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.
Is it news—or is it a well-timed swing of the political hammer?
Funny how certain blogs suddenly find their investigative spirit the moment early voting begins. Not last month. Not after the election. Right now—when voters are paying attention and impressions are fragile. That kind of timing might be coincidence… in the same way a thunderstorm just happens to roll in right as you forget your umbrella.
What are we looking at here? A fact-driven piece meant to inform the public? Or a carefully stitched narrative designed to nudge voters in a very specific direction? Because there’s a difference between shining a light and aiming a spotlight. One reveals. The other performs.
We had no intention of talking about the petitioner again, but that has now changed because her friend’s blog chose to rehash the story and the petitioner shared it with her own page Frisco Residents Who Cares Facebook page with her commentary. If they want to talk about it then they should expect others to.
BACKGROUND:
Recently I received a letter from the petitioner’s attorney saying that if we agreed to a few items the petitioner would agree to resolve the issue without filing a lawsuit. We responded to Ryan D. Martin of Clark Hill on April 9 via email. We heard nothing since then until The Chihuahua’s Blog Post appeared rehashing the whole issue that had so offended the petitioner.
Side Note: Clark Hill is the firm that David Ovard is a Litigator for. If that name sounds familiar it should, he and his wife are good friends with Mayor Jeff Cheney and his wife Dana Cheney. Ovard was credited for being the reason the Frisco PGA came to Frisco. He is very connected to Frisco’s inner circle and many developers.
Rule 408 Communication – From Ryan D. Martin of Clark Hill
The letter starts off, that the petitioner is ready to move forward with a lawsuit since I have still not removed the content in question.
FACT: If there is an open action by the petitioner or threat of a lawsuit, I cannot remove content as it is my legal obligation is to preserve evidence in anticipation of the litigation. Deleting or altering the content could raise issues of spoilation.
FACT: As we stated in our deposition, if the petitioner would like us to remove some offensive 3rd party comments not made by us or a specific post for a valid reason all she had to do was email me and ask. However, she did not do that she chose to go the route of court preceding’s.
The letter continues that the petitioner may be willing to resolve the issue if we agreed to a few requests. The request made in this letter is as follows:
1. Permanent removal of all Blog posts on FCW’s internet website, all posts on FCW’s Facebook pages, all NextDoor posts, all Reddit posts and all comments related to the foregoing regarding Petitioner. Without limitation to the foregoing, the Blog posts on FCW’s internet website to be removed include:
a. Heit’end Controls
b. Heit-end Victim Card
c. Heit’end Stupidity
d. The Finale of Tea Time
e. When Hurt Feelings File Petitions
f. Denton Co. Republicans Targeted
g. Noskin Law Firm, PLLC – Press Release
h. Unsigned, Sealed … Creepy
2. Rename all Facebook pages and any other social media platform groups that utilize or reference the “Frisco Residents Who Care” name or moniker; and
3. Payment of Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($50,000.00) to “Petitioner”.
Our Response:
In a good-faith effort to resolve this matter, I am willing to consider the following limited accommodation, contingent upon a full and final resolution. I agreed to the removal of certain blog posts that I directly control on my website and any associated comments on those blogs posts. Along with limited edits or redactions where appropriate, without any admission of liability.
I stated I was willing to fully remove Heit’end Controls, Heit’end Victim Card, and Heit’end Stupidity. Why would I agree to that? Because I really don’t care, the petitioner is not that important to me.
As for the other requests:
“The Finale of Tea Time” – I am willing to remove references to your client, provided she removes public accusations she has made, or accusations by others on her page (FRWC) against third parties such as Sangita Datta and Kelly Karthik.
“When Hurt Feelings File Petitions” – I decline. The underlying material stems from your client’s own Rule 202 filing, which made the matter public.
“Denton Co. Republicans Targeted” – This was only posted briefly; I reserve the right to republish should this litigation continue.
Note: After the recent Chihuahua’s blog post – I reposted portions of it.
