MONTES-WIGHTMAN MOVE IN FOR THE KILL (INSURANCE)

By Juan Montoya
Remember the fender bender which spawned a small claim in JP 2-1 Linda Salazar's court by Emilio Montes, nephew of disbarred lawyer Robert Wightman?
Well, a hearing has been scheduled in that court for Nov. 10 and judging by one of his posts Wightman is certain that the Salazar will allow him to represent his nephew acting as his lawyer.
We have all been told that the good judge will allow Wightman to practice his lawyering skills and flaunt his legal prowess thumbing his nose at the legal profession which disbarred him. We'll see whether Salazar will aid and abet him in his plan.
We checked in on the case (2015-FCL-00490) Emilio Montes vs. Justine Pointinger and discovered a novel wrinkle. Montes (or is it Uncle Wightman) has filed a motion (ready for this?) to compel insurance coverage and includes a subpoena with duces tecum against Pointinger's father, James Pointinger. The Latin phrase refers to a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial.
In other words, the hearing hasn't even happened yet and the Wightman-Montes law firm is already issuing subpoenas through Salazar's court under penalty of law for the woman's father?
If and when Mr. Pointinger appears, Montes (Wightman) says he will ask the court to abate the case for 60 days to allow the insurance adjuster to review the claim therefore making further action by the court moot.
Now, there was no police report taken at the time of the accident for which Montes and Unk are trying to recover some $3,000 in damages to the Harley, triple punitive damages for her alleged negligence, and a suspension of her driver's license plus court costs, thank you. The reason there is none is because Justine Pointinger stated in hes response to the lawsuit that Montes did not want her to call the police numerous times that night of the accident. (May 26, 2015).
Wightman – in one of his trademark voluminous posts – said that in her response she had mistakenly written that she "made a right turn on a green light from the turning lane onto Jack in the Box driveway."
That is obviously a mistake because she was in the turn lane heading west (south) on Highway 48 and turned left into the restaurant when Montes (atop the jinxed Harley) hit her and she said that "My car was already in the Jack in the Box driveway when Mr. Montes struck the rear bumper of my car."
Montes' version of the events is not much clearer. He states in his lawsuit that "On May 16, 2015 (Justine Pointinger) made a left hand turn from the southbound lane of SH 48, across the northbound lane while the north bound lane had a green light and she had a red light for turning, thereby striking (Motes') motorcycle causing considerable damage."
So now we have Montes saying that she struck him when the woman states in her response that  he struck the rear bumper of her car.
Obviously, a dispute exists on who caused the accident.
But Judge Wightman has already rendered a decision on that matter when Montes states in his motion to compel that "In her answer the defendant stated that there is insurance coverage on the car she was driving at the time of the accident. Given the fact that the defendant in her answer admitted to illegally crossing over two lanes to turn into the Jack in the Box, negligence is no longer an issue."
(By the way, Wightman, anyone can make a mistake, Take, for example, the summons issued to James Pointinger by Salazar's court. It states that he is to appear "Nov. 10 at 9 P.M." Unless Salazar has gotten suddenly industrious, it is doubtful that she would be there to hold a hearing at 9 p.m. at night. The courthouse closes at 5 p.m.)
In a telephone call made after the night of the accident, Montes states in the lawsuit that the woman's  father had stated on the phone that maintaining the insurance on the car was his responsibility and not his daughter's.
The statement by the young mother is quite revealing, even with the grammar and spelling mistakes in that it points out the emphasis that Montes made on not calling the police and asking her for her insurance.
"I asked several times if he was OK? He did not respond. I asked if he spoke english, and he replied 'Yeah I speak English.' He made this statement while rudely looking at me with bloodshot eyes."
and "I asked Mr. Montes if he wanted to called (sic) PD. He said 'yes,' as I started to call he said 'no.'"
"I called my mother who was sleeping at the time. She asked me to call the police. I told her he did not want me to call the police. My mother arrived shortly after I talked to her. She asked again if we had called PD yet? I told her we had not because he told me not to. I was in shock. My mother spoke to Mr. Montes, she asked if he was alright and that we needed to call PD. He asked her if her insurance would pay for his damages. My mother stated that in order for her insurance to pay we needed to call PD. Mr. Montes again refused. He continued to ask several times if my mothers insurance would pay for his damages. This was asked about five times.  My mother finally said call the police right now because he continued to ask the same thing (if her insurance would pay without getting the police involved.) After she made the statements to call PD Mr. Montes growel (sic) from within and began to pace and look angry. So then he just asked my mother for her phone number and name, that was given to him by my mother. As he walked away he stumbled and my mother asked him if he had been drinking and he turned and replied 'yes ma'am' looked at her and got on his Harley and rode away."
"I don't think it's my fault because he struck my car and he was drinking and I was just hungry. I am a young mother and I'm barley (sic) making it myself to pay so much for this mans motorcycle. He refused to call PD at the time of the accident because it was 3:00 am and he had been drinking he was just heading home and happen to hit my car on the way."
With the hearing scheduled for Nov. 10, Montes is a changed man. People who have seen him in bars on 14th Street report he no longer dresses in his leather bike vest or sports a braid on his beard. In fact, he now clean shaven and was sporting a guayabera last time he was seen.
In a video of the statement he gave to the Brownsville police last time he was trying to claim damages to the same bike for about $3,000 he said was caused by a drunk who was thrown out of the Sportsman Bar, he was in his biker regalia with his full braided beard. He told the investigator he was there drinking with another biker friend when they heard what they surmised was the drunk falling over their bikes.
Wightman went ballistic on his blog when he learned that Asst. DA Gus Garza dismissed a felony criminal mischief charge against the drunk (Hector Negrete) after he had served 76 days in jail on a misdemeanor conviction for criminal mischief arising out of the same incident.
Both Garza and court-appointed attorney Louis Sorola were made part of a complaint filed by Montes (or was it Wightman?) with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the Texas State Bar alleging some dark conspiracy that resulted in Montes not getting restitution of the doomed Harley that time.
Will they be successful this time?