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 3rd 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). MYPOINT: 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.
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.
Ever since Frisco Chronicles saw the number $50,000, $50,000 and $20,000 in John Keatings campaign finance report we wondered … why would one person or company donate so much money to John Keating? Do you think someone donates that kind of money without expectation in return? Keating’s post today is poetic to Frisco Chronicles report!
The Relationship
I am pretty sure others have been wondering the same thing and we did some digging. A little birdy in the city told us to do some research and we would find there is a QUID PRO QUO between Keating and “The Donor” aka Frisco 380 Partners.
Frisco 380 Partners is an LLC owned and operated by Ronald Josh Feferman. Feferman is also the owner of Primary Media (a billboard operator). And here’s the kicker, that donation is directly tied to the same person who negotiated with the City of Frisco over 380 signage and who benefited from a 2023 settlement agreement allowing a digital billboard at 380 & Coit. Remember that, we will touch on it again shortly.
Simply put Frisco 380 Partners = the land/financial arm and Primary Media = the operating/signage arm. That’s not illegal. But it’s also not subtle.
Frisco Becomes a Certified City
According to our city source Keating was corralling support for a sign despite it being illegal by TXDOT at the time. City Council Meeting Minutes confirms that Keating was trying to get support, but as usual everything happened in “CLOSED SESSION” so we are limited to the actual details.
Our source tells us that Keating, over City Attorney, Richard Abernathy’s OBJECTIONS, got city staff to apply to become a “Certified City!”
What does that mean? Under the Highway Beautification Act a city can get certified by TXDOT which allows the city to control its own outdoor advertising / sign permitting instead of the state. Once a city is “certified” by Texas Department of Transportation:
The city—not TxDOT—issues permits for billboards and certain signage. The city gains local control over aesthetics and enforcement. It can shape how corridors look.
In plain English: certification = more local power, less state oversight and removes TXDOT’s watchful eyes at permit or application time.
Via the “Consent Agenda,” Frisco, Texas was officially certified on September 16, 2022. Guess who made the motion to pass the consent agenda that day? Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #30. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion. Coincidence? Nope.
Donation Time
Furthermore, our city source told us that allegedly Feferman, through himself or sources, donated to several council members over the years. Our source continued that several times talks were dead in the water but one councilman, one superman worked harder than ever for their big donation. Can you guess who? John Keating.
Who else did Feferman donate to? From campaign finance reports we see the following:
Rob Cox on 10/9/2020 – Josh Feferman donated $2500
*Rob Cox was on Planning & Zoning and ran for office
Angelia Pelham on 5/22/2021 – Josh Feferman donated $250.00
Jeff Cheney on 4/28/2023 (2023 Mayoral Race) – Ronald Feferman who owned Primary Media donated $5,000
John Keating on 4/12/2024 – Ronald Feferman donated $20,000
John Keating on 11/14/2025 – Frisco 380 Partners donated $50,000
John Keating on 12/30/2025 – Frisco 380 Partners donated $50,000
John Keating on 4/8/2026 – Frisco 380 Partners donated $20,000
What is the 2023 Settlement Agreement between the City of Frisco and Primary Media?
Supposedly, a billboard company with existing or claimed rights along US 380, tied to roadway changes, negotiated a settlement with the City of Frisco that allowed a digital billboard—despite a local ban—in exchange for resolving disputes and possibly removing other signs.
The 380 Billboard Deal: How a “Prohibited” Sign Went Up Anyway
Frisco residents are told the city bans digital billboards. The ordinance is clear. The message is simple: no flashing ads, no towering digital screens cluttering the skyline.
So how did one end up lighting up US 380 & Coit? The answer isn’t via a permit, it’s a settlement. In August 2023, the City of Frisco quietly approved a “First Amended Settlement Agreement” with Ronald Josh Feferman’s company, Primary Media—the same operator behind the digital billboard now standing along one of the city’s fastest-growing corridors.
That agreement did something extraordinary: It carved out an exception to a citywide ban.
The sharper question is: What specific property or rights does Frisco 380 Partners hold along 380, and were those leveraged in the billboard agreement? Because if the same entity owns the dirt, negotiates the sign, and funds the politics …then you’re not looking at separate events. You’re looking at a strategy.
From Prohibited… to Profitable
Frisco’s sign code doesn’t leave much room for interpretation—digital billboards are prohibited. Yet under the settlement, one was not only allowed, but it was also effectively guaranteed. Why? Because the deal wasn’t about permission, it was about leverage.
Feferman’s network of entities, including Frisco 380 Partners LLC, held interest along the US 380 corridor during a time of massive highway expansion. In Texas, billboard owners impacted by road projects often claim relocation rights—a powerful legal tool that can force cities to negotiate rather than deny.
