|
John "Jack" Thompson deserves a "GO GETTEM' TIGER" Award:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Defendant.
ADDITIONAL RELIEF SOUGHT BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
COMES NOW plaintiff Thompson seeking the following additional
relief herein:
1. Just when it seemed The Florida Bar could not sink lower in
the abuse of its power to regulate the profession of law in this state, it
has done so. The Bar has now sunk so low that it needs a submarine to
survive.
2. The Bar has now demanded in writing that respondent Thompson accede to a
91-day suspension from the practice of law on the basis of his alleged
unethical conduct (are you ready?) in a) claiming that three families who
are his clients are in fact his clients and b) preparing expert witnesses
for their depositions. The undersigned is not making this up. He could not
make this up. He does not have a sufficient imagination.
3. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that such dastardly
deeds were unethical, Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma, working out of the Orlando
office of The Florida Bar, has made such a demand not on the basis of any
actual ethics complaint against Thompson. Thompson has asked for it, and it
turns out that it does not even exist. Instead, this demand that Thompson
receive the vocational death penalty is based upon The Bar's secret
collaboration with Blank Rome lawyers who represent Take-Two, the makers of
the Grand Theft Auto murder simulation games. Blank Rome's lawyers are the
authors of other actual Bar complaints filed against Thompson in order to
facilitate their client's marketing of adult products to children.
4. Thus, what we now have is The Bar's pretending to have Bar
complaints with which to threaten Thompson that in fact do not even exist.
Does this court even care that The Florida Bar, which it is supposed to be
overseeing, is now in the business of threatening 91-day suspensions of
lawyers on the basis of complaints, which the target cannot review in order
to respond to these thuggish threats because they do not exist?
5. This is the same Bar and the same Bar prosecutor that
threatened Thompson with a psychiatric evaluation, just as it did fifteen
years ago, with the result that The Bar's insurer paid Thompson damages for
that insanity, and Thompson was rendered the only officially Bar-certified
sane lawyer in Florida.
6. What this High Court should do, with all respect, if it is
serious about its Bar oversight role, is set for hearing this petition for
writ of mandamus and assess with its own eyes and ears just who in this spat
is insane and who is out of control. It is not Thompson. It is The Florida
Bar, for which this court is responsible.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this has been provided to The Florida Bar, 1200
Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, this 5th day of May, 2007.
_____________________________
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Case
No. 07-21256 (Judge Adalberto Jordan)
THE FLORIDA BAR and
DAVA J. TUNIS,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF HE SEEKS
COMES NOW plaintiff, John B. Thompson, hereinafter Thompson, as an attorney
on his own behalf, and provides notice to the court of supplemental case
authority in support of the relief he seeks, stating:
1. The attached 2002 opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in
Tyson v. Florida Bar, 826 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 2002) states:
As we explained over forty years ago in In re Harper, 84 So. 2d 700, 702
(Fla. 1956), the purpose of an attorney disciplinary proceeding is the
protection of the public, not the vindication of private rights:
"Disciplinary proceedings against attorneys are instituted in the public
interest and to preserve the purity of the courts.
2. The Florida Supreme Court, by authorizing the "discipline" of
Thompson, is violating its own clear holding in Tyson that "the purpose of
an attorney disciplinary proceeding is the protection of the public." The
Bar complaints brought against Thompson were generated and filed by lawyers
for a video game industry company in retaliation for Thompson's appearance
on CBS' 60 Minutes about it and by lawyers for the Florida broadcaster
illegally airing The Howard Stern Show. These are SLAPP Bar complaints
which were conjured up as a clever collateral "shoot the messenger" attack
upon the undersigned activist in order not to "protect the public" but
rather to protect two companies heavily involved in the illegal porn-to-kids
industry. The Bar, rather than protecting the public, is facilitating the
mental molestation of minors for money.
3. As to the Howard Stern matter, Thompson didn't even have a
client. No client has ever complained about such public-spirited efforts by
Thompson. Not one. So just who is this "public" that The Bar is protecting
from Thompson?
4. Thompson has repeatedly asked The Bar, in formal discovery
in the state disciplinary proceedings against him: "What harm has Thompson
done? What public purpose is being served by these disciplinary
proceedings?" Those questions are not rhetorical. They must be answered in
light of the Florida Supreme Court's own ruling in Tyson. The Bar refuses
to answer those questions because its answer to both is "NONE."
5. The Tyson standard set by the Florida Supreme Court as to
the purpose of lawyer discipline is highly germane to these federal
proceedings, particularly in light of Fieger v. Supreme Court of Michigan.
It is very simple: For any state's restriction on speech to survive a
"strict scrutiny test," there must be "a compelling state interest" served
by such a restraint. Not only do we not have, in the state Bar proceedings
against Thompson a compelling state interest, we have no state interest
whatsoever.
The Bar cannot enunciate it. The porn industry lawyers can not
state it and don't even try. What we really have here, then, is a state
supreme court and a state bar that simply seeks to enforce its illiberal
speech codes for no reason whatsoever other than that they think they can
get away with it. They almost did, until Fieger came along.
At least Afghanistan's Taliban has a reason for clamping down on
speech. The Florida Bar doesn't even have that. What it has is the joy its
self-righteous operatives feel in the utterly arbitrary but apparently
enthralling exercise of raw governmental power in violation of the United
States Constitution.
After all, these people call themselves literally the "Guardians
of Democracy" on Bar brochures. They guard nothing but their own hubris.
The Bar is hoisted upon its own Tyson petard, and this court
should act accordingly.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this has been served upon record counsel this 10th
day of September, 2007, electronically.
/s/
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff
|
