https://www.facebook.com/843538662183458/

Jaime Mitchell - Exposing the Truth, 201 N. Davis, Sulphur Springs, TX (2026)

08/13/2026

💥August 24th - 9:30am💥Hopkins County Courthouse
City of Sulphur Springs vs Luminant//Vistra
Temporary Injunction Hearing take 2

08/13/2026

🚨 CYRUSONE SAYS IT WILL BE “MATERIALLY SMALLER.”

Smaller than WHAT? And by HOW MUCH?

A while back, I encouraged everyone to use CyrusOne’s community website to submit your questions and concerns directly to the company.

A lot of you did.

And here’s something worth noting before we even get into their answers:

Of all the people who have told me they submitted questions, I have heard from ONE person who actually received a substantive response from CyrusOne.

One. Making that one seem VERY strategic 😉

If others received responses, please tell me. I genuinely want to know.

But based on what has been reported back to me so far, that raises its own question about what meaningful “community engagement” is actually going to look like from CyrusOne.

Because community engagement shouldn’t mean collecting questions from residents and then leaving most of those residents wondering whether anyone even read them.

And the one response we DO have?

It raises some very important questions.

We already talked about one HUGE revelation:

CyrusOne says this is NOT the same project MSB proposed. In fact, MSB will no longer be involved beyond “seller and buyer”.

Now let’s start digging into the rest.

CyrusOne tells us:

“The project is being evaluated as a phased campus and is expected to be materially smaller than the previously proposed Matrix concept.”

Great.

Define “materially smaller.”

Because in the very next sentence, CyrusOne says:

“The ultimate size and timing of future phases…have not been finalized.”

Read those two statements together.

The project will be “materially smaller.”

But the ultimate size hasn’t been finalized.

So how exactly has CyrusOne determined that the ultimate project will be materially smaller?

Smaller by 50 megawatts?

500 megawatts?

1,000 megawatts?

What is the maximum buildout?

You can’t define it as materially smaller and then turn around and basically say you don’t know.

We specifically asked whether the previously discussed 3 GW was still contemplated.

They didn’t answer that.

We asked for expected power and water capacities at each phase.

They didn’t answer that either.

And when asked about the power plant, CyrusOne said:

“The exact scale of any related on-site power generation capacity is still under development.”

So let’s put this together.

❓ No maximum campus MW disclosed.

❓ No maximum number of buildings disclosed.

❓ No final buildout disclosed.

❓ No phase-by-phase capacity disclosed.

❓ No maximum on-site generation disclosed.

❓ No final timing disclosed.

But we DO have an assurance that it will be:

“materially smaller.”

I’m sorry, but “materially smaller” is not a measurement.

It’s a description.

And with a project of this magnitude, that distinction matters enormously.

A project can be “materially smaller” than the original proposal and still be absolutely massive.

2.5 GW is smaller.

2 GW is smaller.

Even 1.5 GW would be half the size of a 3 GW concept, and still represent an enormous industrial power load.

So before “materially smaller” becomes the new phrase used to reassure this community, give us the number.

WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM?

Not Phase 1.

Not what CyrusOne currently expects.

Not what today’s customer demand requires.

Not what is currently being evaluated.

What is the maximum buildout CyrusOne is seeking the ability to develop at this site?

And if CyrusOne genuinely doesn’t know yet, that’s an answer too.

But then say that.

“We don’t know yet.”

Because there is a very important difference between:

“We don’t know how big this will ultimately become.”

and

“Don’t worry. It will be materially smaller.”

And this is exactly why I don’t believe Sulphur Springs should rush into anything.

CyrusOne itself says the ultimate size isn’t finalized.

CyrusOne itself says the power-generation capacity is still under development.

CyrusOne itself says this is a different project.

Then let’s treat it like a different project.

Define it.

Study it.

Tell us the maximum.

Release the information.

Let the public evaluate what is ACTUALLY being proposed.

