Convicted Sex Offender Benito Mexquitic Hires Texas Lawyer Who Would Use Deceptive Legal Tactics Attempting Hide the Truth From the Public

Attorney: Worth D. Carroll Accused Of Deceptive Litigation With Client Benito Mexquitic

View More Categories

Convicted Sex Offender Benito Mexquitic Hired Texas Lawyer To Hide His Past Using Deceptive Tactics.

Benito Mexquitic


Benito Mexquitic is a convicted sex offender involving a felony crime associated to a 13-year old girl. Offense: Indecency with a Child, Statute for Offense: Article 21.11, Section (a)(1), Penal Code, Degree of Offense: Second Degree Felony.. He is NOT a registered sex offender with the State of Texas – ANYMORE. He was previously, but was released from that obligation after 13 years of being listed on and required to register with the official Texas Public Sex Offender Registry. However, being released from the mandatory registration as a sex offender does NOT erase the factual information of a felony criminal conviction of a sex crime involving a 13-year old child.

It is not surprising that Benito Mexquitic would like to put his criminal history behind him and if at all possible limit access to any and all references and knowledge of these facts. However, there is a reason it is called the PUBLIC domain, that they are called PUBLIC records, that sex crimes in particular have been recognized to be of significant PUBLIC interest (especially when involving children); the 1st Amendment protects the right to free speech because the PUBLIC has a right to know. Due to these societal norms, it was these realities that led Benito Mexquitic’s to seek legal representation. This led to his lawyers in making court filings to circumvent the legal dissemination online of the factual information by a private third party website that archives public records released into the public domain. Such filings are in direct conflict with not only 1st Amendment protections for freedom of speech, but also national legislation that provides sweeping protections to republished online content from attempted censorship under Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.  

An emerging crisis in the legitimacy and processes of the judicial system is the proliferation of deceptive legal filings intentionally designed to circumvent the “rule of law” in regard to information provided on the Internet. In order to create a work-around of the legal dissemination of  factual content found online, a relatively new legal strategy being employed by lawyers specializing in reputation repair services is to submit filings in courts claiming “defamation” that have absolutely no jurisdiction to oversee such litigation. The strategy by the attorney(s) is the intentional precluding the“DEFENDANT(s)” from even being aware they are involved in litigation challenging their right to provide public record information specific to their client. This will inevitably result in a DEFAULT Judgment wherein a Judge will issue an Order authorizing the demand for the identified online content to be immediately removed from the Internet. This is exactly what occurred with Benito Mexquitc being represented by the law firm of Sumpter & Gonzalez L.L.P. of Austin, Texas who had filed such requests to the 66th District Court of Hill County, Texas. What was NOT filed with the Court was a proof of service as required as no such effort had even been attempted or the “Defendant” even made aware via any form of communication that litigation had been initiated. What was communicated by attorney Worth Carroll was the Court Order AFTER it had been obtained demanding the removal of all online content concerning Benito Mexquitic.

Beside the potential serious ethical violations of state bar dictates, the attorney(s) seldom inform their clients that such efforts are completely ineffective when dealing with experienced and legally savvy Internet operators. The problem with charging the unsuspecting client thousands of dollars to implement such deceptive legal stratagems is they are ineffective in achieving the promised result. First, there is not the proper jurisdiction when obtaining a Court Order in Texas for an online website owned and operated in Nevada to execute and/or enforce the demand. It has no legal enforcement authority. Second, the protections provided with civil lawsuit liability with immunity by the previous mention Section 230 of the CDA is nationwide legislation. Third, certain states like Nevada have additional protections from a SLAPPA strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening then with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. In Nevada the Anti-SLAPP statutes provide for the “DEFENDANT” being awarded “mandatory” recovery of attorney fees AND the ability to seek additional retribution with a punitive damage lawsuit AGAINST a Plaintiff like Benito Mexquitic. In many cases an attorney like Worth Carroll do not inform the client what ALL the potential consequences of pursuing this type of litigation may result in regard to potential serious legal and financial liability.

An additional consideration not disclosed when venturing into such ill advised legal peril is the very real realization of what is known with the Internet of creating the Streisand Effect. This phenomenon is the remarkable backlash created wherein in the legal effort to remove or restrict derogatory content online actually achieves the polar opposite in highlighting the very information that was sought to be removed. It is unlikely such consequences are revealed and discussed when paying a law firm thousands of dollars to initiate such legal representation.

STAFF INPUT NOTE: similar articles of these type of deceptive legal practices being employed by lawyers offering online reputation repair services have been covered on this website extensively. One particular case that received national attention involves attorneys Daniel Warner and Aaron Kelly of Kelly Warner Law in Scottsdale, Arizona whose propensity for such legal tactics were brought to the State Bar of Arizona and the disciplinary process. They are currently awaiting the final disposition of their case brought before the Arizona Supreme Court and could result in DISBARMENT. Also, the subject has garnered national media attention here:








Similar complaints are expected against Worth D Carroll and the law firm  Sumpter & Gonzalez