The Hawk’s Eye is a niche Texas news site with a reputation for accountability news reporting.  In May 2025, it published an exclusive investigation into a quaint vintage‑car event called “Classic Rides on El Camino Real.”  On the surface the show was nothing more than shiny cars on a courthouse lawn, but records obtained by the outlet revealed that a nonprofit created only weeks earlier—Empower Hays—was behind the event and was controlled by County Judge Ruben Becerra’s wife Monica and their sons Cristian and Ruben.  Not only did the Becerra family direct the nonprofit; Judge Becerra also approved the group’s request to use county property.  The Hawk’s Eye warned that a county judge authorizing a family‑run event on public grounds goes beyond bad optics. It “erodes the boundary between public office and private gain,” noting that the conflict is “not just bad optics” but “a breakdown of the public‑private boundary that ethics laws are designed to protect.”

Financial questions and withheld records

Public filings obtained by The Hawk’s Eye showed that a non‑profit called Empower Hays, created in February 2025, had asked the county for permission to use the courthouse grounds for Classic Rides and listed Monica Becerra and their sons as directors.  When the site dug deeper, it found that the event was not operated by the nonprofit at all. The website directed registrants to send money to “Hays Classic Rides” or to Derek Ortiz, the owner of Dapper Cave Barbershop and a friend of Becerra’s.  “Hays Classic Rides” has no registered business in Texas, and Empower Hays does not appear on the judge’s personal financial statements.  In other words, money from a public event was flowing to private individuals and undocumented entities.  Becerra himself had signed the use agreement authorizing the event, yet when questioned he told the State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) that he merely “helped organize a car show club” and that courthouse staff were not involved.

The investigation also exposed potential withholding of records.  The Hawk’s Eye filed open‑records requests with the judge’s office in January and March 2025.  In response to the first request the office said no records existed, but a subsequent request—after the event took place—yielded signed use agreements and county licensing documents.  The discrepancy raised the possibility that records were either withheld or created only after the outlet asked more pointedly.  As the reporting progressed, Becerra chose to attack the messenger rather than answer questions, labelling the stories “false,” “misleading,” and “clickbait” on his personal Facebook page and urging followers to ignore the publication.  He did not identify any factual errors.  The article emphasised that the issue “isn’t about a car show” but about power and accountability and that Hays County residents deserve “transparency, not tire smoke” .

Deleted posts and disputed leases

The Hawk’s Eye soon discovered that the barbershop scandal was not an isolated incident.  In January 2025 Judge Becerra used his official social‑media platforms to defend his private lease of a downtown San Marcos building.  In a lengthy post he declared, “Honesty and integrity remain my top priorities, and I will continue to uphold them in everything I do.”  He assured followers that the city had erred in citing ownership and that he—not Becerra Corp.—owned the property. After The Hawk’s Eye filed an open‑records request for the lease documents, the post was quietly deleted.

When The Hawk’s Eye obtained records from the City of San Marcos, the documents contradicted the judge’s narrative.  The contract for the contested property was signed by Becerra Corp., bearing Judge Becerra’s signature and an official city seal.  The city had notified him of a public meeting about the lease in December 2024, yet he did not attend the meeting or comment publicly.  The Hawk’s Eye’s article raised a series of questions. If he was committed to transparency, why delete the social‑media post?  If the ownership was misidentified, why did the signed agreement list the corporation rather than the individual?  The pattern of posting in his official capacity, deleting posts after open‑records requests, and giving inconsistent explanations echoed the themes that would later surface in the SCJC admonition.  Becerra responded to this reporting with more insults, again labelling the outlet’s work “clickbait” and urging followers not to read it, but he offered no evidence to refute the public records .

From accountability investigation to a judicial admonition

The accountability battles and deleted posts eventually drew the attention of the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC).  In April 2026 the commission issued a public admonition and order of additional education that recapitulated many of the facts first uncovered by The Hawk’s Eye and expanded on Becerra’s use of social media to advertise.  The findings reveal the breadth of Becerra’s self‑promotion. He controlled official judge accounts on Facebook, Instagram and X, which he used to advertise at least twelve local businesses on his judge Facebook page and fifteen businesses on his judge Instagram page.  The list included eateries, breweries, barbershops and insurance agencies, with Gil’s Broiler & the Manske Roll—a bakery owned by Becerra and his wife through Becerra Corp.—receiving repeated endorsements.  In one July 27, 2024, post he told followers, “This is a special post for me – my son is the baker … Whenever possible, I encourage you to support local, however that looks”, explicitly leveraging his public office to promote his family’s business.

When the commission confronted him, Becerra initially insisted that “no advertisement was ever made” and maintained that he always supports buying local.  He denied using the prestige of his office to advance private interests and said he merely “helped organize a car show club.” He acknowledged that Derek Ortiz received the event fees and that he signed at least one of the courthouse use agreements but insisted that all agreements were in compliance.  Becerra also told the commission the $500 sponsorship tier “never materialized” and that he did not sponsor any awards—he only presented them.  Responding to questions about his role at the courthouse, he admitted that he still receives a judicial stipend and that his current caseload consists solely of administrative license suspensions and revocations.

During his testimony Becerra conceded that his social‑media posts were advertisements but argued that they were intended to support local commerce and that he had ceased posting such endorsements.  He claimed the Classic Rides event had ended.  The commission rejected these justifications.  Citing Canon 2B of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, it concluded that he “lent the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of himself and others” and that his conduct cast “reasonable doubt on his capacity to act impartially as a judge.”  The order required him to obtain two additional hours of education in social‑media ethics and judicial conduct and underscored that judges must not blur personal and official roles.  The commission’s public admonition echoed The Hawk’s Eye’s central thesis. Using an elected office to push private enterprises—whether a family bakery or a car show run by a friend—erodes public trust.

An exclusive investigation that changed the narrative

For more than a year The Hawk’s Eye was the only news outlet asking why a sitting county judge was using public property and his public title to promote his family’s businesses.  Its series of fact‑checks, open‑records requests and exposés on the Classic Rides car show and Dapper Cave Barbershop drew scorn from the judge but eventually prompted an official inquiry.  The SCJC’s admonition validated much of what the site had reported. That the judge’s social‑media advertising constituted an ethical breach and that his involvement in the car show blurred the line between public service and private enterprise.  The story illustrates the power of independent watchdog journalism.  When elected officials preach transparency but refuse to answer basic questions, persistent reporting can pierce the fog of spin and bring accountability.  In this case, it was a small news site—not a major outlet—that uncovered the facts and set in motion a process that ended with a public sanction against a powerful county judge.

---

---

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented. 

Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.

A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing about a Texas judge filing a lawsuit over same-sex wedding refusals.

Or you may find our publishing on a TABC agent receiving a stipend for a degree he didn’t hold, of interest. 

Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News

---