BABOSA SUES BUSH, OBAMA, FBI, ATTORNEYS GENERAL

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. 

MANY HAVE QUESTIONED DISBARRED LAWYER'S SANITY

By Juan Montoya
Robert Wightman is a recent arrival to Brownsville and the Rio Grande Valley.
Yet, in the short time he has been here he has sought to get into the public spotlight taunting and threatening elected officials, attorneys, political candidates and members of the local judiciary he feels don't measure up to his standards (?). He has threatened many of them on his website with federal indictments, complaints to professional entities, and with incarceration in state and federal prison which will surely result from his complaints.
Before he came here, he was a practicing attorney in Dallas until he was disbarred.
The Texas State Bar hired Dallas family-law attorney Mike McCurley, to prosecute its case. 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..."
On Jan. 11, 2002 the 298th District Court of Dallas County disbarred Wightman, then 44.
Another court later found that he was giving political 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.
He was disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court later in March 2004.
But Wightman's troubled track record starts sometime before that. (That's him with the goofy grin in a Flying Nun outfit that he posted on the worldwide web.)
An article from the Dallas Observer  from March 2000 indicates that while in the U.S. Army, he 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 he told the writer that 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.
While he was fighting a charge of practicing law without a license after his disbarrment, his court-appointed attorney (he claimed indigence) John Cook petitioned the court to have his client be given a psychiatric examination to determine is competency to stand trial.
Although Wightman sought to disqualify Cook and petitioned for another court-appointed representative (denied), it is instructive to read Cook's petition to the court.
In the motion filed in the 204th Criminal District Court of Dallas County March 18, 2004, Cook told the court that the defendant (Wightman) did not "in the opinion of counsel, have sufficient present ability to consult with counsel to a reasonable degree of rational understanding of the proceedings...
"The facts and circumstances of the alleged offense give rise to the possibility that the defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged commission of said offense.
In order to determine the present mental status of the defendant, a psychiatric examination is requested by the counsel for the defense...In order to permit the undersigned attorney to properly and adequately represent (Wightman), it is necessary that the stated attorney be notified of the date, time and place of any examination, so as to allow such attorney (to) attend said examination...
"Defendant requests that any expert appointed to conduct the necessary examination be directed to reduce all medical-psychiatric findings pertaining to the defendant's competence to stand trial to written form, and to include within such written report the methods, tests or procedures utilized in the examination, any observations and/or findings, recommended treatment, and whether or not there is a substantial probability that the defendant will attain competency to stand trial in the foreseeable future...
"...Defendant herein, by and through counsel pray that the court order the appropriate authorities to conduct a psychiatric examination, in the presence of defense counsel, to determine the competency of the defendant to stand trial..."
On April 5, 2004, Judge Mark Nancarrow, of the 204th District Court of Dallas County signed an order authorizing the psychiatric examination of Wightman by a doctor of the court's choosing (See document above).
Now he's here sitting in judgement and dispensing his legal opinion on those who will listen to him.

WIGHTMAN CONFESSES: "I DID INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY" BREAK THE LAW AND PRACTICED LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE

By Juan Montoya
On Thursday morning, when one Josephina Canales (Fisher?) who is charged with harassing Yolanda Begum through electronic messages appeared at Judge Art McDonald's County Court-at-Law #1,  she was accompanied by none other than a disbarred lawyer from Dallas who immediately screamed that his First Amendment rights had been violated because he had been asked – as others were – to wait outside the room if he did not have a case to be heard.
The disbarred attorney, one Robert Wightman, was accompanied into the courtroom by a television crew from Channel 4 who he had brought along to record the staged encounter.
According to Wightman:  "Judge Art McDonald facing both possible federal criminal charges, and disciplinary action by the Commission on Judicial Conduct, recused himself citing the possible charges and disciplinary action."
Of course, McDonald did no such thing.
He merely mentioned the fact that someone (Wightman, who else?) had filed a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Justice, as he is wont to do, claiming both McDonald and Cameron County District Attorney Luis V. Saenz had violated Canales' rights (unspecified). He has also threatened to file a federal lawsuit against Saenz for – ready? – performing his job as a county prosecutor and addressing a criminal complaint.
Wightman has already posted that he is going to bring down Saenz at all costs. In fact, he makes no bones about his threats of "going before a federal judge for injunctive relief. "My only hesitancy is it is bad form to seek any type civil relief while pursuing criminal charges. To my advantage is I am not seeking monetary damages."
In fact, her former attorney, none other than Ed Cyganowicz, had been excused by the court from representing her because, among other things, he felt she was not keeping up her end of attorney-client privilege. She was apparently discussing what they talked about in relation to her case with someone else. Care to guess who?
Can you believe this guy?
This is the same guy who, after it was proven in District Court in Dallas, Texas, April 19, 2004, said in a judicial confession on a charge of Practicing Law Without a License (Cause: F-0301282):
"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, despite innumerable unsuccessful attempts to regain his law license in state and federal courts, Wightman had to spend 14 days in jail for the offense. He was able to plea down a felony to a misdemeanor and avoid a felony conviction. As originally charged, Falsely Holding Oneself Out As a Lawyer, a third-degree felony offense, he could have received 2-10 years confinement in the Texas Corrections System and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000.
Will the local DA be as charitable if he can prove – through  Wigthman's website or through witnesses – that Wightman is up to his old ticks again?

After all, you can only push your luck for so long, can't you?