“Noskin Law Firm, PLLC – Press Release” – I decline. This relates to public filings that stem from your client’s own Rule 202 filing, which made the matter public. I reserve my first amendment right to respond.
“Unsigned, Sealed … Creepy” – I decline. I have already limited identification by using initials; I will not remove the document image.
2. “Frisco Residents Who Care” Name
I deny your demand to rename Frisco Residents Who Cares Freedom Chatter and any social media platforms. Your client has not demonstrated any legally enforceable trademark or exclusive right to the phrase “Frisco Residents Who Care.” As such, there is no legal basis for this demand.
3. Monetary Demand: For $50,000 is rejected.
Mr. Martin I am a single dad of a disabled son who drives for Uber. I sometimes barely get by. I don’t have $50,000 and I am not paying anyone to exercise my Freedom of Speech. There has been no showing of damages to support such a figure. If litigation proceeds, I will assert my rights under the TCPA, including seeking dismissal and recovery of my previous attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions as permitted under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.009.
In response to my email, I heard nothing! The claims that I did not try to resolve this with the petitioner are completely untrue and false.
Goal of The Chihuahua’s Blog
Before even diving into the blog ask yourself if he got this information over a month or two ago from the courts, why is he just now publishing it? His first blog attacked the Colberg’s and now he is going after everyone else. It is to change your vote to Cabal Candidates aka Frisco Insiders so they can maintain control of this city?
Screenshot
The end goal of Bobblehead Bill is to call in to question anyone they can to diminish their credibility. Bill Woodard supports Mark Hill and Laura Rummel so his report is clearly biased as you break it down. Now look at those who shared it to their mass following – who do they support?
ScreenshotScreenshotScreenshotScreenshot
Should we publish pictures of all those who liked his Revenge Tour Blog? If we did, you would see the names of everyone who supports Mark Hill, John Keating and/or Laura Rummel for Council and Sree and Dynette for Frisco ISD. Want Proof?
Step by Step Review of The Chihuahuas Rumor Mill Blog Post
Claim 1: Last year we wrote numerous (at least 8) lengthy blog posts either specifically about the petitioner and the Frisco Residents Who Cares Facebook page.
The others were about another topic and the underlying material stemmed from the petitioners’ own Rule 202 filing or because she made a public statement on an issue.
The petitioner is a public person so if she comments on something she cannot expect to be exempt from being questioned. As we said in the previous blog, that means that out of the 267+blogs we have posted less than .02% of our time has been spent on her.
Question: If the petitioner feels so defamed and harassed, why would she let her friend rehash it in a blog? Why are the petitioner and her friends continuing to give it life and legs?
FRWC Facebook Pages
The Chihuahua mentions several Facebook pages with a similar moniker to the petitioners.
Frisco Residents Who Argue – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Residents Who Are Really, Really Good Looking – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Resident Who Actually Care – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Residents Who Care For The Uncensored – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Residents Who Care Freedom Chatter – After several people got deleted and removed from the petitioner’s group of 20K people simply for being conservative I started the Freedom Chatter and turned it over to admins. I do not have any daily input on the page and just set it up so residents had somewhere to go and communicate.
FACT: None of these pages have anything to do with Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower
3RD Party Comments
Next the Chihuahua addresses 3rd party comments such as:
“Groomer, Racist, Fascist” – 3rd Party Blog Comment made on one of our blogs by Flaming Moderate on April 6th 2025
“Biggest Chunk of Excerment and Sad Pathetic Piece of Trash”
(1) She is the biggest chunk of human excrement in the City of Frisco”;
(2) “Frisco’s useless idiot”;
(3) “Petitioner is a damn idiot”;
(4) “She is a sad pathetic piece of trash”;
(5) “She is a damn idiot. She’s a left winged, socialist, Trump derangement syndrome, idiot.”
These comments are on a Facebook Page called What’s on your mind Collin and Denton County which is administered by Mark Eisenmann. The statements were also written by Mark Eisemann.
