Post

More from @SarahisCensored

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 27

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Independent Technical Review Raises Serious Privacy Questions About Abbott Campaign App!

The Abbott Impact App

A THREAD 👇

At the 2026 Texas Republican Convention, many delegates were encouraged to download the Abbott Impact app as part of Governor Greg Abbott’s grassroots campaign efforts. Many also gave the app permission to access the contacts stored on their phones.

The promotion did not end when the convention concluded. As delegates returned home, they received one final text message from the Abbott campaign encouraging them to download the Abbott Impact app. The message described the application as a “free tool” that would allow Republican activists to help turn out voters through phone calls, text messages, and door knocking, and included a direct download link to the app. A screenshot of that text message is included with this report.

At the time, most users likely believed they were simply helping the campaign identify registered voters among their friends and family.

Now, an independently verified technical review is raising questions about what information the app actually collects, where that information goes, and whether users were given a COMPLETE explanation before agreeing to share it.

According to the analysis, the app can access far more than just names and phone numbers. It is capable of reading email addresses, mailing addresses, employer information, notes saved with contacts, photographs, messaging accounts, and other information stored in a user’s address book.

One of the report’s biggest concerns involves the information presented to users before they agree to share their contacts.

The app tells users:

“Your personal information and contact details remain private. No one outside of the campaign will be able to see your answers or notes.”

However, according to the independently verified technical review, the contact information uploaded through the app is transmitted to computer servers operated by a third-party company called Right Impact LLC. The report concludes that users were NOT clearly informed that a third-party company would receive and process that information when they were asked for permission to upload their contacts.

The report also found that the app collects additional information used for analytics and advertising that is not explained to users during the consent process. It further raises questions about whether the app’s disclosures are consistent with the requirements of the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (TDPSA) - the VERY PRIVACY LAW signed by Governor Abbott that took effect on July 1, 2024.

Read on 👇

According to the technical analysis, the Abbott Impact app failed 9 OUT OF 10 TDPSA compliance markers, with the remaining category classified as indeterminate. In other words, the reviewers found that none of the ten evaluated compliance requirements were clearly met. Among the concerns identified were the absence of a compliant consent mechanism for sensitive geolocation data, missing disclosures regarding third-party data processing, no identified implementation of the Global Privacy Control standard required under Texas law, and limited mechanisms for users to exercise their privacy rights. These findings reflect the conclusions of the technical review and are not, by themselves, a legal determination that any law has been violated.

The report is equally clear about what it does not claim. It does not allege that anyone’s data has been sold, leaked, or improperly shared beyond the identified third-party processor. Instead, it concludes that the app’s documented behavior differs from what users are told when they decide whether to share information from their phones.

The application underwent an independent technical review of the decompiled Android application, including analysis of the source code, application manifest, embedded resources, and application architecture. The report also references an accompanying independent audit, providing an additional layer of technical verification supporting the findings regarding how the application collects, processes, and discloses user information.

These findings come at a time when many Texas Republicans are already asking questions about how party data is handled. According to public statements from Chairman Josh McKaughan’s team, former RPT Chairman Abraham George exported the Republican Party of Texas Mailchimp database shortly after losing his reelection bid. While there is no evidence connecting that incident to the Abbott Impact app, both situations have prompted renewed concern about who has access to grassroots data, how it is stored, and what protections are in place for supporters who entrust political organizations with their personal information.

I AM CURRENTLY looking into and investigating the allegations made against Abraham George.

For delegates who downloaded the app at the Texas Republican Convention, you might want to reconsider. Many were encouraged to install the application in good faith, trusting that they understood how their information would be used.

The findings have already undergone independent technical verification and an additional independent audit. The remaining questions are not about whether the application performs these functions, but whether users were given complete and accurate information before deciding to share data from their phones.

Among the questions that deserve answers:

Were users clearly informed that a third-party company would receive and process their contact information?

Why does the consent screen state that no one outside the campaign will see users’ information? This is blatantly false.

If the application failed 9 out of 10 TDPSA compliance benchmarks, what steps, if any, have been taken to address those findings?

What information is retained after contacts are uploaded?

How long is that information stored?

What safeguards are in place to protect the personal information entrusted to the app?

Those are questions both the Abbott campaign and Right Impact LLC should have the opportunity to answer.

