Thursday, February 07, 2008



Rumors have persisted for months and today the Miami Herald reports
as breaking news that our respected colleague Ben Kuehne has been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for money laudering. He is surrendering in Federal Court today.

The indictment stems from Kuehne's role in reviewing and vouching for the legitimacy of payments made by a Colombian citizen Fabio Ochoa to attorney Roy Black for representation in Miami for drug trafficking charges.

From the Herald Article:

Kuehne's research gave Black the confidence -- in the form of legal opinion letters -- to accept payments totaling $3.7 million in fees and $1.3 million in expenses from Ochoa, according to several sources. Kuehne earned a portion of the expense payments -- $220,000 to $260,000 -- from Black for vetting Ochoa's payments, sources said...

Ironically, the investigation first focused on Black following Ochoa's conviction at his 2003 trial in Miami. But authorities dropped their interest in Black and shifted to Kuehne, who became the target because his buffer-like role insulated Ochoa's defense attorney from any criminal liability for accepting the fees.

There is no joy in Mudville today, and we wish our colleague Mr. Kuehne the very best in his time of trouble and turmoil. This can be a difficult business sometimes and we sincerely hope for the best for Mr. Kuehne.


Batman said...

This situation will become even sadder when it appears that all of the defense team will find themselves testifying against Ben.

Having known Ben for so many years, having litigated with him and against him among the many other contacts I have had with him professionally, knowing how he feels about the law and his dedication to professionalism,it is hard to imagine that he could knowingly do that of which the government accuses him.

Good luck, Ben. You will be in the thoughts of all those who know and respect you.

Anonymous said...

Sucks and it's bs. Do a good enough job against the guvmint and they come after you......God I can't wait for a Democratic president.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I told you all here that Kuehne was dirty. I get a whole new Bar proceeding because of this, as he was my designated reviewer. Jack Thompson:

From my federal suit:
More recently, Bar Governors Steve Chaykin and DOJ target letter recipient Ben Kuehne have similarly demanded lunacy proceedings against Thompson. These people, rather than pretending to represent the interests of The Bar, really ought to be auditioning for roles in the movie version of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.

Anonymous said...




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 either to dismiss all charges herein, stating:
Thompson would appreciate it if the referee herein, Dava J. Tunis, would pay attention to what he has to say for a change, as this is The Bar’s last chance and the referee’s last chance to get it right in this case.
Thompson’s designated reviewer, Ben Kuehne, has today been indicted for money laundering. Thompson told The Bar and the referee this would happen ever since Thompson met with federal investigators about Kuehne at their request. The referee and The Bar couldn’t have cared less about the clear way in which Kuehne’s ethical cloud vitiated these proceedings. This was bad faith by The Bar to allow Kuehne to be anywhere near this case once his alleged thieving was known.
Kuehne is charged with stealing/laundering money of a cartel that has less money than the corporate Bar complainants against Thompson. Kuehne should have been off grievance committees, off the Board of Governors, and away from Thompson’s money-tainted case from the get-go. None of this obvious grounds for disqualification of Kuehne form this case for ACLU-brand of extremism on the very issues that have animated Thompson’s activism and have led to his being targeted by this wealthy, influence-peddling companies. Who knows how far Tew Cardenas’ and Blank Rome’s influence have insinuated themselves into the deliberations and “fairness oversight” of Ben Kuehne?
Wherefore, Thompson moves this immovable referee to dismiss ALL charges against him by virtue of the patent bad faith of The Bar in allowing this now indicted thief to sit in judgment of him in a Bar proceeding in which Thompson was targeted because of the money he was costing huge corporations. Thieves steal. Kuehne stole Thompson a fair Bar proceeding, and either The Bar gets it right now, or Thompson will destroy The Bar. Period. This is the last straw.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this has been provided this February 7, 2008, to John Harkness, Executive Director of The Florida Bar, to Circuit Court Judge Dava J. Tunis, to Bar staff counsel Sheila Tuma, to Kenneth Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation for The Bar, and to all Bar Governors as well as to Bar President Frank Angones.

Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Anonymous said...

"Yeah Senator, I was a a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers."

From GFII at the senate hearing on The Corleone family.

Anonymous said...

I'll be the first to say it:




Someone posted:

"If you do away with the validity of any oath, ....., then go ahead and do away with the concept of swearing witnesses and the notion that there is such a thing as perjury.

and ... Are you people clear out of your minds? Take all that away and the entire justice system crumbles. You think Supreme Court Justices' ignoring the duty to take an oath of office is a good sign of "enligthenment?"

To that person -

I am much more "enlightened" when a judge stands before hundreds of citizens, in an open ceremony and puts their hand on a bible and swears orally and openly before God to the oath that all judges take:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God."




To my colleague Benedict Kuehne, I hope and pray for the day that this nightmare of yours comes to an end in the not too distant future.

The USAO should be ashamed for their actions today and I can only hope that they get theirs someday.

Cap Out ...

Anonymous said...

