Florida, Thompson: Jack pulling out more stops in prosecuting the Florida Supremes, Clerk, and Bar
Bob Hurt
The ONLY ANSWER to Government Abuse: ATTACK!
John B. Thompson leads the way, sort of…
The Jack Thompson Saga
Florida, 2 January 2010. Okay, here I give you a little update on the Jack Thompson saga. Jack, a south Florida Attorney, got disbarred in October 2008 because he had the gall to push for (and get) FCC fines against Howard Stern for airing prurient content that children could hear. Stern and Two Live Crew hired big law firms Blank Rome and Tew Cardenas to file bar complaints against Jack. After Kangaroo Court proceedings by imposter judge Dava Tunis, the Florida Supremes issued the disbarment order, and ordered Thompson to pay tens of thousands of dollars in bogus fees for the privilege. In the process, the court refused to let Thompson enter evidence, the Supremes ignored Thompson’s pleadings, and their Clerk entered a dismissal order for Thompson’s complaint, signing for a justice that had not even heard the matter.
Thompson sued the Supremes and lost in US District and Circuit courts. Now he has demanded public records from the Bar and the Clerk to prove their abuse. He tried to obtain the bar’s insurance info to file a claim against them. The bar and insurance company obfuscated. Thompson now has sued the Supremes and bar (see my earlier posting today), because they refused to supply him with the paper trail he demanded under Florida’s Constitution, laws, and rules of judicial administration.
Thompson also found a conflict of interest with 17th Circuit Chief Judge Vic Tobin who heads the Statewide Grand Jury, and he has notified him of this, asking for his recusal. Thompson intends to get the Grand Jury to act on the evidence of the MANY CRIMES of perps in Florida’s judiciary against him. He probably has a case against the 17th Circuit State Attorney for not prosecuting judge Dava Tunis for operating under a forged loyalty oath.
Check out these videos on the matter of bar crimes.
· http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LakwkGmKNpE
· http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaENN70bZZ8
And look at the supporting documents below.
How You Benefit from Jack’s Woe
Now, what can YOU get out of all this? Well, HEART for one thing. Jack has taped the trail of judical abuse and his own personal battle for justice, using the courts. We can see the path he took, and we can follow it in our own efforts to obtain justice. No, he has not called on Frankie and Guido to “take care of” the justices, judges, clerks, and bar members who have collaborated and conspired to destroy his career. He has used the corrupt courts those villains own and control, and so far, he has failed to get any remedy at all in either state or federal courts. He has fought AGGRESSIVELY, to no avail.
What Jack Has NOT Done
What has he NOT done? He has not gone for the juglar vein of the perps in their personal finances, morality, ethics, and interrelations with others in and out of government. He NEEDS to follow MY PLAN of hiring a private investigator, digging up their dirt, and exposing it to everyone they don’t want to know it. For if these bastards are dirty IN government, they are also dirty OUT of government. They are either giving or taking bribes, and violating a host of laws. They are criminals, pure and simple. And EVERYONE needs to join Jack in the effort to bring them down to justice with noses in the cow plop of Florida.
What else has he not done? He has not contrived a RICO lawsuit against ALL THE FLORIDA BAR MEMBERS, including the crooked US Circuit Court of Appeals judges who refused to act against the Florida Supremes and other crooked bar members. Those who don’t work to STOP and PUNISH the crimes of fellow bar members have CULPABILITY for those crimes. They ARE by their INACTION, CO-CONSPIRATORS, violating the principle underlying the Florida Good Samaritan Act (Florida Statute 768.13) that people who witness an injury of the innocent should step in and stanch the damage, even at personal risk. And they might have violated 18 USC 4 which makes it a felony crime knowingly to permit commission of a felony crime without reporting it to an officer of government.
Jack has told me that he won’t sue the bar either under RICO or under Florida Statute 760.51 for violation of his constitutional rights because he fears that he will lose and then have to pay all the lawyer fees and court costs for the defendants. While we could claim Jack’s no fool, we also know that even he has practical limits to his courage.
My Prediction
I predict that Jack will lose in the courts, and never get the US Supremes to hear his case. His only answers will come from a massive racketeering lawsuit in federal court against Florida Bar Members (all of them) or investigation of the matter by one or more of the Grand Juries. Possibly he has some recourse through the legislature vis-à-vis impeachment, but because of the number of bar members who serve as legislators, I seriously doubt that the legislature will do anything but turn a blind eye to Jack’s travail.
