Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Filing 250

NOTICE by John B. Thompson that Florida Bar Referee Blocks Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Motion to Dismiss "Alabama" Bar Complaint Ignored by Defendant Referee Tunis)(Thompson, John)

Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Doc. 250 Att. 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. JOHN B. THOMPSON, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BAR'S "ALABAMA" COMPLAINT COMES NOW respondent, John B. Thompson, hereinafter Thompson, on his own behalf, and moves this court to dismiss its "Alabama/Blank Rome/Take-Two" complaint now before this referee, stating: As the referee knows, this "Alabama" complaint pertains to Thompson's defense of himself in response to Blank Rome's fraudulent assertion that Thompson hid his "colorful disciplinary history" from the Alabama State Bar and the trial judge. Thompson's defense of himself was not on behalf of his clients in the case but rather to defend his good name, not as defined by The Bar, by the way, but by normal folks. Thompson's defense of himself was a purely collateral matter. Thompson did just that pro se. He had no client other than himself it mounting his defense. Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma has asserted, in writing, that The Bar is not interested in what Florida lawyers do if they are not representing clients while they do it. We have the letter, and this court has this letter. For example, Tom Tew's stalking of my client, thereby giving her a stroke, is of not interest to The Bar, Ms. Tuma says, because Mr. Tew was not stalking her on behalf of a client. Mr. Tew was, of course, stalking her to Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354

1
Dockets.Justia.com

intimidate her regarding his adulterous affair she caught him in and also to try to persuade her to drop the undersigned as her attorney. Not only, then, should The Bar's complaint against Thompson for what he allegedly did in Alabama be dismissed since he had no client on behalf of whom he was doing it, but also because what Thompson has said about Blank Rome's and Judge Moore's improper actions against him have been proven, and exquisitely so, to be absolutely true! Judge Moore's deposition proves that Thompson did not hide his

disciplinary history from him but in fact, in the words of Judge Moore, Thompson "provided more of your disciplinary history than you had to." Additionally, Thompson's characterizations of Blank Rome's tactics to try to yank his phv status--shooting the messenger and engaging in fraud to do so--have been born out by Judge Moore's own testimony. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever remaining for proceeding with a single count in the "Alabama" complaints. The Bar knows it. This referee knows it. The continuing inclusion of this nonsense in the "trial" to commence on November 26 results from The Bar's and this referee's wrongful acts. This referee has denied Thompson any semblance of a hearing on this issue, and the referee's failure to do so underscores how thoroughly the referee has denied Thompson even the most basic due process herein. I CERTIFY this has been provided to Sheila Tuma and the referee by service on their record counsel in the federal action, Case No. 07-21256, October 22, 2007. /s/ JOHN B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff Attorney, Florida Bar #231665 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111 Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Phone: [phone] [e-mail]

2