Fate, TX – The City of Fate is about to lose the law firm that has represented it for years.

On July 9, Andrew Messer of Messer Fort, PLLC formally notified Mayor Andrew Greenberg and the City Council that it would terminate its legal representation of the City effective July 20, giving the City just eleven days to secure new legal counsel. The brief resignation letter offers no explanation beyond stating the firm “can no longer continue to represent the City.“

That single sentence is already fueling questions inside City Hall.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the firm’s departure may help explain why longtime City Attorney Jennifer Richie was absent from the July 6 City Council meeting. Instead, founding partner Andrew Messer personally attended the meeting, an unusual move that several observers immediately noticed. Sources within City Hall say the transition away from the City had already begun.

The resignation itself is remarkably concise.

In the letter dated July 9, Andrew Messer thanked the City “for the opportunity to serve as the City Attorney for the City of Fate,” before stating that the firm could no longer continue its representation and would assist with transitioning matters to new legal counsel through July 20. No reason for the departure is provided.

Under the City’s own published description of the City Attorney’s responsibilities, legal counsel serves in one of the most influential roles in municipal government. Those duties include advising the City Council and staff on Texas open meetings law, ethics requirements, public information requests, contracts, development agreements, employment law, litigation, municipal court matters, utilities regulation, and land use issues.

The City Council is ultimately responsible for selecting legal counsel, although municipalities commonly contract with outside law firms rather than employ an in-house attorney.

While neither the City nor Messer Fort has publicly announced why the relationship is ending, multiple sources told Pipkins Reports that concerns over recent legal advice may have contributed to the firm’s decision to withdraw.

One issue concerns the City’s handling of secret audio recordings that became the subject of disputes under the Texas Public Information Act.

In recent months, Messer Fort submitted two separate requests to the Texas Attorney General seeking permission to withhold portions of audio recordings requested under the Public Information Act. According to documents previously reviewed by Pipkins Reports, the Attorney General issued different rulings for the two requests.

Sources familiar with those proceedings contend the firm chose to apply the more restrictive interpretation to both rulings rather than favoring disclosure, despite Texas law generally presuming government records are public unless an exception clearly applies.

Another dispute centered on allegations that Mayor Andrew Greenberg improperly disclosed personal medical information concerning a City employee contained within one of the recordings.

According to sources, Messer Fort argued the information should remain confidential when requesting an Attorney General ruling. However, the request allegedly failed to disclose what those same sources describe as a significant fact: the employee had died before the recording was released.

Under Texas law, privacy protections that apply to living individuals may not continue in the same manner after death, depending on the information involved and the applicable legal standards. The omission of that fact, according to sources familiar with the dispute, may have affected the Attorney General’s review of the matter.

The issue has reportedly been returned to the Attorney General’s Office for further consideration regarding what information, if any, must ultimately be withheld and what must be released to the public.

Neither Messer Fort nor Jennifer Richie has publicly commented on those allegations, and Pipkins Reports has not independently confirmed whether those matters played any role in the firm’s resignation.

For now, the City must move quickly to retain replacement counsel before July 20.

Opinion

Government attorneys occupy a unique position. They don’t represent politicians. They don’t represent bureaucrats. They represent the municipal corporation, and ultimately the public interest within the bounds of the law.

That’s why transparency matters so much.

Texas didn’t write the Public Information Act to help governments hide embarrassing records. The Legislature deliberately built the law around a presumption that public records belong to the public unless a clearly established exception applies, and governments must seek permission to withhold information.

When legal advice appears to lean toward secrecy instead of disclosure, public confidence inevitably suffers, people begin wondering whether lawyers are protecting the law, protecting city hall, or protecting chosen politicians.

Of course, none of this proves why Messer Fort resigned. It would be irresponsible to claim otherwise.

But the timing is difficult to ignore. A law firm that has represented Fate for years suddenly announces it “can no longer continue” representing the City without explanation, just days after its lead attorney is absent from a council meeting and amid ongoing disputes over public records. Texans are entitled to ask questions.

And those questions deserve answers.

Whether the resignation stems from disagreements over legal strategy, internal business decisions, or something else entirely, residents should expect the City Council to explain how it intends to move forward, who will advise the City next, and whether the legal approach to transparency will change with new counsel.

The people of Fate deserve nothing less.

Private conversations between former Mayor David Billings and City Manager Michael Kovacs raise new questions about influence, transparency, and who really had access to City Hall.

Fate, TX – Text messages obtained between former Fate Mayor David Billings and City Manager Michael Kovacs reveal a relationship that continued well after Billings left elected office—one in which the former mayor was regularly discussing active city business, asking for information unavailable to the public, and at times appearing to direct or advise the city’s chief executive officer.