What We Must Do
With this perspective, we know we MUST HAMMER our legislators to change the laws to FORCE the Grand Juries of the state to investigate crimes we report and to issue indictments against government perps who try to hide behind immunity or the good old boy’s network. WE MUST HAVE REMEDY for and PROTECTION from CRIMES BY GOVERNMENT OPERATIVES.
What can YOU DO? Well, for starters, write to the FBI, US Attorney, Statewide Grand Jury, legislators, and news media, and COMPLAIN LIKE HELL.
Maybe you can’t worry about another attorney getting unfairly destroyed by the system he supported for so long. But Jack’s suffering lack of remedy proves that NONE OF US CAN GET REMEDY in our courts EITHER. So we either take political action and raise an irresistible hue and cry, or our ONLY other recourse lies in calling Frankie and Guido, or stocking up on ammo and sniper rifles.
This government crime must cease.
Bob Hurt ▪ 2460
Persian Drive #70 ▪ Clearwater, FL 33763 ▪ (727) 669-5511
Donate to my Law Scholarship
Let Jurisdictionary teach you to litigate
Stay updated on legal issues with the Lawmen
Newsletter
Get Free Downloads from thet
Lawmen
Archives
Improve your financial fortunes with GetZooks!
Save fuel with this gadget
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
December 31, 2009
Denise Palmer
Publisher
Tampa Tribune
Tampa, Florida dpa...@tampatrib.com
Re: Florida Bar President Meeting with Your Editorial Board January 13
Dear Ms. Palmer:
I see that Jesse Diner, the current Florida Bar President, is meeting with your paper’s editorial board on January 13.
As you know, former Ft. Lauderdale lawyer Scott Rothstein has recently been indicted by the federal government for running an alleged Ponzi scheme.
Subsequent events indicate that Florida Bar officials must have been the only folks around Rothstein who didn’t know something fishy was going on. Even Governor Crist has now admitted he heard rumors.
As you may not know, Mr. Rothstein had insinuated himself into the hierarchy of The Florida Bar, serving, if you can believe it, on a formal Florida Bar Grievance Committee looking into the ethics of others.
I recently served a formal Florida Public Records Law request upon The Florida Bar seeking all documents pertaining to any Rothstein Bar ethics complaints. Interestingly, The Florida Bar refuses to acknowledge and respond to this public records request, which refusal is a violation of the law. I have now had to sue The Bar in the Second Circuit to force compliance with the public records law in this regard. This is shocking conduct by The Bar, and Mr. Diner is in on it.
So the question your editors might want to ask Mr. Diner on January 13 is this: Regarding Mr. Rothstein, what did you know and when did you know it? Another question: Why won’t you produce the Bar’s public records regarding Mr. Rothstein?
Let me know if you have any questions.
Regards, Jack Thompson
Immediate News Release – December 31, 2009
Florida Bar President to Be Asked Tough Questions about Scott Rothstein
Florida Bar President Jesse Diner will be the “luncheon speaker” at the North Broward Bar Association in Pompano Beach, Florida, this coming January 12, 2010.
Mr. Diner will be asked at the luncheon why The Florida Bar refuses to produce public records, as required by Florida law, pertaining to Scott Rothstein, the now federally-indicted former Broward County lawyer.
Mr. Diner will be asked to explain The Bar’s position in the lawsuit filed in Leon County that will require production of the Rothstein records.
Contact Jack Thompson for more information at 305-666-4366, amendm...@comcast.net
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
December 31, 2009
Tom Hall
Clerk of Court
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida Via e-mail and Fax
Re: Demand for Judicial Records under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and
Other Florida Public Records Laws
Dear Mr. Hall:
Please provide me with copies of all documents that set forth the Florida Supreme Court’s procedures by which a) the Justices receive court filings and other materials for consideration in coming to a decision in any case, b) the Justices convey each of their decisions in any case, and b) the Justices convey their decisions in any case.
Be careful.
