IN DEFENSE OF A GOOD WOMAN TARGET OF WIGHTMAN'S BILE

By Juan Montoya

We have stayed away from commenting on anything that the above-listed misanthrope spews as news.

For good reason. If you debate with this conspiracy-theory driven legal failure you will end up like B'rer Rabbit when he wrestled with the Tar Baby, just as smeared with the dark vitriol of his embittered soul.

For many months I have ignored Wightman's countless snide and snarky personal attacks on this blog and its writer as have my fellow bloggers. Wightman's desire is to be considered relevant and viewed as an expert scholar on everything from one-celled organisms, legal theory, neurosurgery and the birth of stars light years away in the Horsehead Nebula. 

I forget how many times he has dragged innocent people through the muck of bitter rhetoric he hurls against someone they had nothing to do with. It seems that he takes a perverse delight in inflicting collateral damage on individuals he somehow links to his main targets.

Everything, it seems, forms part of a massive conspiracy against him or those he holds in some type of high esteem. In this case, it is Mayor Trey Mendez and the content of his remarks in the State of the City.

I am sorry that Wightman has chosen to blame educator Dr. Rita Hernandez for a post that appeared on this blog. Who reached this "consensus" it was her who wrote it? 

Was it Wightman the disbarred legal eagle? The neurosurgeon? The academic maven? The Soviet Union academic? The mentor of the boards of the Brownsville Independent School District or Texas Southmost College? The promoter of a nudist beach on Boca Chica? Or is it the effect of the fluid draining from his skull that befuddled his mental faculties? Or was it all the many faces of Eve?

As a practitioner and believer of the First Amendment, I have borne the drip, drip, drip of his fantastic conspiracies even where no evidence of such connivance exists. It comes with the territory.

But to drag out innocent people and assert that they are to blame for expression posted here is going a bit far. I have defended numerous other women who have been the targets of his vitriol. Lucy Longoria, for example, when she was running for the BISD, was one of his targets, and he gleefully dug into her divorce file to expel her marital troubles to the four winds to provide her opponent for public office a political advantage.

Some of his other victims include former BISD trustee Caty Presas-Garcia, former ally and city commissioner Jessica Tetreau, Texas Southmost College chair Adela Garza, JP 2-3 Mary Esther Sorola, etc., and others who wouldn't kowtow to his whims. 

Now he chooses Dr. Rita to smear as writing "trash" against Mendez's State of the City presentation on this blog. This is  a lie. As the publisher of this online news rag, I am responsible for what appears on this blog. She had nothing to do with it and should not bear the injuries of Wightman's venomous darts.

But the truth won't matter to him. McHale and Barton have a vehicle to defend themselves if they wish. I doubt they'll give him the time of day. Dr. Rita doesn't.

This is how I know Dr. Rita. 

My three kids all attended Hudson elementary when she was principal there. She and her staff nurtured and inspired them to achieve things that they would not have imagined on their own. One is now a graduate student, another is in his junior year at the University of Houston, and the little one is on her way to graduate at 17 from Hanna High School. My eternal gratitude to them.

Unlike Wightman, Dr. Rita excelled in her profession, climbed the administrative ranks through the dint of her own efforts, and was generally respected by her peers. She then moved on and joined the workforce development efforts of Mike Hernandez, who Wightman, the self-professed genius, views as his mortal enemy because he won't bend over backwards and put up with his bombastic legal threats. That is her cardinal sin in his jaundiced eye. 

To say she wrote the "trash" that appeared on this post is not only a deranged fantasy from our conspiracy-theory aficionado, but also a huge insult and libelous innuendo from his alleged "consensus" of one against a good woman from a deranged and fluid addled-mind.

I have published his comments on this blog through a misguided understanding of professional courtesy that he doesn't afford his critics. That stops here now.

This is the last I have to say on this subject, although Wightman will probably fill volumes in his defense of this concocted conspiracy for days to come.

I have grown inured to the "convicted drunk" labels he predictably dusts off when he's incensed at some imagined slight. My mug shot will probably also appear. You know, the "Tar Baby" smear.

But smearing me is one thing, and attacking Dr. Rita for something she didn't do and who is innocent of his baseless accusations is mean-spirited and vile and nothing he says can change that truth.