Then make decisions.

Not the other way around.

And if CyrusOne truly intends to make community engagement a meaningful part of this process, then let’s start there too:

Answer the community.

This is only the beginning.

I’m going to continue working through CyrusOne’s response piece by piece, because some of these answers become much more interesting when you compare what the community actually asked with what CyrusOne actually answered.

08/12/2026

🚨 CITY EMPLOYEES NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO THIS BUDGET.

At the recent budget workshop, the City Manager proposed building the FY2027 budget without the annual Updated Service Credit retirement enhancement for City employees.

The idea was essentially this:

Pause it for a year.
Use that money elsewhere in the budget.
Hopefully “catch employees up” next year.

Councilman Jay Julian pushed back and said that, of all the places to cut, employee retirement should not be the place.

And after looking at the numbers and the City’s own history, I think that deserves a lot more attention.

Sulphur Springs has historically adopted 100% Updated Service Credits with transfer service on an annual, ad hoc basis.

According to the City’s own workshop presentation, continuing that same structure for FY2027 would cost approximately:

🚨 $230,855 more than the City Manager’s draft budget.

What is taking priority over continuing this longstanding employee retirement enhancement?

Because at the same time…

The City has already committed and continues to spend millions of dollars on infrastructure connected to the Thermo development area.

The City is involved in multiple significant lawsuits, with legal and outside-counsel costs continuing to accumulate.

The City is considering what could be a substantial payout under the City Attorney’s employment agreement.

The City is in the middle of a multi-million-dollar City Hall expansion.

None of that automatically means those expenditures were unnecessary.

But it does mean this is a conversation about priorities.

And City employees should be asking some very direct questions.

Why is employee retirement one of the places being used to create room in the budget?

What other spending was examined first?

Are professional-services or consulting contracts being reduced?

Are capital expenditures being deferred?

Are other discretionary expenses being cut?

And if employees are being told they can be “caught up” next year:

Has TMRS actually confirmed that?

Can skipping the 2027 Updated Service Credit truly be restored later?

Would every affected employee be made whole?

And how much would that catch-up cost next year?

Let me also be clear about what this is NOT.

The City is not eliminating TMRS retirement altogether.

Employees would still have their regular retirement plan.

The issue is whether the City should skip an annual retirement enhancement it has repeatedly approved for years in order to free up approximately $230,855 for other spending.

If employees are being asked to sacrifice because the City needs budget breathing room, what sacrifices are being made elsewhere?

Because budgets tell you what leadership prioritizes.

And if I worked for the City, I would be paying very close attention to the budget.

08/12/2026

📡 50 Questions Before Friday 📡
By Cass Wakefield, HCS Staff
---
Sulphur Springs is preparing to make a decision about its City Attorney. The public should know what is being decided — and what the City is giving up to get there.
---
On Friday, August 14, 2026, the Sulphur Springs City Council is scheduled to hold a special meeting. The City’s official document center lists the August 14 special-meeting agenda.

The reported personnel item concerns possible action regarding the employment and separation of City Attorney Nate Smith.

The meeting will be at Sulphur Springs City Hall, 201 North Davis Street. City Hall. 1:00pm.

This could end up being perfectly routine.

An employee leaves. A contract is interpreted. Obligations are calculated. The parties reach an agreement. Council votes.

Fine.

But when the employee is the City Attorney, when the agreement potentially involves a substantial amount of public money, when the City has been operating with interim legal counsel, and when unresolved Council oversight requests already exist, “routine” should still be able to survive ordinary questions.

This is not an argument that Nate Smith should be fired.

It is not an argument that he should receive nothing.

It is not an accusation against Marc Maxwell, Smith, the Mayor, or anyone else.

It is something much simpler.

If Sulphur Springs is about to make an irreversible decision, the public should be able to understand what the decision actually is.

Questions now exist.

Here are fifty of them.