Report part 2

Read 8 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 25

🚨EXCLUSIVE: Family Demands Answers After 74-Year-Old Former Police Officer Suffers Fatal Brain Injury Inside Cedar Hill Nursing Home

Over the last several days, I have reviewed police reports, EMS records, nursing home records, physician records, state investigation documents, dispatch records, photographs, videos, and a detailed timeline provided by the family of 74-year-old Calvin James.

After reading through everything, I have a lot of questions.

On May 22, 2026, James suffered a cardiac arrest while residing at Crestview Court Nursing Home in Cedar Hill. He was deprived of oxygen long enough to suffer a catastrophic anoxic brain injury. Several days later, his family made the heartbreaking decision to remove him from life support. He passed away two days later.

The family is not questioning whether a medical emergency occurred. They are questioning what happened in the minutes before he was found unresponsive. After reviewing the records, I understand why.

Before we get into what happened on May 22, it’s important to understand what Calvin James had already survived. In December 2025, he was hospitalized after doctors discovered twisted intestines. Over the next several months, he underwent multiple surgeries, battled sepsis more than once, required a tracheostomy and feeding tube, and spent weeks in intensive care before eventually being transferred to a long-term acute care hospital and later to Crestview Court Nursing Home. Despite everything he had endured, records show he continued participating in physical therapy and was making progress.

According to the family, one of James’ daughters and her children visited him the morning of May 22 before heading to work. They described him as being in good spirits. The family also provided photographs and video taken during physical therapy that morning showing James riding the therapy bike. At approximately 918 am, he FaceTimed one of his daughters while participating in therapy. According to the family, he appeared alert, engaged, and happy. Nobody knew those would be some of the last normal moments they would have with him.

At approximately 1053 am, a 911 call was placed from Crestview Court Nursing Home. Dispatch records show the call was entered at 1053 am. EMS was dispatched at 1054 am. and arrived at the facility at 1059 am. According to the EMS report, facility staff advised first responders that the cardiac arrest was unwitnessed and that James had been down for approximately ten minutes before EMS arrived. CPR was already in progress when paramedics reached the scene, and a pulse was eventually regained at approximately 1111 am. James was transported to Methodist Charlton Medical Center, where doctors later determined he had suffered a severe anoxic brain injury caused by prolonged oxygen deprivation.

Then I read the police report.

Read on 👇

According to the Cedar Hill police report, Registered Nurse Philip Yovonie told the responding officer that he was sitting at the nurses station directly across from James’ room. He reportedly stated that he could hear James yelling and that it was “not unusual for him to yell”. According to the report, James eventually stopped yelling. But during the long period time of yelling, the nurse did not budge. The nurse did not go into the room. Approximately five minutes after he had stopped yelling, Certified Nursing Assistant Cherika Tolliver came out and advised that James was not breathing. The report states that another CNA had entered the room to assist with transferring James from his wheelchair back into bed using a Hoyer lift when they realized he was unresponsive.

So let’s think about that 👇

If the nurse was sitting directly across from the room, heard James yelling, heard the yelling stop, and knew he was alone, why was no welfare check performed after the yelling stopped?

That question becomes even more important when you compare the police report to the EMS report.

According to EMS, facility staff advised paramedics that James had been down for approximately ten minutes before they arrived. The report lists his last known well time at approximately 1049 am. EMS arrived at 1059 am. If that timeline is accurate, it places the critical moments before the 911 call was ever placed.

The family’s concerns deepened after obtaining the nursing home records.

One note in particular immediately caught my attention.

The nurse’s chart note was not entered until May 26 - four days after the cardiac arrest. By that point, James had already been transferred from the facility and had been removed from life support nearly 24 hours earlier.

The note documents James sitting in his wheelchair around 1045 am after therapy and states he was “talking to himself.” It goes on to say that aides attempting to transfer him back to bed around 1052 discovered he was unresponsive and that the nurse immediately responded, checked for a pulse, initiated CPR, activated a Code Blue, and called 911.

The chart note also states that the facility contacted James’ daughter at 1059 am. and that she arrived immediately before he was transported to the hospital.

According to the records I reviewed and the family’s timeline, that account is false.

Read on 👇

According to the family, one of James’ daughters works for a local police department. She heard the cardiac arrest dispatched over the police radio at approximately 1055 am and immediately called her sister, who was only minutes away.

