BlogSpasm #43...August 5, 2011
Let’s get something straight...what you read on these blog postings or any comments posted on the DMN blog happen to be OPINIONS of the CCR. When facts are necessary, they are interspersed within the postings. What some folks seem to be having trouble with is reading an item by the CCR and then injecting their own interpretation into what they have just read. More often than not...their interpretation is incorrect.
The last sentence of a recent posting to an article on the Dallas Morning News blog (see link below) does not -- repeat, does not -- state, infer or accuse Mr. Martinez of accepting, collecting or receiving any monies for his work with the Irving chamber while representing their interest in the city’s legal efforts regarding the $250 million Entertainment Center law suits.
Chuckle of the day: "A person making decisions on questions that will affect how much he or she is paid holds an irreconcilable bias, Martinez said in a letter to council members." Don't lawyers enter into contingency agreements with clients? Maybe, not those representing the city's interest in the Entertainment Center law suits, since it is easier to tap into the city's wallet for a sure pay check. Isn't Mr. Martinez part of the gaggle of lawyers involved in this court action?”
The posting was sure clear to us. But then, we have read the “Blogging for Dummies” manual six times. We hope to have all the pictures colored by our seventh reading.
What the above blog comment does reflect is that Mr. Martinez IS part and parcel of a gaggle of lawyers who have been involved in this court action. Whether his work was pro bono or paid wasn’t the issue. That issue was not broached in the context of his being a party to the legal actions. He is part and parcel of a group of lawyers aligned with the city in their law suit efforts.
This is what was written. This is what was meant. And this couldn’t have been any clearer.
The next time that Mr. Martinez discovers Ms. Martinez responding to one of our blog postings (DMN or here), perhaps, he should review her response first and delete any false outrage penned. This would also eliminate his appearing before the Irving council and espousing an inaccurate claim of being “personally attacked” and “accused” of being paid for services rendered.
Who knew a lawyer could be so sensitive?
Note: If you would like your own personal copy of ""What a Gaggle of Lawyers Looks Like," send us an e-mail. It's free! Offer valid only for those on the official CCR reader's list.
A reader sez: Hey Mark. We read Mrs. Martinez’s nonsense on the Dallas Morning News blog. You shouldn’t have even responded. Her comments to you were almost rational compared to many of the other rantings she sends to folks in the community. Please send me a copy of What A Gaggle Of Lawyers Looks Like! Thanks. Anonymous
We Say: We had not planned to respond. However, when Mr. Martinez appeared before the city council and played his “sympathy” card for all the Rah-Rah-Kool-Aid sippers battling the mean folks who do not like voodoo financing of the Entertainment Center, we couldn’t resist. Mark Holbrook