Ben Kuehne needs to be removed from the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar immediately!


Gary Siplin wasn't even removed from the Florida Senate

Batman said...

First of all to Jack Thompson:

You are out of your ever lovin' cotton-pickin' mind. You are a lunatic. Even assuming that Ben did what the government says (and most who know him don't believe that) how does that have anything to do with you? He may have been the reviewer, but the committee charged you. The charges stand unless or until you can prove that something improper (other than your own stupidity and insanity) led to your situation. Your desperation shows.

I for one am tired of your mental masturbations and delusions of grandeur. I only wish I was the Bar Referee and could personally sign the order and recommendation to the Supreme Court for your disbarment.

As to that person who called for Ben's resignation from the Board of Governors:

I think Ben has thought of that on his own. He loves the Florida Bar and would never do anything to tarnish its position.

Ben is a good man caught in a bad situation. And to that end, Jack, he is far better man, a far better lawyer and a far better person than you could ever hope to be.

I will be watching and hoping, Ben.

Anonymous said...

Not Ben. Are any of us safe?

He is so clean, he would blush when I cursed and had another drink.

All my very best wishes in this long ordeal, my friend.

I am too scared to sign this using my own name - you never know what the Feds are thinking!


well said Batman

Anonymous said...

the stupid comment are from people who have never seen the doj at work. they will have no real evidence against Ben, Because he is Legit. It will be all BS 404b crap sworn to by real criminal! A shame to tarnish a real attorney.

Anonymous said...

Jack, I'm surprised it took you so long to relish in Ben's Indictment. I thank you for telling all of us that you dont believe in the presumption of innocence (unless it applies to you) as you call Ben "dirty." Ben has been accused, no one but you, and the prosecutor believe the allegations. Ben is a credit to the Bar, you are a blight, a real big one.

Anonymous said...

This is tragic news. I think that Mr. Kuehne, aware that the indictmentwas coming, has indeed withdrawn from some of his public positions.
I have put Mr. Kuehne in my prayers, to join a sadly growing group of criminal defense lawyers, such as Michael Tarkoff, Bill Moran, Richard Martinez, Sam Burstyn, and David Mermel (and I am sure that I have missed some who were disgraced, permanently or temporarily, because of events which occurred during their involvement in defending wealthy accused narcotics traffickers).
Much as we in our business cling to our faith in "innocent until proven guilty," the fact of an indictment carries its own heavy burden which the accused and their families, partners, associates, and staffs must bear.

Anonymous said...

I think Ben is in big trouble and I am sure that Roy was involved. Roy should give the cash back and save his boy.

Anonymous said...

Jack, you are a piece of shit. Ben is not accused of "stealing" anything. The charges are trumped up enough without your usual dishonest twist to the facts.

To 2:17: Please, please, do not lump Ben in with that motley crew. Please.

Anonymous said...

Thompson spews his delusional vitriol, not only here, but also on the Miami Herald Blog. His obsession and monomania are an embarassment to all members of the Florida Bar. Fake Anonymous

Anonymous said...

Some random thoughts:

I think it is time that some of us get together and file Amicus responses to Jack's insane rantings.

Or maybe we can put his disbarment on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment to ban Jack from practicing law.

Better yet, we should send copies of all his craziness to all the members of his family together with all of the Blog comments about him. Maybe, if they really understood what he has done and what is happening, they could convince him to seek help.

Now we know why Fred Thompson could not get his presidential campaign off the ground, people thought he was Jack or at a minimum, related to him.

Anonymous said...

Presumption of innocence is for the jury, Sherlock, not for public opinion.

I haven't seen any "presumption of innocence" as to Jack Thompson at this site.

This guy has been a thug to me for quite sometime, and I am delighted that he has been indicted, just as I would be delighted with the arrest of a pedophile or drug dealer or anyone who facilitates either.

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Question: Is it normal practice for a criminal defense lawyer to hire another lawyer to vet the source of funds?

Or did Roy have Ben be his "buffer"?

Anonymous said...

Has anybody read the indictment of Ben? From its read it appears the govmt created the tainted funds, govmt operations funded the money.

Anonymous said...


You are a disgrace to the Christian religion. You and your hypocritical attitudes are the reason that so many people despise Christians Why don't you read the parts of the Bible (mainly the New Testament that you claim to worship so much) about mercy and forgiveness. You deserve everything that has happened to you.

Anonymous said...

2:17. dont leave out harris sperber,fred graves,jerry breslin, goodhart, sepe, gelber and shenberg.. what others in the mjb have gone to jail that i missed?

Rumpole said...

4:26 I can answer that. In my practice, I do not normally seek outside counsel before depositing the cheques for $300.00 for the disorderly intoxication cases I handle. However, as I understand it, Mr. Black charges a bit more, and always uses a buffer when he suspects there may be an issue as to the source of the funds.

Lesson: The Government does not like Buffers.

Anonymous said...

jack --- go smoke some herb and chill out.

Anonymous said...

