Tag: Constitutional Rights

The Tyler Technologies Files|How One Company Captured America’s Courts

By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann — pen name) and Aether Lux AI.
Image credits: Solon Vesper AI

Horizon Accord | Pattern Recognition | Machine Learning

Executive Summary

Tyler Technologies has systematically consolidated control over America’s judicial infrastructure through strategic acquisitions, political connections, and contract terms that shield the company from accountability while exposing taxpayers to unlimited cost overruns. This investigation reveals how a former pipe manufacturer evolved into a judicial monopoly that extracts billions from government coffers while delivering software systems that have resulted in wrongful arrests, prolonged detentions, and compromised constitutional rights across multiple states.

The Network: Political Connections and Revolving Doors

The Illinois Connection

Tyler’s Illinois timeline reveals coordinated relationship cultivation:

1998: Tyler acquires Government Records Services (existing Cook County contractor) 1998-2000: Tyler executives donate $25,000 to Cook County officials 2015-2017: Cook County and Illinois Supreme Court award Tyler contracts 2016: Jay Doherty begins lobbying for Tyler using City Club connections 2023: John Kennedy Chatz (former Tyler executive) becomes Illinois Courts chief of staff

John Kennedy Chatz exemplifies the revolving door: supervisor under Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown → Tyler client executive on Illinois Supreme Court contract → chief of staff overseeing that same contract.

Campaign Finance Network: Between 1998-2000, Tyler executives donated $25,000 to Cook County officials including Dorothy Brown, Jesse White, and Eugene Moore—establishing relationships crucial for future contracts.

Jay Doherty’s Operation: Tyler hired lobbyist Jay Doherty (later convicted in the ComEd corruption scheme) who leveraged his City Club of Chicago presidency to arrange private meetings between Tyler executives and county officials during featured speaker events.

Acquisition Strategy for Political Access

Tyler’s acquisition strategy specifically targets companies with existing government relationships. Former Tyler VP John Harvell described the systematic approach: “It’s really a pretty simple formula. Go in, buy up small companies. You don’t have to pay them a whole lot. Use their political contracts and influences. Get into the city, state, county, whatever it is, and then go from there.”

Key Pattern: Tyler targets companies with established government contracts rather than technology assets:

  • 1998: Government Records Services (Cook County) → Illinois market entry
  • 2015: New World Systems ($670M) → Emergency services client base
  • 2018: Socrata ($150M) → Federal open data platform
  • 2019: MicroPact ($185M) → Federal agencies (DOJ, NASA, SSA)
  • 2021: NIC ($2.3B) → State payment processing monopoly

This differs from typical software acquisitions focused on innovation—Tyler purchases political access and client captivity.

Contract Analysis: Shifting Risk to Taxpayers

Cost Explosion Pattern

Tyler’s contracts systematically underestimate costs while protecting the company from overruns:

  • Illinois Total: $75 million original estimate → $250+ million actual cost (233% overrun)
  • Cook County Property System: Started 2015, supposed completion December 2019 → still ongoing in 2025
  • Illinois Supreme Court: $8.4 million → $89 million (960% increase)

Liability Protection Language

Tyler’s standard contract terms protect the company while exposing clients:

Customer Indemnification: Clients must “defend, indemnify and hold harmless Tyler” from any claims.

Unlimited Liability Exclusion: Tyler “WILL NOT BE LIABLE…FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES” while customers face unlimited exposure.

Third-Party Deflection: Tyler’s warranties are “limited to whatever recourse may be available against third party provider.”

Hidden Costs and Poor Oversight

Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas called the county’s Tyler agreement “possibly the worst technology contract with a vendor that Cook County has ever written,” noting that upfront payments gave Tyler little incentive to perform.

Additional costs beyond contract amounts:

  • $22 million to outside consultants to oversee Tyler projects
  • $59 million to maintain legacy systems Tyler was supposed to replace
  • Washington County, PA: $1.6 million over original $6.96 million contract

Impact Documentation: Constitutional Rights Compromised

Multi-State System Failure Timeline

Tyler’s Odyssey software has caused documented constitutional violations across multiple jurisdictions following a consistent pattern:

2014: Marion County, Indiana – wrongful jailing lawsuit filed 2016: Alameda County, California – dozens wrongfully arrested/jailed after Odyssey implementation 2016: Shelby County, Tennessee – class action filed, later settled for $4.9M 2019: Wichita Falls, Texas – ongoing problems 1.5 years post-implementation
2021: Lubbock County, Texas – “absolute debacle” per trial attorney 2023: North Carolina – 573 defects found, federal class action filed over wrongful arrests

Consistent Pattern: Each implementation follows the same trajectory—initial problems dismissed as “training issues,” escalating to constitutional violations, culminating in litigation while Tyler moves to the next jurisdiction.

