Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Florida

John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
5721 Riviera Dr
Coral Gables FL 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net

September 30, 2008

The Honorable Michael Mukasey
Attorney General
Justice Department
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20530

The Honorable Federico Moreno
Chief Judge
US District Court, Southern District of Florida
Ferguson Federal Courthouse
400 N Miami Ave
Miami FL 33128

Christina Pharo
US Marshal, Southern District of Florida
Ferguson Federal Courthouse
400 N Miami Ave
Miami FL 33128

Re: Illegal Harassment and Blacklisting of Attorney John B. Thompson by US Marshal

Dear Attorney General Mukasey, Judge Moreno, and Marshal Pharo:

Commencing on June 16, 2008, US Marshal Pharo commenced the illegal harassment and blacklisting of me by sending Deputy Marshals to my home and then harassing me in the United States Courthouse here in Miami. Each of you was told about that weeks ago, and you did nothing.

Three months ago I submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice to get to the bottom of this harassment and blacklisting, and the Justice Department has completely ignored my request, which is itself a violation of the law.

When I went to the Ferguson Federal Courthouse today, the Deputy Marshals were waiting for me because they clearly knew I was coming. The black binder that contains alleged "threats" was opened to my page, featuring two pictures of me, and with the explanation, read to me by the Deputy, that I am to be escorted because I am about to be disbarred, because I have filed lawsuits that have been dismissed, and because I allegedly wrote inappropriate letters to judges. By all means, let's round up half of the United States' population including all Members of Congress, why don't we.

The fact that this multi-page binder was already opened up to my page as I walked through the front door suggests surveillance by some means by the US Marshal. There have been other bits of evidence suggesting this surveillance, but this is the clincher. The most likely means of doing so are my cell phone use by satellite monitoring, land line phone taps, and/or taps on my home computer.

When the Deputies illegally visited my home they stated that I was in fact being "monitored," and they also indicated that this was unnecessary. They apologized.

The Deputy today that escorted me to the Clerk's Office to file my emergency motion pertaining to the latest misconduct by The Florida Bar told me that "this following you should stop because it is ridiculous." Indeed it is. It also constitutes illegal blacklisting.

Let me tell you what we're going to do here: The Justice Department is going to respond fully to my FOIA request, and you, Attorney General Mukasey, are not going to continue to ignore it.

Further, Judge Moreno, who is participating in this harassment process, is going to give me a full hearing in open court about this nonsense, which I asked for weeks ago. Further, Judge Moreno, because he and US Marshal Pharo have poisoned the well in this federal District, is going to do what he did in the Tew/Robles/Florida Bar case and transfer Case No. 08-22603 to a non-Florida federal judge.

Either I am told by close of business Friday that the above is going to be done, or I am going to file a federal action against the appropriate defendants.

This is not Nazi Germany, not yet anyway.

Regards,

Jack Thompson

Update 10/01/08: Memo of Law for Emergency Stay

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

You forgot to put in there about your appearance on 60 minutes and your worst selling book...

Anonymous said...

Maybe the marshals were visiting you because you made claims that the florida bar would look like the aftermath of an atomic bomb(complete with picture of hiroshima). Or maybe it was when you asked if you needed to kill 3,000 innocent people in order to get the attention you seek?

Oh wait, this is Jack "refuse to listen to anyone but the voices in my head" Thompson.

Face it Jacky, you have been left to spew your hate for long enough, and you are finally getting what has been comming to you for years(disbarment).

Andrew Stirling, Sane gamer(and you're not).

Anonymous said...

Mr. Thompson, considering the fact that you harass and threaten people almost daily, I'm not surprised. Also, as Andrew above me said, you did send a picture of a destroyed Florida Bar to the Florida Bar.

Anonymous said...

lol Jack Thompson.

Anonymous said...

anyone being disbarred should be escorted while in courthouses. otherwise some disgruntled wacko could just go in and shoot up the place, or go all suicide bomber on it to get his "revenge."