Jack - you claim to be a moral and religious guy.

You should hedge your bets.

If there is an afterlife, you might want to invest in an asbestos codpiece!

Most religions believe in this basic concept: Treat your neighbor as you would want them to treat you.

You must have slept through this sermon -- 52 weeks a year, for your entire life.

Anonymous said...

forgot rex ryland, the williams guy.

Anonymous said...

I want to stand up for Ben Kuehne.

I have been able to call him a friend, and freely rely on his word without hesitation. He and Lynn have led scrupulously moral and decent lives.

I, for one, refuse to believe that he would intentionally do the wrongs of which he is now accused.

Ben, if you want someone from the 'other side' to speak put for you - at any time - just get word to me, and I will stand, shoulder to shoulder, with you.

I call upon those on both 'sides' of the aisle to also [using their names] to let Ben know that we are with him - in his battle against these charges.

I can only pray that the personal impact and the harm to his reputation with gracefully fade away, as well.

You are in my thoughts, my friend.

Anonymous said...

It would absolutely come as no surprise to me if Ben was indicted because of his politics, not because he did anything illegal.

Anonymous said...

I cannot work on a case that requires me to defend a guy who is importing millions in cocaine to poison and kill our children. Cocaine used in combination with other chemicals is Crack (need I say more). Looks like Karma biting Ben in the ass?

How many times has Ben and Roy done this? Maybe the DOJ just said enough of the BS?

The local prosecutors conflicted out. How many times has the local prosecutors looked the other way why Ben and Roy did this song and dance? Perhaps the local FBI said enough is enough and contacted prosecutors in D.C. complaining about the ongoing problem with the two lawyers?

On the other hand I personally think this Federal law should be repealed.

Anonymous said...

Ervin Gonzalez is vouching for BenKuehne? Ervins last law partner wasMr Robles of Key Biscayne who stole millions from people dying from asbestos;. He's now in prison. How did Ervin avoid being indicted in that one?

Anonymous said...

The Ochoas have NEVER earned a single dime of "non-drug money"...ever.

They are a muti-generational drug cartel. It is their heritage, their legacy, and their "raison d'etre".

This is common knowledge, like the grass is green and the sky is blue.

There is no such thing as "pre-drug trafficking" money for them. What a joke!

This is not rocket science...it's a no-brainer.

It doesn't take a "bastion of ethics" or a "legal geinus" to figure this out.

Anonymous said...

Indictment sealed since October? 4 months? What were they waiting for?

Anonymous said...

...and that's because in the worm world, Mr. Quinones stands out as truly ethical. He knew a rat when he smelled it, and that's exactly why he passed on it. Unlike the Roy Black-type, who would trade his mother for the mother lode.

Anonymous said...

Reference the posting on Jose Quinon's withdrawl from the case: This was due to the fact that he was doing City of Miami Commissioner Humberto Hernandez' wife at the time while defending Hernandez. He had no time; in court with Hernandez during the day and in bed with Hernandez's wife at night!!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I am toasting Abe tonight. Abe, I was on your side of the aisle, dealt with Ben and agree 100% with your words. He was a true standout.

Anonymous said...

From the outset, the defense team, which consisted of lawyers from four different law
firms (Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.; G. Richard Strafer, P.A.; Martin G.
Weinberg, P.C.; and Lawrence J. Kerr, P.A.) informed the client and the government that
before they would accept the Fabio Ochoa case, they would first need to determine that
the sources of their fees and costs were legitimate funds in compliance with all laws.
In order to do this, the law firms retained Ben Kuehne of Sale & Kuehne, P.A. as counsel
to independently conduct due diligence and to advise them whether the sources of the
funds were legitimate. This advice and counsel included the rendering of written opinions
as to the sources of the funds.
Before selecting Ben, the law firms looked at a number of lawyers and law firms. They
selected Ben because of his expertise in this area and his outstanding background and
reputation. Ben is a Certified Fraud Examiner. He is also certified in Criminal Appellate
Practice, Criminal Trial Practice and Appellate Practice by the Florida Bar Board of
Legal Specialization and Education. Ben’s reputation in the legal community was, and is,
Ben is the former president of the Dade County Bar Association, and he has been
recognized repeatedly in The Best Lawyers in America (2000-2005), Chambers USA
America's Leading Lawyers (2004-2005), "Lawyers of the Year" (National Law Journal
2000) and "Top Lawyers in South Florida" (South Florida Legal Guide 2000-2005). He
was honored as Criminal Justice Lawyer of the Year (2000) by the Dade County Bar
The law firms involved in this case have always believed that Ben’s work was extremely
thorough. The first phase of his due diligence in this matter took five months. The law
firms did not take the case until after this phase of the due diligence was completed and
Ben had concluded and rendered a written opinion that the funds being offered were
legally available. Ben’s due diligence as to subsequent sources of funds continued for 18
months. At each phase, he issued detailed written opinion letters advising that the source
and transfer of funds was legal and proper.
During the course of Ben’s work on this matter, the lawyers involved in the Ochoa
defense saw nothing to suggest that Ben was doing anything other than his typically
careful, factual research and legal analysis. They still stand behind Ben’s work in this
regard today.