1. What exactly is Council being asked to approve Friday? Termination? Resignation? Mutual separation? Settlement? Severance? Something else?
2. Which provision of Nate Smith’s employment agreement governs that action?
3. How much of any proposed payment is money the City already owes, and how much is additional discretionary money?
4. For every additional dollar, what does Sulphur Springs receive in return?
5. What is the complete cost? Include salary, benefits, COBRA, accrued obligations, legal fees, consulting payments, transition payments and non-cash consideration.
6. What would the realistic alternatives cost? Continued employment, paid suspension, contractual termination, negotiated separation or a short postponement.
7. Who first proposed separation?
8. When was separation first discussed with Smith or anyone representing him?
9. When was a dollar figure first calculated or proposed?
10. Who negotiated the proposed terms?
11. What Council authority did that person have to negotiate them?
12. When was the first written agreement or term sheet created?
13. Has every Councilmember received the complete agreement and sufficient time to read it?
14. Are there side agreements — consulting, transition, indemnification, references, confidentiality or otherwise?
15. If Smith releases claims against the City, exactly which claims does he release?
16. What claims or rights does the City release against Smith?
17. Does the City surrender any potential malpractice, contract, reimbursement, recoupment, audit or other claim?
18. What additional value does a negotiated release provide beyond protections already available under the existing employment agreement?
19. Does any agreement expressly preserve truthful testimony, subpoenas, discovery, regulatory cooperation and law-enforcement cooperation?
20. Does it preserve future lawful Council investigations and audit rights?
21. Does it require preservation and return of City records, files, matter histories, electronic records and City-controlled account access?
22. What City fund will pay any discretionary amount?
23. Has the necessary budget and appropriation authority been identified?
24. What public purpose does the discretionary expenditure accomplish?
25. What measurable benefit does the taxpayer receive?
26. Has genuinely independent counsel reviewed the proposed transaction for the Council?
27. Who is the client of the attorney advising Council Friday — the City, Council, City Manager, City Attorney, insurer or somebody else?
28. Has Council resolved the contradictory date language contained in Smith’s employment agreement before calculating obligations under it?
29. Has counsel analyzed current Texas law governing any new severance agreement executed in 2026?
30. What happened to Councilmember Julian’s December 9, 2025 formal request concerning City Attorney performance?
31. Was that request ever provided to the full Council?
32. Was Smith notified of the concerns?
33. Was the contractual process contemplated by §2.6 ever initiated?
34. If not, who decided it would not proceed?
35. Does the City’s handling of that December request create any employment exposure that is now being included in the value of a settlement?
36. What happened to Julian’s August 5 request for documentation concerning Smith’s status, leave chronology, legal authority, legal-services spending and evaluation?
37. If those questions are answered verbally in executive session, will Council still receive the underlying records?
38. What is the current status of Nate Smith’s and Marc Maxwell’s interests in Greater Sulphur Springs Regional Center? Available corporate-record material lists Marc L. Maxwell and Philip N. Smith among the entity’s directors/contacts.
39. If either man later resigned, divested or transferred that interest, what document establishes when that occurred?
40. Has independent counsel advised Council who should remain in executive session during fact gathering, legal advice and Council deliberation?
41. Will people whose own actions or communications are being evaluated remain in the room while Council deliberates about them? If so, why is their presence necessary?
42. Has the City identified and preserved every record subject to pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation or investigation?
43. Would the separation agreement make any City record less accessible, move it outside City custody or affect an existing preservation obligation?
44. If a settlement agreement is executed, how will the City handle its public-record obligations?
45. What specifically would the City lose by postponing the decision for one properly posted meeting while missing information is gathered?
46. What specifically becomes irreversible if Council approves the agreement Friday?
47. Has anyone compared those two risks side by side?
48. Is Friday’s urgency contractual, statutory, financial, operational, litigation-driven — or simply preferred? If there is a deadline, what document creates it?
49. Will any final decision and vote following executive session occur openly and be recorded clearly enough that the public can determine exactly what was authorized?
50. Six months from now, when nobody remembers what was said behind the closed door, will the paperwork explain why this was the best available decision for Sulphur Springs?

