By Mark David Blum, Esq.
On January 15th of this year, the MarkBlumReport published an essay written by a first hand observation of a warrantless search of someone’s home and belongings by the Onondaga County Department of Probation and assisted by Syracuse Police. Specifically, attention was directed at the Probation Department’s policy of their demand that Probationers sign a provision that gives them, Probation Officers, “the right to search wherever and whichever premises the probationer happens to be at.” I expressed my experiences of that night and how I believed that while an individual can choose to waive their own rights to be free from an unreasonable search or seizure, they cannot waive the rights of others. Such was the crux of that essay.
That essay drew one of the largest responses of any publication of this site. It is up there with the Nick Berg beheading video, the Doppler ganger, and the George Ruggaber story. In fact, among the responses received was one from the sister of Matt Deno, one of the Probation Officers involved in the search. His sister Elizabeth wrote, “has it ever occurred to you that he HAS imagined himself in his probationers' shoes? My brother tries to help people, just like I'd hope you do.”
Two days ago I learned to the contrary. The sight of Matt’s bootprint on my business card remains burned into my memory. Apparently Matt’s sister doesn’t know him as well as she thinks she does.
One of those dreaded moments in an attorney’s career is when that yellowish envelope marked Attorney Grievance Committee arrives in the mail. It is never good news.
When the envelope was opened and its contents read, my jaw hit the floor hard enough to knock the snow off the roof. Mr. Deno complained that the essay bordered on “libelous” and that my statements were, “threats to my safety and to the safety of my family.” These charges are not de minimus and are very serious in nature.
I scanned and re-read every word of that essay. Yes, in the last paragraph, the tone is “uncivil”, but that is because I was so infuriated at Mr. Deno’s behavior that night. Nowhere in that essay did I see anything that remotely approached the claim by Mr. Deno about libel or threats to his family.
The integrity of this website has been a paramount issue with its editors and given how much we are under a microscope, we endeavor slavishly to be factually accurate. Also, while we are given at times to hyperbole, we nevertheless would never take actions that would put someone’s life or safety in jeopardy.
The law on this subject is clear. What I do as an attorney … appear in Court, draft papers, or otherwise advance a case or controversy as a Lawyer and Officer of the Court is subject to the constraints and rules of the attorney’s Code of Professional Responsibility.
But, when I am not acting as an attorney, as I do when I publish here, the same rules do not apply. In these pages, you read what I as a private citizen who also happens to be a lawyer, thinks and opines about particular subjects. Nothing I say here is as an “attorney” or officer of the Court, but rather as a concerned citizen exercising his Constitutional rights to speak up about matters of public concern. The controlling case law on the subject in New York is found if found at Matters of the Justices of the Appellate Division v. Erdman, 33 N.Y.2d 559 (1973). There, New York’s highest Court said that the right of an attorney to make out of court statements accusing the judiciary of “buying their way into office”, “ rarely rule on questions of law”, and who were “whores who became madams” was constitutionally protected speech and not subject to disciplinary rules.
Nothing I wrote in the article about Mr. Deno or his probation search approaches calling him a whore. Clearly I am offended at his lack of understanding of his Fourth Amendment limitations. But that does not warrant the label of “whore”. Nothing in that essay approaches a threat, libel, or exposing anything personal about Mr. Deno.
In that article, as in everything I write, I try very hard to stay as close to the facts as they are known to me. My opinions are my own and are not subject to being “right” or “wrong”. My reputation has taken a hit in recent history for my own misbehaviors and since that time, I have worked as hard as I can to prove that indeed I have integrity and honor and do not cross that “line”. When I commented on what I consider to be a travesty of the law by Probation Officers and Syracuse Police, I was not making personal attacks against the players, I was insisting that they take a hard look inside their souls and think about the ramifications of their actions.
I am not just some punk kid with a loud mouth. When I put my name on an article, I am backing up my opinion and perspective with a degree in Sociology (Magna) from the University of California at Berkeley, Syracuse University Law School, and many years of civil rights and Constitutional Law trial litigation in State and Federal Courts. Add to that nearly one half of a century of life experience, and you will note there is indeed some punch and credibility to my conclusions. I tell you further that if I were running for political office, ending this practice by Probation would be a plank in my platform and discussed at every Middlesex, village, and farm.
You don’t have to agree with me. But when you don’t, don’t run to tattle to my Mommy and Daddy. Man up and tell me to my face. Ours would be a professional disagreement, not a personal one. If you disagree with what I write, then draft a response. I have offered and will continue to offer any person equal time and space if they disagree with my writing. All you have to do is sign your name to it and I will publish it unedited. We get comments, arguments, and questions all the time in response to our postings here and have worked hard to respond to every one of them. Contributing writers are always welcome.
I do not know what drove Matt to file a formal complaint against me. I challenge him, however, to step up and show me the error of my argument. Tell me where in my analysis of the situation or the actions of the persons involved that I erred. Show me what was so “offensive” that you feel I crossed the line. Show me the factual errors. We will correct and retract any mistakes of fact immediately upon discovery thereof. Identify how I put your family at risk and I will make sure nothing published here ever approaches that situation again.
But no matter what, the goal of this website will be preserved. It is a free-speech forum for its readers and its contributors. We may have an overall political spin and message, but we do not fear challenge or correction. There will never be hesitation to correct the record. I will personally openly apologize if that too is necessary. We are not out to slay anybody, we just want to talk.
To all readers and contributors and friends of MarkBlum.com, I leave you with this: DON’T BE A COWARD. If you got something to say to me, say it. If I owe you an apology, I shall immediately do so. If you want to be heard, I shall give you the bandwidth. To not say anything and then grumble and growl about me behind my back, is not only unfair, but also petty and childish.
When you bring pressure on an attorney by reaching out to those who could take his license, you not only bring pain upon the particular attorney, but you put an entire family at risk. It would seem to me that when an attorney commits a sin as an attorney, as I once did, then you have a valid reason to attack his license. But because you disagree with him politically or are offended by his opinions, that is not reason enough. This is especially so when it is a matter of public concern and which does not even approach the ‘line’.
Coming full circle, it appears that Sister Elizabeth’s words do not quite ring true. Matt did nothing to try and help. Instead, it appears he used his office to attempt to punish and gag me for exercising my First Amendment rights.
Now we wait and see if Matt will speak up to correct the so-called erroneous record. His silence will speak louder than any complaint.
