We have often said we do not always agree with the ideals of the author, however, it takes something (and we're just not sure what) to send this pleading to the Florida Supreme Court with your Bar license on the line.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
RESPONDENT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO VACATE THIS COURT’S
TWO ORDERS ON THE BASIS OF THE FLORID BAR’S FRAUD
COMES NOW respondent, John B. Thompson, hereinafter Thompson, on his own behalf, and moves this court, pursuant to Rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate its two orders entered, respectively, on January 24, 2007, and March 7, 2007, directing Miami-Dade Circuit Court Chief Judge Farina to appoint a referee in each of these “disciplinary” actions, on the basis of The Florida Bar’s fraud, stating:
Thompson, because he is a lawyer, has been trained by our profession to communicate with ten words when one will do and to hide truth in polite euphemisms. This training, as to Thompson, has been only partly effectual. In 1914, the term “legalese” was first used to identify the problem. Legalese obfuscates, making the meaning of the writer difficult for the reader to understand. Thompson apologizes, as his apparent inability to communicate one simple fact to this Honorable Court is the only possible explanation for the Court’s inability to comprehend what should be the patent illegitimacy of these two disciplinary actions that were just tried before Referee Tunis.
Therefore, just as one of our nation’s Founders, John Hancock, wrote large his name on the Declaration of Independence so that “King George III could see it without his spectacles,” Thompson in that same fine historical tradition resorts to clear, large images herein, as words alone have apparently obscured rather than illuminated The Florida Bar’s fraud which he has repeatedly tried to explain.
American songwriter Paul Simon
wrote and performed the song “Kodachrome”
and notes “When I look back on all the crap [imaged withheld] I learned in high school, it’s a wonder I can think at all.” The analysis explaining the undersigned lawyer’s or any lawyer’s lack of communicative clarity, applies to law school, times ten. This must explain Thompson’s inability to convey to this court the initial, fatal flaw in this prosecution. As the “Man with No Eyes” said in : “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” Here, then, is a renewed attempt to communicate a problem that Thompson has not made clear but which should now be so clear with this filing that even
could see it.
The court knows this. Thompson need not explain why this is so. Thompson’s designated reviewer from the time the first SLAPP Bar complaint was filed against him in August 2004 by a porn industry lawyer was Bar Governor Benedict P. Kuehne .
Mr. Kuehne, while guaranteeing the “fairness” of the Bar proceedings against Thompson, received a target letter from the United States Department of Justice alleging that Mr. Kuehne had laundered Medellin cocaine cartel money .
The Bar, knowing this, never disclosed this to Thompson, and in its fraudulent withholding of this information denied Thompson the state equivalent of a McLain hearing by which Thompson would have been apprised that there just might be a problem with the “fairness” of proceedings against him when overseen by an alleged thief (apologies to Greenberg Traurig and Barry Richard) .
The video game company
footing the bill for the SLAPP Bar assault upon Thompson, in violation of the Preamble to Section 4 of our Bar Rules, is Take-Two Interactive Software which has sold millions of units of the Mature-rated to minors. Take-Two has more money to throw around than the Medellin cartel. Whether Take-Two got to Mr. Kuehne or not, Thompson was entitled to a McLain hearing with a DOJ-alleged crook presiding over proceedings that are designed to end the law career of the video game industry’s most successful and most hated critic, Jack Thompson. Take-Two’s targeting of Thompson began when Ed Bradley personally invited Thompson to return to CBS’ 60 Minutes after Thompson had first appeared thereon six years earlier.
The DBR’s predecessor, the Miami Review, similarly wrote an article in 1992 about Thompson bearing the headline
Thompson has no problem with enduring a fair disciplinary process. He has not had it, and no Justice sitting on this High Court could rationally think fair this Ben Kuehne-led high-tech lynching of an uppity Christian .
These “disciplinary proceedings” are supposed to be like
prediction in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), that integrated state bars, like Florida’s, would eventually become “goose-stepping brigades.”
The pattern of this legislation is regimentation.
WHEREFORE, respondent Thompson moves this court to vacate its two orders directing Judge Farina to appoint a referee to preside over these matters. Those two orders were procured by The Bar’s fraud. .. (edited by Rumpole because we lost the picture associated with a point here.)
Either this Florida Supreme Court will do the right thing and vacate these two Kuehne-procured orders which would not have been entered but for Ben Keuhne, and give Thompson, for the first time, a fair review of this regulatory abortion [picture withheld- (this is Thompson's own comment not ours)]...
Respondent Thompson hopes that he has finally been clear. If he has, somehow, not been clear with this children’s picture book for adults, then this Honorable Court should read Thompson’s book about how this Bar and this Court unsuccessfully tried to pathologize his Christian faith the first time in 1992:
I SOLEMNLY AFFIRM, under oath, and under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been mailed this December 22, 2007, to Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma, The Florida Bar, Orlando, Florida, and emailed to every single Bar Governor, as well as to The Bar’s designated blogger/libeler/public relations hit man/John Berry wannabe Barnaby Min.
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney