Perhaps the Times Standard instead of being Peter Martin's personal PR agency should research cases he cites and claims he makes and do an in depth article.
Martin cites Reed vs Gilbert in the Times Standard article with a threat to sue the City of Eureka over it's panhandling ordinance if it is not repealed in 30 days.
TS has never asked Martin if he is working pro bono on these cases. LOCO and NCJ seem content to give a pass to Martin on investigating just who is behind these lawsuits?
I have asked Martin this question several times on this blog. No answer.
When the city pays for lawsuits, especially fees and settlements, it costs you and me and aggressive panhandling costs businesses.
So why is certain media quiet on Martin's lawsuits and who maybe behind it? They did the same thing with Richard Salzman. Why are you okay supporting such media?
Are certain media really objective and independent or unbiased? You support these media sources by reading them, enabling them to get advertisers with clicks and you may advertise with them.
Yet, information that is relevant to you is not pursued. Is Martin working pro bono on these repeated lawsuits and investing so much time just for "civil rights?" If so, why the silence by him?
Why not have discussions with the City instead of giving ridiculous deadlines and threatening and filing lawsuits?
Here is a link to the Supreme Court blog.
Martin maybe feeling confident with certain recent rulings but as this link shows, his win is not guaranteed.