The family says she arrived at Crestview Court around 1057 am - before responding patrol officers arrived - and rushed into the room while paramedics were actively attempting to resuscitate her father.

According to the family, witnessing those life-saving efforts caused her to suffer a severe panic attack. She collapsed inside the room and had to be physically assisted out by a facility employee and a responding police officer because she was unable to stand.

The family points to physician documentation from the day of the cardiac arrest, which they say notes the approximately ten-minute downtime and documents that James’ daughter entered the room during the code - not immediately before transport as stated in the delayed nursing note.

The delayed chart note also does not indicate that it was entered four days after the incident or identify itself as a late entry documenting events from May 22.

When comparing the police report, EMS report, physician documentation, dispatch records, and the delayed nursing note, the timelines do not appear to match.

Those discrepancies are at the center of the family’s concerns.

After obtaining the police report, James’ daughter filed a complaint with Texas Health and Human Services alleging resident neglect and concerns regarding nursing services.

On June 3, state investigators conducted an unannounced inspection of the facility.

According to a letter sent to the family, investigators did not find violations of nursing home regulations and closed the complaint. However, the letter also specifically states that the finding does not imply an opinion regarding the facility’s practices. The family still has the option of requesting the complete investigative file and seeking a reinvestigation if additional evidence becomes available.

The family says their attempts to obtain answers have only added to their frustration.

According to the family, one of James’ daughters later went to the facility requesting surveillance footage and additional medical records. They say they were informed that the hallway where James’ room was located happened to be “the only hallway in the facility without surveillance cameras.”

During that visit, police were called and James’ daughter was CRIMINALLY TRESPASSED from the property.

The family believes the decision was made in retaliation for the complaint filed with the state after obtaining the police report. The facility has not publicly responded to that allegation.

The family also disputes allegations made by the facility director that James’ daughter identified herself as a police officer or flashed a badge. According to the family, she does not possess a badge and simply had her employee identification on a lanyard because she works for a police department.

Calvin James was more than just another resident in a nursing home.

He spent more than 45 years serving his community as a police officer. His family describes him as one of the kindest men anyone could ever meet.

Today, they are left trying to piece together what happened during the final minutes before he was found unresponsive.

The police report tells one story.

The EMS report establishes another timeline.

The physician documentation appears to support portions of that timeline.

The delayed nursing note tells a different version of events.

The state investigated and found no regulatory violations.

But after reviewing the records myself, one thing is clear: there are still unanswered questions.

What happened in those final minutes?

Why do multiple official records appear to conflict with one another?

And could a faster response have changed the outcome?

Those are the questions Calvin James’ family is still waiting to have answered.

Read 6 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 19

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: San Bernardino, California - A THREAD - THE KILLING OF JULIAN ROBINSON -

On March 26, 2026, at approximately 11pm, the four shooters were hanging around outside Acacia Park Apartments (Julian’s apartment complex).

There was also a pool party taking place that day/night in the same area.

According to witness accounts, these four males were harassing and taunting Julian as he walked from his car (which was parked across the street) into his apartment complex, saying things such as, “fucking white boy.”

As they followed Julian, he ignored them and did not respond.

Julian then went upstairs to his apartment, took a shower, and changed his clothes. He remained in his apartment for approximately 20 minutes before leaving, only to once again be met by the same group of males mocking him. He ignored them again.

However, as soon as he got into his car, they began shooting.

The four males involved are 16, 17, 18, and 19 years old. They are all Black males.

They are all confirmed affiliated Crip gang members with prior records. The juveniles will likely be tried as adults due to the nature of the crime, their gang affiliation, and their prior records. The District Attorney has stated they are pushing for that, and the release of their names indicates that as well.

The 16-year-old is named:

Laquan Jones

The 17-year-old is named:

Sidikiba Greenwood

He is the son and grandson of two other well-known gang members convicted of murder who are both currently serving life sentences.

His father murdered a 32-year-old man when he was just 17 years old and is currently serving a sentence of 51 years to life.

His grandfather, a known shot-caller, murdered an 11-year-old girl and injured another woman. He is currently serving 109 years in prison.

This family consists of three generations of men—son, father, and grandfather—who are all convicted murderers and members of the Crip gang known as “Pimps Players & Hustlers Gangsters.”

