The Florida Bar asked for an "enhanced disbarment" in the disciplinary hearing of Jack Thompson, held earlier this afternoon. The recommendation means Thompson would be disbarred and prohibited from applying to practice law again for ten years, according to 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida spokesperson Eunice Sigler.
Thompson's disciplinary hearing apparently ended in the attorney walking out of the courtroom after saying the judge did not have the authority to hear his case, a reader who sat in on the hearing told us.
The case proceeded without Thompson's presence and the Florida Bar issued its recommendation for the enhanced disbarment. Judge Dava Tunis' specific recommendations for sanctions will be included in her official report, to be due to the Florida Supreme Court by September 2nd.
Before walking out of the courtroom, Thompson filed what he called "Thompson's Formal Objection to June 4 Sanctions Hearing." In the rambling, 4,500-word objection, Thompson questioned Tunis' ability to preside at his hearing, calling her incompetent and arrogant and threatening to have her removed from office "in the days and weeks ahead." He also went on to call the people run The Florida Bar fascists and denied that he was involved some sort of "petty culture war."
Thompson wrapped up his 14-page objection by quoting from the bible, and saying that he and Senators Clinton and Obama understand the dangers posed by the Grand Theft Auto games.
"I am "guilty" of being right and ahead of the curve when it came to Howard Stern and as to Grand Theft Auto. Because I took on Bar complainant, Al Cardenas, the Howard Stern Show is off terrestrial radio and his influence diminished.
Because I took on this cop-killing, woman-bashing video game, the Presidential race is now addressing the issue and this particular video game.
Try to get me disbarred. Go ahead, do your worst, Referee Tunis. I will continue to do my best. "
We've contacted Thompson for a reaction to the recommended disbarment recommendations and will update you if and when he responds. In the meantime, hit the jump for the full letter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
THOMPSON'S FORMAL OBJECTION TO JUNE 4 SANCTIONS "HEARING"
This document is hereby submitted to the referee at the commencement of this non-hearing sanctions "hearing" and read into the record as well, and thus I depart from the traditional identification of myself, a party herein, in the third person and instead speak in my own voice in the first person directly to the referee.
I object, strenuously, as I have in the past on the record, to the very notion that this proceeding can even occur, on various grounds any single one of which is fatal to its legitimacy, including but not limited to the following grounds:
You, the referee, are not even a judge. The law in Florida on that is clear, and it is found in Florida's Loyalty Oath Statute 876.05, et sequitur, held constitutional and binding by the United States Supreme Court in Connell v. Higginbotham.
We know now from a recently concluded State Attorney's investigation and Report that your first state loyalty oath was forged. We also know that your next two oaths, which you signed, did not conform to that statute in that the language deviated from what is required and they were not even notarized. A number of formal opinions by Florida's Attorney General state that such flaws are fatal regardless of intent.
The statute itself states that if any state official, including a judge, fails to comply strictly with the loyalty oath statute, then that judge is without legal authority to serve and must immediately be removed from office. I will accomplish your removal from office in the days and weeks ahead, as the litigation that will achieve that has already been filed by me in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of Florida, which you, the referee think is your ally in what you are doing here has ruled that your loyalty oath screw-up is fatal.
As Richard Nixon found, the cover-up is worse than the initial law breaking. When I found out about your forged loyalty oath and then about your two subsequent inadequate loyalty oaths, I moved for your recusal. You then immediately commenced a cover-up, refusing by a false, formal order to acknowledge the loyalty oath problem, pretending it did not exist. Proving the cover-up, you even more foolishly executed on February 4, 2008, finally, a loyalty oath, which I attach hereto, that complies with the state statute, but you did so too late to keep you in office, as the oath must be timely executed, and yours is years too late.
The law is clear; your post facto oath is invalid. This panicked oath is an irrefutable admission that you never had a valid oath in the first place. How could you do something so dumb? Easy; desperate people do desperate things. You will be removed from office, and all of what you have done in this Bar matter will be voided as a result.