The Chihuahua states these comments have been left up till this day. He is correct due to ongoing litigation I must preserve evidence. As for the other comments, I have no control over that page, I have no control over those comments, so the petitioner should talk to the person who does.
The Court Case
The Chihuahua gives his summary of the court proceedings based on his interpretation of court records. We have addressed this in other blogs and the press release by our Attorney at the time which is posted on our website.
Yes, I use plural pronouns and created a persona – that is not a crime. Last I heard democrats love pronouns. I guess it is okay for them to use pronouns, but I can’t.
No, I don’t recall who sent me the Tammy Tapes and what software I used to take out the voice. I tried several different ones until I figured it out.
As for the material I obtained from FRWC Facebook page run by the petitioner, I don’t remember who sent them to me and one of them I accessed using a fake screen name for a day.
Court Hearing Attendance
The Chihuahua lists out several names of people who attended the court hearing.
The names mentioned include Shannon Greer, Vijay Karthik, Kelly Karthik, Patrick Wamhoff, Jackie Wakin, and Steve Noskin (outside of representation) have nothing to do with Frisco Chronicles. Why would the Chihuahua name them? Because they are all connected to current people running for a position on council or the ISD board, either by marriage or support of a candidate. The Chihuahua’s goal was to discredit them in order to hurt those running for a seat so Frisco Insiders can maintain control.
Publishing a list of people who simply attended a hearing and then implying they support a particular side crossed from reporting into speculation—and that’s where it gets risky. Showing up in a courtroom doesn’t equal endorsement; people attend for all kinds of reasons—curiosity, professional interest, civic awareness, even coincidence. When a blog blurs that line, it invites readers to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by facts, effectively assigning motives and affiliations to private individuals without their consent.
I have said since I started my blog that the Frisco Insiders attack anyone who speaks out against them at city council or online. They try to reduce the opposition by disparaging them and tearing them down. This blog proves just that by inviting readers to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by facts, effectively assigning motives and affiliations to private individuals without their consent. Their goal? To damage reputations, chill public participation, and create an environment where people think twice before observing or engaging in civic processes for fear of being labeled or targeted. In a system that depends on transparency and public access, turning attendance into implied allegiance doesn’t just mislead—it discourages the very openness it claims to value.
Next up the Chihuahua names Brian Livingston (current council) and Dan Stricklin (former council member) and states I said in the deposition that they provided information to FWB. This question was asked late into the 6-hour day during the deposition, and I was tired and confused by how they asked the questions. If you have never been deposed, you would not understand.
Brian Livingston has never provided information to Frisco Chronicles other than responding to my request for comments on articles via email. Dan Stricklin is a fan but that is it!
Why would the Chihuahua post a former councilman’s criminal record from 20+ years ago? What does it have to do with Frisco Chronicles, the court case or the blog he is writing? Nothing! It was soley to damage his reputation!
This also proves my point that the current Frisco Insiders & Leaders attack and try to intimidate anyone that speaks out or supports another view. The end goal for them is to always damage reputations, chill public participation, and create an environment where people think twice before observing or engaging.
This started with Mark Piland when he first ran for office and the city council voted to release his HR File days before the final vote in an election. They have continued to attack others in the same way. It is about control of the status quo.
Testimony of Chris Fields and Brian Livingston
We reached out to Shannon Greer for comment, and this is her response, “From the day this blog was created I have been accused of being the Whistleblower. At one point, the mayor even called my boss claiming that I write a blog and that I come to citizens input act inappropriate and file a lot of PIRs, etc. Why would he call my boss? Probably because I am vocal about the city having the need for an animal shelter and issues that I disagree with and they want me to shut up and go away.
As for the statements that I bragged about being the Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower, yes one time at a dinner with Brian and Chris, held downtown at the local Taco Joint after several drinks I jokingly said it was me. We were talking about Frisco Chronicles, and I expressed my frustration with the constant accusations and said I should just take credit for it and jokingly said It’s me, I am the whistleblower. We all laughed and I said I was kidding and that was it.