None of those questions assumes wrongdoing.

Some may have perfectly good answers.

That would be excellent.

Put the answers in the record.

The problem begins when an important public decision requires everyone to trust an explanation they cannot examine, a number they cannot reconstruct, a document they have not seen, or a conversation they were not allowed to hear.

Sulphur Springs has done enough municipal archaeology.

Friday is an opportunity to do something simpler:

Make the decision and the explanation arrive at the same time.

If the City owes money, pay what it owes.

If additional money buys something valuable for the taxpayers, identify that value.

If the record is incomplete, finish it.

Then vote.

This is the Hunt County Signal.

That should not be controversial.

That should be government.

— CW, HCS Staff

=========================
📡 Tips? Filings? Contracts? Something they hope nobody reads past page one?
📬 Send it encrypted or anonymous: [email protected]
We don’t need your name. Just the truth. All sources protected.
=========================
🛰️ Now on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/
=========================
Want to support the signal?
👕 Merch (New Items Coming Soon!): https://teepublic.com/user/the-signal-locker
☕ Buy Us a Coffee: https://ko-fi.com/hcsignalmedia
📗 "THE SILENCE DOCTRINE: Smoke Over Hunt County" is now available on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GV47HBD7
📗 "THE LOAD BEFORE THE LIGHTS: Power Over Hopkins County" is now available for pre-order at Kindle at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CWYGGQZ1
=========================

08/12/2026

Should we be paying out a separation agreement for our City Attorney?

Friday at 1:00 p.m., the City Council will discuss a proposed separation agreement with the City Attorney, including its financial terms.

Before taxpayers are asked to fund that agreement:

DID THE CITY FULLY EVALUATE WHETHER TERMINATION FOR CAUSE WAS AN OPTION?

I want to be very clear.

This is not about attacking anyone personally, especially if someone is owed a separation agreement.

This is about a $215,000-a-year public position and potentially a six-figure taxpayer decision.

The City Attorney's employment agreement provides for $215,000 in annual base salary. If he is terminated without cause, the agreement provides for six months of base salary, $107,500, plus 6 months' worth of health insurance benefits, accrued obligations already earned as of termination, and potential continued health-benefit/COBRA-related costs.

If he is properly terminated for Good Cause, that six-month severance is not owed.

So, what did Council evaluate before deciding to negotiate a financial separation?

Because there are several issues already on the table.

➡️ The Miami-Dade Steel litigation and questions surrounding the City’s handling of that case....I haven't even posted about this issue yet.

➡️ Jack Curtis v. City of Sulphur Springs, the current lawsuit alleging Texas Open Meetings Act violations. The City itself reported the lawsuit to Council in May.

➡️ The June 2 Council meeting, where prior City actions challenged over TOMA compliance were revisited in an effort to address those issues.

➡️ Documented Facebook interactions with citizens that Council could consider when evaluating the professional conduct expected of its City Attorney.

➡️ And questions concerning outside private legal work.

The City Attorney’s contract says he must devote his “full professional time, attention, and energy” to the City during normal business hours and cannot engage in compensated outside law practice without prior written approval from the City Manager, in consultation with Council.

So, is council able to definitively review and provide those written approvals?

If those approvals exist, that's great.

If they don’t, there should be more questions.

A TPIA can certainly verify!

And let’s remember….

By May 5, Council was already meeting in executive session to discuss personnel issues specifically related to the City Attorney.

So this is not simply a question that appeared overnight.

And now there is another issue Council needs to address.

THE CITY MANAGER’S ROLE.

The City Manager and the City Attorney have a private business relationship through an LLC (Greater Sulphur Springs Regional Center).

