May 27, 2017

While vetting our current County Counsel, did this 2005 case of why Mr. Blanck was let go from previous employment, slip the radar?

(Jeffrey Blanck)

Instead of citing excerpts, I think the link below with the entire order allows you the reader to see the effectiveness and legal knowledge of our current County Counsel, Mr. Jeffrey Blanck.

Blanck v. Hager, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Nev. 2005)

District Court, D. Nevada


360 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (2005)

Jeffrey BLANCK, Plaintiff,
James L. HAGER, an individual; Washoe County School District, a political subdivision of the State of Nevada, Defendants.

No. CV-N-04-0051-PMP(RAM).
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
February 14, 2005.
*1138 *1139 *1140 *1141 *1142 Shannon M. Bryant, Shannon Bryant, Law Office Of, Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Jeffrey A. Dickerson, Reno, NV, for Blanck, Jeffrey, Plaintiff.
Brad M. Johnston — 008515, Hale Lane Peek, Dennison & Howard, Reno, NV, for Hager, James L., Washoe County School District, Defendants.



  1. Long read, John, but a good one. While one might want a county counsel to be forceful and combative in pursuit of justice, I don't think the job description would include such traits as "pig-headed" or "blind to reason".
    Which certainly seem to apply to the latest attempt to retry the case against the already justified case against Humboldt widow.
    Reading of the previous case in Nevada (which he lost on all counts) it makes me wonder if he enjoys gambling with other people's lives in a court of law.
    But since he is employed by the County, his unfounded need what? What can he hope to prove except he doesn't know how to accept when he loses.
    If his salary ($205,385.00 in 2016 including benefits) was dependent on just taking on court cases rather than actually winning them, well, that would be one thing.

    But what about other work that seems to not have been resolved:

    Like the problems at Fernbridge which Mr. Blanck told the Supervisors he would work on a solution with then Sheriff Downey (early Nov 2015)?
    "On the night of March 24 (2016) , the Humboldt County Sheriff's Office received more than 64 calls about shooting and explosions along the Eel River. In response to our questions about shooting and other issues near Fernbridge, the HCSO referred the reporter back to County Counsel, stating that it is "taking the lead" on issues near Fernbridge.

    Another posting on the issue has the County Counsel saying so much of his time is taken up with the marijuana ordinance issues he hasn't been able to devote time to the Fernbridge situation. I'm sure the good people of the Fernbridge area are happy to have their situation treated that way.

    While the internet which remembers things long gone still shows him active ( ) his website doesn't exist and the Nevada Bar shows his status as Inactive. His status on the California Bar shows Active.
    So it would seem he's back in California to stay.

    An article written when he was still practicing law in Nevada might provide a clue to who his friends are:

    Has Humboldt County decided to make itself into a retirement home for out-of-the-area attorneys who may not have the best resumes but know the right people to get hired? Sheesh!

    But in the mean time, it would seem Blanck's work for the county has been so taken up with marijuana regulations that other work suffers.
    So why, now, does he have to spend his time (which costs HUMCO a lot) and the County's money (like they have money to waste) on this case?

    Perhaps the Supervisors (his boss) could look at what his office is actually accomplishing and if he is performing those duties and tasks that he was hired for. If the Sups aren't that aware of the Nevada court case then I suggest they read it, or have someone else read it and give their opinion because it really looks like Mr. Blanck is in a situation very similar to the one for which his employment was terminated and found justified by the Court.

  2. It was a long read Gabriele but the only way to make the point I wanted to. I knew savvy readers like you, and those in the legal field would enjoy it. He made the point during oral arguments in the Magney case yesterday that taxpayers would be paying. Well, whose fault is it that taxpayers would be paying? His office and the Board of Supervisors, who have been told numerous times about the issues with their legal counsel. One or two Supervisors may get it but those who do not need to know the public is watching where money is being wasted.

    Thank you for your research and comment.