Did Councilman Rhylan Rowe Collude with Developers Against Trophy Club Citizens?
Former Councilman Rhylan Rowe may have known in advance that the property for Breadwinners was going to be sold and failed to inform the Town Council.
09/24/2020 – Trophy Club, TX
The Trophy Club Journal has uncovered a document that shows former Councilman Rhylan Rowe may have known in advance that the property for Breadwinners was going to be sold. Rowe not only didn’t inform the Town Manager or the Council but instead urged the town to change the terms of the agreement in favor of the Developer.
The shocking email, which could only be understood in it’s totality through the lens of history, implies that Mr. Rowe potentially knew about a pending property transfer, and was urging the Council to modify the Developers Agreement so that the incentive payments would no longer go to the future property owner … but instead, directly to the current developer, Old Town Development (which is owned by Chris Gordon and Justin Springfield).
Following discussions with the Town Attorney, David Dodd, about other issues in the agreement, Rowe sent an email to David Dodd, fellow councilman Tim Kurtz, Mayor Nick Sanders and Town Manager Tom Class on May 30, 2018. (Copy of email attached.)
The email reads, “Thanks for providing this. At our next meeting, I would like to have an amended agreement in front of us for review that provides for payment of the Breadwinner’s obligation directly to OTD, continues to pay the lender directly for the HG Sply parcel, but is adequately future-proofed in such a way that if/when the HG property changes hands, we won’t have to amend the agreement again to make the same change. Going back to the discussion in 2014, and looking at how we came to be paying the lender directly in the first place, we would’ve done well to structure it like that in the beginning. Are there any other cleanup items that we need to address?”
The following day on May 31, 2018, property tax records indicate that the Breadwinners property was sold, without notification to the town as required in the Agreement, to a company called “Bread 114, llc. That company was formed just 30 days prior, on April 30, 2018 by Steven Wood.
In a Facebook discussion this past Tuesday, Rowe admitted that he knew the property was under contract in May, 2018. However, in that conversation Rowe fails to mention that he is the one that instigated the discussion with the council about changing the agreement.
Even more concerning, two days after the sale on June 1, 2018, Chris Gordon, was still discussing with Dodd that the lender for HG Sply was requiring that they pay off the land for Breadwinners. In that email exchange, no mention was made that OTD had already sold the property.
While Rowe maintains that the Town Manager did know about the sale, we could find no evidence of this. In fact, the only person who has admitted any prior knowledge of the sale is Rhylan Rowe. In fact, the evidence provided to TCJ in an Open Records Request show that it wasn’t until 10 months later that Town Manager Tom Class discovered the sale after following up on an inquiry from Mayor Pro Tem Philip Shoffner.
That investigation was the catalyst that uncovered alleged conflicts of interest with Councilman Tim Kurtz and OTD.
Following the sale of the property, but before discovery by the Town Manager that the property had been sold, the Agreement with OTD was modified in June 2018 in a joint session with the Town Council and the EDC to reflect that incentive payments would be paid directly to the Developer, and not the property owner.
But the essence of that discussion was rooted in the belief that the Council was being proactive. At that point in time, most of the Council had no idea that they were being misled and that the Breadwinners deed was already transferred. Nor did they know at that time that OTD has signed an amended agreement for a property that they no longer own. As for the town, Sean Bone signed the document on behalf of EDC and Mayor Sanders signed on behalf of the Council.
Mr. Class discovered the sale shortly before March 26, 2019. It was at that point when Mr. Class intended to bring the issue up to the Council in an executive session, but that meeting fell apart over a discussion regarding the email between Kurtz & OTD and the admission by the Town Manager that he had responded to an inquiry by the Texas Rangers. (Click here for the story of how Eric Jensen cost the town $400k.)
By this point in time though, Rowe had already resigned and was not part of that conversation.
Suddenly, the issue about the sale of the property became secondary to the primary issue of alleged corruption. But the threat of withholding money to the Developer due to a potential breach of contract issue brought the issue to the forefront again. Like they say, “It’s always about the money”.
But there are questions that were never answered.
According to the Agreement, which was amended earlier that year on January 18, 2018, paragraph 3.2(d) read,
“Discretionary Sale by OTD. The Town and/or EDC shall have the Right of First Refusal to purchase the Property if Developer desires to sell the Property with or without Public Improvements or Property Improvements at any time during the Right of First Refusal Term (defined below). The right of Town and/or EDC under this section shall remain in effect until such time as two (2) separate restaurants on the Property have each received a Certificate of Occupancy and Developer complies with all of its obligations under § 3.2 and Section 4.1(a) of this Agreement (above), at which time the Town’s and EDC’s right of First Refusal shall terminate and be of no further force and effect (“Right of First Refusal Term”). If at any time during the Right of First Refusal Term Developer desires to sell the Property, Developer shall first advise Town, EDC, and TIRZ in writing by providing the name of the potential purchaser of the Property. Town, EDC and TIRZ shall have the right to reasonably approve any and all future purchasers of the Property during the term of this Agreement. Upon approval by Town, EDC and TIRZ of the proposed purchaser of the Property, this Agreement shall be fully transferrable to the approved purchaser. Town, EDC and TIRZ approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.” [bold emphasis added]
It seems clear that the intent of the Agreement was for the payments to run with the property owner, whomever that may be, not the developer.
