Frank, maybe you should be posting your praise for all things statist at leftwing sites like dnc.org. Assuming you won't, take a look at the below, which explains how corrupt these three Justices are. Oh, and say hi to Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn for us at the next Comintern convention:
IN THE CIRUCIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 37 2012 CA 001980

JUDGE: THE HONORABLE TERRY LEWIS

BERNARD LONG and
VERONICO L. "RON" FLORES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENNETH DETZNER in his official
capacity as Florida Secretary of State,
R. FRED LEWIS, individually, BARBARA
J. PARIENTE, individually, and PEGGY A.
QUINCE, individually,

Defendants.

MOTION TO INTERVENE

COMES NOW John B. Thompson (hereinafter Thompson) who moves this honorable court to grant him intervenor status herein, stating:
1. Thompson is over the age of eighteen years, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, the latter for the past thirty-six years.
2. Thompson was an attorney in continuous good standing as a member of The Florida Bar for thirty-one years, until he was permanently disbarred on September 25, 2008, by the Florida Supreme Court, on which served Justices Lewis, Pariente, and Quince, who are all defendants herein.
3. Thompson has evidence of certain facts that are highly germane to this cause of action and which, if made known and proven to the court by Thompson as intervenor, would greatly assist this court in adjudicating fully and fairly this matter. Such facts, provable by Thompson, include but are not limited to the following facts, which, for whatever reason, are not asserted in the complaint herein but of which this court should be made aware:
a. In early January 2012, Supreme Court Justices Pariente, Lewis, and Quince all filed with the Florida Secretary of State, through their counsel, attorney Dan Stengle, formal "certifications of active opposition" to their respective judicial retention elections. These certifications were false, as alleged in the complaint herein, but they were also ineffectual, by virtue of the fact that such certifications should have been made by the Justices themselves and could not have been made by proxy, through an attorney. These Supreme Court Justices, in the midst of concerns about mortgage fraud, should be more concerned about such "robo-signings" of certifications by a third party when they themselves had to certify to "active opposition."
Thus, even if the certifications of active opposition were true (they are not, as no such opposition groups appear to exist), they were ineffectual and thus null and void. These constitute just one false set of filings with the Secretary of State.
b. The Justices' used Attorney Stengle, who may had been hoodwinked into thinking "active opposition existed, in order, apparently to try to insulate them from personal responsibility for the aforementioned false certifications by proxy. Proof of that is suggested by the fact that three weeks after the certifications were filed, Justices Pariente and Quince appeared, improperly, before the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar to assert that they "expect organized opposition" to all three of their retentions. This is precisely what the approved formal Minutes of that Florida Bar Governors meeting state. Thus, they uttered words that indicated that they did not yet have opposition that three weeks earlier their lawyer asserted to the Secretary of State already existed. This is corroboration of the plaintiffs' assertion as to the falsity of these certifications, but it is corroboration for some reason not put before this court.
Thus, these Justices falsely asserted that there was "active opposition" to their retentions in early January 2012 in order to scare up, with the nonexistent "active opposition" bogeyman, what are already massive campaign contributions to their election committees for their retention, all in clear violation of Canon 7 of the Florida Judicial Code of Ethics, which states funds cannot be raised but for opposition.
c. The purpose of the aforementioned joint appearance of Justice Pariente and Justice Quince before The Bar's Board of Governors was to improperly seek and then secure a pledge from The Bar of a "$300,000 judicial retention voter education program" to help assure their three retentions. This is not a "voter education program." In more than thirty years of judicial retention elections, no judge or justice has ever not been retained, and The Bar has never seen a need, in those three decades, to educate any voters, who now are suddenly, supposedly idiots, as to what judicial retention means. No. The Justices are spooked by the anti-incumbent mood of the electorate, which is inchoate and lacks any leaders of it, at least as to their retentions.
This ill-advised, shocking appareance of these two Justices before the Bar Governors constitutes solicitation of and the securing of an illegal, unreported campaign contribution of Bar members' dues improperly siphoned off, outside the already approved annual 2011-2012 General Operating Budget, in clear violation of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 US 1 (1990). Keller clearly and strictly prohibits the expenditure by integrated state bars of such funds on electoral matters.
These three Justices could be removed from the November ballot on this Keller basis alone, but even if that were not the case, the dual deception that "active opposition" already existed when it still does not exist and that The Bar could and should illegally spend funds in this illegal fashion is probative, for this circuit court's consideration, of whether these three Justices are capable of a pattern of contempt for the laws and constitution of this state.
d. Weeks ago Thompson secured copies of the aforementioned "certifications of opposition" filed with the Secretary of State, and when he found evidence that they were both ineffectual (something plaintiffs for some reason fail to assert) and false, he contacted the Justices and their aforementioned counsel and served his own Public Records Law requests upon them asking for the names of the "organizations" (plural) and "public web sites" (plural) that he asserted, on their behalf, already existed and were actively opposing their retentions. They have all ignored Thompson's Public Records Law requests, and he has a legal right to have them honored by either an admission that no such entities exist or that they do and what their names are. The silence is deafening.