Secondly, we know now that six of the seven Florida Supreme Court Justices never executed valid state loyalty oaths. I have proven that, as has Florida and Washington, D.C. lawyer Montgomery Blair Sibley, whose own Bar referee, Judge Prescott, had his oath forged by the same person, Sayed A. Shah, who forged yours. What a coincidence.
The Florida Supreme Court entered its order seeking to deny me my right to represent myself before it on this disciplinary matter when I alerted the Court to its loyalty oath problem. They, too, in a panic, executed too-late, post facto, wholly ineffectual loyalty oaths after the whistle was blown on them. This just proves that sitting on the highest court in the state neither make you clever. The consequence of all of this post facto oath taking is that all that the Florida Supreme Court has done in this case is invalid and will be voided, and if you think I will not accomplish that end then a) you do not understand the lawsuit already filed, and b) you don't know Jack.
Thirdly, we are here today because you issued a written document you called "Recommendations" by which you announced to the world with this document you leaked to the press, that I am guilty on 27 of 31 counts brought by The Bar. In issuing and leaking this document called "Recommendations," you have clearly violated Florida Bar Rule 3-7.6 (m) which states in pertinent part:
The referee's report shall include:
(A) a finding of fact as to each item of misconduct of which the respondent is charged, which findings of fact shall enjoy the same presumption of correctness as the judgment of the trier of fact in a civil proceeding;
(B) recommendations as to whether the respondent should be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measures;
(C) recommendations as to the disciplinary measures to be applied;
English is the greatest of all languages. It allows its users to be very precise. Any rational person conversant in English understands, upon reading Rule 3-7.6, that the document containing findings of guilt must also contain "findings of fact" as to what I am guilty of. Your "Recommendations" have absolutely no findings of fact, and yet we are here today on that invalid document. There is absolutely no provision in our Bar Rules for a document called "Recommendations" devoid of such findings of fact. You and The Bar have made it up. You and The Bar have made a lot of things up in the last four years, and this is just your latest.
From the day this Bar effort began four years ago and in which you, the ref eree have become ensnared, although you have certainly warmed to the recruitment, I have been asking for a document that informs me what I have done to violate the Rules. Four years later, I still have no such document and no notice and thus no due process by virtue of that failure. You couldn't even come up with it in your "Recommendations." This is a game of "hide and seek," Referee Tunis, which you cannot win.
I have said it before, and I will say it again to you, and of course you will not listen, but the record must be made clear: You can't charge a lawyer and you can't charge a rapist with anything unless you tell him in the charging document with specificity—with facts alleged—what he has done.
We went into the trial here in November 2007 with no specific charges. The Bar said, "Here are the Rules you have violated, here are the documents, you figure it out." At the trial, there was absolutely no evidence—no facts—put forth that I violated any of these Bar Rules. My favourite "testimony," if you want to call it that, which highlights the problem of not telling an accused what he has done wrong, was from Alabama Judge James Moore, who admitted under oath, that I did not withhold any of my colourful disciplinary history from him, as Blank Rome alleged, but that in fact I gave him more facts than I was required to give. My sin was that I did not tell him how "serious" were my Bar sins.
I didn't even have to tell him I was merely reprimanded by The Bar in 1992 for trying to protect my family from death threats, but because I did not characterize my sins as more serious than The Florida Bar itself did, when I provided him all the facts, he said I had not "see the whole picture." Believe me, I see the whole picture. I am to be punished for telling the truth because I pose a threat to this white judge who put this black teen on death row in Alabama. That's the "whole picture." I am also to be punished, you have concluded, for going on 60 Minutes and warning the American people, like Paul Revere, that, inspired by video games, "the murders are coming." And they have come.
I am to be punished for trying to save lives, over the objection of Blank Rome, which gives more money to the Bush family than any other law firm in the world. This is the Bush family that put you on this bench and whom you have protected by refusing to give me a subpoena that puts Jeb Bush under oath about his personal, financial relationship with the two law firms that are behind all of these Bar complaints, Tew Cardenas and Blank Rome. You are Jeb Bush's protector and shield from Jack Thompson, and you have discharged your sordid task in that regard effectively.
