LA NOVELA "YO NO CREO EN BOBBY" NUNCA SE ACABA!

By Juan Montoya
In what has become blogosphere observers' most entertaining love-hate affair, the ongoing relationship between the Cameron County District Attorney's Office and blogger Robert Wightman has entered into yet another melodramatic turn.
This is better than "Yo No Creo En Los Hombres", they say, with Wightman playing the role of the scorned and wrathful partner.
Wightman, who has at one time or another called District Attorney Luis Saenz (and others) a "misogynist eunuch" ( a woman hater with no genitals) and "beyond stupid," has now been called to the service of the officeholder to counter reports that Luis has betrayed promises he made to the voters that he would stamp out 8-liners in Cameron County and not sell them back to gamers  as did his predecessor Armando Villalobos.
Instead, in his zeal to deliver the defense to assist with the DA's Office beleaguered public relations effort, the mercurial Wightman has instead further enmeshed that office by documenting the fact that the machines have been sold on at least one occasion (if not more) and may be operating in Starr County as we speak.
When reports surfaced that at least one first-hand source had negotiated the sale of 400 eight-liner machines to a buyer who had arcades working in Starr County, Wightman dug up a contract through his "inside sources" that proved exactly that. He posted the copy of a contract that the DA's Office had drawn up with Lowkes International,a gaming corporation with offices in Georgia and Las Vegas, Nev. with ties to local attorneys Carlos Masso and Rick Zayas.
The sale was for 400 confiscated 8-liner with an option for another 105 should the first sale go smoothly. It did, apparently.
From that revelation, thanks to the intrepid Wightman, we also learned that the DA's Office made a nice $100,000 profit in forfeiture cash paid by Lowkes plus whatever the other 105 eight-liners may have fetched. It went to fatten the DA's Office Forfeiture Fund from where the DA supplements the salaries of Saenz's favorite employees.
Other sources then indicated that Zayas, who has represented Rick Masso, nephew of Carlos, in cases brought by the DA's Office against him, had actually gone into business with Rick, who moved to Las Vegas (where Lowkes is also registered) but kept a business address here. Further probing from other quarters also revealed that Rick Masso is also the president of another gaming company, Southwest Arcades, where he is listed as president and Zayas as its registered agent.
When Wightman stumbled across the Zayas-Masso-Saenz connection, he grew livid that perhaps he was being played to run interference for the DA to counter the eight-liner sales revelations.
He criticized other bloggers for not finessing the information request game and filed his own. Now he's threatening Saenz – the county's top law enforcement official – with disclosing some document that he doesn't know exists if the DA's Office doesn't deliver the goods.
Well, we're in a fine pickle, aren't we?
That a disbarred attorney who was ridden out of Dallas on a rail now thinks he can blackmail the county DA if he doesn't knuckle under to his demands is not only ludicrous, it also shows what happens when you lie with dogs: you catch fleas.
We were surprised when over the weekend, we saw that Wightman had posted a picture that first appeared on Zeke Silva's Facebook page of Sanez and Silva with their mates at a horse race outside San Antonio where betting is allowed. The text posted purported to show them when they were still best friends and the caption said that Montoya had not been included in the picture because he had gone to the restroom.
This set off Wightman to no end and he accused Saenz of the "political rape" of Melissa Landin (formerly Zamora) the DA Office's public information officer/secretary because Saenz was taking Montoya along to bet on the ponies outside SA.
Well, guess what? Montoya was not in the picture because he was not invited and did not attend the event with Silva or Saenz. Instead, we all (including Luis) had a good laugh at Wightman's expense when he went ballistic in defense of his little buddy and inside confidante Melissa.
We could go on and on about people playing Wightman for a predictable fool, but why rub salt in the wound?
No hago dinero, pero como me divierto!
Something Wightman and other novice newsmen don't understand is that news gathering is a cumulative, evolving affair that results in a news product gathered to inform the public. It happened with the Watergate break-in that resulted in the resignation of Richard Nixon. It happened with the Pentagon Papers, George W.'s WMDs in Iraq myth, Defaltegate, and just about every other major news story.
Once a story breaks and other news gatherers start to dig on their own, the story grows legs and takes on a life of its own. Whoever wrote the first that set off the feeding frenzy is forgotten. What matters is that the news gets out to the public and that it be informed of its public officials' actions. There is no room personal egotism in that. There shouldn't be.
We're all  salivating to see what Drama Queen Wightman roots out on the DA's sale of the eight-liners. Go! Robert! Go! and quit getting played so easily by the bunch at the courthouse.
We gotto go. Ya no le creas a los hombres, Wightman. Vamonos. Ya va a comenzar la novela!

