I'm not sure if you guys all know Jack Thompson - he's the ravenous lawyer who's out to eliminate all video game violence in our time.
Well, there's lately been a bit of a tussle between him and the guys at Penny Arcade.
Note: There is a bit of profanity in the description of events, and in the webcomic posted for that day. Sensitive ears be forewarned.
The news post by Tycho has many links you can use to jump to further info on the situation.
It was then followed up by this post (the second comment down, and continuing down the page) which has more links that show the next step in this situation.
Personally, I think the guy's crazy, but you can decide for yourself.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well the fact that someone made a mod for GTA using his proposal and then he said they didn't get his sarcasm in regards to the proposal or whatever just proves he's crazy.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
quote: You’re all asking me for Jack’s Email and or phone number and I respect that. The problem is that I can’t give that info out. The fact is that Jack had time to call me after I sent him a sarcastic email. I have no doubt in my mind that he would try and pull some legal bullshit if I post his phone number.
Heh. I find that amusing. I also think that this guy is a lunatic.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The VG Cats thing made me laugh. Good stuff. The guy's just crazy.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I've been following this story, and was actually thinking about posting it too. Reading Jack's "modest proposal" which he is now claiming was satire, should be enough to prove he's a pretty sick guy.
My favorite bit is that after he claimed the whole proposal wasn't serious, basically admitting that there was no way he was ever going to actually donate the 10 grand to charity, Penny Arcade went ahead and donated 10 grand in Jack Thompson's name. Really goes to show the character of each side, I think.
--Enigmatic
Posted by archon (Member # 8008) on :
I love Penny Arcade! I hope Thompson doesn't come after them more viciously after this whole debacle.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The hearing was supposed to begin today, but it's been delayed pending the resolution of Thompson's court challenge to the proceedings.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I think I would declare a national video game-related holiday if he were to be permanently disbarred. Not that I expect it will actually happen. Is there anything he can do to draw out a ruling indefinitely, or a way to settle the whole thing? The cynic in me says there are multiple legal loopholes in this.
[ November 27, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Saephon ]
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law 1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Heck, this guy is less than ten minutes away from me! There's got to be at least three Army surplus stores between me and him! Let's go, guys! Who's drivin'?
As for the game he's suggesting... heck, I'd play it!
JT's a loon. I've had my fair dose of him in the past, and have discussed him thorougly with several game developers I know (employees of Id, Valve and Raven). Friend of mine even created a 3D model of his image for use in Half-Life.
*EDIT* Didn't notice original post was TWO YEARS old.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: JT's a loon.
I'm so sigging that on EI.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I came into this thread thinking, "Oh, what's Jack up to this time?" and then realized that I was the original poster.
Talk about a blast from the past. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL
O thought it was new as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The Supreme Court of Florida sanctioned Jack Thompson yesterday.
quote:Accordingly, in order to preserve the right of access for all litigants and promote the interests of justice, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by John Bruce Thompson, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Is penny arcade down? I can't connect to it..
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The Supreme Court of Florida sanctioned Jack Thompson yesterday.
"...after submitting inappropriate and pornographic materials to this Court..."
He's none too bright, is he?
Boy, that is an entertaining read, especially the "picture book" he submitted. This guy *IS* a loon.
I never knew what a "sanction" actually meant. Does this basically mean that the courts can effectively ignore anything he says?
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote: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.
I think that's all I need to say.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Is that kind of filing public record? If so, how can I get a copy?
quote: JT (Thompson): …You entered an order, though, saying that I couldn’t communicate with you any further.
MOORE (Alabama Judge he's cross-examining): Directly to me or through my fax machine…
JT: Okay, and what was the annoyance that you had with that?
MOORE: Just fax after fax after fax after fax after fax after fax.
JT: Do you ever get communications by fax from other lawyers?
MOORE: Occasionally…
JT: What’s the cut-off on how many faxes?
MOORE: Oh, I don’t know. You reached it, whatever it is.
JT: Anybody else ever reach it?
