More breaking Jack Thompson news this day. Judge Dava Tunis’ report to the Florida Bar is now available online, and it has recommended that John Bruce Thompson (We call him Jack) be permanently disbarred, as well as pay US 43,675.35 in disciplinary costs.
Contrary to the earlier suggestion of the Florida Bar, that of an “enhanced disbarment” lasting ten years, Tunis suggested permanent disbarment due to a variety of factors, such as (and we’re quoting the report here),
9.22(a) prior disciplinary offenses;
9.22(b) dishonest or selfish motive;
9.22(c) a pattern of misconduct involving repeated or similar misconduct;
9.22(d) multiple offenses;
9.22(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing
to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;
9.22(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process;
9.22(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; and,
9.22(i) substantial experience in the practice of law.
We’re still reading the full report at the moment, as it’s 169 pages long, but of special interest to people without a grounding in law would be the following statements written on pages 165-166 of the PDF file (note that Jack Thompson is the respondent noted below):
This Court bases its suggestion on the five (5) separate and distinct cases presented. There’s no isolated incident involved herein. This case involves factual findings of cumulative misconduct, a repeated pattern of behavior relentlessly forced upon numerous unconnected individuals, a total lack of remorse or even slight acknowledgement of inappropriate conduct, and continued behavior consistent with the previous public reprimand. Additionally, the Court is taking into consideration a review of the Respondent s conduct not only as proven by the evidence, but by what this Court has witnessed of the Respondent s behavior throughout the eighteen (18) months of litigation. The undersigned finds no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Respondent is amenable to rehabilitation, or even remotely appreciates the basis upon which a need or purpose for such rehabilitation is warranted. Thus no indication exists from the totality of the record and Mr. Thompson s continuing behavior that he’ll be rehabilitated, follow court orders, and comport himself appropriately and professionally toward judges, attorneys and litigants whose position is in opposition to his.
This Referee has thought about this case on a virtual daily basis, since the appointment as referee was received, with complete appreciation for and understanding of the seriousness of the matters being addressed herein and the repercussions involved. Over a very extended period of time involving a number of absolutely unrelated cases and individuals, the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and discomfort to those he considers in opposition to his causes. He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him.
Again, you’ll want to remember that Judge Tunis’ report is only a suggestion to the Florida Bar. The Florida Bar is the one who makes the final outcome based on the suggestion stated in the report.
source pc.qj.net
Share This
We previously reported that 
