How Councilman Eric Jensen cost the Town $400,000
How Eric Jensen is the man most responsible for the hostile work environment that cost the town $400k
09/07/2020 – Trophy Club, TX
It was a beautiful 71 degrees with a slight breeze on the night of March 26, 2019 when the Town Council went into executive session. But the climate inside the conference room was getting hot as Councilman Jensen got into a heated conversation with Councilman Greg Lamont.
In his complaint of “harassment and request for whistle-blower protection”, a copy of which was received by the Trophy Club Journal as part of an extensive Open Records Request, former Town Manager Tom Class recalled the alleged events of the evening in a written statement. In the following account, we have filled in the blanks for context but have kept the quotes as stated in his complaint.
It started as a discussion about a potential conflict of interest with Councilman Eric Jensen’s wife, Rene’, who at the time was working at Performant Fitness. The town has a contract with Performant Fitness, and therefore it is reasonable to question whether such employment would be restricted due to Texas nepotism laws. Jensen began attacking Councilman Greg Lamont for bringing up the question.
But the law was on Lamont’s side. According to an opinion by the Texas Attorney General,
“When a governing member of an entity, or a “local government officer” (“officer”) has a specified relationship with a person to whom chapter 176 applies, the officer must file a conflicts disclosure statement.” Further, “The statement is required when the person has “an employment or other business relationship with the officer or a family member of the officer that results in the officer or family member receiving taxable income.”
Meaning, whether Rene’ Jensen was a direct employee or an independent contractor of Performant Fitness, Eric Jensen was required by law to disclose it … he didn’t.
But the conversation turned.
At some point in the conversation Jensen turns to Councilman Philip Shoffner and says, “Philip, ask the question.” Thus, indicating that Jensen & Shoffner had colluded together to prepare questions before the meeting.
Floating in the air over Trophy Club at that point in time were rumors of a potential conflict of interest between Councilman Tim Kurtz and Old Town Development, the developers of Breadwinners and HG Sply. But at this point not much of it had been confirmed publicly.
Shoffner turns to his computer and reads their prepared question, first directed at town attorney David Dodd. “Have you been part of or do you know of an investigation of the Town, any staff or elected official for conflict of interest in the last year?” Dodd replies, “No.”
Shoffner then turns to Town Manager Tom Class and reads the same question. Class replies, “Yes,” and “offered additional information that I [Class] had been contacted by the Texas Rangers and had met with them.”
In the report, Class alleges that Jensen then pointed his finger at him and yelled, “You need to resign!” [emphasis added]. To which Class replies, “I’m not resigning, I’m not going anywhere; you are going to have to fire me.” Jensen then accused Class of being a liar and leaking information.
Since that time, the Trophy Club Journal has submitted Open Records Request and done an extensive review of hundreds of documents. We now know that the conflict of interest in question consisted of an email that was accidently discovered on the town email server between Councilman Kurtz and Chris Gordon, one of the two owners of Old Town Development. (The other being Jensen’s good friend, Justin Springfield.)
Apparently, Kurtz was unaware that his phone was sending email through the towns email server … making them all subject to open records requests.
In an email that we believe started the investigation, Kurtz is seeking advice from Chris Gordon about how to answer a conflict of interest form that he was required to fill out for the town. Kurtz wrote, “As Joli [Kurtz wife] is an investor in Turnberry Cap which is an investor in HG building. I am wondering if I need to state yes to a couple of these questions. Thoughts?”
It turns out that “Turnberry Cap” (ie: Turnberry Capital) is a company owned by Kurtz.
Kurtz later admitted that through that company his wife gave $100,000 to Old Town Development. His lawyer would lay claim that the money part of an investment for one of their kids and that Kurtz never profited from the investment… as if any of that matters. Not only did Kurtz fail to disclose the relationship, but according to the town attorney, Kurtz never recused himself from voting on OTD projects. (There have been other alleged conflicts which are not germane to this story.)
Much of this came out in open session of a council meeting on April 9, 2019. The attorney for Kurtz’s stated that at the time Kurtz had intended to divest his shares from the company but that the attorney forgot to file the paperwork … for over a year.
There is question from Jensen supporters about whether this investigation is still ongoing.
The Trophy Club Journal has made several FOIA requests with the FBI and has received no acknowledgement of an ongoing investigation. The FBI does not comment on criminal investigations … they cannot even acknowledge IF an investigation exists, naturally.