MOORE: No… Not close… You ruined my fax machine.
JT: I ruined your fax machine?
MOORE: It quit.
JT: Did it.
MOORE: Yes.
[cut section--Morbo]
(After a time, the discussion wanders back to… the fax machine)
MOORE: …The problem is you were sending just bundles of [documents]… these long speeches and letters to other people that I had no idea what the letters were about… about Katrina money and these lawyers down here in Miami and all this…
JT: And I broke your fax.
MOORE: Yes.
TUMA: Objection.
MOORE: My secretary said be sure and tell you that.
JT: I’ll buy you one.
MOORE: I don’t want you to buy me one. I bought one…
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is that kind of filing public record? If so, how can I get a copy?
You'd have to go to the electronic filing system for Florida. In the federal system, this costs money for everything but court opinions and orders. Not sure about Florida.
Here's the one where he filed so-called gay porn with the court. There were pictures attached.
quote:I never knew what a "sanction" actually meant. Does this basically mean that the courts can effectively ignore anything he says?
It means if he files anything with the court without the signature of another attorney, he can be fined or sent to jail for contempt. Moreover, such a filing could be stricken without consideration for violation of court rules.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Favorite comment from Gamepolitics.com:
quote: # Tnx3 Says: March 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Is it wrong to enjoy watching a train wreck in the making? Not when the train deserves it.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I really feel like typing: lol. But that'd be a waste of a post and kind of frowned upon here for not being thoughtful enough.
But that's pretty darn funny.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
As if that wasn't enough, he's also facing disbarment. I'll miss reading about his antics.
!!! I don't know what part of the brain deals with conspiracy theories, but mine just kicked on! What if he's doing all of this on purpose and in the end, when he's certifiably insane, he's going to claim that Video Games did it and sue the hell out of them?!?
Oh, and this is a bit old, and the internal pictures don't work anymore, but I think it's funny enough to earn a place in this thread: Link! Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I literally LOL'd at this:
"JT: What’s the cut-off on how many faxes?
MOORE: Oh, I don’t know. You reached it, whatever it is."
The tone of Judge Moore's line, for some reason, sounds like a Tommy Lee Jones line from "No Country for Old Men."
Oh dear Lord, that was funny.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
jack thompson's the perfect example of extremist ineptitude. however, game developers can't absolve themselves of what they put into video games. everyone has to be responsible for the work they produce, no matter what anyone else's opinion may be. Rockstar's just a company that's interested in pushing the envelope of public tollerance, just like NYPD Blue was back in the day. And Rockstar has never publicly apologized for including "hot coffee" on the disc, nevermind that they used lame code to try to hide it. anyway, everything affects everything. i wonder if the romans weren't affected by the bloody butchering of innocent people in their arenas? it's not that big a stretch to compare the two...
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Just the fact that one is an electrical simulation and the other one used you know, real people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Just a warning on Blayne's link- contains quite a bit of swearing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I knew before I clicked on anything that Blayne was linking to Yahtzee. Blayne's hero worship runs vast and deep.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:however, game developers can't absolve themselves of what they put into video games. everyone has to be responsible for the work they produce, no matter what anyone else's opinion may be.
Were this actually true, the point would be moot anyway, since the entire question of whether video games cause violence removes responsibility from the hands of those actually committing violence. By this logic, GTA is not the problem since the game itself has never shot, stabbed, beaten, kicked, bit, raped, run over, or tortured anyone.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: Just a warning on Blayne's link- contains quite a bit of swearing.
Well *that's* an understatement... Hell, watching that review give me the urge to go out and kill something.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That guy swears a lot, but he cracks me up.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think I agree with Cons, though not in the legal sense you're using, Jux. The person who advocates violence probably shouldn't be legally responsible for the guy who does go out and commit the murder. However, I would call him morally responsible.
Most people don't just go out and act. They think about it first. They find images of what they want to do. They get comfortable with the idea. Then they act. I think anyone who produces an art for others to enjoy should be cognisant of its potential impact. Yes, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to depict violence, but I think entertainers have to be aware of the impact they can have.
