What are the opening hours?

Saturday 8am - 5pm Sunday 8am - 5pm

Pipkins Reports, Fate, TX (2026)

From North to South, East to West—uncovering truths since 2016.

01/19/2026

California’s Billionaire Wealth Tax Sends Rich People Fleeing to Texas and Florida

Google Co-Founder Heads to Florida

Sacramento, CA. – A seismic shift in California’s economic landscape is quietly underway as lawmakers and union backers push a controversial billionaire wealth tax. What was pitched as a modest 5 percent levy on the ultra-wealthy has exposed more serious threats to innovation and property rights — and it has already driven one of the state’s most famous founders out of California. Google co-founder Larry Page has relocated to Florida, driven in part by provisions in the tax that could assess billions of dollars on unrealized gains tied to super-voting Class B stock.

The proposal — officially titled the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act — would impose a one-time 5 percent charge on the net worth of individuals whose worldwide assets exceed $1 billion as of January 1, 2026. Supporters frame it as a targeted revenue source for healthcare, food assistance, and education, critics warn the tax’s mechanics could reshape American capital formation.

What the Proposal Actually Does
Under the initiative, wealth is defined as total global net worth, including publicly traded stocks, private business interests, intellectual property, and other assets — excluding most real estate and certain retirement accounts. Rather than taxing only realized income, the tax includes unrealized gains in asset value. That means founders may owe tax on increases in stock value they have never sold.

The language of the proposal goes a step further: it treats voting power as though it were equivalent to economic ownership for founders with dual-class stock structures. In Silicon Valley, it is common for founders to hold Class B super-voting shares that confer control with far less economic interest than voting interest. Under the initiative’s valuation rules, a founder with 3 percent of a company’s economic shares but 30 percent voting control could be treated, for tax purposes, as owning 30 percent of the company — multiplying their taxable wealth many times over.

Economists have pointed out that this “voting power equals ownership” assumption effectively taxes phantom wealth — value that exists on paper but is not proportionate to actual economic ownership. The result: tax bills far greater than a simple 5 percent of net worth might suggest, particularly for founders of tech companies structured around dual-class stock.

Exodus of Billionaires Begins
The reaction among California’s wealthy has been dramatic. Larry Page, whose super-voting Class B shares give him outsized control at Alphabet, has purchased multiple high-value properties in Florida and moved many business entities out of California. His relocation comes amid widespread concerns that the wealth tax could penalize founders disproportionately based on voting shares rather than actual economic stake.

Venture capitalist Peter Thiel has also publicly mobilized against the tax, donating millions to efforts to defeat it and shifting aspects of his business operations to Miami. Other tech leaders and investors are reconsidering their California footprint, with some establishing offices or residences in states like Texas or Florida.

Economic and Legal Concerns
Economists and legal scholars caution that enforcing a tax on unrealized gains is inherently complex. Valuing privately held assets and dual-class stock structures invites disputes and litigation. The retroactive assessment based on residency at a fixed date could expose residents to significant tax bills even if they had intended to leave the state before the tax was implemented.

Critics also argue that using voting power as a proxy for economic value could violate constitutional protections against uncompensated takings, as it effectively treats control rights — not purely economic interest — as taxable property. Legal challenges are almost certain if the measure qualifies for the ballot and is approved by voters.

Political Clash
Supporters, including union leaders and some progressive advocates, say the tax would help fill budget gaps in healthcare and social services created by federal spending cuts. They maintain that the ultra-wealthy have benefited disproportionately from California’s economy and should contribute more.

Governor Gavin Newsom (D), has distanced himself from the proposal, warning that it threatens investment and could accelerate capital flight. Business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Business Roundtable have echoed those warnings, describing the tax as a “dangerous wealth tax” that could harm the state’s competitiveness.

Broader Implications
California’s billionaire tax debate has quickly transcended local politics to become a national test case. If approved by voters in November 2026, it could encourage similar initiatives elsewhere, particularly in high-tax states. At the same time, the backlash has highlighted the risks of taxing unrealized gains — a feature that economists and tax policy experts say is untested and could disrupt capital formation.

For states like Texas and Florida, which champion low taxes and economic freedom, California’s experiment presents both a contrast and an opportunity. As capital and executives reassess their domiciles, the business climate and economic growth of states without such wealth taxes may benefit.

Larry Page’s move to Florida is not just a personal choice. It is a symbolic indicator of where capital flows in response to policy. Once talent and wealth leave, they seldom return. California’s experiment in wealth taxation should give pause not only to its voters but to every state considering similar schemes.