Regards, Jack Thompson
. Jack Thompson on JAABLOG WELCOME
12/31/2009
http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/2007/09/04/pardon-our-appearance.aspx#comment-2694917
·
12/31/2009 10:01 AM Jack
Thompson wrote:
I sued The Florida Bar yesterday in the Second Circuit for its illegal refusal
to produce Scott Rothstein's bar grievance records. A bar cover-up as to what
Bar Prez Jesse Diner knew and when he knew it is underway. Rothstein was on a
Grievance Committee that should have been investigating him! It is astonishing
that Bob Norman and others are not the least bit interested in The Bar
cover-up. Stay tuned. Jack Thompson, Once and Future Attorney
|
|
Page: 2 of 2 |
From: Jack Thompson
[mailto:amendm...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:39 PM
Subject: Coming Soon to YouTube: Expose' of The Florida Bar
Jack Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366, cell 305-588-3005
"There is no failure except in no longer trying. There is no defeat except from within, no insurmountable barrier except our own inherent weakness of purpose." Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist; author of A Message to Garcia
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
December 29, 2009
Tom Hall
Clerk of Court
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida Via e-mail and Fax
Re: Demand for Judicial Records under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and Other Florida Public Records Laws
Dear Mr. Hall:
It now further appears that Justice Charles Canady neither considered nor deliberated upon the September 25, 2008, disbarment order that you put his name on. Some of the other six Justices may not have considered it either.*
Therefore, this is a formal request, under Florida law, for all “vote sheets” and other documents in the possession of the court that indicate whether or not any and all the Justices actually considered and deliberated upon the lengthy Referee’s Report before permanently disbarring me. We now know that none of the Justices considered the verified and unopposed motion to vacate that disbarment order filed with the court by my counsel.
While I’m at it, please provide all such documents as to all orders entered by the court during the entire pendency of my August 2004 to present “disciplinary” proceedings.
Failure to provide such ministerial documents and proofs of deliberation will create a presumption that the court did not discharge its legal and constitutional duties as to my disbarment. This is very helpful to the success of my upcoming petition to the US Supreme Court.
You have until five o’clock pm this Friday to provide these demanded documents. Please note that the documents I am demanding are not exempt under Florida’s Rules of Judicial Administration, as they do not reveal the musings of the court, but rather go to whether or not they mused at all. As you know, the court’s latest order was signed mere minutes after the court was sued in federal court. You signed the order; they did not.
Relatedly, please note that our legal research indicates that you are prohibited under Florida law from entering “orders” for the court, which is precisely what you have repeatedly done in my case and in others. Some of these litigants have been apprised of this illegal practice and will be proceeding as well. We don’t know what the Justices are thinking in allowing you to do this, but it is prohibited under Florida law, and I aim to stop this illegal practice, as it serves to deny Florida residents not only access to the court—which is defined as the Justices, not you—and also denies us honest services as defined under federal law, not to mention the fact that it constitutes a denial of substantive due process. Nobody made you a Supreme Court Justice, and there is no Florida judicial office described as “Rasputin of the Court.”
If these records are not forthcoming, you and the court will be sued to get them. The reason the court is having you stonewall on all this, of course, is because back in 1992 when I actually got public records like these from the judicial branch, I found smoking guns among them, and because of that the court’s and The Bar’s illegal assault upon my right to be a lawyer was halted by that document production. I was also paid money damages for this assault. This will happen again.
I look forward to being reinstated as a lawyer in 2010, as your outrageous, ongoing conduct in violating Florida’s “Government in the Sunshine” laws plays nicely into that scenario.
Sincerely, Jack Thompson
*It is both ironic and useful that Charles Canady, while General Counsel to Governor Jeb Bush, filed with the Florida Supreme Court an amicus brief stating that the very type of assault upon my faith-based activism by the court and The Bar violates Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. How great is that?
Copy: To Justice Charles Canady’s home
++++++
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
December 28, 2009
Chief Justice Quince and Associate Justices
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Via Mail, Fax, and e-mail
Re: Notice of Suit to Be Filed December 29, 2009
Dear Chief Justices and Associate Justices:
A state lawsuit will be filed tomorrow against both The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court for their respective failures to comply with Florida’s public record laws.
Happy New Year, Jack Thompson
Jack Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366, cell 305-588-3005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 4:09cv317-RG/WCS
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE RE THIS COURT’S EX PARTE MISCONDUCT
COMES NOW plaintiff John B. Thompson (Thompson), and notifies this court of its ex parte misconduct, stating:
The judge presiding over this matter, who is charged with overseeing his own magistrate, has entered an order herein accusing plaintiff of engaging in ex parte communications.