Most of the reponsibility should be on the individual since they have the ultimate choice of what they'll surround themself with. I just don't think that gets people who make GTA style games off the moral hook as it were.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:since the entire question of whether video games cause violence removes responsibility from the hands of those actually committing violence.
That's not true. Assigning additional responsibility for a particular bad outcome does not reduce the amount of responsibility another has for it.
Responsibility is not a zero sum game.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
I wonder what would happen if you plopped a baby in front of a bloody video game or any other bloody media, and see how they develop, gradually exposed to more viceral content as they grow up... there's always more than one responsible party in this issue. I was merely pointing out that developers can't excuse themselves of what they make if it has a valid impact on someone else, whether that person's sane or insane enough to tell the difference. What about those two boys who murdered their own mother EXACTLY after the fashion seen on Sepranos to the T? True, those boys are TOTALLY responsible for choosing to act in such a fashion, but does that excuse the show from responsibility totally?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Assigning additional responsibility for a particular bad outcome does not reduce the amount of responsibility another has for it.
Responsibility is not a zero sum game. [/QB]
I disagree. I'd elaborate, but I'm not really sure how to.
For the record though, I do think video game developers bear a moral/aesthetic responsibility for what they produce. I'm sure there's a line somewhere where they should be legally responsible (beyond labeling/warning, I mean) for the content they produce. No game, that I'm aware of, has reached that line.
quote:posted by Constipatron: What about those two boys who murdered their own mother EXACTLY after the fashion seen on Sepranos to the T? True, those boys are TOTALLY responsible for choosing to act in such a fashion, but does that excuse the show from responsibility totally
Yes, I think it does. Well, other factors too, but that's one of them. No one associated with the show has advocated that anyone should commit murder.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
In order to win this argument, you have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those people wouldn't have committed the act WITHOUT having seen it on whichever form of media (The burden of proof is on the people making the claim). Never mind HOW they did it. I can accept that they got the METHOD from whichever source, but the drive to carry it out is something different entirely. People have been killing other people long before said acts were depicted anywhere.
It's an impossible argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree. I'd elaborate, but I'm not really sure how to.
If person A hires person B to kill someone else, we don't partition their sentence between them. We hold them both fully responsible.
I'm not even saying here that video developers share any responsibility for any violence. I'm simply saying that IF they do, it doesn't reduce any responsibility of those who commit violence. It's a red-herring argument that obscures the actual issue.
Especially when it's stated as baldly and absolutely as you did.
The idea of zero-sum moral culpability is ultimately corrosive.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:If person A hires person B to kill someone else, we don't partition their sentence between them. We hold them both fully responsible.
This is a good counter-example. I'm trying to refine an opinion on this, and it's all kind of rough impressions right now, so I hope you'll bear with me.
quote:I'm not even saying here that video developers share any responsibility for any violence. I'm simply saying that IF they do, it doesn't reduce any responsibility of those who commit violence. It's a red-herring argument that obscures the actual issue.
I think you are right to point out that "video games don't kill people, people kill people" is a poor argument. I feel the same way about it when applied to guns, and never really realized it.
That said, I still disagree with you on assigning blame. This situation feels sufficiently different from your contracted killer example that I can't yet rule out different moral principles being in play.
I think part of the difference is that with video games, the ones actually committing the violence are often minors. Or at least, thats who video games are supposedly corrupting. I think my intuitions in this are supported by the blame ping-pong that often gets played with this issue: "the media is to blame", "parents need to pay attention to their kids!"
Anyway, I need to think about this more.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
OSC has depicted many violent deaths in his books. I hope nobody considers him morally or legally responsible for violence done by anyone who has read his work. It seems absurd to even suggest it.
What makes video games different than books in this regard?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What makes video games different than books in this regard?
Again, I'm not saying that they are.