e. Thompson has news media reports, of which this court can take judicial notice, that the Justices' counsel, when caught in the assertion that there was and is active opposition to the retention of his clients, stated that any such lack of opposition is utterly irrelevant, as the Justices could be raising money for their retention campaigns anyway even without opposition. This is utterly false and clearly contradicted by a fair reading of Canon 7 of the Judicial Code of Ethics. But the assertion that the law is not the law is telling.
f. The plaintiffs do not allege but Thompson alleges hereat that these Justices have illegally, in violation of federal tax laws, used the Florida Supreme Court Historic Society, an IRS 501(c)3 organization, to host what amounted to an illegal judicial retention campaign event for these three Justices in 2012. Again, evidence of this is probative of a pattern of deceit and contempt for the law by these Justices asserted in the complaint herein. It sheds light on the believability of what else the plaintiffs have asserted.
g. Plaintiffs raise in their complaint the issue of judicial "loyalty oaths." Apparently plaintiffs and their counsel are not aware that certain of the Florida Supreme Court Justices have served on the High Court without properly executed loyalty oaths, and that such oaths are mandated by the federal Constitution and statutes and by the State Constitution and statutes. Thompson was disbarred by these Justices in large part because he blew the whistle on this grave failure of these Justices to comply with federal and state law of loyalty oaths. The High Court, contemporaneous with disbarring Thompson, ruled that the failure of any of its Justices to comply with "loyalty oath" laws was of no consequence. They then, in a panic, executed loyalty oaths. If their failure to have loyalty oaths was of no moment, then why would they execute them for the first time? One of these panicked Justices was and is Justice Pariente.
This a) disregard for the law and b) the willingness of the Justices to punish those who blew the whistle on their noncompliance with this important set of laws are behaviors corroborative of the plaintiffs' allegations herein of an utter contempt by these jurists for the law. Leona Helmsley once famously said, " "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." This attitude that laws are for folks other than the Justices is alive an well on this imperious High Court.
h. In May 2012, Justice Pariente, a defendant herein, appeared publicly before two gatherings in Delray Beach, Florida, and she unethically launched a partisan attack upon Governor Rick Scott, asserting that he could not be trusted to properly fill vacancies on the Supreme Court should she and the other Justices not be retained. This is absurd on its face, as a Florida Governor is provided with a list of nominees by the Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission from which he must choose. Justice Pariente went even further by asserting that anyone who opposed her retention is engaged in "an attack on democracy." Such patent falsehoods are probative of the credibility of at least Justice Pariente, and possibly the other two Justices, who are defendants in this case.
Thompson has a video tape recording of Justice Pariente's scurrilous, dishonest comments. This tape alone frightens the undersigned who committed his life to the practice of law and the rule of law. To see a Supreme Court Justice attack another branch of government and the right of the people to vote is beyond frightening.
i. These three Justices, in the name of "judicial independence" and in supposed defense of "merit retention," are in fact destroying any semblance of judicial independence and are truly running against merit retention. They want lifetime tenure on the Court but lifetime tenure that is far worse than what we have in the federal judicial system: lifetime tenure with money flowing from special interests who want to keep them there. Consider it the federal system with a bribe thrown in. Can anyone imagine the angst, and properly so, felt if any Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, while considering the fate of "Obama Care," were receiving campaign contributions from the health care industry?
These Justices are literally campaigning against the right of Florida voters to vote on whether or not they want to keep them on the High Court and calling the exercise of that democratic right an "attack on democracy." The Justices are falsely asserting that " special interests" are conspiring to deny them their "right" to remain on the court when it is they alone who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence, illegally, an election.
Again, what Thompson knows and can prove in this regard is probative of a pattern of deceit by these three defendants. Consider: In the first quarter of 2012 alone, these three Justices have raised nearly $500,000 in a combined war chest of contributions from primarily the legal community elites. "Tallahassee power couple" Barry Richard and his wife, Allison Tant Richard, hosted a fundraising soiree in June for all three Justices. Mr. Richard is outside General Counsel for The Florida Bar. His bundling of large campaign cash contributions, as The Bar's counsel, brings into play application of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2009 ruling in Caperton v. Massey, 129 S. Ct. 2252, which prohibits state supreme court justices from receiving such monies while continuing to preside over cases tied to such campaign cash contributors and bundlers. Justices Pariente, Quince, and Lewis, given the generosity of Mr. Richard (he personally has given campaign contributions to only three officials in Florida--Pariente, Quince, and Lewis!), cannot ever again preside over any disciplinary matters brought by The Florida Bar before the High Court. Read Caperton and see. But these three Justices do not care what the law is, as the plaintiffs assert. Thompson has even more proof, which is why this motion has been filed.
But take not Thompson's word as to what is going on here to violate the Florida Constitutional guarantee that "justice shall not be for sale." The following is found in a letter in the current Florida Bar News, written by Walton County Circuit Court Judge Howard LaPorte:
"This writer joins in the opinions and concerns set out by Jerome Hurtak, Kimberly Lawler, Charles B. Tiffany, Eddie Anderson, Russell W. LaPeer, William N. Drake, Jr., Jerome Hurtak, and others.

