Well folks, grab your popcorn, warm up a courtroom bench, and prepare for a dramatic reading of… “How to Weaponize the Courtroom Because Someone on the Internet Was Mean to Me.” Yes, dear readers, Frisco Chronicles has officially been handed a starring role in the live-action community theater production of Petty Lawsuits & Public Spectacle.
I have been wanting to update you the whole time; however, our Attorney advised me not to make any public statements as it was an ongoing legal matter. Now that the deposition is complete, I sit here and wait to see if the Petitioner files a lawsuit against me. In the meantime, it is time to explain all the twists and turns of the last two months. I also want to address some accusations made in a recent post on FRWC.
Where do I begin? It appears that a local admin, whom I will call “The Petitioner”, of a civic-minded Facebook Community Group, has decided that jokes, satire, and harsh words are not only offensive but apparently litigious. The Petitioner filed a Rule 202 Petition in Denton County, which essentially allows a person to petition the court for an order to take a deposition before a lawsuit is filed to gather information and investigate potential claims or suits.
When I heard about it, I was surprised and asked why not just sue me and go through the discovery process. Probably because they knew our legal team would have filed an Anti-SLAPP in return, designed to protect individuals and organizations from meritless lawsuits that are filed to punish or silence them for exercising their constitutional rights.
Why a Rule 202 Petition? It is our opinion that they want to know who sits at the keyboard of Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower. You heard that right. Not suing (at least not yet), just poking the legal bear to see if anyone yelps. The Petitioner claims she wants a pre-suit deposition to investigate the potential of “cyber-stalking,” “defamation,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and our personal favorite: “conspiracy to commit cyber-bullying.” Sounds like a Netflix docuseries in the making.
Many have asked – how did they know who to serve? Back on May 4th, we were emailed what appears to be a self-written Cease & Desist by Mr. Jake Petras. Petras cc’d on the email David Ovard at Clark Hill PLLC and said any response or correspondence should be sent to Ovard. You can read all about it in our blog Transparency & Accountability.
At Whistleblower, we don’t believe in coincidence. Petrus chose to identify an attorney who is connected to PGA Frisco and whose wife is the campaign treasurer for our Mayor, Jeff Cheney. Then, when the Rule 202 hearing came, we found it interesting that the Petitioner used the same firm, just a different attorney, to represent them in the Rule 202 hearing. It is like 6 degrees of separation, don’t you think?
Through email, we hired Steve Noskin, of Noskin Law Firm, PLLC, to respond to Mr. Petras, and we posted that. The Petitioner’s Attorney from Clark Hill PLLC in the Rule 202, had the notice sent to Noskin Law Firm and that is how the process began.
The Allegations: A Quick Recap
According to the petition, the petitioner was wounded by some brutal—but undeniably humorous—public commentary. We don’t want to publish the zingers here out of respect for the Petitioner, so you can click the link at the end of our blog to see all the court filings related to this case. We are sharing them as we know they are public record anyway.
Back to the Zingers! Three of the zingers were from our blog’s third-party comments. The handles associated with the comments include Flaming Moderate, Centrist Charlie, Scooter the MAGA Handler. We have no clue who any of these people are, and we have no way to identify them. When you leave a comment, it requires a name and email, but there is nothing to stop anyone from using a fake name and fake email, which happens on 99% of the comments.
Then came comments that were not even related to our page in any way! The comments were posted by a local Frisco Resident under an authored account (meaning their real name) on Facebook groups like North Texas Politics and What’s on Your Mind Collin and Denton County. What I found interesting is that the comments have nothing to do with my page; they are not associated with my page, and they were not published on or by my page.
We are not going to name the Frisco Resident, but we can assure you (just like we said in the depo) that while I may know this person, this person is not associated with our page, has never been involved behind the scenes of our page, he has not contributed to our page, and was not aware until after the DEPO who the author of Frisco Chronicles is.
Next, the Petitioner identified an offensive cartoon graphic of a woman dressed as Lady Justice that was created by ChatGPT. It made me wonder what the Petitioner thought about the recent AI Cartoon held at the election polls against a certain candidate.