Sources:
Tax Foundation, “The Proposed California Wealth Tax Is Far Higher than 5 Percent,” January 2026.
California Attorney General Initiative Text, “2026 Billionaire Tax Act.”
Business Insider, “Larry Page Continues His California Exile with Florida Property Purchases,” January 2026.
Yahoo Finance, “Peter Thiel’s $3 Million Donation to Defeat California Wealth Tax,” January 2026.
WebProNews, “Dual-Class Voting Share Valuation Sparks Silicon Valley Outrage,” January 2026.

**This post first appeared in Pipkins Reports .com

01/16/2026

Talarico’s Texas Takeover? New Poll Shows Democratic Senate Race Tilting Against Crockett

Dallas, TX — A seismic shift in the 2026 Texas Democratic U.S. Senate primary has unsettled party operatives and raised questions about the viability of one of the party’s most visible progressive figures. According to a new Emerson College Polling/Nexstar Media survey released January 15, 2026, State Rep. James Talarico holds a nine-point lead over U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett among likely Democratic primary voters. Talarico’s 47 percent support to Crockett’s 38 percent, with 15 percent undecided, signals a remarkable reversal from a December survey in which Crockett held a clear lead.

The poll results make the March 3 primary a focal point of Texas politics, with implications that stretch from the Democratic Party’s ideological battles to the broader contest for control of the U.S. Senate. At a time when Democrats hoped to topple the Republican stranglehold on statewide offices in Texas, internal party dynamics — and voter preferences — are now in sharper focus.

Shift in Voter Preferences
The Emerson poll, conducted January 10–12 with a sample of 413 likely Democratic primary voters, shows Talarico with broad support across key demographic groups. He leads among Hispanic voters at approximately 59 percent and among white voters at roughly 57 percent. Crockett, while commanding strong loyalty among Black Democratic voters — roughly 80 percent back her — struggles to match Talarico’s cross-sectional appeal.

In the same survey, gender splits emerged: men favored Talarico by a wide margin, while women’s support was nearly evenly divided between the two candidates. With a sizable share of Democratic voters still undecided, the primary remains fluid — but Talarico’s edge appears solid at the moment.

Who Are the Candidates?
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Dallas) has been a dynamic presence within Texas Democratic politics since her election to Congress in 2022. Known for her unapologetic progressive rhetoric and criticism of Republican leadership, Crockett quickly became a national figure among the party’s left wing. Early polling suggested she was the Democratic favorite to win the Senate nomination, tapping into energy among urban progressives.

State Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) has taken a different approach. A former educator with a reputation for grassroots organizing and a comparatively moderate tone on certain issues, Talarico has worked to broaden his appeal beyond traditional Democratic strongholds. His Senate campaign, which has reportedly raised more than $13 million since its launch, emphasizes his capacity to unite diverse factions of the Democratic electorate.

Their differing campaign strategies are reflected in the latest figures: Crockett’s base remains deeply loyal, particularly among Black voters, while Talarico’s performance with Hispanic and white voters has propelled him ahead in the overall count.

Republican Landscape and Broader Stakes
While Democratic eyes are fixed on their own intraparty struggle, the Republican side of the Texas Senate race also reflects volatility. The Emerson poll indicates that Sen. John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton are locked in a tight GOP primary contest that could head to a runoff if neither candidate reaches a majority. Both Republicans remain below 30 percent support among likely GOP voters, underscoring ongoing divisions within the party.

Looking ahead to the general election, early hypothetical matchups show Republicans maintaining an advantage in this deeply red state, with Cornyn and Paxton both holding leads in polls against the Democratic contenders. Yet with the Democrats’ primary unsettled and a significant share of voters undecided, the path to victory for either party remains complex and contingent on turnout patterns in November.

Historical Context and Trends
Texas has not elected a Democratic U.S. Senator since 1988, a generational drought that has shaped the party’s approach to statewide races. In recent cycles, Democratic candidates have occasionally narrowed margins but fallen short of victory. Crockett’s initial strong polling reflected belief among some observers that her charisma and progressive credentials might overcome historical headwinds. However, the rapid swing in favor of Talarico suggests voters may prioritize electability in a conservative state.

The shifting polls also highlight internal debates within the Texas Democratic coalition over identity, strategy, and how to appeal to a statewide electorate that still tilts Republican. How the candidates navigate these conversations — and how they position themselves against Republican opponents — will likely shape the party’s fortunes in 2026 and beyond.