Yet Friday’s agenda contemplates authorizing the City Manager to execute the City Attorney’s separation agreement on behalf of the City.

I am not declaring that this legally requires the City Manager to recuse himself. That depends on facts and applicable conflict-of-interest rules.

But should someone with a private business relationship with the employee be the person authorized to execute that employee’s financial separation agreement?

Those are fair questions.

Which brings me back to Friday.

Before you pay, did you fully evaluate whether the City had grounds to terminate for cause instead?

I am not saying Good Cause exists. It absolutely may not.

I am saying Council should be able to tell taxpayers whether it investigated that possibility before agreeing to pay a separation package.

And if it did...

WHY IS A FINANCIAL SEPARATION STILL THE BEST DEAL FOR TAXPAYERS?

Maybe there is a good answer.

Then give it to us.

This isn’t about hurting the City Attorney.

It is about expecting our elected officials to protect the public’s money before making what could be a six-figure decision.

📅 Friday, August 14
⏰ 1:00 p.m.
📍 Sulphur Springs City Hall

Before you write the check, show us that every other option was evaluated first.

08/11/2026

TAKE A LITTLE TRIP BACK IN TIME WITH ME.

Back in January, I posted about the City Manager’s international travel reimbursements and asked:

“Why Croatia?”
“What exactly was being negotiated, studied, or pursued abroad?”
“Who authorized it?”

Then in March, I went back to the City and specifically requested records for the other expenses you would normally expect from an international trip, including hotel, meals and transportation.

The City’s response:
“There are no further documents.”

That’s when I asked a few simple questions:
Who paid for the rest of the Croatia trip?
If the City paid for airfare, who paid for everything else?

I never found out.

But now, months later, I’ve found these exact words in a current federal court filing describing anticipated discovery involving Marc Maxwell and Nate Smith:

“sponsored travel to Eastern Europe.”

Yeah.

I think it’s time we revisit Croatia.

And this time, I have a new name for you.

ZERO GLOBAL WASTE.

One important clarification first. We are looking at two different lawsuits involving Zero Global Waste and related parties.

The first was filed in New York Supreme Court in 2022.

Those records give us important history involving Jeffory Blackard, Zero Global Waste and Croatia.

The second is the current 2026 federal lawsuit. That is where the new references to Thermo, Marc Maxwell, Nate Smith, “sponsored travel to Eastern Europe,” Ganna Halvorsen and Mark Blanchard appear.

Now watch how the pieces come together.

THE CROATIA TRIP

In May 2022, City Manager Marc Maxwell and City Attorney Nate Smith traveled to Zagreb, Croatia.

Now meet Zero Global Waste.

In a sworn 2022 affidavit, Jeffory Blackard identified himself as:

“President and Chief Executive Officer of Zero Global Waste, LLC.”

Blackard also identified Zero Global Waste Croatia d.o.o., a ZGW affiliate in Croatia.

According to Blackard’s sworn statement, that Croatian affiliate owned waste processing equipment located at a facility in Novi Marof, Croatia.

So in 2022:

Maxwell and Smith traveled to Croatia.

Blackard was President and CEO of Zero Global Waste.

ZGW had a Croatian affiliate.

That affiliate owned waste processing equipment physically located in Croatia.

To be clear, those records do not establish that Maxwell and Smith visited ZGW, met with Blackard about ZGW, or visited the Novi Marof facility.

But now jump forward four years.

MARCH 13, 2026

A federal lawsuit is filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving Blackard and Zero Global Waste.

Then, on July 21, 2026, the parties file a Joint Conference Report.

And this is where Sulphur Springs enters the story.

Ostvik, SRF and Ecogensus state that they anticipate discovery into “government-facing representations” concerning:

“waste-to-energy commercialization in Texas and the Thermo site in Sulphur Springs, Texas.”

Then they identify people they anticipate questioning under oath.

