Outside the box and over the line

Chapter 45 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure lays out the procedural rules for the handling of Class C misdemeanors in municipal and justice courts. A defendant may appeal an adverse verdict in justice court or in a municipal court that is not a court of record simply by filing an appeal bond with the trial court.

Provided the appeal bond is posted no more than ten days after the judgment is entered, the appeal is perfected and the case goes up to the county court for a trial de novo. In other words, the appeal is treated as a brand new case.

In Texas the holder of a commercial driver's license isn't eligible for dismissal at the municipal or justice court level through the completion of a driver safety course or through a successful deferred probation - even if he was driving his private car at the time he was stopped and cited. However, there is no apparent prohibition on the county courts when handling an appeal. Now, federal regulations seems to prohibit the so-called "masking" of citations issued to CDL holders and the County Court judge up there refuses to allow a CDL holder to have his citation dismissed through deferred probation.

As an aside, I would argue that the rules only prevent the masking of a conviction by deferring imposition of sentence or allowing the driver to enter into a diversion program. If there is no conviction, however, there is nothing to mask.

Now why, might you ask, am I writing about appeals from traffic tickets? And, if you are asking that - it's a good question.

This morning when I left the courthouse I ran into a colleague of mine who is a municipal court judge in a couple of towns on the outskirts of Houston. He's also a defense attorney with whom I worked on a theft case before. I asked him how life on the bench was treating him and we got to talking about the world of Class C misdemeanors.

We both agreed that if you have a case with a CDL holder in justice or municipal court that there is no reason not to try it. The worst possible outcome is you lose and appeal it up and see it magically disappear at the county court level. He said got so tired of people pleading no contest at the municipal court level and immediately filing an appeal bond that he changed the plea papers in his courtroom.

Now in at least one of the courts in which he sits whenever someone not eligible for dismissal through a driver safety class or deferred probation pleads no contest, the paperwork he signs includes a waiver of his right to appeal.

Hmmm. I don't think we get to go there, my friend. Article 45.042 states that an appeal from a municipal court (that's not a court of record) or a justice court are to be heard de novo by the county court. Article 45.0425 states that to appeal an adverse verdict out of a municipal court (that's not a court of record) or justice court, the defendant must post an appeal bond in an amount not less than twice the fine. Finally, article 42.0426 states that the appeal bond must be filed not less than ten days after the date the judgment was entered and that if it is, and the bond meets the requirements of the code, the appeal is perfected and the case is sent up to the county court.

There is nothing in the code that says you can't appeal an adverse judgment after pleading no contest. There is nothing in the code that says you have to get the judge's permission in order to file an appeal bond. There is nothing, in fact, that gives a judge any discretion in the matter. If the bond is filed and is proper - the case goes up. Otherwise, the judgment stands.

The judge has overstepped his bounds and imposed a restriction on those appearing in his court that is not allowed under Chapter 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His new policy deprives folks of their statutory right to appeal an adverse judgment. His pronouncement violates the separation of powers in that he is usurping the role of the legislature.

I'm not going to go into my rant about petty tyrants run amok because he is one of the few municipal court judges who doesn't act like a cash register clerk for the city. He tries to do the right thing when he's sitting on the bench. But this time, he got it wrong.

Conflicting interests

So here I am, after a long weekend, wondering what I'm going to write about on Tuesday morning when a very interesting story drops into my lap. Courtesy of a bondsman in Harris County, who shall remain anonymous, we have the curious tale of two brothers - one a bondsman and one a traffic ticket attorney and the grey area where their worlds meet.

Last month Michael Youngblood filed suit in Jefferson County, Texas (about 90 miles east of Houston) alleging that Houston-area bondsman Michael Kubosh and his brother, ticket attorney Paul Kubosh, teamed up to steer Michael's bonding clients to Paul's law firm. According to Mr. Youngblood, he called up Michael Kubosh's bonding company to post bonds on some overdue traffic tickets. He claims he was placed on hold and charged a fee that included representation by Paul Kubosh's law firm (which is next door to the bonding company).

Mr. Youngblood also accused Michael Kubosh of holding himself out to be a licensed attorney - which, according to the State Bar's website, he is not.

Mr. Youngblood claims he never asked anyone to help him find an attorney to handle his traffic tickets.

If the name Michael Kubosh sounds familiar it may be because back in February he announced his candidacy for an at-large seat on the Houston City Council.

