Boy, the Florida Bar sure does fight dirty.  While everyone was hoping for an intelligent debate on First Amendment, media, and political/lawyer speech issues, that doesn't seem to be the way Bar v. Blog is headed. 

Call us stupid.  Call us naïve.  But please don't call us dishonest, which seems to be the Bar's upcoming pitch at the Grievance Committee (GC) meeting on September 11th.  They finally wrote back yesterday, citing a slew of rules that "may have been violated", which make your humble author out to be Jack The Ripper, Son of Sam, and Gardiner all rolled into one. 

Of course, the Bar still refuses to cite a single word, phrase, or photograph they find offensive or inaccurate.  They refuse to make a single specific accusation of misconduct.  They won't disclose the contents of any complaints that were made, or say who made them, or draw lines from the cited rules to the blog posts in question.  Instead, they simply print the rules, attach twenty-two articles concerning Bobby Diaz and one about Marni Bryson, and say the opportunity exists "to make a written statement, sworn or unsworn, explaining, refuting or admitting the alleged misconduct".  Got that?

Additionally, the Bar states they will be presenting our prior written responses, also composed without knowledge of the complaints or accusations.  Topping it off, the Bar says unequivocally "you and your client may not attend". 

As previously stated, we sure have been naïve.  And the incredulous stares from experienced politicos we spoke to around the courthouse today added insult to injury.  "What did you expect?", ran the theme, "that's how the game is played".  Apparently, since the First Amendment and media laws can't be evaded to shut down the truth, the vagaries of the Bar rules can be utilized, even if it means an unfounded assassination attempt on a person's character and reputation.

Pushing as hard as we do, we know people are going to push back.  Whistleblowing ain't beanbag, as the saying goes.  It's just we always expected more from an organization like the Bar.  However, it's now apparent they'll sacrifice all vestiges of fair play and due process to do what they want (or what they're told).  And it's an abomination to the entire legal profession.

But don't start feeling sorry for us.  We have faith in the GC members, and in Bar higher-ups in Tallahassee.  Despite being frustrated by local nemesis Adria Quintela, there's time to approach Ken Marvin, and members of the Board of Governors before the September 11th deadline.  Hopefully, they'll see to it that the spirit of Rule 3-7.4(h) is honored, and ensure proper notice of the accusations is given so a sufficient reply can be made before the GC meets.  And if not, there's always a Writ of Mandamus to the Supremes, lest anyone forget this is The United States of America.

As we've said before, if we've blundered, or made an honest mistake, we'll take full responsibility and do the time.  We're only human.  Like any media outlet, we blow it sometimes, even if corrections or retractions concerning the articles in question have never been requested to this day.  That being said, we stand by every word we've ever written, and feel that if the Bar has information concerning inaccuracies or otherwise, they ought to come to the table with clean hands to clear the air.  They might not like the blog, they may not like having had to absolve all bloggers of liability concerning unmoderated Comment Sections in a prior ruling, and they may hate living in a world where new technologies allow lowly individual lawyers to have a say in how judges and lawyers are held accountable.  But to allow them to ignore or change their own rules midstream, and to adopt Rollerball style tactics in prosecutions, is anathema to everything the Bar, the judiciary, and the Rule of Law is supposed to stand for ...

Coming Soon: Links to the 23 Bar v. Blog Articles; Two Weeks Worth of Wednesday Reversals; Dan Lewis says: "Florida BAR disciplinary grievance processes have just two gears; Railroad and Whitewash."

Carmel Cafiero - Miami Courthouse/Corrections Parking Scam (w/ Herb Cohen)

BBeat: Judge Richards: I’ll Fight Hard For Re-Election

SS: Public defender's chief sleuth wins prestigious state award for work

Rumpole's commentators on Hugo Black and criticism of judiciary

From Glik v. Cunniffe:

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’ ” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n. 11, 98 S.Ct. 1407 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)) ... The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press. Houchins, 438 U.S. at 16, 98 S.Ct. 2588 (Stewart, J., concurring) (noting that the Constitution “assure[s] the public and the press equal access once government has opened its doors”) ... (Emphasis Added)
                                (Thanks to Lloyd Golburgh)

I've had pigs in the farmyard,
Some of them, they're alright ...

