How to make a federal judge really angry

It's almost impossible to get under Judge Jordan's skin, but Jack Thompson has found out a way to do so -- include graphic images of gay porn in his filings. This is no joke:

According to GamePolitics (hat tip: Above the Law):

Jack Thompson criticized the Bar for allegedly collaborating with Norm Kent, a criminal defense attorney from Fort Lauderdale. Thompson and Kent have a contentious legal history dating back nearly two decades. From Thompson’s motion:

The Bar’s demonstrable mindset is that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as indicated by The Bar’s enthusiastic, recidivist collaboration with Mr. Kent, over a twenty year period, at Thompson’s expense. Lunacy proceedings have been sought and secured, Bar complaints have recently been maintained for nearly three years.

Kent, who publishes the National Gay News website, was criticized by Thompson in last week’s court filing for “distribution of hardcore porn to anyone of any age.” Not content to make that alleged point in writing, Thompson attached several gay porn pictures to his motion with Judge Jordan. The pictures apparently do not come directly from the National Gay News site, but rather are contained on sites linked from NGN’s adult links section.

In any case, His Honor was not amused.

In an order issued on Monday, Judge Jordan directed Thompson to show cause as to why he should not face sanctions, including possible contempt charges. Judge Jordan wrote:

The attached exhibit, which includes several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males, was filed electronically in the docket in this case, without prior permission from the court…

To the extent that the other attorney’s alleged conduct is in any way relevant… there was no need for Mr. Thompson to file these graphic images in the public record. A simple reference to the website and its alleged links would have sufficed…

Through his actions, Mr. Thompson made available for unlimited public viewing, on the court’s docketing system, these graphic images.

For this reason, by October 5, 2007, Mr. Thompson shall show cause why this incident should not be referred to the court’s Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance for appropriate action.

Thompson has filed a bunch of responses (right now the number is up to 4) to Jordan. Here's a classic, referring to himself in the third person no less:

To hold Thompson in contempt for alerting the federal court system to the criminal activity… is akin to arresting Paul Revere, in 1775, for “disturbing the peace” with his midnight ride…

Ah, the midnight ride of Jack Thompson.... There is so much material here, I'm not sure where to begin.........

The Jack Thompson hearing (by Jack Thompson)

Rumpole, you want answers?

Well, all I have on the Jack Thompson hearing today in front of Judge Jordan is (what purports to be) Jack Thompson's summary of the hearing posted on GamePolitics here:

I’m delighted to announce that Judge Jordan vacated his order regarding referring me to the disciplinary committee, and he decided to forego all disciplinary remedies.
The judge started out by suggesting that he did not feel comfortable doing so unless I admitted I had done something wrong. I said I did nothing wrong and would not admit that I did. He asked, “Then how do I know you won’t do it again.”
I pointed out to him that Christ said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s.” Christ, then, was making it clear that people of faith are not free to disobey civil authority, and if he now entered a court order for me not to do this, then I would not, as Christians are not free to disobey the law without consequences. But I told him he could not order me to say I did something wrong, because as a matter of conscience I could not do so.
That obviously satisfied him, and he voided out the entire disciplinary matter. Norm Kent was there, which was hilarious, having moved the court last night at 10:30 pm to let him “intervene” and appear before the disciplinary committee against me. Poor Norm, he went away from the hearing sad.
As to the Bar’s motion to dismiss, the judge will rule in two weeks. I expect to receive from the court certain federal relief against this Bar. You all don’t know the case, and I do. Norm Kent, who is now unofficial legal consultatnt to Dennis McCauley as to all things “Jack” smugly predicted here and elsewhere that this disciplinary blow by Judge Jordan was sure to unravel everything for me.’
Now the disciplinary matter does not even exist. How did that prediction turn out for Norm and Dennis?
Kids, leave the lawyering to lawyers. I’ll leave the mind numbing games to you all.
I had a great day, standing before a federal judge for a 2 hour and 45 minute hearing, and I did just fine. Even Norm Kent would have to admit that.
Besides, Norm is a Yankee fan, and grew up in Cleveland. I’m having a very good 24 hours. Jack Thompson, Attorney and You’re Not

UPDATED -- GamePolitics has more on the hearing here.