MARC MAXWELL

They say they anticipate deposing Maxwell concerning Blackard’s representations about Blackard Companies, ZGW, waste-to-energy and waste management regarding the Thermo property, as well as:

“sponsored travel to Eastern Europe.”

NATE SMITH

They also anticipate deposing Smith concerning Blackard’s representations about waste-to-energy at Thermo and:

“sponsored travel to Eastern Europe.”

Maxwell and Smith are not defendants in this lawsuit.

And the filing does not say the “sponsored travel to Eastern Europe” was the May 2022 Croatia trip.

But considering the questions we already had about those Croatia expenses:

WAS IT THE SAME TRIP?

And if it was:

WHO SPONSORED IT?

Who paid for the hotel, meals and transportation?

Who arranged the trip?

Who did Maxwell and Smith meet?

Did Blackard, ZGW, ZGW Croatia or someone else pay any portion?

And who paid matters.

If a private developer pays for a City official’s hotel, meals or other travel expenses while that developer has, or may have, business before the City, Texas laws governing gifts, benefits and disclosures can come into play.

That does not mean anything illegal happened.

But if the City later approves agreements or financial incentives benefiting that developer, who paid, what was disclosed and what role those officials played in the City’s decisions become very important questions.

And considering the questions we’ve already raised about Blackard’s Chapter 380 agreement and how its terms compared with City policy, you can understand why I want an answer.

For clarity, I am not saying anyone did anything wrong or illegal. I am connecting documented facts and asking questions about what we still don’t know.

But this isn’t only about the trip.

WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED FOR THERMO?

The July 2026 filing puts ZGW, waste-to-energy, waste management and Thermo into the anticipated discovery.

In simple terms, waste-to-energy generally involves processing waste or waste-derived material into something useful for energy or fuel.

And then there’s another surprise.

GANNA HALVORSEN AND MARK BLANCHARD.

Yes.

MSB GLOBAL.

Ostvik, SRF and Ecogensus identify Ganna Halvorsen and Mark Blanchard of MSB Global as anticipated deponents concerning:

“interactions concerning the Thermo site as it pertains to waste-to-energy.”

So here’s where we are:

Jeffory Blackard. Zero Global Waste. ZGW Croatia. Waste-to-energy. Thermo. Marc Maxwell. Nate Smith. “Sponsored travel to Eastern Europe.” Ganna Halvorsen. Mark Blanchard. MSB Global.

Two lawsuits. Different years.

And plenty we still don’t know.

None of this proves misconduct by anyone.

But I’m still digging.

Because apparently there is a whole lot more to investigate about Croatia, Thermo and Zero Global Waste than we knew.

Hats off to Cass Wakefield on this one folks.....this is why tips are so valuable!!!!

Here is my January post....https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HVVDQVpov/

Here is my March post....https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1E9p8GNaor/

GREAT SCOTT‼️

08/11/2026

Croatia. Jeffory Blackard. Marc Maxwell. Nate Smith. Thermo. Ganna Halvorsen. Mark Blanchard.

Meet Zero Global Waste…
A Supreme Court chapter.

08/11/2026

📣 TWO IMPORTANT LOCAL MEETINGS TODAY!

☀️ 9:00 AM Hopkins County Commissioners Court

🌙 5:30 PM Sulphur Springs City Council Budget Workshop
Discussion of the 2026–2027 City budget.

Local government decisions affect all of us. Show up when you can. Pay attention. Ask questions.

And don’t worry… Friday’s special meeting is getting its OWN post.

08/10/2026

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I DIG DEEPER…I FIND MORE. 🤯

GO READ Posts #1–5 about Delphi and the data center that ALMOST happened…
More incoming!

08/10/2026

This will be worth the read..and then intense listening 🙌

Jaime Mitchell - Exposing the Truth

08/13/2026

08/13/2026

08/12/2026

08/12/2026

08/12/2026

08/11/2026

08/11/2026

08/11/2026

08/10/2026

08/10/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request