However, our sources have confirmed that past and present town employees have been interviewed by the FBI regarding a case other than the “merchant fraud” that Jensen supporters are using to deflect attention.
This means that there was an investigation … whether it is still ongoing or not is anybody’s guess. Nobody can know for sure and anyone who says otherwise is lying. It takes the FBI years to investigate such complicated matters. Until or unless the FBI finally decides to press charges, we may never know how long the investigation lasted.
It is easy to see why Mr. Class would seek whistle-blower protection in light of the abhorrent behavior of Eric Jensen in the executive session that night
The documents would suggest that Mr. Class was simply following the law by answering questions directed at him from law enforcement. Why was Eric Jensen with his friends on the Council leading a rebellion against him? A man they had publicly praised in the past.
Because of the damage caused by Mr. Jensen, it quickly became clear to most of the Town Council that a prolonged legal battle [with Mr. Class] could likely cost the town millions of dollars in damages plus hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and would likely end with a payout, regardless. Generally, it was felt that it would be better to deal with it now and move on.
An offer was made to settle with Class for $400k and allow him to resign with honor, dignity, and grace. On May 13, 2019, in a public forum the council accepted his voluntary separation agreement. (Link to Video) Councilman Jensen voted against the agreement. Jensen felt that Class should have been outright fired and he wanted to let the legal process proceed.
In summary, it was Eric Jensen that created the hostile work environment which gave rise to the $400k settlement but even more than that, it was Eric Jensen, when head of the EDC, who wrote and approved the Agreement with Old Town Development in the first place. An agreement that was universally agreed by all parties to be so poorly written that it gave cause to all the conflicts that would follow … and yet Mr. Jensen admitted on April 9, 2019 to having never read the Agreement.
But it doesn’t stop there. On top of all that, Jensen cost the town another $25k when he “accidentally” resigned from the council and caused a special election. But that is another story.
Arlington, TX – Federal agents, local police, and two SWAT teams swept through the city and surrounding suburbs in a coordinated takedown of what authorities describe as one of the region’s most violent street gangs. 21 alleged members of the “Kiccdoe” gang were rounded up, ending a violent spree that officials say included drive-by shootings, retaliation murders, drug trafficking, and years of terror in Arlington neighborhoods.
According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas, federal complaints filed on November 4 led to the arrests, with all suspects in custody by November 7. Seventeen defendants made their first court appearances that Friday, with the remaining individuals appearing the next day. The arrests stem from a joint investigation by the FBI’s Dallas Field Office and the Arlington Police Department, which began examining Kiccdoe’s activities in April 2024 after a gang member was shot and killed on an Arlington high-school campus. The homicide sparked a string of revenge shootings between Kiccdoe and rival gangs, accelerating the urgency of the investigation.
Authorities allege that the organization, which traces its roots to the 600 block of East Arkansas Lane, spent the past three years building its identity around violence, intimidation, and a steady pipeline of narcotics. Court records show that alleged members promoted their affiliation using identifiers such as “Kiccdoe,” “KDN,” “6,” and “600,” often displayed on social media, clothing, and even in self-produced music videos. Investigators say these symbols weren’t just branding—they served as recruitment tools and public declarations of allegiance.
The Justice Department’s complaint outlines a broad racketeering enterprise. To maintain standing within the gang, members were expected to commit “stripes”—violent acts carried out to boost the group’s reputation and enforce control. Federal prosecutors list one murder, six attempted murders, nine robberies, numerous assaults with deadly weapons, and persistent trafficking of fentanyl and marijuana among the offenses tied to the enterprise. The overarching goal, according to prosecutors, was simple: expand territory, increase profits, and keep the community terrified enough not to resist.
The federal charges range from RICO conspiracy and murder in aid of racketeering to drug-distribution conspiracies and firearms violations. Those charged include individuals as young as 18 and as old as 22, many of them already known to Arlington police for previous violent encounters. The Justice Department emphasized that charges remain allegations and that each defendant is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. If convicted, some face up to life in federal prison.
This federal push followed years of strained local resources. The Arlington Police Department reports that since January 2022 it has documented at least 180 criminal incidents involving Kiccdoe members—everything from aggravated assaults and burglaries to shootings and narcotics offenses. While APD had previously filed state charges against several members, Chief Al Jones said the department needed a more powerful tool to halt the gang’s growing influence. In 2024, Arlington police formally approached the FBI to pursue federal RICO charges—an effort that culminated in last week’s sweep.
