SIDE-TENT FREAK SHOW ALIVE AND WELL

By Juan Montoya
Just when you think that he'll tire of vexing and disparaging good people with his distractions, along comes another outburst by Robert Wigthman.
For some unexplained reason Wightman has been infatuated with discrediting anyone associated with this blog or its writers. If you look at the side panels of this scurrilous website, you will see two photos and Wightman's complaint against them with the Texas Ethics Commission.
There's BISD president Enrique Escobedo, who advertised here as did Sofia Benavides, Cameron County county commissioner for Pct. 1. In former pieces Wightman has gone after local successful attorney Alex Begum and Constable Abel Gomez. Both also advertise here. Former County DA Armando Villalobos advertised briefly here as well and is featured on the bolg's side panel as being subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury.
I, of course, am always pictured in my best Cameron County orange jump suit when a picture will do just as well as his inevitable 1,000 words.
But that comes with the territory and we have come to look on the antics of Mr. Wightman as a freak tent side show clamoring for attention from the Big Tent.
That's what happened in this last round of elections when she ran for her second term as trustee for the BISD. I had helped her run against Otis Powers and helped her again to run against Butch Barbosa and Don Clupper. I also posted a pushcard spot on this blog.
Wightman's complaint was that Presas-Garcia did not report any expenditures to this blog on her expense reports. In fact, there were none. That was the basis of the complaint into which we were dragged. A later supplement charged that Catalina was paying for my phone service and that she had not reported that as a political expense.
Both of these complaints were discarded by the TEC because – according to the TEC Assistant General Counsel in the latter – it "did not comply with the legal and technical requirements for complaints filed with the TEC." The nature of Wightman's antics do not amount to a hill of beans but if you are on the receiving end they are vexatious, time consuming, and designed to annoy his victims. Frankly, we wish he would pick someone else on which to heap his considerable arsenal of worthless talents. We've had quite enough, thank you.
On the supplemental complaint dealing with the telephone service, Wightman filed a notarized affidavit (idle hands are the devil's playthings) saying that a source ( he works for the county, we're told) showed that a caller ID with Presas-Garcia's name showed when the source called my number. Wightman said he had "his source" call me and that when I answered he eavesdropped on the conversation and ascertained that the caller ID showed Presas-Garcia's number. It did not include the dates or period of time when the alleged violation had occurred.
Now, there are programs out there that can make anything look like anything else. But why should we indulge this idiosyncratic megalomaniac by engaging with him on his flight of fancy?
The latest victim (who was featured in an article in El Rrun-Rrun) is local attorney Alex Dominguez who is running against Ernie Hernandez. Again, Wightman filed with the TEC. In the past, he has also filed one against Municipal Judge Ben Neece. In Neece's case, it also concerned me.
Needless to say, Bobby has sued just everyone and his mother, inlaw, outlaw, and maybe even their pets. When he sued Robert Sanchez, he included  me, Jerry Mchale, DPM, etc. The merits of the suit were never heard because attorney Peter Zavaletta filed a motion to declare him a vexatious litigant and that had to be heard before the merits of the case.
Then we were in for a  ride. After two years of motions, amended motions, appeals, amended appeals, motions to recuse judges, motions to sanction defendants' attorneys, appeals to declare the vexatious litigant statute unconstitutional, expenditures on lawyers' fees, appellate lawyers costs (13th Court of Appeals, Texas Supreme Court), all of which he lost, Wightman was set to appeal his last loss in the Texas Supreme court to the U.S.  Supreme Court.
The three insurance companies had had enough. One Brownsville attorney had already racked up close to $50,000 in fees to defend Sanchez et al. The others (including some hired guns which the coporate offices in New York and Omaha had hired to answer Wightman's torrent of motions, appeals, etc) were the same. Instead of paying top-flight appellate lawyers and seeing their costs soar to fight his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the three companies decided (without letting some of us know in advance) to cut their losses.
Each one gave him $20,000 in nuisance money to go away. If he claims (as he has before) that anyone of us ever conceded we had defamed him or that we (Mchale, DPM, or myself) ever gave him one red penny, he lies. And that's how he makes his money. There were never any deliberations by a judge or jury on the merits (there were none) of the original case.
This is what I sent the TEC when I found out I had been dragged into another mess by this bizarre blogger:

To: Texas Ethic Commission                                                                                 August 4, 2013 From: Juan Montoya Addendum to letter dated Aug. 4, 2013 Ref: Complaint against BISD trustee Catalina Presas-Garcia Dear Sir., Ms., I take the opportunity to write you in regards to the complaint filed by Robert Wightman-Cervantes against Brownsville Independent School District trustee Catalina Presas. For the life of me, I don't understand why any reasonable person would give any credence to a complaint filed by Wightman. For your information, Mr. Wightman was disbarred in the state of Texas and the United States Supreme Court. From Texas Law Blog: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Robert R. Wightman-Cervantes was disbarred in Texas on January 11, 2002. Texas Attorney Disbarred by the United States Supreme Court: Today, the Supreme Court entered an order disbarring former Dallas attorney Robert R. Wightman-Cervantes from practicing before the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Wightman-Cervantes was disbarred by the State of Texas: On Jan. 11, the 298th District Court of Dallas County disbarred Robert R. Wightman-Cervantes [#21443200], 44, of Dallas. The court found Wightman-Cervantes brought or defended a frivolous proceeding. The court also found Wightman-Cervantes took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of a case and delayed the resolution of the case. Wightman-Cervantes, in representing a client, engaged in conduct engaged to disrupt a proceeding. Wightman-Cervantes 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-Cervantes made a statement that was either false or with reckless disregard to its truth regarding the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Wightman-Cervantes 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." http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/eleventh-court-of-appeals/2006/8245.html That isn't all. At one time or another, Wightman has sued President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI. Case 1:10-cv-00238-JDB "Wightman-Cervantes also alleges, 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." Fortunately, the U.S. District Court in Washington D.D. found that "Wightman-Cervantes's bizarre and implausible factual allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth, and that his complaint therefore does not raise a federal question and warrants dismissal on jurisdictional grounds." Then, in 2006, he again got into hot water for practicing law without a license. Opinion filed May 4, 2006 by the Texas Eleventh Court of Appeals, it denied his appeal to a decision issued by a lower court. This appeal arose from charges filed against Wightman-Cervantes in the 204th District Court of Dallas County for the felony offense of falsely holding oneself out as a lawyer. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 38.122 (Vernon 2003). The State subsequently reduced the charge to the misdemeanor offense of unauthorized practice of law pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement." As you can see, this man's abuse of the legal system is well documented. The District Court found that his "bizarre and implausible" allegations were not entitled to a presumption of truth.  I suggest that the Texas Ethics Commission take a similar stance in regards to the complaint against Ms. Presas-Garcia.