Frisco Chronicles has no issue questioning city leadership and department leadership because I believe someone must speak for the front-line employees. Why? It is the front-line employees in each department that do the day-to-day work which keeps our city great. Every time I hear from an “insider” it is the same story, different department.
We have heard about nepotism running rampant, leadership involved in sexual affairs, toxic work environments, and much more. The truth is our city needs a good “SPRING CLENAING” in top management and department leaders. Why? To protect our front-line workers who feel the brunt of their failed leadership.
The last two weeks we have received several emails related to City Manager, Wes Pierson. The emails talk about how Pierson leads with hostile and condescending behavior. One email noted he consistently speaks down to staff, direct reports, and his executive team. It went on to say his condescending behavior and communication style undermines the morale across all city departments. Residents have seen this behavior up front and center at city council meetings.
The emails also talk about how employees feared professional retaliation if they file a complaint with HR against department or city leadership. The minute a complaint is filed the city begins actions to end that employee’s employment through any means necessary. That includes making up issues or actions to use against the employee.
We know in a recent meeting with public safety officials he questioned if the Fire Department really needed “ladder trucks” which shows his operational ignorance. Clearly his questioning shows a lack of operational infrastructure needed for basic emergency response. His dismissive attitude towards critical public safety equipment poses a direct threat to our communities welfare.
One email talked about staff development and how Pierson actively blocks the implementation of employee progression and career development. The city constantly changes care development plans to hold employees back.
This kind of behavior from one of the highest paid city managers in the nation is unacceptable. There is a severe contrast between his massive compensation package and his refusal to invest in staff progression which behind closed doors is crippling city operations. One email said a third-party investigation into management practices is needed to protect city employees and residents. It is the only way to ensure responsible governance.
When I receive one email I take it as employee frustration, but when I receive 3 in one week from different employees, different departments then it tells me there is an issue at city hall. That issue starts at the top with Wes Pierson as he sets the tone that flows downhill.
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.
The City of Frisco loves to talk about transparency. Council members regularly tell residents they are committed to openness, accountability, and public engagement. But the city’s actions tell a very different story.
Today, there are at least nine active Public Information Requests (PIRs) tied to major public issues that have either been sent to the Texas Attorney General for a ruling or met with significant resistance, delays, clarifications, or excessive cost estimates.
That should concern every taxpayer in Frisco. Anyone has the right to request to see these documents. Below is a list of PIR’s we are currently waiting on because they have been sent to the Texas Attorney General.
04/10/26 PIR Request: I am requesting access to and copies of the following public information:
Communications Between Brian Livingston and David Ovard All communications, including but not limited to text messages, emails, and messages sent via any messaging applications (including but not limited to WhatsApp, Signal, iMessage, or similar platforms), conducted on both city-issued devices and personal devices, related to: • City business • Frisco Whistleblower • Frisco Chronicles • Frisco Elections
Communications Between Brian Livingston and Matt Sapp All communications, including text messages, emails, and messages sent via any messaging applications, conducted on both city-issued devices and personal devices, related to: • City business • The fire association Timeframe: Last four (4) months from the date of this request
Communications Between Brian Livingston and Sean Merrell All communications, including text messages, emails, and messages sent via any messaging applications, conducted on both city-issued devices and personal devices, related to: • City business • Frisco Whistleblower • Frisco Chronicles
Communications Between Brian Livingston and Jake Petras All communications, including text messages, emails, and messages sent via any messaging applications, conducted on both city-issued devices and personal devices, related to: • City business • Frisco Whistleblower • Frisco Chronicles
Communications Between Brian Livingston and Laura Rummell All communications, including text messages, emails, and messages sent via any messaging applications, conducted on both city-issued devices and personal devices, related to: • City business • Frisco Whistleblower • Frisco Chronicles • Frisco Elections Timeframe: Last three (3) months from the date of this request
04/25/26 PIR Request: Records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Customer Account Policies & Enforcement Policies and procedures governing utility disconnections, payment plans, and account adjustments. Any internal audits, reviews, or reports evaluating how these policies are applied. Aggregate data (no personal identifiers needed) showing approval/denial rates for payment plans or disconnection decisions over the past 3 years.