Conclusion: A Party at a Crossroads
From my vantage point, as someone who approaches politics through a constitutional conservative lens, the Democratic primary in Texas illustrates deeper tensions within that party: a clash between ideological purity and pragmatic calculation. Crockett’s progressive firebrand brand once made her the favorite among activists, but her apparent inability to expand beyond her base underscores the challenges of winning statewide in a state where conservative voters still outnumber Democrats. Talarico’s rise suggests that Democratic voters themselves may be responding to the cold arithmetic of electability rather than purely ideological factors.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, the general election will be an uphill battle for the party in Texas. Republicans remain firmly positioned, and the competitive primary may deplete resources that could have been directed toward a unified campaign against GOP nominees. If Democrats hope to flip a Senate seat for the first time in nearly four decades, they will need cohesion, strong turnout, and a candidate capable of bridging ideological divides.

For now, the story is not just Crockett versus Talarico — it is a reflection of Texas’s evolving political identity, where margins are tight, and electoral fortunes can turn on a single poll. Only voters themselves, and the campaigns that engage them between now and March, will determine which narrative prevails.

Sources:
Emerson College Polling/Nexstar Media survey, January 15, 2026.
Texas Tribune reporting on Emerson poll results.
Newsmax analysis of Texas primary polling trends.
Black Enterprise – Crockett is behind in polls.

** This post first appeared on Pipkins Reports .com

01/13/2026

Recall Pressure Mounts as Petition Targeting Codi Chinn Reaches Required Signatures

Fate, Texas — A recall effort targeting Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn escalated sharply after organizers behind the petition announced they had collected enough signatures to meet the threshold required under the city charter, setting the stage for a recall election in May.

According to organizers, the petition, submitted yesterday, contains 403 signatures from registered Fate voters, exceeding the minimum threshold of 351 signatures required under the charter. City Secretary Vickey Raduechel is expected to validate the signatures and determine whether the petition is sufficient. If certified, the Fate City Council will be legally obligated to call a recall election, placing Chinn’s political future directly in the hands of voters.

From Petition to Ballot
The recall effort began formally on January 5, 2026, when an application for a recall petition under Fate’s home rule charter was filed with the City.

Within hours of that filing, Chinn received a copy of the petition via her official city email account. She subsequently published images of the document on social media using her personal Facebook profile, exposing the names, signatures, and home addresses of all recall committee members.

That decision became a catalyst—galvanizing supporters of the recall while intensifying criticism of Chinn’s conduct as an elected official.

Beyond the mechanics of the petition itself, several residents pointed to Chinn’s own conduct as an accelerant to the recall effort. In recent months, Chinn has engaged in online exchanges that critics describe as unprofessional and caustic—at times directed not at political opponents, but at individuals who had previously supported her. For many voters, that behavior was viewed as unbecoming of an elected official and inconsistent with the expectations of public service. Coupled with her prominent role in the termination of Fate DPS Chief Lyle Lombard, these actions appear to have served as a catalyst for the unusually swift and decisive outpouring of support behind the recall petition.

From Chinn’s perspective, however, the unfolding backlash is framed very differently. In public comments and online posts, she has portrayed herself as a “freedom fighter,” casting her actions as principled stands taken in the face of overwhelming opposition. Chinn has suggested that the criticism directed at her reflects resistance from a crowd unwilling to accept dissenting views, rather than dissatisfaction with her conduct or decisions. To her supporters, this framing underscores conviction and resolve; to critics, it further illustrates the widening gap between Chinn’s self-perception and how her leadership style is received by a growing segment of the electorate.

Pipkins Reports reached out to Councilman Chinn for a response to the submission of the recall petition. She did not respond prior to publication.

The Signature Drive
What followed was an aggressive and highly organized signature drive that unfolded both online and on the ground. Recall organizers coordinated neighborhood canvassing, direct outreach to registered voters, and private meetups to gather signatures during the charter’s circulation window.

Multiple sources involved in the effort described turnout that exceeded expectations, particularly among longtime residents and voters who had previously remained disengaged from city politics.

What the Council Must Do Now
Under Fate’s charter, once a recall petition is verified, the City Council has no discretion to block or delay the process. The council must formally order a recall election within a defined timeframe, with the election date set in accordance with Texas election law.

