May 25, 2016

Is the Times Standard Peter Martin's PR agency?

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 in the Times Standard article with a threat to sue the City of Eureka over it's panhandling ordinance if it is not repealed in 30 days.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.

Other links:

Martin maybe feeling confident with certain recent rulings but as this link shows, his win is not guaranteed.


  1. So your beef is that you don't know if the guy is working for free or being paid, and for that we shouldn't trust the news media? The lawsuit speaks for itself. Either the lawsuit has merit or doesn't have merit, independent of whether the lawyer gets paid.

    The only scenario I can imagine where I'd care, even though it wouldn't change anything, is if there was some wealthy benefactor paying for these types of lawsuits to be filed in towns across the country. It would just be mildly interesting to know it was taking place.

    1. Unknown, I don't know how long you have read my blog but my beef is more than this instance with certain local media that show a bias by selective investigation. Paul Gallegos got a pass for years because the same lame media did not question him but they have no problem investigating certain other people. For the most part, except for the TV stations, the media has people publishing and reporting with a bias. Yet, you and many don't question them or how their ad revenue influences coverage. Until I started covering the courts and other news, misinformation like the Bullock jury not knowing about two phases of the trial would never have been exposed. We have organizations, lawyers, non profits that selectively court certain media.

      Yes, I want to know if anyone is funding these local lawsuits. The job of the media is to inform, not blindly accept what is given to them or filed.

      Reporting is developing a story, investigating, researching, asking questions.

      Not just following the money trail when it is convenient. I am tired of unsubstantiated accusations of developers behind everything yet you seem to think it is no big deal that a lawyer with a private practice has ample time to spend on one issue repeatedly.

      It took me a simple question and one minute to interview a plaintiff in the Palco Marsh suit who said they were sought out for the lawsuit.

      When these media sources apply some scrutiny to AHAA and Martin the same as they do to the bogey east west, developer conspiracies, they will be what media should be, objective.

    2. I guess my issue is I don't find it relevant whether he's being paid or who is paying him. If a business leader was clearing out homeless to build condos, I'd find it relevant. I can't find any secret profiteering motivation in challenging a panhandling ordinance. If panhandlers were hugely profitable and paying the guy, I guess I'd find that worth knowing.

      If the guy is just doing this for free because he wants to, eh, it doesn't make his claim any more or less relevant.

      To me, is doesn't speak to the objectivity, or lack thereof, of the local news media.

  2. Is JohnChiv's blog Bill Bertain's PR agency?

  3. I agree I want to know exactly who is behind these law suits. Who is paying Mr. Martin

  4. Thanks to the US Supreme Court, corporations are people and money is speech, so if somebody is "funding" these lawsuits then that is entirely legal. However the reality is there is no mechanism in place to require that to be revealed. I do believe it is news-worthy. On another note that ordinance would lose in Court. Take that to the bank.

  5. Unknown, that is where we have different opinions. Media is not supposed to be activist, and the days of who, what, when, where are gone. I also think that you being okay with a business owner being investigated but a lawyer not being investigated because of your socio economic beliefs is what I think is hypocritical and dangerous message to send to certain media that selective coverage is okay.