The only person herein who has engaged in ex parte misconduct is Magistrate Sherrill:
Defense counsel filed a motion herein, to which plaintiff was entitled to file a response. Before plaintiff even received defendant’s motion, Magistrate Sherrill entered an order granting the relief defense counsel requested.
A refresher tutorial for this court:
Black's Law Dictionary defines ex parte as "On one side only; by or for one party; done for, in behalf of, or on the application of, one party only. A judicial proceeding, order, injunction, etc., is said to be ex parte when it is taken or granted at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, and without notice to, or contestation by, any person adversely interested. Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1991).
This court’s feigned concern about plaintiff’s alleged ex parte provision of copies of documents to Judge Hinkle that were provided to opposing counsel is the pot calling the kettle black.
This court would do well to concentrate on Magistrate Sherrill’s ethics complaint arising out of his own misconduct rather than trying to fabricate ethics breaches by plaintiff as a smoke screen to protect its injudicious magistrate.
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been provided to George Waas, 400 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, counsel for defendant, this December 28, 2009.
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Phone: 305-666-4366
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 4:09cv317-RG/WCS
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE CORRECTING THE ERRONEOUS FILINGS OF JUDGE HINKLE AND MAGISTRATE SHERRILL IN THIS CASE
COMES NOW plaintiff John B. Thompson (Thompson), and files this notice correcting the numerous misleading and unfortunate statements found in the filings herein of both The Honorable Robert Hinkle and The Honorable Robert Sherilll. Fortunately, facts are stubborn things. Here they are:
THERE WERE NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH JUDGE HINKLE
Thompson engaged in no ex parte communications with Judge Hinkle. After plaintiff sent to the court and to opposing counsel Mr. Waas his Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice, Thompson provided a copy of this same notice to Judge Hinkle via e-mail. This amounted to providing a courtesy copy of a formal court filing to the judge actually presiding over the case. What a concept.
It is disturbing that an Article III judge would call a courtesy copy of what was also sent every single time to opposing counsel, the friendly Mr. Waas, an “improper, unfair, and unethical ex parte communication.” Plaintiff certifies now to this court, since it didn’t ask before misbranding his communications as “ex parte,” that copies of everything sent to Judge Hinkle was also sent to Mr. Waas. Thompson has the paper trail and receipts to prove it, any assertions by Judge Hinkle to the contrary notwithstanding.
Subsequent to the filing by mail of plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Thompson also provided by e-mail to Judge Hinkle certain documents, which were all also provided to former opposing counsel, Mr. Waas. They include a copy of the formal judicial ethics complaint filed by Thompson with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals pertaining to the shocking misconduct of Magistrate Sherrill in this case. Does Judge Hinkle really not want to know about, let alone see, that formal complaint about his Magistrate? If Judge Hinkle does not want to know that his Magistrate is out of control, then why does he not want to know?
The First Amendment, not that anyone in the federal judiciary care, protects absolutely the “right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Judge Hinkle’s position, by contrast, enunciated in his order threatening Thompson with contempt, is that an Article III judge who is supposed to oversee at least his own magistrate, is not to be bothered by mere citizens with copies of ethics complaints against such a magistrate. “We are not amused” is what Judge Hinkle is saying, and further, “Don’t bother us with mere trifles.” Marie Antoinette herself would not have been so dismissive of the rabble.
MAGISTRATE SHERRILL’S MISCONDUCT MADE THE E-MAILINGS
TO JUDGE HINKLE NECESSARY, PROPER, AND OVERDUE
Judge Hinkle’s magistrate, Robert Sherrill, improperly entered an order to expedite the ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss. There is no such relief available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The basis for that order was the fact that Thompson had complained to Attorney General Bill McCollum about the unethical, prejudicial conduct of one George Waas. Mr. Waas, as schoolyard bullies often do, ran to “teacher” complaining that the kid he was picking on had told on him. Magistrate Sherrill thus assumed the role of protecting Mr. Waas from the oversight of his boss. We’ll see why below. But the fact remains: Mr. Sherrill granted Mr. Waas relief that does not even exist in the federal system.
