It turns out the Bar really does ask "how high?" when a judge says "jump!". 

As we mentioned
earlier this month, the Bar has caught heat in recent years from judges unhappy with the way robed complaints are handled.  That's why a big chunk of the 2012 Hawkins Commission Review Of Discipline System is dedicated to judges, starting on page 30 of the Final Report, and continuing on page 85 with a survey of judges concerning the Bar's performance. 

Something called Standing Board Policy 15.91 is mentioned a lot, which may be reprinted in its entirety in The Florida Bar Discipline Counsel Manual,
uploaded by some kind soul here.  The stuff on judicial complaints starts on page 56 of the Manual.  Interestingly, this language is found on page 58: "The initial communication should include whether the Judge wishes to be the named complainant or whether the Judge wishes to remain anonymous.  If the choice is anonymous, then the file is opened with TFB as the complainant." (emphasis added)

We're not too sure how recent the bootlegged Manual is, so we've requested a copy or a link to both a current Manual and the full text of Standing Board Policy 15.91 from the Bar.  We're also checking with the JQC to see if a lawyer can complain against a judge anonymously.  We'll post everything as soon as we get it.  In the meantime, doesn't it seem like the need for a statewide judicial media watchdog grows daily?

JQC v. Glant - is it normal for the JQC to file formal charges against a judge battling cancer?  Or for the Supreme Court to issue an Involuntary Retirement Order?  And how come the Gainesville Sun makes no mention of the JQC action in reporting David Glant's "surprise(d)" retirement?  Developing ...

The last remaining ? - Now that Patti Henning has eliminated the guesswork, wannabe's will be focused on Marc Gold as the only 2014 judge who hasn't yet said yay or nay to retirement ...

Coming Soon - Are Jack Thompson's complaints against attorneys being taken seriously by The Bar?; Should other Gardiner cases be reopened?


What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Page: 1 of 1
  • 6/19/2013 8:47 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Anon comments are one thing but why would a Judge be scared to sign a complaint?
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 9:41 AM FM wrote:
    Judge Glant agreed to this because I bet he gets better benefits if it is a "Forced Retirement" instead of a "Voluntary Retirement". No way would he just concede to this without some benefit. Probably had to be done this way.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 9:51 AM Anonathon wrote:
    Didn't Judge Diaz get in trouble for sending Judge Seidman an anonymous email? Wouldn't it be funny if he was the anonymous complainer to the bar?
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 10:08 AM Forced Retirement wrote:
    I think it also has something to do with receiving permanent disability benefits under the state benefits statute.

    I would guess that its a health insurance/disability insurance issue rather than something that would poorly reflect on this judge.

    It sounds like he is in a very bad position (late stage renal cancer, etc.) so I hope that his treatment goes as well as it can and that he is in as little pain as possible.

    This is not something that is blog-worthy as a scandal, etc. IMO.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 10:17 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Shame on the JQC for going after a sick man.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 10:44 AM Chicken-sh_t wrote:
    I don't get the FLB standing in the shoes of the judge if the judge doesn't want to file the complaint. It doesn't seem right and shouldn't be allowed to happen.

    My take is that if a judge is seen as filing a complaint against an attorney, the judge will never receive another dollar in contributions, etc.

    The system is corrupt.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 10:52 AM Judicial Standards wrote:
    So then according to FM & Forced Retirement:

    The JQC is assisting a judge in milking the system out of sympathy for his plight?

    and / or

    The judge is trying to pry every last benefit for himself and his family in his last functioning days?

    How does this further the public confidence in our court system and uphold the supposed high standards of conduct associated with the position of a judge?
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 12:30 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    Look, I'm aware that a lot of folks who post here hate my guts. Fine. Get in a very long line. My view is that if you knew what I actually did when I was a lawyer rather than what certain people who had and have an axe to grind said I did, then you would have a different view of me. But that is water under the bridge. Go ahead and despise me. You're in big company.