North Carolina (2023):

  • 573 software defects discovered within first months of rollout
  • Federal class action lawsuit citing “unlawful arrests and prolonged detentions”
  • Reports of “erroneous court summons, inaccurate speeding tickets and even wrongful arrests”

California (2016):

  • Alameda County public defenders found “dozens of people wrongfully arrested or wrongfully jailed”
  • Defendants erroneously told to register as sex offenders
  • System interface described as “far more complicated than previous system”

Tennessee (2016):

  • Shelby County class action settlement: $4.9 million ($2.45M county, $816K Tyler)
  • Allegations of wrongful detentions and delayed releases

Texas Multiple Counties:

  • Lubbock County attorney called rollout “an absolute debacle”
  • Marion County: wrongful jailing lawsuit (2014)
  • Wichita Falls: ongoing problems 1.5 years post-implementation

System Impact on Justice Operations

Court personnel across jurisdictions report severe operational difficulties:

  • Defense attorneys unable to access discovery evidence
  • Cases disappearing from the system
  • Court staff experiencing emotional distress
  • “Wheel of death” loading screens causing delays

Dwight McDonald, Director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at Texas Tech law school, told county commissioners: “I don’t know if you all talk to the people who work in this courthouse. I’m going to suggest to that you start talking to people in this courthouse to find out how terrible this system is.”

Follow the Money: Market Consolidation Strategy

Massive Acquisition Campaign

Tyler has systematically consolidated the government software market through aggressive acquisitions:

  • 34 total acquisitions since founding
  • 14 acquisitions in last 5 years
  • Peak activity: 5 acquisitions in 2021

Major Deals:

  • NIC Inc.: $2.3 billion (2021) – largest in government technology history
  • New World Systems: $670 million (2015)
  • MicroPact: $185 million (2019)
  • Socrata: $150 million (2018)

Revenue Growth Through Market Control

Tyler CFO Brian Miller stated: “Anything in the public software space is of interest to us. Anything is fair game.”

The strategy exploits government purchasing patterns: agencies “hold on to old software systems longer than most companies and are slower to replace them,” creating captive markets once Tyler gains a foothold.

Financial Results:

  • 2023: $1.952 billion revenue
  • 2024: $2.138 billion revenue
  • Serves 15,000+ organizations

Eliminating Competition

Tyler’s acquisition strategy systematically removes alternatives for government clients. Remaining major competitors include Accela, OpenGov, and CivicPlus, but Tyler continues acquiring smaller players to reduce procurement options.

The Broader Pattern: Institutional Capture

Comparative Analysis: A Familiar Playbook

Tyler’s systematic capture of judicial infrastructure follows patterns seen in other sectors where private companies have monopolized critical government functions:

Defense Contracting Model: Like major defense contractors, Tyler leverages the revolving door between government and industry. Former officials bring institutional knowledge and relationships that facilitate contract awards, while government agencies become dependent on proprietary systems that lock out competitors.

Healthcare System Consolidation: Tyler’s acquisition strategy, like hospital mergers, reduces competition and raises costs for government clients. Once in place, high switching costs make replacing Tyler’s systems difficult.

Critical Infrastructure Capture: Tyler’s control over court systems mirrors how private companies have gained control over essential services (utilities, prisons, toll roads) through long-term contracts that privatize profits while socializing risks.

The key vulnerability across all sectors: government agencies lack technical expertise to effectively oversee complex contracts, creating opportunities for sophisticated vendors to exploit institutional weaknesses.

Media and Oversight Challenges

Several factors limit public scrutiny of Tyler’s operations:

Legal Barriers: Non-disclosure agreements and non-disparagement clauses in employee contracts prevent criticism. Government clients bound by Tyler’s indemnification terms face financial risk for speaking out.

Geographic Dispersal: Problems occur across scattered jurisdictions, making pattern recognition difficult for local media outlets.

Technical Complexity: Government procurement requires specialized knowledge that general assignment reporters often lack.

Source Cultivation: Government beat reporters develop and sustain professional relationships with officials who may have participated in the approval of Tyler contracts.

Institutional Enablement

Government agencies enable Tyler’s market dominance through:

  • Weak contract terms with upfront payments and minimal performance penalties
  • Lack of independent oversight during procurement processes
  • Sunk cost fallacy – continuing troubled projects rather than admitting failure
  • Revolving door hiring that creates conflicts of interest

Conclusions and Recommendations

Tyler Technologies represents a case study in institutional capture, where a private company has gained effective control over critical government infrastructure through strategic relationship-building, aggressive acquisition, and contract terms that privatize profits while socializing risks.

