The second day of Eileen Bicaba’s lawsuit against North Miami Councilmembers Kassandra Timothe, Mary Estimé-Irvin and Pierre Frantz Charles was contentious both inside and outside the courtroom.
Former City Manager Rasha Cameau completed her testimony. Haitian community leader Ringo Cayard took the stand. The defense repeatedly questioned Cameau about the ethnicity of employees she terminated or demoted—and even questioned the ethnicity of the attorney she hired. After Judge Beatrice Butchko Sanchez challenged the relevance of the racial questioning, the defense moved for a mistrial and sought the judge’s disqualification. She denied both motions and continued the trial. By the end of the day, Timothe was on the witness stand.
A confrontation outside the courtroom
During a break, Cayard and defense attorney Stephen Hunter Johnson became involved in a heated, face-to-face confrontation in front of the courtroom.The exchange occurred outside the formal proceedings and therefore does not appear in the trial transcript. It was witnessed by people present at the courthouse.
The action inside the courtroom was just as contentious.
Cameau says she was pressured to back away
Cameau resumed her testimony from the first day of trial. She testified that she was preparing to address documented performance problems involving Public Works Director Wisler Pierre-Louis when she began receiving pressure to back away.
According to Cameau:
“He told me they have the votes. Just pretty much don’t touch the guy.”
Cameau testified that she was not planning to fire Pierre-Louis at that time. She was preparing to reprimand him and address documented performance concerns.
She explained the fundamental problem:
“If I can’t reprimand my staff, what am I doing?”
Section 19 of the North Miami Charter places responsibility for city employees and administration with the city manager and restricts councilmembers from interfering in personnel matters.
Cayard takes the stand
Cayard described himself as a longtime advocate for the Haitian community who had helped several North Miami politicians get elected. When asked about North Miami’s “friends and family” culture, Cayard gave a blunt answer:
“That’s all there is over here.”
Asked whether that culture creates a problem, he responded:
“It’s a problem for the taxpayers definitely.”
Cayard testified that Estimé-Irvin contacted him regarding Cameau and Pierre-Louis. He said Charles called him afterward and Timothe also spoke to him about the situation. According to Cayard, the message was that Cameau needed to “get in line” or face serious consequences.
Cayard testified:
“If she don’t back off doing whatever the name of the gentleman is Pierre Wisler or something … she is going to get fired and they have votes for that.”
He further testified that Estimé-Irvin later came to his home and told him she had the votes to remove Cameau. The defense vigorously challenged Cayard’s account during cross-examination.
The defense makes race central to its questioning
The defense repeatedly questioned Cameau about the race and national origin of employees she had terminated or demoted. Cameau acknowledged that some were Haitian but firmly rejected the suggestion that ethnicity motivated her decisions:
“I did not fire them because they were Haitians. So to me it was not an issue because it was a performance issue.”
The defense continued, asking whether Cameau should have discussed with the council that she did not intend to “go around firing Haitians.” Cameau maintained that her personnel decisions were based on performance—not ethnicity. That distinction matters. Cameau’s memorandum documented that she was accused of firing Haitians and replacing them with non-Haitians. However, records presented in the case documented serious performance and staffing problems within Public Works.
Dr. Aneisha Daniel’s April 12, 2024 report stated that qualified applicants had been interviewed for two vacant assistant-director positions in Public Works, but no offers were made because Pierre-Louis wanted to promote from within—even though existing staff lacked the ability to perform the work adequately.
The report linked those staffing decisions to increased errors, litigation, delays, missing information and inadequate follow-up. When political influence affects who is hired, promoted or protected, a workforce may be shaped by political connections instead of qualifications. If a manager later disciplines employees for documented performance failures, the shared ethnicity of some affected employees does not prove they were targeted because of their ethnicity.
Performance accountability is not ethnic discrimination.
Defense questions the ethnicity of Cameau’s attorney
The racial questioning escalated when the defense asked Cameau whether the attorney she hired to represent her was Haitian American.
The judge immediately intervened:
“What’s the point of that question?”
The defense argued that the question related to Cameau’s alleged reputation for firing Haitian Americans. The judge pressed for an explanation of how the ethnicity of Cameau’s attorney was relevant to the issues before the court.
The judge asked:
“Was she fired because she is prejudiced against Haitian Americans? Was that in the resolution?”
The defense answered:
“That was not in the resolution.”
The judge responded:
“Then why are we talking about it? So she can only hire a Haitian American attorney?”
The court emphasized that whether Cameau hired “a Cuban, a Haitian, an Anglo, a German” was not pertinent to the case and directed the parties to return to the relevant evidence:
“I don’t have the time for the nonsense. Let’s get to the point.”
Defense seeks a mistrial and the judge’s removal
Following a recess, Johnson announced two oral motions: one seeking the judge’s disqualification and another seeking a mistrial.