04/05/26 PIR Request: Records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Internal Investigations Any and all records, reports, findings, summaries, or communications related to investigations conducted within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division within the past 3 years. This includes complaints, interview notes, conclusions, and any disciplinary recommendations or actions taken. Personnel Actions Records reflecting terminations, resignations, retirements, or reassignments of employees within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division during the past 3 years, including but not limited to supervisors and management-level staff. Documents explaining the reasons for such personnel actions, where available.
02/25/26 Request: I respectfully request access to and copies of the following records: Feb 17th City Council Work session Agenda Item A complete copy of Ordinance No. 19-10-86, including all attachments, exhibits, amendments, and related backup materials.
All documents, memoranda, draft ordinances, redlines, agenda packets, briefing materials, notes, and internal communications relating to the adoption, interpretation, amendment, or enforcement of Ordinance No. 19-10-86.
All emails, text messages, correspondence, and communications between members of the City Council and City staff—including but not limited to the City Manager, Mayor, and administrative staff—regarding: Any changes, proposed changes, or discussions about procedures for public testimony, citizen input, or public comment at City Council meetings.
Any discussion of modifying time limits, speaker rules, sign-up procedures, decorum rules, or restrictions on topics during citizen input. Any policies, internal guidelines, or training materials concerning procedures for public testimony or citizen participation at City Council meetings. The time frame for this request is January 1, 2025, through the present.
02/25/26 PIR Request: Specifically, this request concerns the executive session held on February 17, 2026, as reflected on the published agenda.
Attendance & Authority Documentation Please provide: Any sign-in sheets, attendance logs, notes, security logs, or internal records reflecting who attended the executive session. Any documentation reflecting the authority for attendance by any individual who was not formally sworn in as a member of the City Council at the time of the meeting. Any legal opinions, memoranda, emails, or communications discussing whether attendance by Ann Anderson—who had not yet been formally sworn in due to a pending election contest and recount—was permissible under the Texas Open Meetings Act. Any communication between City staff, the City Attorney, Council members, or outside counsel regarding her participation or presence in the closed session.
Executive Session Materials Because a private citizen (i.e., an individual not yet sworn into office) was reportedly permitted to attend the executive session, we request: The certified agenda or recording of the executive session as required by Texas Government Code §551.103. All briefing materials, packets, memoranda, presentations, or documents provided to any attendee for use during executive session. Any communications summarizing, describing, or recapping what was discussed in executive session. Any communications following the meeting that reference what occurred during the closed session.
Waiver / Public Disclosure Issue This request includes all communications discussing whether the presence of a non-sworn individual in executive session: Constituted a waiver of confidentiality; Converted discussions into public information; Triggered potential Texas Open Meetings Act implications; Required disclosure obligations under Chapter 552 or 551 of the Texas Government Code. Please provide any internal analysis or discussion regarding these issues.
