Frankly, reading those claims, this fits exactly what I've come to expect from Thompson - a mish-mash of vaguely worded, generalised claims that have only a very oblique connection to the matter in hand, 'proven facts' that are nothing of the sort, and claims that are just plain wrong (did you know that ALL the GTA games have explicit sexual content, and that you are forced to have sex with prostitutes, then kill them to get your money back? I certainly didn't, and can say, without a shadow of a doubt, I have never done that in the GTA games).

I also note, with a great deal of amusement, in the original claim, Jack Thompson's assertation that 'removing Thompson’s state remedy' also removes the ENTIRE STATE OF FLORIDA'S remedy to any alleged breach of the law by Take Two. Strange, I would have thought the State of Florida would have more than one person able to enforce the law. Maybe I'm wrong. After all, I'm not even from Florida, far less a Florida lawyer.

Y'know, I heard about a new kind of surgery that's being explored. Internal rectal cranium removal. I guess they basically pull a person's head out of their ass by draining their ego first, and then making an opening so they can get some fingers in, and gently push the person's head out, and they give the person an IV of self-doubt afterwards.

Turns out, it happens when someone lacks various ideas, such as self-hate and self-doubt, or a healthy conscience, and I guess some need additional treatment, because they have this problem where they love the sound of their voice way too much.

I think JT could really use the surgery, I guess they're really getting good at it. Apparenlty, it's a rather common problem.

[...] Phew, that was close. And to think, he almost discovered our master plans … [...]

How are you all doing today?

Anyways, one thing I would like to find out. Does anyone know where you can find the full listing of who was named in the RICO accusation of his? Because it only listed a few and then said "many more" if memory serves me right.

[...] Where’s RICO? …Revised Jack Thompson Suit vs. T2 Drops Racketeering Allegations [GamePolitics] [...]

@Jack: Come to think of it, you're right. Without the RICO claims, this is something that says it's a lawsuit in the header, but contains no actual claims on which to sue.

I'll work on that JT CAW for 2007 tomorrow and post it on my Livejournal ether then or on Saturday.

Let's put Jack in the ring before he goes to Heaven!

While he seems to have cleaned out most of the crazy stuff like the conspiracy allegations and the quotes from various respected people and attempts to compare himself to various recent pop culture heroes, he left in all the stuff that's just plain wrong, like the claim 42% of sales of M-rated games are to minors, video games don't contain artwork and music, people aren't citizens of states and, most importantly, the idea that public nuisance laws have something to do with harm to minors. I also notice he complaisn they're trying to stop a suit he hasn't filed, then essentially files said suit in this counter claim.

Rob,

All an M rating means is that due to the game’s contents, it is recommended for players 17 and up. So, no, that isn’t prove that the game isn’t marketed to kids. However, ads on a bus (unless we’re talking a school bus) also don’t prove a game is marketed to kids. Until Thompson and his ilk can provide a worthwhile example like commercials on Nickelodeon or ads in Highlights magazine, their complaints won’t hold water.

Now, while publishers are indeed responsible for advertising, they are not responsible for who retailers decide to sell to so yelling at Take-Two when Best Buy sells a minor a copy of The Warriors is stupid and futile.


Andrew Eisen

Yeah it definately seems JT grew a braincell or two. Or maybe it was just his attorney (anyone else find it ironic that an attorney has an attorney?) finally got off his anti-depressents, his client is JT, long enough to realize that it was assine.

In truth, he probably just assembled the original in a hasty and angry state of mind and realized after the fact that it was folly. So, he revised it, so it wouldn't completely destroy his career, yet. I would think though that the original rant, er counter-claim would still have an impact on the outcome. I seem to recall judges citing original complaints in cases I've seen. Also wouldn't the judge be allowed access to the original as it would still pertain to the case? If not, couldn't T2 bring it up as evidence against JT? Or would this be illegal in some law I am unfamilar with?

I still love Jack's response to A-wel Cruiz's e-mail: I'm going to heaven!

But hey, don't forget the quote "Heaven just isn't hot enough/ Burn me alive inside", Prayer by Disturbed.

You also forgot his "I’m 100 percent certain that it will effect change, otherwise I would not have filed it." lawsuit against the Florida Bar.

Oh, gee, what happened to that? Did it not work? Where's the "urgent!" press release on that?

@ KotatsuNeko
"At any rate, it’s not like him to change his tune once he starts playing, so this is kinda baffling."
Baffled by Jack changing his tune? Pfft.

We are perhaps forgetting some of his previous escapades. Need I mention the donation-as-satire incident? Backpeddling and recanting are regular elements of this man's repertoire.

Double or nothing this isn't the last revision.

Someone with a brain must have looked over his first lawsuit. I couldn't take anything he said seriously seeing as he spelled Florida with a Q. This guy wants to protect kids, fine. But maybe he should think things out first so he doesn't need to redo his crazy, rant filled, and self promoting counterclaim.

hmm... Jack claims there's no videogames in Hell.
Hell is the opposite of Heaven.
Therefore, videogames will be in Heaven.
Therefore, Jack would prefer to reside in Hell.
Therefore, Jack gets self-PWN'd yet again.

I just don't know what to say. I am hoping this will be a pay-per-view becuase I would pay big money to see someone get owned as badly as Jack is going to get owned. It will be artistic bliss.

To A-Wel:

I played SDvR06 with your Jack Thompson formula and would love an updated 07 version.

