Monday, December 24, 2007


We received this pleading in an email from its author. It is, in our multi-decade experience as an attorney, the most remarkable pleading we have ever seen. We have not added anything. The pictures are ORIGINAL. Because of space requirements, we have edited out a lengthy quote from a cited case and some other material. This is about 90% of the pleading we received. However, to print the pleading with the pictures as it was emailed to us and presumably sent to the Florida Supreme Court, we had to separately download and place each picture. Therefore, the picture placement is close but is not 100% accurate to the document filed. With over 35 pictures, at some point we got a headache and just wrapped it up.

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.

v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354


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 most important person in the entire disciplinary process utilized by is what is called the “designated reviewer.”

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 above picture of Thompson is taken from this Friday’s edition of the Daily Business Review, owned and operated by American Lawyer Media. Yesterday’s two DBR articles written in collaboration with The Florida Bar and SLAPP complainant Tew Cardenas are false and defamatory, as exculpatory facts fully known to that publication prove the illegal, unconstitutional nature of these “disciplinary proceedings.”
The DBR’s predecessor, the Miami Review, similarly wrote an article in 1992 about Thompson bearing the headline
“Is This Lawyer Too Crazy to Practice Law?”

This court may remember, but would undoubtedly like to forget, that that similarly libelous article was generated by this very same Florida Supreme Court, which was hoodwinked by some of the same SLAPP complainants into entering an order based upon the assertion that “Jack Thompson is so obsessed against pornography that he is mentally disabled and unfit to practice law.” The happy consequence of the Florida Supreme Court’s outrageous unconstitutional assault upon Thompson in that fashion the first time is that Thompson is now the only officially Bar-certified sane lawyer in Florida, and The Bar’s carrier paid Thompson damages for this court’s prior “mistake.” So, here we go again, with the career-crippling libelous news coverage ginned up by The Bar, with The Bar’s own prosecutor, Barnaby Min, blogging libelous disinformation during Thompson’s trial that tells the legal community that Jack Thompson is “a nut case.”

Does this High Court actually think that the supervision of the “disciplinary proceedings” of Jack Thompson, upon which hinge literally tens of millions of video game industry dollars, can be supervised by a USDOJ-alleged crook? Does this High Court actually believe that the local television affiliate of
has erroneously reported Ben Kuehne’s DOJ target letter? Does this Court think that the US DOJ officials who asked to meet with Thompson and did meet with Thompson were impersonating DOJ officials for Halloween?

Does this court think, for one minute, that Thompson is not going to get whatever Referee Tunis

decides in these “disciplinary proceedings” overturned when the one man at the center of it all is considered by the Justice Department to be a thief? This one man, Ben Kuehne, a) overrode The Bar’s own outside investigator, b) failed to disclose his DOJ target letter to Thompson, c) demanded that Thompson undergo more lunacy proceedings, and d) was protected by Referee Tunis when she refused, in violation of state law, to issue a subpoena Thompson sought to depose Kuehne prior to trial.
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

Caesar’s wife .
What are they now? What have they been for these forty-one months because of Benedict P. Kuehne?
They have been an ideology-driven sham and they have proven the wisdom of Justice Douglas’
prediction in Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820 (1961), that integrated state bars, like Florida’s, would eventually become “goose-stepping brigades.”

If this court is offended by the immediate above, then it should sue the estate of the late Supreme Court Justice Douglas who in Lathrop wrote of integrated state bars:
(Rumpole has edited out the cited text for space limitations. But I think you get the point.)
The pattern of this legislation is regimentation.
This High Court has known of its “Ben Kuehne problem” for months and it has oddly and negligently pretended that it does not exist
The targeted Mr. Kuehne is this Bar’s and this Court’s Achilles Heel when it comes to this fatally flawed prosecution of Thompson. ... (Rumpole has again edited out some text and cites)

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.


old guy said...

Oh. Now I get it.

All of those tight-ass bible thumpers who not-so-subtly pushed thier Christian ideas from the bench, are now anti-Christian because some loon named Thompson says so in a pleading.

Wake up. Check out the people who run this country, our state, the U.S. S. Ct., and the Florida Supreme Court.

Do you see any agnostic commie pinkos?

They already want me to enjoy x-mas, while reading the 'new' testament'.

I still read the Torah, but fear the day when freedom lovers like you will stop that in its tracks. Maybe yellow armbands - so you can identify us more easily.

By the way, was Christ jewish? Mary and Joseph? All twelve disciples? They all keep the Sabbath? Eat only kosher food?

