Wednesday, February 06, 2008


OK, here's where we are in this brouhaha:

Mr. Thompson claims that Florida Statute 876.05 requires all elected officials to file a loyalty oath before taking office. The oath that is filed must be notarized.

Mr. Thompson has obtained two oaths said to be executed by Judge Tunis and he alleges that one of them is forged and not her signature.

Mr. Thompson also believes that all but one Florida Supreme Court Justice must be removed for not complying with the same loyalty oath statute.
As to Judge Tunis Mr. Thompson is relying upon the below affidavit of a questioned documents examiner. (If you click on the document is should take you to a larger version of it.)

What does this all mean?
We haven't the foggiest idea, but it bears watching.
Speaking of having no idea, what's going on with the Democrats?
The NY Times reports
HERE that in January Senator Clinton loaned her campaign 5 million dollars and that when all the votes cast on Super Tuesday are counted, that Senator Obama will have won ten more delegates than Senator Clinton.
Senator Clinton won the larger states, (California, NY, NJ) but Obama won more states and Obama raised an astounding 32 million dollars in January. Therefore, it can be assumed that Senator Obama is financially more able to compete in the upcoming primaries than Senator Clinton.
What does this all mean?
We haven't the foggiest idea, but it bears watching.
See You In Court.


Anonymous said...

when will JACK sign OFF?

Anonymous said...

For the record, Mark Eiglarsh has examined the document purportedly signed by document examiner Curtis Baggett and has determined that it is fake. Story at 11.

Baggett family friend Richard Sharpstein states that the family of Baggett is deeply troubled by this and is asking for your thoughts and prayers.

Anonymous said...

Curt Baggett? This is the same man who in August 2006 went on CNN and all the talk shows to say that he was 99.9% sure that John Mark Karr, (admitted killer of JonBenet Ramsey)wrote the ransom note. He was so sure that John Mark Karr wrote the ransom note that he stated on a radio show in Co , "I stake my proffession reputation on this."

On CNN, Baggett said that, "John Mark Karr's handwriting was a match" to the writing on the ransom note. The former head of the document examination lab of the Secret Service said that there was not enough information," and to issue an opinion would be premature.


Obviously, John Mark Karr was cleared. How reliable is Baggett's opinion?

Rumpole said...

I have no idea but that is the whole point of putting this out there- so the matter can be discussed.

Anonymous said...

"In addition to the five Northwestern recruits enrolled - including Marcus Forston, the top-ranked defensive tackle in the country, and QB Jacory Harris, the EA Sports National Player of the Year - the Canes nabbed four more Northwestern Bulls on Wednesday.

The prize is receiver Tommy Streeter, a four-star recruit with 6-6 height. He joins Northwestern teammate Aldarius Johnson, Glades Central’s Travis Benjamin and Miami-Booker T.’s Devon Johnson as the newest Canes receivers - though they still have plenty to prove."

Sounds like the Canes have been having a good week!

Anonymous said...

i think the notary seal is a fake. there are no commission numbers. if 'someone' knowingly caused something fake to be on the internet, well, were all going to hell in a handbasket.

Anonymous said...

disband the handbasket union

Anonymous said...

How could you question this guy?

handwritingu.com (That's "Handwriting University.")

And don't forget: sign up for the course and get:

Special Bonus #2 "Do You Write Like A Self-Made Millionaire special report on day 9."

Anonymous said...

I have been reading this blog for over one year... its all a bunch of kids talking, just talking nothing of substative value. Who am I, just a nobody disbarred atttorney who at one time almost ten years ago had a very lucrative practice. Nothing has changed in ten years. The same people talking about the same thing. I would like to practice again, but I do not want to fall into the same trap... its a routine. I cannot get my license because I have not been able to show good moral charaacter. What a joke. As if anyone of us had some. What does it take sainthood? They just want to keep me out, maybe I was really bad as a person or just maybe there are just too many attorneys, who knows.
So for all of you who think its bad, apathetic, or just do not care, remember; if you loose it you will miss it. Most of my former friends are judges or now big shot lawyer, if they only knew what is real life. The life that reminds you who you were and who you are and who you want to be. Being given the gift of helping people is a gift that should not be taken for granted. Lawyers should use that gift for good and not for gain.