Now I must say that over the years I've dealt with both of the Kubosh brothers and I have never found them to be anything other than helpful (in the interest of full disclosure, I once represented a woman who was being sued for a bonding fee by the Kubosh bonding company, but my dealings were with a third Kubosh brother).

The other day I had a conversation with the newest member of the Harris County Bail Bond board who told me he was shocked when he found out how some of the traffic ticket law firms operated. I've written before about one such firm who placed a sign in front of their office offering free representation for anyone who posted a bond with them and the inherent conflicts that type of business arrangement harbors.

The board member told me he couldn't believe that some ticket firms (who also posted bonds) had language in their contracts that stated the law firm could enter a plea on behalf of the client if he or she failed to appear in court - presumably if they were a bonding client (though, since I haven't seen the contract in question, I cannot state for certain).

Just think of the conflicts involved in that transaction. The client's goal is to keep the traffic ticket off their record, whether that be by dismissal, deferred probation or by taking a defensive driving class. For an ordinary motorist that ticket could result in two points being assessed against their driver license (six points over a three-year period results in a $100 surcharge for renewal and too many tickets in a given period can result in a suspension). For a commercial truck driver a conviction on a traffic ticket could result in the loss of a job.

The ticket attorney may or may not care how the case is resolved since he or she can only deal with the facts in front of them - and they've already been paid. The bonding company, however, wants that case resolved so they can write additional bonds. The more bonds, the more fees, the more profit.

And when the same person owns the law firm and the bonding company, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen. Now the Houston Municipal Court has taken steps to alleviate the conflict by requiring attorneys entering pleas on their clients' behalf to present a waiver of appearance signed by the client. Of course there is no way to know whether that form is filled out at the initial consultation or at the time the plea is entered.

If you spend any amount of time in the shadowy world of criminal defense, it isn't surprising that these situations arise. People who have warrants out there or the family of someone who's been arrested are desperate. They are willing to do almost anything either to stay out of jail or get someone else out of jail. They are easy prey for those willing to take advantage of them.

But that certainly doesn't mean we should tolerate it.

HPD's dirty little ticket secret

We all know that it's hard to win in traffic court. The officer has his shiny gadget that tells him how fast you may or may not have been driving - a readout that no one but him ever sees. And what about when he asks you for your driver's license and insurance? Chances are there's no one else in the car to contradict a word he says.

As far as the prosecutor and cashier judge are concerned he's got you on three grounds. Maybe you've got your insurance card to prove you had coverage at the time of the stop. Okay, that's one for you.

But what about that driver's license. There's no question it was valid at the time of the stop. But were you carrying it with you? Remember, it's your word against his.

Maybe they offer to dismiss the no driver's license charge if you take a deferred on the speeding case. Or maybe they offer you deferred on one and defensive driving on the other. All works out the same in the end - the city gets what it wants and you get screwed.

Happens every day in every court in the Municipal Courthouse.

But now there's a little twist.

What if the police officer has already preset his ticket-writing computer to issue citations for speeding, no insurance and no driver's license? Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Unfortunately,  that's exactly what's been happening in Houston.

According to this article in the Houston Chronicle, Shirley Simmons was pulled over for speeding in a school zone near her grandson's school. What she didn't realize at the time was that the officer also cited her for failing to display a driver's license and for not having proof of insurance.

When she got home, put on her glasses and closely read the ticket, she discovered two incorrect charges: failure to display a valid Texas driver's license and lack of insurance. She went to two nearby Houston Police Department stations, but was directed to the traffic division downtown. 

After a supervisor spoke with her and the officer, the two extra violations were removed. She still must go to court later this month for driving 5 miles-per-hour over the limit. But Simmons, a disabled 61-year-old grandmother, wonders if officers are pre-setting tickets with violations in certain communities, like the crossroads of Sunnyside and South Acres, where she was stopped.

There is no doubt that there are a great number of drivers in our fair city who don't have a valid driver's license or insurance. I've had quite a few as clients of mine. But until Sgt. Robert Gonzales opened up his mouth without thinking, I had no idea that it was standard practice to have certain charges pre-set into the computer to save time.

Of course Sgt. Gonzales doesn't see it as a problem. And why should he? The traffic division is a fundraising unit for the City of Houston. The police aren't trained to look at people as being innocent unless proven otherwise. That kind of thinking is anathema to a police officer.

