IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

 

JOHN B. THOMPSON,

 

Petitioner,

v. 

CHIEF JUDGE JOSEPH P. FARINA, JR.

DAVA J. TUNIS,

 

Respondent.

 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

COMES NOW petitioner, John B. Thompson (Thompson), and files this petition for a writ of quo warranto against respondent, Dava J. Tunis (Tunis), stating:

THE PARTIES

Thompson is a citizen of the United States, a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, more than eighteen years of age, and a lawyer in continuous good standing with The Florida Bar for thirty-one years.

Tunis claims to be a citizen of the United States, claims to be a resident of Miami-Dade-County, Florida, most assuredly is more than eighteen years of age,  has been admitted to practice law since 1986, has Bar Number 559271, and is currently occupying, illegally, the office of Circuit Court Judge in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Florida.

Tunis is also illegally ensconced in the office of "referee" in certain disciplinary matters brought before her by The Florida Bar against petitioner.  She was appointed to that formal office by Eleventh Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina, Jr.

JURISDICTION

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.630 gives this court subject matter jurisdiction over this quo warranto petition.  Judge Farina is the jurist who should and must preside over this matter because he is a) the Chief Judge of this Circuit, and b) he appointed Tunis, improperly, to this formal office of referee.  Also, as Chief Judge, he has a supervisory duty to assure that any person sitting as a judge, at any level, or as a referee, in this Circuit is legally authorized to do so.  Tunis, who is under his supervision in these regards, is not legally authorized to sit as a judge, as well as thus not being authorized, by law, to serve as a referee.  Judge Farina put this person, improperly, in this office as referee.  He is the one who should remove her, now that it is known that she has no authority to act under color of state law in any capacity.

There is no "Clerk's Office" for Bar disciplinary matters, and thus the only way to file such a quo warranto petition pertaining to a matter such as this is by providing it to the Chief Judge who appointed the referee.  Petitioner now does so and certifies that he has done so on March 26, 2008.

VENUE

This is the appropriate venue, as the Chief Judge and both parties reside in this judicial circuit.

FACTS

Florida Statute 876.05, et sequitur, held constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Connell v. Higginbotham, 403 U.S. 207 (1971),  mandates that in Florida all state, county, and municipal public employees, including judges, must timely execute a valid "loyalty oath" as defined precisely  by the statute and then file it.  Otherwise, the noncomplying public employee or public official must be terminated as improper and illegal holders of that office. 

Florida's loyalty oath laws are not quirky or peculiar to this state.  Article 6 of the United States Constitution requires such oaths of all state officials, including judges, and thus Florida's laws in this regard are in response to this federal mandate.

Numerous formal opinions issued by Florida's Attorney General explain fully Florida Statute 876.05 and why and how it must be adhered to.  See, for example, Attorney General Opinion 96-41.

Dava J. Tunis, who purported first to be a county court judge and then a circuit court judge and who holds others accountable for their violations of the law, has NEVER complied with Florida Statute 876.05, et sequitur, in that she has never executed and filed a valid State Loyalty Oath.  Those who apply the law to others should by it.

Upon purportedly assuming the office of county court judge, the only loyalty oath filed with her name on it was forged.  This is so clearly the case that Chief Judge Farina has initiated a criminal investigation of this forgery brought to his attention by petitioner Thompson.  Since Tunis' judicial career began with a forgery, all that has flowed since is legitimately suspect, and now it is known that it should be suspect for reasons other than just the forgery.

Tunis, who was elevated to the Circuit Court bench by Governor Bush, then appears to have executed two subsequent loyalty oaths neither of which complies with the mandate of the statute in that a) the language of the oaths executed does not track the statute, as required, and b) the oaths were not executed before an officer authorized to administer an oath.  Both breaches of the law are fatal to her continuing to "hold" office, and they are consequential in other regards beyond the effect of this sloppiness to the career of this "judge."

Any student of our system of law knows that deterioration of the significance and efficacy of oaths, generally, leads to a breakdown of our entire system of jurisprudence. 

