By Juan Montoya
When we posted our article yesterday that local blogger (and disbarred lawyer) Robert Wightman was denied his appeal by the Second District Court of Appeals to dismiss the defamation suit filed against him in Texas 153 District Court in Tarrant County by OP 10.33's Mike Hernandez, we were, admittedly, befuddled that Wightman never acknowledged his defeat.
Instead, he resorted to his now-tedious strategy of spinning that loss into an upcoming victory and attacking the messenger. He never mentioned that the justices of the court set him straight on the law, and that those learned jurists poo-hooed his legal analysis as delusional.
Then, saying that they had no jurisdiction because Wightman had made so many motions before a hearing had even been held and a denial issued, they declined to move on the other motions for sanctions and motion to compel Hernandez to revel alleged ex-parte communications with the trial court.
But just wait, Wightman said. Just wait until the Texas Supreme Court grants me my writ of madamus, he warned. Then we'll really rock!
This is what he said yesterday after calling this blogger Hernandez's "drunk mouth piece." Golly, that hurts.
"Does it sound odd to you that Montoya fails to tell you that my Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the case has been pending for months before the Texas Supreme Court. Mike has been unable to get it dismissed. The fact he does not tell you means, Mike Hernandez intended for you to be mislead. Is it odd that the Texas Supreme Court gave me extra time to file my Petition for Review. Mike's lawyer has had it since the 10th. Did Mike's lawyer hide it from Mike, or is Mike desperate to mislead."
Well, guess what? The Supreme Court also denied Wightman his legal balm today and guess what he does? Yeah. he makes himself believe (and any gullible reader) that he expected it all along. A fearless prognosticator of past events, you might say.
"The mandamus was denied this morning as expected. The mandamus issue was the trial court moving forward with a trial while the case was on appeal.
The law is clear a mandamus will issue in a jurisdiction case, and two the trial judge had no jurisdiction. But the trial date passed, and in the eyes of the Texas Supreme Court because she never reset it the matter became moot. It is not because her coordinator said she will reset it. But technically there is no setting.
This denial gives me more evidence in the federal court on the issue of futility. It is happening."
OK.
There are, of course, the usual bluster and threats against the Supreme Court, the Courts of appeal, the trial court, the lawyers, Hernandez, etc., and yours truly, the "drunk mouthpiece."
Ad tedium.
Want some more delusions fro La Babosa? Here you go.
"You see because of my work against the judiciary a decision has been made to deny me redress in Texas State Courts. I do a lot of work around the state. The Texas Supreme Court is tired of it and want to shut me down without ever having to deal with law or evidence.
I know Mike, I can win, and after the sanctions hearing he will appeal that thereby delaying matters longer. Mike has unlimited funds to insure the harassment never ends.
His lawyer will never say no to Mike's actions so long as Mike pays him.
![]()
There is a lot going on behind the scenes. I fully expect to be fighting Mike for another 10 years. We are going to fight until one of us dies. Mike is out over $50,000, and that number will keep on going up. My only costs are costs for filing.
You see unlike Mike I do not need a whore lawyer to fight my battles, I can fight my own."
When Wightman was disbarred in 2002, the 298th District Court of Dallas County said he had engaged in delays and brought or defended frivolous proceedings.
The court found that: Wightman brought or defended a frivolous proceeding. The court also found Wightman took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of a case and delayed the resolution of the case.
Wightman, in representing a client, engaged in conduct engaged to disrupt a proceeding. Wightman 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 made a statement that was either false or with reckless disregard to its truth regarding the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Wightman 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."
Well, doesn't something sound oddly familiar in the Hernandez defamation case?
"The mandamus was denied this morning as expected. The mandamus issue was the trial court moving forward with a trial while the case was on appeal.
The law is clear a mandamus will issue in a jurisdiction case, and two the trial judge had no jurisdiction. But the trial date passed, and in the eyes of the Texas Supreme Court because she never reset it the matter became moot. It is not because her coordinator said she will reset it. But technically there is no setting.
This denial gives me more evidence in the federal court on the issue of futility. It is happening."
OK.
There are, of course, the usual bluster and threats against the Supreme Court, the Courts of appeal, the trial court, the lawyers, Hernandez, etc., and yours truly, the "drunk mouthpiece."
Ad tedium.
Want some more delusions fro La Babosa? Here you go.
"You see because of my work against the judiciary a decision has been made to deny me redress in Texas State Courts. I do a lot of work around the state. The Texas Supreme Court is tired of it and want to shut me down without ever having to deal with law or evidence.
I know Mike, I can win, and after the sanctions hearing he will appeal that thereby delaying matters longer. Mike has unlimited funds to insure the harassment never ends.
His lawyer will never say no to Mike's actions so long as Mike pays him.
There is a lot going on behind the scenes. I fully expect to be fighting Mike for another 10 years. We are going to fight until one of us dies. Mike is out over $50,000, and that number will keep on going up. My only costs are costs for filing.
You see unlike Mike I do not need a whore lawyer to fight my battles, I can fight my own."
When Wightman was disbarred in 2002, the 298th District Court of Dallas County said he had engaged in delays and brought or defended frivolous proceedings.
The court found that: Wightman brought or defended a frivolous proceeding. The court also found Wightman took a position that unreasonably increased the costs or other burdens of a case and delayed the resolution of the case.
Wightman, in representing a client, engaged in conduct engaged to disrupt a proceeding. Wightman 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 made a statement that was either false or with reckless disregard to its truth regarding the qualifications or integrity of a judge. Wightman 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."
Well, doesn't something sound oddly familiar in the Hernandez defamation case?