Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Filing 323

MOTION for Reconsideration re 212 Order on Motion for Clarification,,, Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge,,, Order on Motion for Discovery,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Intervene,,, Order on Motion for Appointment of Mediator,,,,,, Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause,, by Norman Elliott Kent. (Kent, Norman)

Thompson v. The Florida Bar

Doc. 323

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 07-21256-CIV-JORDAN

JOHN B.THOMPSON, vs. The FLORIDA BAR, et.al., Defendants. ______________________/

) ) ) )

Proposed Intervenor's Motion for Reconsideration Under Local Rule 5 and F.R.Civ.P Rule 11 Comes Attorney now at the undersigned, to Norman Elliott in the Kent, an

Law

admitted

practice

Southern

District, and represents to this Court as follows: 1. The undersigned has previously filed a request for limited intervention based on three grounds, at document 181. 2. This Honorable Court denied the request but provided the necessary relief so as to render such intervention moot and unnecessary. First, the court denied the Plaintiff's attempt to amend his complaint to include the undersigned. Second, this court provided for the undersigned to receive a copy of certain of the Plaintiff's filings, which were

placed under judicial seal. 3. However, this court did not rule on the proposed Intervenor's third related request not to intervene, but
1

Dockets.Justia.com

asking for an opportunity to present grievances against the Plaintiff to the Ad Hoc Committee for Peer Review under Rule 5 of our Local Rules, which evaluate "whether attorneys are failing to perform at an adequate level of competence." 4. Further, the proposed Intervenor, in his last

pleading, document number 215, requested that this court reserve for reconsideration that option if so warranted. The undersigned noted that within hours of the Court's Omnibus order denying intervention, at Document 212, the Plaintiff savaged counsel viciously with pleadings of an inappropriate nature. Many of these pleadings appeared on their face to violate Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and invite Rule 5 relief. The Plaintiff has now done so again today. 5. The proposed Intervenor has bowed out of this case at the court's instruction, and filed no further pleadings. The undersigned recognizes and respects the dicta within the court's omnibus orders that this cause is not the place for Mr. Thompson to sue Mr. Kent or visa versa; that other forums are suited for the same. But the question raised by Mr. Thompson's latest pleading, filed on November 13, 2007, document number 322-1, is just how much abuse should an attorney, and NON PARTY to this proceeding, take before seeking some judicial relief? 6. Consequently, but does its the ask third undersigned that this does not seek to for

intervene

court request

entertain for

reconsideration

related

judicial
2

relief, to wit, that the Plaintiff's pleadings be referred to the appropriate committee of this court. This court has already more than once cautioned Mr. Thompson about using this litigation and this forum to

unveil his social manifesto rather than legal arguments. Now that conduct has become venal, calculated, and consummately unprofessional. 7. As a consequence thereof, the undersigned today thus respectfully resubmits, for an for order good cause shown, the judicial Ad Hoc

reconsideration

which

allows

Committee on Peer Review to review the Plaintiff's pleadings in this cause, so as to make a determination if they are in good faith and have a legal foundation. 8. The undersigned necessarily seeks and requests this very limited and collateral relief only because the local rules provide that only this court can even refer such

matters to the committee for its review. The undersigned has no independent authority to do so. 9. If this court feels and that does this not pleading warrant is an

unnecessary

distraction

further

consideration, I respectfully accept that adjudication. This petition authority asks to this permit court the to very use its inherent judicial this

panel

enacted

within

Southern District, under our local rules, to evaluate this kind of alleged misconduct. A recent pleading, Document 251, for example, entitled by the Plaintiff as a request for judicial notice, questions
3

the undersigned's religious faith. It bears no nexus to this litigation whatsoever and is simply scurrilous. 10. It is respectfully submitted that the Plaintiff is using the sanctity of a judicial proceeding to wage a social war and political campaign against the undersigned, by

proffering matters, materials, and arguments so far beyond the purview of this court they stampede on local rules of conduct, thus warranting peer review. 11. Three particular specific pleadings warrant

judicial review and scrutiny. In document 251, the Plaintiff denigrates a number of parties in this cause, comparing them to Hitler's extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust. But within said pleading, the Plaintiff clearly refers to the undersigned as a "legal terrorist"... "who claims to be a Jew." The document goes on, equating the undersigned and

