Rep. Tan Parker doesn’t support your right to vote
Trophy Club State Representative Tan Parker says he will not support giving Texans the right to Vote on TEXIT.
01/30/2021 – Trophy Club, TX
Texas House Representative Tan Parker (R), who represents the people of Trophy Club Texas, has determined that the people of Trophy Club, albeit all Texans, do not deserve the right to vote on whether Texas has the right to secede from the United States.
A bill known as HB 1359, the Texas Independence Referendum Act (aka: Let Texas Vote; TEXIT) has been proposed by Rep. Kyle Biedermann (R) of district 73 which if passed and signed by Gov. Abbot, put the issue of Texas Secession to a vote by the People. If citizens vote, “Yes”, then the bill requires the Texas Legislature to begin the process of writing terms and to begin the negotiations with the United States.
In a statement provided to the Trophy Club Journal, Rep. Parker stated,
“Texas is a vast state with a diverse population and distinct regions. While I respect the ability of each state legislator to introduce legislation they believe to be in the best interest of their constituents, I am not in support of weakening this Nation through this notion of secession. My love for our country and the freedom we cherish led me to public service, and I will instead work to keep Texas as the state that leads for America. My focus remains on strengthening Texas’ economy, getting more Texans back to work, returning our children to the classroom, ensuring election integrity, and lessening the burden of taxes and regulation. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the United States but rather preserve our democracy and build a brighter future for every American.”
While it is admirable that Rep. Parker loves his country, what he seems to have forgotten is that he is first a representative, elected by the People of Texas to represent them in the Texas Legislature, not the United States. As a representative of the People, it is his job to follow the will of the People. In short, Texas should come first.
If the People of Trophy Club, indeed all People of District 63 where Tan Parker calls home, decide that they want the right to be able to vote on the issue themselves, and not rely upon the whims of the politically connected elitist who may have a conflict of interest, then the People should have that right.
Does Tan Parker think that the People of Trophy Club are too stupid to make this decision for themselves? Honestly, we didn’t ask that question but by following social media it’s pretty clear that many people have come to the conclusion that Rep. Parker believes so.
Already the forces against Texas secession are mustering. False rumors and opinion are being spread in the news and on social media in an attempt to nip the proposal in the bud. Chief among them is the false narrative that it is not legal for Texas to secede.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is clear with the very first document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, that our founding fathers believed that the right of the People to determine the government of their choosing is a God-given right. They specifically declared it as such in the Preamble.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So there is absolutely no question as to the right of the People of Texas to choose their representative government as far as the United States is concerned. But what about the laws of Texas?
We turn to the very first section of the Texas Constitution. Article 1 – Section 1
FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
So the Texas Constitution says we are a free and independent State in all ways except where the U.S. Constitution intervenes. Fortunately for us, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that forbids a State from leaving the Union… and why would there be? To our Founding Fathers, the right to choose self-governance is a God-given right reserved by the People.
Others on social media are clamoring about how the Civil War killed tens of thousands of people and we shouldn’t want to jump right into that again. But this argument is intended to scare people into submission and has no basis in fact.
BREXIT, a term assigned to the separation of the UK from the European Union, and the model by which the Texas Referendum was created, is essentially a contract dispute. The People of the UK voted to separate from the EU in 2016 and in 2020 the contracts were finally completed. On January 1, 2021 the UK was officially an independent sovereign nation once again. Not a single shot was fired.
The nuances of the contract dispute in terms of TEXIT are not part of the debate about whether or not Texans should assert their independence. There will be plenty of time to debate and negotiate the terms of the separation. All that is at issue right now is whether or not the People have the right to decide for themselves.
We encourage all Trophy Club Citizens to contact Tan Parker’s office and let him know how you feel about Texit, but more importantly about your right to make the decision yourself and NOT leave it up the Texas Legislature to decide for you.
##
The Trophy Club Journal is owned by Trophy Club Media, who also owns the website Texit Times and has provided the supporting documentation for this article.
Chinn and Billings Bash Senator Bob Hall
Fate, TX – The political firestorm over secret recordings inside Fate City Hall just took a sharp and deeply ironic turn. Pipkins Reports has obtained an audio recording that appears to show former Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn secretly recording a private telephone conversation with former Mayor David Billings, despite her later public criticism of the practice.