If the timing holds steady, the recall is expected to be placed on the May election ballot along with the election of two other offices, Place 2 & Place 3, which are currently held by Mark Harper and Scott Kelley, respectively. Fortunately for Fate Citizens, this process would ensure no additional cost above and beyond the normal election.

Ironically, this puts all three Councilmen, who played a role in the removal of Chief Lyle Lombard on the same ballot. As for Chinn, there would not be an opponent running against her. Instead, the recall ballot will present voters with a simple question: whether Codi Chinn should be removed from office before the expiration of her term, which is May of 2027.

The outcome will be decided by a simple majority. If it passes, and Chinn is removed, the vacancy will be filled by the Council.

If the recall fails, Chinn will retain her seat for the remainder of her term. Politically, however, the survival of a recall may not equate to stability. A failed recall would still leave a deeply divided electorate and a council struggling to function cohesively.

Either outcome will reverberate far beyond the ballot box.

A Decision Now in Voters’ Hands
With the petition certified (shortly) and an election looming, the recall effort will move out of City Hall and into the public square where it belongs. The coming weeks will test not only Chinn’s political support but the capacity of Fate’s civic culture to withstand sustained conflict.

The final judgment will not be rendered in Facebook comments, council chambers, or competing press releases—but at the ballot box, where Fate voters will decide whether this chapter ends with removal, redemption, or something in between.

*This post first appeared on Pipkins Reports .com

01/09/2026

Lombard’s Performance Review – Part 2. How a DPS Chief Got Railroaded due to Politics, Deception & Corruption

**This article is better read on PipkinsReports.com where it can be viewed with proper emphasis, formatting & contains hyperlinks and downloadable documents. It is reprinted herein for your convenience.**

Fate, Texas – This is Part 2 of an ongoing investigation into the political firestorm engulfing Fate over the ousting of DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.

In this installment, records obtained by Pipkins Reports via an Open Records Request (ORR) are placed side by side: Police Chief Lyle Lombard’s performance evaluations, the official letter terminating his employment, and the chief’s detailed written rebuttal. Together, they reveal a pattern of shifting claims and material inconsistencies used to justify a firing that internal records had not supported just months earlier. As the documents are examined in full, a clearer picture emerges of how it appears that Lombard was methodically railroaded, not for professional failure, but for reasons that appear personal, political, and wholly disconnected from public safety.

The controversy erupted publicly after the November 21, 2025 termination of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard, a veteran lawman who had led Fate’s police and fire operations for years. City officials claimed the firing stemmed from performance issues. But documents, audio recordings, and timelines reviewed by Pipkins Reports suggest a far more troubling story, one involving political coercion and apparent disregard for due process.

Let’s step back and look at the timeline and performance reviews.

According to internal performance records, Lombard submitted his semi-annual self-evaluation on September 30, 2025. Just six months earlier, on May 20, 2025, City Manager Michael Kovacs had issued Lombard a glowing review, rating him “Successful,” “Highly Successful,” and even “Outstanding” in areas including honesty and public safety leadership. No deficiencies were noted at that time, despite the fact that he would later allege problems existed.

Things changed abruptly in late October 2025. During an October 30 review meeting, Kovacs downgraded several categories to “Needs Improvement”, the first such marks Lombard had received in seven years, but he also stopped short of rating Lombard as, “Unsuccessful”.

Reviews
(Lyle Lombard May 2025 Review - Download)
(Lyle Lombard Oct 2025 Review - Download)
(Performance Review Comparison - Download)

(In the comparison sheet created by Pipkins Reports of the last two employment reviews, we have highlighted those categories where Lombard’s review was downgraded by Kovacs. We are not including those 15 other categories where Lombards’ review stayed the same, or improved.)

Following the review, Lombard was allowed to address some of the issues noted by Kovacs.

On November 3rd, he responds with the following letter, pointing out factual errors and noting that some complaints appeared driven by personal animus tied to unrelated social media posts by his spouse, and disgruntled employees.

The content of that letter is as follows:

“Sir,

During my semi-annual development discussion, you had mentioned that this is currently in draft, and if I wanted to appeal any of the items we discussed, I could. I recognize that I have areas for improvement and will make an effort to address those items. I believe that over the past two years, the political climate has been incredibly tumultuous and has entangled others within it. I have documented a few points from our conversation last week below for your consideration:

• I trusted two supervisors who registered the s*x offender in a timely manner as required by state law, and interpreted the residency ordinance themselves. Within the City Attorney’s response, she noted that the wording creates some ambiguity. Regarding timeliness, the notice from Councilman Harper to you was within 12 days of the person registering as a s*x offender, and I’m sure that timeframe was shortened by the time it took Texas DPS to update the registry website. The personnel within DPS make many critical decisions daily that affect people’s health, welfare, and civil liberties.

