Disbarred Lawyer Bobby Wightman-Cervantes |
His blog article posted below is a textbook example of fallacious reasoning, unsound argument and a simple inability to connect one dot with another. It is not difficult to understand how this man, despite a legal degree, could be legally prohibited from practicing the profession. He simply has a few screws loose that make logical conclusions difficult, if not impossible, even when he works with known facts. The disbarred lawyer routinely gives unsolicited advice to local, practicing, functioning lawyers much to their amusement.
But, let's first examine exhibit one, Bobby's summation of the rules governing congressional office leases accompanied by his unfortunate diatribe(The highlighting is ours):
BROWNSVILLE VOICE:
THE RULES GOVERNING CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE LEASES
CLICK HERE FOR RULES
For the conspiracy idiots who have nothing better to do than destroy Brownsville and their elected officials you will note the following
They may rent from cities - they can even share office space with US Senators and any number of state elected officials.
They can accept office space based on free rent. It is not a crime.
Finally, all leases are reviewed by
"Should the Member sign the lease right away?
No. Prior to signing a lease, the Member/ Member-Elect must submit the proposed lease, accompanied by a copy of the District Office Lease Attachment, to the Administrative Counsel for review and approval.
There is no challenge in finding facts. The problem is people are obsessed with their need to be ignorant. The internet has made being ignorant a badge of honor. It has validated bullying by cowards who do not have to post their real name. It is making us as people into pathetic weasels.
Brownsville's Mayor |
Mean Mister Brownsville:
Now, please note. We have no quarrel with the above-mentioned rules for congressmen with respect to their office leases. We will take Bobby's research at face value, but it is irrelevant. Our concern had no relationship for the rules or limitations placed on those who serve in Congress, but on the rules, limitations and ethics of the Brownsville City Commission.
Our question was simple, although not simple enough for Bobby Wightman-Cervantes: "Can Mayor Tony Martinez enter into a lease agreement with newly elected Congressman Filemon Vela unilaterally, without approval of the City Commission?" Also: "Is Martinez allowed by city rules and regulations to proceed with renovation, relocation of city staff, etc. without such an agreement in place?"
So, despite Bobby's rant, our position is simple. We're not worried in the least about government rules for congressmen, simply proper protocol for city officials. The ignorance is simply Bobby's, accompanied by a smug arrogance that defies understanding.
Jim, No one in Brownsville takes Bobby seriously and you shouldn't either. You totally waste your time and blog spot dealing with this loon.
ReplyDelete^^ Agreed.
DeleteTotally agree with the smug attitude of inherent arrogance that faces many of our elected officials as well as some of our local law enforcement. It astounds me that these people treat the public as a nuisance in publice meeting speaking to them in a very condesending manner. YOU ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS FIRST!!!! The community at large need to call out our elected officials and hold them accountable. I just learned today that in the embattled Constable race in Port Isabel the recount turned the election results over and on it's head. Roger Ortiz allowed people to vote for this precint race in any other precint in which they chose to cast their respective ballots. What type of idiot would allow this..... Roger Ortiz. So the canvassing of votes has to by hand go through every ballot cast in all precints looking for votes for this race. Somehow 40 votes were lost. How can the final total be lower than the original number of votes? We (the valley) should secede, why not we act like part of Northern Tamaulipas instead of part of the U.S. of A. At least we would be more true the corruptness that has consumed our county.
ReplyDeleteK.O. decision goes to Barton. Technical knock out. Love it.
ReplyDeleteAye es digno de lastima. Bobby is sooo delusional and confused. One day he loves someone and the next day he hates them bla-bla=bla. One can tell that he writes questions to his posts and then answers himself WTF????? I agree don't pay attention to him because he is one confused puppy.
ReplyDeleteI'm one of Mr. Wightman-Cervantes faithful readers. He is a little off, but no one knows BISD like Bobby.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't know as much about BISD operations as he thinks he does. BWC does not understand the way the distric and board operate or should he has his own ideas which are not the facts.
DeleteHe just speculates on BISD and once in a while he hits the nail on the head. He is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He is a whiner and no one takes him seriuosly. It must be sad to be him. Pobrecito! He is now bashing Jim for taking his diabetic wife to smoke filled bars.YIKES I guess Jim ties her up and forces her to accompany him. I guess diabetic people have to stay home and not enjoy life. Oh well and EVERYONE is bullying HIM!!!!! Shameless!!!!
DeleteSuit Targets Enterprising Brothers Over TV Fight Rights
ReplyDeleteNov. 20, 2012
Emma Perez-Trevino
Advertisement
A civil lawsuit has been filed in federal court against a former city manager, his brother and their sports bar in Port Isabel, alleging that they illegally aired the broadcast of a pay-per-view fight.