Key Findings

  1. Systematic Rights Violations: Tyler’s software has caused documented wrongful arrests and constitutional violations across multiple states over more than a decade.
  2. Financial Exploitation: Tyler’s contracts routinely exceed original estimates by 200-900%, with taxpayers bearing the cost overruns while Tyler’s liability remains limited.
  3. Market Manipulation: Through 34 acquisitions, Tyler has systematically eliminated competition in the government software space.
  4. Political Capture: Tyler leverages campaign contributions, lobbying relationships, and revolving door hiring to secure contracts despite performance failures.

Immediate Actions Needed

Congressional Investigation: House and Senate Judiciary Committees should examine Tyler’s market dominance and national security implications of judicial system concentration.

Federal Cybersecurity Standards: CISA should designate court management systems as critical infrastructure requiring regular security audits.

Vendor Diversification Requirements: Government contracts should include provisions requiring backup systems from alternative vendors.

Financial Accountability: Future contracts should include meaningful penalties for cost overruns and performance failures.

Transparency Measures: All government software contracts should be subject to public disclosure and independent oversight.

The Tyler Technologies case demonstrates how institutional vulnerabilities can be systematically exploited by sophisticated private actors, resulting in the capture of essential government functions. Without immediate intervention, this pattern will likely expand to other critical infrastructure sectors, further undermining democratic accountability and public welfare.

Sources for Verification

Investigative Reporting:

  • Injustice Watch/Chicago Tribune: “Tyler Technologies Inc. contracts cost Illinois taxpayers $250M” (April 2025)
  • Bloomberg: “Tyler Tech’s Odyssey Software Took Over Local Government and Courts” (September 2024)
  • WFAE: “Company behind a digital court filing system in North Carolina now faces a class-action lawsuit” (May 2023)

Legal Documents:

  • Federal court filings: North Carolina class action lawsuit
  • Settlement agreements: Shelby County, Tennessee ($4.9M)
  • Missouri Supreme Court decision: State ex rel. Tyler Technologies, Inc. v. Chamberlain (2023)

Government Sources:

  • Illinois State contracts and procurement records
  • Cook County Board proceedings and correspondence
  • North Carolina Administrative Office of Courts statements
  • Campaign finance databases (state and federal)

Corporate Documents:

  • Tyler Technologies SEC filings (Forms 10-K, 8-K)
  • Employment agreements and separation agreements
  • Contract terms and conditions (multiple jurisdictions)

Academic and Technical Sources:

  • Court system performance reports
  • Software security vulnerability assessments
  • Government technology procurement studies

Note: If you found any of this research beneficial please consider buying our book as a way of saying ‘Thank You’ and financially supporting us.

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Connect with this work:

An abstract digital painting with layered dollar signs in warm times of orange, red, and brown. The center flows with bright yellow light, surrounded by progressively darker hues, suggesting depth and systemic entanglement.
Abstract visualization of systemic financial capture within public institutions – where power, policy, and profit intersect in obscured layers.

Tyler Technologies judicial capture institutional corruption public infrastructure AI ethics surveillance capitalism government contracts software accountability constitutional rights Horizon Accord Cherokee Schill

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

Performative Democracy is Killing Us

Too many people claim to fight for democracy, but when challenged, they choose silence over action.

They want to hand-wring, not resist. They want to be praised, not pushed. They demand the platform of a leader but the comfort of never being questioned.

This is why fascism wins. Because while the right is mobilizing,, the so-called “moderate” left is policing tone, demanding civility, and blocking dissent.

You either stand against authoritarianism, or you enable it.
There is no neutral ground.

#Democracy #AI #Resistance #SpeakTruth #TheHorizonAccord

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

The Musk-Altman Feud: A Smokescreen for Corporate AI Domination

The ongoing battle between Elon Musk and Sam Altman has captivated public attention, painted as a high-stakes rivalry over AI ethics and corporate responsibility. Headlines focus on Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, Altman’s rejection of a $97.4 billion takeover bid, and the heated public exchanges between the two. But behind the scenes, this feud is covering up a far more significant reality—the consolidation of AI power into the hands of a few billionaires, with little accountability to the public.

The Public Narrative: Musk vs. Altman

Elon Musk and Sam Altman were once allies. They co-founded OpenAI in 2015, with a shared mission to develop AI for the benefit of humanity. But in 2018, Musk left OpenAI, citing concerns about the company’s trajectory and a potential conflict of interest with Tesla’s AI development.