    Having said that, the thing I want every lawyer in Broward, in Miami-Dade, and elsewhere around the state to know is this, and this stands alone as a crucial point separate and apart from my miserable, allegedly Nazi self:

    The American Bar Association in its official McKay Commission Report condemned as fatally flawed The Florida Bar's disciplinary structure as corrupted by the influence of influence-peddling Bar governors whom the ABA must have absolutely nothing to do with lawyer discipline. 98% of you lawyers don't even know that our state's disciplinary structure is at odds with the ABA's Model Rules. You don't know that the ABA says there must be a "Chinese Wall" between what the bar and lawyer discipline. You do not know that the Florida Supreme Court, when it integrated our state's bar, promised that the bar would not insinuate itself into bar discipline. But now it has, specifically violating the integration order, let alone the ABA Model Rules.

    So to find out what this is happening to Bill Gelin you need to understand the politicized structure of bar discipline that has spawned it, made it a tool of vengeful judges and other operatives, made it the tail that wags the Supreme Court dog.

    So, hate me. Go ahead. I know where my ultimate journey leads. It does not lead to approval by the guild known as The Florida Bar. But let me make this clear: Either you lawyers, in of all places Broward County, get your s--t together and fight back as a group, at least some of you, against The Bar, or the regulatory crocodile in Tallahassee will shatter the independence and the zeal and the public-spirited of what is now and used to be my profession.

    I made mistakes. None of them deserved disbarment. My unforgivable sin was blowing the whistle on The Bar and how it rapes the rights of those who stand against it. Bill Gelin is a hero. stand with him. If for no other reason than that you are next. Norm Kent, give me a call at 305-666-4366.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 12:56 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    Sorry for the above typos, but you get the idea, I am sure. Bar staff don't comprehend even typo-free communications, so consider that the above was encrypted so Ken Marvin, Director of Lawyer Regulation can't understand it. I sent Ken the First Amendment once. He thought it was a recipe for a casserole.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 2:06 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Imagine being a Judge so afraid of a lawyer they too scared to sign their name to a complaint.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 2:08 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Beating up on Judges with cancer is nothing new for JQC. Ask Judge Cohen.
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 2:18 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    John B. Thompson, J.D., M.A.
    5721 Riviera Drive
    Coral Gables, Florida 33146

    June 19, 2013

    Howard Simon
    Executive Director
    ACLU of Florida
    4500 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 340
    Miami, Florida 33137 Fax 786-363-1107, aclufl@aclufl.org

    Re: The Florida Bar’s Intensifying Assault upon the First Amendment

    Dear Mr. Simon:

    I was permanently disbarred by the Supreme Court of Florida for a) appearing on 60 Minutes, twice, at the request of the now late Ed Bradley, b) telling the truth about an incompetent, corrupt judge in repeating what the Third District Court of Appeals had opined about him, c) securing federal fines against clients of certain lawyers hard-wired to The Bar’s Board of Governors, and d) blowing the whistle on the corrupt disciplinary practices of The Florida Bar in a book published by Tyndale House, the second largest religious publisher in America.

    But I am not writing to right the wrong done by The Bar to me; it is too late for me and what was a 32-year legal career. Rather, I write to ask, implore, and even beg the ACLU, the nation’s most prominent civil and constitutional rights advocate, to do something about the ongoing, intensifying, and highly consequential assault by The Florida Bar upon the political speech rights of public-spirited lawyers.

    US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in his dissent in Lathrop presciently predicted that “eventually integrated state bars would become goose-stepping brigades intent upon assaulting the rights of nonconformist lawyers.” Those Bar brigades are on the march out of Tallahassee. Liberals and conservatives must come against those brigades, for they imperil inconvenient political speech from all quarters.

    The Florida Bar is presently seeking to chill the whistle-blowing pure political speech of Broward County lawyer William Gelin who has used his law blog to tell the truth about notorious Broward judges. He has improved the commonweal by his efforts. The Bar is hectoring Gelin without having cited any Bar Rule violated, and it is doing so on behalf of secret bar complaints filed by judges who refuse to be identified. This is a recreation of England’s notorious Star Chamber. What The Bar is doing to Gelin is so patently unconstitutional that I need not here make the analysis.
    In the meantime, it should be further noted that the American Bar Association has formally found that The Florida Bar’s disciplinary structure is fatally flawed and hopefully infected by political influence. The State Bar of California was similarly corrupted until the ABA did a formal audit of it, which led to salubrious, far-ranging reforms of that state’s lawyer discipline system. Florida refuses such an audit.