The Trade-Off Nobody Talked About
These agreements usually follow a familiar script. One, remove older static billboards. Two, replace them with fewer, more lucrative digital displays. Three, lock in long-term rights tied to the land. The public hears “less clutter.” The operator gets more revenue per sign.
And buried in the legal language is the key phrase: “Notwithstanding city ordinance.” Translation? The rules still apply—just not here.
The Timeline That Raises Questions
September 2022 – Frisco becomes a TxDOT-certified city, gaining control over billboard permitting
August 2023 – City approves settlement with Primary Media
Late 2023 – Digital billboard goes live on US 380
That sequence matters. Because it suggests the billboard wasn’t simply inherited from state control—it was approved locally, after the city had full authority to say no.
Follow the Structure, Follow the Money
This isn’t just about one sign. It’s about how a billboard operator, a real estate holding entity, and a city-level legal agreement …intersected at exactly the right moment along one of North Texas’ most valuable corridors.
The same network tied to the project has also surfaced in local political funding, raising a bigger question: Was this just a legal necessity… or a negotiated outcome shaped by influence?
The Question Frisco Hasn’t Answered
If digital billboards are banned in Frisco— Why was this one allowed? And more importantly: Would anyone else have gotten the same deal?
As for John Keating, he is dirty! As dirty as they come! He is bought and paid for by Feferman and that shows through the campaign finance reports. I bet as soon as Keating became Mayor, he would allow digital billboards all over the city. Maybe one outside Universal Kids to shine into Cobb Hill homes. They already have to look at a ugly hotel why not an electronic billboard?
REFERENCE TO OVERALL TIMELINE OF EVENTS:
June 18, 2019 – Receive legal advice regarding contract with Primary Media.
Aug 4, 2020 – Receive legal advice from city attorney regarding proposed changes to Primary Media agreement
April 21, 2020 – Consult with and receive legal advice from city attorney regarding proposed changes to Primary Media agreement
June 21, 2022 – Receive legal advice regarding amendment to the Primary Media Agreement.
May 2022 – Ordinance Change Reads: Consider and act upon adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Frisco, Texas, repealing Ordinance Nos. 11-06-21, 16-03-25 and 17-02-10, and amending Frisco’s Code of Ordinances, Ordinance No. 06-03-31, as amended, Chapter 70 (Signs); modifying certain regulations governing the erection, maintenance, and operation of signs. (Development Services/PC) ORDINANCE 2022-05-21
September 16, 2022: Via the “Consent Agenda,” Frisco, Texas was officially named a Certified City. Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #30. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.
June 6, 2023 – Receive legal advice regarding amendment to the Primary Media Agreement
May Consider and act upon adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Frisco, Texas, repealing Ordinance Nos. 11-06-21, 16-03-25 and 17-02-10, and amending Frisco’s Code of Ordinances, Ordinance No. 06-03-31, as amended, Chapter 70 (Signs); modifying certain regulations governing the erection, maintenance, and operation of signs. (Development Services/PC) ORDINANCE 2022-05-21
Aug 15 2023 – Consent Agenda Item 18 was approved when Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating made the motion and Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.
Item 18 Reads: Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD. (CMO/BB)
Action Requested: Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD.
Background Information: City Council authorized the Settlement Agreement on May 5, 2015. On or about June 2022, the Sign become inoperable and was removed due to planned TxDOT expansion of US 380, through TxDOT condemnation. City and Primary Media desire to amend the settlement agreement to allow for a new sign to be built at the southwest corner of US 380 and Coit Road.
The Settlement Agreement established the framework of responsibilities relating to the two static billboards located on US 380 and a proposed digital sign in the same location. The Agreement calls for the removal of the two static signs during the construction of the digital sign, so that the only remaining sign will be one digital sign. This is a ten-year agreement. 90 days after Primary Media receives its building permit from the City, the clock will start on the term of the agreement.
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.
Rules for Thee, Not for Me: The Frisco Insider Playbook Strikes Again
If you’ve watched Frisco politics long enough, you start to notice a pattern. It’s not subtle. It’s not accidental. And it’s definitely not new. It’s the classic insider move to weaponize the rules when it benefits you—ignore them when it doesn’t.
Welcome to the latest episode.
The “Gotcha” That Wasn’t
Recently, Tracie Reveal Shipman and Bill Woodard publicly questioned Shona Sowell over a podcast post shared to her campaign page. The issue? The alleged use of the City of Frisco logo in promotional material. Shipman raised concerns about whether the logo was used legally—suggesting it might violate city rules.
On the surface, that sounds like accountability. But scratch just a little—and it starts to look a lot more like selective outrage.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Let’s Talk About Context (Because It Matters)
Sowell’s response was straightforward and she is correct – she did nothing wrong! She was a guest on a podcast. She didn’t create the promotional graphic. She didn’t design the branding. She shared content produced by a third party. That’s not a loophole—that’s reality.
