Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Filing 237

NOTICE by John B. Thompson re 204 Order Letter to Chief Judge Moreno in Further Response to His Docketed Letter to Plaintiff (Thompson, John)

Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Doc. 237

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law 1172 S. Dixie Hwy., Suite 111 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 305-666-4366 [e-mail]
October 18, 2007 The Honorable Federico A. Moreno Chief United States District Court Judge Southern District of Florida Federal Courthouse Miami, Florida Re: Case No. 07-21256, Thompson v. The Florida Bar, et alia Dear Judge Moreno: I am placing this letter in the above-noted court file, without any covering pleading, because yours to me was placed there, in the same fashion, apparently by Judge Jordan. If this is improper, please let me know. I read with great interest your new Administrative Order 2007-50, which we refer to as the "Norm Kent Rule." This Order is necessary, of course, because The Florida Bar is protecting Mr. Kent's use of his official law firm site to funnel people to his gay porn portal. This is being done despite the Florida Supreme Court's mandate that lawyer's Internet sites not "diminish the dignity of our profession." It is sort of hard for reasonable people to understand how an ad by two Florida lawyers that compare their persistence to that of a pit bull dog corrodes the public's perception of our profession while a prominent lawyer's link from his site to material that Judge Jordan calls "obscenity" does not. With a great respect for his office, I note that Judge Jordan sought to have me disciplined for violating a rule that I now find did not exist until you entered the above-noted order more than two weeks after I supposedly violated a rule or alleged custom of this court. Judge Jordan went to Alaska decisions to try to find a rule that I broke in Florida. If there were such a rule in place here or anywhere when I filed the best evidence of The Bar's illegal and unconstitutional selective prosecution, which violates equal protection guarantees, then you would not have had to create and enter Administrative Order 200750. Put another way, Judge, if there were such a rule, why did we then need one? It is even more distressing to find, upon my being interviewed by the Daily Business Review (they only called because they saw your Order) that there was such an order entered after I did what I did, and that Judge Jordan did not disclose, at our October 9 hearing what he knew, namely a) that there was no rule at the time I "violated" it, and b) 1
Dockets.Justia.com

that he apparently tried to apply it ex post facto to me in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution. I should like to respectfully request, with high regard for both your and Judge Jordan's offices, that you encourage Judge Jordan to step aside and allow another judge to take this case. Not only am I rightly concerned about the above-related attempt to punish me with a rule that clearly did not exist, but Judge Jordan's inexplicable repeated assertions, first at a hearing on August 23 and then in an order, that I supposedly want him to join in "my cause." That's right there in the transcript. It seems that Judge Jordan has this preconceived notion that born again Christians are out to force everyone to agree with them. Repeated polls, especially one by Gallup, prove that evangelical Christians are in fact the most tolerant people in American, Mr. Kent's angry protestations notwithstanding. Mr. Kent sues me for libel for sending letters to the FCC. Mr. Kent threatens me with lunacy proceedings because of my faith. Is this tolerance? It is interesting to me that Judge Jordan sought discipline of me and will not transmit what he calls "obscenity" to the US Attorney. I have to conclude that there is some sort of discrimination going on here by Judge Jordan, especially when he repeatedly and inexplicably asserts, publicly, that I want him to be some sort of arbiter of morality. That reflects a view of Christians that is simply not accurate. After all, Jesus ministered to sinners, like the tax collectors and the woman caught in adultery. Christ did not come to condemn the world but to save it. Since The Bar wants to pathologize my faith, and since Mr. Kent has actually sought court orders to get me to stop quoting Scripture, I do believe that Judge Jordan, with all respect, should become aware of what real intolerance looks like and stop lecturing me in his orders about my imagined demands. This sounds like The Bar when he does that, and it has no place in a court of law. The reason Mr. Kent and certain Bar Governors and two irascible judges as well as the owners of WQAM are upset with me is that for 20 years I have said: Here is a law, here is certain behavior, now is that behavior illegal? That is all I have done. I find it odd that a lawyer who thinks and acts upon the notion that democratically enacted laws, like "obscenity" laws, should be enforced, is allegedly involved in some sort of bizarre effort to impose his morality on others or to recruit Article III judges into that effort. The issue in this case is whether The Florida Bar is violating the Constitution. Period. Now, I have informed Judge Jordan that we are off to the Eleventh Circuit to get, hopefully, him removed from this case, given the history that he has generated here, not I, with an order that was ill-considered, proof of which, I believe, is shown by the fact that he vacated it upon my telling him what I would have told him before he entered it. In entering that order he opened the gates to ridicule the levels of which I need not describe. I don't want to be accused of putting more "obscenity" in the file by telling you.

2

I think, for the sake of the public's perception of the fairness of the federal judiciary, you should, with all respect for both of you, ask Judge Jordan to step aside, and to do so quickly. Surely he has more interesting cases than this one. Judge Jordan enjoys a wonderful reputation. I think he should want to keep it that way. But I will tell you this: If he keeps going out of his way, as he did in his latest omnibus order, to go after me personally, when we should have gotten all this behind us, then I am going to defend myself. I am also going to defend the honor and integrity of the federal court system and its tireless judges. In other words, I understand my need as a citizen, to respect the judicial system. But I simply am not going to put up with a judge's repeated sliming of me and in doing so sending a clear message that any reasonable lay person would get as to the lack of impartiality of this otherwise fine judge. Regards, Jack Thompson

3