October 25, 2006
It appears that controversial attorney Jack Thompson may be compelled to appear before a Florida judge as early as this afternoon to explain why he should not be held in contempt of court.In a story broken by GamePolitics on Monday, we reported that lawyers representing Bully publisher Take-Two Interactive have petitioned Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman to find the controversial attorney in contempt of court.
Thompson reacted harshly to the news, issuing dire warnings to opposing counsel as well as Judge Friedman himself. Perhaps not coincidentally, Thompson announced just a few days ago that he was planning to run for Friedman's spot on the bench in 2008.
One knowledgeable observer suggested Thompson's sudden candidacy might be a legal maneuver designed to force Judge Friedman to recuse (remove) himself from the case. Indeed, Thompson has filed a motion demanding that Friedman step down.
Thompson indicated yesterday that he would appeal to Florida's 3rd District Court if Judge Friedman did not recuse himself. The outcome of that appeal may affect whether or not today's contempt hearing goes forward.
Comments
That, in itself, suggests fore-knowledge of guilt.
Now, exactly what significance that has remains to be seen.
JT is just a type of legal bully.
Sorry but this has been bugging me for a while... 5:1 is higher odds than than 2:1. The easiest way to look at a ratio is as numerator and denominator in a fraction. 5:1 or (5/1) is 5 chances for every one chance against. What you were looking for was 1:5. The 2:1 that playful puppy was talking about states that JT has a GOOD chance of coming out of this on top.
Considering Jack has openly admitted that he wants Take-Two to be taken to court so often that they'll go out of business, I'm pretty surprised myself that they only now have started fighting back.
Now that I think about it, JT's comment about TT in court eerily mirrors Lik-Sang closing down due to the multiple lawsuits Sony had filed against it. o.o
The details are sketchy, but Destructoid was there to film it, and will post vids later.
The brief though, is that the judge reclused himself supposedly because he has filed a complaint with the Florida BAR regarding JT's antics (the ranting in court, the nasty letter), and he called in 4 police officers because JT refused to stop continuously holding up this large posterboard sign that PO'd the judge. So the contempt hearing will likely resume when another judge is picked at a later date.
What would have been funnier, however, is if instead of a fine or jail time, John Bruce had been sentenced to a week in a psychiatric care facility. True, it may not be the kind of sentence that can be passed on contempt charges. But after the stunt John Bruce pulled in the court room today, let alone in the previous hearing, does anyone think that a judge won't go for setting a precidence?
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I only just noticed this line. I guess I got distracted by his anti-gay sentiment. Is he accusing Bully of being pornographic?
After reading about some of his other antics I am really surprised that this is the first time someone is taking action against him.
Anyway this is something I will follow at work today, helps me out on these long 10hr days.
I suspect any judge that ends up taking this case isn't going to be thrilled with his antics.
--remember folks, I penned that nickname first!
---Also, seriously, good luck, Jack, you will need it.
Anyone in the area going to attend, or are the proceedings shut to the public?
Prepare for the worst coward!
This time, you can't run.
Methinks he'll be a bit too busy now to follow through on that threat.
That said, I hope they throw the book at him. He needs to learn his place, not just in the legal system, but in society. He needs to understand he doesn't have a God-given right to be an annoying ***.
That said, Jack's actions here are probably another thing for the ethics committee of the Florida Bar Association to look into.
Must be nice to be living off someone else, Jack.
"... I think issuing threats to people like a 1970’s comic book villan..."
He was Jack Thompson, outspoken anti-video game activist - until an accidental dose of Energy X twisted his mind and imbued his harsh rhetoric and lawsuits with superhuman potency! His was the power to file a lawsuit anywhere, at any time, attributing any criminal activity to video games. Now, the world that refused to listen to his warnings will suffer the wrath of...
THE LITIGATOR!!!!
I thought about writing a letter to the Florida Bar asking these questions and using the examples of John Bruce's actions recently (emails and press releases regarding the case and his claim of running for the judge's position) to illustrate why these questions came to me. But it's too late to get these questions answered to deal with the situation in regards to John Bruce. Still, they do present interesting ethical questions in general. I'm hoping one of the legal "in-the-know" folks around here can answer them. Such a situation that has developed with John Bruce raises my concern over the legal system in general, especially if this becomes regular all over.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several general questions. These can, of course, be applied solely to FL as well as a more general national arena as well.
Glossary:
"run" = officially file for OR announce an intent to file for
"licensed Bar member" = Member In Good Standing or otherwise
"adversarial" = An example is Contempt charges but may be other issues as well.
(1) Is it standard acceptable practice to allow any licensed Bar member to run for ANY position while they have active Bar complaints OR are actively being investigated for Disbarment?
(2) Is it standard acceptable practice to allow any licensed Bar member to run for a specific position in which they have an active case which may, or perhaps even may not, contain adversarial aspects against the licensed Bar member?
(3) Have there been other similar cases where said tactic to announce one's will/is running for a particular postion in an attempt to manipulate outcomes?
(4) Have there ever been, or should there be, considerations to write policy/procedure to forbid such actions or to formally make such actions regarded as unethical, whether the licensed Bar member currently has complaints against them or not?
I'm sure there are other ways to ask these questions and probably others similar questions to ask. But I'm fighting writing this and working at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I hope the judge throws the book at Jack, because this is just Jack trying to get his way even thogh he's been repeatedly rejected with a plithora of court case failures. Oh one could only hope that the Florida Bar hears about this. *hopeshopeshopes*
...I'm calling Superman RIGHT NOW. The League needs to hear this.
-----
Joke Thompson knows how to stall for time. Basically, if you want to get rid of him, you'll need to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court before he shuts up. For about a week. And then he'll claim the Supreme Court was bribed by the game industry.
Good luck there Gordon *cough* Jack.