• During the salary survey period, I had not promised anyone a definite increase amount. It doesn’t make sense that we would do a salary survey if it were known to provide a certain percentage increase. This process has identified a few members who have become greedy with the salary provided to them. I was shocked to hear that Council member(s) were informed.

• In reference to the FEMA grant, I spot-checked our fire personnel to see if they knew the plan if we did not receive the grant, and they did know we would hire three and run a squad vehicle when staffing allows to start tackling the overlapping calls.

• The reference to the police building design and land, I have always liked the two-story police building design for several reasons, but during our visits to other police facilities, Steven and I had discussed the cost savings and the loss of internal interaction with personnel having a two-story building. I agreed with some council members that a one-story building would result in lower construction costs. Since the original concept of a multi-use building was turned down, the land space for a two-story or single-story police building was not going to be available for a fire station on the single lot. I was attempting to provide options and not mislead anyone by not being able to do both buildings in the future as separate builds. The original shared spaces were the key factor in the single lot.

• In reference to the pay plan roll-out, the Captains had attempted to reach you to discuss the pay plan because I had discussed this situation with Leigh and separately with you about their concerns about the lack of use of the step plan during this salary adjustment proposal. I was unable to make any changes to their satisfaction, so their next step was to contact you directly. We did speak about the situation I was having trying to appeal to Leigh regarding their expectations, specifically [Redacted: Officer #1]. I believe that part of the issue with venting to other managers or Council members is that when they are present, some council members ask pointed questions about the pay study or inquire if there are any concerns they should be aware of. Then, they hear the comments. I have been teaching the Captains more management practices and budgeting, and allowing more decision-making authority for their future.

• The detective reorganization was not a surprise. I have verbalized my idea of rotating personnel through as many aspects of the department as possible to create well-rounded police officers from the beginning. It was only “confusing” to [Redacted: Officer #2] because he did not want to leave the Monday-Friday, off on holidays schedule to do shift work. He had been on this assignment for over 5 years. [Redacted: Officer #2] has expressed that he felt like he was being demoted, but he hasn’t been. [Redacted: Officer #2] had attached himself to the command staff due to the proximity of offices and the ability to overhear discussions. I can’t account for how other members may tease him. Several members of the department informed me that they appreciated the change. Morale in CID has increased following the reorganization. A couple of officers have requested shift transfers away from [Redacted: Officer #2] current supervision. I am not writing this rebuttal to be argumentative. I am attempting to reveal another side of the situation. I would like to respectfully ask you to consider the sources of information and evaluate whether this is a result of personal hard feelings stemming from past social media postings that are not my own.”

[Note: Pipkins Reports has voluntarily chosen to redact the names of officers found in Lombard’s response even though this information is public record.]

What Changed?
Things changed on November 10th, at the City Council Meeting when the discussion for splitting the DPS into separate Police & Fire was put on hold. Witnesses say this allegedly made Councilman Mark Harper furious. He had been advocating for this split for a long time. They say he blamed Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Michael Kovacs, and Chief Lombard.

According to a recording obtained by Pipkins Reports, purportedly capturing Councilwoman Codi Chinn, she states that Harper was ready to fire them both and wanted to bring both Kovacs and Lombard into Executive Session. But Councilman Scott Kelley wasn’t ready to put Kovacs into the hot seat. Kelley agreed to go forward only with Chief Lombard. In this same conversation, which occurred prior to the executive session, Chinn states that the plan is already in the works to fire the chief.

Introduction of an Anonymous Complaint.
Dated November 11, 2025, the unsigned letter accused Lombard of causing low morale, misconduct, and closely mirrored language from his performance review. Perhaps suggesting that the person who wrote the letter either had knowledge of the review’s contents or played a role in its creation.

The letter was hand delivered to Councilwoman Codi Chinn (she claims), who sent it to Kovacs, via text. The complaint was never verified, never signed, not investigated, and Lombard was not formally given the opportunity to respond, despite Texas Government Code sections 614.022 and 614.023 requiring sworn complaints and officer notification.

