Weaponization of Government in Fate, TX
Did city attorney Jon Thatcher deliberately mislead our City Council into voting for an Ordinance to grant every city department to write citations? It would appear so.
On August 7, 2023, at the City Council meeting, an alarming ordinance was unveiled that could shake the very foundations of the freedoms we hold dear. City Attorney Jon Thatcher presented Ordinance No. O-2023-022, a seemingly innocuous “Citation Program,” with a sinister underbelly that threatens to weaponize our government against its own citizens.
Under the cloak of vague language, Thatcher’s proposal allows designated individuals to wield the authority of criminal citations. While he assured the council with direct statements that this ordinance would be confined to the Community Services and Public Works departments, the written text of the ordinance tells a different story. The deliberately ambiguous wording opens the floodgates for any department director to unleash this power. The main paragraph of the ordinance reads (emphasis added):
“In addition to any express authority provided in this Code, the director of the City departments including Community Services and Public Works may issue one or more citations to a person to appear in Municipal Court, if the director reasonably believes that the person has engaged in conduct that violates a law or ordinance that relates to the operations of the department for which the director is responsible as assigned by the City Manager.”
Section 1-16 b(1)
Nowhere in the ordinance is there any sort of exclusionary language to limit the ordinance to the two departments as portrayed by Jon Thatcher. However, at least some of the Council believed that there was.
Council Member Heather Buegeler’s casual remark during the meeting exposes the deception at play in real time – she acknowledged the change in the ordinance’s scope, echoing Thatcher’s false representation. “I would have approved this the last time”, she said. Tepid laughter ensued from the council after her remark. Her words mirror the depth of the issue at hand, where misdirection hides behind eloquent assurances.
An Inescapable Crisis
The Council’s unanimous approval of this proposal raises questions about their accountability. Their actions and explanations, while revealing their intentions, fail to justify the lack of scrutiny given to the ordinance’s language. Mayor Pro Tem Allen Robbins, Councilman Scott Kelley, Councilman Lance Megyesi, and Councilman Mark Harper each shared their perspective in response to our inquiry.
- Mayor Pro Tem Allen Robbins – “We currently have code enforcement and citation authority in building inspection, structure, construction, streets, animal control, fire, water and sewer but none for storm water. To enforce existing ordinances, I voted in favor to codify the enforcement/citation program to remain consistent across all departments and services. Nothing changes to existing ordinances, violations or penalties. Only the ordinance granting enforcement and citation to the experts in the field.”
- Councilman Scott Kelley – “Regarding my vote on item 6d: I supported this item as a way to streamline and speed up the process to address code enforcement issues. By allowing this process we can more quickly address issues like stormwater runoff that have impacted several areas in town recently, especially our older neighborhoods but also in our developments where corporate owners may be incented to not address issues timely. I am for having efficient processes to address issues that can create significant pain points for our homeowners and residents.”
- Councilman Lance Megyesi – “Ordinance 2023-022 will codify the delegation of such authority to code enforcement officers and will additionally authorize specific employees within the public works department to issue citations for violations limited to the City’s ordinances regulating the City’s stormwater management program.”
- Councilman Mark Harper – “My vote was yes. I voted yes because this is needed for the efficient operation of the city in the sewer and storm water area. I feel sufficient checks and balances are in the ordinance to provide the best service to residents without the ability to overreach authority.”
Mr. Robbins, later responded in a follow up email that he, “… read and understand all ordinances I vote on. No exceptions. Your assertion that I voted based on “verbal assurances” is completely wrong and without fact. My previous reply stands. The ability to safeguard our community and enforce existing ordinances with a citation program is needed”.
The following represents analysis and interpretation based on public records, statements, and observations.
So this basically means that he completely understood that Mr. Thatcher was misrepresenting the language of the ordinance. It raises questions about whether miscommunication or deeper coordination may have influenced the vote, which warrants further scrutiny. One could only wonder what the legal implications of this might be.
The other explanations may be proof that they based their vote on false representations made by Mr. Thatcher. Indeed, one can only view the recorded video on the town’s website to see the misrepresentations made by Mr. Thatcher. You can view the video for yourself here: https://fatetx.new.swagit.com/videos/268576 The agenda item is 6D and the video begins at about 2:15:00 in the player.
