In an age where information travels faster than verification, the line between opinion and journalism has never been more important—or more fragile. When a blog presents itself as a source of truth but operates without real journalism, the consequences can ripple far beyond a single headline.  Readers trust what they believe is reporting.  When readers know the blogger is a FORMER COUNCILMAN, they assume they can trust him – because our politicians would not lie, right?

Readers make decisions, form opinions, and sometimes even take action based on it. When that trust is misplaced, the damage isn’t just misinformation—it’s a breakdown of credibility across the entire information ecosystem.

At Frisco Chronicles, we believe that words carry weight. Calling something “journalism” is not just a stylistic choice; it’s a responsibility to the public. When that claim is misused—when speculation is dressed up as reporting or bias is masked as truth—it misleads readers and undermines the very foundation of informed communities. And in a city where residents are demanding transparency and trust, that’s not just careless—it’s dangerous.

On April 16, 2026, Former Councilman Bill Woodard published a blog speculating that little lies reveal big truths.  He hinted to an important legal proceeding between Frisco Chronicles (me) and the Petitioner and explained he would get into that later. 

Then Woodard makes a reference “What Court Documents Revealed” which immediately makes the implication that what is about to be written is based on facts revealed on the record.  But is it factual, or staged to look factual?

Note: Anything in RED is directly cut and pasted from Woodards Blog.  The rest is our commentary. 

Woodard starts by giving context using words such as weaponize, strategizing, underhanded, political scheme, and secret recording.  Then he drops the names of the Colberg’s and Sangita Datta.  He then said what matters in this case is not just that the recording exists, but WHO was involved in how it was used.  Woodard is wrong when he says what matters in this case is how the recordings were used. The Tammy Tapes have nothing to do with the petitioner’s claim of defamation or libel. However, his words probably put readers on the edge of their seat.

Woodard writes: Here is exactly what the text message shows:

It is an exchange between current Councilman Brian Livingston and Chris Fields.

– Brian forwards Chris a text from “The Colbergs.”

– Not “Brittany.” Not “Erich.” The Colbergs, plural. Both of them.

– Chris confirms he received the same message from “them”, detailing how to use the secret recordings against a sitting council candidate.

This is not speculation. This is actual documentation from court proceedings. The text establishes a direct connection between the secret recordings and both Brittany and Erich Colberg acting together.

Here is the PROBLEM with Bill Woodard’s article, he claims this is actual documentation from court proceedings and then posts a link to an image of a text message.  I filed a PIR with Denton County Courts and the Court Reporter for all documents related to this case including submitted evidence and the transcript of the proceedings.  When I received it, I reviewed everything in full detail.  However, there was no copy of the text Bill Woodard posted.  I went back to the court and specifically showed them what Bill had posted and asked for that evidence as well.  You can read the response for yourself:

If the text messages were never entered into court evidence and they are not a part of the court record, HOW DID BILL WOODARD GET A COPY OF THE TEXT MESSAGE? 

Why is this important, because he led readers to believe This is actual documentation from court proceedings which it was NOT!  Speculation is he received the text from the Petitioner, her attorney Mr. Harbin, or maybe David Ovard (the PGA KING) who also wormed himself into this case and who works at Clark Hill with Mr. Harbin.  However – none of it was from actual documentation from court proceedings.  Bill Woodard LIED to his readers.

Dissecting Bills Words: Text between Councilman Livingston and Chris Fields

Woodard writes, “Brian forwards Chris a text from “The Colbergs.”

Woodard continues, “Not Brittany. Not Erich. The Colberg’s, plural. Both of them.”

The FACTS show, Brian forwarded a screen shot of just a text with no name, no phone number on it.  There is no circle at the top showing who it was from or if both of the Colberg’s were on the text to Livingston, or what phone number it came from. Then in a second text, Livingston says “From the Colbergs” which means he implied it was from them “plural.”  

The FACTS show Fields said, “they sent it to me as well” and he was probably replying in plural with that because Livingston made that implication in his text.  As for Woodard’s claim, Chris confirms he received the same message he did not confirm that in court records.  Chris said “I don’t remember that text, but that’s what he (referring to Erich) said yesterday” referring to their phone call.  Mr. Martin then asked what he did with the text and Fields responds, “I didn’t do anything with it.”   Mr. Harbin then shows him the text and asks Fields, does this look like an exchange between you and Livingston?  Fields responds, “It definitely could be, I just don’t remember it.”  A few questions later Mr. Harbin ask Fields again, “so does that refresh your memory that they sent you the text message?”  Fields replies again, “Not really, I get a lot of texts.” At no time did Chris Fields confirm he received the text as Woodard claims according to actual court document proceedings.

Another Fact, the “Tammy Tapes” came out the first week of May and this text that Bill Woodard claims “implicates the Colberg’s” was sent June 3^rd at 10:28 pm a month later after the tapes were already out.  Why is the date of the text message important?  It aligns with Chris Fields testimony on page 38 of the transcript.  Mr. Martin (the petitioner’s attorney) asked Fields at any point after the tapes were released, did you receive a text from “The Colberg’s” regarding those tapes and a whistleblower?”  Fields responds, “I don’t remember, but I had a conversation with Erich about it yesterday.” 

