TO WIGHTMAN 1 MORE LOSS IS A WIN; YEAH, THAT'S DA TICKET

By Juan Montoya

In Robert Wightman's bizarro parallel universe, black is white and up is down.

He can literally do mental contortions to convince himself – and no one else – that he has somehow snatched triumph from the jaws of ignoble defeat.

So it is in his running court battles with Mike Hernandez's OP 10.33 who sued him in Tarrant County on defamation charges. True to form, instead of answering the charges directly, Wightman has tried to divert the courts' attention to ancillary matters such as challenging the constitutionality of the statutes (one of his favorite stratagems to buy time and tire out his targets), appealing every loss, losing, and then appealing to an even higher court.

In the latest wrinkle, he asked the Second Court of Appeals Stay of mandate sending the case back to the trial court because of his intention to seek relief before the Supreme Court on First Amendment violations to free speech based on of Rule 18.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. (Wightman is the one in the left in diapers.)

In his response, Hernandez asked the court to deny Wightman's motion because he failed to meet the standard that: "The appellate court authorized to issue the mandate may grant a stay if it finds that the grounds are substantial and that the petitioner or others would incur serious hardship from the mandate's issuance if the United States Supreme Court were later to reverse the judgment."

Apparently, Wightman only listed the first sentence of the rule without stating any grounds that would indicate that he would "incur serious hardship" if it did not issue the mandate to stay pending his writ to the Supremes.

"Cervantes has failed to articulate any circumstances that would require a stay in this matter. Cervantes has certainly not provided any ground(s) that are substantial or an even attempted an explanation of what serious hardship he would incur if the stay were not issued," Hernandez's motion states.

In his original motion for the stay, Wightman gets on his high hobby legal horse (as he is wont to do) and states: "(I am) is seeking relief before the Supreme Court based on First Amendment
violations to free speech. To this Mike Hernandez by and through his counsel state First Amendment violations of Free Speech do not merit such a stay under the Rule. Yes they actually said it.
If (I) need to say more it is then futile to expect justice from this court."

But that's not all. Not only does Wightman say he doesn't expect much from the court, but that he doesn't want to pony up for costs accrued as a result of his filings. "Wherefore based on the forgoing your appellant requests that the court stay the $111 bill for doing business with the court."

He wanted the court to issue the "mandate pending petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, and reform the mandate on costs to show Appellant does not owe the costs for $111 for records ordered by this court..."

On August 10, the Second Court of Appeals handed Wightman another glorious defeat with a curt order denying his motion to stop their mandate for his writ to the Supreme Court and made no mention of erasing his $111 bill.

In short, Wightman has been told to "Stop, do not go, fork over the $111, and go back to the trial court to argue the merits of Hernandez's defamation lawsuit."

Another landmark performance by the Dodici-munching, wine-swilling disbarred layer from Dallas to hang on his mantle of legal accomplishments.