Judge Jordan and Jack Thompson

It's hard to keep up with all the Jack Thompson filings in the Judge Jordan case. The latest is that he tried to get Jordan off the case so that he could name him as a defendant. No go -- from Game Politics:

In an order issued late yesterday, Judge Jordan wrote:

In my opinion, the content of the numerous filings submitted by Mr. Thompson
indicate that he has difficulty separating the legal issues in this case from
broader social issues on which he has strongly-held beliefs. Mr. Thompson
unfortunately appears to believe that every act taken against him, and any
judicial ruling adverse to him, are part of a vast conspiracy designed to
silence him and destroy him.

Judge Jordan has scheduled a hearing for October 9th at 9:30 AM on motions by the defendants (the Florida Bar and Judge Dava Tunis, the referee in Thompson’s Bar disciplinary trial) to dismiss the case.

The judge will also hear from Thompson on a motion regarding the “show cause” order issued from the bench following Thompson’s inclusion of gay porn in a docket filing.

And if you can't get enough of this craziness, here's what happened in Thompson's other lawsuit in front of Judge Huck.

Whew.

News and Notes

1. More on the tragic death of Hugo Black III here from Julie Kay. There are some really nice comments in this post about Hugo. Feel free to add your memories of him. That's a picture of Hugo to the left.

2. We posted earlier about Jack Thompson upsetting Judge Jordan. Thompson has filed at least 14 responses to Judge Jordan's order. In one, he tells U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta to investigate Norm Kent: “You have no choice but to initiate a criminal investigation into this individual and if you do not so proceed by Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 5:00 p.m., I shall proceed to secure a federal court order to compel you to do so.” Judge Jordan issued another order on Monday (posted here, courtesy of GamePolitics), saying that Thompson does not have “a free reign to unnecessarily flood the docket in this case with a series of motions…that have no bearing on the issues in dispute in this case.” The Judge added that while Thompson “may have think this case is a war with the world regarding the state of moral standards, it is not.” The court does not have “jurisdiction over moral standards.” Stay tuned.... UPDATE -- GamePolitics has all the goods here, including Thompson's most recent response.

3. The Supreme Court hears argument today in two big sentencing cases -- Gall and Kimbrough. These cases are being watched closely by prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges because they will affect judge's discretion at sentencing. Early prediction -- defense wins on both cases, which will give district judges the full range of discretion they should have at sentencing. Here's an article discussing both cases, and you can always get more info at the best Supreme Court website -- scotusblog.com.

For real?

If this GamePolitics post is to be believed, the following occurred:

1. Jack Thompson hand-delivered a letter to Chief Judge Moreno.
2. That letter said in part: "We find yesterday that enemy combatants at Guantanamo are to get more due process from federal judges than what I am to have. I guess my "mistake" was not killing 3000 people to make my point... I demand a hearing."
3. After receiving the letter, Moreno sent U.S. Marshals to Thompson's house.
4. Thompson then wrote this letter to Moreno, which said in part:
I was visited today by two U.S. Marshals who were nice gentlemen, and very professional and courteous in their dealings with me. My complaint is not with them...

I have been asking the Justice Department simply to meet with me about [the video game industry's] criminal targeting of me for harm... Our US Attorney here has obstructed that effort... Instead of being afforded the Justice Department investigation to which I am entitled, I get today harassment from that same Justice Department...

When you and the Justice Department dispatch U.S. Marshals to my home because of a letter I wrote you last week complaining about misconduct by District Court Judges here in the Southern District, the purpose of that visit was to intimidate and harass me...

The notion that I pose some sort of physical threat to you or to the judiciary or to anyone else down here is a cruel joke. The two Marshals said, “If you had actually hand-delivered the letter to Judge Moreno, we would be concerned.” To that I said, “But I did. I did that last week because the gentlemen at the metal detectors would not deliver it, and THEY TOLD ME TO DELIVER IT TO YOU. I buzzed into your inner offices on the thirteenth floor, and I politely handed the letter to your clerk, who politely took it.

