, inquired about the status of my bid, which I did not receive any answer. On may 22, 2007, I sent another letter referring to the bid session, its outcome and my $60,000 check. I again asked for the result which I did not again receive. These are on appendix d and e. This time, on June 12, 2007, I sent a certified letter. The previous letters were normal. I summarized the condition --contents of the previous letters and gen summarized the case. Judge beck called plea and said first my case was rejected and said that sometimes in future the subject property will be put on sale. If I like, you know, I can participate. And third, you know, I can go to appraisal office at airport boulevard and ask for my money. This was his information. I viewed the whole process to be unfair and judge beck's behavior in handling this case to be biased and discriminatory against me. Based on the revealed facts, judge beck has tried possible avenues to satisfy his special interest by devaluing the rights and priorities that was granted to me by the county's resale rule and regulations. Not anything else. On July 12, 2007, after his call I protested the case by sending a certified letter addressing county attorney judge escimilla, and after waiting a month I received again no answer. This is on appendix g. D finally on August 14, 2007, I took my case to judge Biscoe k, which he mentioned, and requested a pointment. He will come to my request, and he, my wife and I hadn't the opportunity to hand driver our written protest to judge Biscoe. It is on appendix h. I also are a chance to explain my protest to him in presence of judge beck who was available in our meeting. Now my wife and I are here to seek your judgment and righteous decision that honors the rights that you're county regulations granted to me. Finally, I would like to thank all of you, again, for listening to my grievances carefully and patiently. I am sure that all constituents, voted or not, demand their electioned officials to consider public interests and aim at encouraging equity, and never put special interests over public interest, nor any of them to exercise discriminatory act as it occurred in my case. It is about six months that the responsible county officials have cashed that $60,000 checks on the resale property and still I am challenging and resorting to you honorable judges for my rights as being the first bidder with the highest bid and then the winner of an open bid add ministered by judge elliot beck, and this was the case, and also six other people including the police officer, my wife and i, witnessed this bid event. I am sure your judgment will make a difference. On behalf of our mives and --and myself, I thank you, god bless you and god bless america and its --sustained democracy that allowed me and my voice to be heard so that our rights can be honored by you, the honorable judges. And thank you very much again.
>> any questions?
>> have you gotten your $60,000 returned to you?
>> no, ma'am. No.
>> any response? Mr. Yi?
>> we're going to hear from the county attorney, I guess, in executive session. Right?
>> question I would have , judge bill, is there any part of this that you all would take exception to?
>> first of all, this court did decide back in April correctly that the procedure that had been used up to that point were not fair and you set about a process to develop a system that is, and those rules took effect last month. And they are far better than they were before. Second thing I would say, the bids that were received back in April, neither one of them complied with the policy that was in effect at the time. About who was complying, it said you did not allow walk-in bids. There are walk-in bids accepted from both parties back then. But it didn't make sense to me when I heard about this to say, well, the first bid that comes in, but there's no bid deadline, didn't make sense, and apparently didn't make sense to this court so you fixed the procedures. I wasn't aware exactly when the new procedures went into effect. Mr. Yi's bids that is before you now was submitted a couple weeks apparently, after the bid procedure was up on the system and available. And he went down on Monday before one o'clock under the new deadline and made his bid. So you have a legitimate bid that crossed the t's and dotted the I's and procedure that is in effect now. And mr. Rezee's points are good. They would have been related to your decision back in April to reject all the bids. I don't believe you just rejected this one. I believe there may have been others. Just like last week you approved some bids under the new procedure for purchase. I think that's where we are now. I have great respect for mr. Rezee. He is right. The meeting where we tried to have a formal bid opening on the 13th, everything was flies to everybody--everybody was flies to everybody. We understand the dilemma of not having procedures more formal like they are now.
>> but it sounds like that you are saying that the bids were made in person and that that wasn't supposed to have been done. But mr. Rezee says he made the bid application on March 8, 2007. Maybe this is a question for elliot, whoever wants to answer it.
>> but he also made a supplemental walk in bid just like my client did.
>> right.
>> and the procedure said walk-in bids would not be accepted.
>> would the made-in bid supercede any sort of a walk-in bid?
>> Commissioner, I'd rather handle those in executive session.
>> all right.
>> rather than make any statement.
>> all right.
>> any other questions for either mr. Yi or his attorney, judge elshireor mr. Razee? We'll take this into executive session and get advice of counsel. We'll discuss this and other matters, and it may take 30 minutes. So I'm thinking it will take at least that long. We're looking at probably 3:15 or 3:20. You all are welcome to wait here.
>> thank you very much.
>> then we will take this item into executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 18:30 AM