Some thoughts .....

to 5:14 pm. -

If you are going to call out a judge for getting slammed, make sure you do your homework in the future.

The trial judge who sat for the jury trial of Mr. Gary Polite was Judge Michael Salmon. The case was sent to backup and Judge Salmon was handling backup at the time.

Also, if you bothered to read the background of the case, it appears that the 3rd DCA agreed with Judge Salmon on his ruling. Of course, it took the 3rd three tries before they could figure out exactly what it is they wanted to do on the case.

The Supreme Court, in their opinion, asks the Bar to begin the process of submitting a new criminal jury instruction to reflect the current state of the law.

That is hardly getting slammed - whether it be Emas (which it was not) or Salmon.

More thoughts .....

I have never met Jack Thompson so I can only comment by what I have seen of him in the news in the past and more recently from his posts on this blog.

It would seem that some of his fights (causes) have some merit and warrant the stands that he takes.

But many of these trivial nit-picky items that he plucks out of the air are so ridiculous and such a waste of time, that you have to ask him, why does he spend so much energy on those issues?

Jack, it seems to that that it takes away from the serious issues that you really care about.

Now some people may say to me, Captain, you are pointing out logic where it does not exist. I say, Jack, help me prove that you are not insane and possess some sense of logic and explain to me why you don't just spend your time on the really important issues that you deeply care about.

Who the heck cares about the Tunis document? Who cares about the Florida Bar employees and whether they signed whatever it is that you say they need to sign? What difference will this make in our city, county and state? Will it improve us as a society?

The truth is that no one gives a flying -uck.

So, please, continue your fight for those important issues that will really make a difference in our society and our community -but enough with the other dribble.

Ok - enough with my thoughts - I need to go and finish preparing a closing argument.


Anonymous said...

Response to the "Mark Eiglash" comment: Nice try.

As to whether a judge's filing a forged loyalty oath is a big deal, please read Bob Butterworth's AGO 96-41. The law is that unless a valid loyalty oath is filed, the judge must be removed from office.

Having seen Tunis in action, that would be a very good result indeed, for everyone. She makes Aleman look like Brandeis.

If you all don't like FS 876.05-876.10, then get it repealed. Until then it's the law. Enforcing the law is not nit-picking.

What we have in this state, as elsewhere, is a judicial branch of government that thinks it is above the law and acts like it. I would think a blog at which that is a constant theme would understand that. Brandeis identified the problem which you all can't seem to grasp:

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to obey the law scrupulously. . . . If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438 (1927).

Jack Thompson (not an anonymous coward)

Anonymous said...

The Supremes executed their loyalty oaths, mandated by state law to be in place before they take office, after they got caught without them. These are the guardians of the law who can't manage to do their own paperwork:

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

February 6, 2008

The Honorable Bill McCollum
Attorney General, State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Via Fax to 850-410-1630

Re: Failure of Florida Supreme Court Justices to File State Loyalty Oaths

Dear Attorney General McCollum:

I have practiced law for 31 years in this state, and I have never encountered a more serious breach of the law by public officials than the one I am writing you about this day. It is all the more troubling and shocking because this flouting of the law is by the Justices sitting on our state’s Supreme Court.

Florida Statute 876.05 mandates (it does not suggest) that all state employees and all elected state officials, including judges, must execute, before they assume office, a written Oath of Loyalty to the US and state constitutions. It must be dated and sworn before a person who takes such oaths, and it then must be filed with the State. I call to your attention AGO 96-41, authored by your predecessor, Bob Butterworth, to show how serious and important a matter this is. The statutory provisions of FS 876.05 through 876.10 are crystal clear as to what must be done and how it must be done.