Fourthly, most of what I am charged with I did not do on behalf of any client but in pursuit of efforts to secure enforcement of laws for the common good. The Florida Supreme Court ruled, again in English so that any rational person can understand, in Florida Bar v. Brake, that a lawyer cannot violate Rule 4-8.4(d) unless he is "engaged in the practice of law on behalf of a client." I had no client, Referee Tunis, in almost all of this, and thus you have had no jurisdiction over any of that. You have ignored this clear Florida Supreme Court ruling, and you will be undone by this cavalier disregard for the law in this regard as well.
Fifthly, you have received numerous motions to recuse, all of which have been facially and legally sufficient. The law in Florida in state court is clear as to recusal. Once you receive a motion to recuse which on its face conforms to the requirements of Florida Statute 38.10 and Rule 2.330, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, you must withdraw from a case. You are not allowed to assess the validity of the facts in the motion. The filing of a motion that conforms to the statute mandates recusal, period.
There is no wiggle room on this. You have wiggled, repeatedly, like a nightcrawler on a hook. You have thumbed your nose at this Florida recusal law as well, and this alone will undo you and which renders whatever you do today and after null and void.
Sixthly, we come to an issue about which The Florida Bar's Board of Governors and I are in total agreement. The Governors have come up with a new Rule that before Judges can serve as referees in Bar matters they must be trained as to how to discharge these specialised duties of a referee. In the other Bar case you had Arthur Teele was the respondent, and he solved your problem by killing himself in the lobby of the Miami Herald. I'm not giving you that out.
The Bar Governors have decided: No training, you can't be a referee. Leaving aside your bias against me, which you have never missed an opportunity to express, proof of your incompetence and total lack of training as a referee has been legion. You did whatever The Bar told you to do, even to the point of refusing to give me hearings, refusing to issue subpoenas, and refusing to afford me any semblance of due process. Smiling and saying "Have a nice day," after you have just informed me that I can't get a continuance for my wife's cancer surgery and chemotherapy is not due process, Referee Tunis. It is incompetence wedded to arrogance, poorly masked by a happy face.
Going into this complex "disciplinary" matter with no training on what a referee should do and how you should act undoes all of what you have done and will yet do to me, as the new Bar Rule—let's call it the Tunis Rule—will alone be a basis for reversal.
There is more that I could say and frankly want to say at this Star Chamber, kangaroo court "hearing," but the record has probably been sufficiently made to date to make it easy enough to undo this mess, but I note here, as I conclude my objection to these proceedings:
You have been so cruel and at the same time so foolish as to call my pleadings herein "propaganda." That word means something, given how propaganda was used in the last century by the Third Reich in Nazi Germany to justify the placement of people of faith in "relocation centers" where they were starved and gassed as the "final solution" to the problem they posed. A human spirit that could do that is more than capable of doing to me what you have done. Clarence Thomas, at his Senate confirmation hearings, spoke of those proceedings as "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."
The US Senate, Referee Tunis, has nothing on you and your high-tech lynching of the uppity Christian who stands before you.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas warned in Lathrop v. Donohue that integrated state bars, like Florida's, if they were left unchecked as to their ideologies, would turn into, his phrase "goose-stepping brigades" for nonconforming lawyers who did not fit the majority's mold. There is a reason my e-mail address is [email protected] It is because of the fascists who run The Florida Bar identified as such by a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
You also smeared me with the epithet that I am involved in some petty "culture war" into which I have tried, you allege, to recruit you. Some of us, Referee Tunis, simply know and dare act upon the fact that children should be protected from corporate predation, whether it be the violent pornography in Grand Theft Auto IV, sold to my 15-year-old son in a sting he did at Best Buy in Dadeland, in which women proclaim "I'll suck your cock real nice" then do so, only to be killed by the hero in the game. We actually do something about the sale of simulators to underage teens on how to kill policemen in ways you would not even imagine, which is precisely what Devin Moore did in a police station in Fayette, Alabama. We come against radio broadcast descriptions, in our hometown on WQAM-AM, by Howard Stern as kids are goi ng to school at 8 am by female amputees on how to lubricate their stumps and place them into the anuses of men to achieve orgasm.