Anonymous said...

John Bruce, do you even begin to realize that you bullied, threatened, slandered and attempted to intimidate lawyers, clients and judges?

These are very serious offenses in any state or country, of course they will escort you though a court house, especially after saying "Florida Bar" and "Atomic bomb" in a post 9/11 America!

Oh and even if they were doing surveillance (which I am pretty sure is just John Bruce's legendary paranoia) don't forget it was your republicans who introduced "The Patriot Act" that would make that legal in the first place.

May I ask who put John Bruce's complaint up here? This is no judicial horror story it's just another Jack Thompson rambling unlike any other posted on GamePolitics

Sincerely
Oz

Nathan Weyer said...

Ugh.

Jack does NOT belong here. He is an example OF a judicial horror story, not the victim of one.

Seriously, it is people like JT that cause others to not take victims seriously since he puts so much energy into excusing his own misconduct by claiming persecution.

Mark Yannone said...

There's nothing like due process and respect for individual rights to set things right . . . and this is nothing like due process or respect for individual rights. What we are witnessing here is typical gang behavior -- lawless and coercive. It's a classic Judicial Horror Story.

Nathan Weyer said...

@Mark

I disagree. JT has a long, long history of unprofessional and abusive behavior that crossed the lines of reasonable behavior years ago. The bar gave him every opportunity to correct things and he responded with more of the same. If he actually bothered to participate in the proceedings rather then use them as a platform for his political agenda he might have stood a chance. Or even if he had ONCE said he was sorry for his behavior or even acknowledged his behavior was bad then he would probably just have a 30 day suspension.

His general argument seems to be 'I should be able to behave however I want, but you persecute me!' and has used it, without ANY sign of remorse, to do and say some pretty horrible things over the years. And in each case he is obsessed that his personal vision is SO important that it excuses any behavior and slandering anyone he feels like.

So why are the Marshals involved? I am surprised they are not MORE involved TBH. Multiple terroristic threats against institutions and judges? You can't do stuff like that and expect 'I was only speaking figuratively' to get you off the hook. Claiming he would have to kill people to get attention? Or that the courthouse would look like a bombed out shell after he was done with it? Security people tend to take that stuff pretty seriously.

He got more due process then he deserved, and his victims would be well within their rights to sue him in civil court after this is done. JT is a rotten excuse for a human being that does not deserve to be spoken of in a blog dedicated to real victims of the justice system.

A concerned reader. said...

Mr. Yannone,

I respectfully request that you look into who you allow to post stories to your blog. A cursory examination would reveal that John Thompson is not the victim he claims to be. He is reaping what he has sown. A quick search of the Daily Business Review, his own wikipedia and wikiquote articles and various local law blogs around his home town would yield a thousand reasons as to why he is no victim.

Mark Yannone said...

This is the place to post your most convincing arguments. Go for it!

Mark Yannone said...

I understand virtually every Florida judge is in violation of Florida law and has no right to sit on the bench or draw pay from the state. Is that the bar Jack is writing about? The scofflaws?

Anonymous said...

It's a classic horror story like "Dracula", since Jack is such a gifted story teller.

Nathan Weyer said...

@Mark

I think the burden is on you in this case. So far your argument of 'all Florida judges are corrupt' should result in every single rapist, pedophile, murder, scammer, etc, also off the hook as 'persecuted'.

JT did bad things, he is in trouble for them. Even if the bar is corrupt, they should not be attacked for actually doing something good.

Anonymous said...

Mr Thompson, you were so disbarred that US Marshals don't want to even get near you! You are like a kid who stands in the middle of a train tracks and cries foul when you get hit by the in coming train.

Mark Yannone said...

I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely reporting. Apparently, the men and women posing as judges in Florida don't have standing to rule on so much as a parking ticket, and it's been that way for quite a while. Here is the story.

Nathan Weyer said...