The problem, Sgt. Gonzales, is that no ticket spit out of a ticket-writing computer can be trusted anymore. We don't know if those charges were pre-set defaults or violations the officer actually observed. Hell, we don't even know if the ticket really tells us why the driver was stopped in the first place.

If a motorist is cited for speeding, failure to display a driver's license and not having proof of insurance - but they come to court with a valid driver's license and insurance card, wouldn't it be more likely that the motorist is being truthful when he says he wasn't speeding?

But, in a land in which judges are happy to sign check-the-box and fill-in-the-blank search warrant forms authorizing forcible blood draws in DWI cases, why should it surprise us that the police have rigged the ticket-writing computers?

And why, by the way, wasn't the officer who issued the ticket to Ms. Simmons not charged with filing a false government document? He pre-set the information. He knew it was pre-set. He printed out the ticket and handed it to Ms. Simmons. Then he filed a copy with the court.

Oh, but it was an accident. He didn't mean to do it. He was really sorry about it. Not that he did anything wrong, though.

Road trip

Today was a road trip Wednesday. I had a client with a commercial driver's license who got a speeding ticket up in Brazos County. Since he had a CDL our only choices were to plead the case or try it. He chose to go to trial.

Now it's one thing to try a case on your own turf - but trying a case on someone else's turf is quite another story. After we finish questioning the jury panel the judge asked us if we were ready to make our strikes. Um, Judge, I've got a few folks I need to challenge for cause. After I announced my challenges I felt right at home as the judge proceeded to do his best to rehabilitate each of the jurors who announced that they were biased against my client in one way or another.

Trying the case was pretty much the same as anywhere else - with the exception that, in Brazos County, police witnesses apparently are allowed to read from their notes when the testify. Oh, silly me. I guess I should have read the local rules in advance.

After testimony was completed we gave our closing arguments. I wasn't aware that it was customary in Brazos County for the prosecutor to take my demonstrative aid and throw it across the courtroom. I think that was Local Rule No. 2. Well, either that or not giving the jury a written or oral charge.

The judge told the jury to go back and decide whether my client was guilty or not. I asked if we could approach and I asked to see the charge. He handed me the verdict form. I asked him where the charge was and he told me I was looking at it. Luckily someone told me that this judge didn't give the jury a charge so I had already taken the time to draft a charge that the judge ended up sending back with the jury.

About 45 minutes later the jury informed the bailiff that they were deadlocked and the judge declared a mistrial and sent us all off on our way.

I ended up at Rudy's BBQ on Jersey. Rudy's is a chain - but still serves some pretty damn good barbecue. I had my usual - brisket and sausage - with a side of creamed corn. The brisket was moist with a health smoke ring. Rudy's smokes their meat with a healthy dose of oak. The jalapeno sausage was cut lengthwise instead of sliced and had a bit of a kick to it. My only complaint was the slightly funky taste of the sweet tea. I know I should probably go back to getting unsweetened tea and using the pick packet of cancer-causing sweetener - but I digress.

All in all, it was some good stuff.

An inconvenient truth?

The truth, that nebulous concept that floats in and out of the aether always just seemingly out of reach, has a way of rearing its ugly head every once in a while. Now we all know that traffic tickets are nothing more than a user fee charged to motorists -- it's just that some folks pay a higher user fee than others -- but the cities and counties who depend on this ticket revenue will never admit it. Instead we're told that the police are writing tickets to make sure the roads are safe for all motorists. Yeah, right.

Leave it to City of Houston Attorney David Feldman, he who can't help but shoot himself in the foot, to tear down the public safety facade and call a spade a shovel. According to KRPC-TV,

Money was on the mind of City Attorney David Feldman in August when he implemented a new rule ordering all officers to show up in court at 1 p.m. on assigned court days, even though you have to be there at 8 a.m.

"With the more focused appearance time, we are experiencing far fewer no shows," Feldman said.

Mr. Feldman's move has reduced the amount of overtime paid to officers for sitting around the municipal courthouse all morning (a savings of $250,000 in August and September of this year compared to 2009) and has reduced the number of officers who fail to appear in court.

Texas Watchdog analyzed data from the city of Houston and put together a list of the officers who have had the most tickets dismissed due to their non-appearance in court. Officer Morrison was seriously injured when he was struck by a motorist during a traffic stop in 2009.

Officers with most Municipal Court violations dismissed due to absence : Data source: Municipal Court

Apparently HPD officers aren't altogether enthralled by the new procedure, either, as the number of tickets written in the past year has dropped by 25%.

Collapsing under its own weight

The City of Houston Municipal Courts handled 1.2 million cases in 2009. Of those 1.2 million cases, defendants requested jury trials in 415,297 of them. The Houston Chronicle reported that there were 415,297 jury trials at 1400 Lubbock Street last year; Houston's "leading information source" was wrong. There are seven municipal courts that handle jury trials. In those seven courts, one case, at most, will go to trial each afternoon. Not taking holidays into account, there are approximately 260 working days in a year. If we are to believe the number reported, that means each of those seven courts conducted an average of 228 jury trials a day, every weekday, for the entire year.

The number reported by the Houston Chronicle is not the number of jury trials conducted, but, instead, the number of cases set on the courts' jury trial dockets. That means each court averaged approximately 228 cases on its docket each day.

And with our city attorney doing his best to make Governor Perry look like a genius and declaring that police officers needn't bother with showing up at 8:00 a.m. and making folks sit around the courthouse all day long, the Municipal Courthouse will soon collapse under its own weight.

Now just imagine what would happen if none of those 228 cases plead out during the morning session and that every defendant in that courtroom demanded a jury trial. Imagine 227 cases having to be reset in every court every day. Sure, the new policy is ridiculous and it attempts to coerce pleas by making people sit in a courtroom all day long but to watch the entire system come crashing down is priceless.

Now if you are offended by David Feldman's latest dumb idea and think that it's just plain wrong that you are expected to be in court at the time shown on your summons but that the police can show up whenever they damn well please, then give your mayor and city councilmembers a piece of your mind:

Mayor Annise Parker
(832) 393-0800 or (832) 393-1013

Brenda Stardig
(832) 393-3010

Jarvis Jordan
(832) 393-3009

Anne Clutterbuck
(832) 393-3004

Wanda Adams
(832) 393-3001

Mike Sullivan
(832) 393-3008

Al Hoang
(832) 393-3002

Oliver Pennington
(832) 393-3007

Ed Gonzalez
(832) 393-3003

James Rodriguez
(832) 393-3011

Stephen Costello
(832) 393-3014

Sue Lovell
(832) 393-3013

Melissa Noriega
(832) 393-3005

Clarence Bradford
(832) 393-3012

Jolanda Jones
(832) 393-3006

You might even want to drop Mr. Feldman a line at david.feldman@houstontx.gov.

What's next? Waterboarding?

So you think sitting on the wooden benches at the City of Houston Municipal Courthouse is a long, painful experience now -- it just got longer. City of Houston Attorney David Feldman, who apparently has never met a bad idea he didn't love, sent out a memo instructing officers not to show up in court until 1:00 p.m. -- regardless of the time listed on the summons. Motorists accused of violating traffic laws will still be required to show up on time, however.

Why the change, you may ask? According to Mr. Feldman it has to do with cutting overtime hours since someone has to pay the officers for showing up (nevermind that many officers sign in and leave after telling the bailiff they are "on call"). Of course I think there's a more insidious reason. Make enough people sit in the courtroom long enough and you can wear them down and coerce a plea. Does Feldman not understand the basic principles of criminal law or does he just not give a rat's ass?

Feldman's latest hare-brained scheme (click here for his last "great" idea) will do nothing but clog the dockets further because instead of clearing cases in the morning and picking a trial case in the afternoon the courts will be trying to clear cases in the afternoon.

So what's the solution? Refuse to plead traffic cases. They're all on the trial docket anyway. We can bring the city's ATM machine to a grinding halt by refusing to go along.

Plain English, please

Anyone care to guess what this complaint's all about?

Defendant did unlawfully operate a commercial vehicle in the 3950 block of Terminal Road (South), a public street, when the said vehicle had been modified from the original design so that a part of the said vehicle other than the wheel and the surface of the level roadway was less than the clearance between the roadway and the lowest part of a rim in contact with the roadway.

I wanted this to go to trial just to see if the officer could explain it. The citation my client received was for allegedly hitting the bottom of an underpass, by the way.

By George, you might just be on to something

Even though George Huntoon, republican candidate for Harris County Justice of the Peace, Precinct 5, Position 2, is proud to tell you that he's not an attorney, he is a bit familiar with Judge Yeoman's court.

It seems that Mr. Huntoon has five active cases on Judge Yeoman's docket.

He was issued a speeding ticket on January 26, 2009 that is now set for trial on March 22, 2011 in Case Number TR52X3735364.

He was issued another speeding ticket on June 16, 2009 and he failed to appear at his initial court appearance in Case Number TR52X3772434; a case set to go to trial on September 7, 2010.

On December 11, 2009 he was cited for improperly passing an emergency vehicle, disregarding a traffic control device and failure to maintain a single lane. He also failed to appear at his initial court appearance. Case Numbers TR52X3817550, TR52X3817551 and TR52X3817552 are set for trial on March 15, 2011.

As nothing goes fast in that courthouse over on Clay Road, maybe that's the winning strategy for getting out of traffic tickets in western Harris County -- set if for trial in Judge Yeoman's court then get a reset and throw your hat in the ring for the seat when the judge retires.

Is JP candidate up to his waist in water?

It seems that while George Huntoon, candidate for Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5, Position 2, was president of his homeowners' association, he engaged in a little plumbing work that didn't exactly have the approval of the City of Houston.

In fact, you could even say he stole water from the city when he bypassed the city water meter by cutting the PVC supply pipe and reattaching it on the other side of the water meter. His plumbing job only came to light when the city checked the electric meter for the pump -- and it showed electricity usage even though the water meter did not show any water usage.

Click here to listen to Mr. Huntoon talk about getting water for free.

Is this the person you want sitting on the bench?

The butcher, the baker and the idiot who fell off the turnip truck

I attended the Harris County Municipal Justice Bar Association's lunch today so I could see the candidates for Harris County Justice of the Peace for Precinct 5, Place 2. For those of you unfamiliar with that court, the current Justice of the Peace, William Yeoman, is retiring and four republicans are running for his bench.

Of the four candidates, Jeff Williams, George Huntoon and Virginia Pittman spoke at the luncheon. Mr. Williams is an attorney, Ms. Pittman is the supervisor of the court's criminal department and Mr. Huntoon is a real estate huckster, er agent.

Judge Yeoman's court is the busiest in the State of Texas, or at least that's what Judge Yeoman announces to the gathered throng when he steps out to present his monologue, er welcome speech, every morning.

Mr. Williams said he has practiced in Judge Yeoman's court and knows what a nightmare it can be. He promised to streamline procedures so that attorneys weren't spending hours in court. Of course on the traffic side of things, the nightmarish docket can be a blessing as DPS officers will rarely appear for trial and cases are continued for a year or more.

Ms. Pittman understands the inner workings of the court. She knows what works now and what doesn't. She proposed to get input from court staff as to what needs to be changed. While some might say that a court insider could be very myopic when it comes to operations, when it comes to the strange world of the justice court, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Finally we come to the strange world of Mr. Huntoon. He was quite proud to let us know he wasn't an attorney -- but he always wanted to be one. His radio ads tout him as someone who would run the court as a conservative republican. When questioned about that statement he seemed at quite a loss for what a JP court actually does.

If you're concerned that a Harris County Justice of the Peace might conduct a marriage ceremony between two gays or lesbians, then Mr. Huntoon is the man for you. He said he would never do that. If you're worried that a Harris County Justice of the Peace might sit over a trial in which a defendant was charged with a hate crime (WTF?), he let us know that he wouldn't stand for it -- he didn't think federal hate crime legislation was constitutional. Finally, if you lie awake at night fretting that a Harris County Justice of the Peace would be one of those liberal activist judges who make up the law on the bench, you needn't worry anymore.

Mr. Huntoon said that as a judge he represented everyone in the district. Huh? Is that what he really said? Earth to McFly, a judge represents no one. A judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of the facts before him.

So for those of y'all voting in the republican primary next month, you've got a choice. You can choose the attorney, the court employee or the buffoon who has no freakin' idea what a Justice of the Peace does.

Law and order: Rockport

I was down in scenic Rockport yesterday handling an appeal of a case involving the holder of a CDL. Due to the infinite wisdom of our state legislators, if you hold a CDL in Texas, you cannot get that ticket dismissed in JP or municipal court through defensive driving or deferred disposition. However, should you appeal your plea or conviction to the county court, you can get the case dismissed through one of those avenues.

What's even more absurd it that in a county like Aransas County (Rockport is the county seat), the county attorney's office handles all misdemeanors -- including traffic cases. So I dealt the the county attorney on my client's ticket while it was filed in the JP court and, as we were unable to come to a mutual agreement, we pled no contest, posted an appeal bond and appealed the conviction to the county court. And who would I be negotiating with in County Court? None other than the county attorney.

To his credit, the Aransas County Attorney, Mr. Richard Bianchi, realizes this little "dog and pony" show the legislature has created is an incredible waste of time and money for the courts, defendants and attorneys. He is trying to find a way to steer CDL cases to the county court in the first place to avoid this absurdity. One way might be to offer pretrial diversions at the JP level, thus eliminating the need to appeal a plea.

We reached an agreement for my client to receive pretrial diversion and a dismissal. Then things got weird. We approached the judge and he informed my client that by entering into the agreement he was pleading guilty to the underlying charge but that the case would be dismissed if he complied with the terms of the diversion agreement.

Hmmm. Entering a plea with the judge deferring a finding of guilt until the terms of the agreement were satisfied. That's not pretrial diversion, that's a deferred. Of course since it's a Class C misdemeanor it doesn't matter -- but on a more serious offense it raises the question of whether the person is eligible for an expunction per the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

Next we'll tack on a portion of the electric bill as a court cost...

I was down in Missouri City Municipal Court this morning with a couple of traffic scofflaws. The judge came out and explained to those gathered in the courtroom what was going on. He informed those in the gallery that today was set for pre-trial conferences and that they would try to work out as many cases as possible but, if for one reason or another a case couldn't be worked out, it would be set for trial. Fair enough, nothing unusual in any of those remarks.

Next he told the court that in a jury trial on a traffic case the jury would decide two things: (1) whether the motorist was or was not guilty and (2) the fine to be assessed. Then he informed those in attendance that should they select to go to trial and they lost, the court costs they would be assessed would include the overtime pay for any officers subpoenaed to appear as well as the jury fee.

It seems as if Missouri City has finally found a stick to beat folks into submission and discourage them from exercising their constitutional right to a trial by jury in any criminal matter. The Sixth Amendment affords criminal defendants compulsory process in any criminal proceeding and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the manner in which a defendant may exercise that right.

If Missouri City really wants to prevent people from exercising their rights, maybe the city counsel should consider making all traffic offenses administrative matters. That way city prosecutors wouldn't have to worry about proving their cases beyond a reasonable doubt -- a hearing officer could be appointed to rubber-stamp the tickets and anyone wishing to challenge the word of the city lackey would be forced to appeal the decision to the municipal court where the city's burden would be a preponderance of the evidence.

Once again our rights are slowly eroding.

The honey hole

If you believe that the Houston Police Department issues speeding tickets in order to make the roads in the Bayou City safer, you're in for a surprise. KHOU-TV conducted an investigation of 500,000 speeding tickets issued by HPD as well as 50,000 accidents related to speeding between 2006 and 2008, and came to a different conclusion.

In fiscal year 2008, local police wrote $55 million worth of speeding tickets, including delinquent fees.

While public officials claim it’s all about public safety and not the money, the 11 News Defenders discovered police often return to the same “honey holes” as one veteran Houston Police Officer described it. That is, writing tickets in places where it’s easy to write them, rather than targeting unsafe roadways with a history of speeding-related accidents.

11 News analyzed more than 500,000 speeding tickets and more than 50,000 speeding-related crashes from 2006 through 2008. Of the top 10 ticket-writing locations on Houston streets, four were of the “honey hole” variety. These included setting up at the bottom of hills, bridges and overpasses, where even well-intended drivers can let their car’s momentum get them in trouble.

For anyone who's ever practiced, or spent a lot of time, in the municipal courthouse, it's readily apparent what's really going on (See "The tail wagging the dog"). The city is on a money grab, pure and simple. There's a reason why after Hurricane Ike, while the municipal courts were closed, the courthouse was open for people wanting to come in and pay their tickets.

Municipal courts taken down by virus

The City of Houston Municipal Courts shut down this afternoon due to a computer virus that prevented judges from accessing case records. I don't know how anybody figured out anything was wrong because the computer system was already slow and cumbersome due to a data management program that was inadequate at installation.  

The courts will be closed for at least two days while outside technicians attempt to remove the virus from the system.