Thompson apprised Judge Hinkle of this bizarre “expediting” ruling by providing to Judge Hinkle, by e-mail the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and the ethics complaint against his magistrate. There was no way of knowing that Judge Hinkle ever would have known of this misconduct by his magistrate if Thompson had not sent it to Judge Hinkle directly, with a copy to opposing counsel, which Thompson did.
Further, this court, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, extends to lawyers the ability to file such documents electronically, but it consigns mere citizens to a tactically disadvantageous and costly paper filings mandate. There are other District Courts that understand this discrepancy violates equal protection guarantees of equal access to the courts for all. Not this court.
This court’s unfriendly Clerk, Mr. McCool, made it clear in a phone conversation weeks ago with Thompson that he did not care whether this was unfair to Thompson, a lawyer of 32 years who knows how to use a computer, and whether this disparity of access would serve to keep Judge Hinkle out of the loop in this case, which it obviously did. This is by design. Lawyers are to have full access to the court; mere citizens are not. What truly has agitated Judge Hinkle is that a mere citizen burst past the electronic gatekeeper—its obscurantist Clerk McCool—to actually get a court document into the Holy of Holies: Judge Hinkle’s chambers. What a concept. An Article III judge actually being inconvenienced by a litigant after that Judge’s Magistrate had shown he had prejudged the case unethically.
Thompson filed a motion weeks ago to allow his electronic filing of documents herein, and it was Magistrate Sherrill who disposed of it with a bizarre order in which he rules (read it) that attorneys should enjoy a tactical advantage over mere citizens. Judge Hinkle probably never saw the motionand never ruled on it. Such judicial isolation cries out for what Judge Hinkle erroneously calls “ex parte communications with the court.”
Judge Hinkle has no one to blame for having his judicial self-insulation pierced by a litigant than himself and the other judges in the Northern District, who, unlike in certain other District Courts, want lawyers to use the Internet and mere citizens to use the functional equivalent of the Pony Express. Lawyers can reach the judges presiding over cases with electronic filings; mere citizens, by the prejudicial design of this court, cannot.
This is yet another example of both the tyranny and the willful self-insulation of the federal judiciary that The Florida Bar now wants, by liberal fiat, to impose upon the state court system. God help us all when and if that happens.
JUDGE HINKLE HAS MADE HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE
TO THE PUBLIC
Judge Hinkle complains that plaintiff has dared utilize His Honor’s e-mail address, which the Judge indicates is “for my own use for other purposes.”
Really? Here is what Judge Hinkle has chosen to place in the public domain at The Florida Bar’s web site at http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/416228F9374C27B885256A8300503A3A?OpenDocument :
Find a Lawyer
|
Robert L Hinkle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ID Number: |
- |
227773 |
|
|
|
Address: |
|
111
N Adams St |
|
|
|
Phone: |
|
||
|
|
Fax: |
|
||
|
|
E-Mail: |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County: |
|
Leon |
|
|
Circuit: |
|
2 |
|
|
Admitted: |
|
03/25/1977 |
|
|
Judicial Position: |
|
United States District |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-Year Discipline History |
|
None |
If the good judge, a public servant paid by mere citizen taxpayers of the United States, does not want his official judicial, governmentally-provided e-mail address placed in the public domain, then let him not place it there. He gave it to The Florida Bar. Nobody made him do that. Some state and federal judges are more consistent in harmonizing their view of themselves as above the democratic fray with what they disclose and to whom, do not provide their email addresses to The Bar.
Further, let Judge Hinkle remove from the public domain his above-provided phone number and fax number. After all, we don’t want the public to be using equipment that they have paid for with tax dollars. These public servants want to use these public devices “for my own use for other purposes.”
If Judge Hinkle wants to fully and effectively insulate himself from the public whom he is supposed to serve, then let him get, free of charge, an e-mail address in a server domain other than the one that mere citizens are funding. Thompson suggests the following e-mail address: incommuni...@hotmail.com . It’s available.
THOMPSON’S EMAILS ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD CONCERN JUDGE HINKLE: MAGISTRATE SHERRILL’S MISCONDUCT
The single most hilarious judicial statement Thompson has witnessed in 2009 (and there have been some beauties), is Magistrate Sherrill’s assertion in his December 22 Order that “Personal attacks will not be tolerated by either side in this litigation.” Unless, of course, they are out of the blue and unprovoked personal attacks by Assistant Attorney General George Waas upon Jack Thompson. Then they are favored, they are encouraged, and they are rewarded. Any attempts by Thompson to stop such attacks will be deemed “personal attacks” by an Alice in Wonderland analysis by a Kafka-esque magistrate.