OTD lawyers assert that the right of first refusal expired when Breadwinners obtained their Certificate of Occupancy (C/O). However, the agreement clearly requires that (2) separate restaurants have each received their C/O. At this point in time, only Breadwinners had received a C/O so from the perspective of the Town, Old Town Development was in breach of contract.
Eric Jensen speaking in the defense of the Developer, has made the claim that this provision is wrong. That the contract is wrong. That the contract was only referring to the property wherein Breadwinners is located, and not the 2nd property where HG Sply is located.
Debatable? Yes. Perhaps the agreement is wrong, but perhaps it isn’t. And if it is wrong, then which part? Interpreting the intent of a contract is often subjective. Regardless it is exactly what the myriad of lawyers on both sides agreed to … and it is exactly what Councilman Jensen agreed to when he was on the EDC, even though he later admitted he never read it.
Regardless, at the time in question, all parties were working under the belief that it was a valid provision of the Agreement. Had they not believed it to be so, there would have been no reason to modify it. Except, for that pesky little provision about, who gets the money?
In an undercover investigation, the Trophy Club Journal reached out to Mr. Wood, the current owner of the property, who stated that he was unaware that the funds were fully transferrable to the approved purchaser of the property. Nor was he aware the terms of the Agreement were changed after the property was transferred to him. Still, at the time of our inquiry, he seemed unphased by this revelation…perhaps he just needs time to think it through and understand how much money he left on the table.
The real questions that remain are:
- Why was Mr. Rowe more concerned about the welfare of the Developer than the interests of the town? (IE: the people whom he represents).
- Why is it that Mr. Rowe never mentioned the impending sale of the property which he knew was coming at the time he suggested changing the terms of the Agreement?
- Why does Mr. Rowe continue to mislead the people of Trophy Club about his involvement and friendship with the Old Town Development?
- Why were our town representatives so eager to modify the Agreement in the first place? Who was representing the people? Why MUST the agreement be amended to favor the developer … after the fact?
In a fair negotiation of an Agreement, especially in a modification to an existing Agreement, each party should receive a benefit. Otherwise, why agree to modify it? What benefit did the town receive that they didn’t already have? The answer to that question indicates where loyalties lie.
One thing is for sure, if Trophy Club keeps electing (or reelecting) the same people involved with this scandal, we will never get to the truth and we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
WASHINGTON, DC — The Clinton political machine, long accustomed to dictating the terms of engagement, ran headlong this week into an institution that does not negotiate its constitutional authority. In a rare and politically explosive move, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted on a bipartisan basis to advance contempt of Congress resolutions against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for defying lawful subpoenas tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
The January 21 vote clears the way for the full House to consider whether to formally hold the Clintons in contempt, a step that could result in criminal referrals to the Department of Justice. While neither Clinton has been accused of a crime related to Epstein, lawmakers framed the issue more narrowly and more starkly: whether elite political figures are subject to the same compulsory process as everyone else when Congress demands sworn testimony.
The subpoenas arise from Congress’s ongoing investigation into how Epstein operated a vast international sex trafficking network for years while avoiding meaningful accountability. Epstein allegedly died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 as he awaited trial, but subsequent court filings and document releases revealed his deep and troubling access to political, financial, and cultural power centers. Bill Clinton, and numerous other influential figures appear in those records.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said the subpoenas issued to the Clintons were approved unanimously last summer by Republicans and Democrats alike. Bill Clinton’s deposition was initially scheduled for October 14, 2025, then moved to December 17, and later reset for January 13, 2026. Hillary Clinton followed a similar trajectory, declining multiple proposed dates before failing to appear for a January 14 deposition. In each instance, the committee said it offered flexibility if the Clintons would propose firm alternative dates. They did not.
Instead, the Clintons’ attorneys countered with what Comer described as an unacceptable proposal. Under that offer, Comer would travel to New York to speak with Bill Clinton alone, without placing him under oath, without producing an official transcript, and without allowing other members of Congress to participate. Comer rejected the proposal, arguing that it amounted to special treatment unavailable to any other witness.