WARNING - Graphic Content

Broward SAO Waiver of Prosecution Form

JQC Complaint Form


What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Page: 1 of 2
  • 8/16/2013 8:05 AM Jack Thompson wrote:
    Bill, I told you The Bar would go this way. Sorry I was right. Time to break out the nuclear warheads on these clowns. Ken Marvin is the worst of them. Time to listen to me. Jack
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 8:24 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Cut them a break. There has to be a bunch of sneaky weasels riding roughshod over 100,000 scumbag lawyers. No one would be safe otherwise.
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 10:09 AM Anonymous wrote:
    I don't see much difference between the Bar and the JQC. In my opinion they both operate under "Railroad and Whitewash".
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 10:30 AM Anonymous wrote:
    the flabar & jqc is a waste of taxpayers dollars, harms its members and the public
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 10:32 AM Anonymous wrote:
    There is no distinction between the two but don't expect things to ever change. It's all about power and money.
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 10:40 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Do a records request on the Judges and JA emails. If they were silly enough to be updated by Bar that way then you will know what's going on.
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 10:50 AM Jack Thompson Re TaliBar wrote:
    The Bar did the very same thing to me: They cited a bunch of Bar Rules in their complaint, filed with the Supreme Court and never, not even at my bar "trial," even attempted to prove that my alleged actions satisfied any of the elements of any of the alleged Rule violations. The Bar even amended their Complaint during closing arguments, to add an additional charge, thereby denying me an opportunity even to rebut that charge. There were no rulings on any of my constitutional defenses. I didn't lose those arguments. The referee refused to RULE on them, thereby frustrating any constitutional argument on appeal.

    Look, Bill, these people are out to shut you down and in doing so send a message to all lawyers in this state that if you screw with any judges by telling the truth about them (I was found guilty of saying about Ron Friedmant what the 3rd DCA had said about him) then we will rip your right to practice law from you.

    The Florida Bar's structure and procedures are wholly at odds with what the ABA's Model Rules say they must be. That is why the Florida Supremes and Bar REFUSE an ABA audit of our Bar disciplinary system here, even though 47 states have sought and had such an audit.

    No, you can hate my guts, say I am a rightwing lunatic, lay any libel on me you like. The fact is, I was privileged, yes privileged, to be in the first wave of The Florida Bar's assault upon the First Amendment, and I am here, as Bill knows, to help him and anyone who comes under this Taliban-like, Nazi-wannabe assault upon nonconformist lawyers.

    Winston Churchill, who was a wonderful watercolor painter, was once asked, "What is the hardest thing about painting," to which he replied, "Knowing when to stop."

    These fascists at The Florida Bar don't know when to stop. They have picked on the wrong target in targeting this blog. It is one thing to shred the constitutional rights of a born again Christian for an appearance on 60 Minutes. The ACLU loves that. But they don't, as other civil rights groups, don't love this nonsense against Bill Gelin, which is an attack on all of us.

    Ken Marvin at The Bar: Strap your codpiece on. We're coming after you and The Bar, and we shall prevail. Jack Thompson
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 11:00 AM This Embarasses the Bar wrote:
    Ken Marvin and the Bar have the information about another thing but it implicates so many Florida lawyers that the bar thinks it will be less embarrassed by pretending it doesn't know about it -- until it will come out that they've known all along.

    To copy what's already been posted here on this blog:

    "Is this the same David Di Pietro that is an alleged criminal voyeur who goes around bragging about his perverted behavior and saying it would be a stupid reason to be disbarred? There are accusations all over the place, online and otherwise, including a leaked e-mail from him in which he responded to a question about his behavior by saying that he, his family, and his colleagues should not be contacted about this. He ended his response with the word "Understood?" which, knowing David Di Pietro, seems to be an implied threat. Here is one site that mentions this:
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 11:24 AM Free Speech in Support WG wrote:
    Dear Bill, I will gladly sign a joint letter/petition asking the Bar to stop this witch hunt. Perhaps if they see how the legal community supports free speech they will back off. Ask Norm/Russel what we can all do to support you.
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 11:25 AM Free Speech in Support WG wrote:
    Dear Bill, I will gladly sign a joint letter/petition asking the Bar to stop this witch hunt. Perhaps if they see how the legal community supports free speech they will back off. Ask Norm/Russel what we can all do to support you.
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 11:54 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Mike takes a beating here. To his credit he doesn't cry about it to TFB like some crybaby. Remember that before slinging more arrows.
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 12:16 PM TRUTH AND HONOR wrote:
    I think the Bar has some deep-seated soul searching it needs to do when political considerations take a front seat to truth and reporting of gross corruption and waste within our judicial system. I can see the Bar having to do allot of backtracking before this is all over. Whatever happened to Truth and Honor?
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 12:53 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Judge Cohen’s friend Buddy Nieves is desperate to get a better candidate than Casey Anthony’s attorney into the race against Judge Ian Richards. Buddy Nieves also wants to make sure everyone sees a photo of Judge Ian Richards. Does being a negro matter? Why should the friend of Broward property appraiser Lori Parrish and her husband Judge Geoffrey Cohen care who wins this race?