Plaintiff filed a motion to strike opposing counsel’s George Waas personal attacks upon Thompson in his wildly ad hominem Motion to Dismiss. Thompson had said or filed absolutely nothing derogatory about Mr. Waas or the Attorney General’s Office when Waas, unprovoked, did this.
When Thompson brought these personal attacks to the attention of the court with a motion to strike—Mr. Waas’ amateur psychoanalysis of Thompson, his charge that Thompson is “aberrant,” and so on—Magistrate Sherrill branded Thompson’s defending himself a “personal attack” upon Mr. Waas. As Thompson pointed out in the motion to strike, this is the analytical equivalent by this court’s magistrate of stating that Nicole Simpson attacked OJ Simpson’s knife with her neck.
Mr. Waas, without provocation, filed with this court one of the most prejudicial, ad hominem, irrelevant, and prejudicial assaults by a lawyer upon a litigant that Thompson has ever seen. Mr. Waas has taken a page out of the porn industry’s playbook.
Thompson has had to litigate with the video game industry’s $700 and hour lawyers and pornographer Howard Stern’s perjuring lawyers, and Mr. Waas, on behalf of the residents of Florida, has outdone them all. How awful that Thompson should complain about these personal attacks, says Magistrate Sherrill, who calls motions to strike “a waste of time.” Fine; let’s just ignore all of the Federal Rules of Procedure while we’re at it, shall we? Let’s get back to dueling, shall we? Except in Magistrate Sherrill’s brave new world, government lawyers will have pistols and mere citizens will be unarmed.
Magistrate Sherrill ran this case, which is supposed to be overseen by Judge Hinkle, as if it were a useful vehicle to libel plaintiff rather than grant him any modicum of consideration of his case. Thompson didn’t want a guaranteed result; he wanted a fair hearing. Here’s what he got:
Magistrate Sherrill, knowing that the defendant’s broad definition of “sovereign immunity” was all it had to defend itself in this case, never disclosed to Thompson that he, Magistrate Sherrill, while an Assistant Attorney General, had held forth, in a formal Attorney General’s Opinion, that such a twisted interpretation of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity was his own. This public holding forth by Mr. Sherrill about a key issue in the case disqualifies him from considering a single matter in this case. Magistrate Sherrill knows that. He hid it. He did not disqualify himself.
He also failed to disclose, as he was required to do, the fact that he worked in the Florida Attorney General’s Office with the very people that chose to try to win this case by falsely defaming Thompson with their personal attack pleadings. No fair jurist, for that reason alone, would have failed, sua sponte, to have recused himself from this case the instant it fell to him.
The result of Magistrate’s duplicity and disingenuousness is that we now have a Judge who is branding as ex parte certain communications with him made after a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed, all of which communications were in fact provided to “scorched earth” opposing counsel, Mr. Waas.
In this federal court, as in others, up is down, black is white, and public servants are using their powers for “other purposes.” The smartest thing Thompson has ever done (and there may be precious few examples to choose from) was a) getting out of this God-forsaken Northern District of Florida, and b) informing Judge Hinkle that his Magistrate Sherrill is a disgrace to the federal bench.
If this court doesn’t want filings like this, than it can stop dissembling in a public court file.
I hereby certify that a copy hereof has been provided to George Waas, 400 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, counsel for defendant, this December 27, 2009.
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Phone: 305-666-4366
Immediate News Release – December 26, 2009
Florida Bar in Cover-Up of What It Knew and When It Knew It Re Scott Rothstein
On December 16, 2009, The Florida Bar received a formal written request for “all Bar disciplinary records, pursuant to all Florida public records laws, including our Rules of Judicial Administration, regarding Scott Rothstein.” Rothstein voluntarily resigned from The Bar after he was indicted by the federal government for running a Ponzi scheme.
Remarkably but predictably, The Florida Bar has failed and refused to respond to this public records request, as mandated by state law.