However, it seems pretty obvious that participatory depicted violence might have different effects than non-participatory. There's enough difference between them to think that one might have a different effect.
quote:That said, I still disagree with you on assigning blame. This situation feels sufficiently different from your contracted killer example that I can't yet rule out different moral principles being in play.
The only thing I've said about assigning blame is that the statement "Video game X contributed to violent act Y committed by person Z" does not necessarily mean that the person making the statement is assigning less blame to Z.
quote: I think my intuitions in this are supported by the blame ping-pong that often gets played with this issue: "the media is to blame", "parents need to pay attention to their kids!"
Certainly some people mean to lessen the blame on the one who commits violence. But it's not inherent to the argument.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
All Dag is saying can be seen in the following example.
Joe stole a purse. He got caught. He was found guilty and gets 5 years in jail.
Joe explains to everyone that the reason he stole the purse was because of a video game he played, "Sim-Purse Snatcher, Vegas Edition." That video game so glamorized the act of purse snatching that Joe felt compelled to go out and snatch someone's purse.
Needless to say, the experience was far less fun than the simulation.
After viewing the video game it is decided that the game is a threat to the community, that laws were broken, and that the company is at fault.
Any penalties the company, the developers, or the publishers must pay for their crime does not lessen the guilt or punishment Joe must face. They don't divide up the sentence--3 Years for the Publisher, 1 for the salesman who sold the game, and 1 for Joe.
Posted by sylvrdragon (Member # 3332) on :
People are mixing responsibility with accountability. They're similar, but in the end, two different things.
If only we had some way to classify people by how much violence, sexuality, or other genres of fiction they could reasonably take in and still be likely to regard it AS fiction. I think we should call it something fancy like "Maturity". We could probably base it on age or something of that nature. From there, we just have to apply a certain "Maturity" level to whatever genre of fiction and label it corresponding to the age group that can handle it. Wait a minute, this sounds familiar...
Any way you cut it, the company that produces the fiction is NOT accountable. They have already taken every reasonable measure to keep it away from the people that would be most likely influenced by it. Any more restrictions on that level would take away still more of our Freedoms. I only grew aware of it recently, but this whole trading freedom for some trivial bit of security thing is starting to get to me.
Posted by Constipatron (Member # 8831) on :
I still think that violence has an impact, even if it's not measurable immediately after digesting the exposure. First time I saw "Smash TV" in the arcade so many years ago, I can remember actually feeling sick at my stomach. But, when I started playing it the nausia eventually went away. Now, is that because I lost the adolescent assumption that video games and life could be closely related, or is it because seeing pixelated gore more often desensitized me to a degree? I admit that I'm not going to strap a rocket-launcher on my arm and go blow people up for money and prizes, but it has an affect.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote: MOORE: My secretary said be sure and tell you that.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: OSC has depicted many violent deaths in his books. I hope nobody considers him morally or legally responsible for violence done by anyone who has read his work.
While I've only read a fraction of his catalog, the Card works I'm familiar with don't glorify violence. The only people who enjoy it are the antagonists. The good guys always regret what happened and experience grief or guilt at doing it.
Ender would be the prime example. He accidentally killed a kid in self defense and still felt awful about it when he talked about it later. Violence is sometimes necessary in Card's works, but it's never a source of entertainment.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
AvidReader: I appreciate that aspect, but I'm not sure how important it is.
My main point is that there have been violent books and stories for ages, and while there are people who try to ban one book or another, the books are generally considered much more protected than other media.
Lots of people disagree with video game violence, but I imagine that few people who attack video games would suggest that The Red Badge of Courage or Fahrenheit 451 are responsible for teen violence.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Ender would be the prime example. He accidentally killed a kid in self defense and still felt awful about it when he talked about it later.
Unless I am grossly misremembering, Ender eventually comes to realize that he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he killed Stilson and Bonzo. Felt awful about it? Sure. Not an accident in either case, however.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Ender would be the prime example. He accidentally killed a kid in self defense and still felt awful about it when he talked about it later.