    In 1949, when the Florida Supreme Court by Order integrated The Florida Bar, it promised in that amazing Order that The Bar would never be run in the fashion that it is now irrefutably being run. Thus, The Bar is violating
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 2:20 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    the very Integration Order that created it. The Polston Florida Supreme Court has, in a recent Florida Supreme Court, “abdicated its duty to supervise The Florida Bar.” Indeed it has, with the result that The Florida Bar is protecting entrenched commercial and political interests.

    Mr. Gelin is but one of many Florida lawyers so targeted by The Bar for vocational mayhem for engaging in speech that enjoys the highest rung of First Amendment protection by virtue of its being pure “political speech.” The Bar has “speech code” rules that are both unconstitutionally facially vague and also as selectively applied and prosecuted, thereby giving rise to substantive due process and equal protection concerns. By presently targeting Gelin, the speech of other whistle-blowers is being chilled. That’s the idea. The Bar has morphed the salutary “judicial independence” of Hamilton and turned it into the judicial toadyism of Hitler. See Douglas’ “goose-stepping brigades” comment should this appear to be ahistorical hyperbole.

    The ACLU is not a newcomer to this issue here in the ironically-named Sunshine State. You may recall that in 2008, the Florida ACLU authorized Randall C. Marshall to file an amicus brief on behalf of Sean William Conway who was punished by the Florida Supreme Court for bringing to the public’s attention the misdeeds of a Florida judge who was ultimately disciplined by the Judicial Qualifications Commission for those misdeeds! Thus, TELLING THE TRUTH about a corrupt public official affords no defense in the face of a Bar assault upon the independent, public-spirited practice of law. See Bar v. Conway, SC08-326.

    The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court have stood Times v. Sullivan on its head, treating as criminal libel any truthful statement told by a lawyer because it is both hurtful and true, asserting that to tell the truth about a sitting judge is “unreasonable.” The term Kafkaesque should now, because of The Florida Bar, be spelled Kafka, Esq.

    George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, a highly-regarded, well-known constitutional law expert, has assiduously reported how out of control, how inimical to the First Amendment The Florida Bar has become. See http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/30/florida-supreme-court-upholds-sanction-against-lawyer-who-called-judge-a-witch-on-a-blog/

    I am not asking the Florida ACLU to take what I write here at face value. I simply ask that I might address you and your Board, face-to-face, at the earliest moment convenient to your Board. I know more about what these Bar speech police are up to than probably anyone in the Stae. I can provide proofs of what I say wholly independent of me. You don’t even need to trust me, but you can verify what I claim. Again, I ask to come before you not to further any remedy I might have. I am out of remedies, at least temporal ones. I ask to come before you as a long-time, steadfast friend of the First Amendment, believe it or
    Reply to this
  • 6/19/2013 2:22 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    not, regardless of what you may have heard about me from certain commercial interests and their lawyers. Relatedly, I stand four-square with the ACLU in its suit against the NSA and its repeal of the Fourth Amendment by Congressional fiat. To paraphrase Franklin, either the liberal and conservative friends of the Bill of Rights will hang together, or we shall hang separately, depending upon what are the policy predilections of the powers that be that run the NSA, The Florida Bar, or the FBI.

    I have been on hundreds of college campuses debating the meaning and reach of the First Amendment. I have done so over the years on many occasions with Nadine Strossen, the past president of the ACLU, whom I first debated on ABC’s Nightline. I count Nadine as a friend, and I believe she will tell you that it would be reasonable for your Board to allow me to come before it, again, not for my sake, but for the sake of the constitutional rights that are slipping away unless we say “No” to the Leviathan.

    So, please, hear me out. See for yourselves if I have horns or if The Florida Bar’s operative have them. In fact, feel free to invite The Bar and its representative to be there. You’ll be glad you did.

    Let us serve the Constitution together, which simply means putting The Florida Bar under the controlling power and majesty of the Bill of Rights.

    Regards, Jack Thompson

    Randall C. Marshall, rmarshall@aclualabama.org
    Bill Gelin
    Reply to this
  • 6/20/2013 11:43 AM James Crow wrote:
    Truth is a most inconvenient repellent to the systems unfettered ability to lock up black men women children.
    Reply to this
  • 6/20/2013 12:13 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    Truth untied to power is useless, dude. Just ask the surviving relatives of those who died at Auschwitz. Such naivete is disturbing.
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.