WIGHTMAN SPEWS ENVIOUS VITRIOL AGAINST BEGUMS,

There is a saying in Spanish that says "la defensa es permitida," which translates roughly to self defense is permissible. After having watched our friends and community mauled by rogue blogger Robert Wightman – a disbarred attorney from Dallas – we have decided that perhaps our fellow residents may want to know a little more about this actor. Toward that end we have started an informational blog that you can access by simply clicking on the graphic at top right [The Wightman Contra-Intelligence Files]. Periodically, we will add more. Happy reading!) 




By Juan Montoya
Having lost on just about every political fray he has entered locally, blogger Robert Wightman – a disbarred attorney who left Dallas on a legal rail – has now launched a jihad against JP 2-2 runoff candidate Yolanda Begum.
Wightman, whose horse in that race, Erin Garcia Hernadez – was ingloriously rejected by the voters in the Democratic Party primary this past March – has now made it his mission in life to destroy the Begums.
Toward that end he has championed the cause of one Josephine Fisher Canales and her son Michael Begum III and has taken to issue bombastic pronouncements about supposed U.S. Department of Justice investigation into alleged bribery by Alex Begum of Cameron County District Attorney Luis Sanez for investigating a complaint against the woman after she had posted derogatory comments about Yolanda Begum during her race for JP.
We are no strangers to the threats and grand pronouncements by Wightman. He has also posted that we form a cabal of conspirators for pay who are aligned in some way or another with Saenz, Alex Dominguez, Zeke Silva, and the Begums against all that is good and holy in his wacko parallel universe. Of course, the FBI is on our tracks based on his scurrilous charges. Yeah, sure.
This time His Rotundness has pulled out all the stops and sought a charge Alex begum received in San Antonio some 18 years ago. The initial charge of deadly conduct was reduced to reckless driving (Begum was caught drag racing on I-410 with another driver and no accident was involved). He paid his fine, complied with the court and later had his record expunged, as many professional people do. He is now an immensely successful attorney enjoying his first taste of fatherhood.
From this, Wightman is now casting aspersions against Yolanda Begum and questioning her qualifications for justice of the peace. In a classic class-warfare slur, Wightman charges that the Begum's wealth played some role in the court proceedings that allowed Alex Begum to face the charges and continue his life.
He is not a respecter of people or things.
Using the book written by Yolanda's grandson as an excuse, he repeats the unprovable charge mouthed by his mother Canales that his grandmother threw him – a severely disabled youth – into the street after his father died. The truth, and he and Josefina know it, is nowhere near that since Michael was living with his late father's wife and after his father died, Josefina reappeared on the scene after having left with someone else.   Why the vitriol?
More and more it appears that Wightman is exhibiting poor-men's envy when he uses a handicapped man's story to slur the Begums.
This comes from a blogger whose past is clouded with instances of avoiding responsibility for his acts and claiming penury to avoid his responsibilities.

We have documented his severe delusions in the past. If you have the stomach, click on the icon on the right labeled "The Wightman Files: The Evolution of a Criminal Mind" on the right-hand side of this blog. A word of warning: pinch your nose to avoid the stench.
Take for instance, his claim in a lawsuit he filed against U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret  Spellings claiming she had violated his constitutional rights because her department had rejected his applicantion to have his student loans forgiven because he claimed total disability.
Dept. of Education rules stated that if the plaintiff earned more than the poverty level, he was not entitled to have the loans forgiven.
"To put this in focus," Wightman wrote, "if a veteran returning from Iraq with a permanent disability earned one penny over the poverty level on the day of his qualifying disability, he would not be entitled to discharge his student loans."
He claimed in is petition to file the lawsuit without having to pay the filing fee ( (In Forma Pauperis) that he had "no regular employer for 18 years" even though he was a practicing attorney in Dallas before he was disbarred.
Of course, Wightman is no Iraq veteran. In fact, he served in peacetime in-country for one and  half years at most and was given an  honorable discharge because of psychiatric reasons. But that doesn't stop him from covering himself with the disabled veteran's mantle to elicit the sympathy he so badly craves.
A loan analyst with the Dept. of Education said Wightman's earnings disqualified him from having his loans discharged, which triggered the lawsuit.According to Delfin Reyes, Wightman owed the government $40,340 at the time he filed the lawsuit claiming disability and asking to have his loans forgiven even though he earned $17,053 in 2003, which exceeded the poverty guidelines of $12,120.
Nonetheless, Wightman persisted and after more than a year of threats and litigation, the U.S. Dept. of Education threw up its hands and agreed to discharge the $40,000 in student loans.
While in the service, Wightman's last base commander accused him of being a malingerer, that is, feigning illness in order to shirk his duties and pull his weight. That base commander will never know how much Wightman has finessed his tactics over time.
Now he is waging a war against a candidate who's son has overcome his past acts and runs an immensely  successful practice and employs scores of lawyers, paralegals, investigators and support staff. Is the green-eyed devil at work here?

