Trackbacks

• Trackbacks are closed for this post.

Comments

Page: 1 of 2

• 5/21/2008 1:16 PM Jack's miniscule understanding of the law. wrote:
  What was your warcry John B? oh yeah, HOOAH.
  
• 5/21/2008 1:17 PM Dog Welder wrote:
  Jack,
  
  Does this mean you're still "winning?"
  
  Just wondering.
  
  Toodles,
  Dog Welder
  
• 5/21/2008 1:19 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  Boring or news-worthy? Such a blurry line betxit the two. Who can ever tell?
  
• 5/21/2008 1:35 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Why are people so willing to cause some much stress in their lives. Jack you have really aged, is it really worth it?
  
• 5/21/2008 1:44 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
  He who laughs last laughs best:
  
  John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
  5721 Riviera Drive
  Coral Gables, Florida 33146
  305-666-4366
  amendmentone@comcast.net
  
  May 22, 2008
  
  Judicial Qualifications Commission
  1110 Thomasville Road
  Tallahassee, Florida 32303
  
  Re: Additonal Addendum to Formal JQC Complaint against Dava J. Tunis
  
  Dear JQC:
  
  The Miami-Dade State Attorney has now issued a formal finding, dated May 16, which I have received just today, concluding that Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Dava Tunis has been the beneficiary of a forged state loyalty oath. It is related in the report that she admitted that.
  
  Despite knowing for months that her state loyalty oath was forged, Tunis chose not to disclose that and falsely represented in the midst of her presiding over my disciplinary matters before her that there was no loyalty oath problem.
  
  Proof that there was a problem is found in the aforementioned report itself. Tunis, it is reported therein, executed, finally, a state loyalty oath on February 4, 2008, a full thirteen months after she took jurisdiction over my disciplinary case. I have been asserting for months that she had NEVER executed a valid state loyalty oath, by virtue of the fact that the ones she executed after the forged one were not notarized and did not track the state loyalty oath statute. Either failing is fatal to the requirement. Our Attorney General has ruled that way in numerous formal opinions.
  
  If Tunis’ post-forgery loyalty oaths were valid, then why would she have executed a new one on February 4 of this year? Answer: She would not. This is an irrefutable admission that she has been on the bench without a valid loyalty oath. Despite my asserting that in a quo warranto action, she has deceptively maintained in rebuffing efforts to get her recused and removed from this case that she did not have a state loyalty oath problem. The official report’s finding that she acknowledged a problem by executed the new oath on February 4 makes her out to be what she is—a liar.
  
  More than that, she is not a judge. Failure to timely execute an oath, as the state loyalty oath statute requires, renders her without authority to serve, and she must be removed immediately. Please do so. You have no choice. The loyalty oath statute is clear.
  
• 5/21/2008 1:44 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Anyone interested in a tailgate party before the the disciplinary hearing? We can grill burgers and hot dogs and play Grand Theft Auto.
  
  Then we can head on inside and witness the beginning of the end.
  
• 5/21/2008 2:26 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  Anyone else notice that Jack's letter to the JQC makes no mention of his having included therewith a copy of Rundle's alleged report?
  
• 5/21/2008 2:26 PM Nightwng2000 wrote:
  Lacking any arguments to support his claim of being innocent, John Bruce continues to resort to circumventing the specific issues at hand by throwing out every possible loophole he can. Even more, the loopholes don't pertain to him specifically but to those judging him. Funny thing is, if Tunis had found him completely innocent, the issue of her "loyalty oath" wouldn't be of a concern to him.
  
  Pathetic. Just pathetic.
  
  :: Smacks anonymous 1:44pm. ::
  You just HAVE to talk about hamburgers and hot dogs after all I had for lunch was a Healthy Choice Blackened Chicken TV dinner?!
  
  Evil! Just evil!
  
  Andrew
  
• 5/21/2008 2:42 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
  I know it's tough, but try to pay attention, kiddies:
  
  The JQC has the report.
  
  Secondly, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled in the Byington case that the failure of an official to timely execute the loyalty oath, for whatever reason, voids any acts by that official. Tunis, in a panic, executed, finally, an oath on Feb. 4, 2008. She got my case in January 2007. All acts prior to that are void. Further, she must be removed from the bench.
  
  Thirdly, the report notes three other judges who must be removed: Prescott and Stein. Their oaths were forged as well by the same person and they did not execute oaths until Feb. 2008.
  
  Finally, Tunis knew of this problem and its extent and nevertheless failed to disclose her new oath execution even after I moved for her recusal on her failure to timely execute an oath.
  
  So she's been caught lying.
  
  All of you people who hate me, who allow your hate to occlude your legal analysis, I feel sorry for you. This is a very big scandal: There are countless judges on the bench here in Florida who have no authority to be on the bench and all of their orders are void. You might want to tell your clients that, if you have any.
  
  Jack Thompson
  
• 5/21/2008 2:55 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  @Jack Thompson:
  
  I'm sure you'll forgive me for not taking your word on any of this. Rather, I'll just wait for the media to run with your press release on the matter. Or for Rundle to start defending against the the flood of criminal appeals certain to follow in the wake of her report -- if it indeed says all you say it does.
  
• 5/21/2008 2:56 PM Dog Welder wrote:
  Jack,
  
  Even if this is true (which I fully doubt, as you're a serial liar), you do realize the court would just declare your trial as a mistrial and find someone else to destroy you, right? Your legal "strategy" all along seems not to have anything to do with the law, but to obfuscate and delay the inevitable, all the while crying to the courts that the process has been drawn out for so long that it's unfair because you don't have time to spend with your sick wife. Have I missed anything here?
  
  (Link to the report or repost it. If you can't, I'll just assume you read one sentence out of the whole report, saw the words "forgery" and "oath" and filled in the rest of the gaps with the words you wanted to be there -- you're prone to this, as well.)
  
• 5/21/2008 3:00 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Jack, why would you sarcastically comment on whether people actually have clients? You don't even have an office, much less clients. I drove by your former UPS store office today, and just laughed and laughed and laughed. Just like we're all laughing now, and we will all laugh last.
  
• 5/21/2008 3:03 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  Anyone else notice that Jack's letter to the JQC makes no mention of the JQC already being in possession of a copy of Rundle's alleged report?
  
• 5/21/2008 3:08 PM Nightwng2000 wrote:
  And I reiterate, John Bruce, if Tunis had totally and utterly found in your favor, you wouldn't be throwing this fit about loyalty oaths. More than likely, you'd be DEFENDING her on the issue.
  
  You were all hugs and kisses with Senator Burrell in LA when the state, even in part, appeared to be on your side. But when the state didn't do things precisely your way in defending the legislation you claimed to help draft, you threw a temper tantrum and bad mouthed everyone in LA that you could.
  
  You're predictable John Bruce. Wanna try a few other loopholes and circumventions? We'd all love to see what you come up with next.
  
  Andrew
  
• 5/21/2008 3:14 PM Scary thought wrote:
  After Thompson is disbarred he will have lots more time to blog.
  
• 5/21/2008 3:59 PM Nightwng2000 wrote:
  He has plenty of time now. After all, it's not like he WORKS for a living. And that's because of his own choices, not because of anyone else's decisions or actions.
  
  Andrew
  
• 5/21/2008 4:03 PM Nelson wrote:
  Ha Ha!
  
• 5/21/2008 4:18 PM Anonymous wrote:
  "Rule 4-3.3(a)(1): Knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal - GUILTY"
  
  "Rule 4-8.4(c): engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation - GUILTY"
  
  Jack, you've officially been branded a liar. I don't know whether or not Dava Tunis executed a loyalty oath. But at this point, I don't think I'd believe you if you told me the sky was blue.
  
  Oh, and one more thing.
  
  "Rule 4-4.4(a): using means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person - GUILTY"
  
  I'm so glad to see this. Because Jack, I have never seen you speak civilly to another person. I don't care about your crusade against pornography, violent media, or whatever. I care that you treat other people like dirt. You've spent so long fighting filth that it's rubbed off on you, and you've become a self-aggrandizing, bile-spewing ambulance chaser.
  
  Time to wake up, Jack. I believe you could have been great, and probably still could be. But the inside of a bowl should be washed before the outside is, if you take my meaning.
  
• 5/21/2008 4:50 PM Jack Thompson, Attorney wrote:
  John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
  5721 Riviera Drive
  Coral Gables, Florida 33146
  305-666-4366
  amendmentone@comcast.net
  
  May 22, 2008
  
  The Florida Bar
  651 E. Jefferson Street
  Tallahassee, FL 32399
  
  Re: Complaint against Jack Thompson
  
  Dear Florida Bar:
  
  I wish to report to you that Miami attorney Jack Thompson is unfit to practice law due to mental defect.
  
  Proof of these charges can be found in all of the ridiculous, unfounded complaints I've filed against others over the years.
  
  If you do not act on this immediately by disbarring me, I will be forced to file a complaint against you for directly knowing of attorney misconduct and failing to take action to stop it.
  
  Jack Thompson
  
• 5/21/2008 4:56 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  Wow.
  
• 5/21/2008 5:47 PM Dog Welder wrote:
  If 4:50 pm was actually written by Jack Thompson (which I doubt), that would be the most sense he's made in years. And if that's the most sense he's made in years, that would mean he's sane and would have to be punished by the bar.
  
  /Catch-22
  
• 5/21/2008 5:51 PM Anonymous wrote:
  Thompson can work with Spechler after the Bar is done with both of them. Maybe they can man a hot dog booth outside the courthouse.
  
• 5/21/2008 5:57 PM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  @Dog Welder:
  
  But you can't confidently say it wasn't. And that's the amazing part.
  
• 5/21/2008 9:12 PM Anonymous wrote:
  www.terrorinflorida.com.cowart.aspx
  
• 5/22/2008 9:55 AM Nightwng2000 wrote:
  On the Judge Tunis loyalty oath:
  
  http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2008/05/you-asked-for-it.html
  
  The memo:
  
  
  http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/images/news_photos/48729/Close_out_memo.pdf
  
  Andrew
  
• 5/22/2008 10:51 AM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  Nightwng2000:
  
  Nice post, guy. Thank you very much. Having read the memo, it ain't hard to see why Jack-O ain't wanna show nobody else or disclose the whole truth about its contents.
  
• 5/22/2008 11:30 AM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  @Jack Thompson:
  
  This time, I will give you a "nice try" but you still get no cigar
  
  State v. Byington, Fla., 168 So.2d 164, 175 (1964), does not have anything to do with loyalty oaths. In fact, that case, on my read, does not at all help your case. Rather, it hurts your case.
  
  Appellant in Byington sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a county judge from presiding over a case because the judge had attained the age of 70 and the Florida Constitution required that "all judges shall automatically retire at age 70". It was further argued that all of the acts performed by the judge after his 70th birthday were invalid. The First District Court of Appeal held:
  
  It is apparent that even if the respondent as a county judge does fall within the automatic retirement provision of the Florida Constitution, such does not ipso facto impair the jurisdiction of his office or the validity of his exercise thereof. Affording relator's position its greatest possible effect, the respondent's status is changed only from that of a de jure judge to a de facto judge, which in no way impairs his jurisdiction. The official acts of a de facto judge are as valid as if he is an officer de jure. State v. Byington, 168 So.2d 164, at 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
  
  The Supreme Court of Florida upheld the lower court's ruling and refused to grant appellant the writ of prohibition against the service of the assertedly over-aged judge, saying:
  
  Quo warranto is an appropriate and adequate remedy to determine the right of an individual to hold a public office. See 27 Fla. Jur., Quo Warranto, Sec. 17, and cases there cited. Where quo warranto is an adequate remedy, it is the only proper remedy and will preclude issuance of a writ of prohibition as a substitute. McSween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board, 97 Fla. 750, 122 So. 239, 65 A.L.R. 508 (1929); State ex rel. Attorney General v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190 (1868); 74 C.J.S. Quo Warranto § 4.
  
  Let me put this in terms even you can understand (since I'm sure all the courts' citations will confuse you): Judge Tunis may not have de jure toasted you but she sure 'nuff de facto toasted you. Either way, you're toast.
  
  Good luck getting your quo warranto. Whick do you think wil arrive first? Your quo warranto or the Supreme's ruling affirming Judge Tunis' recommendations?
  
• 5/22/2008 11:49 AM Dog Welder wrote:
  Wait, so you mean Jack Thompson:
  
  1) Didn't fully disclose the content of a document to try to sway someone to his way of thinking.
  2) Misstated or misinterpreted a court case to try to sway someone to his way of thinking.
  3) Leaped to seemingly odd conclusions in the face of evidence directly opposite of such.
  4) Insulted and disparaged anyone who didn't agree with him.
  
  And did this all in the course of a few paragraphs?
  
  Color me shocked!
  
  (Oh, wait...predicted this...at 2:56 yesterday.)
  
• 5/22/2008 11:55 AM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  @Jack Thompson:
  
  Didn't any of your professors at Vanderblit teach you that law and justice abhor a nit-picker?
  
• 5/22/2008 5:12 PM Mnementh2230 wrote:
  From the Justice Building Blog:
  
  "If such things interest you and you really have nothing better to do, the sentencing phase of the disciplinary proceeding is on Wednesday June 4, 2008, courtroom 6-3 at 2:00 PM. Tickets on sale at your local Ticketmaster."
  
  JUNE 4 BABY!
  
• 5/25/2008 10:15 AM JackDon'tKnowJack wrote:
  If your uncited reference to a Byington case was to that of Tappy v. State ex rel. Byington, 82 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1955), then that case don't do too much to help your case, either. That case involved not a judge but a Governor who allegedly failed to execute a valid loyalty oath. As such, the curative effect of the de facto judge doctrine wouldn't apply. That case is an apple. Your case is an orange. But, then again, you are the Master of comparing apples and oranges and concluding there's no difference between the two.
  
  And, for the love of Christ and all things holy, buy yourself a copy of The Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation and figure out, if you can, how to use it.
  
• 5/28/2008 9:35 PM L. Benson wrote:
  The problem is, Jack, that the JQC ignores the law as well as the judges you named and they prefer to protect these criminal felonious judges against messengers by attacking them instead of protecting the public FROM them. It's call enjoinder. Florida even has statutes--777.011; 777.03 and 777.04 stated in the Rules of the Florida BAr Comments section taht attatch it. Problem is, the florida BAr refused=s to attach its own rules and the JQC refused to apply its own Canons to this conduct by, 1. denying it is conduct, and 2. declaring it is not a violation of the very Canons that specifically define this conduct as a violation.
  
  To them, dnial is ariver in Egypr and they had the biggest yacht on the river. so they attack the messenger, or worse, glory in the attackers of the messenger as vindicative while they provide not one iota of proof, evidence or fact to the contrary.
  
  And they are the system. what hope is ther for honest people?
  
  I can prove this foir a fact, but since they are the ones who investigate facts against themselves--it is delusional to expect a different result.
  
  Psychologists declare that that is one definition oif insanity--going to a dry well to drink.
  
• 5/28/2008 9:43 PM L. Benson wrote:
  I Know< Jack--I can feel you pain. But isn't it a bit naive to expect the jeffrey Dahmers of the Judicial Community to comprehend much less repair their criminal activity?
  
  You and I both know it is a statutoey felony of "impersonating a public officer" these folks are committing. But the JQC not anyone else is going to hold them accountable?
  
  What a silly notion you have of justice that some of these felons will actually abide by the law in your case.
  
  It has often been saif that the best defense is a good offensive. You think the law means nything to the lawless.
  
  Jeffrey Dahmer had no concept that his killing people, cutting them upo and eating them. What makes you even think these Judicial canibals are any different? Or the anaonymous lawyers who support them by attacking you?
  
• 5/28/2008 9:47 PM L. Benson wrote:
  Objection, your honor. Hearsay; speculation; testifying and alluding to facts not in evidence. Suatained.
  
  Wait! What? It's Jack Thompson? Well then, all Rules and laws are off!!!!
  
• 5/28/2008 9:52 PM L. Benson wrote:
  WOW!!! A rulie. So where is you proof of a violation of these rules, Rulie?
  
  It's so professional of you to spew rules. so how about being porofessional enough to, 1. identify yourself and, 2. prove otherwise?
  
  Are you just another Broward Power coward?
  
• 9/9/2008 3:46 PM Anonymous wrote:
  ......Who the hell is this moron?
  

Page: 1 of 2

Leave a comment

Comments are closed.