WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Friday, December 07, 2007

THOMPSON v. TUNIS

We received this remarkable document in an email from Jack Thompson, Esq., and we reprint it in its entirety:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
TO DISQUALIFY REFEREE TUNIS


COMES NOW Bar disciplinary respondent Thompson and petitions this court for a writ of prohibition to disqualify and immediately remove Dava Tunis (Tunis) as referee herein, stating:

Any lay person, knowing the facts stated herein, would reasonably believe that Thompson could not possibly receive a fair trial presided over by Tunis, who is, in a bar proceeding, both the finder of fact and applier of the law. The standard for recusal is more fully delineated by Florida Statute, 38.10, and if Tunis does not, by her antics, qualify for recusal, then there should be no such remedy for any judicial misconduct.

Thompson has previously raised the propriety of recusal of Judge Tunis. She denied Thompson a continuance while his wife was facing life-threatening cancer surgery and arduous chemotherapy. She refused, for ten months to allow discovery sought by Thompson, even refusing to comply with Florida law that mandates subpoenas “shall” be issued upon the mere oral request of a party or attorney. Tunis, remarkably, even went so far as to deny Thompson’s simple request to look at The Bar’s own files it has on Thompson. Tunis upheld The Bar’s demand that Thompson pay $4000 up front simply to look at the files. No such payment by a party is imaginable under Florida law, as it violates Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.

This is a judge, acting as a referee, who afforded far more due process to the criminal defendants in orange jumpsuits in her courtroom than she did a lawyer in continuous good standing for 31 years with The Florida Bar. Thompson has been under attack from the porn industry with its SLAPP Bar complaints filed against him in order to “shoot the messenger” rather than defend their clients’ criminal activities on the merits.

But yesterday, eclipsing all that she had done before this, Tunis revealed herself to be either unwilling or incapable of acting like a judge. When Thompson made the point that the Preamble to Section 4 of the Rules allows for a harmonization of our roles in society with the role of lawyer, Tunis recoiled, stating derisively, Don’t enlist me into your culture war! It was a non sequitur revealing her bias.

Tunis had refused at the start of the trial on November 26, 2007, to conduct a hearing on jurisdiction. She had denied that hearing for months. As a result, The Bar had to admit, in the last hour of proceedings, after the nine-day trial itself was over, that the court never had jurisdiction over certain charges in the complaint.

When this revelation of fraud “hit the fan,” Tunis ran out of the courtroom for no apparent reason. It now appears that she did so in order to consult with someone, as she returned to the courtroom with a new and utterly contrived legal argument that was completely inapposite to the issue before the court. Tunis had taken on the demeanor and the function of a third Bar prosecutor.

Then it really hit the fan. One of The Bar’s prosecutors then asserted, again after all testimony had been given and long after The Bar had rested its case, that Tunis could, entertain and convict Thompson on new, never disclosed charges, despite testimony limited to the specific charge brought against him in the complaint at the behest of the Howard Stern Show shock radio law firm, Tew Cardenas—an alleged violation of Rule 4-8.4 (d). Tunis was told she could, in the months ahead, comb through 3000 pages of testimony and all of the Bar Rules and come up with new charges, conduct a trial on her own, with no witnesses, and convict Thompson of violations of undisclosed Rules with which he had never been charged and which were not even mentioned during the course of the trial.

How could The Bar do such a thing? Answer: The Bar, in the last hour of the proceedings, raised the notion that Rule 4-8.4(a) allows The Bar to have the referee conduct a trial all on her own, because the Rule states
“A lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;”

The Bar, however, in the charging document, the complaint, chopped off the last two items in the above series, and charged Thompson with “a violation of the Rules of Conduct” with no other Rules specified. Clearly, any sentient being knows that the above Rule 4-8.4 (a), in its entirety, is a rule against conspiracies to violate Bar Rules; namely, Thompson or any lawyer cannot either through surrogates, or acting as a surrogate on behalf of others, violate or attempt to violate, vicariously or through others, Bar Rules. In other words, Rule 4-8.4 (a) says that a lawyer cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.

But The Bar took only the first of the three in the series listed in Bar Rule 4-8.4 (a) and actually stated to the court that it means what is noted above, that Tunis could come up with any Bar Rule violations on her own and convict him, after trial, on the basis of what she thought Thompson might have done, with no input, of course, from him by way of a defense.

Tunis, upon Thompson’s protesting this ambush after the trial was over, again fled the courtroom. She returned to then lead The Bar’s prosecutor, from the bench, as if he were a child trying to ride a two-wheeled bicycle for the first time, through the tortured reasoning that would enable The Bar to have a referee indict, try, and convict a lawyer, in absentia, on charges of which he has never been apprised, in the privacy of her own home.

In the middle of the trial, with the Tew Cardenas porn lawyers on the stand and their having to admit that Thompson had no client, had not impacted a judicial proceeding, and was not engaged in the practice of law in his dealings with them (thereby making a Rule 4-8.4 (d) prosecution impossible), Tunis helpfully intoned, out of the blue, that Mr. Thompson had been also charged with a violation of Rule 4-8.4 (a). We, on the defense side, had no idea what she meant when she said this. But in the last minutes of the proceedings, yesterday, it became clear: The intention all along was to spring this “you can charge him and convict him of new offenses without any notice” surprise on him when the trial was over. Tunis had inadvertently tipped her hand that she was somehow in on the ruse.

It is so clear that Tunis may have been coached by someone during the trial, with her unexplained sprints from the courtroom as if she had a plane to catch, only to return with contrived legal arguments that no one had made previously, that Thompson has had to subpoena her phone records in the state court proceeding he has brought against the State of Florida for this regulatory assault upon the First Amendment that violates Florida’s Anti-SLAPP and RFRA statutes.

But Dava Tunis’ world late yesterday got even weirder. Earlier in the trial, The Bar’s counsel stood up in open court and announced that he had psychiatric records proving that Thompson’s co-counsel was mentally ill. The medical records waved by Mr. Bryk consisted of a favorite shrink used by The Bar’s FLA who claimed that this lawyer’s execution of an affidavit on Thompson’s behalf in Thompson’s federal civil rights action proved he, Thompson’s lawyer, was a “paranoid.” In other words, assisting Thompson shows mental illness. Mr. Bryk claimed all he was trying to do was apprise Mr. Thompson that his co-counsel was incompetent. If that were The Bar’s real desire, the whole issue , of course, would have been handled privately, discreetly, and not in open court. Thompson explained patiently to the court that Mr. Bryk could have shared the information with Thompson’s co-counsel and asked him to share it with Thompson, and then confirm that Thompson felt he had no problem. But, that, of course, was not what The Bar wanted to do. The Bar wanted to smear both his attorney and Thompson in open court. Judge Tunis held onto the stolen medical records in her possession. The co-counsel had never given a release allowing The Bar to have these records.

At the very end of the proceedings yesterday, Tunis asked what Thompson and his co-counsel would want her to do with the confidential, stolen medical records she held. It should be noted that the medical records are stolen, there having been no release of medical records form signed by co-counsel. Thompson’s co-counsel and Thompson asked and in fact demanded that the stolen medical records be returned to The Bar, as Tunis had absolutely no right to hold onto them, as they were not admitted into evidence. She was holding stolen property.

Co-counsel forcefully and emotionally stated that The Bar had committed a wrongful act in procuring these medical records without authorization, and they then compounded the offense by parading them in open court. Tunis then ordered co-counsel not to shout. He was forcefully and cogently identifying a wrong that had been committed against him by The Bar, and for an ulterior purpose.

Whereupon, Tunis, got to her feet, commenced shouting from behind her bench, and started flailing her arms wildly as if she were a Dutch windmill caught in a thermal inversion. It was the most bizarre, outlandish, odd, and embarrassing thing the undersigned has ever seen a jurist engage in during his 31 years of practicing law in Florida. Tunis made the “Crying Judge” Larry Seidlin in the Ana Nicole Smith case look like Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. She was out of control. She went from a jurist to a prosecutor to raving, shouting loose cannon in mere minutes.

When Thompson then referred to his co-counsel as his client in this medical records matter, she shouted from the bench He’s not your client! Is the court reporter your client, too???!!! With her meltdown, Tunis did more to harm the judiciary than anything Thompson is even alleged to have done.

She now sets off to prepare her Referee’s Report in a matter in which she displayed animus, bias, and a lack of judicial temperment. She has so tainted the proceedings with her pettiness and her injudicious comments and actions that no finding she could ever enter against Thompson can possibly be considered valid. This Bar must disqualify her immediately.

I SOLEMNLY AFFIRM, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading has been provided by mail and fax to Sheila Tuma, The Florida Bar, Orlando Bar Office, and to Dava Tunis, 1351 NW 12 Street, Miami, Florida, this December 7, 2007.
_____________________________
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney
Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146



37 comments:

Rumpole said...

This is the paragraph I enjoyed the most:

Whereupon, Tunis, got to her feet, commenced shouting from behind her bench, and started flailing her arms wildly as if she were a Dutch windmill caught in a thermal inversion. It was the most bizarre, outlandish, odd, and embarrassing thing the undersigned has ever seen a jurist engage in during his 31 years of practicing law in Florida...

Anonymous said...

Rumpole: you like to do sports handicapping: what is the over/under on Janet Reno coming out of retirement to kick Jack Thompson's ass again?

Anonymous said...

Why do you like this guy so much? He's a loon.

Rumpole said...

I don't like Mr. Thompson; I don't dislike Mr. Thompson. I don't know Mr. Thompson. I have a suspicion that he and I would not see eye to eye on most subjects; but I do think his missive on his experience before Judge Tunis (who in the interest of fair disclosure, I do happen to like) is fascinating.

Anonymous said...

Jack Thompson is Darrin McGillis with a law degree. Maybe Jack wants to run from clerk when he loses his ticket.

Anonymous said...

i agree with rumpole and go one step futher, i like this guy.

Anonymous said...

Denied. The Motion is legally insuffcient. Florida Rules of Judicial Administration require a separate certification that the motion is filed in good faith.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please summarize the allegations against Jack Thompson for me? I haven't been following it. Or post a Link to the previous stories.

fake shumie's dog said...

woof woof grrrrr....arf?

Anonymous said...

For the record Judge Tunis is the most honest, ethical, Judge I have ever known. I do not believe the writ he filed above is accurate or true, however his written words are just funny. It took me 20 minutes to stop laughing...I really like:

"...She returned to then lead The Bar’s prosecutor, from the bench, as if he were a child trying to ride a two-wheeled bicycle for the first time..."

Again Judge Tunis is a great Jurist and I feel for her as I am sure Jack has got to be the biggest SOB she has ever met.

The Supreme Court will deny the writ (1.) because he is a smart ass through out the brief and (2.) his time has come to retire and I am sure the Supreme's are sitting back just dying to disbarr this moron.

Anonymous said...

Two words in that "pleading" that sum it up - "paranoid" and "conspiracies."

I want to be there when Jack's head turns beet red, steam starts coming out, it starts turning around, and explodes.

Come here Jack, let me put my arm around your shoulder and say this - "youre deteriorating, something's wrong with you, quit this fight, and retire. Go spend your days sitting in city council meetings and taking the podium every 5 minutes to complain and allege conspiracy theories - that's a perfect job for you, in addition to being McGillis' campaign manager.

Anonymous said...

this guy did a number on tunis. wow

Rumpole said...

As President Nixon used to say "let me make this perfectly clear": This blog will NOT turn into a referendum on Jack Thompson. He has made some very serious charges about a judge in the REGJB and they deserve to be aired. However, Mr. Thompson has enough issues swirling around him to fill the pages of this blog for several months, and that is not what this blog is about. So have at it and move on.org.

By Monday or Tuesday there will be a moritorium on this unless something new happens.

Commodore said...

Yeah Mon! Seems like Tunis did not say anything that would make me question her impartiality. Getting upset does not qualify. She deserves credit for not removing herself from the case, which would have been the easiest course. It appears this guy does not want any judge to hear his case and that any judge presiding on it would have been on the recieving end of the same stuff. Didn't he try to disqualify Judge Jordan before his federal lawsuit was dismissed?

Anonymous said...

Dear HWMNBN II:

My curiosity is killing. How did Min confirm he posted the comment?

Anonymous said...

Rumpole: this just in, Janet Reno, basking in retirement, was watching the movie the Cinderella Man and has now begun training to take on Jack Thompson once again, if for no other reason than that he tries to make life miserable for any other lawyer who comes across his path, even harmless Dava Tunis. You really have to be sick and demented to find a reason to not lack Judge Tunis.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, why don't you open another blog, totally unmoderated, and give full posting privileges to Thompson and McGillis?

BTDT said...

Dava should be given a medal for putting up with his nonsense so long. She should have held him in contempt.

Fact is that Dava is one of the most even-handed and pleasant judges I've ever worked with. When she took the bench, I was a prosecutor. I expected her to be VERY defense oriented. I was wrong. She always gave us a fair shake. I hope Thompson gets what he wants, another judge. Nobody else will put up with his nonsense. Can you imagine what an old school judge like Margolius would do with him? We can only wish......

fake alex michaels said...

Margolius!!!! The Panamanian Puncher? There would have been blood in the hallways.

How about Morphonios? Or Glick?

Anonymous said...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA BAR
Petitioner

v.

JACK THOMPSON
Respondent.

Per curiam.

Upon Respondent Jack Thompson's petition for writ of prohibition, this Court hereby grants said petition, removes the Hon. Dava Tunis from this case, and appoints the HON. PETER ADRIEN as referee.

So ordered.

Anonymous said...

which glick

Anonymous said...

watch out Jack, Dava knows martial arts- her 95 lb. butt will kick you elitist republican coral gables ass.

South Florida Lawyers said...

Oh. Man.

Anonymous said...

You all might want to get off your Jack Thompson is a nut bandwagon long enough to ponder the fact that this judge refused to sign subpoenas. She has no discretion whatsoever in that. None.

She also upheld the Bar's requirement that I pay $4000 upfront to review my own file. Don't tell me how wonderful Judge Tunis is and how fair she was. You have no idea what happened in this case. None. Jack Thompson

Rumpole said...

If it makes you feel any better Mr. Thompson, my view is that you espouse views that many people find offensive or that many people make fun of. It is precisely for those reasons that I do not think you are a nut. I think you are comitted to your beliefs and causes, and you are not afraid to fight for them. Although I may not agree with everything you fight for, I admire your refusal to back down and I support your free speech rights to be heard and to fight your fight. I wish you the best of luck.

HR

Anonymous said...

Hey Rumpole,

Did you know that Thompson has sued Judge Tunis personally, as well as each justice of the Florida Supreme court, in Federal court? Or that he moved to amend one of his Federal court actions (to enjoin his bar prosecution) to sue Judge Jordan, who just happened to be presiding? Perhaps he's not a nutcase, but it certainly is a unique and somewhat questionable legal strategy to personally sue every person charged with the task of deciding whether you hang on to your bar license. I guess he would say he's exercising his first amendment right to be dumb.

Rumpole said...

If I was advising Mr. Thompson, I would choose a different legal strategy. But lets say we lived in a world where Brown v. Board of Ed was never brought to the supreme court. And lets say that was Mr. Thomapson's cause. In 50 years from now, he would be viewed as a hero. My point is that sometimes society evolves with pushes from those on the edge. Every now and then you need to shake things up. While Mr. Thompson's causes are not mine, some day I might feel strongly enough about something (like the banning of establshments where naked women serve me beer) that I might choose to use some of his tactics.

I would feel more comfortable if people confined their criticism to his tactics and not his beliefs. Because it's just a matter of time until your ox is gored. Then see how you feel.

Anonymous said...

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net

December 11, 2007

Joseph P. Farina, Jr.
Chief Judge
Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center
175 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, Florida 33128

Re: Circuit Court Judge Dava Tunis As Bar Referee

Dear Judge Farina:

We concluded last Thursday, December 6, what was supposed to be a fair trial at which The Bar tried to prove that Bar complaints brought and inspired by the makers of the Grand Theft Auto games and the Howard Stern Show were a legitimate means by which to protect the public from Jack Thompson. Such “disciplinary” complaints by opponents are, of course, prohibited by the Preamble to Section 4 of the Bar Rules themselves.

Months ago you chose Dava Tunis to be the referee in all this, and Dava Tunis proved by her weird rulings that she had no idea how the disciplinary process is to work. Of all the judges you could have appointed to serve as referee, you chose someone who had had no experience whatsoever with civil litigation. You also chose someone who, along with her husband, has had a close relationship with Kenneth Marvin, while all three were in the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s Office. Marvin is now the Director of Lawyer Regulation. This long-standing relationship alone disqualifies her from this case. It’s not even a close call. Tunis refused to sign a subpoena for Marvin’s deposition.

I have filed in state court a lawsuit assigned to Judge Trawick. I shall be subpoenaing Ms. Tunis, duces tecum, to determine with whom she was communicating during the trial. I will seek phone records and well as email records in that regard.

My lawyer warned you months ago where Dava Tunis’ antics were taking us all. Dava Tunis even went so far as to deny me a continuance while my wife was undergoing surgery and debilitating chemotherapy for what could have been terminal ovarian cancer.

If I were to recount all of the clear, irrefutable proofs of Judge Tunis’ bias, incompetence in this setting, and her missteps, you would have a letter in excess of thirty pages. I have been accused of trying to subvert the administration of justice by pointing out the misconduct of Circuit Court Judge Ron Friedman, only to have the Third DCA whack him for doing to another litigant exactly what he did to me. Friedman did more, by his actions, to derail justice than I ever could.

Similarly, Dava Tunis is the one who messed up what was supposed to be a fair disciplinary process. You don’t have someone with no disciplinary process experience preside over a complex disciplinary matter anymore than you have a med school intern do brain surgery. What in the world were you thinking?

Dava Tunis, who is mostly quite polite, in a formal sense, goes bonkers at times. She gets generally good reviews from lawyers before her, but not from the ones on whom she has unloaded, injudiciously That is precisely what she did in the closing moments of my trial when she launched into a petulant tirade that eclipses anything I have ever seen any judge do in my 31 years of practicing law.

All of this nonsense by Dava Tunis makes necessary the taking of your deposition as well, as you are the Chief Judge who set this runaway Tunis train in motion.

Please advise what days in January you are available for your deposition. I’m not going quietly, as Ms. Tunis would like, as this is a matter that goes far beyond me and my constitutional rights. This mess takes us to the core of what lawyers and judges are called to be, and what the limits on government are when its insiders seek to enforce speech codes as if they were operatives in some sort of American Taliban.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Copies: Media
Florida Bar Governors

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous:

Re the suits against Tunis, etc., familiarize yourself with 42 USC 1983 et sequitur, and then maybe you'll understand.

Folks, the Preamble to Section 4 of our Bar rules prohibits Bar complaints by opponents. That is precisely what I am faced with. Further, the Preamble notes that we are not just lawyers, but also citizens in society. All of these complaints brought by The Bar are an attempt to punish my First Amendment speech on the issues of the day. The Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court ruling prohibits such Bar complaints. It's not even a close question.

No client complained, no member of the public complained. These are all complaints coming from the video game industry and the Howard Stern Show lawyers.

If you lawyers don't understand how dangerous this precedent is, then call Jeff Fieger.

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law

1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

305-666-4366

amendmentone@comcast.net



December 10, 2007



Frank Angones

Florida Bar President

Miami, Florida Via Fax to 305-371-3948



Re: Barnaby Lee Min



Dear Frank:



Please advise by close of business tomorrow what disciplinary action is to be taken against Mr. Min for publicly misrepresenting what was transpiring in my Bar trial while it was going on.



Here is a man who was recused from the case trying to influence the legal community, with false information, as to its opinion of me. This is not supposed to be Castro’s Cuba, Frank.



Regards, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

JOHN B. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

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

THE FLORIDA BAR,

Respondent.

SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE COMPROMISED REFEREE

COMES NOW petitioner, Thompson, and supplements his petition for writ of writ of prohibition herein, stating:
The referee herein, Dava Tunis, failed to disclose her and her lawyer husband’s longstanding personal and professional relationship with Ken Marvin, now Director of Lawyer Regulation for The Florida Bar, with whom the referee and her husband worked in the Miami-Dade County Public Defender’s Office.
Referee Tunis, without disclosing this relationship, refused to perform the simple clerical function of issuing a subpoena sought by Thompson to depose Marvin. The following recent news story helps shed light on how improper and unethical this protection of Marvin was by the referee, in light of her and her husband’s long relationship with him:
Judge Hit for Friendship With Prevailing Lawyer in $94.5M Suit
Cheryl Miller
The Recorder
January 11, 2007
Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions

The Commission on Judicial Performance has publicly admonished a retired judge for failing to disclose his chummy relationship with the prevailing plaintiffs attorney in a $94.5 million inverse condemnation suit.
Former San Diego County Superior Court Judge Vincent DiFiglia should have told the defendants in the 2001 case that he had a long-term friendship with the plaintiff's co-counsel, Vincent Bartolotta Jr., commissioners said.
DiFiglia, who retired in 2003, also violated a judicial canon by failing to disclose publicly that he had once worked for the defendant's counsel, the San Diego city attorney's office, the commission wrote.
The CJP had already privately chastised DiFiglia in 1992 for allowing Bartolotta and his law partner to pay for the judge's play in golf tournaments, and then failing to tell other attorneys in his court about his relationship with the two lawyers.
While DiFiglia's questionable conduct occurred in 2001, the CJP delayed its investigation after the case was appealed, in part on the grounds that the judge didn't announce his friendship with Bartolotta.
The appellate court reversed the judgment in September without considering the judge's failure to disclose, and the commission then continued with its investigation.
Although DiFiglia retired from the bench more than three years ago, he now works as a private judge, and "in order to preserve public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary" commissioners said they decided to publicly admonish him.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1168423328610
WHEREFORE, Thompson moves this court to grant the writ of prohibition, remove Tunis from presiding over this disciplinary matter because of her obvious misconduct, and commence this disciplinary matter anew. Tunis, by her serial misconduct, including now a discovery of this latest nondisclosure misstep, has completely vitiated and delegitimized the disciplinary process.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been provided to Referee Tunis and to Bar counsel this December 10, 2007.

JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney/Respondent
Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146, 305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net

Anonymous said...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

JOHN B. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

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

THE FLORIDA BAR,

Respondent.

SUPPLEMENT TO VERIFIED EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO DISQUALIFY AND REMOVE COMPROMISED REFEREE AND COMMENCE ANEW THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS

COMES NOW petitioner, Thompson, and supplements his petition for writ of writ of prohibition herein, stating:
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT
Florida Bar prosecutor Barnaby Min, in the Miami office of The Florida Bar, was recused from prosecuting this case because of a conflict of interest. He was supposed to be isolated from this matter as a result of that recusal.
Instead, Min was there in court the past two weeks assisting Bar counsel from the Orlando office. As bad as that violation of the recusal mandate was, Barnaby Min decided, with the obvious approval of The Bar itself, to go even further. In the midst of the trial, Min posted the following at the “Justice Building Blog” read by the legal community, including judges, in South Florida:
Rump,

You asked about the Thompson trial before Judge Tunis. It is now week two. The Bar put on its case last week and rested. Thompson failed to participate in discovery and Judge Tunis entered an order precluding him from introducing any evidence. She is, however, allowing Thompson to testify. During the Bar's case, approximately 3,000 pages of his e-mails/letters/news announcements were introduced into evidence. Thompson has taken the stand and is reading every single word of every single page into the record. Judge Tunis is allowing Thompson to do so.

When I watched the trial last week, everyday, Thompson filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Tunis. Each time, the motions were denied for being legally sufficient. I do not have the patience or time to sit and watch Thompson reading 3,000 pages into the record so I have not really paid any attention this week. I do know, however, that he is not yet half way through the documents so it will probably be another week.

Barnaby Min
Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:42:00 AM
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19039943&postID=4139464104693836891

Mr. Min lied, above, about the undersigned’s alleged reading of every document into evidence. That is an utter fabrication. That would have taken at least 100 hours of nothing but reading documents. In fact, no more than three hours were consumed in that fashion; thus, Mr. Min was off in his statement by a factor of at least thirty-three. The Bar’s witnesses read from certain documents and commented thereon, and so did the undersigned. This is all Thompson did. Min’s post at the Blog generated this understandable response by someone who saw it:
Anonymous said...
Oh lord that is funny shit. Mr. Min Thank You for making my day and providing this tid bit:

"Thompson has taken the stand and is reading every single word of every single page into the record. Judge Tunis is allowing Thompson to do so."

It just does not get better than this!

When all is said and done Judge Tunis should be praised for dealing with this nut case.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007 4:20:00 PM
Thus, Mr. Min accomplished what and the Bar desired: They created the impression of Thompson that The Bar has repeatedly, publicly insisted upon—that the undersigned is mentally ill.
The additional above assertion by Mr. Min that the undersigned “failed to participate in discovery” is utterly false and designed to give the impression that the undersigned is incompetent either mentally or professionally or both. In fact, the referee prevented all meaningful discovery, even to the point of refusing to sign subpoenas.
Even if Min’s assertions about Thompson at the Blog were true, however, Min’s and The Bar’s decision to smear Thompson in the midst of the trial betrays bad faith that has marked The Bar’s prosecution of Thompson from the outset.
This is all the more remarkable in light of the fact that The Bar is prosecuting Thompson for his alleged ethical lapses in communicating with the media nearly three years ago about a wrongful death civil action in Alabama that is not yet set for trial! The Bar asserts that Thompson was trying to influence a jury in a trial that is not yet on a trial calendar, yet here is Min communicating with the legal community, and plausibly the referee as well, through a widely-read Internet site about a matter that was in trial at the very moment that Min was libeling Thompson. Is this how the Florida Supreme Court thinks that Bar prosecutors ought to act?
If this Court did not think there was bad faith before this stunt by Min, surely it can see it now.
MORE INFORMATION DISQUALIFYING THE REFEREE
As this court has already been apprised, Referee Tunis was running in and out of her courtroom during the trial herein, often without any explanation, returning with novel arguments that she seems to have gotten from someone. Thus, the undersigned has to subpoena her phone records to find out to whom, if anyone, she was talking. Those records will be secured in another pending state action.
It now also seems that Referee Tunis was communicating with others via her computer at her bench. Tunis went from handwriiting notes to banging away loudly on her keyboard when Thompson was in the witness box. She then would read intently what was on her computer screen, while Thompson was testifying. She was a million miles away. Thompson will be subpoenaing the Referee’s emails, instant messaging records, and computer hard drive to find out what in the world she was doing while she was supposed to be listening, as the trier of fact, to the witness. It is not too much to ask that a referee, presiding over a case in which The Bar seeks to disbar him for the exercise of his First Amendment rights, might pay attention to testimony.
This referee has so sullied this “disciplinary” effort with her rulings and her conduct that this High Court would do well to remove her from this case and start again. Trying to salvage this case is akin to raising the Lusitania and make her float in time for Christmas. The Bar’s ship sank quite sometime ago in all this, but they are too blind to see it. Only a bunch of judgmentally impaired Bar Governors and officials would have given the green light for Barnaby Min to prove The Bar’s animus. These people are conniving, but they are not very clever.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been provided to Referee Tunis and to Bar counsel this December 9, 2007.
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney/Respondent
Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146, 305-666-4366

Anonymous said...

You make a good point. His causes are not the issue; it's his "tactics" that will get him disbarred. He certainly would not agree with your right to have naked girls serve you beer. But he wouldn't just disagree. He would file criminal complaints against you, email your clients saying that you facilitate pornography, email your partners saying you are promoting prostitution; tell your employees that they should be ashamed of working for you; email your parents asking them whether they are proud of you; email your wife that you are an adulterer; file bar complaints against you; and generally make your life miserable. "Shaking things up" is all well and good, but he goes beyond any bounds of decency, and ignores any rules of professionalism. Ultimately, he hurts his causes more than any of his perceived "enemies" ever could; he makes his conduct the issue-and loses his message.

Rumpole said...

And my response is that I choose the "nakes women serving me beer" for a specific reason. See, I hold certain values of freedom and free speech dear. And that means when someone I do not agree with wants to use those same rights, I am committed to protecting those rights, even if it helps him advance ideas I do not believe in. Or even if it means that he would use his sucess to attempt to curtail my freedoms. You see, that person wins when the repugnancy of his ideas make me abandon my comittment to rights. Therefore, I keep my comittment firm, even in the face of actions like you describe. It's why I became a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Thompson,

Which of your "enemy" industries forced Judge Moore or Judge Friedman to file bar complaints against you? Was it the pornographers or the video gamers? Have you ever stopped your tirades long enough to wonder: why does every lawyer and judge I run into seem to have a problem with how I act? Have you ever asked yourself: Why has everyone: each justice of the supreme court, each judge before whom I appear, each lawyer defending clients who I sue or criticize-so many people- conspired against me? Why do they all have such problems with me? Have you ever looked in the mirror and said: "Maybe it's me?" Are you capable of any introspection at all? Think about it: what would any normal person think of the way you act? What trier of fact would buy your story about corrupt judges spanning several states, conspiring with evil lawyers to get you, and only you? And admit it; in your mind, anyone who doesn't buy your story must be in on it-and corrupt-and worthy of being sued, or defamed, or humiliated. Does everyone who doesn't believe you, or agree with you, violate your civil rights? And owe you damages under sec. 1983? Do you really believe that? If so, I feel truly sorry for you. If not, I have no sympathy for your inevitable fate: not only disbarred, but considered an irrelevent joke, and an impediment to the causes you advocate.

Ken Marvin said...

Dear Jack:

My biggest beef with you is how you distort. You refer to the preamble to Rule 4, but don't quote it, and state: "Folks, the Preamble to Section 4 of our Bar rules prohibits Bar complaints by opponents." You don't quote it because it doesn't say that. Your claim is absurd. Let me quote the section to which you refer.

Violation of a rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a rule does not necessarily warrant any other nondisciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of a lawyer in pending litigation. The rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability. Furthermore, the purpose of the rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a rule is a just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the rule. Accordingly, nothing in the rules should be deemed to augment any substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences of violating such duty. Nevertheless, since the rules do establish standards of conduct by lawyers, a lawyer's violation of a rule may be evidence of a breach of the applicable standard of conduct.

Obviously, it refers to opponents in litigation using the bar rules as a procedural tactic in the litigation. By the way, you really, really need to read this section again. You are seriously projecting, dude.

Finally, let me note you filed an entire pleading about Mr. Min alleged posting without ever referring to any evidence that Barnaby actually posted the comment. Better yet, you note the prejudice of the comment by quoting another anonymous poster. Sweet Jesus. YOU might have made that comment.

By the way, get your erection under control, this was not really written by Ken Marvin. Anyone can claim to be anyone else on the Internet tubes.

Anonymous said...

for those of you wondering why hes suing Tunis, you might want to head over to www.gamepolitics.com where you can see a few exerpts (spelling?) of his disbarrement trial.

Turning your back on the judge, telling her to wait for him to finish his argument when the judge made a legal ruling against, adressing people in the audience,and so on and so forth, are not the acts of a respectable lawyer.