The reason appears to be that The Bar knew of Rothstein’s shady dealings and did absolutely nothing. Indeed, Rothstein is no longer a member of The Bar because of his own voluntary actions and not because of The Bar’s efforts. Rothstein was himself a formal member of the same Bar Grievance process that should have been investigating him and thereby secured protection from it.
Information as to the extension of this Bar cover-up is being transmitted today to Broward Chief Judge Victor Tobin who is presiding over the statewide grand jury tasked with investigating multi-circuit criminal wrongdoing, especially that involving the legal profession.
Judge Tobin has already received information that The Florida Bar itself, as a runaway regulatory agency, is up to its eyeballs in this corruption. Indeed, Rothstein was spreading money around among the judicial branch to influence its workings. Judge Tobin himself received some of this money from Rothstein’s firm.
Thompson will be filing a lawsuit shortly to compel production of The Bar’s “Rothstein” and other records, as provided by Florida’s Rules of Judicial Administration.
Contact Jack Thompson at 305-666-4366 and amendm...@comcast.net.
Copy: Judge Victor Tobin
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
December 24, 2009
Chief Justice Quince and Associate Justices
C/o Tom Hall, Clerk of Court
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida Via e-mail and Fax
Re: Obstruction of Justice by the Florida Supreme Court
Dear Chief Justice Quince and Associate Justices:
After 5 pm yesterday, I sent you all a letter noting that your clerk, Tom Hall, is refusing to produce, pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration, non-exempt documents that would indicate whether you all considered my motion to vacate my disbarment prior to being served with my suit, if you even considered it at all.
All indications are that you did not even consider the motion before Tom Hall, acting as if he were the seven of you, entered an order of dismissal. This constitutes a substantive denial of due process as well as denial of access to the courts. Nevertheless, by the aforementioned letter of last evening, I gave you all the opportunity to prove me wrong by complying with the law and producing the purely ministerial documents.
What has now happened? This fellow, Tom Hall, has emailed me in response to my letter sent to all of you, with his response at 11:07 am informing me, as if he were you all, that I am getting no documents. When did you all resign and name Tom Hall “His Judicial Highness?”
This unguarded, unrelective act by Mr. Hall is what the British would call “too clever by half.” By Mr. Hall’s responding, rather than the court, he has further proven my point-- that you all have divested to him your judicial power. In doing so he becomes the illegitimate means of your own obstruction, and rather than really protecting you he becomes a proof of your own violation of the law and of your oaths of office.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Merry Christmas, Jack Thompson
John B. Thompson, J.D.
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
December 23, 2009
Chief Justice Quince and Associate Justices
C/o Tom Hall, Clerk of Court
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida Via e-mail and Fax
Re: Final Demand for Judicial Records under Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
Dear Chief Justice Quince and Associate Justices:
Your Court Clerk, Tom Hall, is refusing to provide me purely ministerial public records whose production is clearly mandated under Rule 2.420, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and which I have formally demanded under that Rule.
His refusal to comply with the Rule and thus the law in this regard is a red flag suggesting possible further illegal conduct by him and/or the court. Note the following chronology which is irrefutably proven by your own docket and a sworn service of process certificate by a Tallahassee-based professional process server.
At 10:30 am, December 9, 2009, the Florida Supreme Court was formally served by a process server with my federal lawsuit Case No. 09-317 (Northern District of Florida). One of the counts in the suit asserts that you all had sat on my motion to vacate my disbarment order for more than two months, doing nothing with it, despite the Florida Constitutional mandate that relief must be granted or denied “without delay.” The motion had been submitted by an attorney other than me. You were making clear by your nonfeasance that the problem is not who files the motions but rather who would benefit from the relief sought—me.
By the way, my petition to vacate was sworn, so the only factual record showing was the fraud attested to by me, with absolutely no recording showing from The Florida Bar to contradict it. The Bar never responded. So you then did what you did with no record showing rebutting the facts asserted therein.
Lo and behold, the afternoon of the very same day you were served with my complaint and summons, Mr. Hall would have us believe that the entire Court supposedly deliberated upon and considered this lengthy petition, and then ruled and entered an order dismissing it. I think what we will find, which is why Mr. Hall is being so obstructionist, is that the court never deliberated upon my motion, never read it, never acted like a court in this regard. The fair presumption is that my motion was either never considered prior to your being sued or what perfunctorily routed around the day you got sued, with an order then entered with, by the way, only Tom Hall’s signature on it.