The conversations, which span numerous topics, occurred between May 1, 2025 and December 31, 2025, paint the picture of a former elected official who maintained extraordinary access to City Hall without submitting Open Records Requests required of ordinary citizens.

While former elected officials frequently maintain friendships with city staff, these exchanges raise broader questions about whether Billings continued to wield informal influence over municipal operations after voters had elected a new city council.

Direct Access Outside the Open Records Process

Throughout the messages, Billings repeatedly asks Kovacs questions regarding ongoing city matters and receives prompt responses.

Rather than directing Billings to publicly available records or suggesting he submit an Open Records Request, Kovacs routinely answers questions directly, provides updates, and discusses city operations.

For residents seeking similar information, the City of Fate has frequently required formal Public Information Act requests, and in many instances has asserted legal exceptions to disclosure of city business.

The contrast between the public process and the private communications is likely to invite scrutiny.

Discussions of Active Public Safety Matters

Among the more striking conversations are discussions involving registered sex offenders.

Billings questions Kovacs about individuals living within the city and asks whether Fate has anyone violating local sexual offender restrictions.

According to the texts, Billings asks:

“Are you sure we have no one in violation of the Fate sexual offenders laws.”

Rather than declining to discuss an active law enforcement matter, Kovacs responds with detailed information about multiple individuals, explaining that one suspect had fled, another was moving away, and describing the status of investigations.

Kovacs also tells Billings that police were reviewing maps to determine whether additional offenders might be hiding within prohibited areas.

The conversation continues with Billings asking follow-up questions about which offender local residents were monitoring and commenting that he would remain silent regarding information not yet known publicly.

Later in the exchange, Billings promotes the value of automated license plate readers, noting from his own experience that they quickly tracked down criminals.

Whether any of this information was confidential under Texas law would ultimately depend on the status of the investigations and applicable law enforcement exceptions. Regardless, the exchange demonstrates that Billings was being briefed on ongoing public safety matters despite no longer serving in elected office.

A Former Mayor Giving Direction

The conversations also show Billings offering more than casual opinions.

On multiple occasions he appears to instruct or advise Kovacs regarding city operations.

Among the examples:

• Billings tells Kovacs, “You should get Codi educated and onboard.”
• Billings advises that the police chief “needs to take threats more seriously,” adding that he would explain later.
• Billings offers recommendations regarding technology and law enforcement practices.
• He regularly asks follow-up questions that resemble those of an active policymaker rather than a private citizen.

While city managers routinely receive advice from many individuals, these exchanges suggest Billings occupied a uniquely influential position long after his term ended.

The Discovery Warning

Perhaps the most revealing exchange comes when the discussion turns to Department of Public Safety matters.

Kovacs informs Billings that the text messages involving DPS (ie: Chief Lyle Lombard) will be captured during the discovery process.

Following that warning, the conversations regarding those subjects effectively stop.

For observers familiar with litigation, the significance is difficult to ignore.

Discovery is the legal process through which communications and documents become subject to production in lawsuits.

Whether Kovacs was simply acknowledging that the communications would eventually become public or signaling that sensitive discussions should no longer occur by text is open to interpretation.

What is evident is that once the prospect of discovery is raised, the subject matter changes.

For journalists, that transition may prove one of the more noteworthy portions of the exchange.

Access Not Available to Ordinary Citizens

Perhaps the broader issue raised by the messages is one of unequal access.

Residents seeking information from City Hall generally must:

• Submit formal Open Records Requests.
• Wait statutory response periods.
• Potentially pay production fees.
• Sometimes litigate withheld records.

Billings, by contrast, appears simply to send a text message directly to the City Manager.

The exchanges suggest that information concerning city operations, policing issues, development, and other municipal matters flowed privately between the city manager and a former elected official without the formal transparency mechanisms available to the public.

Whether that arrangement was appropriate is ultimately a matter for residents to decide.

Questions Raised

The messages raise several questions deserving public answers:

• Why was a former mayor receiving updates on active city business instead of obtaining information through public channels?
• What role, if any, did Billings continue to play in influencing municipal decisions after leaving office?
• Were other former elected officials afforded similar access?
• Were any discussions conducted outside the public record to avoid future disclosure?
• Should communications between city leadership and former elected officials concerning municipal business be subject to greater transparency?

None of the texts, standing alone, establish wrongdoing.

However, they do provide an unusual window into the continuing relationship between the City’s top administrator and a former mayor whose official authority had already ended.

For a community that has increasingly questioned transparency at City Hall, the messages are likely to fuel renewed debate over who truly had access to the decision-makers—and whether some voices carried more weight than others.

