C'MON. WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS, AHEM, MAN FOR JP?

(Ed.'s Note: Truth-challenged and disbarred attorney Robert Wightman is publicly threatening to run for office again. IF he can get people to give him money; IF he can get volunteers to bock walk for him, IF he is allowed to act as his own treasurer and control the funds, IF he can get people to vote for him, he will run against Justice of the Peace Mary Esther Sorola...etc., He claims Sorola, JP 2-3, is the antithesis of JP Linda Salazar, his soulmate who he considers to be the salt of the earth. Sal hija de su...Privately, we hope he does run so that he can be rolled over by the the Sorola-Benavides juggernaut. Bring it on Babosa, say her followers. Below is a snapshot of the candidate.)   

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, and 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."
T
hen 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.

Yeah, we sure need this guy to be a justice of the Peace in Cameron County.