That appearance of impropriety is simple enough to disprove with the documents I have demanded, and they are these:
Any and all documents that show that each of you Justices was transmitted the motion to vacate. Such documents will show transmission and the date of transmission.
I have made it crystal clear to Mr. Hall that what I am not seeking are exempted documents that would memorialize the confidential deliberations and thoughts and opinions of the court or its personnel. I don’t want your thoughts. I want proof that this court even considered and deliberated on my motion. This is a huge difference that Mr. Hall is pretending not to grasp. If he were truly that obtuse he could not serve this court as its Clerk. He is a lot of things; obtuse is not one of them.
The exemption is set forth, Mr. Hall admits to me via email, in Rule 2.420(c)(1), which states:
“ (c) Exemptions. The following records of the judicial
branch shall be confidential:
(1) Trial and appellate court memoranda, drafts of
opinions and orders, court conference records, notes,
and other written materials of a similar nature prepared
by judges or court staff acting on behalf of or at the
direction of the court as part of the court’s judicial
decision-making process utilized in disposing of cases
and controversies before Florida courts unless filed as
a part of the court record;
Note that what I am not entitled to are documents that reflect the thoughts of the court in formulating its decisions. That is why I have not asked for those. Note also that the catch-all phrase in the Rule is “and other written materials of a similar nature…” Mr. Hall is using that catch-all phrase to state that I am not entitled to any purely ministerial documents proving transmission and consideration by the Justices and the dates those events occurred. That is nonsense. That interpretation of this Rule flies in the face of the clear purpose of the Rule—to protect the deliberations of the Judges. Proving that such deliberations occurred or that the motion was even routed to the Justices is something different altogether.
The timing of being served and then “coincidentally” deliberating upon a lengthy motion and then ruling on it, all within a matter of minutes or hours on the same day, with your having ignored this motion for more than two months, is what has given rise to this reasonable suspicion that Mr. Hall has done here what he has repeatedly done: Act as if he were a Court of One who is entering orders for the court without the court’s considering, deliberatively, the motions for the relief before it.
If Mr. Hall is in fact doing this, this is a crime, under both state and federal law. He is, as we have found previously, serving, wrongly, to deny residents of Florida access to this Court. The problem for Mr. Hall, in this particular instance, is that we now have a timeline that looks to all the world, including Mr. Hall, as if he, either with or without your permission, was sitting on my motion and thwarting its timely, normal, and proper consideration.
This is all very important for a number of reasons, as I am going to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that you all denied a sworn, unopposed petition to vacate based upon fraud by The Florida Bar. Further, since you all formally “opened” both of my disciplinary cases, there are other new grounds for review as well.
What enhances my chances in these other regards is the now unrefuted assertion that your Clerk dismissed my motion, without your even considering it, and that he, acting as if he were the Court itself, is, in every real sense, denying “access to the courts” guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions. The other option, given the above timeline, is that the motion was hurriedly distributed after you all got sued and served and that you dismissed it without really considering it. Either way, you’re not acting like a court. You’re acting like a panic-driven rubber stamp for The Florida Bar.
So, I am now formally asking you, the Chief Justice and Justices, for the documents to which I am clearly entitled under the aforementioned Rule: All materials that show the Justices got my motion, when they were sent it and got it, and when they ruled thereon.
As it now stands, it doesn’t look good for you and won’t look good to the US Supreme Court. Prove me wrong.
If what Mr. Hall calls the “vote sheets” have notes thereon that show the Justices’ deliberative thoughts, then those can and should be redacted. I don’t want any of that, and I am not entitled to it.
All Mr. Hall is doing, by raising this red flag in the form of a twisted, ridiculous reading of Rule 2.420(c)(1), is make it even easier for me to prevail in my petition for cert.
If you don’t give me what I am entitled to, then you will be sued in circuit court, and I will get these ministerial documents, as the Rule provides. As of right now, your Clerk is obstructing the administration of justice, and to the extent you do not order him to comply with Rule 2.420(c)(1), then you are obstructing justice as well.
I know you people think I am evil incarnate. And I know you are tired of hearing from me. Here’s a solution to that problem: Start acting like a court of law rather than like you have something to hide and something to obstruct. Regards, Jack Thompson