Ugh. Not the 'loyalty oath' muck.

If one's best argument for why they should be able to get away with things or avoid punishment is a wide spread clerical error over and obscure signature requirement.. that isn't a good sign.

Corruption usually benefits the person doing it. Failing to sign a piece of paper does not fall into this category.

And trying to claim that one's well deserved punishment for ACTUAL bad behavior is purely that someone with their own faults are out to get them.

Again, would you advocate that every rapist, pedophile, murder, etc, are actually victims of corrupt judges and thus shouldn't be punished for their actions?

Torven said...

The loyalty oath thing is a non-issue. Fortunately for everyone who has had to deal with the legal system in this country, we have a de facto officer doctrine. In other words, if someone has been appointed as a judge and has acted in their office in good faith, a defect in their appointment does not invalidate their position or prior acts in that position.

The state government changed the loyalty oath that was given to judicial candidates; they executed the oaths they were given. In Thompson's case, the referee of his bar trial was not given an oath; it was later discovered that a clerk forged her and two other judges' signatures on loyalty oaths without their knowledge. She signed a new oath as soon as this was brought to her attention.

Even then, this has no bearing on Thompson's case. Among other things, he was disbarred for publicly accusing an Alabama judge of being crooked, contacting the clients of opposing counsel to discuss their choice of representation, making false statements to the courts and repeatedly ignoring court orders.

Mark Yannone said...

". . . publicly accusing an Alabama judge of being crooked, contacting the clients of opposing counsel to discuss their choice of representation, making false statements to the courts and repeatedly ignoring court orders."

Hey, that sounds like a typical federal prosecutor, especially the part about lying to the court and ignoring court orders!

Mark Yannone said...

"Ugh. Not the 'loyalty oath' muck."

What you call "muck" is law -- the same law that YOU would be held accountable for, right to the last dotted I and crossed T.

"If one's best argument for why they should be able to get away with things or avoid punishment is a wide spread clerical error over and obscure signature requirement.. that isn't a good sign."

I don't know anyone who ever made that argument.

"Corruption usually benefits the person doing it. Failing to sign a piece of paper does not fall into this category."

The judges failed to obey the law. Period. The law is written in clear language.

"And trying to claim that one's well deserved punishment for ACTUAL bad behavior is purely that someone with their own faults are out to get them."

The actions speak for themselves. No guessing required.

"Again, would you advocate that every rapist, pedophile, murder, etc, are actually victims of corrupt judges and thus shouldn't be punished for their actions?"

The victims are the employers of those men and women posing as judges. They paid for judges and trials and got fraud and scofflaws instead.

Anonymous said...

This was a pretty boring one for jack-jack. He should start making up better things again, like when he said the Bush administration was in league with the fictional League of Evil Game Companies or whatever that babble was.

Nathan Weyer said...

>What you call "muck" is law -- the same >law that YOU would be held accountable >for, right to the last dotted I and >crossed T.

Not really. Most judges are pretty good about being lienent on simple clerical issues. Though it sounds like torven covered this issue pretty well.

>I don't know anyone who ever made that >argument.

Ahm, JT has been making this exact argument. He has been claiming that since Tunis didn't have a properly filed loyalty oath she then didn't have the standing to be on his trial and thus he should get away with everything he did.

>The judges failed to obey the law. >Period. The law is written in clear >language.

As has been pointed out, the officer doctrine, which is also law, covers this. So by following the letter of the law, all their decisions are still legally valid and they are allowed to clear up the error once they are aware of it.

>The actions speak for themselves. No >guessing required.

Which is why JT is being disbarred

"Again, would you advocate that every rapist, pedophile, murder, etc, are actually victims of corrupt judges and thus shouldn't be punished for their actions?"

>The victims are the employers of those >men and women posing as judges. They >paid for judges and trials and got >fraud and scofflaws instead.

