By Juan Montoya
Four years ago, Chase Bank sent a large mailing to potential customers who might want to apply for a credit card.
Instantly, because one was sent to him and another person who had been target of his lawsuit, Robert Wightman suspicions were roused.
Could it be, he thought, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, former U.S. Attorney Albert Gonzalez, current U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and the FBI Director Robert Mueller, were all trying to entrap him by sending him the application?But of course, that was it.
So Wightman, who has been known to sue people and companies at the drop of a legal pad did what comes naturally to him. He sued them and demanded that the court appoint a special prosecutor to pursue the investigation into who had sent him the credit card application.
In his petition to the court in Wightman vs. Robert Meuller, et al, Civil Action No. 10-00238 (JDB) he requested that the Court order defendants to recuse themselves from a criminal investigation that he sought to open.
Wightman began with accusations that Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson of the Texas Supreme Court "orchestrated an usurping of power" from Texas Governor Rick Perry "with Governor Perry's full consent for the sole purpose of obstructing justice."
Wightman also alleged, among other things, that FBI Director Mueller and former Attorney General Albert Gonzales used the FBI to entrap him on credit card fraud charges in order to silence his criticism of appointments made by former President George W. Bush. He claims that the FBI was responsible for a Chase credit card application addressed to him and to a person targeted in a previous lawsuit he filed; he believes that the application is evidence of the FBI's scheme to entrap him on credit card fraud.
Wightman also contended that Mueller could no longer conduct a criminal investigation of Governor Perry and Chief Justice Jefferson because he would implicate himself and his office, and that Attorney General Holder was now involved in the coverup because "President Obama seeks to appoint to federal offices Democrats who have made themselves party to the criminal conduct initiated under the Republicans."
He further argued that the Court's failure to compel the FBI to investigate and indict Governor Perry and every member of the Texas Supreme Court will make other judges "party to the criminal conspiracy started by Governor Perry and the Texas Supreme Court and covered up by FBI Director Mueller."
According to Wightman the FBI reviewed his claims of public corruption and attempted credit card fraud at his request but declined to investigate further, citing a lack of evidence. He sought declaratory, injunctive,
and mandamus relief ordering defendants' recusal from a criminal investigation of Governor Perry and Chief Justice Jefferson and the appointment of an "independent investigator" to pursue the investigation.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They argued that Wightman-Cervantes's bizarre and implausible factual allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth, and that his complaint therefore did not raise a federal question and warranted dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
The court, finding Wightman's claims that a wide-ranging conspiracy involving two administrations and high-ranking state and federal officials that were trying to entrap him baseless, said he did not offer any facts or circumstances to support his claims that defendants "conspired to try and entrap him by having him accept a credit card from Chase," or that they conspired to have him arrested before the hearing for a President Bush appointee. In their opinion, they said his factual allegations are conclusory and unsupported, representing the type of "bizarre conspiracy theories" and "wholly insubstantial" claims contemplated by the D.C. Circuit and others that had dismissed similar claims.
The court said that even though it recognized that pro-se litigants are "generally entitled to the benefit of less stringent than those applied to attorneys, in fact, Wightman is a disbarred attorney who "is presumed to have a knowledge of the legal system and needed less protections from the court."
The court found that Wightman had failed to show that he had a right to the appointment of a special prosecutor or that the FBI, defendants, or any other government official or agency owe him a duty to investigate the alleged criminal conduct. The Court concluded that Wightman has failed to satisfy his burden and demonstrate that he was entitled to mandamus relief, and his request for a writ of mandamus was also denied.
And a justice of the peace allowed this guy to represent someone in his court? This county is going to hell in hand basket and this case is one of the looniest we've encountered.
The court said that even though it recognized that pro-se litigants are "generally entitled to the benefit of less stringent than those applied to attorneys, in fact, Wightman is a disbarred attorney who "is presumed to have a knowledge of the legal system and needed less protections from the court."
The court found that Wightman had failed to show that he had a right to the appointment of a special prosecutor or that the FBI, defendants, or any other government official or agency owe him a duty to investigate the alleged criminal conduct. The Court concluded that Wightman has failed to satisfy his burden and demonstrate that he was entitled to mandamus relief, and his request for a writ of mandamus was also denied.
And a justice of the peace allowed this guy to represent someone in his court? This county is going to hell in hand basket and this case is one of the looniest we've encountered.
No comments:
Post a Comment