And sorry for Jack, but people who ignore whole sections of the Bible they find inconvenient don't go to Heaven.

it's very simple what happened here. He realized that he wouldn't win with the RICO charge because he has no proof, and why would he have proof because this vast conspiracy he claims to exist doesn't exist. So either he just straight was like "I'm a moron" and dropped it from his suit or he crushed up his anti-crazy pills mixed it with his coke and snorted his anti-crazy cocktail then which maid him realize "I'm a moron" and then drop the suit. Take your pick on what really happeened but I'm pretty sure I've hit the nail ont he head.

nightwng: if that does happen then I doubt that the judge in the case will be very impressed.

Why hasn't anyone filed suit against thompson for creating a public nuisance? It'd be alot easier to prove than any of the bs he tries to make stick.

To be fair I think there is a conspiracy against him, I haven't seen anyone anywhere on the interweb who actually agrees with his crap or doesn't want him run over by a bus.

It's not an organised conspiracy though, unless you count his orchestration of this universal hatred.

Also removed from his suit:

1) The "But my wife has cancer" defense.

2) The "I'm just like Russell Crowe in the movies" defense.

3) The "I'm like Martin Luther King" defense.

Yeah. It sounds funnier if you imagine him saying it like a Super Bowl MVP:

"Jack Thompson, you just spent thousands of your wife's money and wasted everyone's time. What are you gonna do now?"

"I'M GOING TO HEAVENNNNNN!"

"I'm going to heaven"

I've literally heard 5 year olds use that same comeback.

Continuing from my last comment, I sent a reply to Jack telling him that my CAW of him was no sadder than his crusade against Take-Two or his entire career in law for that matter. Here's his response:

"Oh, no, very sad. I'm going to Heaven. You apparently aren't. That will
give you an eternal sadness. No video games in Hell, ace."

Now THERE'S the Jack we all know and love, or should I say loathe.

I think I'm done wasting my time on him now. It's not worth the energy, and reading his replies are giving my brain the dumb.

That paragraph you highlighted is actually evidence for the T2 suit against him. I proves that he is trying to do exactly what they're trying to prevent.

Today, I sent Jack a link to my Livejournal page which contains a formula for making Jackyboy in WWE Smackdown! vs RAW 2006 (click my name for it). A few minutes ago, here's the response I got:

"how sad"

Hmm, no threats, no namecalling, no grandstanding. Methinks JT is starting to lose his touch. Or maybe he learned his lesson from the Mortal Kombat Armaggeddon fiasco.

Anyone want me to make a CAW for SvR2007?

Now that is an interesting development. Does the removal of that charge reduce the liklihood or effect of punishment should the courts find that it was a petty charge/attack to begin with?

I think that JT simply wants to be the first to play GTA4. In his counter suit he states that he wants to review the game before release, thus becomeing the first to play the game.

These lawsuits are simply a gradeschool crush. He picks on the people he likes.

It looks like he ran it through the spell-checker this time too. He's not filing from Floridqa any more.

I was going to say that maybe Jack had an actual lawyer look the document over and fix it for him, but it still says on the first page "No one is a citizen of a state", which blows his credibility out of the water from the get go. At any rate, it's not like him to change his tune once he starts playing, so this is kinda baffling. Not *quite* as stupid as it was before, but baffling.

Wow what happened to the vast conspiracy against him?

The document is still lacking in my opinion and I hope they still laugh him out of court, but who knows maybe he saw what we all posted on the last news report and started to correct his document.

ive never understood why these people claim that any mature game is harmful to people under 18, like what exactly is the difference between the mind and perspective of a 17 yo compared to an 18yo? i can understand maybe people like 12 or maybe even 14 but i cant see that there would actually be a noticable difference between two age groups that are a year and only a year appart. its like they are saying if a mature game is played by a 17 year old will be negitively affected but if an 18 yo played the same mature game then they would not be affected by the content at all, in a negitive sense. what happens in that year in between their 17th and 18th birthdays that changes them?

Maybe it's just all this single malt whiskey I've been sip-sip-sipping away on, but I'm not understanding our dear Mr Thompson at all.

At least before his irrational behavoiour seemed to have a purpose; make a name for himself, get some high profile clients, rake in the cash win-win-win. But now he seems to have either lost sight of his goals entirely or decided the best way to achieve them is to repeatedly shoot himself in the foot. Reading his previous 22 page document his claims seemed to indicate that he believed Take-2 to be orchestrating the mass backlash of video game fans... What I want to know is how he found out about those paypackets! I promised take-2 he wouldn't find out... What if they stop paying me now?

We have some real classic comebacks from our good fellow. I feel sorry for you Americans... imagine if a lawyer of that quality had decided to go into real cases. The fact that a man like that still has a license to operate should come as a terrifying realistation to you all. Imagine having him as your last defence before the death sentence was passed. Truely terrifying.

While I'm here, the highlight of his original document for me was "Blank Rome’s lawyers knew
that Thompson’s wife has been operated on recently for ovarian cancer.
They knew this.
It can be proven that they knew this."
Simply because it epitomizes Thompson's style of making a bland assertion and claiming it as a proven fact without citing any valid proof.

[...] Text of Amended Answer and Counterclaim (March 28, 2007) - amended to remove all but one paragraph of the counterclaim Text of Original Answer and Counterclaim (March 21, 2007) Text of Complaint (March 13, 2007) [...]