Today I have received, pursuant to my Chapter 119 Public Records request, the filed Loyalty Oaths of all current Supreme Court Justices. It appears, based upon the records provided by the state, that the Justices have violated the law as follows:

• Justice Quince was appointed in 1998, yet there is no Oath prior to one she executed in October 2007.

• Justice Anstead was appointed in 1994, yet there is no Oath prior to the one he executed in October 2007.

• Justice Wells executed an Oath in October 2007, but the only other one on file is undated and not acknowledged before someone authorized to take oaths (such as a notary), which violates the statute.

• Similarly, Justice Pariente finally executed a proper Oath in October 2007, but the other one on file, like Wells’, has no jurat and is undated, save for a time stamp that indicates it was received on September 15, 1993. She did not come onto the Supreme Court until 1997, so here she was using an old, and unacknowledged at that, Oath from another judicial post. This is violative of the law, as an Oath must be taken for a new post. Thus Justice Pariente has been serving on the highest court in the state for ten years with no Loyalty Oath.

• Justice Cantero, who presently wants to round up lawyers for their lack of manners and suspend them, apparently can’t follow the law either. The state and now I have his Oath of Loyalty but it is undated and unacknowledged. He did manage, along with others, to execute one properly in October 2007, so he, like many of the others, served on the Supreme Court for more than five years (from 2002) with no valid Loyalty Oath on file.

• Justice Bell violated the law as well, not getting around to filing a Loyalty Oath for the Supreme Court post until October 2007, even though he came onto the court in January 2003. On file is his old oath from 1990 when he was a Circuit Court Judge, which is ineffectual for the Supreme Court post.

• Finally, Justice Lewis, now serving as Chief Justice, actually executed a Loyalty Oath before a notary on January 13, 1999. He appears to have been the only one on the court who got it right, although he has not executed a new oath since he survived merit retention in 2006.

The problems presented by the failures of these Justices to follow the law are these:

1. Their judicial rulings made while not in compliance with the Loyalty Oath law can be attacked as legal nullities.

2. These justices are subject to removal from office by a petition for the writ of quo warranto.

3. These justices are subject to False Claims Act (qui tam) proceedings for return of their salaries because the law makes it clear, as does the oath itself, that they are not entitled to pay unless the Loyalty Oath is fully and properly executed.

Beyond that, what we have here is a contempt for the law by the very people who ought to be seen by the public as paragons of obedience to the law.

US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said it very well: "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to obey the law scrupulously. . . . If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438 (1927).

We now live in a nation in which a former President claimed “I am not a crook” and another wagged his finger while saying “I did not have sex with that woman.” Eventually the truth about both men came out, and our citizens, aware that public virtue is on the wane, take note and act accordingly.

How in the word, Attorney General McCollum, can the Justices of our State Supreme Court, hope to credibly enforce the law while they disregard it—and not just any law. We are talking about the law which requires them to support the Constitutions of our state and nation.

Is it any wonder that this court had its collective head handed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court?

It is high time—in fact, it is beyond time—for your office to do what is necessary to see to it that each and every employee and elected official in this state complies with our state’s Loyalty Oath law. It is there for a reason. It is in fact mandated by Title 4, Sections 101 and 102 of the United States Code as well.

Please proceed with that task, beginning with the Justices on the Florida Supreme.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

By the way, if anyone wants to see the forged Tunis signature, feel free to email me at amendmentone@comcast.net. I'm happy to send it to you. Rumpole has it. As to why he did not provide it, I'll quote him: "I have no idea."

As to what this all means, about which Rumpole has "no idea": Judges who can't manage to comply with a simple law that is mandated not only by statute but by the Florida Constitution and by 4 USC 101 are people who apparently don't "get" the "rule of law" concept. Again, if you all think laws don't matter, then let's repeal them all.

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Oh, and one more thing: The notary who certified that Tunis stood in front of her and signed the document, committed a third degree felony in doing so.