Between our entire group of friends we have all guessed who it could be. I have always said I thought it was more than one person, but I have never said anything about a fall guy. I learned the identity of the Whistleblower after the deposition was completed when he called me. Why, Bill Woodard even mentions that I support the same political candidates as Wamhoff and the Karthik’s is beyond me and has nothing to do with Frisco Chronicles or related to his blog post. As for Fields and Livingston’s testimony, I have no idea what they testified to as I was not there. Any future questions of my involvement can go through my attorney.”
Dropping More Names
The Chihuahua continues in his blog by saying during discovery, “WHICH IS STILL BEING VETTED” has indicated that other residents maybe involved and drops a list of names.
That’s a line most responsible journalists are very careful not to cross. Listing names while admitting the information is “still being vetted” flips the burden of proof on its head—once a name is published, the damage is already done, even if the claim later turns out to be wrong. Without confirmation, it moves from reporting facts to broadcasting suspicion, which can unfairly harm reputations and expose those individuals to public backlash for something that hasn’t been established. At best, it’s reckless; at worst, it suggests an intent to cast as wide a shadow as possible and let implications do the work that evidence hasn’t yet done.
Bill Woodard should be ashamed of himself and the fact that he dropped these names shows this is not about journalism, it is about REVENGE and CHANGING YOUR VOTE in this election. Proof? The post has been shared 16 times, and one of those that shared it is own First Lady of Frisco Dana Cheney. Yep, she dropped it to her mass followers, why? Does the first lady think it is okay to share NON-VETTED INFO? This smells of a large conspiracy to write an article that calls into question anyone associated to candidates they don’t support so that they look guilty by affiliation with the end goal to help their candidates like Mark Hill, John Keating, Laura Rummel, Sree and Dynette for ISD Board. It is the Frisco Cabal Insider Playbook!
FACT: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE OUTED BY BILL WOODARD ON HIS REVENGE TOUR ARE INVOLVED WITH FRISCO CHRONICLES INCLUDING:
Dan Stricklin, Shannon Greer, Patrick Wamhoff, Jackie Wakin, Kelly Karthik, Vijay Karthik, Stephanie or Jared Elad, Mark Eisenmann, Steve Noskin (outside of being my lawyer), Star Patriots, a PAC run by Steve Noskin, Julie Harville, Michelle Milholland, Sarah Rouse, J. Aidan Grey, Melanie Jones, Kellie Morris. Carrie De Moor, Ram Mehta, Muni Janagarajan, Casey or Angela Waits.
Any statement, accusation or implication that they are connected to Frisco Chronicles is FALSE and a part of the Bill Woodard Revenge Tour Playbook to discredit Frisco Leaders, Candidates and Residents who are not afraid to speak out and do the right thing.
Violent Criminal Record
The Chihuahua then goes on to question my name and layout my criminal record from 20+ years ago. My legal name is Hal Craig Douglass. Sometimes I go by Hal, sometimes I go by Craig. IS THAT A CRIME?
When creating the page, I created a “persona” as I said in my deposition such as Sybil-Watkins Douglass. I did so in order to protect myself when filing for the PIR’s to maintain my anonymity.
Writers, performers, and commentators have been using personas for centuries. It serves real purposes: creative freedom, protection, satire, and sometimes just better storytelling. In journalism and political writing, pseudonyms are often used to separate the message from the messenger—or to avoid backlash.
As for the domestic violence charges in my past, both my wife (now my ex-wife) and I were in the wrong and we both took classes through the court and pleaded nolo contendere which means we did not admit guilt. We have a great relationship today and have raised two kids together. To bring up my records 20+ years later and call me a Violent Criminal is libel and defamatory. What happened then has nothing to do with today or my blog in any way.
IN CLOSING
Lastly, I have not talked about the fact that the petitioners’ filings have cost me thousands of dollars for attorneys. The petitioner took the route of the Rule 202 hearing because if she had sued me in court, I would have filed an Anti-Slap suit in return.
