I have just been banned from Democracy for New Mexico for asking for proof that the much-maligned Dennis Montoya, the "vile" Dennis Montoya, the "cowardly" Dennis Montoya as the blog says... I asked for some proof he was either one.
Apparently that's an ad hominem attack.
But "vile" is not.
For the benefit of logic students everywhere, I reproduce below the horrible things I said.
You know what, this stuff doesn’t even make me angry any more, just tired.
We all understand that barb supports Judge Vanzi’s re-election, certainly her prerogative -- I just wish she wouldn’t claim to be a journalist, let alone a clearinghouse.
This blog has re-hashed and re-rehashed the same list of accusations over and over and over, without ever trying to document the substance of any of them. Then the same handful of usernames talks about how obvious it all is.
I’ve yet to see the actual facts I asked for days ago, nor any attempt to acknowledge that they might exist. Instead we get endless gleeful discussions of what might be possible with Montoya out of the way.
Big on horserace, short on facts.
It’s about revenge, we’re told. This makes no sense. Who would put themselves through this muck just to swipe at a misguided judge? Do you have any evidence of that at all? Not one shred of proof seems to exist of the alleged negative campaigning from a few days ago. If there is, please produce it. If there isn’t, why should I believe you now?
We get a bunch of adjectives and innuendo. “She smelled something fishy…” – come on. I googled you and it seems you were a reporter once. Whatever happened? That’s biased language and you know it.
About $400,000 in fees and “costs” from a total of $776,000 is about half the money this woman had no hope of receiving without his help. Would this sum perhaps represent the usual one third contingency fee, plus expenses?
And he lied to judges to get it, huh. This would be the discussion about whether New Mexico recognizes Utah’s common law marriage? So is he crooked and smart, or too incompetent to do his paperwork correctly? You guys seem to be throwing both up against the wall to see what sticks.
The small child would be the only heir only if his father died without a will and IF the mother was in fact not his common-law wife, right? IANAL but I do know that family law presumes that money paid to the mother will benefit the child. Perhaps some fine point of estate or wrongful death law makes this case different. But the notion that a mother will not take care of her child without special and apparently novel legal safeguards does offend me.
Look, either this woman was a despicable addict who would steal from her son given the chance, OR we can take her word for the terms of her agreement with Montoya. I don’t think that both together quite have the ring of truth.
As for citing the Albuquerque Journal’s “reporting,” giggle, pul-eeze.
Interesting isn’t it that these ancient charges would surface now. I can’t quite connect the dots, but it’s highly suggestive. The basic inequity of the campaign suggests racism to some and the wrath of party insiders to others. A few days ago this blog suggested that whispers about sexuality would appeal to conservative rural Hispanics, therefore the campaign of a rural Hispanic might be responsible. No evidence of that so far either. But wait, who’s injecting race again?
Ah but “the vile Dennis Montoya” is a coward apparently, and “[c]owards always do their work under cover.” Good logic there. Coward, so no proof. But wait… I thought he was a wild man, interfering with the police and yelling at judges? Getting cited for contempt? Maybe he is stupid and cowardly and clever and scheming and dishonest and taken in by his addict client? Do we actually *know* any part of that sentence?
Pick one. I will settle for one.