The Crossroads We Face
This isn’t merely a case of miscommunication or misinterpretation; it’s an issue of the utmost importance for our community. Aside from Mr. Robbins, did the Council members genuinely overlook the language, or was their vote a result of more troubling collusion? We must ponder whether ignorance or collusion is the greater evil.
Furthermore, Mr. Thatcher’s response to our email inquiry was simply to send us a copy of the ordinance and direct our attention to the very paragraph that indicates the conflict between his statements and the written language. He did not provide a substantive explanation when requested, leaving room for interpretation about his intentions. The absence of a straightforward explanation raises pertinent questions about his intent or ignorance in this matter.
The lack of clarification by Mr. Thatcher fuels concerns that his veiled language and obfuscation were likely purposeful, leaving the community to grapple with uncertainty and unease. As a city, we deserve clarity, transparency, and accountability from those entrusted with our governance.
The truth is clear – Mr. Thatcher’s deliberate obfuscation demands action. Whether he intentionally misled the Council or incompetently drafted the ordinance, his role in this matter is untenable. He must be held accountable. Admonishment must also be given to the council by the citizens, for they have failed in their duty to vet the facts of what they are voting on.
The ordinance’s passage under false pretenses, if not to the Council itself, but most assuredly to the People, is an affront to the principles of honesty and transparency that our city deserves. If even a single Council member sees the deception, they must demand immediate repeal of the ordinance.
Preserving Our Community’s Integrity
The implications of this ordinance are dire. This ordinance is not limited to a single department or a specific violation, despite claims to the contrary. It opens the door to a future where any city director can wield the sword of citations against us. Imagine facing criminal charges for the slightest infraction, with escalating fines accruing daily that could spiral into the thousands. This isn’t the community we envision.
This isn’t about partisan politics or bureaucratic jargon. It’s about safeguarding the sanctity of our community and the freedom of its citizens. The weaponization of government against its own people is a harrowing reality we cannot ignore. Lest we forget, our elected leaders are supposed to represent the People, NOT the City. It’s not their job to put in an efficient, fast lane for city employees to persecute citizens.
It falls upon each of us to rise, unite, and demand accountability. Our voices, our unity, can be the catalyst for change. Let’s hold our leaders accountable, ensure transparency, and prevent the weaponization of our government against its citizens.
The choice is ours – to either allow deception and unchecked power to erode our community’s foundation or to stand strong and fight for the future we deserve.
###
We only publish verifiable content. You may find the entire ordinance here: https://www.fatetx.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/10004?fileID=31083
You can find the video here: https://fatetx.new.swagit.com/videos/268576
Our email correspondence is documented and quoted, however it’s not conducive to publish them all in their entirety. We will however retain the records for litigation if it is ever required or if it is requested by a court of law.
Editors Note:
This article reports on Ordinance No. O-2023-022 using public records, video recordings, and documented correspondence. Sections labeled “Analysis” represent the author’s interpretation of events and do not assert the personal intent or misconduct of named officials. All factual references—including ordinance language and council statements—are verifiable through the provided links.
How Fate registered a developer’s project domain after seeing it in official plans, then fought to keep that fact hidden
FATE, TX – Cities are expected to regulate development, not steal its name.
Records obtained by Pipkins Reports show the City of Fate registered the domain name of a private development, lafayettecrossing.com, while actively working with the developer who had already claimed that name in official plans. The move, made quietly during a heated approval process, raises serious questions about whether Fate’s city government crossed from partner to predator, taking digital ownership of a project it was supposed to oversee with neutrality and good faith… and depriving the developer of their rights to domain ownership.
What followed, attempts to conceal the purchase, shifting explanations from city officials, and a documented pattern of advocacy on behalf of the developer, suggests the domain registration was not an accident, but part of a broader effort to control the narrative around one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.
A site plan submitted by the developer, D-F Funds GP, LLC, led by Robert Yu, shows the project title “Lafayette Crossing” clearly identified in the title block on December 20, 2023. The document was part of the city’s official development review for the controversial project at the corner of I-30 and Highway 551.
Less than two months later, on February 7, 2024, the City of Fate registered the domain lafayettecrossing.com, Invoice #116953461, for $12.