If I were a danger to anyone, that would have been the time for me to have proven it, right? In fact, I have never threatened anyone in my entire life, and you know that, and the Marshals said they knew that. They were apologetic about being dispatched to my home. This is outrageous, Judge. Simply outrageous.
5. Thompson then sent this letter to the House Judiciary Committee.

Is all this for real?

Thompson always manages to weave in to his letters and motions the current event of the day and then somehow make those events about him. He has material from the Supreme Court Guantanamo case, the Kozinski stuff, and other current events. Sorry for ruining the next half hour of your day as you go read this stuff. You won't be able to turn away....

Jack Thompson update

Honestly, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns of Mr. Thompson's various cases. I do know that Judge Dava Tunis has recommended that he be disbarred for life (169 page order). And on another front, he is suing Chief Judge Moreno and the U.S. Marshal. For more updates, visit Game Politics.

Judge Jordan dismisses Jack Thompson's lawsuit

We covered all the back and forth earlier, so here's the conclusion -- case dismissed in a 24 page order. Of course, GamePolitics has all the details...

And yes, Thompson has already filed an emergency appeal.

Jack Thompson takes on Cheney Mason

For this picture:

While we are on Mr. Mason, here's his closing from the Casey Anthony case. I note his reference to our own Milton Hirsch at the 53 second mark.

Monday Morning Blogging

It's Monday morning -- messages to return; weekend mail to go through; getting to stuff we couldn't get to Friday afternoon...

But the Hurricanes beat FSU. That makes it all feel a little bit better, doesn't it?

Unfortunately, the Fins are the worst they have been in my lifetime. It's tough to watch. Rumpole has a funny post about them over at his blog.

As for SDFLA news, the Liberty City 7 trial is still going... Joe Cool arraignments should occur this week.

And it looks like we have a new Justice Watch columnist -- Alana Roberts. Welcome. She writes today about Jack Thompson, which we have covered in detail in prior posts.

Finally, a couple of you have asked about how to join the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association. Go to this site, pay by credit card, and make sue you pick the South Florida Chapter. You'll want to join soon -- our first speakers in November are Judges Barkett and Marcus. Should be fun.

Ethics

Here's a little ethics question for my SDFLA readers on Monday morning:

Should the attorney-client privilege survive a client's death when revealing that client's statements (that he was the murderer and not the guy on death row) would save a man from death row or from life imprisonment (or any imprisonment)?

Those are the questions Adam Liptak examines in this NY Times article from a real life example. It's pretty dramatic that the judge is threatening the lawyer for revealing his dead client's statements:

STAPLES HUGHES, a North Carolina lawyer, was on the witness stand and about to disclose a secret he believed would free an innocent man from prison. But the judge told Mr. Hughes to stop.

“If you testify,” Judge Jack A. Thompson said at a hearing last year on the prisoner’s request for a new trial, “I will be compelled to report you to the state bar. Do you understand that?”
But Mr. Hughes continued. Twenty-two years before, he said, a client, now dead, confessed that he had acted alone in committing a double murder for which another man was also serving life. After his own imprisoned client died, Mr. Hughes recalled last week, “it seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans.”
Judge Thompson, of the Cumberland County Superior Court in Fayetteville, did not see it that way, and some experts in legal ethics agree with him. The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice — for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.


This is a classic law school hypo, and it's interesting to see how it is playing out in the real world. Monroe Freedman, the ethics guru, is quoted a bunch in the article. He would draw the line at saving someone from death row, but not life imprisonment:

Most experts in legal ethics agree that lawyers should be allowed to violate a living client’s confidences to save an innocent man from execution, but not to free someone serving a prison term, however long.
“I prefer to draw the line at the life-and-death situation,” said Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra. “That situation is sufficiently rare that is doesn’t present a systemic threat. If that is extended to incarceration in general, it would end the sense of security clients have in speaking candidly with their lawyers.”
The questions get more complicated when the client has died.

So, SDFLA readers, what do you think?

And have a happy Cinco de Mayo!