“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions,” Comer said during the hearing. “They carry the force of law and require compliance.”
The committee emphasized that sworn, transcribed testimony is essential to transparency and accountability. Oversight investigators have already released transcripts of interviews with former Attorney General Bill Barr and former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, both of whom had direct dealings with Epstein during earlier stages of his prosecution. Allowing the Clintons to substitute informal conversations or written statements, Comer argued, would erode the integrity of the investigation and leave the public dependent on competing recollections rather than a fixed record.
Democrats on the committee were divided. Some argued the subpoenas lacked a legitimate legislative purpose, while others conceded that Congress cannot selectively enforce its authority based on party loyalty. Rep. Robert Garcia of California said no current or former president should be categorically immune from oversight. Several Democrats stressed that full transparency in the Epstein case demands uniform standards, even when politically inconvenient.
Recent history undercuts claims that contempt powers are merely symbolic. Steve Bannon, former Trump campaign and White House strategist, was convicted in 2022 of contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena from the House January 6 committee. Peter Navarro, another former Trump White House adviser, was likewise charged and later imprisoned after refusing to provide testimony to the same panel. Both cases demonstrated that contempt citations can and do result in criminal penalties, including incarceration.
The Clintons have argued through counsel that the subpoenas are invalid and that they possess little relevant information. In a letter to the committee, they described Epstein’s crimes as “horrific” and said they had cooperated in good faith by offering written declarations outlining their limited interactions with him. The committee rejected that approach, noting that Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state gives her direct knowledge of federal anti trafficking initiatives and that both Clintons maintained documented personal and social ties to Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Historically, contempt of Congress has been used sparingly, particularly against high profile political figures. No former president has ever been successfully compelled to testify before Congress. However, legal analysts note that the Clintons are private citizens and cannot claim executive privilege protections that might apply to a sitting president.
The contempt resolutions now move to the full House, where passage will require a majority vote. Even if approved, the Justice Department retains discretion over whether to pursue prosecution. That uncertainty has not dampened the broader significance of the moment.
At its core, the dispute is not about partisan score settling or retroactive guilt. It is about whether Congress’s investigative power means what the Constitution says it means. For decades, the Clintons operated within a political ecosystem that treated them as exceptions. The Oversight Committee’s vote suggests that era may be ending.
If subpoenas bind only the unfavored and the powerless, they bind no one at all. The House must now decide whether the rule of law applies equally, even when the names on the subpoena are Clinton.
Fate, Texas — The City of Fate has completed its review of the recall petition targeting City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, formally verifying the petition as valid and clearing the way for a recall election to be ordered by the City Council.
City officials confirmed that 396 signatures from registered Fate voters were verified and accepted, exceeding the 351 signatures required under the city’s home rule charter. With the verification process complete, the matter now advances to the City Council on Monday, January 26th, which is legally required to call a recall election in accordance with Texas election law.
Under the charter, the action is administerial and the council has no discretion to reject or delay a properly presented petition. Chinn will be given an opportunity for a hearing to address the council, if she chooses, but it will not change the fact that a recall election must be held.
A Stark Electoral Comparison
The verified signature count carries added political significance when viewed against the backdrop of Chinn’s original election.
In June 2024, Chinn prevailed in a runoff election against challenger Cinnamon Krause, winning by a margin of 835 votes (56.92%) to 632 votes (43.08%). The recall petition, which gathered over 400 signatures in approximately one week, represents almost half the total number of votes Chinn received citywide in her election.
While a recall petition is not a direct proxy for voter intent, the comparison underscores the speed and scale of the opposition effort, as well as citizen dissatisfaction with Chinn, particularly in a city where municipal turnout is typically modest and electoral margins are measured in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
From Certification to the Ballot
With the petition signatures verified and considered “Sufficient”, the recall effort now enters its next—and most consequential—phase. If the council follows the standard timeline, the recall election is expected to be placed on the May ballot, coinciding with regularly scheduled municipal elections for City Council Place 2 (Mark Harper) and Place 3 (Scott Kelley).
Harper and Kelley have not yet announced if they intend to run for reelection.
The recall ballot will present voters with a single question: whether Codi Chinn should be removed from office before the expiration of her term in May 2027. A simple majority is required for removal. If the recall succeeds, the resulting vacancy would be filled by appointment of the council. If it fails, Chinn would retain her seat for the remainder of her term.
Election
Texas AI Attack Ad Sparks Outrage After Showing Jasmine Crockett and John Cornyn Dancing “Washington Waltz” in Heated Senate Race
AUSTIN, Texas — A controversy over the use of artificial intelligence in political advertising has erupted in the Texas U.S. Senate race, after a newly released AI-generated video depicts Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett and Senator John Cornyn dancing together in stylized scenes meant to satirize their relationship in Washington, D.C. The ad, issued by Texas Attorney General and GOP Senate contender Ken Paxton’s campaign, has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum and underscored growing concerns about the use of synthetic media in elections.