Unless I am grossly misremembering, Ender eventually comes to realize that he knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he killed Stilson and Bonzo. Felt awful about it? Sure. Not an accident in either case, however.
That's the way I remember it too. Ender has a dual nature - empathetic, but ruthless. It is, IMO, central to the tragedy of his young life.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Here's another though: If an Ender video game is made, is it possible that the game could be responsible for inciting someone to violence, where the book could not?
If it is the interactive nature of the media which changes the responsibility, then isn't it actually the person's level of interaction which changes? The story is still the same (to some degree), but the person is more active in the story.
If this is the case, then doesn't it fall to the person again anyway? They're the one delving more deeply into the story, so they hold the responsibility of their actions to do so, and the results of those actions.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Hate to dredge up a moderately old thread, but I can't resist pointing this one out...
quote:The pornography and violence that your son trafficks in is the kind of stuff that most mothers would be ashamed to see their son putting into the hands of other mothers' children, but, hey, your son Strauss has recently assured the world that he is "a Boy Scout, everybody knows that." I'd love to see the merit badges that Scout Troop handed out. Is there a Ted Bundy merit badge? If so, your loving son deserves one now. It should be red and green, for obvious reasons.
.../...
Your son, this very moment, is doing everything he possibly can to sell as many copies of GTA IV to teen boys in the United States, a country in which your son claims you raised him to be "a Boy Scout." More like the Hitler Youth, I would say.
Happy Mother's day, Mrs. Zelnick, which this year is May 11, two weeks after your son unleashes porn and violence upon other mothers' boys. I'm sure you're very proud.
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
That has to be some kind of joke.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'd pay a hitman to have him killed if it didn't completely prove his point. The guy's just annoying now.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I rather think at this point he should be sued for harrassment and disbarred. He's clearly abused... Well, virtually every power offered him as a lawyer, and many of those offered to private citizens.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
He was already permanently disbarred in Alabama, the fact that Florida has not done so yet is rather embarrassing to the Florida legal system.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really. These things take time, for good reason.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Do we know WHY this guy has such a bug up his butt about video games? Was his nephew squashed under a box of Doom packages in a warehouse? Did the exploding critters in Dig-Dug scar his psyche?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
People are willing to give him money so he can back up their opportunistic slander with "expert opinion."
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I rather think at this point he should be sued for harrassment and disbarred. He's clearly abused... Well, virtually every power offered him as a lawyer, and many of those offered to private citizens.
I don't think he can be sued for harrasment on this particular one. If you read the articles, it says that he sent the letter to Strauss Zelnick's lawyer (because of a court order saying that he only communicate with Zelnick through counsel). So Zelnick's mother probably has never seen the letter unless Zelnick or his lawyer forwarded it to her.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
He is a tick, sucking every last second from his 15 minutes of fame.
As a want-to-be writer, I would find it interesting to hear what rationale he used to himself to convince him that this was a good idea.
Sad, deeply sad, but interesting.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I rather think at this point he should be sued for harrassment and disbarred. He's clearly abused... Well, virtually every power offered him as a lawyer, and many of those offered to private citizens.
I don't think he can be sued for harrasment on this particular one. If you read the articles, it says that he sent the letter to Strauss Zelnick's lawyer (because of a court order saying that he only communicate with Zelnick through counsel). So Zelnick's mother probably has never seen the letter unless Zelnick or his lawyer forwarded it to her.
--Enigmatic
Ah. So he's only being a grandstanding idiot. Well, that's nothing new.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
With the inevitability that always seems to follow the grandiosely idiotic:
:rolf: on the same page that has the above story (Sterling's link) is an ad for National D&D Day.
Jack is right, its all an evil plot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheTick: Do we know WHY this guy has such a bug up his butt about video games? Was his nephew squashed under a box of Doom packages in a warehouse? Did the exploding critters in Dig-Dug scar his psyche?
For starters, he's legitimately mentally ill.