The defense argued that the judge’s comments caused its clients to believe they could not receive a fair and impartial trial.
Judge Butchko Sanchez denied both motions:
“Both motions are denied.”
The defense stated that it intended to file a written motion later. The judge continued with the trial.
Timothe takes the stand
By the end of the second day, Timothe began testifying in her own defense.
One issue involved Bicaba’s first-day testimony concerning approximately nine hours of telephone calls between Timothe and Estimé-Irvin during the period surrounding the alleged interference and Cameau’s removal.
The defense offered an explanation for at least one significant call—an approximately two-hour conversation. Timothe testified about communications work she performed for Estimé-Irvin through the National Haitian American Elected Officials Network, or NHAEON.
Timothe discussed the proposed Kenyan security mission to Haiti and the treatment of Haitian migrants at the Del Rio border.
The border story was years removed from the calls at issue
During her testimony, Timothe referred to images of mounted Border Patrol agents and described a man on a horse “with the whip whipping people.”
The judge responded:
“It was debunked 100 percent.”
After court, Bicaba’s team reviewed NHAEON’s own website and the public record.
NHAEON’s “Migrant Border Crisis” page states that the organization became involved in the Del Rio crisis in September 2021. The federal investigation addressing the whipping allegation was released in July 2022. Both occurred years before the March and April 2024 telephone calls at issue. They could not explain telephone calls made in 2024. The planned Kenyan security mission to Haiti was a separate 2024 matter. Although Timothe offered NHAEON-related work as an explanation for a two-hour call, her testimony did not individually account for every call comprising the approximately nine hours identified by Bicaba.
Timothe claims Cameau was fired the way she was hired
Timothe testified that Cameau’s hiring had also occurred without public notice:
“When she was hired it wasn’t a notice. It was during the Mayor’s report.”
She claimed the mayor unexpectedly proposed Cameau during his report and that Cameau was appointed by a 3–2 vote. Timothe then said:
“So the same way—”
The judge responded:
“Same thing.”
Timothe continued:
“Same way she entered is kind of sad the same way she exited.”
That exchange is important. The judge’s response was based on Timothe’s testimony that Cameau had been hired during the mayor’s report without public notice. However, the official February 14, 2023 agenda shows that Timothe’s account was inaccurate.
City records contradict Timothe’s testimony
The published February 14, 2023 agenda contained two items addressing the city-manager position:
- Tab J, sponsored by Timothe, proposed directing the interim city manager to conduct a nationwide search for qualified candidates.
- Item 10, sponsored by Mayor Alix Desulme, was titled “Discussion Regarding the Selection Process of the City Manager Position.”
Council Reports appeared separately as Item 12.
During the meeting, Tab J was moved immediately before Item 10 so the two published city-manager matters could be considered together.
Cameau’s selection therefore occurred while the council considered publicly noticed city-manager agenda items—not during the mayor’s Council Report as Timothe testified.
Her appointment was later memorialized in Resolution 2023-R-35.
There was no public notice of Cameau’s removal
The procedure used to remove Cameau was materially different.
Cameau’s proposed removal appeared nowhere on the published April 9, 2024 agenda. The public received no notice that the council would consider removing the city manager.
Timothe introduced the motion during her Council Report. It was not raised during Citizen Comments, nor was it part of the published regular agenda. The council did not vote to add Cameau’s removal to the agenda as an emergency item.
Adding the matter required a supermajority. Timothe, Estimé-Irvin and Charles had three votes, while Mayor Desulme and Councilman Scott Galvin opposed the removal. The three councilmembers therefore did not have the votes necessary to add it to the agenda.
Instead, Timothe introduced the motion during Council Reports without prior public notice.
The judge’s brief “same thing” response reflected the account Timothe presented from the witness stand. The official agendas establish that the two events were not the same:
- Cameau’s selection occurred under published city-manager agenda items.
- Cameau’s removal was introduced during Timothe’s Council Report without public notice and without being added to the agenda.
The lack of notice was especially significant because the council had already been warned that major City projects—including the water plant and WIFIA financing—were at risk. The decision involved more than Cameau’s employment. It threatened continuity of leadership during a critical period for North Miami.
The public records directly contradict Timothe’s testimony that Cameau was fired the way she was hired.
Day two ends with Timothe still on the stand
Day two began with Cameau’s testimony, moved through extensive racial questioning, two unsuccessful attempts to stop the trial and Cayard’s contentious appearance, and ended with Timothe testifying about the telephone calls and the circumstances surrounding Cameau’s hiring and removal.
Her testimony was not complete when court adjourned. The trial was scheduled to continue on August 26.
The Charter belongs to the people. Silence protects the powerful. Participation protects the people.
Retrospective coverage of August 25, 2026, based principally on the day-two trial transcript. The courthouse confrontation occurred outside the proceedings and is not contained in the transcript. Post-trial verification of Timothe’s testimony is identified separately above.