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Pennsylvania is seeking combined damages of up to $510,000 from architect Manuel Hinojosa, former city manager of San Benito and Port Isabel, and his brother Ricardo Hinojosa, an engineer from Mission, who own Doubleday Sports Bar in Port Isabel. Their corporation is also named in the lawsuit.
Hand charges that the brothers aired and profited from the February 2010 pay-per-view mixed martial arts bout between Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira and Cain Velasquez.
The Hinojosas, who are brothers of state Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa, did not respond to requests for comment.
The promotions corporation filed the lawsuit Friday in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Texas, claiming that it was granted the right to distribute the Nogueira vs. Velasquez broadcast scheduled for Feb. 20, 2010 via closed circuit television and via encrypted satellite signal.
According to the petition filed in federal court, the broadcast originated via satellite uplink, and was subsequently retransmitted to cable systems and satellite companies via satellite signal.
The corporation then entered into agreements with various entities in Texas, allowing them to publicly exhibit the broadcast to their patrons.
The lawsuit alleges that the two Hinojosa brothers named in the lawsuit or their agents, servants, workmen or employees unlawfully intercepted, received or de-scrambled the satellite signal and broadcast the bout at the sports bar, or that they used an illegal satellite receiver.
"There are multiple illegal methods of accessing the broadcast . . .," the petition states. The promotions corporation stated that it is unable to determine how the broadcast was accessed.
"However, it is logical to conclude that defendants used an illegal satellite receiver, misrepresented their business establishment as a residence, or removed an authorized residential receiver from one location to a different commercial location to intercept the plaintiff's broadcast," the petition states.
The two Hinojosa brothers have not yet responded to the lawsuit, but initial responses usually consist of a general denial of the allegations with demand for proof.
___
Distributed by MCT Information Services
Source: (c) 2012 Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, Texas)
Jim as is nearly always the case with you - you have no sense of facts or reality. Where in your original post did you claim anything I am refuting - you did not - now if you go to Montoya's blog anonys are calling the deal illegal because you cannot have free rent.
ReplyDeleteBut since you want to talk about your post - where is this lease of which you speak. The city does not have it. The Congressional Office which must approve the lease does not have it. So do us a favor and produce the lease which you claim exists but which the city and attendent congressional office claim does not exist.
I never defended a free lease - I am waiting to see the lease and then I will comment on its terms.
Again Jim, if you knew anything about anything you would know I am not barred from practicing law. I choose not to practice in the courtroom. All I have to do is sign a piece of paper and in a matter of months I could have my law practice up and running. It is true until I sign the paper I cannot hang my sign as practicing in a courtroom. I cannot claim to be admitted to the practice of law in Texas. But again Jim you know nothing of the law or the practice of law. Corporate lawyers do not have to be admitted to practice law anywhere - In fact the Senator Elect from Mass is not authorized to practice law anywhere - corporate lawyers routinely drop their bar admissions to avoid the costs and politics associated with State Bar Associations.
http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/an-update-on-the-elizabeth-warren-law-license-controversy/
In fact many corporations do not want their attorney admitted to the practice of law for legal and political reasons. The Bar Rules do apply to any lawyer working under a corporate counsel which is why so many corporations require that lawyers who work in house are not in active courtroom ptactice.
What is so obviously bizarre about your comments is, you who have zero training in the law claim to be more knowledgable than someone who has graduated a top law school. But then again the obvious stupidity in your comments would be lost on you.
Bobby WC
Bobby,
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible to argue with irrationality. I wish you the best in renewing your license although acquiring logical thinking skills may still escape you. I'm a daily reader of your blog, always finding a counterpoint to the norm and a quick look at the other side.
Jim
Now you know what some of us went through with the female cadidate at the BISD recount.....Absolutely "impossible to argue with irrationality"
DeleteAgain Jim you cannot be specific - what is irrational - copy and paste one sentence which is irrational - you cannot - so you go to conclusory statements which mean nothing - My post was limited to explaining the process - I then noted how one of Montoya's anony's was wrong about the lease being illegal. that's it Jim nothing else.
ReplyDeleteJim what is irrational about demanding you produce the lease?
Jim what is irrational about me wanting to review the actual lease before forming an opinion?
Nothing Jim, again you play the role of cyber -bully because facts elude you.
Bobby,
ReplyDeleteI know this is wasted on you, but it's so simple that even a caveman could understand it. You focused on federal rules for congressmen, but my article dealt with the rules binding on the mayor and city commission. Your posting and dissertation on the federal rules is irrelevant. If you lack the capacity to understand that basic difference, I quit. You can't be helped.
Jim
Uhh.... That one left a mark.
