The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
if they had private retained lawyers they would have walked already.
ReplyDeleteWhy? What would a privately retained lawyer have done differently that would have achieved an acquittal?
ReplyDelete11:16- You are really so dimwitted that you belong on my blog, not here.
ReplyDelete11:16 sounds like Jack Thompson. It just sounds like a typical Jack Thompson comment. Thompson wants every lawyer destroyed because of his own problems with the Bar and the courts. Thompson, it's time to take your medication.
ReplyDeleteJust remember, as bad as he appears to be, there is allways something worse...
ReplyDeletehttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44553000/jpg/_44553845_karachi_afp.jpg
"A car blazes in the southern port of Karachi, Pakistan, amid clashes between rival groups of lawyers."
Acquit 'em already, damn it...
ReplyDeleteI am amazed Jack is still roaming the streets when clearly he needs to be committed to an institution or his shrink needs to up his meds.
ReplyDeleteSomeone left a comment on the Princess's blog informing her Jack Thompson is the one responsible for attacking her.
7:50- he probably was.
ReplyDeleteJack Thompson:
ReplyDelete"Advocacy of Conservative Christian Moral Standards"
I prefer calling him "Florida's Rambling Kook!"
7:50, who other than Jack would chastise a person for going to The Mutiny Club? Of course it was him!
ReplyDeleteI was one among others who insisted to the princess to post the comments. After reading them it doesn't take a scientist to figure out it was 'Florida's Rambling Kook.'
ReplyDeleteToday's the day for a verdict.
ReplyDeleteI feel it in my Irish bones.
Today is the day for the Allen charge
ReplyDelete7:50, the princess went to The Mutiny?
ReplyDeleteThis jury has already been out longer than the first jury was before the judge declared a mistrial.
ReplyDelete12:35, not the princess, her mom.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but why shouldn't they continue to deliberate as long as they have not indicated they are deadlocked?
ReplyDeleteI read that they did send out such a note
ReplyDeleteWhere did you read that?
ReplyDeleteApril 9, 2008
ReplyDeleteKen Marvin
Director of Lawyer Regulation
The Florida Bar
651 East Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Re: Sworn Formal Bar Complaint against Lawyer Posing as “Rumpole” and
Lawyer/Poster at his Justice Building Blog
Dear Mr. Marvin:
The Florida Bar’s position is that lawyers are not allowed to speak ill of judicial and legal officials, even if it is the truth. I am being prosecuted for just that, as is Broward attorney Sean Conway.
If you are able to read and understand Bar Rule 4-8.2(a) (if not, I’ll get you an interpreter), you will see that this Rule also applies to criticism of prosecutors who fall under the category of “legal officer.” Further, note that Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from assisting another lawyer to violate the Rules.
Well, a lawyer who uses the pseudonym “Rumpole” runs a blog called the Justice Building Blog that routinely publishes comments impugning the integrity and qualifications of judges and other legal officers, which activity is purportedly prohibited by the Rules (see above). I happen to think all of this is protected by the First Amendment, but The Bar does not. In fact, the United States Supreme Court says in Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964), makes it absolutely clear that a lawyer can engage in such speech. But The Bar thumbs its nose routinely at the US Supreme Court on this issue.
That’s The Bar’s problem, not mine. Also, the further problem, of course, is that The Bar goes after lawyers for truthful speech about bad judges because it has an axe to grind against those particular lawyers. Roy Black, for example, trashes Florida judges on national television, and he is given a pass for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he is the recipient of money laundered for him by a Florida Bar Governor. Go figure.
This selective prosecution of those who criticize officials causes a HUGE and disabling equal protection problem for The Bar: If it is going to go after one lawyer for communications critical of judges and legal officials, then it has to go after all of them. You understand the word “consistency,” right, Ken? You do know what equal protection under the law means, right, Ken?
So here you go, Ken: Either proceed against “Rumpole,” who is a lawyer (you can find out who he is), and also go after the lawyer that posted the below comments about Assistant State Attorney Cueto (see below), or shut down your Bar Thought and Speech Police right now. It’s your choice, choose wisely, as you’re going to be sitting in a witness box at a federal civil rights trial in which I am the plaintiff and you’ll be in more trouble than you already are:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19039943&postID=2272359475456262536&page=1
Re: Jorge Cueto. A couple of years ago, when Jorge was obsessed with becoming a DC, the powers that be told him that he needed a homicide trial under his belt. So Jorge asked a DC friend of his
AND HERE IS MR THOMPSON ON BENDED KNEE BEGGING FOR A 90 DAY SUSPENSION. WE SHOULD ALL PRAY FOR HIM.