The ad, which circulated online beginning around January 16, 2026, shows AI-rendered versions of Crockett and Cornyn engaged in choreographed dancing inside what appears to be a dance hall and in front of the U.S. Capitol. According to reporting, the visuals are meant to reference past remarks in which Cornyn described Crockett as his “dance partner” in the Senate in a metaphorical sense, highlighting their occasional bipartisan cooperation.
What Happened
Ken Paxton’s campaign released the ad titled “Partner” as part of his broader effort to define Cornyn as a weak Republican and to draw contrasts with other candidates in the GOP Senate primary. The video pairs the AI imagery with music and imagery that suggests a partnership out of step with conservative values, implying that Cornyn’s willingness to work across the aisle weakens his Republican bona fides.
The ad appears on social media platforms rather than traditional television and it includes a small disclaimer noting that parts of the video were generated using artificial intelligence. A move supporters say aims to satisfy transparency concerns even though Texas law does not require such disclosure outside of defined electioneering periods.
NEW AD: John Cornyn has been dancing the night way with liberal lunatics like Jasmine Crockett and selling us out every step of the way.
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) January 16, 2026
That’s why he called Crockett his “dance partner” and she said Cornyn was her “best partner” in the Senate. pic.twitter.com/b2LeuBfRYX
The Candidates Involved
- Jasmine Crockett, a Democratic congresswoman from Texas’ 30th District, which has been redefined by the Texas Legislature, is running in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Cornyn. She has toured parts of the state campaigning on issues such as opioid crisis intervention, hunger, and broader economic concerns. She is currently running behind her Democratic challenger, James Talarico.
- John Cornyn is the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator seeking re-election in 2026. Polling shows him falling behind his rival, Ken Paxton, and may even come in third, behind Wesley Hunt.
Reactions From Campaigns
Crockett’s campaign has pushed back against Paxton’s framing, with spokespeople noting that the focus on bipartisanship is not a substantive attack on her record but an attempt to weaponize generative media against her. Supporters say Crockett’s actual work on issues like the opioid crisis and food insecurity demonstrates cross-party cooperation in service of Texans, not political theater.
Cornyn’s team has so far declined to directly comment on the ad, according to reporting, leaving a vacuum that has allowed digital discourse to flourish largely unchecked on social platforms.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The use of AI to depict real political figures doing things they never actually did raises significant legal and ethical questions. Texas law includes provisions that make it a misdemeanor to distribute a “deep fake” video within 30 days of an election with intent to influence the outcome, although enforcement of such statutes is untested and subject to interpretation.
Experts and advocates warn that generative content in political advertising could mislead voters, erode trust in legitimate campaigning, and outpace current regulatory frameworks. There is no federal requirement that ads containing AI-generated content carry clear labels, and states vary widely in how — or whether — they regulate synthetic media in political contexts.
Public and Political Response
The ad has quickly become a topic of discussion on digital forums and social media. Commenters have described it variously as humorous, cringe-inducing, or disturbing, with discussions often centering on broader fears that AI will drown political discourse in manipulated content. Some observers on platforms like Reddit note that the synthetic depictions could backfire on Paxton, especially among voters who see bipartisanship as a virtue.
Republican and Democratic voters alike have expressed frustration online that artificial intelligence is being used to blur the line between satire and misinformation in an already polarized political environment.
Context Within the 2026 Senate Race
The Texas Senate contest in 2026 remains highly competitive. Polls show Cornyn’s support varying across matchups against Democratic contenders, including Crockett and others, with some surveys indicating narrow leads or possible runoff scenarios in the Republican primary.
This ad is one of the earliest signals that the 2026 cycle will ably test the boundaries of campaign messaging technology, and it arrives amidst broader debates about whether legislative or judicial action is needed to govern the use of AI in political communications.
Why This Matters
The “Washington Waltz” style ad exemplifies how rapidly advancing technology is reshaping political campaigns — for better or worse. It forces voters and lawmakers to ask whether current laws are equipped to preserve truthful discourse, or whether new guardrails are required to prevent deceptive content from influencing elections.
For constitutional conservatives and civic activists alike, this incident highlights a deeper tension between free speech protections and the need for electoral integrity. The stakes extend beyond the characters in this particular Senate race; they speak to a future in which digital manipulation can construct realities that never occurred.
As the 2026 primaries approach, voters in Texas — and observers nationwide — will be watching not just who wins or loses, but how campaigns wield revolutionary tools of persuasion in a hypercharged political era.