The position of some of you here would appear to be, then, that felony statutes are meaningless as well. Let's just tell notaries that they can sign documents themselves, attest their own signatures to be those of others, and just deed away all private property to whomever we want, okay?

You people are amazing. And I'm insane?

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

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

February 7, 2008

Chief Judge Joseph Farina
Linda Kelly Kearson, General Counsel
Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida
Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse Center
175 NW First Avenue, 30th Floor
Miami, Florida 33128 Via Fax to 305-349-7168

Re: Judge Dava Tunis’ Forged Loyalty Oath by Notary Syed A. Shah

Dear Judge Farina and Ms. Kearson:

Please provide me, pursuant to Florida’s Public Records Law, the last known address of the above-noted Metro Justice Building employee, who is the one who falsely attested Tunis’ forged signature.

To do so is a felony.

Regards, Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

jack reminds me of the little boy who cried wolf, and the captain touched on this. While he may have the occasional valid point, it all gets lost in his incessant whining. Am I really going to listen to, and consider the arguments of a guy that thinks all bar employees should be fired and all but one sup ct judge be removed? I doubt it.

In all honesty I think jack is an embarassment to the bar and himself. You've had your fifteen minutes, your career will be highlighted by some comical, yet looney demands that the world be fired, removed, disbarred, or what not.

You have lost all credibility and your 'show' is not funny anymore. if you dedicated your time to getting the escalators in the REG fixed you would finally get the respect you seem to yearn for.

Anonymous said...

On the remarkable point attempted to be made here by one or more individuals, including Rumpole indirectly (who has no idea what this means), please pay attention:

If you do away with the validity of any oath, even to the point as here that a person who is supposed to take an oath has someone else do it for her and then pretend she is the one who took the oath, then go ahead and do away with the concept of swearing witnesses and the notion that there is such a thing as perjury.

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?" You people who think so missed the last 500 years of jurisprudence in the West. Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Jack, Jack, you're a wack
pack up your bible
and don't come back

Anonymous said...

Many courts have excluded Curtis Baggett's testimony and concluded he is not an expert. His training in handwriting analysis is questionable at best. According to several courts, Mr. Baggett may not be a full-time forensic examiner and has held himself out as a psychologist and hypnotherapist. He is not certified or accredited by any handwriting analysis organization or association. And his methodology has been questioned by a number of courts.

In his affidavit he simply states the document is a forgery and "will prove this in Court." Not language one would normally expect to see in an expert report.

Finally, I gotta agree with The Captain's most recent comment......

Rumpole said...

I did not publish the Letterman top ten list- It called someone's wife fat, which is a no no. We don't attack people's spouses on this blog, and we don't attack people's appearances.

Rumpole said...

I didn't publish the two signatures because I am old(er), barely computer literate, and it took forever for me to convert the letter from the handwriting expert into a jpeg so blogger would accept it. I didn't have another two hours to work on the signatures.

Anonymous said...

so i was a couple days off but my sources were good-ben k indicted today and roy "the buffer man" black slides, yet again.

Anonymous said...

You are missing the story of the day regarding Ben Kuehne.

Anonymous said...

Ben Kuehne, my designated reviewer in all my Bar matters, has just been indicted, as I predicted, and you folks here didn't believe it. I get a whole new Bar proceeding because of this crook. Is this a great country, or what?

Oh, I'm sure the dullards here will say that complaining about a designated reviewer for The Bar who has been on the take and who is processing Bar complaints by wealthy corporations is "nitpicking." Kiss my briefs.

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

OMG...Ben Kuehne has been indicted!!!


South Florida Lawyers said...

What is going on in the world -- first Ben Kuehne, and now I am tending to agree with Jack about the loyalty oaths....

But does the statute specify the appropriate penalty for not having the sworn oath?

Anonymous said...