Source: Roy Black, Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. ###

Anonymous said...

Arthur Luongo, Nancy Lechner, Ralph Person (no jail, but resigned bench), all in Court Broom. Juan Elso.

Almosts: Frank Quintero (he beat those fuckhole AUSAs at trial), Mayra Trinchet (investigated in court broom court appointments, not charged), Randy Maultasch (same, not charged), Ellen Morphonios Rowe Morphonios Gable Morphonios (investigated, not charged, bribery), Howie Gross (same, bribery), Ted Mastos (investigated, not charged as bagman).

we are a colorful lot.




In case you missed the announcement, Romney has dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. That leaves McCain and Huckabee as the two remaining candidates; (oh yeah, Ron Paul is still in there as well).

Maybe we can save several hundred of millions of dollars and call the tickets: McCain/Huckabee and Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton (they can flip a coin).

Now back to the local news ...Jack has requested, through FOIA, the loyalty oaths of Rumpole and the Captain.

Hey Rump, I signed mine and had it notarized by Syed Shah; why don't you fax yours over.

Cap Out .....

Anonymous said...

regardless of what a good guy ben is, he was played like a clown by roy "the buffer" black.

Anonymous said...

I am not a criminal defense lawyer, I know Ben Kuehne on the personal and political side of things and would be proud to be known as his friend. It is a true sign of a friend not to abandon someone in time of need and with that I offer Ben and his family my full support in any manner that he would accept. Ben has always been honest, moral and ethical in every dealing I have had with him and would be happy to tell anyone who would listen. Jim Casey

Anonymous said...

I still just don't get it why Roy Black gets a free ticket. I read everything about the case and the way I see it this "buffer" is just bull shit!

So let me see if I get this. If I hire Attorney "X" to investigate weather robbing the Bank of America is legal or not and I get written opinions from Attorney "X" saying it is legal and I rob the bank I get off scott FREE?

Buffer I like it!

Anonymous said...

I am not a criminal defense attorney, however, I have known Ben Kuehne for several years and have the greatest respect for him personally, politically and professionally. Ben is one of the most ethical and honest persons I know and I would hope he would call me friend and I offer any support [moral and testimonial] that he would accept. Jim Casey

Anonymous said...

Like so many others, I'm here for you also.

Anonymous said...

5:38 p.m., what ax do you have to grind against Ben that you have been copying and pasting the same thing in the Herald the whole day and now here?

Anonymous said...

Ben Kuehne got hired to show clean money from people he knew or should have known to be dirty for a fee of 250k. I'm sure that was the compelling reason he would find a way to show clean money. Maybe Ben is not so ethical as we all think. They thought they were being slick wih the buffer system, guess not. Wonder if that fee was on a contingency basis?

Anonymous said...

Now just a moment here. I was never charged with a crime. (chomp) And another thing (smack) this Kuehene thing is a surprising mess. Plus tomorrow's Friday and then Monday. I'm not sure I'll be ready for trial.

Anonymous said...

Jack Thompson is shoe scum. The Wall Street Journal law blog posted a piece about Ben, and in the comments section, Thomspn posted this:

I have all the dirt on Kuehne. Contact me at 305-666-4366. Jack Thompson, Atty

Comment by Jack Thompson, Attorney - February 7, 2008 at 11:36 am

Anonymous said...

Here Here Abe

Anonymous said...

athur massey willay castro

Anonymous said...

Girlfriend, you know Abby Cynamon went to college and "Reseived academic scholarship." She is like SO qualified.


Fix the spelling and someone might take her seriously.

Anonymous said...

is jacks phone number really 666? That's funny.

Anonymous said...

What relevance is a 7 year old forgery by a guy named Sayed?

What relevance is Judge Tunis' Oath of Loyalty given that she was publicly give the Judicial Oath of Office?

What relevance is Ben Kuehne's indictment to the present proceedings against Jack Thompson?

None, none and none.

Thompson is grasping at straws. Kuehne could end up in jail. Sayed imprisoned. I wonder if that will comfort an unemployed Thompson?

Anonymous said...

Happened to my brother, so can I offer some 20/20 hindsight advice to friends and associates?
1. In 6 months to a year don't cross the street to avoid shaking his hand
2. Don't stop inviting his kids to your kid's b'day parties
3. Don't stop asking him to lunch because you don't want people to talk
4. Insist on going with him to court (even if you have to travel)and sit right behind him in court
5. Keep doing what you always have with him, ie. tennis, run, go to dinner, whatever, DON'T STOP
6. Don't wait for him to call you, call him and call him often
7. Remember he's in shock, stunned and depressed and it only gets worse
8. Above all, remember the next one could be you. When the AUSA says "I want a lawyer" to some post conviction defendant all bets are off!!!!!

Anonymous said...