WIGHTMAN WOULD HAVE YOU THINK HE'S A SICK PUPPY

"Although a previous Army mental exam found he had "no psychiatric disorder," his commanding officer at Goodfellow believed Wightman was malingering and ordered that he be evaluated at St. John's Hospital in San Angelo."
Dallas Observer, March 2000

malinger (məˈlɪŋɡə) — vb ( intr ) to pretend or exaggerate illness, esp. to avoid work World English Dictionary

By Juan Montoya
When all his subterfuges and legal dodging have been depleted and the other side in the dispute is prevailing, disbarred attorney Robert Wightman has found that he still has two aces up his sleeve to divert and distract attention of his opponents and the courts: his homosexuality and his hypochondria.

In fact, if you are acquainted with his writings, at any one time Wightman is complaining of some malady or another that drives him to despair – and into the long lines of truly deserving veterans seeking aid from the Veterans Administration.

It doesn't matter that he never shot at anyone in anger when he was in the peacetime Army, or that he ever left the U.S. to serve in a combat role overseas.

Those two or so years that he served as an aircraft mechanic's helper before the Army discharged him based on a psychological evaluation have provided him the ticket to elbow out deserving combat veterans to receive specialized treatment for any number of perceived illnesses and conditions.

(Incidentally, now he calls himself a disabled veteran and has likened himself to soldiers serving in Iraq.)

After he was disbarred in 2002, he continued to operate a website where he identified himself as an "attorney and mediator" authorized to practice before the Supreme Court. The Dallas County legal community was wise to him and he was charged with a felony for holding himself out as an attorney and charging clients for giving them legal advice.

The Supreme Court disbarred him in 2002.

He pleaded down the charge to a misdemeanor and then missed court dates to determine his guilt and punishment by scheduling visits to the VA Hospital on the same dates court hearings had been set. This drove his court-appointed attorney John Cook bonkers and he questioned Wightman's antics.

When Cook called him on the matter, Wightman, in a tiff, replied that he had scheduled appointments with the VA hospital, suspiciously, on the same days he had court hearings.

He tells Cook:  "The question is why you did not call me when I was late – this is basic advocacy – I will file another motion to have you removed for setting me up to be arrested rather than just give me a simple phone call. How easy that would have been for you to do."

Exasperated, Cook finally erupts: "All your court dates were scheduled well in advance. You never objected to the dates. Why would you schedule doctor's appointments on two separate court dates? No one believes you anymore on your excuses. The same goes for your trips to the U.S. Supreme Court, Court TV, RICOH suits filed in D.C., talks with ethics professors, having Jane Boyle disqualified as U.S.Attorney, Supreme Court attorneys agreeing with your theory of case, etc., etc., the list goes on and on..."

In February 2004, Wightman filed a motion in Dallas County's 204th District Court for a continuance on his case where he established the pattern for his future behavior.

"Upon receiving John Cook's emails the Defendant (Wightman) became despondent and sat in disbelief. The frustration,,,made it impossible (for me) to prepare for work in this case. It is related to the (my) situation stress wherein he shuts down while working on nay matter related to himself.

"Every effort (by me) to respond to (Cook's) actions or prepare for this case was met with (me) being unable so much as sit at (my desk). To understand this situation stress during this period (I had) no problem doing school work related to (the) last class toward (my) MEd."

Got your box of Kleenex ready. It gets even weepier.
"By Thursday Feb. 5, 2004, as a consequence of repeatedly trying to force (myself) to work on the case, (I) became highly stressed out. On Saturday afternoon the situation reached the point putting (me) in bed and sleeping for 14 hours. On Sunday afternoon (I) experienced left-sided chest pain and was left bedridden until late Monday. (I) am under ongoing treatment for how the stress seems to cause excruciating left-sided chest pain. On Sunday (I) had failed to take (my) medicine – Plavix and aspirin. (I) took my medicine and the pain subsided.

"On Tuesday (I) spent from 7:30 a.m. until 12 noon with his lipid specialist...Dr. Cater is in the process of pulling the tests related to (my) chest pain and meeting with other doctors to determine a course of action. Part of the problem is six years of treatment for high cholesterol and triglycerides has not been successful. While the triglycerides are down 317 from over 800, and the cholesterol is down 217, the problem remains. (I) go back to Dr. Cater...to learn what treatment direction is being advised. (I) also will meet with (my) psychiatrist to determine if the Paxil is working as it should."

As the case dragged on as a result of these antics, Wightman again addressed the court to plead his case for continuing the process and blaming Cook for the missed court hearings. Looking at almost a certain 14-day jail sentence for his violation, on April 4, he writes:

"For the record, the VA records will prove that I have missed several appointments, my school work will show Zero as grades because my health made it impossible for me to complete course work...

"I will appear in court Monday afternoon, with a motion to disqualify John Cook, and to reinstate the bail. If denied, I will bring my nebulizer and medications with me in the invent (event?) I am arrested. As each of you know, federal judge Solis has found this to be a requisite to him granting the federal habeas corpus."

