John Compere is a bit of an oddity at Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s MRFF. Like many in Weinstein’s circle, he flaunts his credentials, choosing to anoint himself with this byline:

Brigadier General John Compere, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, US Army (Retired), former Chief Judge, US Army Court of Military Review, disabled American veteran (Vietnam), MRFF Advisory Board Member & Texas rancher

(Run by a man whose ego knows no bounds, humility seems to run deep at Mikey Weinstein’s MRFF. In another example, Weinstein disciple Greg Petrequin frequently, and humbly, introduces himself as a “retired senior military officer.”)

Compere — who is otherwise unknown to anyone — never really gives anyone a reason to understand why they should listen to him, and his writings certainly don’t help. While Compere beats out compatriot Chris Rodda’s writings by actually having a point, he appears to borrow from both Rodda and Weinstein as he lets obtuse wording, word count, and pithy quotations pass for supporting a thesis.

And, of course, Compere believes he cannot be wrong.

Thus, when the ACLJ’s Skip Ash wrote a lengthy and thorough rebuttal to a Compere piece in 2016, Compere responded by saying the very fact anyone would dare to critique his position confirmed the piece’s “accuracy”: 

[The ACLJ’s] obsessive & extensive over-reaction is an appreciated acknowledgement of the accuracy of my article.

That’s an argument worthy of a 12-year-old.

More recently, Compere wrote a shorter piece on the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the US Constitution, in which he presumably attempted to compare the interpretations of each based on political perspective.

Again, Skip Ash at the ALCJ wrote a line-by-line rebuttal. The ACLJ piece isn’t short, but it is very thorough, and it leaves no doubt. Its length is attributable to is reliance upon data to support its position — in comparison to Compere’s, which made assertions without any basis in fact or evidence.  Compere’s argument was half-hearted, inarticulate, and ultimately wrong.

Compere responded to the rebuttal the same way:

the ACLJ[‘s] over-reaction & over-response affirmed its accuracy.

The self-described Texas rancher also repeated a misquote of “hit hounds” (he apparently doesn’t know what that actually means) and Ockham’s Razor — all nearly word for word from his response to the previous piece.

Compere appears to be doing little more than trying to make himself look smarter than everyone else (and he’s not doing a good job of it). His ego seems to rival that of Mikey Weinstein himself.

But there’s another “smart sounding” term Compere clearly needs to review, as he ended his response with this:

The ACLJ scrivener[‘s] lengthy lawclerk [sic] legalese provided nothing more than a specious smokescreen unintelligible to most readers.

That’s ad hominem. (And while Skip Ash’s response may have been above Compere’s reading level, it is quite intelligible to “most readers.”) Unable to actually engage in an intellectual discussion and apparently befuddled by the rebuttal, Compere stoops to attacking the writer rather than the argument.

When confronted with facts, call someone names.

That’s a move right out of Mikey Weinstein’s playbook. And the gradeschool playground.

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---