Chief Jones praised the operation, declaring, “Our city is safer with these individuals off the streets.” FBI Dallas Special Agent in Charge R. Joseph Rothrock echoed that sentiment, crediting the partnership between federal and local agencies for what he described as a significant blow to violent crime in the region. Acting U.S. Attorney Nancy Larson similarly emphasized the importance of joint operations and vowed that federal prosecutors “will continue to pursue justice against brazen offenders who terrorize our communities.”
The investigation and arrests fall under Operation Take Back America, a national Department of Justice initiative aimed at dismantling violent gangs, drug networks, and transnational criminal organizations through coordinated federal action. The operation brings together multiple law-enforcement efforts, including OCDETF and Project Safe Neighborhoods, to target high-impact criminal groups.
The case now moves into the federal courts, where prosecutors will begin presenting evidence gathered over the nearly two-year investigation. For Arlington residents who have endured drive-bys, school-campus violence, and open drug dealing, the arrests mark a turning point—one that many hope signals a more assertive federal posture against gangs operating in suburban Texas communities.
Those charged in the complaint include:
• Michael Mensah, 18, of Grand Prairie, Texas, charged with conspiracy to conduct the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering (RICO conspiracy), assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Raphael Opare, 19, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Dillen Opare, 20, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Isaiah Wiley, 21, of Dallas, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
• Kyron Oates, 22, of Grand Prairie, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
• Vernell Woods, 19, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• DeMarco Westmoreland, 19, of Mansfield, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Cortez Atkinson, 18, of Fort Worth, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Bradley McArthur, Jr., 21, of Fort Worth, Texas charged with RICO conspiracy, assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• DaTraven Warren, 18, of Mansfield, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering.
• Sadedrick Wilson, 22, of Fort Worth, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Joseph Hill, 18, of Fort Worth, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Chauncey Ross, 22, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, murder and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and possession of a machine gun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
• Marcus Shaw, 20, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• KeyShawn Burton, 20, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• LaMarion Austin, 21, of Dallas, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Blake Aaron Scott, 22, of Arlington, Texas, charged with RICO conspiracy, assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
• Sir James Mack Williams, 21, of Arlington, Texas, charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering.
• Jaylen Jeshawn Franklin, of Arlington, Texas, 22, charged with conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering.
• JaMarion Manogin, 20, of Forney, Texas, charged with assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in aid of racketeering.
• Jakayla Totten, 21, of DeSoto, Texas, charged with assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering.
Featured
Texas School Districts’ VATRE Blitz: A Choreographed Push for Your Wallet, Courtesy of the Insider Crowd
Texas – A School District Near you – Lone Star parents and taxpayers, grab your red pens—it’s election season, and the school district overlords are back with a familiar script. This November 4, 2025, voters across the state will face a barrage of Voter-Approval Tax Ratification Elections (VATREs), those sneaky little ballot measures dressed up as “local funding opportunities.”
But here’s the rub: From the sprawling suburbs of Rockwall to the dusty plains of Abilene, the pitch sounds eerily identical. Same boilerplate language, same sob stories about teacher retention and “safety measures,” same implication that saying no means dooming the kids to cardboard classrooms. Coincidence? Or the handiwork of a well-oiled machine, whispering talking points into the ears of beleaguered superintendents?
Take Rockwall Independent School District, for instance. Their glossy VATRE 2025 webpage hits you with this gem: “A Voter-Approval Tax Ratification Election (VATRE) is a local school funding election that asks voters whether or not they authorize the school district to access the maintenance and operations tax rate to create additional local funding and additional state funding to be used for specific purposes. Unlike a school bond election, a VATRE does not create new debt for the district. Instead, it provides funds for additional local funds that can be used for recruitment and retention, special education and student programs, and safety and security measures.“
Sound folksy? Patriotic, even? Now flip over to Judson ISD in San Antonio, and—bam—it’s a near-verbatim echo: the exact same assurance that this isn’t debt, just “additional local funds” for the usual suspects like special ed and security.
Hawkins ISD up north? Ditto, word for word.
Hurst-Euless-Bedford ISD is chasing $20.6 million to plug a $12 million hole, and their referendum spiel? You guessed it—recruited from the same Rolodex.