DeleteLook, here are simply people on Earth you should not waste your time on, and this guy, characterized earlier as "Bobby Weightless-Cerebrum" is one of them. Like Juan Montoya, he defines the entirety of his life on a free blog. His arguments are painful to the eye and brain, yet he persists, no doubt seeking to arrive one fine morning on a spot where someone actually admires him. Who that might be only he knows, of course. Montoya lives for the day his blog will pay his rent and BWC for the one that gets him inclusion in some "real life" stage. It's not happening for either of these acting urchins, because both are flawed - one with a horrible past as a lawyer and the other with that record at the county jail. I say this, "Focus on those who will do something, anything!!!"...
ReplyDelete/DP-M
HEAR, HEAR!
DeleteAnd what, pray tell, has this blog done. Personal attacks is one hell of a way to defend any position.
DeleteSometimes, and this is only sometimes, characterization of an individual is the correct response. You may call it a personal attack, yet it, too, could be a way to describe an individual's manner of being. BWC certainly is an enigmatic fellow, in the same way that the boxer Leon Spinks was on familiar terms with the dinosaur. Is BWC a sick individual? Who knows? Is he an asshole? Not entirely. Is he a person to be followed anywhere? Most certainly not. Is he dangerous? Perhaps to himself. Is he a Montoya personality; that is, is he waging life with deficiencies too monstrous for most people to imagine? Don't think so in BWC's case. The blogger is simply incapable of swimming with the current. Something deep within his psyche throws him off-course all too often. You see the same traits in prisoners of war, in Walmart shoppers and in flea market vendors - angst at every turn. Maniacs have it easier...
Delete/DP-M
/DP-M,
DeleteNot knowing Bobby,I dare not go beyond what is obvious from reading his off-and-on blog.
Bobby finds dots, but has difficulty connecting them to create a recognizable picture. If he notices a jar of peanut butter in the cupboard, he may assume the residents are peanut farmers or worse yet, peanut thieves.
Processing information is not his strong or long suit.
I will continue to read his blog whenever it is available to scrounge for dots, ignoring the wiggly lines he has drawn between and around them.
FWIW, I should crush one prevailing rumor: Bobby was not invited to the blogger conference because he is not a legitimate blogger. The fear was that he would come nude.
Jim
Jim, Good points. At best, he fits in a blogging system where the cornucopia must include the entire fleabag of human interests. I'd say that would be, perhaps, a blog dedicated to cheap motels, one to economic bars, one to shapely hairstylists, one to happy-go-lucky drunkards, one to arrogant cabbies, one to physically-eccentric politicians, one to tortillerias, one to overweight cops, one to feminine-hipped Pachucos, one to Luby's fanatics, one to errant wives, one to sexually-addicted city government bureaucrats, one to Blog commenters, one to local drug pushers, one to big-breasted women, one to flat-assed waitresses, one to Mexican men on unemployment, one to deadbeat dads, one to Cameron County jail inmates, one to high-throated Gay men and, well, you get my drift. Bobby WC's blog fits lazily somewhere in there, so let the mirthful lad scribble, scribble, scribble. It's all like they said about the paunchy eunuch in Boy's Town: "That cowboy is harmless." So, boys, sing that campfire song one more time for blogging: "Ha Ha Ho Ho and Hee Hee..."
Delete/DP-M
Priceless! LOL!!!
Delete"Sometimes, and this is only sometimes, characterization of an individual is the correct response. "
DeleteWhat a crock!
/D-PM is on the money with that one. No question about it.
DeleteM
Jim is an honest man!
ReplyDeleteBWC said, "now if you go to Montoya's blog anonys are calling the deal illegal because you cannot have free rent."
ReplyDeleteI've searched high and low Juan Montoya's blog.
The word "illegal" does not appear in any of the comments referring to this "free rent" issue.
If Melissa Zamora is posting her crap anonymously then we must reject her. That is the sign of a bad public servant!
ReplyDeleteLet's reject your anonymous crap!
DeleteGo Melissa Z!
BTW, I am not Melissa Zamora.
Your definitely an idiot so you certainly could be.
DeleteWhy so hateful?
DeleteLow tolerance for idiots, that's why!
DeleteYou're definitely in need of a grammar lesson or two. "your" shows possession, ex. Your mistakes your car, your fault, your girlfriend.
ReplyDelete"you're" is a contraction for you are, ex. you're the goofball, you're the rude one. If you are going to troll and be insulting , at least spell correctly. You're just jealous of MZ because she has bigger balls than you.
Go Melissa Zamora!!!
I concur on MZ's grammar lesson. I would, however, wonder about the reference to Melissa and balls. Pretty sure she doesn't have any - of her own, I mean. ja ja ja
DeleteRey
Sory im seendeen from me fone and it dunn wunna korect al de tim.
DeletePendeja! I don't send my comments through spell check on my phone Mensa.
I agree,...go Melissa go! Go down Mensa!
ReplyDelete