The 18-year-old’s name is:

Lason Sanders

He is currently being held in Missouri after allegedly attempting to flee the state. He is awaiting extradition back to San Bernardino, California.

The 19-year-old is named:

Solomon Eugene Davis

Booking #2606300415

All four had their first arraignments on June 15 and June 16, 2026.

They are currently being held without bond and are each charged with double murder, with special circumstances and enhancements attached.

The other three males are believed to be affiliated with the San Bernardino Garden Crips, who are considered allies in the gang world.

This information is based on witness accounts and information released by the San Bernardino District Attorney’s Office.

Sadikiba Greenwood 17years old

Lason Sanders 18 years old

Read 9 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 6

DAY 4 REPORT: Karmelo Anthony Trial - June 4th, 2026 🚨

Day four of testimony focused heavily on witnesses who were present at the track meet, coaches who knew Austin Metcalf personally, emergency response efforts immediately after the stabbing, and additional evidence presented by the prosecution.

The day included emotional testimony from Austin’s coaches, eyewitness testimony regarding the moments before and after the stabbing, photographs, physical evidence, and the playing of one of the 911 calls.

🧵

The first witness was a video expert. The Frisco ISD footage was clarified, and zoomed in.

You can see a tent on the upper right hand side of the screen. You can see a few figures under the tent. It’s dark so it’s still hard to see. You see one Individual pushed back (not far) and bounce back quickly. A couple seconds later, that same individual can then be seen with that the video expert called a “spotlight”. The Spotlight was over Karmelo. You can see Karmelo run up above the tent, then over to the side. He slows down to a walk. And begins walking through the people towards the entrance. He then begins to run again. Multiple individuals run after him and point at him. Karmelo then turns around and walks back towards the track. You see an individual walk up to him and put his arms around him. Seemingly to keep him still. Then an officer arrives and detained him.

A video was also shown of Austin entering the stadium and Karmelo being let out by police 15 minutes later. This is how quickly this happened.

It was also made clear by the video expert that there is no drawback by Austin under the tent when the incident occurred. Meaning it does not look like he drew back to punch him or attack him. It was a simple push forward.

Next witness was was Robert Starr. Head track coach for Memorial high school. Also in charge of strength and conditioning for the football team and assistant coach.

He was the position coach for Austin and Hunter he said that he knew Austin for a year. And has now known Hunter for two years.

Starr made it clear that track meet policy is “the Tent marks your spot”. There are only about four coaches per 40 kids. Spots are designated by tent because coaches can’t keep track of everyone. So the tent is very much like “your bench.”

He mentioned proximity control multiple times. Which meant keeping a coach per tent at all times. Tents have snacks, backpacks, and it is standard practice to make sure they stay protected.

He stated that specifically for Frisco ISD, tents are meant for one team and one team only. Because of the valuables kept under the tent, it is a big deal to keep everyone away from your tent.

He stated that you also do not go to someone else’s tent uninvited

He also stated that policy is “weapons are not allowed of any shape or size”. Most people would never assume that anyone would bring a weapon to track meet.

He also stated that students have to sign a code of conduct that agrees to this policy.

He stated that Austin and Hunter were throwers. He stated that Memorial high school was the host school for the track meet that day. Meaning, they were in charge of everything. Which meant an extra burden on coaches. He knew that morning that he would be pulled into many directions. He specifically assigned his throwers a.k.a. Austin and Hunter to take leadership positions which meant putting up the tent and moving equipment.

He sent a text to Austin that morning that said I need you to step up and be a leader today.

He also stated that there was no rain delay. He stated that it looked like it would rain, but track was still running as usual.

He was then asked what happened on April 2

Read 5 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

Jun 4

My full Karmelo Anthony Trial Report: Last Day of Jury Selection- The Defense’s Attempt to Tell Its Story Before Trial 🚨

The third and final day of jury selection in the Karmelo Anthony murder trial was tense long before anyone took their seat in the courtroom.

When I arrived at the courthouse this morning, it was immediately apparent that tensions between supporters of Karmelo Anthony and those following the case from Austin Metcalf’s side remained high.

At one point, supporters of Karmelo Anthony reportedly refused to even share the same bathroom with me. I was also told that one individual allegedly stated that they wanted to break my glasses in half.