Domain records confirm the registration date, with the domain set to expire on February 7, 2027. By that point, Lafayette Crossing was already the established name of the project, used by the developer and embedded in official plans circulating within City Hall.
This was not a coincidence. The city had the plans from the developer. Their were extensive talks regarding the project. Then the city registered the domain without the knowledge of the developer. This is known in the industry as, “Cybersquatting.”
The development, originally referred to as the “Yu Tract,” became known as Lafayette Crossing as it moved through the approval process. The project ignited intense public opposition over density, traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the long-term direction of Fate’s growth. Despite sustained resistance and packed council chambers, the city council approved the project.
The political fallout was severe. In the elections that followed, four council members and the mayor were replaced, an extraordinary level of turnover that reflected deep voter dissatisfaction. Two members from that Council, Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, remain, but are up for reelection this May.
That context matters, because the domain registration did not occur in isolation. It occurred amid a broader, documented pattern of city officials actively working to shape public perception in favor of the developer.
In February 2024, Pipkins Reports, then operating as the Fate Tribune, published an exposé based on internal city emails showing City Manager Michael Kovacs discussing strategies to “educate” the public about Lafayette Crossing. In those emails, Kovacs suggested deploying what he referred to as “Fire Support,” a term used to describe both paid and unpaid advocates brought forward to counter citizen opposition and astroturf public support for the project.
That reporting revealed a city government not merely responding to public concerns, but actively attempting to manage and counter them.
In a later publication, Pipkins Reports (Fate Tribune) documented the City of Fate’s hiring of Ryan Breckenridge of BRK Partners, engaging in what records showed to be a coordinated public relations effort aimed at improving the project’s image and swaying public sentiment. The campaign was presented as informational, but residents viewed it as advocacy on behalf of the developer, funded with public resources.
It was within this environment, where city staff had already aligned themselves publicly and privately with the developer’s interests, that the city registered the lafayettecrossing.com domain. Yet that fact remained hidden until PipkinsReports.com submitted an Open Records Request on September 30, 2025, seeking a list of all domains owned by the city.
Rather than comply, the City of Fate objected. On October 14, 2025, officials asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for permission to withhold the records, citing “cybersecurity” concerns.
On January 6, 2026, the Attorney General rejected that claim and ordered the information released. The city complied on January 20, 2026.
In addition to the lafayettecrossing.com domain, the records revealed the city owns numerous domains tied to redevelopment and branding initiatives, including:
- FateTX.gov
- DowntownFate.com
- FateFoodHaul.com
- FateMainStreet.com
- FateStationHub.com
- FateStationMarket.com
- FateStationPark.com
- FateStationSpur.com
- OldTownFate.com
- TheHubAtFateStation.com
- TheSpurAtFateStation.com
- ForwardFate.com
Most clearly relate to city-led initiatives. LafayetteCrossing.com stands apart because it mirrors the established name of a private development already proposed, named, and publicly debated.
When questioned via email, Assistant City Manager Steven Downs initially suggested the domain purchase occurred long before his involvement and downplayed any potential issues. When we revealed documents to show Downs was actively engaged with the project at the same time the Lafayette Crossing name entered the city’s official workflow, his story changed.
In follow-up correspondence, Downs acknowledged he was aware of the project name, while placing responsibility for the domain purchase on former Assistant City Manager Justin Weiss. Downs stated he did not know whether the developer was aware of the purchase and said he was not concerned about potential liability.
What remains unexplained is why the city registered the domain at all, knowing it belonged to a private project, and why it attempted to keep that information from the public.
Opinion
Viewed in isolation, a $12 domain purchase might seem trivial. Viewed in context, it is not.
When a city that has already worked to astroturf support, hire public relations firms, and counter citizen opposition also quietly registers a developer’s project domain, then attempts to conceal that information from the public, the line between regulator and advocate disappears.
The question is no longer whether the city knew the name. The record shows it did.
The question is why a city government so deeply invested in selling a controversial project to its residents felt the need to take ownership of the project’s digital identity as well.
Control of messaging, control of perception, and control of narrative are powerful tools. Sometimes it is equally as important to control what is not said.
Councilman Mark Harper walks out of meeting before adjournment.