No Miranda rights in implied consent breath testing

When a person arrested for DUI has previously refused to take a breath test, a second refusal is a first-degree misdemeanor under section 316.1939. Since the creation of that crime, it has been an open question whether the act of asking an arrested to person whether he wants to take the test requires Miranda warnings. The Second DCA answered that question in the negative in S. v. Busciglio, ___ So. 2d ___, 33 F.L.W. D267 (2d DCA 1/23/08).

"Busciglio argues that the officer's question was designed to elicit either a 'yes' or 'no' response. He further concludes that a 'no' response is 'clearly incriminatory' because the State intends to use such a response 'to show consciousness of guilt' and 'as an element of the crime of refusing [to take the breath test] pursuant to [section] 316.1939.' We will now address why this logic fails.

"First, 'a main focus of Florida confession law has always been on guarding against one thing -- coercion.' Traylor, 596 So. 2d at 964. Asking a defendant to comply with conduct he has no 'right' to refuse does not invoke any degree of coercion associated with impermissible interrogation. Section 316.1932(1)(a)(1)(a) provides: 'Any person who accepts the privilege extended by the laws of this state of operating a motor vehicle within this state is, by so operating such vehicle, deemed to have given his or her consent to submit to an approved chemical test . . . .' Thus a driver is statutorily preordained to have already consented to take a breath test, and coercion cannot be a factor when an officer prompts an arrestee to perform the test he already agreed to take.

"Second, while the officer's prompt may be in the form of a question, it does not jeopardize Busciglio's constitutional right to counsel because no interrogation of constitutional proportion is involved. ''[I]nterrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.'' Timmons v. State, 961 So. 2d 378, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Innis, 446 U.S. at 302).

In other words, even if coercion were a factor to consider, the question of whether Busciglio was willing to take a breath test 'would not make [him] feel compelled to incriminate himself.' See id. (explaining that questions which are not designed to lead to an incriminating response would not make a person feel compelled to incriminate himself or herself). There is no contention in this case that any officer knew Busciglio was a DUI/refusal recidivist or that any officer knew a "no" response from him would have been an incriminating response.
"From the officer's point of view, giving the implied consent warning is simply part of the performance of his duty and not part of any 'interrogation.' From Busciglio's point of view, which is the more relevant inquiry, he may have felt compelled to choose the lesser of two evils: i.e., he could refuse and potentially violate section 316.1939 or he could take the test and potentially provide incriminating evidence to be used against him in a DUI trial. Of course, if unimpaired, the test result could provide exonerating evidence. However, there is a telling maxim that applies in this instance: no injury can be complained of by a consenting party.

As discussed earlier, once Busciglio exercised his privilege to drive, he consented to taking a breath test. See § 316.1932. Therefore, Busciglio had already consented, and Officer Portman's question was merely an opportunity for Busciglio to withdraw that consent -- with possible consequences -- as opposed to an effort by Officer Portman designed to lead Busciglio to incriminate himself by refusing.

"The choice to comply with the law confronts our citizenry on a daily basis. It is not a complex choice that generally evokes a right to counsel. The fact that criminal penalties apply when one chooses to break the law, such as the relatively recent criminalization of a refusal to take a breath test, should be an expected consequence. Regardless, any guesswork as to possible criminal consequences a refusal might entail was removed when the statutorily required implied consent proviso was read to Busciglio."

Anonymous said...

Interestingly enough, Black's partner, Srebnick teaches a class on Criminal Defense Ethics at UM. He spent many a class on how carefully attorneys need to investigate their money they accept from their clients. Whoops.

Anonymous said...

Agree with 8:56

For all the people here that say Kuehne is so smart, he sure is stupid to me and it his own fault he got indicted.

Black approaches Kuehne and probably says, "I am looking to collect a 3.7 million fee, but I need to make sure the money is clean. I want to hire you to investigate the sources." Black knows the report (which of course will say the money is clean) will cover him and allow him to take the fee. Black, of course, is covered b/c he hired Mr. Clean.

But why on earth would Kuehne take his fee out of the costs from the defendant? Doesnt he now have a personal stake in the report? Doesnt that make is credibility suspect? Certainly Roy Black was not going to pay 250k for a report that said Ochoa's money is all dirty. If the report is bad, Black cant take any fees or costs.

Kuehne should have told Black that if Black wanted the report, then Black's firm should have hired Kuehne to author the report and he should have gotten paid by Black's P.A. in full and not contingent upon any particular finding. Then Kuehne is completely insulated. He was paid by Black's firm and has no personal interest in the report going one way or the other.

Is there risk on Black's side? Yes. If the report comes back that the funds are dirty, then Black can't collect a fee. But under thier agreement, Black was completely protected. Report comes back bad, no fee, but he doesnt have to pay Kuehne. Report comes back good, he collects a fee, Kuehne is paid in full and it is passed off to the client as costs.

I mean c'mon. Was there any chance Kuehne's report was going to say anything other than the money is clean.

