The upshot of the piece came in what we call the "nut graf," a sentence or two that tells the reader why he or she may want to spend the time getting through one of our monsters.
"A growing number of probate court observers worry that Grant Goodman is less a white knight than a shark who smells blood in the water -- and that he intends to use Maricopa County's most vulnerable for both good publicity and a fat payday."
Then, on March 31, we did a follow-up blog item on the guy.
It briefly noted how U.S. District Court Judge Mary Murguia had hammered Goodman (and one of Goodman's onetime clients, Summit Builders Construction) in a strongly worded order that cited his "repeated misrepresentations concerning the facts and law [that] constitute an improper effort to mislead both the Court and opposing counsel."
The item marked the extent of our my writings on Mr. Goodman and his legal travails.
But the guy seems to have time on his hands, to wit the following note he sent over late Saturday afternoon:
Discussed below is an invitation for you and I to engage in a taped, and transcribed, no holds barred cross-interview, in which we both have the opportunity to address your reporting skills and commentary relative to my career, which you have shown a keen interest in. So, I thought we would indulge your penchant for dismissing the obvious by putting it on tape.
A case in point is your missive of the Murguia Order published a month ago. Your benefactors (the lawyers and `fiduciaries' I sue) failed to provide you the Motion for New Trial, filed in April,2011 (addressing point by point `issues' raised by the Court (and, by accident, your histrionics). And, your lawyer PR club also forgot to include their own rousing non-responses thereto (also filed in April), with the Reply brief, (filed last week) with dispositive (uncontested) evidence of the truth of the matters asserted by GOODMAN, P.A.
As their PR organ, request the documents from your clients at the Public Fiduciary, The Office of General Litigation Services, the defendant `fiduciaries' and the defendant lawyers who stripped millions in estate assets, without the `protected person's' knowledge, leaving most, wards of the state at taxpayer expense.
With respect to the State Bar, which we both apparently support, I waive confidentiality in these cases so that a fair appraisal can be made--in the open. I haven't seen your recent spot-on reporting in the above regard.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to Phoenix New Times's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Phoenix's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
In another example, as you were `high-fiving' Ms. Fenske on her dogged pursuit of the truth, was your auto-delete, Paul, of the Arizona Appellate Court (Div. 1)February 3, 2011 reversal of the `...string of failed lawsuits....' published two months before your own `scud' attack of March 31, 2011.
If you lack the capacity or character to take on the issues publically, at least tell your readership you craft one-sided hit pieces without research, provided by lawyers, insurance companies, and banks as their proprietary PR `hack.'"
You've had your 15 minutes -- at least until the State Bar of Arizona decides to do something about you, one way or the other.