Kovacs referred to the letter as “new information” and sent it to all Councilmen ahead of the Executive Session, yet he conspicuously omitted it as a stated reason for termination, a move that could indicate awareness of potential legal exposure and would invite actionable legal defense by Lombard.

On November 18th, the day after the Executive Session where the “Anonymous” letter was presented to Council, Kovacs issued his letter of a “Notice of Investigation and Complaint” to Lombard. This amounts to his written “suspension”, following the verbal suspension he received 4 days prior. This is the only complaint that was ever officially filed against the chief.

In the complaint, Kovacs completely discounts any and all explanations previously given by the chief and alleges of Lombard:

Poor Communication
Detectives’ reorganization created confusion and morale issues,
DPS pay plan rollout mishandled; staff believed raises had been promised,

Lack of early conflict identification and proactive mitigation,
Delay in addressing a s*x offender residency issue and failure to seek legal advice contributed to public controversy,

Judgment and decision making
Uncoordinated decisions have created confusion and unnecessary risk, (property acquisition and facility development)

Failed to maintain trust with executive team leaders by not maintaining confidentiality of discussions and subsequent failure to repair relationship(s),

Communications with elected officials regarding official town business and failed to disclose communications to management
Made [a] public presentation regarding [the] ongoing s*x offender registration matter which included identifiable photographs of minors and disclosed sensitive information regarding city property.

Lombard refuted every allegation and provided a written response to Kovacs at the mandatory review meeting on November 20th. We have provided a copy of that response here.

To summarize,
The reorganization was a process designed to provide for well-rounded officers by rotating them through the detective division and cross-training them. There was one Lieutenant who wasn’t pleased with this policy because it meant they would have to go back into the field for a period of time.

The DPS pay plan is a creation of HR (Leigh Corson) and Michael Kovacs, not the Chief. The chief discussed the issues with them on several occasions. There was no promise for pay increases because the chief was not responsible for that activity. He did however, point out how the recommended pay plan would put officers at a rate that is above the survey for those positions.

Regarding the s*x offender, Lombard sought legal interpretations from Lt. Guerrica as well as City Attorney David Overcash who both interpreted the law and ordinances and came to the same conclusion. As for the identifiable photographs of minors, those images came directly from the subject’s page that was set to public viewing. This was not under the control of the chief.

The chief did not disclose confidential or under-cover information by showing pictures of vehicles in the Police station parking lot. For one, Fate does not have an undercover division. Vehicles in the parking lot are not only visible to the general public, but they are vehicles that are used by administrative personnel.

Second, undercover detectives (if we ever did have any) would not come into the station at all. Lest their cover be blown by doing so.
The issue with Stephen Downs, stems from an event where he demanded that the chief take to social media and defend previous Mayor David Billings. The chief did this one time, reluctantly, after which he told Downs he did not like being put into that position and not to do that again. This occurred months prior and should have been listed on his previous review … if it were an issue.

Conclusion
Now the political consequences are arriving. On January 5, 2026, a recall petition targeting Councilwoman Chinn was officially filed. (Our Story here). While the petition does not list specific grounds, the timing and context of her alleged involvement in terminating the chief are unmistakable.

Adding fuel to the fire, Chinn published a copy of the Recall Application, which included the names and personal details of petition signers. Information that she received via her official Fate email account when the information had not yet been made public. Prompting backlash from residents who view the move as deliberately retaliatory and intimidating.

What emerges from the record is not a single act of misconduct. It reveals a lifetime of favorable performance reviews followed by abrupt downgrades due to politics, political pressure, an unverified anonymous complaint from an [allegedly] disgruntled employee, and a termination justified by allegations the city’s own documents had not previously identified as deficiencies. Whether these actions reflect poor governance, political expediency, or something more deliberate is a question now squarely before the public. What is clear is that the official justification for Lombard’s removal does not align neatly with the documentary record created by the city.

As Fate continues to grapple with the fallout—including a recall effort, growing public distrust, and unanswered questions about due process—residents are left to decide whether this episode represents accountability in action or a cautionary tale about the use of power behind closed doors. Pipkins Reports will continue examining the documents, recordings, and legal implications surrounding Lombard’s firing, because the issue at stake is larger than one chief or one council vote: it is whether transparency and the rule of law still govern how Fate conducts its public business.

Address

Fate, TX

Opening Hours

Saturday	8am - 5pm
Sunday	8am - 5pm

Website

http://PipkinsReports.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pipkins Reports posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Pipkins Reports:

Pipkins Reports