Just asking, in case ole Jack ever thinks about his words before he writes or speaks them.

Anonymous said...

You need to stop wasting bandwidth on this idiot. Yours is one marketplace of ideas where the John/Jack Thompson product needs to be removed from the shelves. I'm sure there's some new snack food that could use the space.

Anonymous said...

Dear 10:06 and 10:25, Screw you Jack-haters. You guys are the jackboots. Why can't he have views different from the prevailing secular wisdom of the day? I'm an atheist to the core, but so what? What does any of that have to do with the universal rights we ought to always protect irrespective of lack of agreement with the speaker.

You guys are no civil libertarians, and talk more like authoritarian thugs.

Anonymous said...

"they already want me to enjoy x-mas".

You sound a bit deranged too, bro.


Anonymous said...

Thompson is one sick dude. By publishing his venom, Rumps, you simply bring your own judgment into question. Thompson will be disbarred, hoisted on his own petard, and the next we all want to hear about it is when the disbarment order is published in So.2d.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rumpole,

Thanks for the post. For those who read Justic Douglas' dissent in Lathrop v. Donohue, please note that that dissent became law in Keller v. State Bar of California. The United States Supreme Court has warned state bars,then, not to pursue their ideological agendas in the name of "regulation."

I am out to drive that lesson home, like a stake through the heart of The Florida Bar. And I shall.

To all you leftwing loons who think that Ben Kuehne, having receive a DOJ target letter, should still be on ETHICS grievance committees: Get some mental health help.

Happy New Year, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Jack, the doctor that said you weren't mentally ill, does he stil have his license?

Anonymous said...


I guess Im too young to remember this guy for all his past transgressions but.... this guy has turned the corner.

He is fantastic!!!

His balls are on a creative fire.

Rumpole said...

11:47 has it right- Mr. Thompson has every right to speak his mind and defend himself in any manner he sees fit. He raises some troubling questions, and as Rumpole likes to say: What are you going to do when they come for you?

In any fight, are sympathies are usually not on the side of the Florida Bar. Look what they're trying to do to Conway in Broward. Imagine what they'd do if they got a hold of little old me? I'd be tarred and feathered and then ordered to fly to Tallahassee in tar and feathers to be yelled at.

Rumpole said...

Ahem...I picked every game correctly yesterday, except for the Brownies over the Bungles. The Vikes/Skins game went way over, and who, tell me, who gave you the PURE UPSET OF THE DAY? BEARS AS 9 POINT DOGS BEAT THE PACK. If you followed my advice, you layed 100 to win 320. Merry Xmas.

Anonymous said...

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

December 24, 2007

Frank Angones
Florida Bar President
All Florida Bar Governors
Miami, Florida Via Fax to 305-371-3948 and e-mails

Re: Right of Bar Respondent to Appear before Florida Bar Governors

Dear Frank and All Bar Governors:

I have asked, at least ten times, over the past three years, to appear before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar in order to present my constitutional defenses to the various SLAPP Bar complaints brought against me.

The Bar’s outside counsel, Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig, has solemnly asserted to U.S. District Court Judge Adalberto Jordan that I have an absolute right to appear before the Governors in this fashion and for that reason the federal court should abstain from granting me relief because I thus have “an adequate state remedy.” Richard has cited the federal case of Mason v. Florida Bar for that proposition, and it says precisely that. The Governors have made a liar of Barry Richard by denying me that appearance.

Let me make this so clear that every single one of your Bar Governors gets it: It is inconceivable that all 52 Governors could be of the same mind that they ought to violate the federal court holding in Mason and not extend to me, whether they agree with what they think I believe or not, my legal right to appear before the Governors on the constitutional issues raised by its prosecution of me.

Secondly, you are on notice that I am going to appear before the Governors, whether they like it or not. I am going to secure a writ of mandamus entered by a court of law, in the days or weeks ahead, to mandate that appearance.

I’m tired of your running The Florida Bar as if it were Fidel Castro’s thought police.

Regards, Jack Thompson

some non-lawyer said...

Jack Thompson conflates his first amendment rights in-court and out-of-court. While he may be think it perfectly reasonable, I don't see the Fla. Supremes agreeing.

This latest filing is probably sufficient cause for the Fla. Supremes to bar future filings without the signature of a second attorney.

By-the-by until something more exciting comes along, I think Rumpole should keep posting Mr. Thompson's comments and pleadings. They are, *ahem*, thought provoking.