No, they got judges who, while there are bad apples, are doing their job. If you care about a clerical error more then all the work they have actually done you really need to work on your priorities. Their JOB is to look over trial.

Either way, I still fail to see how any amount of issues with the judges make JT some kind of victim of persecution. You used the example of 'sounds like a prosecuter', but last time I checked prosecutors don't do things like track down the business partners of a lawyer working for a client he doesn't like then proceed to contact all the partner's friends, partners, family, wife, social group, and proceed to inform them that the poor man is a child molester. Nor do they pull crap like telling female lawyers that they should be ashamed for defending a company he doesn't like then proceed to contact her husband to tell him what a horrible husband he is being for allowing his wife to do such things.

Or contacting the parents of people he is sueing to tell them that their son is a monster and a child molester.

Laywers rarely dig, several degrees in, to people's personal lives and try to destroy them at every level they can find. Contacting a person is one thing, calling everyone who interacts with the person in an attempt to shame and discredit them is unprofessional and IS actionable.

Anonymous said...

So, what you're saying, Mark is that everyone should ignore Judge Tunis' report showing that Jack's guilty of 27 out of 31 professional misconduct charges, which includes:
* Knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal
* Knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal
* Communicating the merits of the case with a judge before whom the proceeding is pending
* Using means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person
* Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
* Engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly or through callous indifference disparage or humiliate litigants or other lawyers
* Making statements that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge

Anonymous said...

Mark,

The whole loyalty oath thing was already investigated by the state of Florida and was found by them to be a non-issue. The clerical error that created it was rectified as soon as it was discovered. You would do well not to confuse the Florida loyalty oath with the Oath of Office that all judges take. They are two separate documents and all of the judges had properly performed the proper Oath of Office.

On top of that, taking the word of Jack Thompson as 100% genuine is a massive mistake. Thompson has made a career of misrepresenting facts, outright lying, and ad hominem attacks on his "enemies" with "enemies" meaning "any poor slob who drew the short straw and had to share a courtroom with him.

If you read the 169 page Tunis report (and the testimony that was published, in part, at gamepolitics.com) you will clearly see that:

1) Thompson repeatedly (as in hundreds of times) tried to have other lawyers investigated for "distributing porn to minors" and "mentally molesting children." Additionally he spammed e-mails of such claims to these lawyers' law firms, prospective clients, wives, newspapers, the FBI, the Florida State Attorney General, the Florida State Governor, and any judges he'd been in a courtroom with. What did these lawyers do? They represented a radio station that formerly broadcast "The Howard Stern Show." One of the lawyers had nothing to do with the case at all, he was simply a co-worker of the lawyer involved. At his Bar Trial, Thompson presented ZERO EVIDENCE to back up his outlandish (not to mention defamatory) claims.

2) Jack Thompson improperly sent homosexual pornography to judges. (This is true...the story is at gamepolitics.com). (This would also mean that Thompson has done more to distribute porn to minors than any of the lawyers he targeted, since the images he uploaded went into a PUBLIC forum.)

3) Jack Thompson sent pictures of bombed out buildings to a federal judge and said that "the Florida Supreme Court would look like this when he was done with them." He added "figuratively speaking" after that, assuming such things would NOT raise red flags with security officials. He followed this up with a letter saying he would apparently need to "kill 3000 people" to get the attention of federal judges. Yeah, no red flags there.

4) Jack sent hundreds of "press releases" out saying that a lawyer in Alabama, Clatus Junkin, was able to fix cases appearing before Judge Moore. At his Bar Trial he presented ZERO EVIDENCE to back up this claim.

I could go on and on, but I'm going to close with saying that it's very easy to get taken in by Thompson's lies, especially when you're running a web site about judicial impropriety and corruption. He makes himself out to be quite the martyr and victim, but Thompson is anything but. If you want to point out corruption happening in the court system, you should start with cataloging Thompson's vast misdeeds.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)

http://overlawyered.com/?s=jack+thompson&x=0&y=0

http://www.gamepolitics.com/search/node?keys=jack+thompson&form_token=be04c58d3e98aeb9df5da18968823b3d&form_id=search_theme_form

Torven said...