Alas, and even though he delayed and tried to use his perceived ailments as a way to stop the inevitable, the jail doors closed behind Wightman and he spent two weeks sending off handwritten missives from behind bars to the court to no avail.

WIGHTMAN'S RAVINGS STEM WAY BACK TO ARMY DAYS

By Juan Montoya
An article from the Dallas Observer in 2000 indicates that, while in the U.S. Army, renegade blogger Robert Wightman was "transferred to Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo for surveillance training,  he grew ill and was hospitalized for a time with ulcerative colitis.
He also became deeply depressed, but couldn't tell anyone why. "I thought I was betraying my government by lying that I wasn't gay," he says. "I couldn't tell them the truth without going to jail."
Although a previous Army mental exam found he had "no psychiatric disorder," his commanding officer at Goodfellow believed Wightman was malingering and ordered that he be evaluated at St. John's Hospital in San Angelo.

"The doctor who performed the evaluation, who Wightman-Cervantes says never examined him, offered this diagnosis in 1982: 'It is my initial impression that the patient manifests a paranoid personality disorder.' After reviewing his medical records, an Army psychiatrist determined that Wightman suffered from "atypical personality disorder (suspiciousness, self-dramatization, overreaction to minor events, angry outbursts, some grandiose ideation)."

On March 31, 1983, Wightman received an honorable discharge from the Army based on this psychiatric disorder, though he says the doctor attesting to his discharge never examined him either.
Starting in 1986, Wightman tried to change the diagnosis with the Veteran's Administration. He petitioned the military at least three times to reconsider his discharge, but the Army Discharge Review Board turned him down each time. In 1989, he filed a federal lawsuit against the secretary of the Army, attempting to change the grounds for his discharge again. But the trial judge dismissed the case, and Wightman's appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was equally unsuccessful.
In 1990, while still in law school, he also filed a lawsuit in a Houston federal court on his own behalf seeking to have the Texas sodomy statute declared unconstitutional. In an 18-page affidavit, which graphically details much of his sexual history, he summarizes the injury he has suffered as a result of the state's criminalizing homosexuality.
"Many gays fight the depression with sex. I have done that," he swears in his affidavit. "Many gays fight the depression with drugs. I have done that. Many gays fight the depression with fighting back. I've done that. For me, fighting back is a form of therapy. It gives me hope."
When the federal judge stayed the proceedings because a similar case had been filed in state court, Wightman-Cervantes fought back. He unsuccessfully appealed the decision to a three-judge panel for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Then he sued all four judges – his first taste of this tactic – claiming that because the federal judges dismissed his case and deferred to the state courts, their actions denied him, as a homosexual, access to the federal courts.
He lost.
But the tricks he picked up during those cases led him to develop his personal style of law.
"After an adverse ruling by (a) court, he will file a recusal motion or a lawsuit against the judge, hoping to bait the judge into bias by branding him a 'tyrant' or a 'whore for the insurance companies' or a 'defendant' in one of his lawsuits. The result is procedural gridlock, one recusal motion following another, one judge deciding whether another judge can be impartial. Rarely will a case get heard on its merits. Rarely does he win these procedural debacles."
Delay, abusive threats, frivolous filings – all are part of his vindictive campaign to terrorize the legal system. The Texas State Bar hired Dallas family-law attorney Mike McCurley, to prosecute its disbarment case against him. On September 10, 1998, McCurley filed a "motion for a mental examination of Robert Wightman."
"All appropriate measures must be employed to assess Wightman's established pattern of aberrant behavior," McCurley wrote.
"Perhaps the most chilling evidence that Wightman has placed his mental condition into controversy are Wightman's own writings and utterances..."
Many people in Brownsville have become the victims of Wightman's tactics. A cursory glance at his website indicates that he has at one time or another called for the removal of a host of elected officials and openly blamed others for the suicides of young gays.
He has called former Mayor Pat Ahumada a "worthless piece of ----," has called for Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos to resign, city manager Charlie Cabler the epitome of corruption, wanted Judge Migdalia Lopez censured by the Texas Judicial Commisison, wanted former President George Bush to fire Condoleezza Rice, and said that Judge Gilberto Rosas should be fired by the district judges for being a two-bit bully.
Even the U.S. President doesn't fare well under Wightman.

In a posting on Mr. Obama, he said that like "the good half-breed self hating black that he is, would have made a great house servant, or the aid to the overseer holding the whip while the overseer tied the field slaves to the tree before a whipping. Yes, this house servant boy knows his place and knows how to keep the uppity Negroes in their place so as not to upset the politics of the big house."

In the past, Wightman has advocated a nude beach on Boca Chica (clothes optional, in his parlance) and the institutionalization of the gay lifestyle.