The tension continued outside the courtroom. As people began lining up to enter, I was one of the first in line when one Karmelo Anthony supporter walked directly in front of me. In an unnecessary outburst, she claimed she was simply taking her “appropriate place” in line - a place she stated she was entitled to occupy despite arriving after I did.

That atmosphere would continue throughout the day.

This day was about the attorneys attempting to identify prospective jurors who could or could not follow specific legal principles.

The questioning began with the prosecution.

Assistant District Attorney Dewey Mitchell spent much of his time discussing the fundamentals of criminal law and the responsibilities of jurors.

He asked prospective jurors about the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, the defendant’s constitutional right not to testify, punishment ranges, media exposure, and whether jurors could set aside their personal opinions and decide the case solely on the evidence presented inside the courtroom.

He clarified the difference between murder, which is the intentional or knowing of the taking of a life. He also clarified that in the state of Texas there is nothing in the law about premeditation. Meaning, you do not have to prove premeditation in order to convict anyone of murder. He also clarified that if someone said that they did not mean to, that it does not mean that they did not commit murder. And that there is nothing in Texas law that says you have to prove that it was premeditated.

Several jurors admitted they had already heard about the case.

Some had seen media coverage.

Some had discussed it with family members.

Others acknowledged they had formed initial impressions but believed they could set those impressions aside and evaluate only the evidence presented at trial.

The prosecution also explored whether prospective jurors could consider the entire range of punishment available under Texas law if a conviction occurred.

Some struggled with the idea.

Others admitted they would have difficulty convicting a “young” defendant regardless of the evidence.

One prospective juror, Juror 142, made a particularly notable statement when he said, “I don’t know that I would feel right putting a brother in jail.” Many observers viewed that comment as a clear indication of potential bias and believed it should have been immediate grounds for removal from the jury pool.

There were also extensive discussions regarding race, public reaction, and concerns that jurors might face criticism depending on the verdict they ultimately reached.

Mitchell repeatedly emphasized that jurors would be required to follow the law regardless of outside pressure. He also said that he has “never had to have the conversation of race with jurors before”.

The prosecution’s questioning largely focused on identifying bias and ensuring jurors understood their legal obligations.

He asked the jurors, “would knowing someone’s race affect how you choose? Can you reach a verdict based on law and evidence?” One juror said that it was “important to separate behavior from the person.”

Continue for part 2 👇

Self-defense was also brought up.

Mitchell made several things clear that I believe are worth noting.

He talked about self-defense.

He made it clear that words alone are not enough for self-defense. He stated that you cannot claim self-defense if you provoke the event.

“You cannot talk trash, get someone to punch you, and then take a life.”

This is not how self-defense works.

He also discussed something called sudden passion, which is when someone is in such a state of emotion because something horrific just happened. For example, a ranch hand finding someone molesting his daughter in the barn. This would be considered sudden passion if he decided to take quick action to end someone’s life.

He also made it very clear that sudden passion is never based on someone’s age. Which means that you cannot claim that he is “just a kid” and then claim sudden passion.

Read on 👇

Then came the defense.

And that is where the day became significantly more controversial.

Defense attorney Mike Howard spent much of his questioning discussing self-defense law.

There is nothing unusual about discussing legal concepts during voir dire. Attorneys routinely ask jurors whether they can follow the law as instructed by the court.

What became unusual was how closely some of Howard’s hypotheticals appeared to mirror the facts that many people already associate with this case.

Rather than discussing self-defense in broad or generic terms, Howard repeatedly described situations that seemed remarkably similar to what the defense is expected to argue happened on the day Austin Metcalf was killed.

He discussed individuals being asked to leave an area.

He discussed remaining somewhere a person is legally allowed to be.

He discussed self-defense.

He discussed the lack of a duty to retreat.

He discussed carrying knives, specifically knives with blades under 5½ inches.

Most notably, Howard spent time discussing the legality of bringing a knife to a school athletic event.

That immediately caught the attention of many people in the courtroom because one of the central facts already known publicly is that this case arose from an incident at a Frisco ISD track meet.

Howard repeatedly focused on knife laws, asking jurors about blade length and discussing circumstances under which carrying a knife might be lawful.

The line of questioning appeared to suggest that a knife with a blade under a certain length could legally be carried into a public area or athletic event.