parties in interest with the actions and conduct of Adolph Hitler, a genocidal killer who engineered a Holocaust. In document 281, the Plaintiff goes further, referring to the undersigned as a "Christian hating attorney." 12. Today, in document 322-1, the Plaintiff opines in a legal pleading that: a) "Mr. Kent will continue to disseminate obscenity to minors"; b) "that the Norm Kents of the world are the ones who should be disbarred or incarcerated for his relentless

assault upon the law, common decency, and other people's children;"
4

c) "Norm Kent never had a child, so we can possibly forgive this bitter man..." d) that a person named Nathaniel Brazill, a convicted murderer, is "rotting in jail because of scoundrels like Mr. Kent." 13. It is respectfully submitted while many of the allegations of the Plaintiff may have trespassed upon the decency of professionals litigating this cause, these

particular recitations should shock the conscience of this court. They violate all professional standards inherently articulated in Florida Rules of Professional Conduct 4-8.4, a rule which speaks against unnecessarily disparaging

litigants. 14. The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct at 4-8.4 provides that a lawyer shall not

"engage in conduct in

connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, litigants, disparage, jurors, humiliate, or

discriminate

against

witnesses,

court

personnel, or other lawyers....." Few matters are as personal, private, and sacrosanct as religion, and it can be most assuredly argued that whatever claims Mr. Thompson has against the Florida Bar, the

religion of this undersigned non-party is not an issue. Nor are my parenting abilities an issue in this cause, so the Plaintiff's diatribe within document 322 that "Norm Kent has never had a child" can reasonably be deemed to be a suspect
5

pleading in this cause, without material value or guidance to this court in fashioning a final order on the merits. 15. The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct at 4-3.3, outlining the guidelines of candor before a tribunal, hold that "a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of a material fact or law to a tribunal." 16. As noted, the Plaintiff has, during the course of this litigation, referenced the undersigned or his business or his conduct as a a) `cesspool' b) `nonsensical' c) `baseless' d) `mendacious' e) `slithering around' f) `illegal stunts' g) `interloper' h) `insinuator' i) `prevaricator' j) `pornographer' k) `trafficker in obscenity' l) `bizarre' m) `legal terrorist' n) `claims to be a Jew' o) `racketeer' 17. These comments were not comments made on

television, in a newspaper, or as a commentator. They were not made in e-mails or letters or settlement negotiations
6

They are all statements filed in this cause of action as part and parcel of the Plaintiff's pleading practice. 18. Our United States District Court deserves better, and the undersigned submits good cause has been shown to refer this matter to the appropriate screening committee for review. These comments arguably represent more than zealous advocacy or gentle hyperbole. The court has already said the undersigned should not be the issue in this cause, but the Plaintiff has disregarded the court's admonition. The only question now is whether he will avoid the consequences of that disrespect. 19. Recognizing this Court has already ruled on my motion for intervention, the undersigned apologizes to this court for this subsequent intrusion into this litigation. The petitioner seeks only the relief provided under our Local Rules of Court. The plaintiff is not an uneducated

pro se litigant. He is a member of the Bar and should be held to a higher standard. Wherefore, the undersigned respectfully requests this Court enter an order allowing the Ad Hoc Committee on Peer Review to examine the pleading practice of the Plaintiff in the above styled cause, particularly in light of certain documents, numbered 251, 281, and 322, in this court's

PUBLIC file. As an alternative, the undersigned respectfully asks this court to consider whether any actions ought to be taken independent of this request, solely by judicial initiative,
7

under

Rule

11

(c)(1)(B)

of

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure. Respectfully submitted, Norman Elliott Kent 800 East Broward Blvd. Suite 310 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Florida Bar No. 271969 954 763 1900 Telefax 954 763 4792 [e-mail]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court, to all parties in this cause utilizing the CM/ECF Pacer System of the United States District Court, including Barry Richard, Katrina Sharpe, of Greenberg, Trauring,

Charles Fahlbusch at the Attorney General's Office of the State of Florida, and to John B. Thompson of Coral Gables, Florida. By Norman Elliott Kent 800 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 310 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 [e-mail] 954-763-1900 Fla. Bar No.: 271969

8