WIGHTMAN: SNARED IN A LEGAL WEB OF HIS OWN MAKING

By Juan Montoya

Ever since disbarred Dallas lawyer Robert Wightman arrived in Brownsville, he has used his legal knowledge to make a living suing people and corporations to earn a buck, mostly on specious defamation claims.

But now, as he tries to evade facing the music in Forth Worth on a defamation case against him filed by OP 10.33 founder Mike Hernandez, Wightman is running out of appeals and is reverting back to using his hypochondria to delay facing the inevitable; to try the merits of the case in court.

Wightman – after having had his motion for a Stay of Mandate denied by the Second Court of Appeals last August because of his intention to seek relief before the Supreme Court on First Amendment violations – was instead ordered to go back to the trial court.

True to form, he filed several motions that were scheduled for hearing today, January 10, in Fort Worth.

And yesterday, one day before the scheduled hearing, he filed notice that he wanted to cancel the hearing on his own motions and that they be reset  because of...no fair, you peeked!...medical emergencies and excruciating pain with some indication of the onset of Parkinson's Disease.

This is a time-worn Wightman tactic that he used in Dallas at the time he was charged with a felony for claiming to be a licensed lawyer able to practice law following his disbarment in 2002. At that time, John Cook, his court-appointed lawyer grew tired of his game and exploded.

"All your court dates were scheduled well in advance. You never objected to the dates. Why would you 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..."

(Read more on his legal malingering in(http://thewightmanfile.blogspot.com/2014/03/wightman-would-have-you-think-hes-sick.html)

In the Hernandez case set for tomorrow, it is much of the same.

Wightman states: "Your defendant tried and simply cannot travel. Two eye doctors have verified rapid vision loss. Even typing is a blur. Walking or standing is nearly impossible. Sitting in a chair
leaves the lumbar and lower extremities with cramps and neuropathy.

"The toxicity of the medication makes it impossible to take during the day so it is only used at night to keep your defendant from waking up screaming as if his legs are being fileted. Your defendant also
takestwo medications to sleep maybe 4-5 hours because he no longer has a circadian clock due to
the hypothalamic dysfunction.

"Your defendant has to use a walker in the morning to get out of bed to keep from falling and also when getting out of a chair after sitting for a long time. Typing can be difficult with the hand tremors. They come and go."

   

It is ironic that Wightman has been able to continue providing legal advocacy for some of his friends (not clients, mind you he claims he doesn't get paid) and as recently as September 14, 2018, told a local law firm represent Issac Montes had sued for (you were looking!)
defamation per se, that the Texas Supreme Court "is allowing me to practice under my bar number."

He put the hit on right off the bat and demanded $100,000 for Isaac.

Likewise, Montes also repeated the lie and emailed the law firm that Wightman could practice law in Texas.

This, of course was not true as the attorneys for the defendants Overhead Door Corp.. Teri L. Danish of Colvin, Saenz, Rodriguez and Kennamer, LLP, told the court.

"Defendant's counsel responded to plaintiff..informing him that, among other things, that defendants did not agree to permit Mr. Wightman-Cervants to appear on his behalf, that Mr. Wightman has been disbarred since 2002, and that the State Bar had not agreement to permit him to use his Tate Bar number."

Montes had asked the court for a continuance because Wightman (his legal advocate) could not attend because of health reasons, specifically, that he was having spinal surgery.  Danish answered that since the defendants had not agreed to have Wightman represent him, the issue was irrelevant.

This was the second case that Montes (actually Wightman) had filed for defamation per se against one of Montes' employees. The first was filed on October 2, 2017 where Montes claimed several JC Penny's managers and employees had defamed him by accusing him, among other things, of having an affair with a married woman, being sent for tacos using a company credit card, and using 40- minutes of company time to do it.

He non-sued soon after, but there is no disclosure on the amount he got from the company for the nuisance lawsuit.

Just 10 months later, Montes (through Wightman) sued Overhead Door Corporation, where Montes worked for less than a week before he was fired. Montes claimed in the lawsuit for defamation per se (tired of that term already?) that a Mexican factory manager for the company had come and asked him in Spanish what had gone wrong with a shipment and when Montes answered in English he alleged the woman had told the supervisors in Brownsville to fire him.

He claimed he was discriminated on the basis of national origin. He also claimed that the company's staff had lied to the Texas Workforce Commission to prevent him from getting unemployment, the basis of his claim to defamation.

And so on and on it goes.

Montes (Wightman?) appealed the court's ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Overhead to the Second Court of Appeals, which sided with the court, and thereafter appealed it to the Texas Supreme Court because the defendants did not file a motion for summary judgment to his second and third amended motions and the court still granted the motion.

Danish resplied that since the amended petition did not include any new cause of action, no additional motion for summary judgment was required under Texas law. The trial court and Second Court of Appeals agreed.

By the way, it is curious that the address used by Montes and Wightman is one and the same: 55 Ripple Creek. Who is kidding who? Wightman is practicing law under the guise of being "an unpaid advocate."

Either that or Montes, who spent the last 20 years working at JC Penney's and week as a warehouse worker with Overhead Door Corp. suddenly, at 52, has been a quick study at law and fashioned lawsuits and filed motions based on arcane legal theory after absorbing legal knowledge and chicanery from Wightman.