02/25/26 PIR Request: During discussions surrounding the new animal shelter and the Collin County Animal Services ILA, council member Laura Rummel publicly promised residents there would be full transparency throughout the process. Residents were told the public would be informed and included. So two months ago, I filed a PIR for the following which the city submitted to the Texas Attorney General claiming “Attorney-Client Privilege” that is confidential.Â
Communications Between Identified Individuals Please produce any and all communications related City of Frisco Animal Holding Facility, CCAS ILA, CCAS Expansion — including but not limited to emails (including attachments), text messages (SMS, iMessage), encrypted or third-party messaging platforms (Signal, WhatsApp, Teams, Slack, etc.), memoranda, handwritten notes, meeting notes, calendar invitations, call logs, draft documents, correspondence, and internal communications — sent or received: Between any single individual listed below and any other listed individual; Between any combination of the listed individuals; Or between any listed individual and any staff member acting on their behalf. This request applies to communications conducted on official government devices/accounts and personal devices/accounts if used for public business. Collin County Officials & Staff: Chris Hill – County Judge, Susan Fletcher – Commissioner, Precinct 1, Cheryl Williams – Commissioner, Precinct 2, Darrell Hale – Commissioner, Precinct 3, Duncan Webb – Commissioner, Precinct 4 Lacy DeHorney – Animal Services Manager Misty Brown – Animal Services Division Manager Russell Schaffner, Yoon Kim, Bill Bilyeu City of Frisco Officials & Staff: Wes Pierson – City Manager, E.A. Hoppe – Deputy City Manager, Ben Brezina – Assistant City Manager, Henry Hill, Rob Millar – Assistant City Manager, Ken Schmidt – Director of Special Projects, Wes Hicks – Facilities Project Manager, Micki Johnson, Karla Munoz-Horton Elected Officials: Jeff Cheney – Mayor, Angelia Pelham, Laura Rummel, John Keating, Burt Thakur, Jared Elad, Brian Livingston, Ann Anderson
Subject Matter Scope This request specifically includes communications referencing or relating to: Collin County Animal Services (CCAS) The Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between Collin County and the City of Frisco Negotiation, drafting, execution, amendment, or renewal of the CCAS ILA The CCAS expansion project (one-story, ~10,000 square foot addition) The November 2023 voter-approved bond funding for CCAS Any delay in the CCAS expansion project Reasons for the delay, Responsibility for the delay, Any documents or communications related to the cost escalation, change orders, financial impact analyses, or construction cost increases resulting from delay of the ILA or Expansion. Discussions of liability, intergovernmental coordination issues, staffing issues, permitting, procurement, or compliance concerns tied to the project
Project Documentation Please also provide: All versions (final and draft) of the CCAS ILA and related amendments Redlines, negotiation notes, briefing materials, and executive summaries Contracts, RFPs/RFQs, architectural/engineering plans Project schedules and revised schedules Budget projections, cost comparisons, and bond allocation tracking Internal memoranda explaining timeline changes Any document identifying who is responsible for delay and why Date Range Requested: January 1, 2023 – Present (for ILA and communications) November 1, 2023 – Present (for expansion/bond-related records)
02/04/26 PIR Request: Copy of any emails with all attachments or text messages between Collin County and Frisco Management (Ben Brezina, Wes Peirson, City Manager’s Office, Henry Hill) or city council members including Mayor Cheney related to the Collin County ILA for Animal Services. Date: 8/1/2025 to Present 2/5/2026
Inspection Only Results
On top of these PIR’s several others requested were sent to the Texas Attorney General. One was for the copies of the RFP, RFQ, Contracts, Awards and Agreements related to the downtown main street construction. Along with records relating to the Employee Health Clinic. The outcome was “Inspection Only” meaning I have to go to city hall to view the information.
Acceptance of Charges
On 4/5/26 I filed for access to and/or copies of the following records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Employee Complaints / Workplace Environment Records of formal employee complaints, grievances, or HR reports related to workplace conduct, management practices, or department leadership within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Any employee climate surveys or internal assessments conducted in the past 3 years. Lastly, the communication emails or internal communications among department leadership, HR, and executive staff referencing: Department performance Employee concerns Investigations or complaints (Limit to the past 2 years to reduce scope if needed.)
How much is the city charging for this? $154.62
On 4/5/25 we filed for records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Organizational Structure & Hiring Current and past organizational charts for the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Job descriptions, qualifications, and hiring criteria for management positions within the division. Records related to recent hiring decisions for supervisory or management roles (last 3 years).
How much is the city charging for this? $122.58
The Fight For Transparency
When it comes to the animal PIR’s you can bet the city sent it to the AG so they did not have to release the information before the election. Why did the city send it to the Attorney General when Laura Rummel sat on the dais and promised transparency through the whole process (which is on record). I also would like to know why she requested conversations regarding an animal facility be moved to “closed session”, so they remain off the record. That is what Rummel considers transparency.
If the process was truly transparent, why are citizens having to fight for basic records? Residents are repeatedly told public records are available under the Texas Public Information Act. Yet Frisco citizens are now facing charges exceeding $120 to $150 simply to obtain information from their own government.
Citizens should ask themselves: Is the pricing intended to recover reasonable costs — or discourage scrutiny?
