By Juan Montoya
Well, once again the fearless prognosticator of past events – AKA Robert Wightman – was right again about the Texas supreme Court denying his petition for review and refused to impose sanctions on his nemesis Mike Hernandez in a defamation lawsuit filed by the founder of OP 10.33
Wightman, of course, spins it to make it appear as if it was something he really wanted. Having been down this twisted road before, we can only guess that it is the start of yet another tortuous ( no pun intended) path through the courts.
Wightman was sued in Tarrant County, and filed endless motions seeking to dismiss the case on a number of issues. In every case, he has been turned down by the trial court, the 2nd District Court of appeals, and now the Supreme Court.
The aruments border on the arcane, so we won't beguile our seven readers with the details. Needless to say, Wightman spins it to seem that he can't wait to lose at the state courts so he can get at Hernandez through a federal case.
Yawn.
And of course, everyomne is lying when they say this. The courts also ruled against him in his attempt to change the venue from Tarrant County to Cameron County, where he thinks he can get a better result.
"If in the morning the Texas Supreme Court denies my Petition for Review my silence will give Montoya a lie and say I am hiding from the ruling. I cannot wait to get this into federal court. It is only then this case will get very serious for Mike Hernandez."
The Texas Supreme Court denied Wightman's Petition for Review and dismissed his Motion for Sanctions June 1. The Texas Supreme Court will now issue an Order reflecting these rulings, and then it will remand it to the Second Court of Appeals.
At that point, the Second Court of Appeals will issue its mandate to the trial court. This usually takes a few weeks. We're sure Wightman will file another battery of motions to attempt not to go to court and answer for his action.
We'll keep our readers posted if we don't get bored silly with this stuff.
9 comments:
Pobre vato! That's the way he gets attention he so wants. Something is
obviously wrong with this character and with a new study and attention on mental health, maybe he needs to be included???
Ese vato wightman NVV
I'm not going to hold back HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Take that, you cursed, bloated, sick, ugly maggot Wightman! Mike Hernandez is a respected and celebrated man across the state. There are consequences for fabricating malicious false stories for your sick pleasure.
Bobby WC is nothing more than a a self centered piss head, it has been rumored that he stands in front of the mirror and reads out his rantings before he publishes them.
Sounds like Bobby WC on one of his favorite rantings again.
I’m gonna join you!
Has he been checked for mental health issues? Does he own any guns?
Next we shall have published "The Rantings of a stupid fuck head" by Boooby WC.
I hope Frank Hill is willing to represent and file suit for officials and everyone else who feels they have have been defamed by this moron named Robert R. Wightman- Cervantes. You can't even make this shit up!
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2477205/wightman-cervantes-v-mueller
Plaintiff Robert Wightman-Cervantes brings this action against Robert Mueller, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), and Eric Holder, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States (collectively, "defendants"). He requests that the Court order defendants to recuse themselves from a criminal investigation that he seeks to open. Wightman-Cervantes also asks the Court to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue that investigation. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Wightman-Cervantes has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted.
Post a Comment