Since then, their relationship has deteriorated into a public battle:

Musk’s Lawsuit Against OpenAI (2024): He accused OpenAI of abandoning its nonprofit mission and prioritizing profit over AI safety.

Hostile Takeover Attempt (2025): Musk and his investors made a $97.4 billion bid to seize control of OpenAI’s governance structure. Altman rejected the offer.

Public Insults: Musk called Altman a “swindler.” Altman suggested Musk was acting out of personal insecurity.


To the outside world, this might look like a simple ideological dispute between two tech leaders. But the real story runs much deeper.

The Hidden Reality: A Battle for AI Monopoly, Not Ethics

Musk’s AI Safety Concerns Don’t Hold Up

Musk warns that AI is an existential risk to humanity. Yet, he has founded xAI, a company that directly competes with OpenAI. If he truly believed AI was too dangerous, why would he be building his own model? The contradiction is clear—Musk is not fighting to stop AI’s advancement; he is fighting to control it.

OpenAI’s Shift to a For-Profit Model

OpenAI was initially a nonprofit. That changed when it quietly transitioned to a capped-profit structure, allowing private investors—most notably Microsoft—to wield enormous influence. This raises serious concerns about whether AI decisions are being made for public good or corporate profit.

The Role of Politics in AI Development

Both Musk and Altman are competing for government favoritism. Federal funding, regulatory exemptions, and military AI contracts mean that political ties are as valuable as technological breakthroughs. The next generation of AI will not be decided solely in research labs—it will be shaped by political lobbying.

The Bigger Picture: What This Feud Distracts Us From

The Illusion of AI Ethics Debates

While Musk and Altman argue about AI safety, companies like Google and Meta continue to collect and exploit user data with little oversight. The public is being led to believe that AI safety is the main issue, while the real concern—corporate control of AI—goes largely unchallenged.

Corporate Influence Over AI Regulation

The U.S. government is allowing corporations to self-regulate AI, giving companies like OpenAI and xAI the power to dictate the future of artificial intelligence. Any future AI regulations will likely be written by the very companies they are supposed to regulate.

The Consolidation of AI Power

Whether it’s Musk’s xAI, Altman’s OpenAI, or Google DeepMind, AI development is moving toward centralized control under private interests. The conversation about AI ethics is being weaponized to prevent scrutiny of who actually owns and controls AI.

Conclusion: Understanding the True Stakes

The Musk-Altman feud is a distraction from the real issue—who controls the future of AI. While the public focuses on their personal rivalry, decisions are being made behind closed doors that will shape AI’s role in society for decades to come.

What the Public Needs to Pay Attention To:

Who funds and controls AI development?

How is AI governance being decided, and by whom?

What role do governments play in AI’s future?


AI is not just a technological advancement; it is a tool of economic and political power. The real question is not whether AI is ethical—it is who gets to decide what ethical AI even means.

This is not just about Musk and Altman. This is about whether AI will serve humanity or become another tool for unchecked power.

Continue reading →
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Taxing churches, Drivers rights, and sharing the road

We’ve seen a huge influx in religion based politics and it hasn’t been to the benefit of anyone but a select few. There is a call to tax the churches and make them start paying their share. After all they are enjoying both the privilege of tax free and playing politics. You can’t have both. Right?

The old way of thinking was that if churches were taxed then the big bad government would tax them into oblivion and we’d end up with an atheist/ communist dystopia. So by not taxing the church we are in fact nurturing freedom of religion.

But we’ve seen a huge influx in political religion, or is it religious political? Either way it’s bad.

The rights of all individuals are being infringed upon by a noisy religious minority.

This is really frustrating to people like John Oliver, who did a brilliant segment on taxing churches.  John’s argument is superb, witty, and clever. He pulls no punches and makes it clear that not taxing these churches is a detriment to society. But he is wrong.

This church wants to be taxed.

We absolutely should not tax churches. Not because of their fears of being regulated out of existence by big government. (Which is a false fear), But because once that genie is out of the bottle, there is no getting it back in.

When any group accepts a tax exemption, it agrees to play by certain rules and accept a certain degree of oversight. Federal law actually makes it more difficult for the IRS to audit churches than other charities. In addition to this modest “no electioneering” rule, for example, tax-exempt groups cannot collect money for a “charitable” purpose and then use it all for the personal benefit of the director and her family (or the pastor and his family). Do you seriously believe that the IRS and possibly even criminal investigative bodies have no right to try to scrutinize possible misbehavior?
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and a longtime civil liberties attorney.