Again, it was Mr. Martin who implied “The Colberg’s” plural – which is not proof the actual text was from them both.  Fields continues Erich Colberg reached out to him the day before to talk about something (not the tapes or the text) and it just came up in conversation.  Mr. Martin continued and asked who brought it up and Fields replied, Erich Colberg.  Fields reiterated again, “I didn’t even remember that text.”

Mr. Martin then asks Fields why Erich would bring that up and Fields responds, “lots of people made points about what they would and wouldn’t do.”  This shows it was the talk of the town, and many were speculating who, what, when, where, etc.

On page 40 of the transcript Mr. Martin handed Mr. Fields a text message document they received in response to a subpoena from Mr. Livingston which is a text exchange between you and Livingston.  The document was never entered into evidence by Mr. Martin to the court records.

The questions by Mr. Martin continue around the “Tammy Tapes” but my question is what does the tapes have to do with the Petitioner and her defamation case?  It has nothing to do with the trolls who left nasty comments.  What is the point of the line of questioning others to enter it into the record?  Maybe it was all a setup for them to use later like Bill Woodard did in his blog.

Woodard then writes “Chris confirms he received the same message from “them”, detailing how to use the secret recordings against a sitting council candidate.”

Next up was cross examination by Mr. Harbin, Frisco Chronicles attorney, and he asks Fields if he has any personal knowledge of who the Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower is?  Mr. Fields responds, “I have no proof whatsoever.  Mr. Harbin continues, “you also testified that there was no personal knowledge that there’s anybody else other than Mr. Douglass that is ..”  Fields responds, “I have no knowledge of the inside workings of Whistleblower.”  Mr. Harbin continues and asked Fields, “What is the basis of your belief that there are others that are behind Frisco Chronicles…”  Fields responded that he didn’t have anything specific, he just always thought it was a group of people.  Mr. Harbin then said, “so purely a hunch?”   Fields responded 100 percent.

Woodards Personal Opinion

Bill Woodard continues in his article calling out Brittany Colberg as a liar, when it is very possible, she did not know about the text.  I cannot speak for them as I don’t know them.  As for why Erich Colberg would file to have these text messages removed, my guess is because they have nothing to do with the case of defamation against the Petitioner.  If every Frisco resident who texted friends or talked to friends regarding speculation of “who is Frisco Chronicles,” is guilty, then half of Frisco would be in trouble including Bill Woodard. 

We have to ask the obvious again, what is the point of the questioning and the text itself?  It had nothing to do with the comments the petitioner claims are defamatory.  Why did the petitioner’s attorney not ask them if under a fake name, did they leave defamatory comments on a blog related to the petitioner?  Why not ask them if they are Frisco Whistleblower?  That would have something to do with this whole case. 

The even more concerning thing is that the petitioner’s attorney may have had phone calls and conversations with all these witnesses before they came to court.  One could say it was to apply pressure or influence what someone might say, the other thought it was simple preparation.  You decided!

False Accusations

As we have said before this was never about libel or defamation, it was about outing the me, the Whistleblower, to try and put pressure on me to shut it down.  It was to put pressure and discredit innocent residents who like a Frisco Chronicles post or left a comment.  It was to embarrass those who came to court or donated to a go fund me for Frisco Chronicles.  It was about applying public pressure, because that is what the Frisco Insiders do to shut those who disagree, or don’t like the Cheney status quo. 

Woodard needs to be honest and transparent when it’s uncomfortable.  Mr. Woodard, would you like to tell us how and where he got a copy of a text message that was not submitted to evidence and therefore is not a part of the court records or transcripts?  Woodard needs to be accurate and honest about Fields testimony because he never confirmed anything.

Livingston and Fields turned those over under a subpoena to the petitioner’s attorney.  Court does not have them, so who else has a copy of them?  Deductive reasoning would tell you that it was given to him by his “friends” meaning the petitioners legal team, or the petitioner herself.   Why would they give a blogger a text without any context to put into his blog?  It goes to prove this is about the Frisco Insiders or the machine to shutting me down.  They are tired of being the headlines or questioned about dealings in this city.

Woodard wrote “This is not speculation. This is actual documentation from court proceedings. The text establishes a direct connection between the secret recordings and both Brittany and Erich Colberg acting together.” https://friscowatchdog.com/…/2026/04/Colberg-Text.pdf

Nothing in the court evidence shows or confirms that the Colberg’s “acted together” on anything. If that is considered evidence to publicly convict someone, then I would argue the fact that Ann Anderson, our new councilwoman, whose campaign page liked Bill’s Blog makes her guilty of working with him and being a part of these false accusations. Or recently re-elected Laura Rummel is guilty of collusion with Bill Woodard because she shared his blog attacking innocent Frisco residents (which she later took down). MY POINT: THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS! A like of a page, a reshare of a post, or a text to a friend is not an admission of guilt on anything.

Mr. Woodard owes the Colberg’s and the readers an apology for misleading them because nothing he published in this specific blog was from actual documentation from court proceedings.  His claim is not speculation; it is 1000% pure speculation on his part.  Speculation that came out right during early voting in order to possibly upset the apple cart or discredit a candidate.

READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT: CLICK HERE

For legal purposes I must put the following: Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief.  It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary.  Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical.  Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.