To paraphrase her complaint in my own words: Someone is being really, really mean to me on the internet, Your Honor. Please force them to come out from behind the curtain so I can depose them to determine if I want to actually sue them. Boo Hoo.
The Response: Noskin’s Legal Napalm
Enter Steven Noskin, our attorney, who filed a response that the petitioner seeks to misuse Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 not for a legitimate investigatory purpose but as a tool to uncover the identity of an anonymous online speaker. Armed with the Constitution and a fire extinguisher for frivolous filings, Noskin’s response is a masterclass in polite courtroom smackdown.
- The Petitioner has voluntarily entered public discourse via her Facebook Page, rendering her a limited-purpose public figure and anonymous criticism of public figures is afforded heightened protection under the First Amendment.
- The Petitioner failed to establish any actionable false statement of fact. Meaning the allegedly offensive statements constitute rhetorical hyperbole, opinion, or satire. None of these are actionable under Texas Law.
- The Petitioner doesn’t even know who said what. Rule 202 requires actual attribution, not “vibes.”
- This is a textbook of First Amendment lawfare. As in, “I don’t like what was said about me, so I’ll try to shut them up.”
The Courts Decision
We were surprised to learn the court decided we need to sit for a deposition in July! The petitioner claims she is simply doing this to determine if she wants to sue. If that is the case, one would think that the Petitioner would not want to draw attention to the statements that were so potentially damaging. It makes us wonder how community members close to her knew the step-by-step details of our case to write their Haikus.
Fighting Back
Our attorney Steve Noskin brought on a second firm to assist with writing a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” and a motion for emergency relief. That basically means they requested an emergency stay to stop the deposition. The motion for emergency relief was granted by the Second Court of Appeals for the State of Texas.
This gave the courts time to review the Writ of Mandamus and come to a decision. In this case, they agreed with the original ruling, which brought about the deposition that took place in August.
The Deposition
On August 12th, I sat for the deposition with my attorney present. I was asked tons of questions multiple different ways and answered every one of them to the best of my ability for what felt like six hours. Overall, nothing exciting to report. They did ask about several Frisco Residents and their potential involvement in Frisco Chronicles, and we told the truth, this has been a one-man show known as Me, Myself and I! It was a long, drawn-out day that ended with a sore ass and some beer! The Petitioner should be happy! Based on the post one might think someone is still bitter (meant to be humorous).
The Bigger Picture: Public Interest or Personal Vendetta?
Food for thought! It is our opinion that this petition isn’t about justice. It’s about Cabal control. It’s the local Frisco Facebook elite trying to legally swat at anonymous critics who dare to poke holes in their self-appointed halos. If you peel back the layers, it’s not about emotional distress—it’s about image management via subpoena.
Let’s be honest: Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower is a snarky, biting watchdog blog filled with satire and humor. We’re not out here selling hugs and rainbows. We are holding public figures accountable through parody and criticism. That’s our constitutional jam.
Petitioner Takes to Frisco Residents Who Cares Facebook Page
After the deposition, the Petitioner decided to write a summary of the events from her perspective, which she posted in the group she administers. The Petitioner starts off with how she shared some time back that her character, integrity, and abilities to administer her Facebook group were being attacked by Frisco Chronicles.
My Response: We never called the Petitioner a bad person; we actually commended her for her civil service to the community. We simply questioned how she administers her Facebook Group while calling it a community page. Her ability to administer her page was never out of her control, so I am unclear by what she means by they were under attack.
The Petitioner then proceeds she sought information regarding certain statements made against her and her efforts to obtain information were opposed in court. The judge at the hearing agreed with her and ordered us to sit for a deposition.
My Response: All True! Damn right we “opposed” her attorneys’ efforts.
1. Before making this a legal matter, which would expose the comments that she claims are so damaging in the petition, she could have reached out to us by email and asked us to remove the statements. Might have saved everyone a lot of time and money! Instead, she took it to legal proceedings where we have every LEGAL RIGHT to OPPOSE HER IN COURT. Where does it say we have to lay down and comply. Clearly, we are going to fight for our First Amendment Rights and not just roll over.