To this end he writes in a style that only he may think is witty and condesending. Take, for example, this passage that he wrote on "How to tell if your husband is gay."

A few quotes from his blog advocating his sexual preferences will turn most people's stomachs. Here's a sampler:

"How do you know if your husband is gay?
Your husband always has a smile on his face after a prostate exam.
Your husband takes more than 2 minutes on the thrown (throne) - those forced contractions are the equivalent of you know what.
Your husband shaves his scrotum.
Your husband has been working out for three years, has gained no muscle, 20 pounds of fat, and loves to shower at the gym.
Your husband wears nylon net underwear."

Haven't had enough? How about:

"Among younger men and women sex with members of the same gender does not mean you are gay - it means you are horny and want some. The nerve endings in the anus which give pleasure during sex, or the impact on the prostate are not any different between straight and gay men.
Trust me ladies once a man has been rimmed, he will want it all of the time. One day he will realize that going all the way with the anal intercourse is even better than the pleasure he gets from rimming. Will it make him gay? - no - it will make him liberated about his body."

And what does he think of the people of Brownsville? This:

"On the issue of bigotry, its openness in Brownsville rivals the days of lynchings in East Texas. It is not that there is more in Brownsville, it is that in Brownsville people wear their bigotry and homophobia as badges of honor. They rationalize it with some level of psychotic intellectualism learned in a school for members of the KKK or SS officers."     

THE DALLAS DRAMA QUEEN AND HERNANDEZES (ERNIE, ERIN, AND NORMA) ALLY

"...Too often, at least for the State Bar, (Robert Wightman) cries foul by indicting the entire legal system, claiming that corrupt judges, perjuring attorneys, and courtroom cabals are plotting to undo him and his clients.
Rather than just appeal the unfavorable rulings of judges, he often sues them, making them part of the lawsuits they presided over. While other lawyers rarely file recusal motions – a litigation tactic employed to remove a judge from a case because of alleged bias – he seems to use them as a matter of practice: Since 1994 (until 2000), he filed at least 28 recusal motions, sometimes half a dozen in the same case. And what judge wouldn't find it difficult to be unbiased against a lawyer who sues him for $50 million, particularly after the lawyer has threatened to ruin that judge's career? Wightman also has a penchant for suing opposing counsel, claiming they have destroyed evidence, lied about the facts, or engaged in illicit conspiracies with disreputable judges. It's all part of his self-appointed, one-man reform movement..."
The Dallas Observer
March 2, 2000

By Juan Montoya
That was way back in 2000, when Wightman was still a lawyer.
Two years later, in January 2002, the judiciary and the state bar had had enough of the drama queen and disbarred him.
Still, he kept a website and stationery that stated he was an "attorney and mediator" and said he was in good standing with the U.S. Supreme Court. Then the Dallas County District Attorney accepted his plea and convicted him of unauthorized practice of the law, a misdemeanor.
Had he elected not to plea, he could have been convicted of a felony charge of holding himself out to be a lawyer. Whoosh went the website and the claim that he was an attorney.
Less than a year later, in 2004, the Supreme Court disbarred him as well and ended that little racket.
And that's' why in 2014 we have this drama queen in Brownsville, Texas, dispensing his legal expertise and bestowing upon the peasants his keen legal precepts and unassailable standards for all to emulate and follow.
And as the kid in the commercial says: "Mom, he's at it again."
Wigthman, like most drama queens, loves attention. He also likes to make outrageous pronunciations (the most outrageous the better), and revels in imagining he has the audience he might have had when he held sway in a courtroom as a bona fide attorney (Ah, sweet memories!). Remember Elton John's "Bennie and the Jets" where it says, "Oh, Bennie she's a renegade?" That's the Bobby we all know and love!
Sound queer to you? Well, he's unabashedly so and gives gay people a bad name.
But since he doesn't have the courtroom as a forum to amaze and dazzle the peons, casting aspersions through his website (yes, he has another one) at everyone and their mother will do.
His signature scribblings are meant to outrageous and bombastic. He will – unless you do as he orders – bring down the spite of Da Lord and smite you where you stand. Here's a sampling of what he did before his he came to Brownsville.
In a January 8, 2004 letter to Gov. Rick Perry, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot, et al, Wightman charging that his rights of free speech was being violated when they disbarred him and a judge shut down the offending website, he issued this ultimatum:

*"If the (Dallas) County settles by 5 p.m. tomorrow, for a payment of $250,000, I will agree not to sue the county or include the county in a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) action being filed against (President George Bush), the State Bar, all members of the (Texas) Supreme Court in their administrative capacity over the State Bar, including former members (John) Cornyn (now a U.S. Senator), Abbott, and Enoch in creating an criminal enterprise to violate the civil rights of those that speak the truth about the corruption within the Texas judiciary..."
and, his conditions of surrender,
*"As part of the settlement, I will credit back to the County of Dallas any money recovered from...the complaining parties in the case...If Hughes and Luce (a law firm), will agree to represent me in said matter pro bono, I will release (them) for their role in this matter."
and, bombast,
"Also included in the RICO is an allegation that Bush, in both his capacity as Governor and as President has used his public office to create a criminal enterprise for the purpose of appointing judges committed to the violation of the civil rights of anyone who speaks out against the institutionalized corruption created for the benefit of Bush and his cronies."
and, en edict,
*"In the federal RICO part of the litigation I will include a request that the federal courts take administrative control over the Commission for Lawyer Conduct and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct."
and, another ultimatum,
*"If the State of Texas wishes to settle all claims with me, the state will reinstate my law license no later than 5 p.m. Friday, and agree to pay $500,000 in damages. I will credit back to the state any damages I win in my lawsuit against Allstate (insurance?) and other parties responsible for my illegal disbarment. Assistance from the state in finding a firm to bring the litigation, will only make it easier for me to recover the damages which will be refunded to the state. All of the parties will be sued on Monday in that the limitation runs out on Monday. To avoid being filed in Washington, D.C., the state will have to have an attorney on board to represent me and be prepared to file the lawsuit before the close of business Monday."
and, a word to the wise and the delusional,
*"If you think that (President George) Bush is not going to denounce these actions when confronted by the press, you are delusional. On Monday after filing the RICO in DC, I will be meeting with members of the (U.S.) Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss my evidence of Jane Boyle's  role in this mess (Boyle was nominated by Bush to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas)..."
and, the threat,
*"After my meeting in DC I will be taking the train to NY to meet with Court TV..."
and, a warning to the president,
"If Bush lose credibility over this issue, his credibility on the (Iraq?) war will also be undermined. Once again, you are delusional if you think Bush's advisers are not going to advise him to denounce the judiciary in Texas. Along these lines, I am including Governor Perry for his role in continuing the criminal enterprise by appointing the most despicable people he can find to the Texas Supreme Court."
Thus, the disbarred lawyer who was run out of Dallas on a rail now holds court over the uninitiated among us, making alliances with the likes of the Hernandez vote-harvesting clan (Erin and Ernie).
What did our community do to deserve having this plague visited upon us?
And, most importantly, how long will it be before the local judiciary and bar – like those in Dallas County – put an end to his mad reign of terror?