There does not appear be any reason for the Bar to “educate the public” about merit retention. This outlay of funds to solve a problem that does not exist only indicates some members of the Bar and many members of the leadership are trying to obtain favor from the justices.

We are all aware no justice or judge has failed to be retained in Florida elections. “Chicken Little” is spreading the word that “the sky is falling,” and the Bar leadership has bought into the retention hysteria and paranoia.

This writer forecasts the sky will not fall in November; the voters will again retain all three justices and 15 judges, and the Bar leadership can then boast retention resulted from of the puny propaganda parasol it erected. But the action of the leadership smells and will continue to give off a foul stench for many years.

It is obvious many Bar members feel disgraced by this misdirected undertaking."

j. Thompson has proof of other illegal acts by these Justices that are both so shocking and yet so demonstrably true that he awaits the ruling of this Court on this motion to intervene before placing that proof before this Court.
4. In short and in sum, intervenor movant Thompson has evidence of serial acts of judicial wrongdoing by these three Justices who are defendants herein, and what the plaintiffs have alleged in their complaint is but a portion thereof. This evidence has a direct bearing upon the appropriateness of the relief plaintiffs seek.
More generally, what we have here, in these three Justices, is fulfillment of the prophetic warning of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis:
"The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means -- to declare that the government may commit crimes -- would bring terrible retribution."

WHEREFORE, John B. Thompson, has as much a right, as do the plantiffs herein, to a November 2012 election ballot and an election itself in compliance with Florida law. Every elector in this state could be an intervenor herein, but Thompson has facts at his disposal that they do not have and apparently that the plaintiffs do not have.
Thompson has something to contribute to the fairness of a decision in this case, and he thus respectfully requests that he be allowed to intervene herein for that purpose.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been mailed this 28th day of June, 2012, to counsel and pro hac vice counsel for plaintiffs, and to the defendants named herein.

John B. Thompson
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
amendmentone@comcast.net