Monday, February 11, 2013


The attached IRS liens show a total of $448,126.38, owed to the IRS by a Mark E Sossi.  Mark E. Sossi the city attorney has had adequate time to deny these belong to him, and that it is simply a matter of a  different Mark E. Sossi.  The BV will certainly post a verified claim of such by Mark E. Sossi

Click Here for Liens

This  story is not about Mark E. Sossi - it is about an amoral city without hope.  On Thursday I met with some middle management city employees and they indicated that they never in a million years thought things could get so bad.  There is a real sense of hopelessness.

Jim Goza, former city attorney, was fired for one reason and one reason only - he gave honest legal advice and that did not work for the amoral city commission.  So they hired Mark Sossi.  Had they done their due diligence they would have seen his IRS debt.  This should have been a red flag - or was it a sign he was exactly who they could rely on to do the dirty work.  Let's not forget that with his previous employer he was hit with a judgment in excess of a $100,000. 

Anyone, just anyone - can you tell me how or why honest people would hire Mark Sossi as a city attorney given the fact he has a confirmed history of cheating the IRS and his former employer?  The answer is simple - this is exactly who the  the city commission was looking for in a city attorney.

QUESTION:  When Ernie Hernandez got caught with a large IRS lien it was a big story in the Herald.  But Daniel Cavasos being the inept and corrupt publisher of the Herald has declared this story not newsworthy because Tony Martinez needs Mark E. Sossi to survive.  Daniel Cavasos does not even make a pretense of his bias and hatred for Brownsville


I did an open records request with the city and learned that just last month Charlie Cabler appointed Ben Neece as a municipal court judge for another 2 years, starting in 2013.  See Appointment.

Ben Neece  clearly violated his oath of office under the old terms.  In the course of about a year not once but three times he allowed Juan Montoya to walk out of court with no effective bond for three DWI's, and a reckless driving related to one of the DWI's.  Under the case law Juan Montoya should have been charged with at least one felony DWI.  Ben Neece converted the felony to a misdemeanor and allowed Montoya to walk out of court without having to post one penny in bond.

I can assure you in Dallas his bond would have been  through the ceiling and his license would have been suspended.  If he had been allowed to keep his license he would have been required to put a breathalyzer in his car as a condition of starting it.  Not once did Ben Neece pull Montoya's  previous PR bonds for each consecutive new DWI. 

Anyone, tell me how is this different than Abel Limas?  It is not - I am taking all of my documents to the  criminal prosecution section of the AG and the FBI.  In substance there is no difference than what Limas did in his cases.  Why is Ben Neece being protected?

Below is the case law which shows Montoya should have been charged with at least one felony.

"We respectfully disagree with Judge Johnson. Although Section 49.09 provides that a driving-while-intoxicated offense is a felony "if it is shown on the trial of the offense" that the offender was convicted twice before of driving while intoxicated, we do not believe the plain language of the statute labels the offense a misdemeanor at the time of its commission. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2). Rather, the statute provides that the offense is a felony, and the fact that the prior convictions are not proven until the trial does not alter the nature of the offense. Id.; see also Jones v. State, No. 14-06-00879-CR, 2008 WL 2579897, at *3 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 1, 2008, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (rejecting similar complaint).

As noted in Strickland, a driving-while-intoxicated offense third or more is not merely a misdemeanor with an enhanced punishment. See Strickland v. State, 193 S.W.3d 662, 665 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref'd). Instead, the offense is a felony, and the prior intoxication offenses are simply necessary elements to prove the charged offense. Accord Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see also Luedke v. State, 711 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (recognizing that felony and misdemeanor DWI are separate offenses because "[a] prior conviction is an essential element of felony driving while intoxicated," but "[i]t is not an element of the misdemeanor offense"). In Jones, the court determined that the felony offense of driving while intoxicated is committed and completed when the offender drives while intoxicated, while having two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated; "[i]t is not completed months later at trial when those prior DWI convictions are actually proven." Jones, 2008 WL 2579897, at *3."

Click for full opinion

I have verified that Ben Neece was sanctioned by the commission on Judicial conduct for allowing his office to benefit Juan Montoya in dealing with the problems which occurred as a result of his incarceration.


In any normal city such an act by Charlie Cabler in reappointing Ben Neece would have resulted in his immediate discharge.  I get Charlie Cabler is in an impossible position with this hopelessly amoral city commission.  But with the reappointment of Ben Neece he cannot claim clean hands.

The hard core reality is when Tony Martinez gets his solid majority come May Charlie Cabler will be fired.  His act in reappointing Ben Neece merits his immediate  termination.  It is better to terminate Charlie Cabler now and to hire a competent city manager before the election while Tony Martinez still does not have a solid majority.  This action is justified under the circumstances, and does an end run around Tony Martinez's intent to hire a yes man as his new city manager.

The city commission also needs to hire counsel to determine if they can rescind the appointment of Ben Neece given the circumstances.

It is inconceivable that this city commission is not acting to fire Mark Sossi.  If just two of them had the courage to put the issue on the agenda it would force Tony Martinez, Rose Gowen and Estela Vasquez to defend Sossi.   Such a public defense by Gowen will kill her reelection where she stands.   But this will not happen - there is not one moral commissioner on the Brownsville City Commission.


No comments: