OUCH!
Tallahassee drops a house on the politically controlled Broward BarDAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Florida high court asks if attorney’s comments are protected speech
by Jordana Mishory
"The Florida Supreme Court is questioning a proposed settlement brokered by The Florida Bar in a disciplinary case against a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney for his critical comments about a judge.
The court asked for more information from The Bar and attorney Sean Conway on Monday. It issued an order directing them “to show cause” by July 14 whether “any of the respondent’s comments should be considered protected speech under the First Amendment.”
“It looks like the First Amendment is alive and well in Broward County, Florida,” Conway said in response to the order.
Conway was charged with violating professional conduct rules when he called Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Aleman an “evil unfair witch” who is “seemingly mentally ill” on a court blog. Conway posted the comments on JAABlog in 2006 while complaining the judge set felony trials one to two weeks after arraignment.
Conway, a Florida attorney since 1996, agreed to a public reprimand from the Bar, and the settlement was approved this month by the case referee.
The justices asked the two sides to say whether Conway had an “objectively reasonable basis” to make his comments and cited a 2001 disciplinary case noting attorneys “play an important role in exposing valid problems within the judicial system.”
Separately, Aleman is appealing a state Judicial Qualifications Commission recommendation calling for a Supreme Court reprimand for engaging in a pattern of arrogant and discourteous conduct.
Aleman, Bar attorney Alan Anthony Pascal, Conway and his attorney, Fred Haddad, did not return calls for comment by deadline."
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008
THE FLORIDA BAR vs. SEAN WILLIAM CONWAY
Complainant(s) Respondent(s)
The parties are hereby directed to show cause on or before July 14, 2008, whether any of respondent's comments should be considered protected speech under the First Amendment (i.e., whether respondent had an objectively reasonable basis in fact for making the statements) and whether the facts as found by the referee constitute a violation of rule 4-8.2(a). See Fla. Bar v. Ray, 797 So.2d 556 (Fla. 2001) (noting that attorneys’ comments "play an important role in exposing valid problems within the judicial system").
Why does everyone keep sending back their meals? I smother the succulent ribs in my most delicious barbecue sauce yet they send them back time after time. You wait, they'll pay. I'm working up the meanest tangiest sauciest sauce ever. They'll eat it. They'll beg me for more. You'll see.
"Supreme Court cites disciplinary case noting Attorneys Play an Important Role in Exposing Valid Problems within the Judicial System".
Especially considering the fact of recent JQC's findings in re everybody's favorite little Judicial Witch, wouldn't you say?
The Broward Bar must be wondering about now, considering their shall we say corrupt political leanings, (why?) the Supreme Court is stepping forward in their issuance of an order to show cause why Conway's comments should not be considered protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
One thing is for certain: It will require them to do more than just tow the line of a now defunct and banished former Broward Judge by the name of Spechler who with a little help as we all know launched this little escapade in hopes of clamping down on silencing any criticism of another Out of Control Broward Judge to begin with.
Makes one wonder whether a Bar long know for it's Pandering to the wishes of certain Broward Judges will be capable of answering the order all on their lonesome with any degree of responsibility or clarity, or will we see them running to their favorite judges for more instructions, playing again the political shenanigans it's by now become quite well known for.
Your guess is as good as mine.
About the only thing I can think of that is really on their minds about now is "Who's behind it?" That's the way they seem to work over there as has been proven time and time again.
Well, boys and girls, somebody is going to have to do something besides shuffle papers this time and be told what to do.
How does it feel to be on the hot seat this time?
It's been coming. The Broward Bar is now on the hot seat. Let's see just how creative they really are. Just maybe they'll get the message this time. Somebody is looking over their shoulders. It's about time.
The proposed settlement should be questioned. Particularly in how it came about. Until the rot is exposed FOR WHAT IT IS, the health of the very purpose of the Broward Bar is in question.
Can anybody lead by example in this town or does it just come down to whose side you're on? Really bad precedent.
Yeah, but what does this say for the outcome of the Aleman appeal? They just dropped a house on her.
Conway did us all a favor in bringing to the attention of the public and the JQC the outrageous behavior of Judge Aleman. Then Aleman is subjected to it's findings and appeals said findings. Then the Supreme Court issues an Order to show cause to the Broward Bar on it's findings of Conway and the settlement agreement it has reached.
I see a trend developing here. Are these people really that out there?
THE REAL QUESTION IS: WHERE ARE THE RUBY SLIPPERS NOW?
Big win for Conway. He ought to take this National and spill the beans on the whole bunch. You know, like let everyone know what the situation is here in Broward. Water runs down hill, but so does some other things.
heard he was just fed up with Fred's representation, or LACK of - that's why he just took the plea offer.
heard from one of the jurors (one of the 7 people who voted in Conway's committee way back at the beginning) was concerned that nobody showed up at the vote! WHAT? Yep. only the prosecution was there to present its side.
also heard the nice 11-page Motion To Dismiss written by Conway was never filed by Fred, either.
So. I think it was wise of him to take the offer, considering his circumstances AND the local venue .. but it was even wiser of the Florida Supreme Court to intervene.
sometimes, with an unprotective Bar, local judges against you, coupled with lousy counsel, it takes the wisdom and courage of the Florida Supreme Court to protect the Constitution.
The Broward Bar is so corrupt. Feeding, nay, enabling the out of control whacko judges for 25 years while turning their backs on the lawyers they are supposed to represent and the community at large. Why? Power, money, and the rest of the yummy empty calorie things pigs like to eat. But watch out, too much candy will rot your teeth and eat your stomach out. Shame on the Broward bar suckling judicial teat when everyone knows Aleman was out of line. Stand up for your community you slobs and STOP THE EVIL RACISM IN BROWARD'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.
Leave it to outside forces to once again fix the Broward crony boys mess. Too bad no one here has any real character. Thank goodness for the Supreme Court. The JQC convicts Aleman, and the Broward thugs condemn Conway for having the courage to say the same thing the JQC did and sign his name to it.
Talk about telegraphing. How do you think the appeal is going to go Cheryl?
Why would the Bar have proceeded on a first amendment issue anyway against a lawyer who was doing his duty for his client? Didn't the JQC publicly reprimand this Judge Aleman?
BLACK EYE FOR THE BROWARD BAR. WHAT'S A-TERD GONNA DO WITH ALL THOSE PLAQUES NOW?
Sounds like the Bar is about to go on a crash diet! I always thought that what Conway did was admirable under the circumstances.
The best part ids the Supremes did this of their own volition. The slimy tactics of Broward's finest coupled with Aleman's freakiness seems to have struck a chord with the decent souls up north. It goes to show that you don't have to be ruthless and nasty to go places in you career. Maybe the message will finally get through to all the angry bullys in Broward that to help themselves they should help others.
Spechler's out of the picture but leaves behind what you'd expect. In his attempt to stamp out judicial criticism in getting the Bar to go after Conway, he's sealed the crypt for Aleman. Couldn't happen to a better person and worse judge.
Good job Florida Supreme Court! Good luck Sean!
The Bar has huffed and puffed and blown their own house in.
Great, now Conway's gonna act like the big bad defender of the masses when just weeks ago he caved and admitted he was wrong. It's like someone confessing to a crime then having the confession thrown out trying to say the prosecution was biased against him. A bunch of BS.
She doesn't look to happy today. The wiggle room is definitely looking diminished.
But what's its gonna cost her? The appeal of JQC findings have enough costs attached to it. The Supreme Court finding could really cost her everything. Thanks Sean. You're the man!
WHY WON'T THE NEW TIMES AND OTHERS GO AFTER THIS STORY.
LAWYER, MARILYN LINDSEY WRITES ON A PUBLIC BLOG THAT CHIEF JUDGE ROSS RAPED HER OVER AND OVER THEN THREATENED HER LIFE. FIND OUT WHY THE FL BAR IGNORES THIS AND GOES AFTER CONWAY.
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THE BARS ANSWER. YES THERE WAS A COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE BAR SO DON'T LET THEM LIE
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 STAY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS AND DEMAND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING ON THIS MOTION
COMES NOW respondent Thompson, stating:
It is this day reported in the Daily Business Review that the Florida Supreme Court will address the core issue in The Bar’s prosecutorial pursuit of Thompson in these matters: Whether a lawyer has a First Amendment right, if he has a reasonable basis for doing so, to be critical of a judge and/or the judicial process:
Florida Supreme Court
Florida high court asks if attorney’s comments are protected speech
June 24, 2008
By: Jordana Mishory
The Florida Supreme Court is questioning a proposed settlement brokered by The Florida Bar in a disciplinary case against a Fort Lauderdale criminal defense attorney for his critical comments about a judge.
The court asked for more information from The Bar and attorney Sean Conway on Monday. It issued an order directing them “to show cause” by July 14 whether “any of the respondent’s comments should be considered protected speech under the First Amendment.”
“It looks like the First Amendment is alive and well in Broward County, Florida,” Conway said in response to the order.
Conway was charged with violating professional conduct rules when he called Broward Circuit Judge Cheryl Aleman an “evil unfair witch” who is “seemingly mentally ill” on a court blog. Conway posted the comments on JAABlog in 2006 while complaining the judge set felony trials one to two weeks after arraignment.
Conway, a Florida attorney since 1996, agreed to a public reprimand from the Bar, and the settlement was approved this month by the case referee.
The justices asked the two sides to say whether Conway had an “objectively reasonable basis” to make his comments and cited a 2001 disciplinary case noting attorneys “play an important role in exposing valid problems within the judicial system.”