ReplyDeleteTHE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT, MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, REQUEST FOR HEARING TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION TO LIMIT POSSIBLE SANCTION PER BAR’S OWN DEMAND
COMES NOW respondent Thompson and states that The Florida Bar demanded of Thompson that he accept a 90-day suspension in settlement of all matters before this referee. Thompson accepted that demand, and he informs both The Bar and the referee, again, of his acceptance of this demand.
In the midst of the trial herein, Sheila Tuma, The Bar’s prosecutor, informed Thompson that Steve Chaykin, who is overseeing and in fact running this prosecution, had unilaterally gone from a demand for a 90-day suspension to one three years in length. This was a twelve-fold increase, with no explanation given for the increase. None. The only possible explanation is retribution for Thompson’s seeking relief in federal court. Mr. Chaykin very famously has said that anyone who does not agree with him on gay adoption is an enemy of The Bar and outside the core values of The Bar, so we have in the designated reviewer running this prosecution someone who seeks to use it, and all Bar powers, to ferret out enemies and punish them. Nixon had his own “enemies list.”
The Bar then moved from this twelve-fold increase in its settlement demand (for which it gave no explanation and cannot) after Thompson indicated his acceptance of the 90-day demand, to informing Thompson that it would be seeking a permanent disbarment. Tomorrow or the next day will probably bring a Bar prayer for the death penalty. Mr. Chaykin may yet be undecided as to whether lethal injection would be too humane.
Thompson, therefore, moves this referee to enforce the settlement. This is a simple concept. All it takes, on The Bar’s part, is a decision to honor its word.
Anticipating that Ms. Tuma will refuse to honor the settlement, under direction of Steve Chaykin, Thompson requests and in fact moves the referee for a hearing on this matter of settlement. This is all the more desirable, for all the parties, including the referree, in light of the fact that Mr. Chaykin’s firm has been caught, improperly and foolishly, transferring monies to the referee in the form of “campaign contributions.”
At this anticipated hearing, The Bar can explain why it, with no new charges, went from 90 days to three years to disbarment. The explanation will be interesting and revealing, no doubt. It will also prove rather embarrassing to The Bar, as it has no explanation.
Should there not be a hearing now on this matter, then there will be a full hearing and discussion of this issue at any sentencing proceedings. At such proceedings, Thompson will move the court to impose, at a maximum, the 90-day suspension agreement, as nothing has transpired of substance to change circumstances. Indeed, at the trial Thompson showed that The Florida Bar cannot enforce Alabama’s Bar Rules and further showed that he cannot be disciplined, under Rule 4-8.4(d), as to behavior engaged in when he did not have a client (see Bar v. Brake). That wipes out all of the Tew Cardenas complaint, most of the Friedman complaint, and much of the Florida Bar/Judge Moore/Blank Rome complaint.
Upon the clear showing at trial of the above, The Bar, if anything, should have moved from a 90-day demand to a lesser demand, but Thompson, in order to put this entire imbroglio behind all involved, is willing to accede to the 90-day demand.
Should The Bar and the referee not accept or, respectively, enforcement this 90-day limit, given the significance of that figure, then Thompson is more than happy to litigate this matter with The Bar, the Florida Supreme Court, this referee, and others until the day he dies, and will do so. Proving that this Bar seeks punishment on the basis of retribution and not on the basis of the law and facts will be fun, interesting, and profitable.
Respondent would appreciate it very much if the referee, rather than ignoring this request for a hearing, as she has in the past about other matters, would actually convene one.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have provided this to The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, April 10, 2008, along with a copy to Referee Tunis. A copy is also provided to the Florida Supreme Court, to Steve Chaykin and to all Florida Bar Governors and our President, Frank Angones.
John B. Thompson, Attorney, Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146, phone, 305-666-4366
Rumpole, what happened to your verdict prediction?
ReplyDelete