    Could this e-mail be one reason?

    From: Judge Ian Richards
    Date: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM
    Subject: Re: email
    To: Judge Peter Weinstein

    To: Chief Judge Peter Weinstein

    Most people understand that it is improper to talk to a judge about a pending case which is being handled or might be handled by that judge. The concern here is the potential for lawyers, colleagues, and comrades to become too comfortable. That comfort is what leads to crossing the line between harmless conversation and ex parte communication. Conversations like this erode public confidence in the justice system. I humbly suggest some type of ethic’s training on the bright line rule regarding ex parte communication and judicial impartiality. I suggest that the training be for both judges and staff because of the following two examples:

    Ms. Tanya Greene (Wayne Greene 11-767)

    On Tuesday January 25, 2011 Ms. Tanya Greene, a supervisor in the Domestic Violence civil injunction section of the Broward County Courthouse, called my Judicial Assistant Loraine Talamini in the morning saying she wanted to speak with me. I received the message in the form of a cell phone text when I was on the bench. I also noticed her standing in my courtroom at some point in the morning. My judicial assistant was answering the phone from home because of a family illness and texting me to contact Ms. Greene. It seemed urgent because I received more than one text. All of the runners being supervised by Ms. Greene have my cell phone number in case they need an injunction to be reviewed or signed. After the morning docket ended Ms. Greene came by my office and thanked me for speaking with her. She then handed me a note. I did not read the note and she began to talk about her boyfriend or husband. I stopped the conversation immediately. My instincts told me that she was talking about a case. She then left the office.

    I knew there was a problem but I could not activate the procedure to handle this issue because my Judicial Assistant was not in the office and could not contact all required parties. Subsequently, I walked down to Room 130 and approached the docket clerk for my division. I told her my heart was in my throat because someone who seemed like a domestic violence victim just approached me in my office with this note. I asked her to pull the file and put a conflict notice on the folder. I also asked her to set it for hearing in a week to deal with the ex parte issue, with notice to the State and Defense. Since my docket clerk said the case was set for hearing soon I agreed to deal with the ex parte issue on
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 1:44 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Avenge Avalos!
    Reply to this
  • 8/16/2013 3:35 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Jack, isn't it the height of hypocrisy for you to level such fulsome -- and justifiable -- criticism against the Bar and its disciplinary process, and then to use that very process to harass and menace those lawyers who incur your personal wrath? Has any individual in Florida filed more grievances against Florida lawyers than you have?

    This seems like a snarky question, but it's not. How do you reconcile these facts?
    Reply to this
  • 8/17/2013 11:30 AM Jack Thompson wrote:
    No, I have not. I have no idea what you are talking about. Literally.

    But how convenient for you to allege, anonymously, that I do such things. You're worse than a coward. You're an anonymous coward.
    Reply to this
  • 8/17/2013 8:05 PM Frat Stud wrote:
    Guys in my high school used to make fun of the teachers. It was no big deal.
    Reply to this
  • 8/18/2013 6:56 AM Anonymous wrote:
    I really don't get it. Do lawyers give up constitutional rights when they pass the bar? The other thing that does not sit well is these judges are elected public officials and should they not be treated as such? Like Bill or don't like Bill I find it chilling how the bar is trying to silence him.
    Reply to this
  • 8/18/2013 8:29 AM in re richards wrote:
    Judge Richards is totally correct to question the tactics and report them of Judge Cohen in attempting to get him to show some sort of favoritism not in keeping with his own conscience on a case that Judge Cohen was not sitting on? Since when does a judge who is not hearing a case call another judge to give any advice whatsoever? Judge Richards was right to report this action taken by Cohen to both attorneys and Chief Judge Tobin, for it is very wrong.
    Cohen knows it is wrong and should be taken to task for it.
    This is just one of the reasons I voted for Judge Richards and will in fact vote for him again.
    As long as you have judges like Judge Cohen who knows better, attempting to influence other judges as stated in the report of this incident to then CJ Tobin, you have a very bad situation going on and one that is very wrong.