Jack asked a very valid question: "Am I insane?" I think he's afraid of the answer.....Now as to whether to believe the purported expert onpinion of Carlos Baggett--dean at a place called "Handwriting University"-- I must ask, Jack, why on earth would Judge Tunis forge her own signature? Or, for that matter, why would anyone else do so? Jack, all this is hogwash--and you well know it. She's going to recommend that you be disciplined--the smart money is on disbarment--and you are desperately trying to find something to derail her from doing it. Hey, here's a prediction for everyone: now that Ben Kuehne has been indicted, Jack will drop his crusade to ensure that loyalty oath signatures are genuine. He will instead focus on Ben's indictment as his salvation from the eternal hell of disbarment. Here's the argument: "Ben was my designated reviewer; Ben has been indicted for money laundering; an indictment means guilt, and therefore Ben is guilty; a man guilty of a crime must be corrupt in all other ways; ergo, my bar prosection was corrupt and the case must be forever dismissed." Clear logic, in Jack's world. But it won't work. Bye Bye Jack.

Anonymous said...




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




COMES NOW respondent, John B. Thompson, hereinafter Thompson, on his own behalf, and supplements his motion to this court to recuse herself from this matter, stating:
Has Dava Tunis lost her mind? Apparently she has.
It would be bad enough if she were to have accepted a campaign contribution from Ben Kuehne before she became the referee herein and did not disclose that fact, but it is far worse than that.
What she did was receive and keep a donation from Ben Kuehne AFTER
this Bar matter was assigned to her and AFTER she was told by Thompson, in writing, that Kuehne had received a target letter which has now resulted in his indictment by the federal government. Can a judge legally, ethically receive a money gift from someone after a case in which he is involved is assigned to her? Of course not.
I solemnly affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this has been provided this February 8, 2008, 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 and to the JQC.

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

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous Moron:

She didn't "forge her own signature." Somebody else did. That's what a forgery is. I guess you just failed the sanity test.

She then filed and actually signed, all by herself, subsequent Loyalty Oaths that are not compliant with state law.

As a lawyer, you ought to know that the whole justice systems rests upon the reliability of oaths, right, or did you go to Oklahoma Jurisprudence University?

Jack Thompson

Anonymous said...

Good god, man, get a grip.

First, it is NOT unethical for a judge to receive or accept a donation from a lawyer with a matter pending before the judge. It is not even unethical to sit on the judge's reelection committee. I would cite you the cases, but I doubt you'd read them.

Second, even if that wasn't the law, Ben Kuehne is NOT, under any fanciful extrapolation your overwrought paranoid mind can concoct, "before" Judge Tunis in your grievance matter. It isn't even a close call. Here's what the Bar Rules say about the role of the "Designated Reviewer" from the Board of Governors: Rule 3-7.5.
Ben's role was to review the Grievance Committee's recommendation to file charges against you. He apparently saw nothing wrong with the charges and allowed the process to continue. For this he gets a lifetime of grief from you? Ben serves on the Board of Governors without compensation (they don't even get their expenses reimbursed), and you besmirch his good name all over the web because he did his job? Then you take advantage of his misfortune to try and excuse your own disgraceful conduct? You are a parasite who doesn't deserve to belong to the same Bar as Ben.

Anonymous said...

When Thompson says, Judge Tunis then filed subsequent loyalty oaths which were not notarized, what is he talking about. Do you mean the Oath of Office? They do not need to be notarized. Has anyone read the statute. He's citing a loyalty oath that applies to ALL state employees on the payroll. So if you are a toll collector, school employee, public works employee, it is all the same. The statute he's citing has. NOTHING to do with judges & their duties.

We have been reading his messages and pleadings for the past few months. Check out the fla. Supreme Ct website. He's been at it with Judge Tunis for about a year. She has denied his motions to recuse& been upheld by the supremes each time. On this blog we frequently talk about judges with no b---s or back-bone, what does it say about her that she refuses to cave? I'm sure her life would be easier without this in it. She's earned her stripes in my eyes.