If there’s a question about logo usage, it falls on the content creator. Not the interview guest who hit “share.” Otherwise, every candidate better start lawyering up before retweeting anything.
Now Here’s Where It Gets Interesting
Because while fingers were being pointed, something else quietly sat in plain view: A candidate video featuring Shipman… Filmed in front of the Frisco flag… And promoted through the Frisco Chamber of Commerce.
So, let’s ask the uncomfortable question: Why is one use of city imagery a scandal… and another just Tuesday?
Where is Bill Woodards outrage and why did he not publicly question his best friend when she did it in 2021. This video was promoted by the Frisco Chamber of Commerce and still is on their YouTube page today.
Is the flag somehow less “official” than the logo? Does intent suddenly matter when it’s your own content? Or are we just bending the rules depending on who’s in the frame?
The Insider Immunity Clause (Unwritten, Of Course)
This is the part longtime observers recognize immediately. There’s an informal system in play—a kind of political VIP section—where certain players get the benefit of the doubt, while others get the microscope.
And when that double standard gets called out … cue the deflection. Cue the “you should ask someone else.” Cue the slow walk away from the actual question.
The Bigger Problem
This isn’t really about a logo. It’s about credibility. Remember Tracie prides herself on “ETHICAL LEADERSHIP.” Bill Woodard claims to call himself the Chihuahua Watchdog of Frisco. He likes to write blogs about proper governance, but the rules don’t apply for his friends.
Because when the same voices who demand strict adherence to the rules appear to interpret those rules… creatively… when it suits them, people notice. Voters notice. And they start asking a much bigger question:
Are these rules about fairness, the ability to discredit a candidate, or about control?
Time for Some Answers
If Shipman and Bobblehead Bill believe the use of city branding in campaign-related content is inappropriate, that’s a fair position. But it comes with a responsibility: Apply it consistently.
Explain why one scenario is acceptable and another isn’t. Clarify where the line actually is. And most importantly—own your own use of similar imagery. Because right now, it looks a lot less like accountability… and a lot more like the dirty politics Frisco Insiders like to pullout during elections. And in Frisco, voters are getting tired of that playbook.
Endorsements are funny things. Sometimes they come back to bite you in the butt! Other times they can help someone decide who to vote for. We have heard most of the Muslim and Indian community in Frisco are Voting for Mark Hill, the same Mark Hill that was endorsed by Abraham George and Byron Henry. We have also heard many Republicans are voting for Mark Hill but do they know how entrenched he is with Democrats? Let’s dive in to all three questions.
Why would the Muslim community vote for Mark Hill based on Abraham George’s endorsement?
I wonder if they have seen today’s video that Abraham posted where he sits down with John Guandolo to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood and how Texas is the target for them to fight the Jihad. Maybe they should watch it.
At the end of the video Abraham states, “All right. I am more scared than ever before. Uh not for me, but well for me and honestly for the future of Texas and our generations to come. This is why this conversation matters. And Texans believe in religious freedom, but we do not compromise on rule of law.
This is one of the systems that are a peril system that we will not allow a structure, a parallel government that we are going to have to fight. As we head to the state convention, this issue is rising to the top of the uh priorities because Texans understand what’s at stake.”
Why would the Indian Community vote for Mark Hill based on Abraham George and Byron Henry’s endorsement?
They must not have seen Byron Henry (Mark Hill’s law partner) talk about the Indian invasion on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. Henry states “We’ve had an explosion of immigration in Collin County. There are literally advertisements in India to move to Frisco, Texas in the heart of Collin County.” He goes on to say part of the problem is we imported a lot of labor – referring to Indians and we have seen the immigration disaster and its effect here in Collin County.
I ask why would our Indian community hitch their wagon to Mark Hill? It is probably something we will never understand.
Why would Republican’s vote for Mark Hill when he has heavy support by Democrats?
First: Abraham George, the Chairman for the Texas Republican Party endorsed Mark Hill because they have a long-time friendship. However, friendship is not the reason you should endorse anyone, it should be because they are the best candidate.
So, did George think Mark Hill was the best candidate? Has he sat down with the three other candidates? Was George aware of the amount of Democrat support for Mark Hill?
The Proof is in the Pudding: Has Abraham George sat down with the three other Candidates? No!
One of Mark Hill’s biggest donors is Das Nobel of MTX Group, a global technology consulting firm. Nobel donated $25,000, according to Mark Hill’s campaign finance report.
