DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Free Speech Advocate Sean Conway (DBR Photo by Melanie Bell)DBR:
"FREEDOM OF SPEECH: LAWYER'S RIGHTS QUESTIONED IN STATE INVESTIGATION"
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/news.html?news_id=46295
FLORIDA BAR INVESTIGATIVE FILE:
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/images/news_photos/46295/Sean_William_Conway.pdf
"Attorney Barry Richard, a partner at Greenberg Traurig in Tallahassee who has advised The Bar in disciplinary appeals, said The Bar rarely reviews claims of attorneys bad-mouthing judges in public.
“Only since the advent of Internet and blogs did things get widely disseminated that at one time would be discussed at a cocktail party,” Richard said. “Most lawyers are usually pretty cautious to avoid that kind of public commentary out of respect for the system, even if they don’t respect the individual judge.”
Conway acknowledged he may be a test case for The Bar.
Constitutional attorney Rick Ovelmen, a Miami partner with Jorden Burt, said Conway has some “strong First Amendment defenses” to the anticipated Bar charges...
“Because our judges are elected, we should not have gag orders over the very people that work in front of those judges every day,” Conway said. “When something illegal is going on, we expect those people to tell the public.”
I wonder how long beforew bowtie calls Sean to offer his services. Won't be long before he flip flops I bet, once the media exposure picks up.
Bill its so nice of you to post this stuff about Sean. Its nice to see now that Sean is the new blogstar with the media that you have willingly taken a back seat. Don't worry I am sure people will remember your work against Oconnor oh wait nothing happened with that. Well they will remember how you exposed the fraud on the wheel, oh that didn't happen either. Oh well maybe some day Sean can get you some press on his case.
First, I agree bye bye Bill.
Second, this all revolves around Sean saying he was forced to choose between being prepared and a speedy trial. I mean come on, Sean – have you ever announced ready for a trial – whether it was one week or one year?
Third, is that a new suit?
Fourth, great comment – “I pray to Aleman’s God that the right result will come out…I wish Judge Aleman would stop reading the blog and get back to work.” - - fantastic
All the jealous little haters. Tough lucj fellas.
Great job by Conway. It shows sometimes truth does get heard among all the cowards and buttlickers that pass for lawyers these days.
Things are tough out there. I miss the old wheel days. Just ask the little feller. I've seen him around more this last couple of weeks than I've seen him for months. Is he working for Fisher now? Will he hire me too?
Swoon. Great picture.
Ice-T baby, this goes out to all you haters out there
Actin' like a brother done did somethin' wrong
cause he got his game tight
Don't hate the player, hate the game
"Don't Hate The Playa" - ICE-T LYRICS
SEANWAY RULES
Bruce "Bowtie" Rogow will never touch this. Bruce is a fan of government elites telling people what to do, think, and say. Bruce has an exception for pornography.
What most people don't understand is that many, not all, in the ACLU are not opposed to government regulation of speech. They are, more importantly, leftwing ideologues who LOVE to use the government to impose their extremist agendas on the rest of us. See Donohue's The ACLU and the Twilight of Liberty.
Asking Bruce Rogow to rein in The Florida Bar on its speech codes would be akin to asking Bar Governor Steve Chaykin to protest a gay pride parade. I know Bruce Bowtie from our 2 Live Crew days. Not going to happen.
Jack Thompson, Attorney
Bowtie is very pompous, IMHO.
I just read the letter Conway wrote to the Bar. Excellent writing. Even if he was less than politically correct when he outed Cheryl, I think he's going to win on this one, although it may take years until he's finally vindicated.
wennet in palm beach also wears a bowtie
so does pee wee herman
I just saw Conway's picture plastered on the side of a city bus. Is his TV show already on the air?
Now Aleman will have to hold every lawyer who appears before her in contempt.
How else will anyone be able to keep a straight face when they appear before her?
Man, the JQC, The Bar, everyone is just gutting her. I'd feel sorry for her, if she didn't deserve it (and more).
he looks like Mike Kaplan
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/071220/1ea02176a5f31dfd1d8e58e015e8b59f.html?.v=1
how come conway takes credit for setting up the trust fund, when it was done by another. Enough of the self promoting, butch up and tell the truth. But is that something that you are either unwilling or unable to do ? By the way is that the only way you know to get clients, take credits for anothers hard work.
Merry Christmas from Larry To Cheryl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz8nQqv46T4
Leave Sean alone; he's already being treated as a human pinata. Hell, it's Xmas.
only b/c you KEEP pressing the issue -
"took credit"?