Signed a non-criminal attorney who just reads Rump's blog

Anonymous said...

To Jack's fact checker:
is this also part of the 'denying all discovery' that's been alleged? Can you take the depo of the designated reviwer? It seems like taking the depo of the prosecutor who signed off on charges at the felony intake or like taking a depo of a PD who filed a defense witness list so you can ask why it was filed. He keeps saying Tunis denies all discovery. Doesn't sound like the Judge Tunis I've seen threaten to exclude witness if we don't comply with motions to compel and rules to show cause. What are we missing, probably nothing.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Jack....

You forgot to answer my question, as you often do.

Why would anyone forge Judge Tunis' signature on a "loyaly oath"? Answer, please. It's a mystery equal to the identity of the Black Dahlia killer.

Judge Tunis' recommendation to the "disloyal" Florida Supreme Court is being typed while you're writing your endless, and futile, motions to recuse her. Bye Bye........

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

I used to enjoy reading this blog to catch up on everything that was going on in the building, while I am running from courtroom to courtroom really trying to get quality work done. Now it is always a disappointment becasue all I ever see are comments from this Jack Thompson person who is the most critical narcissic commenter about anything & everyone on this blog. He is clogging the blog. Please get rid of him. We are all sick of this man.

Anonymous said...

Ah. Following an age old Maxim, are you Jack? If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle them with Bullshit.

You're doing a fine job at it too.

And just THINK of all the enemies you're making in the process. You should be proud.


Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous Posting Morons:

Judge Farina has now secured a criminal investigation of Tunis' forgery.

So kiss my legal briefs.

Jack Thompson, and you're not

Anonymous said...

The unfortunate fact you appear to keep missing Mr Thompson is the fact that whatever Judge Tunis may or may not have done, it has no reflection whatsoever on your own behaviour, as has been mentioned to you on numerous occasions by numerous sources, the reason you are up in front of a disciplinary board is NOT because Judge Tunis may or may not have signed a form several years ago.

You are in front of a disciplinary hearing for insulting Judges, spewing out 'Press Releases' when told not to, comparing one Judge to someone who would 'wave children in front of traffic', the list goes on and on.

The reason you were called to show cause with your filings was because, even when facing a disciplinary board, you STILL seem to think that this is something to do with other people. In the first chapter of your book, you mentioned that you blamed 'things' for your problems. How is diverting blame to Video Games, Gamers, Lawyers, Anonymous bloggers, Samuel L Jackson impressionists, Judges, Doctors, Scientists, Journalists and Industry figures any different?

It's always everyone but you isn't it Mr Thompson? Even when you send a letter that is designed to insult the intelligence of the recipients and they take offence at those insults, it's still their fault, not yours for being insulting in the first place.

It's never been about your ideals Mr Thompson, it's about your attitudes and your behaviour, the problem is you are too focussed on your own convictions to be able to stand outside yourself and see exactly how rude, offensive and presumptuous you truly are.

For the main part Lawyers do a necessary job, like them or hate them, we respect them, your actions bring that public trust into question, when they see a lawyer doing everything EXCEPT answer the charge that has been bought against him, it does not instil confidence into the public.

You set out to make enemies Mr Thompson, there's no point pretending you didn't, but you got carried away didn't you? Forgot that your position as a lawyer carries a responsibility to people other than yourself and your own personal crusade, and now it is time to pay the piper, you wriggle and squirm and attempt to avoid responsibility through sleight of hand and mis-direction.

You know as well as everyone else on this board that Judge Tunis' signature has nothing whatsoever to do with your behaviour, it is a glaring attempt to 'get off on a technicality', and one that is, as you well know, nothing more than a delaying tactic.

You may keep your legal briefs to yourself, you already got into trouble over Gay Porn once, we wouldn't want a repeat of the incident, and, all things considered, the fact that you are Jack Thompson and I'm Not is a fact I give thanks to God for every single day.