This isn’t organic outrage bubbling up from PTA meetings. It’s a symphony, conducted from the shadows of Austin’s lobbying lounges. Enter the Texas Association of School Business Officials (TASBO), the self-appointed sheriffs of school spreadsheets. Founded in 1970 as a “professional association” for the bean-counters and budget mavens running Texas’ 1,200-plus districts, TASBO bills itself as a neutral force for “excellence in school business management.”
In reality? It’s a powerhouse lobby, armed with toolkits, webinars, and conference swag that turns harried CFOs into tax-hike cheerleaders. Their Voter-Approval Tax Rate Election Toolkit—complete with checklists, deadline calendars, and pre-fab messaging—practically hands districts a Mad Libs version of the script we’re seeing statewide. Why reinvent the wheel when TASBO’s got the one-size-fits-all spin on why your property taxes need another squeeze?
The timing couldn’t be more convenient. Just this summer, TASBO rolled out their 2024-25 Budget Cohort for Texas District Leaders, a full-day confab on June 18, 2025, at the Arlington Convention Center—tucked into their Summer Solutions Conference. There, amid the PowerPoints on post-legislative tweaks, business officials got the lowdown on “Effective Budget Presentations and Meetings to Adopt Budget and Tax Rate.” Translation: How to sell a VATRE without the voters smelling the rat.
Fast-forward to today, September 30, 2025, and TASBO’s dropping their “Overview of the 2025-2026 TASBO Master Calendar Webinar“—a virtual love-in to stay laser-focused on those “critical annual deadlines,” and election hustling come November. Recorded for posterity (and CE credits), it’s catnip for the compliance crowd, ensuring every district toes the line with TASBO-approved patter.
Why does this matter to constitutional conservatives who still believe in limited government and the 10th Amendment’s nod to local control? Because VATREs aren’t the benign “voter choice” they’re cracked up to be. Sure, they don’t pile on new bonds—praise be for small mercies—but they do unlock that compressed M&O tax rate, siphoning an extra 4 to 8 cents per $100 valuation straight from your pocket through direct taxation. Carroll ISD wants three cents to dodge a “trustee emergency” after blowing through $37 million.
Northwest ISD? Same three-cent plea, promising to “reduce class sizes” while conveniently ignoring enrollment booms they could’ve planned for.
Kingsville ISD eyes $2 million in “savings” to offset a $4.2 million deficit, but let’s be real: These windfalls often vanish into administrative bloat or pet projects, not the front-line heroes districts love name-dropping.
Abilene ISD‘s board just greenlit a $3.4 million VATRE grab, citing $10 million in state shortfalls that somehow ballooned to $37 million locally—because math in government is more art than science.
Judson ISD dangles $21 million in “additional funding” to offset a debt-service dip, but even they admit it’ll hike taxes by 4.5 cents—unless you buy their line about it being a “reduction” thanks to homestead exemptions.
Coppell ISD and Spring Hill ISD are in the mix too, touting $24 million and competitive salaries, respectively, as if Texas’ teacher shortage is a VATRE away from utopia.
Santa Fe ISD? Theirs will “maximize” funding by $9 million but slash the overall rate by 4 cents—smoke and mirrors to make you feel like you’re winning while the district cashes the state match.
Boerne ISD‘s two-cent bump nets them $4.8 million; Alvarado ISD‘s unanimous board call chases similar scraps; La Vernia ISD parrots the script to the letter.
It’s a statewide avalanche—dozens of districts, hundreds of millions on the line, all marching to TASBO’s drumbeat.
Folks, this isn’t democracy; it’s astroturfing with your dollars. TASBO and their special-interest bedfellows—the Texas Association of School Boards, the education unions—aren’t elected, but they’re scripting the show. They frame VATREs as a bulwark against Austin’s stinginess, but dig deeper: It’s a workaround for the very tax compression conservatives fought for, turning “limited government” into “just enough to keep the lights on… and the lobbyists paid.“
As your ballot arrives, remember: A no vote isn’t anti-kid; it’s pro-taxpayer. Demand transparency—real audits, not TASBO check-the-boxes. And if your district’s recycling their lines like a bad country song, ask who handed them the lyrics. In Texas, we don’t do scripted surrenders. We vote our consciences, one district at a time.
This is what Fascism actually looks like
Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google and YouTube, submitted a letter on September 23, 2025, to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in response to a subpoena. The letter, authored by attorney Daniel F. Donovan of King & Spalding, details communications between the company and the Biden administration regarding content moderation on YouTube.