Those of us who have done something about this do not want you in what you derisively call a "culture war" anymore than we would want Frank Fuster to run a day care centre. I represented Ileana Fuster in her divorce from Frank Fuster, and she knows more about what I have been trying to do and why I have been trying to do it over the past twenty years than you even care to know and yet which you mock. It's your and The Bar's culture war on me and upon people of faith that indicts you, not me.
The Preamble to your and my Bar Rules, Referee Tunis, prohibits the bringing of Bar complaints by opposing parties and counsel as a means of collateral attack. Such SLAPP Bar complaints are illegal and they are void. When I provided you a letter from The Bar's own prosecutor in Ft. Lauderdale saying just that, you refused to have a hearing on the matter. You refuse to have a hearing on any matter that threatens to derail this locomotive in whose engine you oh-so-primly sit, as it careens toward the bridge that is already washed out.
Just this past week you entered an order asserting that The Bar has never demanded a mental health assessment of me. I have the letters from The Bar that prove you a liar. It was in response to those repeated demands that I went to one of The Bar's own favoured forensic psychologists, Oren Wunderman, Executive Director of the Family Resource Centre of South Florida, who spent hours examining me, administering tests, and he found me a) wonderfully sane, and b) a person whose Christian faith has enhanced his activities as a lawyer. The Bar has a real problem in that Dr. Wunderman simply echoes what The Bar itself had to formally admit in 1991 when its insurer paid me damages for forcing me to undergo forced psych evaluations, on the order of the oathless Florida Supreme Court.
The Bar then formally found my actions stemmed from my religious faith, and it has never gotten over being bested at its own game. This latest instalment of this anti-Christian persecution is simply payback by The Bar, and you have allowed yourself to become part of it.
You have chosen to ignore Dr. Wunderman's findings and The Bar's own previous findings as to why Jack Thompson does what he does, because you must: To do otherwise would have given me a hearing to which I am entitled under Florida Statute 761, called the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, held constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, which provides me a total defence in these Bar proceedings and which also, when they are over, gives me a cause of action against you personally and against the State of Florida. This act provides that if my actions stem from a religious impulse, then The Bar cannot discipline me for acting upon my religious impulse. Good luck to a Bar whose own formal findings establish why I do what I do.
When I wrote a letter to Al Cardenas, calling him to be ashamed of what he and his law firm have done to harm children by fronting for the Howard Stern Show, I was acting upon the Scriptural template of John the Baptist confronting Herod about marrying his brother's wife and the example of Jesus confronting the Pharisees, who called them "hypocrites, whited sepulchers, and vipers." Jesus was not a silent doormat and neither am I.
This Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which you arrogantly chose to pretend does not exist and on which you would not give me a hearing as to my defence thereunder, has been found to protect as a religious practice the consumption of peyote because there is a religious sect that makes doing so a sacrament. You cannot be serious, Referee Tunis, if you think that a jury will not look at what you have done to me for what I have done, in the name of Jesus Christ, and not be appalled at your discrimination against this uppity Christian "propagandist" whom you smear as a mere "culture warrior."
Finally, and then I am done with this formal objection to these proceedings, over a year ago I taught an evening class at Miami-Dade Community College on the campus a few minutes from here. When I was introduced by the professor as the man who got Howard Stern off terrestrial radio, which Stern himself admits, and despite the Bar complaints of Tew Cardenas and other porn lawyers made at the time, all of the African American women in that classroom gave me an ovation. They get it. They understand the racism and the misogyny by Stern targeting them. You, a white woman of privilege living on Key Biscayne, obviously don't "get it."