The reason the loyalty oath issue is muck is because Florida's oath of office swears to uphold the constitution of the United States and the State of Florida, the same thing that the legally required loyalty oath does. So even if the loyalty oath they signed as a candidate was flawed (something they had no control over, as that is the oath issued by the state government), they have effectively fulfilled their loyalty oath requirement by taking their oath of office. Once they have been appointed and taken the oath of office, de facto officer covers the fact that they had a flawed oath during their candidacy.

Mark Yannone said...

"So, what you're saying, Mark is that everyone should ignore Judge Tunis' report . . ."

What I'm saying is that Florida has been without duly authorized judges for quite some time. Florida has had scofflaws posing as judges, pretending to do the work of judges, in violation of the law.

Nathan Weyer said...

What I'm saying is that Florida has been without duly authorized judges for quite some time. Florida has had scofflaws posing as judges, pretending to do the work of judges, in violation of the law.

Which has been pointed out to be
(a) factually incorrect (since the judge's power does not come from the loyalty oath and the officer doctrine would cover the case anyawy)
(b) irrelevant to calling JT a victim of a judicial horror story.

Laws have consequences, they are not all or nothing. That some judges have made a clerical error on one law does not invalidate them as judges. In other words, failure to have a signed loyalty oath does not have the consequence of making them an invalid judge.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

Then you would be wrong on that. The Oath of Office WAS TAKEN by the judges. The state agency in charge of the loyalty oaths did not properly execute their duty. Any judge who discovered they had not properly sign a loyalty oath, immediately fixed that error.

Seriously, where is the problem?

I also find it amazing that you have yet to defend the deplorable behavior of your poster boy, Jack Thompson.

I also find it amazing that you have yet to answer other questions here.

1) Should all of the decisions made by these "improper" judges be summarily thrown out, letting murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers and who knows what else out onto the streets of Florida?

2) Should all of the judges "corrupt" or not be fired because SOMEONE ELSE made a simple clerical error?

3) What would any of these judges have had to gain by not signing a loyalty oath?

And Mark, the law disagrees with your assertion, just as it disagreed with Thompson, on this loyalty oath issue. Just because Thompson said something, doesn't make it true.

Mark Yannone said...

"The whole loyalty oath thing was already investigated by the state of Florida and was found by them to be a non-issue. The clerical error that created it was rectified as soon as it was discovered."

Blowing it off does not constitute a legitimate investigation. There was no clerical error. The law does not provide for such a violation to be "rectified as soon as it is discovered."

As for the separate issue of Jack Thompson, if he has violated the law, he can be charged in criminal or civil court . . . before a lawful magistrate, a magistrate who has complied with all of the requirements of the law, as specified in black and white, not as imagined or pretended.

Those who are trying to get me to defend Jack Thompson will be sorely disappointed. This blog is intended to defend individual rights, no matter what your name is. Nothing more and nothing less. As you can see, everywhere you look, it's a monumental task.

Mark Yannone said...

"I also find it amazing that you have yet to answer other questions here.

"1) Should all of the decisions made by these 'improper' judges be summarily thrown out, letting murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers and who knows what else out onto the streets of Florida?"

It's not my decision to make.

"2) Should all of the judges 'corrupt' or not be fired because SOMEONE ELSE made a simple clerical error?"

The law specifies who is responsible and who can be charged.

"3) What would any of these judges have had to gain by not signing a loyalty oath?"

Their motives are not my concern.

"And Mark, the law disagrees with your assertion, just as it disagreed with Thompson, on this loyalty oath issue. Just because Thompson said something, doesn't make it true."

Actually, it doesn't. I read the law, and I didn't get any of it from Jack Thompson. Jack Thompson's story is entirely separate from the story of the illegal judges.

