Wednesday, August 11, 2010



There are always two official positions. One for the consumption by the people, and then the truth. While at the VA in SA last week undergoing a facet joint injection procedure to control hip pain I met a former Special Forces soldier. We got to talking. He said the situation in “Afghanistan is a cake-walk compared to Mexico.” He said he had done tours in both counties. In fact in the case of the latter, he operated in Mexico City.

Look it is no great secret we are all over Colombia fighting the drug war, why not Mexico? Being in Mexico did not surprise me - what surprised me was the statement “Afghanistan is a cake-walk compared to Mexico.” With at least two care bombs now in a month, maybe Mexico is that bad.


Late yesterday I posted a comment changing my position on the CO’s. Until yesterday while reading my own comment, I never saw or heard the argument as to why the CO Act does not apply. This is always my great frustration. I cannot operate on conclusory statements without support. After I read the Brief by the Friendswood 5, I began to get the argument, but the Brief failed to mention the legal basis in the CO Act for why it does not apply. Again it was a conclusory statement.

Now - a lawsuit as a matter of law cannot be frivolous if another judge has already ruled in your favor as to the legal principle. In the Friendswood case this has happened. Sossi’s threats are a consequence of either unethical conduct or a total lack of knowledge of the law.

Now to play reality - this judge can order a trial bond be posted and the Brownsville 8 can fail to post the bond, and nothing will change. No one is going to buy bonds which are in legal dispute. The Brownsville 8 still get to appeal, with an issue being the legality of the bond. The appellate court can declare the bond illegal because in the end the CO’s are illegal.

The Brownsville 8 need to prepared a formal State Bar complaint against Sossi. The issue is not the merits of the lawsuit, but whether or not he used his office and position as a lawyer to threaten citizens of Brownsville for the heinous crime of exercising their rights. As a matter of law a lawsuit cannot be frivolous if another judge has already ruled in your favor on the point of law. When is this city commission going to end the rule of Sossi? His bogus threat only proves what I said last week - he suffers Napoleonic micropenis syndrome. If the shoe fits, as they say.


People need to look at the CO’s Act, and consider the following using both the words Shall and May.

271.044 (b) A home-rule municipality may use this subchapter regardless of any provision in the municipality's charter to the contrary.

Under may it would mean the municipality has a choice of being guided by its city charter or the CO Act.

Under shall it would mean the municipality shall use the CO Act regardless of anything in its city charter.

Now, I can see an argument wherein the city commission could argue that “ regardless of any provision in the municipality's charter to the contrary.” means they do not have to first amend the city charter before opting to act under the CO Act. The word “regardless” appears to suggest that the prohibition in the city charter can still be in place while the city commission acts under the CO Act. This interpretation is needed to give meaning to the word regardless.

BUT, the backdrop to all of this is an all Republican Texas Supreme Court which is not inclined to rule Home Rule city commissions can go into deficit spending through borrowing without the consent of the people.

Second, the Texas Supreme Court is going to look at the unique powers of Home-Rule cities and find that if the legislature can pass laws which abolish Home-Rule city charters in favor of allowing city commissions to choose if they will be guided by state statute or the city charter, then the intent of the protection afforded the people by and through a city charter becomes meaningless.


Last night Il Duce Troiani openly dismissed the opposition to the Sports Park based on a lack of speakers to oppose the Sports Park. Why would good people even bother going before a city commission which considers free speech dead, and insulting the speakers or dismissing the speakers a sport?

The people will speak on the Sports Park issue in May 2011. Troiani, Atkinson, and Longoria have all done enough to anger the people into voting the commissioners out of office. But will the people act? The people need to be given a meaningful choice. Like I said if the best Brownsville can do in May 2011 is any of the Brownsville 8, then each of these commissioners will win reelection.

Time is short. It is time the community begin looking for well spoken candidates who can win. If all we have are the same old recycled candidates nothing will change at city hall.


Anonymous said...

In his countersuit threat letter, Sossi brought up the AG office getting involved to get the Brownsville 8 to cave and withdraw their lawsuit. If Greg Abbott does get involved, then he could be toast in the rest of the state because the general public in Texas and the country is tired of debt. His support of the city going into debt without voter approval will be seen as a power grab by the state to bypass the will of the people. If the Democrats were smart, they'd be all over this and put Greg Abbott on the spot especially if he tries to get involved whether openingly or on the sidelines to help the city of Brownsville.

Anonymous said...

(Look it is no great secret we are all over Colombia fighting the drug war, why not Mexico? Being in Mexico did not surprise me)

Outstanding, Bobby!!!

Anonymous said...

Could you tell me more about Napoleonic Micropenis Syndrome (MMS)? I hear Pfizer has an experimental treatment for it. I want to go to my doctor but I'm not if I should go to a psychatrist or a urologist.

Mark S.
Brownsville, Texas