Who else has Das Nobel donated to in the past? According to opensecrets.org he has also donated to the following Democrats:
$5000 to Kathy Hochul NY Democrat
$20,800 to Michelle Lujan Grisham NM Democrat
$10,000 to Democratic Congressional Campaign (Federal)
$2200, $2800 to Charles Schumer (D)
$6000 to Wes Moore MD Democrat
$5000 to Turnaround Team PAC (Federal) which is noted as unauthorized independent PAC. They have not made any donations to candidates since conception seems weird.
Questionable Donations
Another donor on Mark Hill’s campaign finance report is Ravi Dokku who contributed $5000. I am curious if this is the same Ravi Dokku of Irving who in 2018 faced a Federal Case for Visa Fraud and pleaded guilty to unlawful employment of Aliens?
It is no wonder Laura Rummel (also heavily backed by Democrats) and Mark Hill are doing all their events together. Birds of a feather, stick together they say. So, why are Republicans thinking they are conservative?
Mark Hill claims to be the one who will UNITE Frisco, but when you look at his kickoff pictures, it is a who’s who of Frisco. It is clear he is the Frisco Insiders “Choice to Win” so he can keep the status quo that Jeff Cheney has created. The only question I have now is how does John Keating feel? He was supposed to be the golden boy they stood behind. He groveled, did their bidding for years and gets thrown to the curb, it has to hurt.
Earth Week Irony: Who Speaks for the Trees in Stonebriar?
There’s something almost poetic about celebrating Earth Week while chainsaws warm up in the background.
Residents in Stonebriar reached out with an urgent concern: their HOA is moving to remove a line of mature, 30-year-old trees—trees neighbors say are healthy, beautiful, and part of the character of their community. According to residents, they expect a permit to be issues today by the city even though a city tree expert initially indicated the trees were not diseased and did not warrant removal. Yet somehow, the situation appears to have shifted, and a permit is now moving forward.
That raises a fair question—one that deserves a clear, public answer:
Why are healthy, decades-old trees being slated for removal against the wishes of the very residents who live among them?
This isn’t just about landscaping preferences. Mature trees:
provide shade and reduce urban heat
improve air quality
increase property values
and contribute to the identity of a neighborhood
You don’t replace 30 years of growth with a sapling and call it even.
Decisions like this shouldn’t feel like they’re made behind closed doors or above the heads of the people most affected.
To be clear: HOAs have authority. Cities have processes. But both also have a responsibility to explain their decisions—when neighbors sentiment is to keep the trees. And the timing couldn’t be worse. During a week meant to highlight stewardship of the environment, residents are watching established greenery disappear—not because of disease or safety, but, they believe, because of preference.
That disconnect matters.
So here’s where things stand:
Residents say the trees are healthy
A city expert reportedly agreed
The permit decision is likely to happen today
Removal is imminent
What’s missing is a transparent explanation. Stonebriar HOA owes its residents clarity. The City owes its residents consistency.
Until then, the question hangs in the air like the shade those trees still provide—for now:
Are we protecting our environment this week… or just talking about it?
Update # 2 Stonebriar – Save The Trees
I have learned that the HOA Board Treasurer is none other than Ed Kelly. If that name sounds familiar they are a huge supporter of the Frisco Inner Circle and Mayor Jeff Cheney. He also serves on the Frisco Citizen Bond Committee. His wife Linda Kelly is the head of SLAN (which is the communities of Stonebriar).
If the city originally determined the trees are healthy and don’t need to come down, then why would the city issue the permit to allow the HOA to take them down? Could influence play a role in this decision? Could it be Ed Kelly and his connections influence the cities decision to approve the permit?
Update # 3 Different Opinion
We received a letter from another neigbhor who said that 4 years ago the Landscape Committee recommended “freshening up” some of our medians to make them not look so tired & worn out. They went on to say some residents felt the medians presented a real safety issue with not being able to see walkers or even cars. The Board at that time approved this refresh by trying to enhance & do something nice for the community.
When they removed the 30-year-old Nellie Stevens “gumdrop” shrubs, they planted taller young trees in their place as any responsible party would. This project began last year. A few of the residents petitioned to not have their gumdrops removed. The resident said she believes the soil they are in is totally depleted of life & nutrients.
The resident went on to say that many residents in Stonebriar Village are tired of hearing the whining from this select group of people and felt like Frisco Chronicles did not tell the whole story. That is why I wanted to share her remarks.
For legal purposes we must post this 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.
I went to her to ask for help with an issue my child that was getting nowhere with the school,…
So whatever became of the $17 million dollars that the city council gave the Mayor to beautify a drainage ditch?
At last count, there are 3 different "spa/massage" businesses in the small office park at the northeast corner of John…
I literally just saw this. Yeah, she used to forward everybody’s emails behind their backs.
You're dropping truth bombs! These mom and pop shops are what should be the least of Karen's worries. If they…