It is not a crime for someone to support my site, or a go fund me for legal funds. The petitioner in this case posed a GFM for Karmelo Anthony to 20k people – but that was no problem? It is not a crime to be a fan of the truth which scares the hell out of sitting council and former council members. I am probably the most hated person in Frisco for telling the truth. That’s okay!
Every article I have written is based on PIRs, we have shown the documents, and if they have come into question, we have corrected them. I stand behind my blog 100%.
Screenshot
The end goal of Bobblehead Bill is to call in to question anyone so they can to diminish their credibility. The fact is Bill supports Mark Hill and Laura Rummel and so do those who shared and liked the post. Should we publish pictures of all those who liked his Revenge Tour Blog? If we did you see names that constantly attack anyone who speaks out on social media against Cheneyville and The Frisco Way. Should we do the same to them that they try to do to those of us who tell the truth or stand up for truth?
Don’t fall for the playbook – go and vote to change Frisco for the better.
For Legal Purposes I 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.
Note: We had no intention of discussing the previous legal proceedings and the petitioner in those proceedings, however Bill Woodard left us no choice due to his slanderous accusations that are unfounded and without merit. He opened this can of worms and we will respond to his claims and defend those who have been brought into this for no reason.
If transparency were a sport, the latest post by Bobblehead Bill Woodard aka The Chihuahua would be competing in interpretive gymnastics—lots of movement, impressive flexibility, and just enough flair to make you forget to ask what stuck in the landing.
At first glance, the piece presents itself as a sober “summary of facts” surrounding the Heit/FWB matter. But read a little closer and it starts to feel less like journalism and more like a carefully plated entrée of implication, innuendo, and selective storytelling—served with a garnish of court documents for credibility. That’s not illegal. It’s not even uncommon. But readers should approach with eyes wide open.
Because when a blog post blends verifiable legal proceedings with vivid personal detail, speculation about networks of people, and a one-sided narrative arc, the question isn’t just what is being said, it’s why it’s being said this way, right now.
Before anyone takes this post as gospel, here are a few reasons you shouldn’t. Stop, pause, raise an eyebrow, and rely on your common sense:
Selective storytelling: When one individual is framed as a community pillar and another is reduced to their worst alleged moments, that’s not balance—it’s narrative construction.
Timing: Publishing a so called “fact summary” in the middle of early voting isn’t neutral, it is purposeful to influence votes.
Dressed in Speculation: Create a long list of names and imply they are all connected. Then imply their involvement by framing they “may have been involved” statements to create the appearance of a network when there isn’t one.
Emotional Manipulation of Facts: Include graphic or highly personal details (such as a criminal record from 20+ years ago) to shape reader bias.
Illusion of Transparency: Provide documents to make it appear legit, but the actual interpretation of those documents is not objective or complete. It is one sided by a man with a petty desire to keep control.
None of these means’ readers should ignore the post. It means you should be aware that presentation matters just as much as content, and that motives, like facts, deserve scrutiny.
Readers should be asking themselves, why now? Is it a coincidence that it connects several current candidates for office? Is it a coincidence that it connects anyone who has spoken out against the city or previously run for office to Frisco Chronicles? Is it a coincidence that it every name is a conservative Republicans from Denton, County?
The Answers
Why Now? Power. Frisco Insiders like Bobblehead Bill are losing their relevance. Out with the old, in with the new. They are losing the power they have held to make decisions and without that power what do they have? Nothing.
Coincidence That It Connects to Current Candidates? No!
There’s an old trick in politics—if you can’t win the argument in the present, go rummaging through the past and hope for something, anything, still smells bad enough to distract the room. The Chihuahua’s post leans heavily on that playbook, dressing it up as “transparency” while serving readers a reheated plate of old material filled with speculation and conveniently timed outrage, so you won’t vote for change.
The Chihuahua’s post shows how desperate they are to get you to vote for the status quo like Mark Hill, John Keating, and Laura Rummel. That is how they maintain 4 votes which continues to give them “CONTROL.”