I represented the mother in the DCF action. After it got dismissed, I still had lots of calls from papers & L.Hill Police Dept, emails from groups, etc. wanting to donate, so I had to help. The reporters called me with the questions (since the parents weren't responding to media at first). 2 reporters even told me that lots of people were writing/calling wanting to donate $, gifts, etc. and where/how to donate? Not sure how they decided I was "the family's atty"?
I wrote the trust lawyer's name on here the other day, Steve Taylor, as that TV reporter, Ms. Zea, didn't want to put that on TV (too boring for TV, I understand). I felt an attorney needed recognition for setting it up 'pro bono' in 1 afternoon.
In fact, the day of the Channel 4 story, the reporter Ms. Zea called that morning wanting to do a story of ME & that bar complaint thing. It was MY suggestion, instead, that, if the trust could be set up in time, could she do that story instead? - to help generate more $ for the family. The father didn't want to - I had to persuade him that doing so would = more $ for his son's trust fund.
Really the whole thing was a group effort: One person gave me the tel no. of the A.R.C. rep.; and of a person at Suntrust's Trust dept.; the lady at Suntrust knew a lawyer who would do it in 1-day, 'pro bono'.
But, you're right, I didn't know what a "special needs trust" was until this case came along. The Suntrust Rep & I almost set up a regular trust (which, for those like me who didn't know, we learned later that day that the extra income would = no more Medicaid benefits! hence, the spec. needs trust).
Sean
Why do you let them get to you? You are a leader, they are cannon fodder. Let them snipe and whine all they want. Hold your head up, and they will follow, just like they always do.
Thank you for your good work. You are an inspiration.
That's right Sean. We all know its Jealous-Bill writing anonymously when those nasty comments come in about you. Just ignore him.
With just one post, you've gone way beyond him and his almost 2 years worth of work into this website.
Now, bitter and with nothing much to show for all his efforts, all he can do is sit in the corner and snipe anonymously at you.
Is this unprofessional?
In the middle of the sandwich, I tend to get a bit gassy. At the conclusion of a most eloquent and persuasive annihilation of the State's case, I enjoy breaking some silent and deadly wind by the podium right as the prosecutor passes by to throw them off of their game. The culmination of the State's case usually begins with awkward silence and a bitter beer face. There is always a built in defense...whoever smelt it dealt it?
The application of the rules in Sean's case are arbitrary and capricious to begin. Second, this is a public forum deserving strict scrutiny for political speech. Third, there is State Action (The USCT found it in a mall). Fourth, none of the language used can hardly be stated to be classified under the "fighting words doctrine, "clear and present danger," or commercial speech. This is not a situation with the student at Berkley (Matt Fraser I think his name is, I also think he is a philosophy prof. there now after losing in the SCT). Also, what the hell does it mean to be professional? Vague and overbroad on its' face and as applied. The Bar's conduct has an extrinsic chilling effect on further commentary and that is quantifiable already. What if they subpoena the blog? What if they hired techno snoopers to dig up stuff? What if they like fart jokes?
Even assuming there is some kind of rational argument against the remarks (like it's wrong to say "witch" or imply mental illness), rationality is not the test. That would be weak scrutiny and this is strict scrutiny land baby.
As a matter of public policy, to single out one person and spend my money on this farce is disturbing. I'm in the Bar. No one asked me what I think on such an important case. Do they not have a duty to its' members to consult with them on such a novel issue where the stakes are so great?
I doubt there is any civil remedy either. She's public figure.
Thus the bar complaint is the wrong answer. Kind of like the answer "very small rocks."
no need to chase paper any more.
thanks to the efforts of a fine appellate atty., the Yagman case clearly lays out why Conway's speech is protected from sanction.
In Yagman, exact same wording "impugn the integrity...reckless disregard, etc". And, wouldn't you know, a lawyer IS allowed to express opinions, provided there is a factual basis upon which that opinion us based. Just read the opinion...
the Bar is wasting our funds singling out 1 person in light of obvious case law - esp. when so many say things about her and other judges all the time. plus the rule is vague and overbroad as it makes no reference to time/place. I mean, one can be spanked by the Bar for: talking smack about a judge on an elevator; when testifying negatively at a congressional hearing on a judicial nominee (only allowed to give positive testimony, according to the Bar?).