Transparency is not a campaign slogan. It is a governing principle. That is a principle our city leadership, city council and mayor fail to uphold. That is why we need change because we “the residents of Frisco” should have the right to review and question decisions being made by with taxpayer dollars.
When elected officials promise openness but residents encounter delays, legal reviews, redactions, and triple-digit invoices for public documents, trust in local government erodes. Then they wonder why every resident calls for change and does not trust them.
Frisco residents deserve answers. More importantly, they deserve a city government willing to practice the transparency it so often preaches.
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.Â
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.” Â
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.”Â
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.Â
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.Â
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.
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.
Alright, grab your popcorn —this one has all the makings of a classic Frisco Chronicles feature: money, media, and that familiar scent of roses wafting through the pages of the Dallas Morning News.
All Good in the Frisco Hood: Brought to You by… Medium Giant?
By now, longtime Frisco residents have noticed a curious phenomenon. Whenever the Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes about Frisco, the city sparkles. Streets are shinier. Leadership is visionary. Problems? What problems? If Frisco had potholes, DMN would probably call them “community engagement craters designed to slow traffic and save lives.”
Which raises the obvious question: why does Frisco always smell like roses in the DMN? Not weeds. Not smoke. Roses.
For years, residents have speculated. Maybe DMN is afraid of being cut off from exclusives. Maybe access journalism is alive and well. Or maybe—just maybe—it’s about the oldest motivator in local government and media alike: Money.
Enter Stage Left: Medium Giant
Here’s where things get interesting. A sharp-eyed reader recently connected a few dots that deserve a closer look. The Frisco Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) has entered into several contracts over the years with a company called Medium Giant.
Whose Medium Giant, you ask?
They’re an “integrated creative marketing agency.” Which is marketing-speak for we make things look good. Even better? Medium Giant just happens to be the sister company of the Dallas Morning News.
Cue the dramatic music. So now the question isn’t why DMN never seems to publish critical reporting on Frisco or its leadership. The question becomes: would they dare?
Follow the Money (Because It Always Tells a Story)
When we reviewed city check registers, we noticed multiple payments over the years made to Medium Giant. Not chump change. Not lunch money. Not “oops, forgot to expense that Uber.”
The total? $2,105,631.76
That’s over two million dollars paid by Frisco entities to a company tied directly to the same organization responsible for shaping Frisco’s public narrative in one of North Texas’ largest newspapers.
Now, we’re not saying this proves corruption. We’re not saying there’s a secret smoky backroom with editors and city staff clinking champagne glasses. We’re not even saying there’s an explicit quid pro quo.
What we are saying is this: If you were the DMN, would you risk torching a relationship connected—directly or indirectly—to a $2 million revenue stream by publishing hard-hitting, unvarnished reporting about Frisco’s leadership, finances, or controversies?
Hit Pieces for Some, Rose Petals for Others
What makes this dynamic even more eyebrow-raising is DMN’s recent track record. The paper has shown it’s perfectly willing to publish aggressive, sometimes glowing-less-than-rose-scented coverage of candidates who fall outside the Frisco inner circle.
Just ask: Jennifer White, Mark Piland, John Redmond
Funny how the gloves come off for political outsiders, but stay neatly folded when it comes to City Hall, current council members, and current city leadership.
Journalism, Marketing, or a Blurred Line?
Let’s be clear: Medium Giant being a marketing firm isn’t inherently wrong. Cities hire marketing agencies all the time. But when the marketing arm and the newsroom live under the same corporate roof, the public has every right to question whether the coverage they’re reading is journalism… or brand management.
Because from where residents sit, the pattern looks less like watchdog reporting and more like: “Frisco: Presented by Medium Giant, distributed by DMN.”
Final Thought
Transparency isn’t just about open records and posted agendas. It’s also about who controls the narrative—and who’s being paid behind the scenes while that narrative is shaped.
Two million dollars isn’t small change. It’s not accidental. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant.
So the next time you read a glowing DMN article telling you everything in Frisco is just peachy, ask yourself: Is this news… or is this advertising with better grammar?
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…