Slashdot Mirror

You are incorrect about the burden of proof and an affirmative defense: the standard vary by offense and state.

In Florida, the Standard Jury Instructions clearly specify that an affirmative defense has the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

From a fairly recent Court Order

"Thompson may petition the Court, but may do so only through the assistance of counsel, whenever such counsel determines that the filing has merit and can be filed in good faith. However, Thompsons frivolous and abusive filings must immediately come to an end. Further, if Thompson submits a filing in violation of this order, he may be subjected to contempt proceedings or other appropriate sanctions. All other pending petitions, motions, and requests for relief filed by Thompson are hereby denied without prejudice."

After reading that Court Order, I must say that this man needs professional help. No, I am not talking about legal help. The examples provided by the Court are very convincing.

Your saying there is no law to take criminal action against them if they don't sign it. That's not the same thing as what I am saying. They didn't "refuse" to sign it and they did receive a pay check. All of that is besides the point.

Well no, it's not besides the point. The statute provides punishment; if they had lost their jobs for just not remembering to sign the oath, that's one thing. However, the statute does not say that all acts of an employee who fails to sign the oath are void.

That was probably the intent of the legislature. How would you like to suddenly get called up and told that your driver's license was revoked because the person who issued it didn't sign the oath? Or that the trial you won 5 years ago had to be redone because the judge hadn't signed the oath. What about if that judge had appointed the trustee of a charitable trust? Is that trustee's appointment suddenly invalid? Do you then invalidate everything that trustee did?

Laws have remedies. It's not up to you or Jack Thompson to make up remedies that don't exist. You can read the Florida Supreme Court's opinion on the issue of loyalty oaths here.

The case disposition orders are available online [PDF format]:

SC07-80 The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

and

SC07-354 The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

The case disposition orders are available online [PDF format]:

SC07-80 The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

and

SC07-354 The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson

The Florida Supreme Court also had weighed in. An excerpt:

Thompson's most recent filings are repetitive, frivolous, and, like his earlier ones, insulting to the Court. One of Thompson's recent filings contains what Thompson refers to as a "children's picture book for adults" that rehashes his previous arguments in illustrated form which he states was necessary due to "the Court's inability to comprehend" his arguments. Between the text of the motion, Thompson pasted images depicting swastikas, kangaroos in court, a reproduced dollar bill, cartoon squirrels, Paul Simon, Paul Newman, Ray Charles, a handprint with the word "SLAP!" written under it, Bar Governor Benedict P. Kuehne, a baby, Ed Bradley, Jack Nicholson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Julius Caesar, monkeys, and a house of cards, and the motion concludes with a photograph of the cover of Thompson's book, Out of Harm's Way.