The letter states that senior Biden administration officials, including White House staff, conducted “repeated and sustained outreach” to Alphabet about user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate YouTube’s policies. The letter describes this outreach as creating a “political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation.“
The letter also addresses content related to the 2020 election, noting that YouTube had terminated over 8,000 channels by December 2020 for election-related violations. Thus, the terminations may be seen as a direct attempt to interfere with the election. It further indicates that the company’s policies during this period relied on input from Biden administration health authorities and those policies were maintained through 2024, until the Trump administration returned to office. Alphabet states in the letter that such government attempts to dictate content moderation are “unacceptable and wrong“, but they stop short of admitting to their own culpability.
Actions Taken by YouTube
According to the letter, YouTube removed videos and banned accounts for content on topics including vaccine efficacy, mask mandates, the lab-leak hypothesis, and election fraud claims. Among thousands affected were prominent individuals such as Dan Bongino, Sebastian Gorka, and Steve Bannon, whose accounts were permanently banned for COVID-19 or election-related content. The letter estimates that thousands of accounts were impacted overall. Others say that the number is more likely “tens of thousands”.
Policy Changes Announced
Alphabet announced in the letter that YouTube will offer reinstatement opportunities to all creators previously banned for “political speech violations” related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. The platform will no longer use third-party fact-checkers to take actions or apply labels to content. The company also expressed concerns about the European Union’s Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, stating it will remain vigilant regarding obligations that could affect content moderation.
There was no mention of any sort of compensation or reparations for those affected.
This disclosure follows similar admissions from Meta in 2024, where the company ended its third-party fact-checking program after revealing pressure from the Biden administration. The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), described Alphabet’s response as a step in its ongoing investigation into content moderation practices.
Alphabet’s letter aligns with earlier document releases from X (formerly Twitter), known as the “Twitter Files,” which detailed interactions between the platform and the Biden administration on content moderation. Initiated in December 2022 by then-new owner Elon Musk, the Twitter Files consisted of internal documents shared with journalists, revealing government pressure on Twitter to moderate content related to COVID-19, the 2020 election, and other topics.
Key installments include:
- December 2022 (Part 10, by David Zweig): Documents showed that both the Trump and Biden administrations pressured Twitter to moderate COVID-19 content, including elevating certain information and suppressing others, such as vaccine skepticism. The Biden White House requested meetings shortly after inauguration, focused on “COVID misinformation,” targeting high-profile accounts.
- Other Installments (2022): Files revealed Twitter’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story, including requests from the 2020 Biden campaign to flag or remove tweets. They also documented FBI and White House communications urging moderation of election-related content, with Twitter granting requests from both the Trump White House and Biden campaign to remove posts in 2020.
These releases contributed to broader investigations, including the House Judiciary Committee’s 2024 interim report “The Censorship-Industrial Complex,” which cited Twitter Files evidence alongside emails from the Biden White House to platforms like Twitter, showing coordinated efforts to censor content on COVID-19 and elections.
Connection to Prior Legal Proceedings
The letter aligns with findings from the 2022 lawsuit Missouri v. Biden (later Murthy v. Missouri), filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. The suit alleged that Biden administration officials coerced social media platforms, including YouTube and Twitter, to suppress content on COVID-19, elections, and other topics. In July 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction blocking certain government communications with platforms, describing the actions as an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.‘”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit partially upheld the injunction in September 2023, ruling that officials from the White House, Surgeon General’s office, CDC, and FBI likely violated the First Amendment through coercion or significant encouragement of content moderation.
The Supreme Court vacated the injunction in June 2024 in a 6-3 decision, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the plaintiffs failed to show a direct causal link between government actions and their content moderation experiences. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the case demonstrated a “successful campaign of coercion” that posed risks to free speech.
Potential Legal Recourse for Affected Individuals
Individuals and entities whose content was removed or accounts banned, such as Bongino, Gorka, Bannon, and thousands of others, may have grounds to pursue legal action against individuals in the Biden administration and Alphabet for alleged violations of First Amendment rights. Potential lawsuits could seek damages for lost revenue, reputational harm, and suppression of protected speech, alleging that government pressure led to unconstitutional collusion (fascism) with private platforms. Similar claims have been filed in cases like Justin Hart’s 2023 lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook, and Biden officials, citing Twitter Files evidence of collusion.
The full text of Alphabet’s letter is available on the House Judiciary Committee’s website. For further developments, visit PipkinsReports.com.