WIGHTMAN DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH ABOUT LAW LICENSE; LOSES APPEAL AT EVERY TURN

(There is a saying in Spanish that says "la defensa propia es permitida," which translates roughly to self defense is permissible. After having watched our friends and community mauled by rogue blogger Robert Wightman – a disbarred attorney from Dallas – we have decided that perhaps our fellow residents may want to know a little more about this actor. Toward that end we have started an informational blog that you can access by simply clicking on the graphic at top right [The Wightman Contra-Intelligence Files]. Periodically, we will add more. The fifth installment is below. Happy reading!) 
By Juan Montoya
For someone who claims that getting back his law license would be the easiest thing in the world and that the only reason he doesn't is because he prefers not to associate withe the world's crookedest profession, Robert Wightman has labored mightily to get it back.
Wightman was disbarred on Jan. 11, 2002 in the the 298th District Court of Dallas County.
The court found that: Wightman brought or defended a frivolous proceeding. The court also found Wightman took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of a case and delayed the resolution of the case. Wightman, in representing a client, engaged in conduct engaged to disrupt a proceeding. Wightman was also found to have communicated with another party regarding a case when he knew that party was represented by counsel. The court also found Wightman made a statement that was either false or with reckless disregard to its truth regarding the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Wightman failed to timely respond to notice of the complaint from the grievance committee. He violated Rules 3.01, 3.02, 3.04(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(5), 3.05(a), 4.02(a), 4.04(a) and (b)(1), 8.02(a), and 8.04(a)(1) and (a)(8). He was ordered to pay $48,700.72 in attorney’s fees, which is subject to reduction."
Another court later found that he was charging clients for legal advice without a license and he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor instead of fighting it as a felony that might have cost him up to two years in a state prison. In his plea agreement to avoid the felony conviction, he confessed:
"I judicially confess to the following facts and agree and stipulate that these facts are true and correct and constitute the evidence in this case:
On the 9th of June A.D., 2003, in Dallas County, Texas. (I did intentionally and knowingly then and there, while not licensed to practice law in this state, another state, or a foreign county, and with the intent to obtain an economic benefit for myself, advise Dr. Dan Leong as to the rights of the said Dr. Dan Leong and the advisability of making a claim for property damages, in a legal dispute with Dr. David Stones." 
Eventually, he had to serve 14 days in county jail.
He was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court later in March 2004.
After that – for the better part of four years and despite his protestations – Wightman sought to regain his license by claiming that through the appeals courts that the disbarrment and subsequent jailing for on his guilty misdemeanor plea were unconstitutional for a number of reasons.
In 1996, Wightman appealed his disbarment that was subsequently upheld by the U.S. District Court in Dallas to the 5th Court of Appeals, and lost. The memorandum, written by Brownsville's own Reynaldo Garza, found that:
"(Wightman) brought his action "in August, 1995, against Appellees, the Texas Supreme Court and the State Bar of Texas, seeking declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief. Wightman sought to enjoin the State Bar from proceeding with its disciplinary action against him on the basis that (it) violated his right to free speech and that the complaint failed to provide him with adequate notice of the claim against him...
After a hearing, the district court denied Wightman's application for a temporary restraining order and granted Appellees' motions to dismiss. The district court dismissed the action on abstention grounds. The court also found that Wightman had no likelihood of success on the merits of his claims, that he possessed an adequate remedy at law, that the harm to the Defendants by the issuance of an injunction would exceed the harm to Wightman, and that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of an injunction or restraining order...
Wightman filed a motion for a new trial which was denied by the district court. He then brought this timely appeal of the order of dismissal and denial of injunctive relief.   For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the order dismissing the suit on abstention grounds. Our holding that the district court properly abstained from interfering in an ongoing state proceeding obviates discussion of Wightman's request for preliminary injunctive relief..."
But Judge Garza was not done yet. He dissected Wightman's argument that he did not understand the rules which disbarred him and said:
"(He) also claims that he was not informed which rule he allegedly violated and that appeal would be futile because the Texas Supreme Court “has already announced its position” that the challenged speech is not protected by the First Amendment.
The first argument seems foolish. The first sentence of the grievance form states that Attorney Wightman has made numerous statements that he knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of (various judges)...Wightman is not ignorant as to the charge against him. As for the Texas Supreme Court's pronouncement, such argument was made in a responsive pleading as part of litigation, not as a judicial declaration of law. Wightman cannot yet claim that appeal would be futile."
He followed his quixotic appeal to regain his license November 12, 2002 in the United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.
Again, Bobby sagacious legal theories were ingloriously shot down
The court said: "we decline to disregard the judgment in a case like this one, where the attorney had a right under state law to challenge his disbarment on appeal but did not pursue that remedy...The attorney must have been denied due process; the federal court must have a clear conviction that the proof was infirm; or the court must have a grave reason to deny the judgment reciprocal effect. Deference could give way to de novo judgment, and respect to indifference, were it possible for a disbarred attorney to forgo state appellate rights in hopes of persuading a federal tribunal that the state court had erred in applying state law. We decline the invitation to disregard the state court judgment on the ground that it is void under state law...
"When a district court learns that a member of its bar has been subject to discipline by another jurisdiction, the identical discipline is typically imposed. We discern no grounds not to impose the same discipline as did the State of Texas. Indeed, we think it would be only the most unusual case in which we would not revoke the membership of an attorney who has been disbarred by the State of Texas. We therefore revoke Wightman's membership in the bar of this court."
Then, in 2004, he again was shot down in federal court. It found that:
"The court is left with nothing more than plaintiff's unsubstantiated accusations and paranoid ruminations that he was prosecuted in retaliation for speaking out against corruption in the judicial system and that the actions of the state court judge deprived him of a fair trial...
"As grounds for his motion, plaintiff alleged that he was in the process of moving to Brownsville, Texas and did not have sufficient time to conduct discovery or subpoena witnesses to testify at the hearing...
"This case should be dismissed without prejudice."
Finally, in April 6, 2005, the the last blow was delivered to the Wightman saga to have the federal courts throw out his disbarrment:
"Wightman appears to argue that his criminal prosecution was pursued in bad faith. The magistrate judge scheduled an evidentiary hearing to provide him an opportunity to present evidence to establish this claim. The magistrate judge denied Wightman request for a continuance and ordered him to attend the hearing. In his order denying the continuance motion, the magistrate judge explained that the factual basis for Wightman bad faith claims was not entirely clear from his pleadings.
He stated that he would give him the opportunity to proffer facts in support of his claim and, if Wightman concluded that he needed to conduct formal discovery, he could reurge his motion for continuance immediately before the scheduled hearing. In his recommendation, the magistrate judge explains that the day before the hearing, he received from Wightman a brief in opposition to the hearing and an unsigned motion for continuance, and he did not appear for the hearing."
"The State is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and the action against it is dismissed without prejudice. The court abstains...against Judge Nancarrow and Hill, and it dismisses the actions against them without prejudice."

TRUTH-CHALLENGED BABOSA LANDS IN CALABOOSE

By Juan Montoya

August 15, 2003 was not a good day for Robert Wightman.

After he was indicted by a grand jury in Dallas County and he pleaded the felony charge of charge of false representation as a lawyer to a misdemeanor of unauthorized practice of law, he was ordered to be placed in the Dallas County Jail.

