In the May 27, 2026 Piermont Trustee non-debate,
Mark Blomquist gave you all the clues. He gave you all the best straight lines. He gave you all the best
material. In that gathering, Blomquist stated, “I’m also an attorney
admitted in both New York State and Louisiana, although I am retired there and
not practicing”. [Emphasis supplied]:
https://unhandpiermont.blogspot.com/2026/06/piermont-trustee-non-debate-raw.html
Touting his overstuffed and perfunctory 19 years in office, Blomquist smugly
assured you that:
“I know the job [of Piermont Trustee] pretty well, and I think
most of you know that I know the job pretty well… You guys know what I can do… I’ve
been doing it for 19 years and I’m not seeing any problems going forward… I’ve
been doing this 19 years. I think I’ve done it really well. I know the job well”.
Then, quoting another resident since deceased, Blomquist purported to decry those “with an
IQ of 4 post things on the Internet with no editor and no fact-checker”.
As it turns out, though, Mark Blomquist’s garish
problem with First Amendment-protected speech, is in fact his same problem with
his own rank incompetence.
Unluckily for Mark Blomquist, the New York State Unified Court System (NYSUCS) and
the Office of Court Administration (OCA) “post things on the Internet” - and careful voters sometimes actually look them up:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorneyservices/search?1
The Louisiana State Bar Association also “posts
things on the Internet”:
https://www.lsba.org/MD321654/MembershipDirectory.aspx
And when you search one Mark William Blomquist with the
New York Bar (Reg. No. 2760833) and the Louisiana Bar (Date Admitted:
10/11/1991), you realize that the only people “with an IQ of 4” are the
Piermont resident sycophants who voted for Mark Blomquist as Piermont Trustee over the
past 19 years. Given these public-record findings from these two government
sources, revelatory of Mark Blomquist’s own special brand of ineptitude, his
own IQ cannot possibly be that much higher than those who voted for him.
The Mark Blomquist problem extends well beyond his
own inability to execute. The real Mark Blomquist problem is his deception of his Piermont neighbors. Never mind that the New York State Comptroller is still conducting an ongoing audit and law-enforcement investigation of the very finances that Mark Blomquist laughably sought to brag about in the May 27, 2026 Piermont Trustee non-debate. Instead, just have another careful look at how Mark Blomquist characterized his Bar “status” as of May 27, 2026:
“I’m also an attorney
admitted in both New York State and Louisiana, although I am retired there and
not practicing”.
Mark Blomquist then slept on his own suspensions for
almost 20 years. A lawyer who flouted and flagrantly disregarded the law. On public record. A multi-state offender.
Mark Blomquist’s May 27, 2026 statement to the Piermont voting
public that he is somehow still “admitted” to practice law in
New York and in Louisiana, is belied by public-record facts published by the
two respective state governments on the Internet – yes, that same Internet to which
those with an “IQ of 4” publish, according to Blomquist. Perhaps the New York State Bar and the Louisiana Bar should start administering a separate IQ test to people like Mark Blomquist, in addition to the bar exam itself.
Sure, it is possible that Mark Blomquist
has stopped practicing law, even though in the May 27, 2026 Piermont Trustee non-debate, he bragged about recently negotiating collective bargaining agreements . Yet according to the public record, practicing law is something
that both New York and Louisiana have barred Blomquist from doing by virtue of
their respective suspensions of his law license in each state. A “retirement” is voluntary. A suspension by court order is involuntary.
And sure, it is also
possible that Mark Blomquist considers himself “retired” from the practice of
law - although the respective state governmental records of New York and Louisiana
indicate that these states continue to mandate and compel his “retirement” by court order regardless of any possible Blomquist wish ever otherwise.
Mark Blomquist is next going to try to minimize the
importance of these public-record findings, when you challenge him on them.
What he will tell you, is that about 20 years ago, he decided to stop
practicing law and go into local Village of Piermont politics, and so he simply
let his two law licenses lapse. Expire. Wash away. But not so fast, Humpty. There is a
right way, and a wrong way, for an attorney to “retire”. The right way is to
notify the Bar in writing while surrendering the law license – in effect, ceding it back
to the state that issued it – while making sure that all dues payments have been made in full,
and while making sure that all filing requirements have been met. An orderly wind-up of affairs. Civilly. Like a professional.
Yet that’s not at all what Mark Blomquist did.
To quote directly from the current Louisiana Bar
record:
Mark Blomquist is “[N]ot [E]ligible” to practice law.
Mark Blomquist is “[I]neligible for unpaid bar dues”.
Mark Blomquist is “[I]neligible for noncompliance with
Trust Account Registration requirements”. [Emphasis supplied].
Mark Blomquist is “[I]neligible for noncompliance with
CLE [Continuing Legal Education] requirements”.
Mark Blomquist is “[I]neligible for unpaid
disciplinary assessment”. [Emphasis supplied].
You are reading that correctly. According to the
governmental record, Mark Blomquist is not just a defaulter – he is a deadbeat
as well.