Yagman 55 F.3d 1430; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 12948; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3958; 95 Daily Journal DAR 6873
Greenberg's Barry Richard says one thing and his client, The Bar's Governors, say quite another. Guess what? They're going to regret it:
John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net
December 24, 2007
Frank Angones
Florida Bar President
All Florida Bar Governors
Miami, Florida Via Fax to 305-371-3948 and e-mails
Re: Right of Bar Respondent to Appear before Florida Bar Governors
Dear Frank and All Bar Governors:
I have asked, at least ten times, over the past three years, to appear before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar in order to present my constitutional defenses to the various SLAPP Bar complaints brought against me.
The Bar’s outside counsel, Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig, has solemnly asserted to U.S. District Court Judge Adalberto Jordan that I have an absolute right to appear before the Governors in this fashion and for that reason the federal court should abstain from granting me relief because I thus have “an adequate state remedy.” Richard has cited the federal case of Mason v. Florida Bar for that proposition, and it says precisely that. The Governors have made a liar of Barry Richard by denying me that appearance.
Let me make this so clear that every single one of your Bar Governors gets it: It is inconceivable that all 52 Governors could be of the same mind that they ought to violate the federal court holding in Mason and not extend to me, whether they agree with what they think I believe or not, my legal right to appear before the Governors on the constitutional issues raised by its prosecution of me.
Secondly, you are on notice that I am going to appear before the Governors, whether they like it or not. I am going to secure a writ of mandamus entered by a court of law, in the days or weeks ahead, to mandate that appearance.
I’m tired of your running The Florida Bar as if it were Fidel Castro’s thought police.
Regards, Jack Thompson
Dear Jack: Rumpole was insane enough to give you free reign and a thread there to post copies of your correspodence, pleadings, and other communications.
We all know where that blog is.
Please do us all a favor and limit your pages and pages of posts to one place so we can choose to read it or choose to ignore it.
Jesus loves you and I am trying to also.
And Jesus also built my hot rod.
And a merry Bababooey to you as well.
SPEAKING OF JUDGES:
John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
December 24, 2007
Referee Dava Tunis
1351 NW 12th Street, Sixth Floor
Miami, Florida 33125
Re: Continuances and Cancer
Dear Referee Tunis:
I wish you all the best in the New Year. Having said that, I should like to remind you that our family’s 2007 year began with one word—cancer.
As you recall, I asked for a continuance in The Bar’s proceedings against me that were were before you because of my wife was facing major surgery for ovarian cancer, arduous chemotherapy, and recovery. I am the primary care provider for our 15-year-old son, who was fourteen when this travail began, so I tried to impress upon you that not only did I have to be his caregiver but also my wife’s during this time.
You denied my motion for continuance, which contrasts with what Norm Kent, my long-time nemesis, did when I asked the same of him. Norm immediately granted my request, in part, no doubt, because he faced possibly terminal cancer earlier in this decade. I shall always be thankful to him for that, and I have told him that. I have a memory, despite The Bar’s continual assertions that I am mentally ill and unfit to practice law, which you also consider, apparently, an alleged medical situation without consequence.
Please read the following which explain what a spouse goes through when his/her spouse is diagnosed with cancer: http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/21/cancer-stress-similar-for-patient-and-spouse/1317.html and http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/11/12/caregivers-also-need-support/1521.html.
Whether your denial of my motion for a continuance was because of your ignorance or indifference or both, I consider your decision in this regard to be the single cruelest thing I have ever witnessed any judge do to anyone in my thirty-one years of practicing law.
Please think of that the next time a lawyer stands before you with a similar request, and do not do such a hideous thing again. You and The Bar took advantage of my family.
Sincerely, Jack Thompson
Copy: The Bar, Norm Kent
I'll post where I want to, and you can get a lawyer to plead your case with Jesus. Jack Thompson
Forget this JAAB person of the year rubbish, I think we need some new blood in the Presidential primaries. Someone curt and straight to the point. Someone who always has a point. What that is, I'm not certain of exactly, but anyways:
JACK FOR PREZ. That Lindsay bubba can be his VEEP.
Possible JACK PLATS: 24 hour press conferences, unlike the tight lipped Bush (administration) with shock treatment at the moment someone nods off. Tort reform that includes mandatory payment by the letter -- written or spoken. Waterboarding with Slurpees. Finally, a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax for everyone way beneath the poverty level.
-s- LD
Note: Real signature above.
See above: Real Signature
Thank you,
LD
not not my signature
I fear Jack when you pass you'll find Jesus laughing at jokes told to him by Neil Rogers and Howard Stern....There is a special very warm place for self-righteous prigs like you, and it is much warmer than where my buddy JC hangs out.