Anonymous said...

Your blog is to defend individual rights, but where have Thompson's rights been violated, precisely?

As others have pointed out, the loyalty oath issue IS indeed bunk. You can deny this all you want, but the fact remains that the Loyalty Oath problem is covered by the de facto officer laws that have been covered by at least 3 other posters (which you have continuously ignored).

As to your answers:
1) You are ducking the question. If you are going to have a blog complaining about the corruption of judges and the rights of the individual, then would this also not include the rights of the murderers, rapists, pedophiles and other assorted scum that these "illegal" judges have put away in their tenures?

2) The law does indeed determine this, but you are ducking the question yet again. The issue was nothing more than a CLERICAL issue. Each judge immediately signed a loyalty oath when presented one. Again, how does this make them criminals and scofflaws?

3) You duck the question yet again. If someone was willingly maintaining some bizarre conspiracy to not sign a piece of paper saying they'll fight Communism and remain loyal to the United States, they must have had something to gain. This is the piece that you and Thompson are both missing.

As far as not defending Thompson's actions, you really should look into what he's done to get disbarred and then consider the your source on these issues. Your credibility is sinking. Thompson never had any.

And I love this:
"Blowing it off does not constitute a legitimate investigation. "

There WAS an investigation by the JQC. Otherwise, who was it that uncovered the person who actually forged the signatures of two judges? If there was no investigation, this fact would not have come to light. Just because you didn't like the result of the investigation, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Torven said...

hUpon some further research, not only has it been ruled by the Florida Supreme Court that not only does the Oath of Office satisfy the requirements of the Loyalty Oath, but the Loyalty Oath only has bearing on a justice's ability to receive payment. And before you start attacking their credentials as judges, all six justices that signed the opinion executed loyalty oaths prior to its alteration (i.e. in full compliance with the statute at the heart of the Loyalty Oath business).

In other words, 876.05 has been pared down so much over the years, as sections of it were declared unconstitutional, that at this point all it stipulates regarding judges is that they are not eligible to draw salary until they have taken their Oath of Office.

Anonymous said...

I just want to say that Jack Thompson, the man you defend here, tried to sue me and my school simply because I expressed my opinion in a civil manner to him about how he should stop. Do you really think he's a good man? He also continues to call me a drug addict.

Mark Yannone said...

Jack Thompson can speak for himself. It's a free country, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Hey, Jack! Aren't you not allowed to call yourself an attorney anymore? Isn't that misrepresentation of character, or something like that? And isn't that...you know...illegal?

AC said...

"phone use by satellite monitoring, land line phone taps, and/or taps on my home computer."

Cell phones are not tracked by satellite, if you were being tracked it's by the cell towers.

Drowzee said...

Mark:

As you may be aware, Mr. Thompson attracts a crowd wherever his rambling, rapid-fire writs (or missives, or whatever) are posted, and has attracted a number of 'admirers' who have dedicated themselves to finding every law that applies to the situation.

Yes, Mr. Thompson has the right to freedom of expression.

He was, however, employing unethical and illegal tactics without remorse until the very end. While there may be misconduct of some nature on the part of the judges in Florida, Mr. Thompson's methods in his crusade on various forms of media are far more serious in nature.

You are doing a good service by posting information about judges abusing their powers, but do not make the amateur mistake of believing every tale of woe you come across. Do your research, try to obtain court transcripts, and find the merits of the complaints.

Jack Thompson is no saint (as much as he likes to compare himself to Jesus), and is a clear example of an attorney using his profession to extort and intimidate for results.


You do not have to take down the stories he posts, but a preface with information about the circumstances around the messages would be an excellent idea.

He was given many warnings to stop submitting so many actions and requests to the court, submitted pornographic materials to the public record, wrote letters with pictures that suggested a bomb threat upon the justices, and literally broke a fax machine (An event referenced by Mr. Thompson in one of the other posts) with the unrelenting volume of abuse he was heaping on anyone involved with his opposition, including wives, mothers, and coworkers.