Read the entire conversation of text messages we have obtained here:

(Edited: Higher Resolution File Uploaded: )

Edited: Additional pages that were corrupted from above:

*Edited: Meanwhile, if you are a citizen, you get this:

HISTORY – As Americans prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it’s worth remembering something many school textbooks and social media historians tend to skip these days. The Constitution that hangs behind glass in the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom, was not America’s first constitution.

It was the second.

Long before James Madison and the delegates gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, the young nation experimented with another system of government, one born amid war, shaped by distrust of centralized authority, and ultimately abandoned when its flaws became impossible to ignore.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, formally announcing that the Thirteen Colonies of Britain considered themselves free and independent states. Yet true independence would have to be won on the battlefield.

The Revolutionary War had already begun more than a year earlier with the battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775. For eight years, General George Washington‘s Continental Army fought the British Empire through defeats, shortages, and brutal winters. Victory was never guaranteed. It would end with Britain’s surrender at Yorktown in October 1781, although the war was formally concluded with the Treaty of Paris in September 1783.

However, while the war was still raging, Congress recognized that the new nation, if it were to be successful in its rebellion, needed a framework for government.

Delegates drafted the Articles of Confederation in November 1777. After years of debate among the states, the Articles were finally ratified on March 1, 1781, becoming America’s first constitution.

The Articles established what was essentially a loose alliance of 13 sovereign states. Congress could conduct diplomacy, declare war, and manage western territories, but its powers were intentionally limited. There was no president. No national judiciary. Congress could request money from the states, but had no authority to compel payment or levy taxes.

At the time, the arrangement made sense.

Americans were still fighting for independence, and few had any appetite for creating a strong national government that might resemble the British system they were trying to escape. Nobody wanted to trade George III for another distant authority. So the states retained most of their power, and Congress remained intentionally weak.

But peace exposed weaknesses that war had masked.

States often ignored Congress. They imposed tariffs against one another, printed competing currencies, and frequently refused to contribute money to the national government. War debts mounted. Foreign powers questioned whether the United States could survive as a unified nation. There was no executive branch to enforce laws and no national courts to settle disputes.

Then came Shays’ Rebellion in 1786.

Shays’ Rebellion erupted in western Massachusetts in the fall of 1786, when farmers burdened by debt and heavy taxes faced foreclosures and possible imprisonment. Many were Revolutionary War veterans who believed they had sacrificed for independence only to find themselves losing their farms.

Led by former Continental Army captain Daniel Shays, groups of armed men shut down courts to prevent foreclosures and, in January 1787, attempted to seize the federal arsenal at Springfield. The uprising was ultimately suppressed by a privately funded state militia, but the episode sent shockwaves throughout the country. To many national leaders, the rebellion exposed the inability of the Confederation government to maintain order or provide for the common defense.

The uprising by Massachusetts farmers alarmed George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. Washington even wrote in a letter to Henry Lee that he was, “mortified beyond expression” and worried that Americans were proving incapable of self-government. James Madison viewed the rebellion as proof that excessive democracy and weak national authority endangered republican government, and Alexander Hamilton practically used the rebellion as Exhibit A to propose a stronger central government. It became painfully clear that merely tweaking the Articles would not solve the problem.

So delegates assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787 with the stated purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. But instead, they scrapped them altogether.

Over the course of four months, the Constitutional Convention produced an entirely new framework. Completed in September 1787, the United States Constitution officially took effect on March 4, 1789. It created three branches of government, gave Congress the power to tax and regulate commerce, and established a system of checks and balances intended to preserve liberty while providing enough national authority to hold the republic together.

Most importantly, the States regained most of their independence. With the Federal Government becoming the arbitrator of conflict between them. Any power not specifically specified as belonging to the federal government is reserved for the States, or the People.

Over the years, many amendments have been made. Perhaps the most disastrous amendment that is still in effect today is the 17th amendment … which stripped away representation by the States, which were so important to our founding fathers.

Opinion

Modern political debates often treat the Constitution as though it sprang into existence fully formed in 1787, but those of us who follow history understand another side of the story.

With the Articles of Confederation, the Founders first tried a decentralized system that left most authority with the States. But they learned through experience that a weak national government could be nearly as dangerous as one that is too strong.

That doesn’t mean they intended to create the sprawling administrative state Americans know today. Far from it. Their goal was balance, national unity without sacrificing liberty, federal authority restrained by checks, balances, and state sovereignty.

As the nation approaches its semiquincentennial (250th anniversary), Americans should remember that the Constitution itself was born from a humble trial and error. The Founders recognized when their first attempt wasn’t working, and had the wisdom to take steps and fix it.

It’s a reminder that self-government requires both principle and the willingness to confront reality when facts demand it.