Friday, January 04, 2008


We said Huckabee would beat Romney. We ignored history and the power of the evangelical vote in Iowa (Pat Robertson finished second in Iowa) when we said Huckabee would edge out Romney. We also had a healthy respect for the large political machine Romney built in Iowa. We missed the margin of victory, but called the result. Mitt is in the fight for his political life now in New Hampshire. A McCain win puts McCain on the path to the nomination. McCain, with his pragmatic approach and willingness to defend unpopular policies is definitely the Republicans' best chance to retain the White House. At the end of the day, he is the more experienced candidate, and the one best able to reach out to Reagan Democrats.

We called the Democratic results on the money. Clinton has already revamped her election strategy for New Hampshire. Less policy speeches, more Q/A sessions with the voters.

Edwards reported an influx in cash overnight. Pundits say Edwards needs a win in New Hampshire. We disagree. He needs another solid second place in New Hampshire, a win in South Carolina, and then on to Super Tuesday.

Obama just needs to be himself and keep on doing what he has done. Don't mess with success. Don't get too conservative; don't get too aggressive.

And while we are tooting our own horn, who told you Cam was Canned? Who scooped them all?

We're not going to reveal any sources, but lets just say when it comes to Big Tuna, we're the bread and mayo.

We're back! See You Monday. Football playoff predictions tonght or tomorrow.



Rump - waiting for your comment on the story below. What are your thoughts?



Rump, not to take away from the important local and national issues of the day, (Cameron/Fins and Iowa/Obama/Huckabee), but what we really should be discussing in the next post is what is going on in a case in Wisconsin.

The headline reads: "Jury to hear man's dead wife" and the story is essestially this: Julie Jensen will testify from her grave when her husband's murder trial begins this week in Milwaukee.

Shortly before her death, she told police, a neighbor and her son's teacher thst she suspected her husband was trying to kill her. She gave a letter to her neighbor that said if she dies, her husband should be the first suspect.

The Right to Confront your accuser, a constitutional right, and the United States Supreme Court's decision in 2004 changing the rules on admissibility of that type of evidence that will be introduced into this murder trial are the issues presented in this interesting case.

According to the trial judge's ruling, the letter from the wife will be permitted to be introduced into evidence against the husband.

Read the entire article here:


I am curious as to how someone like Abe Laeser feels about the case and the issues presented in the article. Abe, care to comment?


Anonymous said...

Did Regional Counsel show up for work at the RGB this week? At the JJC? Any reports?

Anonymous said...


You just do not get it.

You write about my colleagues as though you had some knowledge of who those people are - or why I consider them my friends.

Now you ask me to comment on what some judge did -- according to a squib on ABC? Is this how you gather the 'facts' on which you would rely?

My comment is simple. I do not know enough about the true facts to comment.

Ball is on your side of the court. You may guess to your heart's content.

Anonymous said...

No question about it...surprising but true...Rumpole is Brian Tannebaum.

Anonymous said...

The President of the United States Barack Obama

The Vice President of the United States Hillary Clinton

Janitorial duties assigned John Edwards.

Anonymous said...

Regional Counsel were all in Au Bon Pain this morning and cases have been appointed.

Anonymous said...


Lot 26, diagonal or not?

Anonymous said...

Captain: The Wisconsin story about a "dead woman to testify from grave" is not really all that newsworthy (except perhaps in Wisconsin, where there is little else to do except root for the Packers).

The evidence sought to be introduced is a letter, from the victim, in which she says she feared her husband wanted to kill her and that, should she die under suspicious circumstances, her husband should be suspect #1.

The right of confrontation is still alive and well, and the evidence sought to be introduced in this case does not implicate the holding in Crawford v. Washington, since the statement is not testimonial.

Furthermore, even if it was determined to be testimonial, Crawford recognized one of the historical exceptions to the Confrontation Clause: forfeiture by wrongdoing. The U. S. Supreme Court explained the principle this way more than 100 years ago in Reynolds v. U.S.: "The Constitution gives the accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against him; but if a witness is absent by his own wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away. The Constitution does not guarantee an accused person against the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts. It grants him the privilege of being confronted with the witnesses against him; but if he voluntarily keeps the witnesses away, he cannot insist on his privilege. If, therefore, when absent by his procurement, their evidence is supplied in some lawful way, he is in no condition to assert that his constitutional rights have been violated." This concept of forfeiture by wrongdoing has been an accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence under British law for more than 300 years.

The truth is, the headline might make for nice reading, but there is really nothing extraordinary about the case from a legal standpoint.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards for dog-catcher!

Anonymous said...

Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
Look for Cantero to hire former parnter and now Fireman Hank Adorno on this one:

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

January 4, 2008

The Honorable Raoul Cantero
Supreme Court Justice
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Re: Your Ongoing Violation of the Florida Constitution and Oath of Office

Dear Justice Cantero:

The enclosed article in the December 15, 2007, edition of the Florida Bar News reports your chairmanship of the Commission on Professionalism. Your holding of that position is illegal in a number of regards. First of all, it violates Article V, Section 13 of the Florida Constitution which states

“Prohibited activities.--All justices and judges shall devote full time to their judicial duties.”