    Incidentally, I notice my previous post concerning this very issue was taken down. What is that all about?
    Reply to this
  • 8/18/2013 9:18 AM Anonymous wrote:
    If this is being handled above board there ought to be an opportunity to depose the Judges who are subjects of articles the bar cites.
    Reply to this
  • 8/18/2013 9:19 AM Anonymous wrote:
    If this is being handled above board there ought to be an opportunity to depose the Judges who are subjects of articles the bar cites.
    Reply to this
  • 8/18/2013 3:37 PM Anonymous wrote:
    @ in re richards
    So you're the only one who voted for ian richards because of his alleged ethics. Most people vote for him in 2008 because they thought he was white, which he is not.
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 12:10 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    Yes, The Bar's position is that lawyers have no right to criticize judges, even if that criticism if fact-based. You've figured it out. That's why this blog's pushback to these Nazis is important for the rest of you. Theirs is the mentality that has activated the NSA's repeal of the Fourth Amendment. Jack Thompson was first, then Sean Conway, now Bill Gelin, and you are next. Anybody who is a lawyer who can't figure this out is mentally deficient. Jack Thompson
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 6:15 PM Anonymous wrote:
    It's not their fault. The system is so rotten and corrupted they can't tell the truth from lies anymore.
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 6:58 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed. Stay the course. The righteous always prevail.
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 7:39 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Sounds like a fortune cookie saying.
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 7:44 PM Jack Thompson wrote:
    The righteous DO NOT always prevail. What fairy tale are you living in. Ever hear of Treblinka, Aushwitz, Buchenwald, etc.? The Warsaw Ghetto? The killing fields of Pol Pot's Cambodia? Heck, even Joan of Arc. No, the righteous do not always prevail, not in this life. And as Edmund Burke noted: All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

    Nearly no one in Broward is coming to the aid of this blog, in the face of this evil assault upon it. Shame on all of you. The righteous always prevail. What a bunch of hogwash. It is a saying that is an excuse for you namby pamby Bar fantasists to do nothing. How pathetic. Jack Thompson
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 8:19 PM Dead Dan Futch wrote:
    They don't cotton to clever little lawyer boys in Tallahassee like they do in Broward.
    Reply to this
  • 8/19/2013 9:13 PM Anonymous wrote:
    TFB hasn't found PC yet Jack. Take a sedative. I bet it tanks at grievance level.
    Reply to this
  • 8/28/2013 10:15 PM anonymous wrote:
    Hey dirty lawyers: 1. the first rule in you bar-assed rules clearly ALLOWS for truth as a defense but for the fact that most of you cannot help but lie. 2. Any jackas* lawyer that thinks that because the bar has not found PC in any of Jacks's complaints proves absolutely nothing except proves jack's point--the bar is a fraud and complaints are useless and attacking the messenger is far preferred than actually looking at the message. Witches, ghouls, vampires and terrorists stick together & protect each other and all of you need to be burned at a stake.
    Reply to this
  • 9/9/2013 3:44 PM Great News Re Florida Bar wrote:
    Great news about The Florida Bar coming out of Syria just now:

    Syrian President Assad has agreed to turn over his chemical weapons stockpile to the United Nations in exchange for a promise from Bar President Eugene Pettis that The Bar propose to the Florida Supreme Court that the American Bar Association's Model Rules prohibiting state bars from having anything to do with lawyer discipline be adopted here in the Sunshine State.

    Most Florida lawyers don't even know that The Florida Bar is thumbing its nose at the ABA in this regard and has been since 1992 when the ABA labeled The Florida Bar's Bar-run disciplinary system fatally flawed and corrupt:

    Assad says Pettis has 48 hours to accept the deal. Jack Thompson
    Reply to this
  • 11/4/2013 11:24 AM home painters brisbane wrote:
    The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.
    Reply to this
  • 11/8/2013 2:11 PM win free products wrote:
    It's not, 'We have a city to bid, now let's go check in with the federal government'.
    Reply to this
  • 11/18/2013 1:55 PM Tax advice Sydney CBD wrote:
    If I wasn't singing, I'd probably be, probably an accountant.
    Reply to this
  • 11/29/2013 3:49 PM orange county sprinkler repair wrote:
    Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 2
Leave a comment


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.