Those black female students are the people who will be on my jury in the trial in which you and The Bar will be a defendant. I do what I do for them, and not for you, not for the ultra-liberal extremists on the Board of Governors like Steve Chaykin, my actual designated reviewer who publicly states that lawyers like Jack Thompson who oppose gay adoption are "enemies of The Bar and outside the core values of The Bar." My other designated reviewer was Ben Kuehne, to the left of Stalin ideologically who is an operative for the ACLU, which national organisation has targeted me for years. Kuehne is now under federal indictment for money-laundering and you, you obstructionist sitting illegally on that bench, would not issue a subpoena to allow me to depose him. In that single act of ministerial arrogance you violated any conceivable notion of due process under our Constitution. In doing so, you embarrass the bench more than any words I could write about Judge Ron Friedman.
The Steve Chaykins and the Ben Kuehnes who have hijacked this Bar, and who have hijacked you, the referee, are the ones who have fashioned Justice Douglas' "goose-stepping brigades" that will undo both you and The Bar. I have put up with your serial breaches of Florida laws, of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, of the Constitution, and of common decency for a year and a half now. When this is done, and when you recommend my disbarment, and when the Supreme Court does disbar me, as I am presently bound and gagged and unable to represent myself before them in this matter, even though I now have a client whom I represent before them in that very same court, the tables will be turned. It will then be my time at bat, and a jury of normal people in this County will undo all that you have done.
Even now, this day, I thank God that I am who I am, in the situation in which I now find myself, rather than the one in which you brazenly put yourself. From the Gospel of John 15: 18-25 I end with the words of Jesus of Nazareth, which you, Referee Tunis, have proven true:
18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25But this is to fulfil what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'"
Having only scratched the surface with what is wrong about these lawless proceedings and why they are illegitimate under the laws and Constitution that you were supposed to take an oath to uphold, I have no choice, as a matter of law, but to depart from these proceedings now and not participate in them other than to object to them, which I have now done.
To do otherwise, to participate in any fashion in these in valid, unauthorized, unconstitutional, vicious proceedings, waives my objection to them and in fact validates them. I will not do that because I am too good a lawyer to do that, having practiced law, Referee Tunis, in continuous good standing for 31 years, despite the efforts of the anti-Christian Florida Bar that recruited you to do exactly what you have done like a good little soldier in your own little culture war on a man who protects the children you should be protecting.
Jesus said, "If any of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, then it would be better for you that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast into the uttermost depths of the sea."
By perseverance and by God's grace, I have fashioned a legal millstone that I will place around your neck and the neck of The Bar. Don't blame me, Referee Tunis, when you feel the water rising.
I have been invited to be one of four honourees this year in Utah at what is called America's Freedom Festival. I will ride with the other four honourees in a parade attended in the past by 250,000 folks lining the streets of Provo. The petty hypocrisy by which you, a referee, seek to harm me cannot undo the blessing that awaits me, by God's mercy and grace, in middle America a month from this day. I attach the news release from the Freedom Festival so that you can see that I am being blessed because I have stood against The Bar, not in spite of that stand. I have put myself in harm's way, at the hands of harmful people like you, Referee Tunis, and in doing so I have "fought the good fight" to protect little ones who mean more to me than anything you think you can do to me.
You are the one who is out of touch, Ms. Tunis. Senators Clinton and Obama have both warned the American people, specifically, of the danger posed by the Grand Theft Auto games. The Blank Rome lawyers who protect this game want me disbarred because I dared to sound the alarm about Grand Theft Auto on CBS' 60 Minutes before Senators Clinton and Obama followed my lead. Now, in part because of my efforts, a recent poll shows that 65% of the American people want a federal law to prohibit the sale of games like GTA to kids. I am "guilty" of being right and ahead of the curve when it came to Howard Stern and as to Grand Theft Auto. Because I took on Bar complainant, Al Cardenas, the Howard Stern Show is off terrestrial radio and his influence diminished. Because I took on this cop-killing, woman-bashing video game, the Presidential race is now addressing the issue and this particular video game.
Try to get me disbarred. Go ahead, do your worst, Referee Tunis. I will continue to do my best.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this has likely been hand-delivered this June 4, 2008, to Bar staff counsel Sheila Tuma in the courtroom.