From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755 U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, U.S.A.
August 19, 1999

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
THE COUNTY OF NEVADA,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTY OF NEVADA,
being, in their Official Capacities:
Karen Knecht, Chairperson;
Bruce Conklin;
Sam Dardick;
Elizabeth Martin;
Peter Van Zant.
950 Maidu Avenue
Nevada City, CA 95959

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

As reported in The Union newspaper this week, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS is publically bemoaning the fact that you do not have any "independent" information upon which to base your decisions concerning the matter of THE COUNTY OF NEVADA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.

I am presenting this information to you as Public Comment for the Record (in effect as Amicus Curae to THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS in your Administrative capacity) from my sense of duty to the welfare of the Citizens of this County.
I am not an attorney and I do not offer "Legal Advice".
I have however trained myself to read and understand legal information.
At this point, I DO know more than you do and The County Counsel apparently has not told you any of this information. However, if pushed into a corner and forced to, he should be able to confirm this information.
I do not expect that you will like it; I do require that you read and understand it.
I would appreciate it greatly if you should offer me a substantial Honorarium for this information.

The problems affecting THE COUNTY OF NEVADA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE involve two fundamental and related problems:

1. Since the enactment of PENAL CODE, section 1464(f)(6) (copy attached and incorporated herein) both THE COUNTY OF NEVADA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE and THE COUNTY OF NEVADA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE have had a irreconcilable Conflict of Interest in relation to each and every Citizen they respectively Prosecute or claim to Defend (see the attached and incorporated article).
[Note (added 9/11/99): The remedy for a defendant seems to be PENAL CODE, section 1424, enacted at the same time, which allows a defendant to disqualify a prosecuting attorney for "conflict of interest".]

2. Even if the said irreconcilable Conflict of Interest did not exist, since January 1, 1998, there is not an attorney within The State Of California who is legally competent [qualified] to "Practice Law" [engage in the Business of being an attorney] because the California legislation which allowed The State Bar Of California (a State of California Public Corporation) to collect "membership fees" from its former members expired in its own terms effective January 1, 1998, after former-Governor Wilson's veto of the enabling legislation in the Fall of 1997.
I have never heard of an organization which could have "active " dues-paying members without the authority to accept those dues, so I have to assume that there is no such organization.

Both these concepts are developed more fully in the attached and incorporated document "It's Enough to Make you Bar(f)!: The Shenanigans of The State Bar Of California."

You should also consider this presentation to be my Resume and Application for the position of investigator of THE COUNTY OF NEVADA PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
Frankly I could use $10,000 for assisting in cleaning up some of the mess in this county.

Since THE COUNTY OF NEVADA, COUNTY COUNSEL is also not legally competent, you should ask him several questions:

A. Where did all these "Deputies County Counsel" come from and by what authority?
B. Why should we pay them when they were not competent to contract with or represent THE COUNTY OF NEVADA?
C. Why should we pay you when you were not competent to contract with or represent THE COUNTY OF NEVADA?
D. How long will it take you and your "Deputies" to return to the Treasurer of THE COUNTY OF NEVADA the moneys you have received from this County since January 1, 1998?

Sincerely,

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III