Secondly, you are violating the separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution, Article II, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states

“Branches of government.--The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.”

The formulation and policing of lawyers’ manners is not only absurd, aside from the legal/constitutional analysis, but if any body is to do that it is the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, not a sitting Justice on the state supreme court.

When you accrete to yourself this legislative and executive function, you also violate Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates that all states have a republican form of government, which requires separation of the three functions of government. As a Supreme Court Justice, you should understand that.

Let me put this in lay terms that others who read this letter will understand: Nobody put you, Justice Cantero, on the Florida Supreme Court to be the manners police for lawyers in this State. You are supposed to discharge your duties as a member of the Supreme Court. Period.

By taking on this extrajudicial function, you act ultra vires and you thus go way outside the judicial branch of government. Doing so does violence to the state and federal constitutions, which you took an oath to uphold, and thus you now violate that oath of office in arrogating to yourself this nonjudicial function.

If you do not immediately surrender your chairmanship of and participation in the Commission, then I and others will bring a quo warranto action against you to make you surrender it.

Additionally, I am now forwarding this letter and attachment to the appropriate members of the Florida Senate so that impeachment proceedings may be commenced against you should you persist in this illegal, unconstitutional activity.

Most sincerely, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Bar Member wrote:
Dear Jack:

Please stop. I know your heart is in the right place. You are only standing up for what you believe in.

However, my Bar dues are getting close to $400 per year. There is no more free lunch in Dade (SPDs), and everyone is struggling. Your constant barrage of the Bar means they keep adding staff and equipment to keep up with your constant correspondence.

They probably have to fly to Tallahasse from the local branch here as well, which, I'm guessing, also means drinks at Clyde's and expensive hotel rooms. They probably have to hire outside counsel from expensive New York firms to decipher 1st amenedment law.

My point: please stop now before our dues go to a grand a year.


Concerned lawyer

PS: does anyone know who the current hiring counsel is at the Bar?

Anonymous said...

Rump, you "called" the results? The polls indicated that what happened would happen.

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Is somebody who chooses Al Cardenas to be part of his campaign ready to be President? Apparently not:

Immediate News Release – January 4, 2008

Romney Campaign Advised by Lawyer/Lobbyist Whose Firm Represents Porn Broadcaster

Guess who is operating at the highest levels of the Mitt Romney for President Campaign? Al Cardenas. Al Cardenas is a lobbyist and lawyer in the Miami law firm of Tew, Cardenas, which bears his name.

On the heels of Romney’s second place finish in Iowa, Al Cardenas is holding forth nationally about his candidate’s chances: http://www.miamiherald.com/548/story/366692.html

Tew Cardenas represents Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc., which assaulted Florida families on two radio stations with the pornographic Howard Stern Show before Miami attorney Jack Thompson got Stern off these stations following formal notices by the Federal Communications Commission that the broadcasts likely violated federal criminal statute 18 USC 1464 by airing pornographic material during the day when children were likely to be in the audience.

Al Cardenas went so far in his efforts on behalf of this shock radio broadcaster that he signed a sworn statement claiming that Beasley was not commercially involved with pornography! He did this despite an FCC fine against Beasley for illegally airing porn! Beasley hasn't been able to get its WQAM-AM radio station license renewed because of its porn broadcasts, as Beasley has disclosed in its 10-K SEC filings.

The first television ad aired by Romney for President was a powerful one decrying the entertainment industry’s assault upon our children and our culture. See it at

Query: If Mitt Romney, as President, really wants to enforce federal laws that prohibit the distribution of adult entertainment to children, then why is Al Cardenas whispering in his ear from Iowa to New Hampshire to South Carolina to Florida and beyond? Is this another flip-flop by Mitt Romney?

Contact Jack Thompson at 305-666-4366 or amendmentone@comcast.net.

To view Romney's anti-entertainment industry ad "Ocean," please see: http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=234880

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Rump, please ban Thompson! This blog is getting tough to visit. I can't express it in any other more sophisticated way. He is just draining and seemingly mentally ill.


Anonymous said...

Dear Jack,

Please stop posting your c**p on this blog. I think you should start your own blog and you can visit it to your heart's content, even if no one else does.

Just as an aside, have you read the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Judicial Administration lately? Judges are encouraged to participate in the improvement of the judicial system, which includes the education and professionallism of attorneys. It is part of their judicial duties.

Actually come to think of it you are a prime example of what we are trying to teach attorneys not to do. That is to use the courts and the immunity granted in filing "good faith" pleadings as a tool to bring the courts and the judicial system into disrepute and making a mockery of the most important branch of government.

You are a joke and blight on the legal community. Do you have nothing better to do than to make a spectacle of yourself and the center of the all the abuse directed toward you?

You love to advertise how your wife (not you) is battling cancer. Why don't you relish in the knowledge that she has done that and start enjoying every day you have with her, instead of making it your life's ambition to bother everyone else? For someone who has reason to be happy you seem like the most miserable person on the face of the earth.

Anonymous said...

Jack, come join me in rehab. You need it almost as badly as I do.