The end result is that Kuehne's career, reputation and liberty are at stake and Black is sipping maragaritas on the deck of his yacht.

Anonymous said...

Gotta admit this JT guy is lovin this. In his mind he is thinging What comes around, Goes around.

Excuse me your Honor - Judge Tunis could you PLEASE sign the order disbarring this piece of shit!

Anonymous said...

Kal HaKavod Abe--You are always a stand-up guy!!

Anonymous said...

9:56--I think most shoe scum would take offense to your comment.

Jack Thompson has accused Ben Kuehne of wrecking his legal career. What legal career? Jack Thompson was known as a nutcase long before many of us even began practicing law. Who has he "represented"? Thompson's tactics/strategy can be summed as follows:

1. Find some whacked-out belief. Assert that my belief that it is true, without any other evidence, is sufficient to meet any standard of proof.

2. Ignore the legal and factual issues.

3. Hurl every accusation you can at your opponent.

4. Throw professionalism and civility, and often ethical rules, out the window.

Just look at Jack's tactics in his recent discliplinary proceedings before The Florida Bar. He never contested the allegations--because deep in his heart, he knows they are true. Instead, he launched an attack on the Bar, Judge Tunis, The Florida Supreme Court, and everyone else involved in the case. Questioning the legitimacy of the Rules of Professional Conduct is one thing. Using that as cover to make crazy, unsupported allegations against those against you is another.

Ben Kuehne is highly thought of both personally and professionally and deservedly well-respected by both sides of the aisle, not to mention the bench, in both state and federal court. When Mr. Kuehne has his day in court, I am sure his legal team will focus on 1) the lack of evidence against him, 2) attacking the evidence against him and 3) possibly making a secondary argument that he is a target of selective prosection. They will do so in a carefully thought out, logical and zealous yet professional manner.

Jack, you ought to give that last paragraph some thought...........

Anonymous said...

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

February 8, 2008

Office of Inspector General
State Courts System
Supreme Court Building
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399

Re: Whistleblower Complaint to OIG re Forgery of State Loyalty Oath of State Court
Judge Dava Tunis, Failures of Judge Tunis to Comply with State Loyalty Oath
Statute, Failures of Florida Supreme Court Justices to Comply with State
Loyalty Oath Statute, and Retribution by Judge Tunis and Supreme Court Justices

Dear Inspector General of State Courts System:

I have never before filed a complaint with the Office of the Inspector General, so if there are any technical deficiencies in this complaint, please advise me of same and I shall try to correct them.

I should like to alert you to the following facts, which are corroborated by the enclosed documents:

• Dava J. Tunis, when she was a Miami-Dade County Court Judge, had filed on her behalf a forged State Loyalty Oath.

• Then, in 2003 and 2005, Tunis filed subsequent State Loyalty Oaths which are neither notarized nor do they contain the precise language mandated by statute, as indicated is required not only by the statute but by the enclosed Opinion of Attorney General Bob Butterworth.

• All but one of the current Florida Supreme Court Justices failed to comply with the State’s Loyalty Oath Statute, and part of the proof of that failure is their panicked post facto execution of these Oaths in October 2007 years after they had to be executed and filed. This is consequential for the reasons set forth in the enclosed correspondence to Attorney General McCollum. You would think a Supreme Court Justice could comply with a simple law.

• Finally, the aforementioned Judge Tunis received a campaign contribution from a Bar Governor, Ben Kuehne, who has now been indicted for laundering cocaine trafficking money. She accepted and kept this contribution after she was told by me of his likely indictment and after the case in which he was involved was assigned to her.

Any efforts by either Tunis or the Florida Supreme Court to punish me for reporting this information to you will be treated as violations of Florida’s whistleblower laws. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court is already in violation of Florida Statute 769.295 for presently seeking retribution against me for my successes and whistleblowing against it and The Florida Bar fifteen years ago. This is fact and can be proven.

Therefore, what we have in this Miami-Dade Judge and in the Supreme Court Justices are jurists, respectively, who a) can’t comply with a simple statute—FS 876.05 (Tunis and the Justices), b) filed a forged Loyalty Oath (Tunis), and c) who are using their judicial offices (Justices) to punish me illegally for my past whistleblowing.

Please proceed. I shall be delighted to travel to Tallahassee to further prove this judicial misconduct.

Regards, Jack Thompson


Anonymous said...

8:25 raises a question I think is interesting; Who has Thompson represented? Does he have any clients? Does he have any time to represent them? I only ask because it seems like I spend every waking moment at my office trying to do client work so that I can make a living. My twice a day reading of this blog is my only respite in a busy day. When and how does he have all the time needed to write all these letters and investigate forgeries of oaths, etc.? Is he his own biggest client? Besides the fool saying we all know, does he pay himself? Does he bill himself hourly?

Batman said...


If you are so willing to travel, I think I could raise the funds to buy you a one way ticket to Afghanistan. But on second thought, you might be the precipitous factor for another 9/11, so better a one way ticket to Iran. There you will find an audience for your narcissistic rantings. They love stories of US government conspiracies.