This was particularly interesting considering the incident occurred on Frisco ISD property, where signs were posted prohibiting weapons.

To many observers, it felt less like a hypothetical and more like an attempt to begin laying the foundation for a future self-defense argument.

That perception appeared to create frustration for the prosecution. I visibly watched prosecutors looking at one another with expressions of confusion and frustration.

Howard told jurors that Texas law regarding weapons and open carry also extends to knives, provided they are carried in non-prohibited places. He also stated that it is legal to bring a knife to a high school sporting event as long as the blade is under 5½ inches.

I’ll be honest. Around this point, I began asking myself: Is he talking about the case? Do the jurors think he is talking about the case?

It was also around this time that the prosecution began objecting.

I have never seen that happen during jury selection.

Then Howard presented another scenario.

“Let’s say you’re at a park and I walk up uninvited. I’m asked to leave, but I refuse to leave. How many of you believe I’m in the wrong?”

The questioning almost seemed combative with some of the prospective jurors.

At that point, there was another objection and the attorneys were asked to approach the bench.

The microphones were turned off.

Conversations occurred off the record.

At multiple points throughout Howard’s questioning, it was apparent that concerns were being raised regarding the direction of the discussion.

The issue was not that self-defense was being discussed.

The issue was how closely some of the scenarios appeared to resemble facts that are expected to be disputed during trial.

Jurors are not supposed to hear opening statements during voir dire.

They are not supposed to hear attorneys argue their case before evidence is presented.

Yet several people in attendance appeared genuinely confused as to whether Howard was asking hypothetical questions or beginning to explain the defense theory itself.

Read 7 tweets

Sarah Fields

@SarahisCensored

May 17

🚨Plano ISD, Texas 🚨 - Internal records obtained through a lawsuit filed by Citizens Defending Freedom Show that Plano ISD knew about Severe mold contamination at Murphy Middle School - and DELAYED Informing Parents!

The documents include:
- Internal emails
- Work orders
- IAQ testing requests
- Mold remediation invoices
- Photographs from inside the school

School started on August 12, 2025.

By August 18 - LESS than two weeks later - district work orders were already documenting:
- Excessive humidity
- Indoor air quality concerns
- Active leaks
- Mold growing on classroom items

One work order specifically references a classroom American flag that was “less than 2 weeks old” already growing mold.

The records also include photographs appearing to show mold growing on:
- Classroom flags
- Chairs
- Furniture
- Classroom materials

Another internal email chain shows a leaking ceiling work order being marked “COMPLETE” at 7:53am.

But at 11:13am, a district employee responded:

“This WO was marked as completed and it is not. It is still dripping water and nothing looks like it has been done.”

The records also show district employees urgently requesting indoor air quality testing.

One email states:

“Please rush this requisition. We need to have Farmer do the IAQ test ASAP.”

Then came October 3, 2025.

A remediation report from Blackmon Mooring/BMS CAT states representatives met with Plano ISD at Murphy Middle School at 9pm regarding mold damage involving:

- 43 classrooms/offices/labs
- HVAC contamination
- Mold contamination of structure and contents
- Drywall and carpet removal
- Furniture remediation

But according to the records, parents were NOT NOTIFIED the school would shut down until AFTER 11pm that night - forcing families to scramble for childcare and work accommodations for the following week.

The financial records are equally significant.

Invoices tied to the remediation total OVER $615,000, including:

- $250,000
- $197,145.59
- $118,566.50
- $50,021.71

How long did Plano ISD know the situation was this serious before the public was informed?

Citizens Defending Freedom deserves credit for securing these records after having to SUE Plano ISD for them. According to a source, they were unable to recover attorney fees despite forcing disclosure of the documents.

Parents trusted their children were walking into safe classrooms!

Plano ISD appears to have known Murphy Middle School’s HVAC system needed major repairs for at least two months while mold issues were ongoing throughout the summer. Records show a nearly $25,000 purchase order dated August 4, 2025, for HVAC technician labor tied to evaluating and repairing outside air handlers at Murphy MS, along with internal emails approving the work. If the district knew the HVAC system was failing badly enough to require substantial repairs for months before school started, why were students and staff allowed back into the building before the issue was fully addressed and parents properly informed?

Receipts applied to original post

Read 7 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Sarah Fields

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @SarahisCensored

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Sarah Fields

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!