Coincidence that It names anyone who has spoken out against the city. No!
Usually, those strong enough to speak out or question the status quo, are the ones they fear the most. Why? If they present facts, then others start to see the light and ask questions. The goal for them is to stop the questions – just look away -there is nothing to see here.
Conservatives Under Attack
If you’re a conservative in North Texas, your name may already be on a list.
Michael Quinn Sullivan. Thomas Fabry. Carrie de Moor. Rudy de Moor. Erin Anderson. Kelly Karthik. Shona Sowell. Andrew Cucci. Senators Drew Springer and Brent Hagenbuch. Brian Livingston. Dan Stricklin. Michelle Milholland. Mark Eisemann. David Redding. Casey Waits. Millie Rhoades. Stephen John Sullivan. Tony Ortiz. John Stammerich. J. Aiden Gray. Patrick Wamhoff. Melinda Preston. Jennifer White. Cassidy Johnson. Dawn Buckingham. Rick Perry. Greg Abbott. Texas Scorecard. Current Revolt. This is just the beginning!
What do all these names have in common? They are local conservative Republicans. Texas Scorecard and Current Revolt are conservative news sources. And every single one of them was brought up in my first deposition in August 2025 at Clarke Hill law offices in Frisco as well as listed in the petition filed by the Petitioner.
Now tell me—why would the names of so many Republicans come up in a deposition about my little blog, Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower?
I showed up expecting to answer questions about my articles on the Petitioner but instead, they grilled me on every potential republican relationship they think I have, asking the same questions multiple ways to try and trip me up. That’s the game: catch you in a “lie.”
It didn’t matter that I have receipts: website ownership, domain, hosting. They wanted and hoped for a bigger fish. Even though I was nursing a hangover, I answered honestly just like my lawyer told me to. Did they trip me up, yes probably asking the same question 100 different ways over 6 hours. The grand reveal they were hoping for fell short like a bad one-night stand. I get it!
The Twist
Next came the Motion for Contempt and Motion for Sanctions filed by the Petitioners Attorney. Again the motion drags in more names of conservative republicans like Shannon Greer, Andrew Cucci, Thomas Fabry, Brian Livingston, Dan Stricklin, Tony Ortiz, Patrick Wamhoff—and even cites a City Council meeting (Exhibit 28) identifying Melinda Preston (current Denton GOP Chair), David Rettig (Precinct Chair & Mayor elsewhere), Jennifer White (Precinct Chair), Cassidy Johnson (Precinct Chair – Collin County), and more.
One word comes to mind: TARGETED.
At this point they were asking the judge to depose Brian Livingston (current Republican councilman), Dan Stricklin (former councilman), Shannon Greer (Republican precinct chair and animal activist and my own attorney.
The Claims & My Responses
Claim #1: I perjured myself and withheld information the court ordered. Response: False. I answered truthfully like my attorney advised me to.
Claim #2: My attorney is secretly part of the “organization” because of his political affiliations. Response: False. Steve Noskin is my attorney, nothing more.
Yes, my attorney is active in local politics, but to leap from that to “he runs Frisco Whistleblower” is pure fiction, false and libel!
Does this sound targeted to you? The document reads “In light of the fact Steve Noskin is extremely active in politics with a focus on local elections including but not limited to: formerly twice being a political candidate in Frisco; adamantly supporting candidates in each Frisco election; vehemently supporting two candidates who provided information to the Respondent organization; his role as an administrator for Parents of FISD Facebook page and Star Patriots Facebook page; and his active participation in Frisco Conservatives, Star Patriots and Families 4 Frisco PAC, Steve Noskin’s involvement with the Respondent organization is consistent with the Respondent organization’s reason for targeting Petitioner Heit and her Facebook group “Frisco Residents Who Care”
Claim #3: My attorney and Shannon Greer conspired with me to give false testimony. Response: False
Yes, I know Shannon Greer and many other people in this document. Some I know well, others I may have met in passing at an event for a few seconds, and some I don’t know at all. Because she attended a hearing as spectator does not connect to collusion.