Separately, Aleman is appealing a state Judicial Qualifications Commission recommendation calling for a Supreme Court reprimand for engaging in a pattern of arrogant and discourteous conduct.
Aleman, Bar attorney Alan Anthony Pascal, Conway and his attorney, Fred Haddad, did not return calls for comment by deadline.
This referee will recall that most of the prosecution of Thompson is for comments he made about a) Attorney Clatus Junkin’s own assertions that he could fix cases before Alabama’s Judge Moore, b) Thompson’s criticisms of Miami-Dade Judge Ron Friedman, about whom Thompson said things that the Third District Court of Appeal wound up saying itself, not once but twice,
in reversals of Friedman for prejudging cases before him, c) Tew Cardenas’ improper use of Bar complaints to chill his First Amendment speech, and d) Blank Rome’s attempts to subvert the judicial process in Alabama. Everything Thompson did falls within the parameters of what our Supreme Court says it is concerned about as to the Conway matter. Thompson never, by the way, ever came close to describing either of the aforementioned two judges in the remarkable fashion in which Conway described Aleman.
The referee will also recall that The Bar put on absolutely no evidence whatsoever indicating that anything that Thompson said in these two regards was not true. Indeed, all the evidence indicated that Thompson had a reasonable basis for saying what he said and wrote. All The Bar was able to say and assert what that Thompson had been critical of others. Whether there was a reasonable basis for any of it was NEVER addressed by The Bar.
Further, the referee will recall that Thompson repeatedly asked The Bar, in the discovery denied him by this referee before trial, for any evidence The Bar had that anything Thompson had said about these two judges and the judicial process generally was not true. Thompson formally asked, over and over again, for evidence and proof that he had spoken less than truthfully about any of this. The Bar said this evidence was privileged! This referee agreed, denying Thompson’s subpoenas for the depositions of Kuehne, Chaykin, and even the outside investigator, Pollack, so that going to trial Thompson would know what The Bar considered to be his criticisms of others that were not “reasonable beliefs.”
From the above news reportage of what the Supreme Court is doing, we now know that the very information Thompson sought in these regards was not privileged—but instead that evidence goes to the core of whether The Bar can prosecute someone for criticisms such as those uttered by Thompson, if there is a reasonable basis for them. The Bar never even addressed that element of the offense and instead said Thompson could not discover it.
The above-reported story coming out of the Supreme Court is like a comet streaking across this referee’s career and Thompson’s as well. Either she stays these proceedings pending what the Florida Supreme Court decides is the controlling law in all this, or she will be out on a limb that the Supreme Court will likely saw off. Any sensible jurist would grant this stay motion.
The referee will also recall that Thompson asserted his right, guaranteed by the federal courts in Mason v. Florida Bar, to appear before The Bar’s Governors to make the very constitutional argument that now the Florida Supreme Court says it wants to hear from The Bar and Conway!
WHEREFORE, respondent moves this referee to stay these proceedings andhe demands an immediate hearing on this motion to stay. Maybe this referee will let him talk at that hearing.
Finally, this referee is reminded that The Bar was willing to settle all of this mess with a 90-day suspension, with an automatic reinstatement, until the Judge Friedman complaint (which he never signed) was filed. If the Florida Supreme Court rules re Conway in the fashion that it is indicating, then Thompson is going to demand enforcement of that agreement of a 90-day suspension. How does the ten-year disbarment stack up with that? Not well. This referee and The Bar have been warned hereby.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have provided this to The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, June 24, 2008. Copy to Florida Supreme Court.
John B. Thompson, Attorney, Florida Bar #231665
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146, phone, 305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net
Kiddies, I just got my get out of Bar Jail Free Card. Told 'ya. Jack Thompson
Call Larry Marin. Cheryl must need consoling. "She's the most wonderfullest person ever"
Ratboy's Fetal Index Plunged 440 Points at today's opening. More losses expected as market adjusts to recent news of Supreme Court Order to Broward Bar. More to follow @ 4:00.
KNEW YOU COULD DO IT, JACK. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE REST OF THE MORONS SAID!!
The Broward Bar had Peter Patanzo working as a bar grievance officer. One of the stars of "Judging Ana." Has he broken any rules himself? Does he have an obligation as a bar official to come forward if he knows anything and can clear the air?
What about Bar prosecutor Juan Arias? Does he know if his lifetime friend Judge Gardiner broke any rules? Does he have an obligation as a bar official to come forward if he knows anything and can clear the air?
What about Judge Gardiner? Has she denied any of the allegations? With so many prosecutions questioned, does she have an obligation as an official to come forward if she knows anything and can clear the air?
Why did they misguidedly prosecute Conway when they should be vigorously pursuing the claims in the New Times? Are not these questions of paramount importance to justice? Are they doing anything about it? What threat did Conway represent?