He's also a hardXcore born-again christian type and his general nuttiness has caused him to pervert that faith into him doing all this out of a wacky sacrificial martyrdom/persecution complex. He's a Holy Warrior fighting for God against dem vid'jo games and other moral scourges.
Why the God vs. Video Games in his head these days is anyone's guess but I'm kind of assuming that while his forays against rap music, Howard Stern, and Janet Reno all approached similar levels of fanaticism by him, the video game industry was the first 'moral scourge' to only ever gain ground against him and never lose ground. His rhetorical devices became belligerent and he went off the deep end, which caused the courts to have to keep him in line, which made the courts The Enemy too.
So on, so forth.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A referee has recommended Thompson's permanent disbarment.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: A referee has recommended Thompson's permanent disbarment.
quote:Among the extensive findings of fact presented in the report, the Court takes particular note of the following which occurred during the three-year period at issue in five counts in these cases:
(1) respondent made false statements of material fact to courts and repeatedly violated a court order;
(2) respondent communicated the subject of representation directly with clients of opposing counsel;
(3) respondent engaged in prohibited ex parte communications;
(4) respondent publicized and sent hundreds of pages of vitriolic and disparaging missives, letters, faxes, and press releases, to the affected individuals;
(5) respondent targeted an individual who was not involved with respondent in any way, merely due to "the position [the individual] holds in state and national politics;"
(6) respondent falsely, recklessly, and publicly accused a judge as being amenable to the "fixing" of cases;
(7) respondent sent courts inappropriate and offensive sexual materials;
(8) respondent falsely and publicly accused various attorneys and their clients of engaging in a conspiracy/enterprise involving "the criminal distribution of sexual materials to minors" and attempted to get prosecuting authorities to charge these attorneys and their clients for racketeering and extortion;
(9) respondent harassed the former client of an attorney in an effort to get the client to use its influence to persuade the attorney to withdraw a defamation suit filed by the attorney against respondent; and
(10) respondent retaliated against attorneys who filed Bar complaints against him for his unethical conduct by asserting to their clients, government officials, politicians, the media, female lawyers in their law firm, employees, personal friends, acquaintances, and their wives, that the attorneys were criminal Case Nos. SC07-80 and SC07-354 Page Three pornographers who objectify women.
I guess "stark raving loon" wasn't sufficient reason...
quote:In response to our request for comment Thompson sent Kotaku a copy of an emergency motion he filed with the court, this despite the ruling which states that only another attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar could file a motion for rehearing on Thompson's behalf.
Florida might be a crazy state, but he's going to have a really hard time finding someone else that will get anywhere near this one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even though I think he deserves to be disbarred, he also deserves to have his case fully considered. If a motion for reconsideration is proper - and it seems to be, although I haven't looked at the rules - then I don't see most attorneys having a problem filing one.
However, I expect Thompson doesn't want a proper motion filed. I expect he wants to have HIS motion filed, and I expect that motion to be one no attorney wants to sign.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I expect that motion to be one no attorney wants to sign."
I'm not a lawyer, but...I doubt you're wrong.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Wow... That motion seems like it needs paragraph breaks that say "[sad violins]" "[trumpets]".
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I need to get my mind outta the gutter! I read:
quote:(3) respondent engaged in prohibited sex party communications;
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"...has a fool for a client."
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Sorry for the thread necromancy once again, but he's back in the news...
quote:A long-time critic of the video game industry has sued Facebook for US$40 million, saying that the social networking site harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook gamers.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Looks like he's running low on cash.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh my god. Honestly, who cares about this guy anymore?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh my god. Honestly, who cares about this guy anymore?
you do, he's crazy and hilarious
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
crap, i've got me there
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Maybe he should try Jay and Silent Bob's method of tracking down every one of the posters and beating them senseless.
Probably get a lot more accomplished that way.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
He's not short of cash.
He wants his 15 minutes of fame back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is neither cash nor fame that motivates him more than it is the fact that, like Orly Taitz, he's pretty much mentally ill. Not joking!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)