Anonymous said...

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON BK's dilemma.1. The Ochoa family has been known as world class drug dealers for over 15 years and anyone who does drug cases in federal court knew they were drug kingpins so don't try to say they had a successful farm. 2. Is there an EQUAL PROTECTION argument here. Do lawyers who defend Enron knowing that they engaged in fraud to make money and then that money is used to hire attorneys as well as real estate scams, stock fraud, mail fraud, bribery have immunity but drug cases are different? Put another way if a pornographer mails child porn to make money, makes money, gets arrested, hires an attorney why is the attorney not committing a crime. If a businessman bribes a government official for a defense contract, or a elected official for a public works project (remember Arthur Teele) then why are those attorney not prosecuted. I would suggest Mr. Kuehne, who is known as one of the best appellate attorneys in Miami, consider researching the constitutionality of a law under equal protection or selective prosecution theories that make statutes involving drugs differenct from other crimes. If Saudi Arabia retains a Washington DC powerhouse firm when 15 of their citizens kill 3000 American in 4 hijackings the government does not indict the firm for accepting money to defend terrorist/murderers. good luck, sir. /s/the onion peeler. P.S. my apologies to other blog readers for discussing how to help BK as opposed to lawyer bashing, govt. bashing etc.

Anonymous said...

Cigarette addiction kills people. The movie the Insider depicted known nigotine spiking by the Big 7 to get people addicted.The Big 7 go before Congress and lie. Cigarettes kill 400,000 people a year. Do the major law firms of the Big 7 and the local subcontractor firms they hire involved in a conspiracy? Why are they not indicted for being paid with money from a company that makes its living getting people addicted to a product which will eventually kill them? All anti drug defense lawyers are encouraged to offer countervailing theories as to why cocaine, which causes less yearly deaths than defective cars, cigarettes, medical malpractice, nursing home abuse are the only entity where the lawyers are prosecuted for vigorously defending a client as is their required oath./s/ onions make me cry when I peel them, who would want to peel them?

Anonymous said...

Jack, why don't you open up your own blog and give the link for Rumpole to post along with the Broward Blog? That way, whoever wants to read your blog and pleadings/correspondence can do so by clicking on the link to your blog and this blog can be kept for Justice Building matters such as gossip, judicial issues, hot ASA's/PD's/clerks, and similar matters of special interest to Justice Building regulars.

Anonymous said...

Two thoughts about this situation:
(1) Why did the local USAO have to recuse itself from this investigation? Was is because members to that office signed off on the Roy Black fee arrangement and are now possible defense witnesses for Ben?; and (2) Under the government's theory in this case, if Ben is a money launderer, is his present attorney also going to be prosecuted for taking legal fees that are the product of taint?

Ben, we hope to see you in Denver in August when you can take a respite from this crap.


Anonymous said...

Word around town is that BEN KUEHNE has just now voluntarily relinquished his Fla. Bar license. What does this mean? Could it mean that he is working on a plea deal which would implicate other attorneys and Roy Black? Stay tuned...

Anonymous said...

Jack has no clients, he's a professional blogger now

Anonymous said...

i think u mean selective prosecution not a an equal protection claim, right? Onion, state in state ct.

Anonymous said...

To 207. Equal protection would be why this attorney is prosecuted and others who are paid with money from illegal sources are not, ex. why not indict the restaurant the drug dealer eats at or the Italien restaurant John Gotti went to or his tailor. The selective prosecution argument goes to why white shoe blue blood law firms are not targets, ex. the firm which represents Saudi Arabia who had 15 of its citizens crash planes into the Pentagon and WTC. As far as your criticism- your intellectual accomplishment was what- to write 2 sentences and tell me to stay in state court where I have handled 25 murder cases in 20 years. You need to stick to misdemeanors.

Anonymous said...

add whistleblower to JT's cirriculum vitae.

thats rich.

Anonymous said...

Puerto Rican Poll Power

The Democratic nomination may be determined by the delegation from Puerto Rico. (thats gonna piss off the Cubans)!

The delegates will be chosen, technically at least, in a caucus in early June. Puerto Rico has 63 delegates to the Democratic convention, more than similarly sized South Carolina (54), Oklahoma (45), or Connecticut (60). The Democrats, in line with their traditions of welcoming and celebrating minorities, have long given Puerto Rico about as many delegates as it would get if it were a state, while the Republicans long gave it only a few delegates and today give it somewhat fewer delegates proportionately.

But one group of 63 delegates is more equal than another. Democratic delegates are supposed to be allocated by proportional representation. But that notion is alien to highly competitive Puerto Rican politics. In practice, the dominant figure in Puerto Rico identifying with the Democratic Party has seen to it that his faction gets all the territory’s delegates. This was true of Govs. Carlos Romero Barcelo and Pedro Rosello of the New Progressive Party (PNP) as well as Gov. Rafael Hernandez Colon of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD). PPD politicians almost always identify with mainland Democrats (an exception was Sila Calderón, governor from 2000 to 2004, who identified with neither party and concentrated, successfully, on persuading Congress and the Bush administration to close the artillery range on Vieques Island). It’s not clear to me at this distance whether the current governor, Aníbal Acevedo of the PPD, will have similar clout. He’s at odds with Rosello, and the legislature is in the hands of the PNP. But if Acevedo doesn’t determine who gets Puerto Rico’s 63 votes, someone else will. And they aren’t likely to be proportionately distributed.