You're gonna need it.
Basically, the odds are 2:1 for a Thompson 'win', although he would have no recourse should a new judge rule against him (Although you can bet good money he's already trying to cook up a way around that). Given that law is more prophetical than the roll of a die, without the details nor the knowledge to adequately process them it appears as little more than a 50/50 split from the outside.
All said, however, this doesn't make Jack a tactical mastermind, nor even a decent tactitian. Most people could easily become millionaires, legally, within a year if they had a complete disregard for moral or ethical constraints. Success is always so much easier if you hold contempt for your fellow man, it's being victorious and being a hero that seperates the minds from the mines.
Has anyone sent the Florida Bar a copy of his rant against the judge? I thought the bar associations really frown on such abuses?
I wouldn't recommend it. This is a fairly well-publicized trial. I'm 100% certain that opposing counsel will inform the Bar if anything relevant happens.
Look, it's one thing to be involved. But the Florida Bar isn't your local politician or newspaper. They don't need us writing/emailing every time Thompson farts. Let JT sink his own ship.
If you want to write somebody - write local news in the area. See if you can get them to cover the "Sleaze in the Florida Judicial System" type stories.
Unless JT has directly injured you in some legally tangible way, the Florida Bar doesn't need to know about it.
I think Jack's odds are seriously lower than that. More like 5:1. And I don't think Friedman will recuse himself either. From what I read on the Oct. 13 ruling, it was pretty clear that he could see through Jack's BS and had little patience for him after watching Bully' gameplay footage. From what I read, his disposition suggested something along the lines of, "This moron made me waste four hours of my life to see this?!"
Friedman seems like an intelligent man, and as such I think he recongnizes JT's bullying tactics for what they are. In fact, it'll probably make him dig in his heels even more.
Besides, why should he even recuse himself? Since Jack refused to appeal that day, shouldn't his ruling on the matter be considered final?
Unless Jack pulls some kind of legal hocus pocus out of his ass at the eleventh hour like he sometimes does and manages to wriggle away, I seriously doubt he'll come away from this unscathed. I don't see this as any kind of win for him. I said once before that the Bully case marked the beginning of the end for him, and so far it appears I've been right.
It hits too close to home because Jack -IS- a bully, and the main character is fighting against bullies. It makes so much more sense.
Rockstar = Main Character, Jack = Everyone else...
And about Jack? Well. We'll see.
Jack's wife is an attorney, a real one from what I can tell, she's also a uhh "boarded" member of the Florida Bar, IIRC.
My concern is the existing policy/procedures that are in place now, not merely John Bruce. Which is why I asked the questions in a general manner. True, I would have used John Bruce as the example and reason I was asking, but that's because this situation is unique to me. As far as I know, no one else has attempted this. And I'm wondering if it IS unique and whether, now that such an event is occuring, there should be policy/procedure in place to prevent anyone else from doing this.
It is, to me, a stain on the overall legal system where individuals can do this to get out of being responsible for their actions.
I've written to the FLBar before on a question of policy, though that time I didn't even need to refer to John Bruce since the question was pretty standard. But this situation seems so unique as to need an example. I would, of course, have indicated that the request for information wasn't regarding making a complaint about him since I'm not close enough to the situation to make such a complaint, irregardless of my personal feelings on the matter.
Frankly, I do think there SHOULD be a policy/procedure preventing these types of acts in place.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Best. Analogy. EVER!!! Next to the one about the shoe... Yeah... Hehe, shoes.
------
Even if Jack does get held in contempt of court, we'll still have to deal with the other government officials and what have you who are also against video games. But at least the others are acting like crazed religious fanatics in court.
I guess it would be best if Friedman reclused himself anyway, just to stop the whining, but still with those comments JT made at the judge, heard by many witnesses, it would be easy for another judge to see why contempt might be a valid complaint.
I think there needs to be a timeframe of some sort set int he policy/procedure as well.
Let's say an attorney thinks they will face a difficult court battle. And they really want to be able to manipulate events.
So, shortly (let's say a month) before the case, the attorney does a little investigating and determines successfully who the judge might be.
They then file to run for that judge's position, but don't announce it publically (or is it required to announce?).
During the trial, the attorney sees that things aren't going their way. So they act up. Motion for Just Cause.
Bang! Attorney announces "Hey, I'm running for your seat, you CAN'T have me in contempt and you should be recused".
Is this possible at all?
If so, then there needs to be, as part of the policy, that an attorney cannot file or announce the intent to run for a seat in any court in which they have scheduled to bring a case in... let's say 6 months. And that they can't run for any seat in which they have an active case as an attorney or party.
Naturally, there are more details to be considered in such policy, and probably a different time constraint (more or less). But I don't think it's unreasonable to have such a policy/prodcedure in place to prevent the misuse of the existing system.
I mean, really, what's to stop John Bruce from, even after having filed, dropping out, say, midway to the election, or even a little later?
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
You're right, your questions about policy are sound, and need an example from real life to shape them with a real frame of reference. But I am not so sure it is their place to answer our questions. Still, asking very specific questions about policy or historical cases can't hurt. In the end, though, as you said, those questions really should be answered by a lawyer. Maybe Tom Buscaglia can answer them, being that he was/is a Florida lawyer.
I was more talking to those who are thinking or posting along the lines of : "We should send the Bar a copy of that letter," "The Bar should know what JT is doing, so they can disbar him," "Why isn't the Bar doing what they can to stop him?"
I know for a fact TTwo's lawyers would LOVE to see him get hit with the disbar stick. So I am confident that, if it is possible, they are taking care of it. Especially in the currently active case. It isn't really our place to try to do their job for them (either in the case of the Bar of TTwo's lawyers), and I should think that such interference in legal proceeding would be frowned upon.