The Petitioner continues in her post that the “other side” waited until just before the deposition was to occur to file an emergency stay and Writ of Mandamus with the Court of Appeals. She goes on to say we posted a press release that led people to believe that the COA would overturn the trial Court’s Order.
My Response: This was not some sort of manipulative tactic to wait until the last minute. I weighed my options with my attorney, and we chose to file an appeal. MY LEGAL RIGHT! Sorry, the petitioner’s feelings got hurt because it was close to the deadline. Our attorneys did their due diligence to write it and file it. That takes time!
2. The Press Release we posted did not lead people to believe anything! It was our statement of fact from our attorney’s perspective. It was about our rights and what we hoped would prevail. Again, OUR LEGAL RIGHT and not misleading in any way!
The Petitioner then goes on to say that for weeks, in a lack of transparency, Frisco Chronicles did not inform the public that the Court of Appeals ruled against them. Then she says we have been deceptively silent about the outcome.
My Response: After the Appeals Court ruled we had to sit for a deposition, we wanted to make a statement, HOWEVER, my Attorney advised me that anything I say can be used against me in the deposition, and he advised me to continue to remain silent until the proceedings were concluded. That is not DECEPTIVE, that is called being LEGALLY SMART!
Hmmm, seems like the same reason the Petitioner gave for closing comments on her post. Just a reminder, “Comments are closed at this time DUE TO THE ONGOING NATURE OF THE MATTER!”
Why This Matters to You
It has major implications when it comes to free speech, and you should remember next time IT COULD BE YOU! If you write something that could hurt someone’s feelings on Facebook, Reddit, or even a blog, it could open the door for you to have to spend thousands of dollars to be represented while you go through a deposition / Rule 202 Hearing from a future Petitioner coming after you!
It sets a dangerous precedent:
- Satire becomes a risk.
- Anonymous watchdogs get unmasked.
- Powerful people can sue you just to shut you up.
This is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s legal cosplay with the goal of silencing dissent. And if you think it stops with Frisco Chronicles, you’re next when you call out HOA drama, school board nonsense, Facebook admins, or city officials.
Closing Thoughts from FWB
Frisco Chronicles has been called many things online and we have not been butt-hurt enough to try to sniff out a wizard behind a curtain to depose them. We understand our blog invites others to criticize, question, and call us out. We don’t get our feelings hurt and say Now we might sue you! If we allowed every person who got roasted online to sue the roasters, the court system would crash faster than the petitioner’s reputation in a comment thread.
We still owe Noskin Law big bucks for defending us because of someone’s hurt feelings. Our Go Fund Me is still open and donations can be mailed directly to his office.
We exist to poke, prod, satirize, and expose. Everything written is published based on Public Info Requests (PIR), public record searches, anonymous sources, and/or documented evidence, which is posted with the blogs. If you don’t like what we publish, maybe it’s not libel — perhaps it’s just a little too close to the truth. In Texas, we love our constitutional rights as much as we love barbecue and holding politicians’ feet to the fire.
Moving forward, we will not allow 3rd party comments on our blog. Solely to protect you, our reader, and ourselves! The Petitioner may choose to sue me, which is her right. Not sure what she will get from a single dad, who cares for his disabled son. The most expensive item I own is probably my toupee and the six-pack of beer in my fridge. If the Petitioner wants it that badly, she can have it.
As for Frisco Chronicles, our mission will continue! I am not going anywhere! We have some big elections coming up and we will be diving into each of the candidates searching for those who will represent the citizens’ needs, not their own!
Sincerely,
Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower
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 intentional satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Public Records
Link To Original Petition: https://drive.proton.me/urls/TYW634PDTG#MCCyNk8P34PQ
Link To Corresponding Documents: https://drive.proton.me/urls/0SA8B505EC#sxewSLw2Es3t
0 Comments