The Louisiana Bar actually meted out professional
discipline to Mark Blomquist due to his failed incompetent handling of his own
affairs. And yet this guy is now seeking re-election as your Piermont “Trustee”, so
that he can botch and mishandle all of YOUR affairs as well? Suddenly, the Triangle Lot makes a lot more sense. Suddenly, the CBM Zone makes a lot more sense. Suddenly, the ongoing New York State Comptroller law-enforcement investigation of Mark Blomquist's Village of Piermont and its finances, makes a lot more sense.
The New York Bar record on Mark Blomquist is even more explicit - as to
why bumbling defaulting deadbeat ex-lawyers like Mark Blomquist stain the
profession:Mark Blomquist’s Registration Status is “[s]uspended”:
Mark Blomquist was “suspended for failure to
register”.
Mark Blomquist was suspended “from the practice of
law in the State of New York”.
Mark Blomquist’s [R]egistration [S]tatus is “delinquent”.
Mark Blomquist has a “[D]isciplinary [H]istory” in New
York (as he also does in Louisiana).
And make no mistake about it, “NY attorney discipline” was imposed on Mark
Blomquist.
Mark’s Blomquist’s suspension was ordered by the Appellate
Division First Department. Matter of Attorneys in
Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 2006 NYSlipOp 07268 [36 AD3d 34], 1st
Dept. (per curiam), October 12, 2006; Docket Number M-3061:
New York Judiciary Law Section 468-a (JUD § 468-a) mandates
that all attorneys admitted to practice in New York file a biennial
registration statement with the Chief Administrator of the Courts, regardless
of where they reside, practice, or work. In the eyes of the New York courts and as a matter of New York law, the failure of someone like Mark Blomquist to register or pay the fees
constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice:
“[N]oncompliance by an
attorney with the provisions of this section and the rules promulgated
hereunder shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division of the supreme
court for disciplinary action”. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of
Judiciary Law § 468-a, 2006 NYSlipOp 07268 [36 AD3d 34], 1st Dept. (per curiam), October
12, 2006; Docket Number M-3061.
Noncompliant attorneys, like Mark Blomquist, are
subject to disciplinary action, which routinely includes suspension from the practice
of law by the Appellate Division. Suspended attorneys are prohibited from
appearing in New York courts or giving legal opinions regarding New York law. Query - are they similarly prohibited from negotiating collective bargaining agreements for municipalities? Remember what Mark Blomquist just stated at the Piermont Trustees non-debate on May 27, 2026:
“And I’m happy to say the last…uh[sic]… police
contract that was signed, I negotiated in under 20 minutes, and it was for 5
years instead of 3. Um[sic]… and I was also able to negotiate the…uh[sic]…
the last contract with our DPW, and that was done in about 2 hours”.
A reading of the opinion of the Court in Matter of
Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, reveals a few
additional facts.
First of all, Mark Blomquist made no appearance before the Court
in Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. In the
Court case, as well as in life, Mark Blomquist simply defaulted.
According to the opinion of the Court in Matter of Attorneys in
Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, Mark Blomquist violated the statute,
failed to file his registration statement, and (apparently) also failed to pay
his registration fee for one or more registration periods, after due
notification. Of course, if Mark Blomquist now wants to offer any proof that he paid all
of his registration fees to New York, he can fax me proof of same to (212)
410-2380. There is paper in my fax machine and it is ready to receive.
According to the opinion of the Court in Matter
of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, Mark Blomquist was duly
notified of his noncompliance and was given an opportunity to cure his default.
According to the opinion of the Court in Matter of
Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, the Office of Court
Administration (OCA) mailed Mark Blomquist a biennial registration form to his
last known home address. No response. Then OCA mailed Mark Blomquist a second
notice to his last known business address. No response. Then, OCA mailed a final
notice to his home address. You guessed it. Mark Blomquist defaulted in response
to all three.
Mark Blomquist was then referred to the Disciplinary
Committee, which mailed yet another notice to Mark Blomquist indicating that Blomquist’s
failure to register and pay past registration fees within 30 days would
constitute grounds for his suspension. No surprise here. Mark Blomquist
defaulted. Again. The 30 days passed. The Disciplinary Committee then filed a motion
for service by publication of the notice of petition to suspend. By order of the Court, Mark Blomquist’s name and last known business address was published in
the New York Law Journal for five consecutive days in 2006.
Crickets.
Nothing.
- - - - -
It now becomes clear why Piermont became such an
overdeveloped crassly-commercialized dump over the last 19 years – especially during
the recent 8 of those 19 years when Mark Blomquist collaborated with now-disgraced Garmento Mayor Bruce
Tucker. Blomquist and the Garmento Mayor were a perfect complement to each
other. They ran their little game together. Like buddies.
Meanwhile, Mark Blomquist cannot even react to his
own mail. Moreover, Mark Blomquist is willing to deceive Piermont voters in an audio-visually
recorded open public meeting about his own Bar non-status. He may want people to think that he voluntarily retired from the practice of law. But that’s not what actually happened. What happened, is that the Louisiana Bar and the New York Bar shut Mark Blomquist down. Then, Mark Blomquist slept on his own Bar suspensions for almost 20 years and to date has made no public effort to cure either of them. Of course, those grapes were sour anyway, right?
Remind me, please - how is this deceptive incompetent going to serve Piermont residents as “Trustee”, again?
