SUPREME COURT SICK OF JACK THOMPSON



ORDER REFUSING PLEADINGS UNLESS SIGNED BY ANOTHER ATTORNEY BESIDES THOMPSON


 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 4
  • 3/20/2008 1:31 PM Nelson wrote:
    Ha Ha!
  • 3/20/2008 2:34 PM smokes wrote:
    It's about time.
  • 3/20/2008 3:00 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
    Immediate News Release – March 20, 2008

    Jack Thompson Gets Good News from the Florida Supremes

    Miami attorney and anti-violence, anti-porn advocate Jack Thompson has just received good news from the Florida Supreme Court. Thompson is reminded now of what Joseph said to his brothers who threw him down the well and took his coat of many colors: “What you intended for harm, God has used for good.”

    The Florida Supreme Court’s clerk, Tom Hall (no, not the country music singer of the same name) has just called Thompson and told him that at 11 am today the Supremes will enter an order prohibiting Thompson from entering any pleadings on his own behalf in his bar disciplinary matter. He must retain a lawyer whom the Bar can then threaten as it has threatened and extorted his prior co-counsel. No thanks.

    This comes after the Supreme Court, in what is possibly the worst self-inflicted wound ever administered by a judicial tribunal, entered an order on February 19 stating that Thompson’s defenses in the bar matter could not possibly have merit—that his defenses were “frivolous.” In entering such a bizarre order the court rendered itself frivolous. This shoot-yourself-in-the-foot nonsense is from a court that a) has no idea what Thompson’s defenses are, and b) has admitted that it cannot keep an open mind as to those defenses even before it gets the referee’s report in April. Thank you very much!

    The Supreme Court, then, has in the span of one month, both admitted its partiality and lack of fairness and b) banned a lawyer rated A-V by Martindale-Hubbell and whom the referee found to be “very effective” at his own trial from representing himself. This ban is of a lawyer in good standing for 31 years who has achieved numerous historic firsts in his career, and it is a clear and incontrovertible violation of Thompson’s Sixth Amendment right to represent himself spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Faretta. The court cannot enter such a ban unless Thompson is found to be mentally incapacitated. The Bar has found Thompson to be perfectly sane. Ted Bundy was allowed to represent himself in this state and he wasn’t even a lawyer! Thompson now comes against the very porn industry that trained Bundy how to kill “with the maximum amount of pain.”

    "You cannot represent yourself" is the only sanction entered against Thompson by the court, which is more good news.

    Finally, this idiotic order by the Florida Supreme Court now paves the way for Thompson’s new federal civil rights action, now that Thompson has been denied an “adequate state remedy” and since federal abstention has thus been waived by the Florida Supreme Court. It looks to Thompson like the Justices need a good lawyer.

    Contact Jack Thompson for more information at 305-666-4366 and amendmentone@comcast.net.
  • 3/20/2008 3:32 PM to Jack: wrote:
    Sounds to me like you will eventually prevail in Federal Court.
  • 3/20/2008 3:58 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

    THE FLORIDA BAR,

    Complainant,

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

    JOHN B. THOMPSON,

    Respondent.

    RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING VIA ORAL ARGUMENT

    COMES NOW respondent Thompson and moves this court for a rehearing on the relief it has granted itself by its order of even date, stating:
    This Court has been entering orders against the undersigned in a factual vacuum for seventeen years now. In 1991, it ordered that Thompson be forced to undergo a psych evaluation at the behest of the former Florida ACLU chairman and the porn industry. The happy result of that baseless order of this very court was that Thompson was found perfectly sane and The Bar’s insurance carrier, because of this Court’s misstep, paid Thompson damages. No wonder that that finding that embarrasses this court and from which it learned nothing has been removed from the court’s on-line docket. See http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=1960&p_casenumber=78765&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType=.
    Similarly, this court outlandishly held in its February 19, 2008, show cause order that Thompson has no possible defenses to The Bar’s assault upon him, and it ruled this before it got the referee’s report. It appears that this court enters orders that come back to haunt it every 17 years, like the 17-year locusts known in other environs as cicadas. This order of today is the latest cicada that has come out of a pupating law clerk’s mind.
    WHEREFORE, because this court has once again entered an order based upon facts that it does not know and literally cannot know (unless Referee Tunis has telepathically communicated with this court) Thompson requests oral argument before the court for the purpose of remedying its fact deficiencies as to a) his “relentless and frivolous pursuit for vindication on his claim that he is being victimized by The Florida Bar” (this court’s own prejudging, partial words). b) his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself under the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Faretta, c) The Bar’s criminal effort to discipline Thompson under Rule 4-8.4(d) in violation of this court’s own ruling in Florida Bar v. Brake, d) the First Amendment right of lawyers to put enterprises that criminally distribute porn to children out of business, e) the criminality of Thompson’s Bar designated reviewer, Ben Kuehne, recently indicted by the federal government, whose criminality has infected The Bar and the deliberations of this Honorable Court.
    You all have been fed a steady litany of lies about Thompson for seventeen years now. It is time for you to see and hear for yourselves what this is about, if this court has the courage to stand such a thing.
    I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have provided this to The Florida Bar, 1200
  • 3/20/2008 4:22 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
    I wouldn't put good money on the "prevail in federal court" bet.
  • 3/20/2008 4:29 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
    Chief Justice Pariente looks FABULOUS at the below-referenced festivities!

    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
    1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146
    305-666-4366
    amendmentone@comcast.net

    March 20, 2008

    Thomas D. Hall
    Clerk of Court
    Florida Supreme Court
    500 South Duval Street
    Tallahassee, Florida 32399

    Re: Florida Public Records Law Request

    Dear Mr. Hall:

    Thank you very much for your kind and helpful telephone call today regarding the Court’s latest misstep.

    In that regard, since the Court is alleging that I have somehow encumbered access to the court for litigants by burdening these Justices, etc., I hereby make this formal Public Records Request pursuant to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes:

    I should like copies of all documents that indicate the Justices’ public appearances and also their daily schedules doing the Court’s in-house business, from January 1, 2005, to present. In other words, I want to see how they have been spending their valuable time, in and out of the Court, over the past three years or more.

    For instance, I shall be pleased to see how many conferences Justice Cantero has attended regarding lawyers’ manners, etc. I note that then Justice Pariente spent a lot of time at an April 21, 2005 as the keynote speaker at a “Law Day” ceremony. See http://www.jud10.org/News/HighlandsLawWeek/2005-law-week.html.

    If this request is unclear in any regard or if I have sent it to the wrong party, please let me know expeditiously, as the clock is running on this Public Records Law Request.

    Regards, Jack Thompson
  • 3/20/2008 4:36 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Jack's reminding me of that song "Insects" by The Kids of Widney High.

    He should've included more pics.
  • 3/20/2008 4:44 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
    @Jack Thompson:

    Is the clock that's running on your Public Records Law Request the same one's that's counting down the remaining seconds on your license to practice law?
  • 3/20/2008 4:45 PM Anonymous wrote:
    i guess that since Jack is barred from filing frivolous pleadings at the florida supreme court, we're stuck with his frivolous posts on this blog. can't that order be extended to include this blog???
  • 3/20/2008 5:22 PM Aaron wrote:
    This IS good news for you, Jack.

    Maybe now you can be defended by somebody competent.
  • 3/20/2008 5:28 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Just as a side note, according to the poll, nobody dislikes this article.

    That's just the kind of popularity Jack Thompson earns.
  • 3/20/2008 5:33 PM open mind wrote:
    Dont knock him, you might disagree with him, but he has the gonads to stand up and fight. He is ready to lose everything, you have to give the guy credit. He does make good points.
  • 3/20/2008 5:38 PM NEW JUDICIAL MOLES? wrote:
    Rosenberg and Gold now acting as Judicial Moles sent to ascertain the true extent of the rumors concerning those interested in running against sitting judges here in Bawdy Broward? Well, I suppose if they didn't want to be know as such they wouldn't be so obvious about meeting with emerging judicial power brokers at restaurants and the like. I'm surprised it's not being done behind closed doors as is the usual Broward Judicial Custom, or at least it used to be. It makes for a far better cloak and dagger story, don't you think?
    Well, I hope you learned what it is you set out to learn, like maybe whose gonna have competition soon and whose not?
    Funny how every time there's a rumor some judge may have competition to retain his or her seat the reverberation is felt throughout the entire assembly of judges whose only care, with minor exceptions, seems to be to stay in office until retirement time or until they can finagle how they might manage a position for his or her daughter or son to carry on their Judicial Legacy? Well, as they say, there's a world of possibilities out there. Go for it or don't, it's your decision. But for Pete's sake, can you do it with a little more panache and try not to look so guilty about it? It's really kind of embarrassing!
  • 3/20/2008 5:42 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Open Mind:

    I do disagree with him. I respect that he has the "gonads to stand up and fight," and that he is "ready to lose everything." I do not respect how he talks to people. He has made blanket statements to the effect that anyone who plays a video game is a drug addled time bomb. He is inappropriate and rude, even in the face of the Supreme Court. I fail to see the nobility in that.
  • 3/20/2008 5:50 PM Anonymous wrote:
    When Jack finally gets disbarred, he will fight on.
    Hey Jack, GO AWAY and bother someone else. We are sick of your bullshit.
  • 3/20/2008 6:22 PM Michael wrote:
    I like porn. Jack, please stop. Seriously man, how can a male not like porn? Especially 2 chicks in action. That is just unamerican!

    Next he is going to say he doesn't like cocaine! I mean, what self respecting lawyer doesn't like cocaine?
  • 3/20/2008 6:30 PM to Mr. Thompson wrote:
    Regardless what some of these morons say about you, I for one have complete faith in your ability to outsmart the corrupt and expose the flagrant miscarriages of justice inflicted on people every day. I hope for the sake of all of us that you continue your fight to correct the injustices that are committed every day to those that stand up for what is right: Truth, Justice and the American way.
  • 3/20/2008 6:32 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
    @open mind:

    You can call it "he's got gonads," if you want. In my neighbourhood, we call it "he's got mental health issues."
  • 3/20/2008 6:38 PM RIGHT ON wrote:
    Sounds like he right on the money in most of the things I've read!Maybe it's everybody else that has a mental block.
  • 3/20/2008 6:41 PM AJ wrote:
    @to Mr. Thompson

    What we "morons" think is truly irrelivant. What is relevent is this mans lack of proper conduct. I agree that challenging the courts is important. I agree corruption is present. But let us challenge these courts with integrety instead of idiocy. I want to see a real lawyer do that which Jack Thompson cannot.

    And there is a difference from having the testicular fortitude to fight, and a desperate backed into the corner defense.
  • 3/20/2008 8:04 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
    I wonder if any of you wiseguy lawyers here have ever read the SCOTUS opinion in Faretta. An American has the absolute right to represent himself in any proceeding. This is the same court that was made a national laughingstock in Bush v. Gore. They can't seem to understand that US Supreme Court rulings apply to them.

    By the way, their argument is that my filings have denied others access to the courts. They didn't read a single thing I filed, and Chief Justice Pariente spends less time behind the bench than she does running to banquets to be feted by liberal groups. She ought to stay in Tallahassee and do her job, which includes overseeing the Florida Bar. Just ask Sean Conway if these people are overseeing the Bar jerkazoids.

    And by the way, Jackdon'tknowjack, you stated in a post at Gamepolitics.com that I contact victims after school shootings. I never do that. I am going to find out who you are and sue you for that.
  • 3/20/2008 8:10 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Jack, they are just jealous because they lack your intelligence and moral compass. Forget them and continue to do what you know is right. We are all with you, those that really care about injustice.
  • 3/20/2008 8:17 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Hey Jack, you seem like a cool guy. Want to go to the titty bar and go in with me on an 8-ball?

    Very truly yours,
    A Christian who likes Titties and Coke
  • 3/20/2008 8:34 PM Terrence Jenkins wrote:
    Oh no, JackDontKnowJack, you'd better watch out! Jack's going to sue you!

    Ahhh...empty threats.

    However, just to be sure, you might want to stop having mail delivered to your house, as well as turning off any fax machines nearby, and suspending your email service. I mean, seriously. You don't want your mailbox filled with thousands of frivolous immature legal documents. That is, unless you need the kindling for the fireplace.

    I wonder if the suit will feature pictures and other adolescent additions? I mean, he may be declared sane, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the intelligence of a piece of bacon.
  • 3/20/2008 8:47 PM anti-wacky Jack wrote:
    The Supreme Court has been patient with this man. I know, as I read every one of his filings (I have no choice, as he favors me with them). He's not stupid; he knows that he will be disbarred. He wants to be disbarred, and is trying like hell to accomplish that. Why? So he can spend his next few years yelling that he is a martyr; going on television (if they'll still have him after disbarment) talking about himself and his tragedy. He is not a raving lunatic; he is a pitiful guy who wants to be important. He has a Jesus/Paul Revere/John Hancock fantasy. He wanted to be president of the United States, but didn't have the talent or charm to accomplish it. He wants to be important; but he's just irrelevant. He's just pitiful. His fantasies have hurt lots of people. He doesn't care. He sits in his little room, making threats on a keyboard--which he can't back up. He's nasty and self-righteous. And ultimately, he'll be disbarred. And no one will care one whit.

    Respond to this, Jack, and I'll tell you who I am. When you sue me, wait for the defamation counterclaim. You'll be both disbarred and broke.
  • 3/20/2008 8:53 PM anti wacky jack wrote:
    Oh and Jack, you know who I am. I'm not Norm, but you know me very well.
  • 3/20/2008 8:58 PM Terrence Jenkins wrote:
    @anti-wacky Jack:

    Couldn't have said it better myself. He's just a shell of a man who doesn't care about anyone other than himself. And even then, he's so pompous that he thinks that his disbarment will be his ticket to glory, when it will only be his first and last step into obscurity.

    He won't be missed.
  • 3/20/2008 10:09 PM Slainte' wrote:
    @ anti-wacky Jack.
    if he does decide to sue you, and your details are released, expect a bottle of single malt to wing its way to you as a thank you for this.
    Consider it a gift from assorted designers in Scotland (those not employed by his usual target, alas) who take exception at such comments of his as "What else would one expect of Scottish sociopaths sipping their single malt Glenlivet in between brainstorming software programming sessions?".

    Clear evidence that dear Jack Thompson is beyond batshit crazy; Only glaikit lummoxes like Thompson would drink glenlivet...

    We drink Caol Ila, Lagavulinn or Ardbeg.

    Hopefully, we can raise glasses across the Atlantic to celebrate this poor, deluded little man's attention-seeking campaign finally coming to an end.
  • 3/20/2008 10:31 PM Dog Welder wrote:
    Jack,

    Would this Faretta case be the same one that, in summary, says, "the court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel and conduct the trial when he or she voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so?"

    Let's focus on three words you're missing here in your application of said decision, and those would be "state criminal trial." Let's read those again, shall we? "State criminal trial." You're supposedly a lawyer, so I'll assume you know what those words mean. Your trial is not a "state criminal trial," thus Faretta does not apply.

    Did YOU bother to read the cases cited by the SCOFLA in their sanction of you? Apparently, if you did, you failed to comprehend them.

    Now let's examine another word in the Faretta summary. "Intelligently." I think it's debatable that you have not in any way proceeded intelligently in your own defense. Filing porn? Picture books? Insulting and threatening judges? This is not going about things "intelligently." Once again, Faretta does not apply.

    If you want to try to sue me, go right ahead. I'm still waiting for papers from the first time you threatened me with legal action. Just remember, you put your left foot in, you put your left foot out. If you mess with the dog, you get the welder.

Page: 1 of 4
Leave a comment

Comments are closed.