YOU HAVE TO PARSE THINGS OUT MANY TIMES BEFORE THE PICTURE IS CLEAR

I am nearly done with my latest mandamus against Omar Ochoa.  The state needs to remove Omar Ochoa from his position.  I think I am getting close on that issue.

On the Pablo Kisel bars, some documents have now been uploaded to the District Clerk's web page, but not all.  I still have not seen the notices posted on the doors of the bar.

But in parsing this out over and over again and outlining what I know something has become clear.

BUT FIRST:  The city of Brownsville's objection to judge Robert Garza is online.  As a matter or right everyone gets one objection to a visiting judge, without a stated cause.  The state exercised this right and stated no reason for its objection to Judge Garza. This is perfectly permissible.  Speculation is reckless and should be dismissed by any rational reader.

Social media going down the rabbit's hole speculating as to the basis for the objection is just trash journalism.  I read the objection and it a clean objection of right.  There is no stated reason because one is not needed. 

I really want to see the notices posted on the bar doors, but the key may be elsewhere.

I BEGIN WITH THE CITY'S CLAIMS AND TAKE THEM AS TRUE

The bars were serving minors, while other patrons were using cocaine.  The bars only have control of serving minors.  On the cocaine issue, if an inspector sees someone using cocaine and a bar staffer is there and sees it also, then the bar can be warned.  But key is, if the inspector actually saw someone using cocaine, the user should have been arrested. But this is not on the bar owner unless it can be proven bar staff see the user's using cocaine.

Serving minors:  If an inspector saw a minor being served, then a citation should have been issued.  The minor should have been arrested.  If these things did not happen then the problem is with the city inspectors and not the bar owners.

I get bored with parents who are like, "I cannot control my child because I am a horrible parent so punish the bar owners."  If your 18-year-old son is in a bar, especially with a fake ID, then you as the parent are the problem.  It is not for the bar owners to do your job as a parent.  

Bar fights: unless you can prove a bartender overserved a patron and then that patron got into a fight, the bar is not responsible. 

Parents need to take responsibility for the acts of their children. 

The Brownsville Police Department and Saenz are a big part of the problem. I appreciate Adult Probation warns their defendants to stay away from Pablo Kisel.  The facts justify the warning.

Cities with formal Red-Light Districts, have additional police on patrol during key hours.  There must be zero tolerance for fights in or around the bars.  

The DA must set a minimum bail and eventual fine for fighting in and around bars, or public intoxication.  We all know Saenz will never do that. We also know the city will never research how other cities handle a Red-Light District.

I am not saying the situation near Pablo Kisel is acceptable.  I am saying parents need to control their kids.  I am saying if you are arrested having a fight in or around the bars, there should be a higher bond to get out of jail, and a mandatory fine and probation which is higher than just getting in a fight elsewhere.  Bars are unique and additional punishment is needed.

It took me a while to get to a conclusion, but because I have to parse the problem out it takes time.

My best computer remains my pad and pencil.