Claim #4: I must be running a conspiracy because I use words like “us” and “we” which is plural terminology. Response: False.
Writers, performers, and commentators have been using personas for centuries, and not just to be mysterious or dramatic. It serves real purposes: creative freedom, protection, satire, and sometimes just better storytelling. In journalism and political writing, pseudonyms are often used to separate the message from the messenger—or to avoid backlash. That’s not new; it’s basically how the Federalist Papers were published, under the name “Publius.”
There’s no “secret team of minions” hiding in my closet.
Claim #5: Councilmen Brian Livingston and Dan Stricklin must be involved. Response: False.
Claim #6: I couldn’t explain how I post blogs, so I must be hiding something. Response: False.
After 227+ posts, it’s mechanical. I “just know” how to do it. Like driving to a friend’s house—you know the way but can’t always give perfect step-by-step directions. That doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy.
Fast Forward to The Chihuahua’s Breaking Blog
Bobblehead Bill adds more names to the list of Republicans being called into question. He tries to expand the web of “CONNECTIONS” by calling out new names in addition to names from the case. What do the new names have in common? They are currently candidates, the spouse of candidates, or supporters of the candidates in the current election for City Council and Frisco ISD.
Conservatives Should Be Outraged & Concerned
Why are Denton GOP leaders, conservative mayor and council members, precinct chairs, and media outlets being dragged into depositions and the Chihuahua’s blog?
The answer is simple, it’s about shutting down free speech, it is about attacking the credibility, integrity and character of the individuals to influence voters and maintain CONTROL. It is about dragging names through the mud and most of all shutting down conservative free speech—in Frisco and Denton County.
They’re mad voters rejected the ISD bond, the Performing Arts Center, and elected two hard Republicans to city council. The welcome mat hasn’t exactly been rolled out for those two, has it? So now the strategy is: smear, intimidate, and silence conservatives and cause voters to pause and rethink about voting for change.
By dragging names through public depositions and blogs, they create the illusion of scandal. That’s the hit job.
The Chihuahua Barked at The Wrong Mailman
When you peel back the dramatics wrapped in legal language to sound authoritative all you have is padded opinion with speculation, insinuation, and a carefully curated list of names of political convenience. It is designed to look like journalism, but it veers into advocacy as the tone shifts from the court case to the individuals. Clearly the Chihuahua’s selective and subtle drop of my “criminal background” is character framing designed to dehumanize me and be inflammatory. It has nothing today with the case he is talking about. Are you the same person today as you were twenty years ago?
Next, he adds guilt by association using narrative stacking. You pile up names, relationships, and suggestions until the reader fills in the gap emotionally. His speculation presented as facts shows he lacks credibility. Did he reach out to me for a comment before writing his blog? No!
At the end of the day use your common sense, is the journalism or revenge reporting?
As for the current legal proceedings we responded to the petitioner’s attorney. Crickets! If the petitioner wants to end this, we can make some adjustments to the blogs, but her attorney needs to confirm to us that it is over, so we don’t interfere with an ongoing legal proceeding. We have written 227+ blogs now, 3 are about the petitioner and 2 mention the petitioner in a paragraph. That is less than .02% of our time spent on the petitioner.
I stand behind every blog I wrote. I have filed Public Information Requests and documented everything I have published through sources. This is not personal for us. We had no intention of making a public statement about the proceedings, but the Chihuahua seem to know a lot about the case that is not public, so we were left no choice but to comment.
Let me say it again: it’s just me. No secret cabal, no Republican plot. Just a blogger behind a keyboard.
Pay Attention Denton County Republicans and Republican Organizations _ You should be alarmed that free speech is being targeted and that you could be next. This is about keeping Frisco blue. VOTE FOR CHANGE! TAKE BACK FRISCO!
For legal purposes I must add this disclaimer: This blog could include satire, parody, and comic relief. It could contain 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…