All the posts from him are related to his misconduct, protests against the Florida court system finally requiring him to have another member of the bar sign off on anything he wanted to submit. His voice was not silenced in any way, but he, of course, could not get anyone to help him.

Bear that in mind as you leap to his defense.

Between the options of every single lawyer and judge in Florida being corrupt and Jack Thompson being a rogue attorney flagrantly abusing the court system (winning himself no friends in the process), Occam's razor suggests that the latter is the truth.

Further, on the loyalty oath issue: As has been pointed out, it was a technicality that wasn't even a technicality under the de facto officer law, and that the clerical error meant that the judges were illegally being paid for doing their jobs. This situation has been rectified since, so does that mean that "once corrupt, regardless of intent, knowledge, or control of the corruption, always corrupt"?

If not, you may wish to reconsider your blanket statement about the corruption in the Florida judicial system, and wait for verified proof of corruption in future. Jack Thompson is not a reliable source for this information.

Mark Yannone said...

So far, those who have left comments have said little, and much of that was an insult to the cause of freedom.

Anyone who has anything intelligent to say about Jack Thompson's battle with fraudulent judges and other criminals in government and bar associations is free to do so here.

As Jack Thompson has made clear, where there is no justice, there is no peace.

If you could see the coffins and cripples coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, you might get it. If you turned off your TV for a few years, you might get it. If you were in Jack Thompson's shoes, you might get it. Meanwhile, you'll believe in the sanctity of your government officials, and sleep contentedly in your programmed ignorance.

Drowzee said...

I see.

All judges complained about are completely corrupt. It isn't possible that anyone complaining about a judge or court is lying.
No one but our sanctified public officials lie and misbehave, correct?

What then, is 'justice'?

If a system of 'justice' can only put the corrupt into positions of power, why do you even care about legal process? It's obviously flawed beyond measure if it cannot eject those who are abusing the judicial system.

Isn't it even remotely possible that a judge that hands down a fair ruling will be subject to libelous statements made by those who are unhappy with the ruling? Are humans really so honest that every complaint is unbiased and factual? Are they never prone to distortion for self-promotion and profit?

If you rule out that possibility, then you're succumbing to confirmation bias, selectively ignoring everything that does not support your existing view.

By ignoring and attacking those bringing information that conflicts with your view of Mr. Thompson's troubles, aren't you the one engaging in willful programmed ignorance?


I appreciate your position that we should hold our officials accountable to the law. I do not appreciate the insult that I don't care about our nation or our freedoms as American citizens.

I have not watched TV in three years. But I am sure my information sources (which do include the drudge report) will not provide the same view as yours.

To compare Mr. Thompson's views to the deaths of our fighting men and women is a vast disservice to our country and the lives of our honorable soldiers. I will die for our country if called upon, but I will not die for Mr. Thompson. I will not lay down for Mr. Thompson's crusade simply because he knows how to file a biased and usually incorrect legal action.


I care about the laws of the land being upheld, I work for increased governmental and judicial transparency in my home state, and I research every judge during elections, voting for those who seem to be the most honest and upstanding.

I care about America enough to pay attention to some two-bit pissant lawyer's crusade to censor all free speech save his own. That he has 'amendmentone' as his email address is not indicative of his views; do the research. He has been repeatedly defeated in matters where he has been complaining about profanity in the media, and is plainly advocating the insertion of Christian views into our laws to limit what we can say and think.
Any success sets precedent, and any outlet for his lunacy erodes our Constitutional rights.

Mr. Thompson knows just enough format to appear like a reliable source. If you broke out of your own ignorance long enough to take a look at anything besides his complaint, you'd see what a hypocrite he is when it comes to protecting the freedoms those soldiers enjoyed before their noble sacrifices.

But what do I know? I'm programmed for ignorance.