The recording, verified through multiple sources familiar with the matter, predates the recent controversy involving Mayor Andrew Greenberg‘s recorded conversation with Chinn and Councilman Mark Hatley‘s recording of a discussion with City Manager Michael Kovacs. The discovery raises uncomfortable questions about consistency, credibility, and whether Chinn’s outrage over recorded conversations has been driven more by politics, than principle.
Pipkins Reports received a copy of a 32-minute audio recording from an anonymous source who said it originated from a recording obtained through an Open Records Request submitted to the City of Fate.
Pipkins Reports has reviewed documentation related to that request and separately confirmed the recording’s authenticity through sources with knowledge of the file maintained by the city.
Much of the conversation centers around mundane talk about MUD districts. Pipkins Reports has edited the recording to a 2-minute, 47-second excerpt focusing on the discussion involving Texas Sen. Bob Hall because it is directly relevant to matters of public interest.
During the conversation, Chinn expresses frustration with Hall’s reluctance to support legislation to strengthen child protection in schools. Stating that he is, “not interested in having that conversation.” She continues, “He is interested in getting people all riled up, but when it comes time to actually do the work, and his job, he’s nowhere to be found.“
Billings echoes that frustration, and opines how he says Bob Hall, “fights dirty“, and how he has voted against cities 9 times. The conversation paints a picture of two local political figures who believe the longtime senator was not sufficiently responsive to their legislative priorities.
The policy disagreements themselves are not especially unusual. Elected officials often criticize one another behind closed doors. What makes this recording different is the hypocrisy of Chinn, stirring up outrage about “secret recordings” when she herself has been a proponent.
The Hall recording is not the only documented instance in which Chinn appears to have secretly recorded a conversation. Through a separate Open Records Request submitted by Pipkins Reports, this publication obtained a city copy of a recorded interview between Michael Pipkins and Chinn concerning her involvement in the dismissal of former Fate Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard.
That recording also predates the controversy that would inevitably follow.
According to the records produced by the City of Fate, Chinn recorded that interview without disclosing it during the conversation. The existence of multiple recordings attributed to Chinn adds additional context to the current debate over undisclosed recordings by public officials and further raises questions about the consistency between her past actions and her more recent public criticism of the practice.
But according to the evidence reviewed by Pipkins Reports, Chinn appears to have engaged, multiple times, in the very conduct she later condemned.
Texas is a one-party consent state under state law, meaning only one participant in a conversation generally must consent to its recording. If Chinn initiated or participated in the call, recording it would not necessarily violate Texas law. The issue presented here is not primarily a legal one.
It is political.
Opinion
Politics has a funny way of exposing selective outrage.
For months, Fate residents have heard lectures from Codi Chinn about how secret recordings destroy trust, poison relationships, and undermine good government. Fair enough. Those are arguments reasonable people can debate.
But what legitimate purpose would have been gained by Chinn recording a conversation with the Former Mayor?
Given this revelation, it’s possible that the recordings by others that followed Chinn, may have been a defense mechanism (even unconsciously), over a situation that they could feel was off. Couple that with the deceptions that we now know were taking place by Chinn, and other council members, as well as the city manager, and it appears that there might have been a valid justification for both Greenberg and Hatley to take the actions that they did.
There’s another layer here which is important to understand as to why Pipkins Reports chose to clip this section of the audio. Chinn and Billings were not merely venting about Sen. Hall. They were criticizing an elected state senator over legislation affecting Fate, as well as Rockwall County in general, and discussing his approach to measures involving child safety in schools. Voters deserve to hear how public officials truly feel about those issues, and how they discuss those issues when they believe no one else is listening.
This recording doesn’t settle every argument currently consuming City Hall. It does, however, remove any illusion that only one side has participated in private recordings.
Sometimes the loudest critics leave behind the clearest evidence.
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.
Fate, TX
Exclusive: Text Messages Reveal Former Fate Mayor Continued to Receive Inside Access to City Hall After Leaving Office
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:
