No, the Fort Bend County clerk just gave up the information without protest. This particular clerk led the way to image the documents and encouraged other clerks to follow her. She is in a difficult position now to complain that her "progressive" efforts caused her to lose control of the entire data set of the county.

Hale County did file two requests for opinions from the Texas Attorney General. The Michigan decision arrived two late for the first. The assistant AG assigned to the case requested a copy from me the day she ruled against Hale County. In the second request the Hale County Attorney provided a copy of the Michigan ruling but the assistant AG (a new one) refused to consider it. Both cases were considered by assistant AG's and I doubt the Attorney General is even aware of the Michigan case.

It is ironic that on the same day the assistant AG ruled against Hale County's effort to maintain control over their records, the Attorney General issued an opinion allowing the City of Houston to deny a request for the names and addresses of pets. So, as it stands right now, Michigan counties and Texas dogs enjoy more protection than Texas taxpayers.

I expect the same is true in almost every state except Michigan. Red Vision may have done this homework for us. They provide a map of planned "development". They show only thirteen states where they do not plan on seizing control from local officials.

I don't want this to seem like we are singling out Red Vision. This company is only one of many to claim they should own the records at the expense of the taxpayers.