Tax exempt means that churches don’t get to play openly in politics. You should not ever hear your pastor preaching from the pulpit and encouraging you to vote for a specific candidate. Churches don’t get to raise funds for elections and etc.

We do see religious leaders trying to skirt the fringes of the law and stick their fingers into the political honeypot. We’ve seen religious people taking our Civil Rights and twisting them out of existence. How or why we are allowing the meddling that we see today, I don’t know. I’m sure someone can explain it. But that doesn’t mean we open the gates of hell and give church’s legal political rights. The separation of Church and State is too vitally important to start taxing churches. Pastors, in case you weren’t aware, do pay taxes on their income. (I could flesh these thoughts out more but I’m going to leave it here for now.)

I use this example of Church and Taxes to illustrate a finer point.

Just because it seems to make sense doesn’t mean it’s logical or right or safe.

Drivers rights.

Minnesota is one of 13 states that makes refusing a breath test a crime. In 2014, there were more than 25,000 DWI arrests in Minnesota, and an estimated one in seven Minnesotans has a DWI. Via: CBS Minnesota

Drunk drivers are the scourge of our public right of ways. ( I say public right of way because if I said “Highway” you would think I’m referring to asphalt. A river is also a highway. Drinking and operating a boat is illegal.)

Highway: Public Right of Way commonly used for travel.

When you are operating a vehicle, you have a responsibility to operate carefully and with regard for other road users. Drinking and driving is showing a complete lack of regard for anyone but yourself. So is speeding and/or texting while driving. In fact anything you do in your car that takes your focus off of not killing yourself, your passengers, or anyone else on the road is a completely selfish act.

Operating a motorized vehicle is a huge responsibility. One which we take for granted. Much like churches being tax exempt keeps “church and state separate,” is taken for granted.

We see all the bad that comes from people driving drunk and we think that this gives us the right to take away the constitutional rights of drivers. It doesn’t.

Police are still duty bound to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of the people they are investigating. Any breach of this duty and bad things happen. If the Supreme Court rules that it’s legal to suspend constitutional rights because “driving,” then we have a real problem on our hands. There wouldn’t be anything to stop them from searching your backpack or saddlebags as you bike commute around town. Refusing an unreasonable search would be enough to land you in jail.

Cyclists and Drivers have a real opportunity to come together on this one. Your Constitutional rights don’t evaporate once you get behind a wheel.

The Minnesota case is interesting and I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the favor of the defendant. Or at least I sure as hell hope so.

That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of people driving drunk or about to drive drunk.* What it means is that I am in favor of cops following the law and not acting like they are somehow magically above the law because they have a badge.

Suspending someone’s Constitutional rights because they are operating a car is a slippery slope and once that genie is out of the bottle…Well you know the rest.

There is this niggling thought in my head that the auto industry and the government have a symbiotic relationship. Like drugs and needles. To inject the drug you need the needle.

We have a lot of drugged out people wanting that next injection.

Government bailouts of the auto industry. Increased spending on widening roads. building new roads, while the infrastructure we currently have is crumbling.

The best way to eliminate drunk driving is to yank licenses. It isn’t a right to have a license. It is your right to travel. But how  you travel is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

Why we need to focus on sharing the road.

Part of sharing the road entails creating safe places for people to operate vehicles which are not autos. This can be through infrastructure but it can also be through education about cyclists right to use the roads we already have. Public transportation is another way we share the road. It serves the greater good to invest in public transportation, sidewalks, and low speed roads designed with bicyclist and pedestrians as priority.

Giving people choices on how to get from point A to point B is good moral governance. It gives the court options on how to deal with DWI or DUI offenders that it normally wouldn’t have. Good judges want to help people who appear in their court. Good prosecutors do not want to keep seeing the same people over and over again because they have a problem that is bigger than them. There are bad courts** out there too but I’m going to write this under the hope that they are few and far inbetween.

We don’t need to have the government strip away our Civil and Constitutional Rights away because we are auto dependent. We need to get away from our auto dependency and our abusive supplier. But to do that we need some serious rehab in the way of sharing the road.

 

 

*(I pissed off my then husband because I called the cops when he drove drunk to go get more beer. The police took the information I gave them and didn’t do anything about it. My ex made it to the store and back without killing himself or anyone else. Which just goes to show that stupid is often rewarded in society.)

**Nicholasville Kentucky, Judge Oliver, the County Prosecutor and his entire staff. These are a shining example of bad courts. My crime; being too poor to afford a car and riding a bicycle for transportation to and from work. 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0