It isn't unclear as Thad Greenson states in his recent latest article. Maybe Thad forgot about the 30 day deadline in the lawsuit and the article written by NCJ's Kimberly Wear?
https://m.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2017/10/08/supes-schedule-closed-door-evaluation-of-public-defender
"It’s unclear exactly why Marcus is up for review this week."
Link to Kimberly Wear's article:
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/NewsBlog/archives/2017/06/29/judge-gives-attorney-30-days-to-refile-public-defender-lawsuit?media=AMP%20HTML
You don't have to be court savvy to know why Marcus is being reviewed again; just someone who actually pays attention to the case and court developments.
Previous post:
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/09/judge-carter-rules-in-favor-of-patrik.html?m=1
Hello John,
ReplyDeleteThank you for giving me permission to provide the text of a letter I sent to the lawyer on this case. You know of my concerns about some legal matters in Humboldt County. Since Mr. Griego had not raised the issue I mention in his lawsuit, I thought it could be helpful to remind him of another legal requirement for the practice of law in California.
Quote:
Sep 25 (13 days ago)
to pgriego
Dear Mr. Griego,
I don't live in Humboldt County (used to) and my only active involvement with
the law and courts is serving on juries in the past. But I do follow news and
events online both concerning Humboldt County.
I have followed your lawsuit against David Marcus and feel strongly that he
should not have been hired. Before I retired I worked in international shipping
so had to know and study various Federal regulations covering transportation,
US Customs, and the like. On a daily basis I read MetNews and Courthouse News.
I came across something today which made me wonder if something being discussed
about another lawyer might apply to David Marcus' status as well.
I am referring to the CA State Bar MCLE requirements.
While Mr. Marcus was out of state there were changes to the MCLE
("Some important changes to MCLE requirements will be implemented by
the State Bar starting July 2014.") and since he was not acting as a lawyer
in Florida during his absence, I would doubt that he took any MCLE courses
there. Whether or not he has completed the 25 hours of continuing education
required only he (and the State Bar) would know.
While I'm sure you are well aware of MCLE, here is a link to the page on the State
Bar website for your convenience: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/MCLE-CLE
and http://www.calbarjournal.com/MCLESpecialEdition2012/TopHeadlines/TH2.aspx
When I lived in Humboldt County I became more aware of things than most residents. I'm still
in touch with friends who live there so have a personal interest.
The law is too important (for everyone) to be misused or misapplied or handled by
unqualified persons. I don't have to be a resident to be offended that the BoS hired
Mr.Marcus.
In the past I have provided information to a blogger after researching a
subject but in this case I thought perhaps I should address you directly.
If you've already checked out Marcus' MCLE status, my apologies. As my late
husband used to quote his training in the Marines: "The Only Stupid Question is
the One You Don't ask".
I look forward to reading about your success in this court case.
End quote
John, here is the information from the first link noted above:
"With a few exceptions, all attorneys who are actively practicing law in California must complete ongoing legal training. This requirement is called Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). The required 25 hours every three years must include credits on ethics as well as competence issues, such as substance abuse and mental health.
To make sure attorneys complete their training on a regular schedule, the State Bar requires attorneys to report their training once every three years. The bar also conducts yearly audits on a random set of attorneys to determine whether they are meeting the requirements."
Speaks for itself. And what would Mr. Marcus' answer be, I wonder?
John:
ReplyDeleteMore information on the requirements from the second website I'd listed:
"What happens if I don’t fulfill my MCLE requirement?
The State Bar requires active attorneys, with some exceptions, to complete 25 hours of continuing education every three years including at least four hours of legal ethics, one hour of elimination of bias in the legal profession and one hour of prevention, detection and treatment of substance abuse or mental illness. Failing to fulfill MCLE requirements can result in placement on administrative inactive status. Attorneys who are audited and found to have falsely reported compliance may also face discipline."
And while we're on the subject of Humboldt County hiring qualified personnel, I'd like to raise the question of the County Counsel, Jeffrey S. Blanck who was hired this year.
His Facebook page still shows him with an office and practicing law in Reno Nevada:
https://www.facebook.com/jeffreyblancklawoffice/
It lists him as "Labor & Employment Lawyer · Business Service"
"Jeff has been practicing law for over 27 years, with 18 of those years being in Nevada. He has expertise in dealing with complex cases that others might not want to handle such as Civil Rights violations, Employment Law issues, and Education Law matters. He has recently been elected as the President of the Reno/Sparks Branch NAACP."
He is an active member of the California Bar
http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/115447
He is not an active member of the Nevada Bar
https://www.nvbar.org/find-a-lawyer/?usearch=blanck
His LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-blanck-3351b131/
I was going to ask why someone so well established in his community of 18 years
why he would take the job in Humboldt?
Then I looked at Transparent California. His salary is $159,077 with additional pay of $5,750
and benefits of $40,558. That must be some retirement package.
I'm going to assume that Mr. Blanck has met the MCLE training requirements.
I know what a county counsel is supposed to do. Does anyone know what this County Counsel actually does?
And given his long time involvement with the NAACP, am I allowed to wonder why he wasn't a peacemaker in recent public claims of racism in Humboldt County? He's prosecuted claims in court, will that make him better qualified to defend the county in any lawsuits which might be filed on the basis of racism?
Wow Gabriele, you're Awesome.
DeleteI agree Rusty.
DeleteThanks Rusty. Where I have knowledge I like to use it to serve those who speak truth.
ReplyDelete"speak truth to power
That concept was best shown in the way the colonists stood up to King George. He had an empire. They had what they believed to be the truth and stood firm in their dedication.
We are a country of laws. The laws apply to everyone, high or low. Those are truths. There are truths in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. We need to hold on to those, also.
And what we need when few in the media provide truth (whether by ignorance, omission or bias) is someone, a real person, who speaks with a single voice but speaks for all of us (in theory) and for many of us in fact.
I am thankful he does.
The founders of United States risked their lives in order to speak truth to power, that of King George. It was and is considered courageous, although is more commonly scorned today.
John-
ReplyDeleteThe county already filed its response, so that's not it... Also it's not listed on the agenda as "conference with legal counsel" so it's not directly related to the lawsuit. But, please, keep guessing. (As an aside, that article you linked to by Kim, which is excellent, is from June, when the judge gave Griego 30 days to refile the suit so it's not exactly relevant here.)
Thadeus Greenson
Thad, I prefer not to guess and see what happens after closed session on October 10. For some reason, if they do not report out of session, the next court date will reveal a little more about the County position since attorneys tend to add more recent information in oral arguments. Despite filing a response, all the reasons I mentioned above make sense. They are not "guesses". Court responses do not indicate if any informal talks to resolve may be going on I don't follow this case from court documents; I prefer old fashioned reporting. Kim's article was excellent. I hope we will see more Kim bylines in the future.
Delete