For example, if a witness can testify without swearing under oath that he will tell the truth, then there is no remedy for his or her telling of falsehoods.  Similarly, constitutional officers who do not bother to properly swear loyalty to uphold our constitutions and our laws a) cannot be counted upon to do so, and b) obliterate the enforcement mechanisms for breach of their oaths.  An oath not taken is not an oath that can be enforced.

Any lawyer, let alone any judge, who does not know all this and in this instance a judge who was demonstrably receiving taxpayer funds in the form of a salary from the State of Florida first on the basis of a forged loyalty oath and then on the basis of unsworn and defective oaths is not someone who ought to be presiding in a system of justice that rests inextricably upon oaths.  This is a "judge" who sees oaths administered every day in her courtroom, yet she has somehow missed the important of oaths.

Indeed, the conduct of Tunis while discharging her duties as referee serves to corroborate the fact that this is a "judge" who has little if any understanding of the law, of the constitution, and of the requirements of judicial office.  This is a judge, as a referee, who has repeatedly displayed an utter disregard for our laws and constitutions.  She has, for example, refused to discharge the purely ministerial function of issuing subpoenas in the Bar proceedings, apparently because she feels she is not bound by the law.  Apparently failing to swear loyalty to our laws and constitutions has a liberating effect.  This is a "judge" who obviously has loyalty to The Florida Bar but none to our Constitution.  It makes perfect sense that she has not effectually sworn loyalty to the latter.

It is not surprising, then, that Tunis does not appreciate the importance of complying with the indispensable, core obligation to swear loyalty, under oath, to the laws and constitutions that bind her.  Indeed, having never effectually sworn such loyalty, she is not bound by these constraints—and acts like it.

Further, Florida Bar Rule 3-7.6 authorizes the Chief Judge to appoint as a Bar referee only a county or circuit court judge, although the Supreme Court's Chief Justice can appoint a retired judge as a referee.

Tunis has never, in any legal sense, been a county or a circuit court judge, which facts gives rise to this cause of action.  A person who has not complied with the State Loyalty Oath Laws and nevertheless acts as if she were a judge is in effect acting ultra vires and without any legal authority to act.  She cannot exercise any official duties or powers as a county court judge, as a circuit court judge, or as a referee, as she has failed to comply with state laws, and upon such failure she has no authority to act under color of state law.

Dava J. Tunis is, in every sense of the phrase, impersonating a judge, as she has no legal authority to act in that capacity.  Indeed, there are certain criminal remedies available to the state because of a) her gross breach of the state loyalty oath laws, and b) her unauthorized procurement and receipt of state monies with no legal authority to do so.  Petitioner leaves those remedies to others.

However, none of Tunis' orders has any force and effect, as she has no authority to enter them anymore than any other private citizen has authority to enter and apply judicial orders.  This is not a small matter to criminal defendants who have appeared before and been sentenced by her.  Coincidentally, Tunis also is subject, and necessarily so, to a Florida False Claims (Qui Tam) action for return of all salaries she has received without authority to do so. 

This, however, is not a qui tam action.  This is a quo warranto action for the purpose of securing an order from this court that Dava J. Tunis, by virtue of her utter failure to comply with our State Loyalty Oath Statute, a) has no authority to act as a judge, b) has no authority to act as a Bar referee, and c) must be removed from the office she does not validly hold, and d) all orders and other official acts entered into by her are legal nullities and of no force and effect and must therefore be vacated.

WHEREFORE, petitioner Thompson seeks the aforementioned relief and any other relief this court deems appropriate.  Petitioner asks for the Chief Judge to issue a summons and to proceed with all haste to a full determination of this matter.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Petitioner demands a jury trial of any and all issues so triable herein.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have provided a copy of this petition, as a courtesy, to The Florida Bar, to all Bar Governors, to Dava J. Tunis, and to the Florida Supreme Court.

John B. Thompson, Attorney, Florida Bar #231665

1172 S Dixie Hwy Ste 111

Coral Gables FL 33146

Phone: 305-666-4366

amendmentone@comcast.net