Disbarred Attorney’s Lawsuit Against The Monitor: Allegations of Negligence and Judicial Bias
A disbarred attorney has initiated a new lawsuit against The Monitor, its reporter, and the parent company, AIM Media Texas. This legal action stems from an article that covered his disbarment, adding another chapter to a contentious history between Mark A. Cantu and the newspaper.
Background on Mark A. Cantu’s Disbarment
The Commission for Lawyer Discipline filed a lawsuit against Cantu, claiming he engaged in professional misconduct during a bankruptcy proceeding. Allegations include failing to disclose pertinent assets and transactions in his bankruptcy schedules, obstructing the sale of estate assets, and neglecting to return assets duly belonging to the estate. According to the commission, Cantu exhibited a disturbing pattern of disregard for legal requirements, which directly violated his responsibilities to the court.
The New Lawsuit: Claims of Negligence
In his latest petition, which follows a previous unsuccessful lawsuit against The Monitor in 2015, Cantu accuses the paper of reportorial negligence. He specifically targets an article published on December 6, 2020, which reported on the 13th Court of Appeals ruling that upheld his disbarment. Cantu alleges that the article omitted crucial facts, leading to a public misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding his disbarment. He argues that the opinion delivered by the appellate court was “intellectually dishonest,” failing to adequately address the key issues he raised throughout the bankruptcy proceedings.
Allegations of a "Machiavellian Scheme"
Cantu goes a step further in his lawsuit by claiming that a "Machiavellian scheme" aimed to destroy his reputation and career. He names several individuals, including former staff members Glen Romero, Juan Gonzalez, and Ricardo Benavides, as participants in this alleged conspiracy. The lawsuit implies that Justice Gina Benavides, a judge on the 13th Court of Appeals and ex-wife of Ricardo Benavides, has actively obstructed efforts to hold these individuals accountable. Cantu asserts that she has crossed ethical lines by issuing what he describes as frivolous and legally dubious opinions to protect her ex-husband.
Previous Encounters with The Monitor
This isn’t Cantu’s first legal battle with The Monitor. In May 2015, he filed a lawsuit after the paper reported a Texas Supreme Court ruling that found he had colluded with a juror during a personal injury trial in 2014, resulting in a $3 million settlement. In that case, District Judge Luis M. Singleterry ruled in favor of The Monitor, citing Texas’ anti-SLAPP laws designed to protect First Amendment rights and deter frivolous litigation.
After initially ruling in favor of The Monitor in October 2017, Singleterry’s decision was later upheld by the 13th Court of Appeals, which dismissed Cantu’s lawsuit altogether and referred the case back for further proceedings. In August 2019, a second hearing led to a final judgment awarding The Monitor and AIM Media Texas $150,000 in legal fees.
Conclusion
The new lawsuit filed by Mark A. Cantu against The Monitor, Glen Romero, Juan Gonzalez, Ricardo Benavides, and Justice Gina Benavides has drawn attention for its serious accusations of misinformation, judicial bias, and personal vendettas. This ongoing legal saga raises important questions about the intersection of media reporting, legal ethics, and accountability within the judicial system.
As the case develops, it serves as a reminder of the potential ramifications of legal missteps and the critical role of accurate journalism in shaping public perception. For more information on anti-SLAPP laws, visit Texas Legislative Information.