Anonymous said...

Jack, I know you're a civil lawyer, but have you ever known of someone to get a target letter that didn't do anything wrong?

Is Ben Kuehene really the core of your problems, or is it your behavior?

Anonymous said...

Rumpole and 11:47 said it perfectly. Nothing to add. Just a note to show my support for the very 1st Amendment.

And to say fuck the Bar in this state. Fuck 'em.

Anonymous said...


Why do you conflate John/Jack Thompson's right to free speech with your right to control your own blog. There's nothing that says YOU must provide him his soapbox. You obviously are a relative newcomer to South Florida, as your positions on Thompson's ranting are not those of someone who has lived through the past manifestations of his right-wing, fascistic views that he smugly cloaks in a mantle of "freedom of expression."

I understand that regardless of the inanity of their content, his rantings relate to a general subject matter--the courts--that is addressed here. That being said, there are things that you censor (your right, of course) that relate to the courts as well. I think you tread on thin ice buying into John/Jack Thompson's waving of the "first amendment flag" UNLESS you cease moderation, and provide every lunatic with 'net access their soapbox too. The first amendment is either alive and well on this blog, or it is not.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jack

When did you get so darn handsome anyway?

As for religion, we need less of it.

But you are a man of conviction, and thats a good thing.

Your point about Ben is right on the money.

And by the way, there is nothing wrong with being a little crazy.

Anonymous said...

That was a pretty good pleading minus the ranting and raving. However, he just gave rise to a new ethical problem. Everything was fine, ethically speaking, until he threw in the creative Kangaroo Court references - those can give rise to yet another bar complaint.

Anonymous said...

dear 10:06, Hitler and Stalin were atheists. Just so you know.

A Robed Reader said...

I believe there may be an error in Mr. Thompson's pleading (text reference and picture).
He shows a picture of the "man with no eyes" and attributes the line "What we've got here is a failure to communicate" to him.
I believe that line was only delivered by actor Strother Martin whose character was the warden of the prison road camp in Cool Hand Luke.
If an error, not a fatal error, but an error nevertheless.

Anonymous said...


A debatable position, but IRRELEVANT. So all atheists are genocidal murderers? Is the same true for all popes, since a some unleashed the crusades and the inquisition?

Hitler, Stalin, and the popes mentioned above, however, all serve the atheism vs. theism debate, however, since they're such great evidence that there exists a kind, loving, all-powerful god. NOT.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rumpole. I did win some money on that Bears game and the Fins cover, but lost a little on your call for the Vikings to kick butt.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Thompson,

please go away and do something else for a living.

All of us are sick and tired of your bullshit.

Rump, please find another subject.

Anonymous said...

Not sure who I feel worse for, Ben or Jack.
What a cluster.

Anonymous said...

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

December 24, 2007

Referee Dava Tunis
1351 NW 12th Street, Sixth Floor
Miami, Florida 33125

Re: Continuances and Cancer

Dear Referee Tunis:

I wish you all the best in the New Year. Having said that, I should like to remind you that our family’s 2007 year began with one word—cancer.

As you recall, I asked for a continuance in The Bar’s proceedings against me that were were before you because of my wife was facing major surgery for ovarian cancer, arduous chemotherapy, and recovery. I am the primary care provider for our 15-year-old son, who was fourteen when this travail began, so I tried to impress upon you that not only did I have to be his caregiver but also my wife’s during this time.

You denied my motion for continuance, which contrasts with what Norm Kent, my long-time nemesis, did when I asked the same of him. Norm immediately granted my request, in part, no doubt, because he faced possibly terminal cancer earlier in this decade. I shall always be thankful to him for that, and I have told him that. I have a memory, despite The Bar’s continual assertions that I am mentally ill and unfit to practice law, which you also consider, apparently, an alleged medical situation without consequence.
Please read the following which explain what a spouse goes through when his/her spouse is diagnosed with cancer: and
Whether your denial of my motion for a continuance was because of your ignorance or indifference or both, I consider your decision in this regard to be the single cruelest thing I have ever witnessed any judge do to anyone in my thirty-one years of practicing law.

Please think of that the next time a lawyer stands before you with a similar request, and do not do such a hideous thing again. You and The Bar took advantage of my family.

Sincerely, Jack Thompson
Copy: The Bar, Norm Kent

the trialmaster said...

i doubt that jack thompson has ever tried a jury trial. until he proves that he has he should be banned from this forum.

Anonymous said...