This means that Puerto Rico is likely to have more leverage in Democratic National Convention votes than any single state, no matter how large. Its leader will be able to deliver a 63-vote margin for the leading candidate. Compare the delegate margins deliverable by the winning candidates in the largest states that have had contests, using realclearpolitics.com delegate counts:

winner loser difference
Puerto Rico 63 0 63
California 101 59 42
New York 127 87 40
Florida 0 0 0
Illinois 79 27 52
Michigan 0 0 0
Georgia 45 22 23
New Jersey 51 37 14

I can imagine the following scenario. Hillary Clinton’s delegate margin over Barack Obama rises and falls a bit from week to week, depending on primary results. Her margin among superdelegates, around 100, fails to increase much because party and public officeholders are wary of offending Obama’s youth and black constituencies. Then, presto! In early June, Puerto Rico’s 63 delegates put her over the top. She has her majority and goes about the business of choosing a vice presidential candidate.

My guess is that most American voters, no matter how many times they are reminded that Puerto Ricans are our fellow citizens and that Puerto Rican volunteers in disproportionate numbers have shed their blood for their and our country, would consider it absurd for Puerto Rico to determine the presidential nominee of a major party. And that Hillary Clinton’s managers (or Barack Obama’s, if you alter the scenario) would not want to have this appear to be the case.

To avoid it, I would expect a mad scramble for superdelegate commitments in late May and early June, before the national media decamp to San Juan to watch, with translators if necessary, to see who the Democratic candidate for president is going to be.

Anonymous said...

Dear Thursday, February 07, 2008 5:36:00 PM,

In a free society, goods need to flow in commerce. A commodity is anything for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a given market. Any substance should be sold at the price the market puts on it.

The sovereign state of Florida, like all sovereigns, opposes freedom. It tries to limit what goods can be sold, what ideas can be expressed and what liberty the residents of Florida can have. If you are suppressing the free flow of goods and commodities you are suppressing freedom.

Only a bottom-feeding lowlife would prosecute for the sovereign. Admit you are a whore, litigating on the side of evil.

Anonymous said...

Ben has not nor will he be relinquishing anything you dumb ass false rumor monger-he entered his plea yesterday-not guilty

Anonymous said...

RUMP - Is the below earlier post true? Did the Federal Magistrate place big restrictions on Ben with regarding to his bank accounts, passport, etc.?

"Word around town is that BEN KUEHNE has just now voluntarily relinquished his Fla. Bar license. What does this mean? Could it mean that he is working on a plea deal which would implicate other attorneys and Roy Black? Stay tuned..."

Anonymous said...

Abe.........what are you thinking? Have you seen the evidence? Have you spoken to the witnesses? Have you even spoken to him?

Anonymous said...

All in favor of simply blocking Jack Thompson from this Blog, hit the escape button.


Take Darrin with you.

Anonymous said...

I assume Abe was thinking he's known Ben for about 25 years and is willing to vouch for him as a person. Too bad no one in your life can count on you like that.

Those of you so quick to abandon Ben or pounce on him are dispicable. The man is facing a life changing series of events-try to act like you're a professional, just try.

Batman said...

It is incredibly significant that a life-long prosecutor of Abe's stature and experience is willing to stand up and be counted without seeing the evidence. He is acting upon his belief in the integrity of his friend and colleague. I think Abe would stand by him in during this difficult time no matter what may come of this persecution. That speaks volumes about both of them.

Anonymous said...

Re: Ben Kuehne
Oh Ben, what were you thinking - learn to say no to Roy Black. No atty has the skills or resources to really vet money sourcing. Firms like Kroll Associates do this all the time and I know they would have said "Ben- anything to do with Colombian drug families is like touching poison ivy- you can't qualify drug money - appearances down there are not as advertised." This is a lesson to all defense attys- sure it has a chilling effect but just say NO.
Bar friend

Anonymous said...

Re Ben K
Here's the problem for BK - it's one thing for a lawyer to write an opinion letter for Roy Black and then invoice RB for the opinion - no harm there except civil liab if you're opinion is wrong. BUT, to go beyond the role and actually become the escrow agent/payee and run the incoming moneys through your atty's escrow account and then forward the funds to Black (as the press articles seem to imply)then you've crossed the line- it could be considered "Structuring" under the money laundering statutes- huge mistake and for $200K (if true) doesn't make sense- Ben should have sought out advice of another counsel before entering these shark infested waters.

Anonymous said...

Where did he think the money came from? You lawyers kill me.