FATE, TX – The Fate City Council voted late Monday night to waive deliberative privilege, opening the door to the public release of secret audio recordings that may have driven a recall election against Councilwoman Codi Chinn. The decision came after hours of public criticism, procedural friction, and a lengthy executive session with legal counsel.
The meeting, held Monday, February 2, was streamed live by the city and is available on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/live/zQVN0i-d8C0 (Embedded Below)
(Source: City of Fate, official meeting broadcast)
Timeline for Readers
- 00:33:52 – Public comments begin, largely focused on the recall election of Councilwoman Codi Chinn.
- 00:56:10 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 00:57:00 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 00:58:00 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 02:21:00 – Executive Session – Council enters closed session to consult with legal counsel.
- 03:22:52 – Council reconvenes in open session.
- Primary motion – Council votes to “waive deliberative privilege”, allowing release of disputed audio recordings.
Public Comment and Visible Strain
Public comments began just after the 33 minute mark and quickly centered on the recall election. Speaker after speaker questioned the conduct of city officials and demanded transparency regarding audio recordings that have circulated privately but remained unavailable to the public.
During one speaker’s remarks, critical of Councilwoman Chinn, procedural tension became visible. Three separate times, Councilman Mark Harper interrupted to remind Mayor Andrew Greenberg that the speaker had exceeded the three-minute time limit. Each time, Mayor Greenberg thanked Harper for the reminder, then directed the speaker to continue.
The exchange stood out. While council rules clearly limit speakers to three minutes, the mayor’s repeated decision to allow the speaker to proceed suggested an effort to avoid the appearance of silencing criticism during a highly charged meeting.
Clarifying the Recordings
Contrary to some early assumptions, the audio recordings at issue were not recordings of executive sessions. Instead, they are one-party consent recordings, the existence of which has been previously reported and alluded to on Pipkins Reports. Their precise origin has not been publicly detailed, but their contents have been referenced repeatedly by both supporters and critics of the recall effort.
Behind Closed Doors
Following the public meeting, the council entered executive session to consult with legal counsel. After about an hour, members returned to open session at approximately 3:22:52 .
The primary motion coming out of that session was to “waive deliberative privilege“. The effect of the vote was to remove a legal obstacle to releasing the secret audio recordings that have been at the center of the controversy.
No excerpts were played, and no conclusions were announced. The council did not rule on the legality of the recordings, nor did it weigh in on the merits of the recall election itself.
Why the Vote Matters
The decision does not resolve the recall of Councilwoman Chinn. It does not validate or refute claims made by either side. What it does is shift the debate away from rumor and secondhand accounts.
According to guidance from the Texas Municipal League, governing bodies may waive certain privileges when transparency is deemed to serve the public interest, particularly when litigation risk is balanced against public trust (Texas Municipal League, Open Meetings Act resources).
Opinion and Perspective
The council’s action was a necessary step. Secret recordings, selectively referenced and strategically leaked, undermine confidence in local government. So does a refusal to confront them directly.
Transparency is not about protecting officials from embarrassment. It is NOT the job of the council to assist the city in concealing information that may be used against it in legal proceedings when the City Manager, or Councilmen, may have done bad things. It is about protecting citizens from manipulation. If the recordings exonerate those involved, their release will restore credibility. If they raise concerns, voters deserve to hear them unfiltered before making decisions in a recall election.
Monday night in Fate did not end the controversy. It ended the excuse for keeping the public in the dark.
ROCKWALL, TX — Texas State Sen. Bob Hall appeared before voters at Rockwall County’s Final Friday Night Forum, on Friday. The appearance renewed online criticism from supporters of his primary challenger which brought attention back to a decades-old allegation from a former marriage and also to social-media comments allegidily attributed to Hall’s wife.
The renewed discussion did not stem from new legal filings, court actions, or investigative reporting. Instead, it followed social-media posts by individuals publicly supporting Hall’s opponent, Jason Eddington, including Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, whose sharply worded statements have drawn attention for both their substance and tone.
The Forum and the Race
The forum was hosted by Blue Ribbon News in partnership with the Rockwall County Republican Party, and held at the Rockwall County Courthouse. It marked the final event in a series intended to give Republican voters an opportunity to hear directly from candidates ahead of the March primary.
Other candidates in attendance included:
- Rockwall County Judge
- Frank New
- Scott Muckensturm
- County Commissioner, Precinct 4
- John Stacy
- James Branch
- Lorne Megyesi
- Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2
- Victor Carrillo
- Chris Florance
Pipkins Reports could find no official transcript or video of the forum. According to available coverage, the event proceeded without public discussion of personal controversies, and no candidate addressed the matter from the stage.
Background on the Allegations
The most damaging allegations currently being recirculated date back to divorce proceedings in Florida in the early 1990s, during which Hall’s former wife, Jane Hall, made claims in court filings alleging physical, verbal, and sexual abuse during their marriage.
The allegations, raised during a contested divorce, as they often do. Bob Hall has denied the allegations. No criminal charges were filed. No court ruled against Hall or issued a finding of abuse. The filings did not result in convictions, injunctions, or adverse judgments.
The allegations became publicly discussed during Hall’s first Senate campaign in 2014 and have resurfaced intermittently during contested elections. Their latest reappearance coincides with the current Republican primary and has been driven by individuals openly advocating for Hall’s opponent.
Explicit Attribution and Political Context
Following the January 30 forum, Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, who has publicly endorsed Jason Eddington, posted a statement on social media criticizing Hall and urging Republican voters to support Eddington.
In her post, Chinn wrote:
“Senator Bob Hall I expect you will be making a statement issuing an apology on behalf of your wife for body shaming a woman simply because you don’t ideologically agree with her. These comments are shameful and your silence is deafening. Being Republican shouldn’t mean being small minded. I hope Republican Primary voters will pick the true Conservative Jason Eddington, Candidate for Texas Senate, District 2!”
Critics of Chinn, including some local Republican activists, say the post reflects what they describe as a pattern of caustic and confrontational rhetoric directed at individuals she opposes politically. It’s ironic that Chinn requests accountability for language of others, while she herself asks for forgiveness of her digressions in her bid to not be recalled. Supporters of Chinn, by contrast, characterize her comments as blunt advocacy and a willingness to publicly challenge those with whom she disagrees.
Amplification by a Political Social Media Page
On January 31 at 10:57 p.m., the Facebook page Rockwall County News First published a post calling on the Rockwall County Republican Party to condemn comments attributed to Hall’s wife. The page credited Codi Crimson Chinn as the source of screenshots included in the post.
The post stated:
“We hope that Rockwall County Republican Party will join us in condemning Senator Bob Hall’s wife in her comments.”
The screenshots included in the post purport to show comments written by Kay Hall, Senator Hall’s wife. The screenshots have not been independently authenticated by this publication. According to the screenshots, the comments attributed to Kay Hall read:
“Oh, yes, so disgusting to see Jill get up an speak. She and all of the TFRW little people are in their element. Wish I had recorded her speech, or even more wish I had stood up in the room to tell everyone how she got the Democrats to vote for her in the election. The pictures are very flattering to her because she has gained weight and really looked aged. I am sitting across from Bob near the podium. too, close!!!”
As of publication, neither Senator Hall nor his wife has publicly confirmed the authenticity of the screenshots or issued a statement regarding the comments.
Hall’s Position and Current Status
Hall has not publicly addressed the social-media posts and did not respond to our request for comment. He has previously stated, during earlier campaigns, that efforts to revive allegations from his former marriage are politically motivated and unrelated to any legal findings or his conduct in office.
Hall is currently married to Sarah Kay Smith Hall, with whom he has three children. There are no legal actions or criminal allegations involving his current marriage. The current controversy centers on online posts circulated by political opponents and their supporters.
Conclusion
The Final Friday Night Forum was intended to focus voter attention on policy differences among Republican candidates. In the days following the event, however, the race shifted toward personal disputes fueled by online posts from supporters of Hall’s challenger, including commentary that some observers describe as emblematic of an increasingly sharp-edged political style.
As the March primary approaches, voters in Senate District 2 must weigh not only policy and legislative records, but also the motivations and methods used by campaigns and their advocates. Whether the renewed criticism is viewed as relevant scrutiny or as opposition-driven escalation remains a question for the electorate to decide.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login