Political correctness is a form of tiranny.

Sisselman sez said...

The Robed Reader was correct. It was thwe warden not the man w/ No Eyes who said We have a failure to communicate.
D. Sisselman

Rumpole said...

Mr. Sisselman, I do not edit other laywers pleadings for accuracy. But to put it in legal terms, I guess Mr. Thompson's mistake is like citing a concurrance as the majority opinion.

Anonymous said...

Give this guy repect!

Trialmaster is a shitbird.

Anonymous said...

Please can we forget the Jack Thompson stuff? Let's talk about the 5 ASA's who were fired on Friday for sexual harrasment. PLEASE!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Jack Thompson is a pulsating ego. It's gonna cost him. That being said, he is facinating and creative

Anonymous said...

Thompson for Chief Judge of the 11th Judicial Circuit!


Anonymous said...

FIVE ASA's were fired for sexual harassment? What happened?

Anonymous said...

Re the Bar:

I know many of you have strong negative feelings about the Bar. I'd like to share some positive experiences. Like any other long time lawyer, I've had several complaints filed against me. Every single one was dismissed expeditiously without so much as a letter of advice. The one exception lingered for several months because it was based on an erroneous court decision. Nonetheless, that one was also dismissed after a finding of No PC (and, again, without any kind of letter or warning).

The bottom line is that they treated me fairly each and every time. While I wish they could have handled the last complaint more quickly, I appreciate that they reached the proper result and understand why they took as long as they did.

The fact is that the Bar attorneys have difficult jobs. They dismiss many more complaints than they prosecute.

PS---Jack, if you asked around about Min, I can guarantee you that the vast majority of folks will tell you that he is honest and ethical. You're not helping yourself by picking on him. I understand at least part of your frustration. But, when you make it so personal and respond so viciously, you do yourself a disservice and make it impossible for anyone to sympathize. I hope you will find peace this Christmas season and realize the harm you're doing to yourself. You're a bright guy and can do a lot of good if you weren't so judgmental and dogmatic. I wish you nothing but the best. Good luck.

SoulMan said...

I couldn't disagree with Jack more, but the man believes every word he says. That's impressive. Desire can make up for other shortcomings, like being a lunatic. However, anybody that is a thorn in the Bar's side is ok with me.

SoulMan said...

I couldn't disagree with Jack more, but the man believes every word he says. That's impressive. Desire can make up for other shortcomings, like being a lunatic. However, anybody that is a thorn in the Bar's side is ok with me.

Anonymous said...


John B. Thompson,


v. CASE NUMBERS SCO7-80, SC07-354

The Florida Bar,



COMES NOW plaintiff, John B. Thompson (hereinafter Thompson), and hereby files this petition for writ of mandamus stating:
Dava Tunis is a Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge serving as Bar disciplinary referee herein. Referee Tunis has conducted herself in the disciplinary proceedings below in a fashion that clearly conveys bias and animus against Thompson. In addition to what the Supreme Court already knows in this regard, Referee Tunis on the last day of the “trial” strangely accused Thompson of trying to enlist her in his “culture war.” Referee Tunis is the last person Thompson would want involved therein. The blurted out assertion was both odd and revealing. Further, in the closing minutes of the trial, Referee Tunis stood up at the bench and launched into a tirade directed at Thompson and his co-counsel that was bizarre. Thompson had never seen a judge, in 31 years of practicing law, so thoroughly “lose it.”
As a result of all of this injudicious behavior, Thompson on December 8 served the attached Motion to Disclose upon Referee Tunis in order to try to ascertain the reason for her odd behavior. Referee Tunis has an absolute duty to disclose such information. See Stevens v. American Health Care Corp., 919 So2d 713 (2d DCA 2006). Referee Tunis, now eighteen days later, refuses to provide this information. This alone is a basis for disqualification.
WHEREFORE, Thompson moves this court for a writ of mandamus ordering Referee Tunis to disclose the requested information, particularly in light of her relationship with The Bar’s Director of Lawyer Regulation, Ken Marvin, which she failed to disclose.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been sent by mail this December 26, 2007, to Dava J. Tunis, 1351 NW 12 Street, Miami, FL 33125, and to Bar staff counsel Sheila Tuma, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, FL.

Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Phone: 305-666-4366

Anonymous said...

Clarifications and rejoinders:

I have cited Justice Douglas' dissent in Lathrop a) because it became the majority position in Keller v. California Bar, and b) because of the "goose-stepping brigades" prediction that has come true. Surely even lawyers understand that dissents can wind up being true, right? Good grief.

Secondly, I am the one making this personal about Barnaby Min? Is this some kind of joke? Min was recused from my case because of a conflict. The guy then posts here at this blog regarding my trial, and he gets caught in two lies in doing so: I was not reading every document into the record. He flat-out made that up. If I had done that, we woould have been in trial for four weeks. An utter fabrication designed to make me look ridiculous. I can do that on my own ;).

Secondly, he lied about my opting out of discovery in the case. That is an utter, total, ridiculous fabrication, and he knows it. My understanding is that The Bar's staff are supposed to be doing their jobs rather than falsely defaming Bar respodents at blogs. How is that a "personal" point about Mr. Min?

Further, The Bar's accuses me of engaging in unethically communicating with the public about the subject of litigation. That is precisely what Min has done.

I hate to confuse the anti-Jack bloggers with the facts, but there they are. Jack Thompson

Jack's Fact Checker said...

Good grief Jack, surely you know that the reason public comments about a case are unethical (and, in fact, the only time they are unethical) is when they can reasonably be foreseen to influence the trier of fact. Postings on this Blog cannot be reasonable foreseen as influencing a referee in a Bar proceeding. To the contrary, if Min was so off base, Judge Tunis who was present and would know he is off base, would think worse of the Bar. You cannot suggest a moral equivalence between Min's posting and your antics in litigation.

Anonymous said...




v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354




COMES NOW respondent herein, John B. Thompson, and moves this court to disqualify, pursuant to Florida law, Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero from these “disciplinary” matters, stating:
Justice Cantero, as recently reported in the Florida Bar News, is an advocate for suspending lawyers from the practice of law for “offensive” speech. See
This is a very troubling extremist pronouncement coming from a Florida Supreme Court Justice. First of all, the use of Bar discipline to punish speech that is “offensive,” as advocated by Justice Cantero, is clearly unconstitutional. See Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court at Any judge, let alone a state Supreme Court Justice, should know that speech codes of integrated state bars lead to “goose-stepping brigades” predicted by Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Lathrop v. Donohue. See also Keller v. State Bar of California.
If Justice Cantero had been nominated to a federal judgeship by the President of the United States and then went through the hearing process before the Senate Judiciary Committee, any testimony by him on this issue approaching the extreme tone of his above-cited comments in the Florida Bar News would a) likely result in his non-confirmation, and b) if somehow confirmed, would necessitate his recusal from any case involving these issues that might subsequently come before him. If anyone does not understand this, then any student of the Senate confirmation process can explain why judicial nominees NEVER testify with specificity about any issues likely to come before them.
By contrast, Justice Cantero has made it very clear that he has prejudged this constitutional issue (coming down on the side of approving unconstitutional action by The Florida Bar), and he is thus disqualified from sitting on any cases dealing with this issue. Justice Cantero is not and cannot now be an impartial jurist when it comes to The Florida Bar’s attempts to discipline First Amendment-protected speech. He is an extreme advocate for such unconstitutional discipline. No lay person knowing Justice Cantero’s position on this issue could reasonably believe he could be fair to respondent Thompson, whom The Bar seeks to disbar permanently from the practice of law for “vitriolic” but truthful speech. The Bar is so nervous about what it is trying to do that it has even denied him his absolute right (see Mason v. Florida Bar) to appear before The Bar’s Board of Governors to present his constitutional arguments.


Additionally, Justice Cantero has been ballyhooed for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court by the Cuban American Bar Association (CABA). The proof of the mutual loyalty displayed between Justice Cantero and this organization is legion.
Current Florida Bar President Frank Angones is the former President of the very same Cuban American Bar Association that serves as a perpetual cheerleader for Justice Cantero. Bar President Angones is presently leading the illegal, unconstitutional, and criminal assault upon Thompson’s civil rights in violation of state and federal law. Does any lay person, aware of this strong tie between Angones and Cantero, through CABA, reasonably believe it could not impact this High Court’s decisions that pertain to Thompson and Angones and the public’s perception of Justice Cantero’s impartiality?
Respondent Thompson is fully aware, by his own first-hand knowledge, of the loyalties within the Cuban American community here in South Florida. During the Elian Gonzalez affair, which culminated in the illegal kidnapping of the boy by then Attorney General Janet Reno, against whom Thompson ran in 1988, Thompson was blessed by the thanks of most within the Cuban American community for his sustained efforts, on the Fox News Channel and at, to try to secure Elian’s right to an asylum hearing. One of the things Thompson learned in that tragic situation, however, is that many within the “Cuban American legal community,” in contrast with non-lawyer Cuban Americans, place loyalty to one another ahead of the United States Constitution and the rule of law.
Raoul Cantero was in fact part of “Team Elian” which thoroughly botched, with a flawed legal strategy, what should have been the successful efforts to rescue Elian. Thompson repeatedly, both as a columnist for and as a regular commentator on the Fox News Channel during the Elian affair, pointed out the gross misfeasance of “Team Elian.” Thompson called Elian’s legal “Dream Team” its “Nightmare Team,” correctly predicting what would be done to Elian because of this legal team’s mistakes. Elian’s “Nightmare Team” of lawyers, which included Raoul Cantero, were extremely hostile to Thompson and his message. When the dust settled on this tragic affair, the “man in the street,” including those who put “Team Elian” together realized Thompson was right about the lawyers’ incompetence and told Thompson so.

No lay person, aware of all of the above facts, would reasonably believe that Justice Cantero will be impartial in his treatment of Thompson in these “disciplinary” matters. Justice Cantero’s a) extremist view that lawyers surrender their First Amendment rights (federal court rulings to the contrary notwithstanding, b) debt to Frank Angone’s CABA, and c) participation in botched effort to save Elian Gonzalez, identified publicly and correctly as such by respondent Thompson, disqualifies him from these matters.
WHEREFORE, respondent Thompson moves for the disqualification of Justice Cantero from all matters before this Court pertaining to respondent.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading has been transmitted to The Bar’s Orlando office prosecutor, Ms. Sheila Tuma, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, this December 27, 2007.

Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Phone: 305-666-4366

Anonymous said...

The Florida Bar's hypocrisy on lawyer speech codes is breathtaking:




v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354




COMES NOW respondent herein, John B. Thompson, and supplements his motion to disqualify Justice Cantero, stating:
The October 1, 2006, issue of the Florida Bar News reports that Florida Supreme Court Justices refused to answer questionnaires seeking their views on certain issues of the day sought by the Christian Colation and the Florida Family Policy Council. See Here’s an excerpt:

“The Supreme Court’s Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee … noted that those who answer the questions might have to recuse themselves if an issue they have expressed an opinion on comes before them on the bench.”
Justice Cantero has publicly held forth as an enthusiast for suspending lawyers for discourteous speech, as reported also in the current Florida Bar News. The Bar seeks permanent disbarment of respondent herein for hurting porn lawyers’ feelings. How can Justice Cantero then preside over such a speech code case, such as this one involving Thompson, when he has publicly aligned himself with the extremist speech police on The Bar’s Board of Governors—Ben Kuehne and Steve Chaykin, who have been Thompson’s designated reviewers?
Thompson regrets having even to raise this issue regarding Justice Cantero’s recusal, but the disturbing “group think” that dominates The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court which ignores Justice Douglas’ warning in Lathrop that integrated state bars would eventually become “goose-stepping brigades” is what makes Justice Cantero’s recusal mandatory.
Thompson has no problem with Justice Cantero’s First Amendment right to express his affection for unconstitutional speech codes for lawyers, but once he has done so, he surrenders the opportunity to preside in such a case. No judge can announce publicly his enthusiasm for a certain result in a certain type of case and then enjoy any public perception that he can be fair and impartial in such a case. It was Justice Cantero’s decision to engage in these extrajudicial fiats. He must live with them.
WHEREFORE, respondent Thompson moves for the disqualification of Justice Cantero from all matters before this Court pertaining to respondent. What’s good for the Christian Coaltion is also good for the leftwing speech patrol on the Board of Governors.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading has been transmitted to The Bar’s Orlando office prosecutor, Ms. Sheila Tuma, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, this December 27, 2007.

Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Phone: 305-666-4366

Jack's Fact Checker said...

There you go again, Jack. That recusal motion directed at Justice Cantero is why everyone thinks your nuts, dishonest and egotistical.

First of all, just because Justice Cantero thinks that professionalism is an important goal, and that unprofessional behavior should be harshly sanctioned, does not mean he has prejudged your case. Every judge has a view about the relative severity of offenses. Imagine if a murder suspect could recuse a judge simply because the judge sentenced a convicted murdered to death. I can see your recusal motion now: "This Judge has shown open hostility to murders, he wants to see them DIE." Then you paste a picture of a Saddam hanging from the scaffold.

And I am quite sure Justice Cantero followed your every comment on Fox Noise and Newsmax and is just licking his chops at getting even for your mean words in 2000. Yes, because your words SO impacted his life.

Good god man, get a grip. You. Are. Insignificant. You can stop bothering everyone already. We know you're there. Now go away.

Anonymous said...

Immediate News Release – December 28, 2007

Bill to Be Introduced in the Florida Legislature to Amend Florida Constitution to Abolish The Florida Bar

Miami attorney Jack Thompson is pleased to announce that in the coming 2008 Florida legislative session a bill will be placed before both the State’s House and Senate to abolish The Florida Bar and bring the regulation of the legal profession, finally, under the State’s Department of Professional and Business Regulation. The foxes have guarded the hens long enough.

This is necessary by virtue of The Florida Bar’s increasing abuse of its regulatory powers foreseen by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas who predicted that integrated state bars, such as Florida’s, would eventually become “goose-stepping brigades” driven by ideological agendas. The Bar is presently actively trying to disbar two attorneys who told the public the truth about two out-of-control Florida judges.

Thompson is no stranger to the legislative process, having authored a bill prohibiting the sale of adult video games to minors. It was passed unanimously by both the Louisiana House and Senate and signed into law by Governor Blanco. Thompson will meet with similar success in Florida on this Lawyer Regulation Reform Bill, as thousands of lawyers in Florida seek deliverance from a leftwing Florida Bar, one of whose Bar Governors is a target of a federal investigation for alleged cocaine cartel money laundering and another who has proclaimed that anyone who opposes gay adoption is “an enemy of the Bar outside our Bar’s core values.”

Contact Attorney Jack Thompson for more information at 305-666-4366 or by e-mail, .

Jack Thompson

Jack's Fact Checker said...

Jackie, I bet you a dollar that you don't find a legislator in each chamber nutty enough to file this bill. Not because it might not be a good idea, but just because no sane person wants to be associated with you.

Anonymous said...

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law

1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111

Coral Gables, Florida 33146


December 29, 2007

Mark D. Killian

Managing Editor

The Florida Bar News

651 East Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Via Fax and e-mail to

Re: Letter to the Editor of The Florida Bar News

[The word count of the below text of the letter is under 350, your publication’s limit]


The comments of Justice Cantero and The Bar’s John Berry in your December 15 issue that lawyers should be “suspended” for “offensive” behavior or speech in order to “change human behavior” are Orwellian. The use of Bar discipline to enforce manners is also unconstitutional, as U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow recently ruled in Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court. See

For all who know they didn’t surrender their First Amendment rights when they became lawyers, the silver lining in this unconstitutional attempt to turn The Bar into the speech and manners police is that Justice Cantero now cannot preside over any Bar disciplinary matter that arises out of “offensive” behavior or speech, as his public pronouncements disqualify him for the very reasons that the Florida Supreme Court has said Justices must not hold forth on issues of the day. See

In February 1992 the ABA’s McKay Commission issued its 105-page critique of state bar discipline (see Recommendation 5 called for a total separation of the disciplinary process from any state bar’s elected officials. The Florida Bar, by its elected Governors’ disciplinary oversight, violates this crucial reform. Sitting on the McKay Commission was The Florida Bar’s John Berry!

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas opined in Lathrop v. Donohue that eventually integrated state bars like Florida’s would become “goose-stepping brigades.” That day has arrived, as The Florida Bar seeks to disbar me for truthful speech about two corrupted judges and about two sets of porn industry lawyers because my comments, although truthful, were in the words of then Bar President Hank Coxe “vitriolic.” The Bar also seeks discipline of a Broward County lawyer who told the truth about a Broward judge’s abuses. The Bar thinks that “judicial independence” is insulation from accountability.

Because Justice Douglas was right, I am working with the Florida legislature to take the admission and discipline of Florida lawyers from The Florida Bar and place it under the Department of Professional and Business Regulation.

Any lawyers seeking to assist us in that regard should contact me at 305-666-4366 or

Sincerely, Jack Thompson

Azure45 said...

For those of you who may support this bitter, hateful, old man in his crusade. I want you to be aware of this man's tactics. I'm sure you're aware that he sends gay porn in court filings already, so I'll leave that as it is; but for the record, he hates gays, muslims, the Japanese, game makers, people who disagree with him, democrats, video game makers, and pretty much anyone who won't take what he says as the gospel truth, just to name a few. When he isn't mocking people who commit suicide, he is an ambulance-chaser and a hypocrite who believes in censorship over personal responsibility. He gives people free passes on being neo-nazis, mentally unstable, histories of abuse, etc just to continue his crusade against a form of entertainment. He likes to threaten people for disagreeing with him, yet tell him you want to confront his issues and he takes it as a threat on his very life. I can document everything I've stated here, and if you still think this shell of a man is honest, respectable, and worthy of your attention, I want you to read this page of documented and cited quotes directly from the man himself:

Thank you for your time, and please realise that if you support this man, you support censorship and hatred.

Anonymous said...

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

January 3, 2007

Adria E. Quintela
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
The Florida Bar
Cypress Financial Center, Suite 900
5900 North Andrews Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309

Ken Marvin
The Florida Bar
Director of Lawyer Regulation
651 East Jefferson St.
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Re: Formal Sworn Bar Complaint against William Jay Gelin, FB #490229

Dear Adria Quintela:

This is my formal sworn Bar complaint against Mr. William Gelin, who operates a popular legal community blog at

As you know, a Florida attorney by the name of Sean Conway is being prosecuted by The Bar for posting at this same blog certain comments critical of Judge Aleman, who was tried by the JQC for doing things that Mr. Conway said she did. The Bar, nevertheless, is proceeding against Mr. Conway for his fact-based criticism.

As you also know, Florida Bar Rule 4-8.4 (a) prohibits a Florida lawyer from assisting others to violate Bar Rules. In other words, it is a conspiracy or proxy Rule. If Mr. Conway violated Bar Rules in criticizing Judge Aleman, Mr. Gelin clearly did as well, as he aggressively moderates (censors/edits) JAABLOG. Mr. Conway could not have posted his comments about Judge Aleman without Mr. Gelin’s assistance. If you are to proceed against Mr. Conway, you have absolutely no choice but to prosecute Mr. Gelin as well.

Additionally, you need to understand that JAABLOG’S routine content is criticism of Broward judges and other officials. The Bar, if it is to enforce its speech codes found in its Rules, simply must enforce them against Mr. Gelin via Rule 4-8.4(a).

Further, Mr. Gelin, with the advent of the New Year, has authored and posted at JAABLOG a broadside against the judiciary in Broward as follows:

Posted by JAABLOG at 1/1/2008 4:57 PM and is filed under uncategorized
by The Ghost of 2007
12/31/2007 8:35 PM

10. secretive wheeling and dealing to help themselves and family,

9. "the fix is in" mentality where cases were funneled to "special divisions" to accommodate a SA's office which would rather go to trial on loser cases before deciding to offer a lesser. Strike Force, Trial Blitz, and other stupid special units/programs to move cases,

8. No more spd cases sent directly to the criminal defense bar (lower case) to stifle any political opposition,

7. mediocre Saint Thomas and Nova Law School graduates who never practiced law for a living prior to being politically anointed by a Democratic or Republican Governor (former ASA, AUSA, APD) and/or Real Estate Litigators who all of a sudden are on the "criminal bench"

6. stupid selfish habits while allegedly working to benefit the public at taxpayer expense. (smoking pot in the park, accepting gifts from former judge/attorney, making stupid remarks at magistrate court, using stupid code words you learned at the sa's office to insult the defendant/defendant's family after a verdict)

5. mean spirited, Machiavellian maneuvering, hatred, jealousy, directed at your colleagues behind their backs.

4. covering for bad lawyers, working with the state to make sure certain defendants are convicted, and having like minded, pro-state, judges cover your docket when you are out on vacation and/or sick leave,

3. spreading rumors about your "friends" on the bench, anonymous letters attacking your colleagues, and circulating lies about a lawyer and his wife while she is battling cancer.

2. court docket procedures which are not uniform. Every courtroom is a separate fiefdom,

1. the number one reason why the Broward Judiciary imploded: HUBRIS

HINT FOR 2008: more tips for the press if the bad behavior continues.

Clearly, if The Bar is to prosecute anyone for criticism of the judiciary, it must prosecute Mr. Gelin for this and anything critical of judges at his site.

Please proceed.


Regards, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...


Careful, now. Jack'll turn on you like a rabid dog and repay your hospitality with a baseless Bar complaint against you. There are some good reasons for the rule against feeding the wild animals.


Anonymous said...

Rumpole's getting MORE famous....

The link above was found when reading the blog

----Mark A. Stuart

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that you guys have one screwed up system down in Florida. This Blog should be required reading of any law student seeking admission down there...