Even as he protested to the court on various missives that his court-appointed attorney had not called him to inform him he was in danger of being placed in the slammer, the court had had enough of his fabrications against his lawyer, judges, and various court staff members and ordered him to be incarcerated.

It is instructive to read the Emails between court-appointed attorney John Cook and Wightman.

Emails sent between them February 3 indicate that Cook was doing all he could to reel him in to the reality that he was in danger of going to jail because of his disattention of his case.
Wightman's pretrial hearing was scheduled for February 26 and he was scheduled to go to trial March 8.

 "I have not heard from you in several days," Cook wrote Wightman. "Are you back from Washington? You told the court that you no longer want representing you. However, I don't think you made it clear to the court that you are going to represent yourself...you need to let the court know as soon as possible. YOU NEED TO NOTIFY ME AND THE COURT IMMEDIATELY AS TO YOUR INTENTIONS. I have not filed any pretrial motions because you told me not to. I feel you are seriously jeopardizing your case because of your lack of inattention to your case. The court has informed that he is not going to appoint another attorney to represent you. Therefore, your only option would be to represent yourself. However, if you would like to have a hearing requesting that I be removed and another attorney appointed, I suggest you immediately let me and the court know."
The next interchange between them was February 21, when Cook is still asking Wightman how he wants to proceed.
"Again, you haven't answered the question as to whether you want to represent yourself. You also didn't answer my other questions. Your right to have a court-appointed counsel and for you to discharge is not absolute. You can't ask the court to appoint you an attorney, then when you don't like that attorney, fire him/her, and then ask the court to do nothing without any indication from you as to what you want to do. Your interpretation of the law is flawed. The case you provided is not on point and is not a criminal case. I see your latest moves as nothing more than finding an excuse to delay your case. Your arguments are without any merit, are frivolous, and ridiculous."
Answered Wightman:
"John, you do not understand the law – my right to discharged you is absolute – the court has no say so in the matter you are out – any action you attempt to take on my behalf will be met with an additional state bar complaint."
Then after faxing Cook his discharge, the attorney replied. By then things had been dragging along and went beyond the original trial date to April 1. Cook said:
"I am in receipt of your fax that includes your letter and notice of discharge. However, you didn't answer my question on whether you intend to represent yourself. Also, I have received no order from the court discharging me. May I suggest that you tell the court that you intend to represent yourself so there is no confusion and I could be discharged? This could easily be cleared up by you. Per your instructions, I am taking no further action on your case, but until the judge discharges me, I assume that I will still have to show up at the pretrial hearing and the scheduled jury trial date. Again, you need to clear this up with the court. This is wonderful news about the attorney of the U.S. Supreme Court telling you that the case against you is without merit. Perhaps you may want that person's affidavit and have them testify at your trial.
Regarding your RICO action, could you mind sending me a file marked copy of your complaint? Could you also send me a file marked copy of the injunction you are filing against me Monday along with the court's order. Thank You. Good luck on your case!
Wightman, in a tiff, replied that he had scheduled appointments with the VA hospital, suspiciously, on the same days he had court hearings. He tells Cook:  "The question is why you did not call me when I was late – this is basic advocacy – I will file another motion to have you removed for setting me up to be arrested rather than just give me a simple phone call. How easy that would have been for you to do."
Exasperated, Cook finally erupts: "All your court dates were scheduled well in advance. You never objected to the dates. Why you would schedule doctor's appointments on two separate court dates? No one believes you anymore on your excuses. The same goes for your trips to the U.S. Supreme Court, Court TV, RICOH suits filed in D.C., talks with ethics professors, having Jane Boyle disqualified as U.S.Attorney, Supreme Court attorneys agreeing with your theory of case, etc., etc., the list goes on and on...
"Basic advocacy is showing up to court on time. Don't lecture me on advocacy. Take responsibility for one for your actions. I think I would also bring a witness with me to court tomorrow who can vouch for your whereabouts today...Are you trying to make another threat? It is difficult for me to tell with your spelling and syntax. You might also review the Texas Rules of Evidence dealing with waiver of the attorney-client privilege when a client voluntarily discloses attorney-client communications to third parties...
"You're calling me hostile? You've shown nothing but contempt against me, constantly threatening me with lawsuits, RICOH actions, miscellaneous criminal actions, ineffective assistance of counsel claims and even threatening my receptionist, a very kind and caring person. Who haven't you sued or threatened to sue? I find this very shameful. Now you're blaming me  for not showing up to court?
Finally, "As you know, we had court this morning at 10 a.m. but you never showed up. Please contact me as soon as possible to let me know if you are OK. The judge has held your bond insufficient. I urge you to contact me."
Five months later, the jail doors closed behind Wightman and he spent the next two weeks sending off handwritten missives to the court to no avail. The axiom about someone who represents himself having a fool for a client was never more apt.