The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 5): 2nd Take Two Attorney Testifies

March 23, 2008 -

Background for today’s testimony: Rebecca Ward was one of two Blank Rome attorneys who testified against Jack Thompson in his November, 2007 Bar trial. Ward, along with James Smith, represented Take Two Interactive and other video game industry defendants in the $600 million Strickland vs Sony lawsuit which Thompson filed in Alabama.

It was upon a motion filed by Smith and Ward that Judge James Moore, in November, 2005, revoked Thompson’s pro hac vice (visiting) right to practice law in Alabama, essentially throwing him off the Strickland case, which alleged that a 2004 triple cop killing was prompted by the 18-year-old murderer’s play of Grand Theft Auto.

(Smith and Ward filed a Bar complaint against Thompson and were called to testify at his trial.  In the excerpted transcripts, WARD is Ward. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

TUMA: Can you please identify that exhibit for the Court?

WARD: This is an e-mail... from Mr. Thompson, addressed to me, three other partners at my law firm, and our local counsel in Alabama, dated September 21, 2005.

TUMA: ...can you read the first sentence, please?

WARD: ..."Two of the partners in your firm, James T. Smith and Rebecca D. Ward, have decided to do a very foolish and very unethical thing... Your two partners have also presided over the decision of Rockstar to launch a website and suggest that I am a bisexual pedophile..."

TUMA: Can you tell me at any time if you have presided over the decision of Rockstar to launch a website?

WARD: No. In fact the particular website in question, I didn't even know existed until Mr. Thompson sent this e-mail.

(Ms. Tuma continues to have Ms. Ward identify several nasty e-mails from Thompson for the record...)

TUMA: Would you go to Exhibit 19 and identify that for the Court?

WARD: Exhibit 19 is an e-mail from Mr. Thompson in which I am cc'd... It is dated October 20th, 2005... "Now, let me be clear. Any Bar complaint coming from these morons arising out of the above incident is baseless and itself constitutes a violation of a specific Federal Civil Rights statute... It's okay for Mr. Smith to act like a Mafia thug, but it's unethical for me to point out the thuggery."

JT: Judge [Tunis], forgive me, but I'm wondering why we're excerpting - well, I know why, but I don't know if it's proper to be excerpting portions of these letters, having her testify to these excerpts out of context... I'm not sure what we're doing here.

TUMA: He has an opportunity to cross examine the witness, Your Honor... Just so that we're clear, every letter that I'm going over today and every quote I'm going over is exactly in the Bar's complaint against Mr. Thompson... This witness is here today so she can testify to those... He was on notice of all of this.

JT: That goes to the unfairness of the complaint because it's lifting comments out of letters out of context... So what she's doing is compounding the unfairness... and having this witness read only portions of the letter. I'm just objecting and I hope you'll read the whole letter, Judge, since you're the one who is going to decide whether or not I have acted improperly here.

DT: Well, I have absolutely every intention of reading every single thing... just as clearly, Ms. Ward is here and available for cross examination with regard to everything that she's testifying to.

(Ms. Ward continues to idenify e-mails sent by Thompson, including...)

WARD: This is another e-mail that I received from Mr. Thompson. This one is dated December 21st, 2005. It is addressed to a number of different people, cc'd to a number of different people, most of whom I don't know. The body of the e-mail is a letter that is addressed to Mr. Eibeler.

TUMA: The CEO of Take Two at the time?

WARD: At the time, yes. [reading] "Maybe the absolutely dumbest thing you did was hire Philadelphia's Blank Rome as your law firm of choice to represent you in courtrooms and to serve as your registered lobbyist in the U.S. House and Senate... Blank Rome also, very importantly, managed to lose all motions to dismiss in our wrongful death lawsuit in Alabama arising out of a teen's training on Grand Theft Auto... We expect to try this case in 2006. We also expect to take at that trial every single penny Take Two currently has."

TUMA: And so that the record is clear, by [the time of this e-mail], the order revoking Mr. Thompson's pro hac vice had not been vacated, had it?


(the implication of this is that Thompson was no longer admitted to practice in Alabama at the time of the e-mail, but is still speaking of the case as though he were serving as an attorney...)

JT: Excuse me, Judge... But here [Ms. Tuma] is asking questions about... my representations that I'm saying apparently improperly that I'm representing people while the pro hac vice application has been revoked. So in light of the fact there's no unauthorized practice of law assertion in these complaints, why are we doing this?

TUMA: ... we have charged Mr. Thompson with false statement. He's indicated in the letters," I'm going to be in trial," "I'm going to the Courthouse."

(next, Ms. Ward continues to read Thompson's e-mails into the record...)

WARD: Exhibit 23 is a December 15th, 2005 letter addressed to [Alabama] Judge Moore... "Jim Smith is the moral equivalent of hiring this kid [apparently, some threat to Thompson] to threaten to castrate me and stuff my testicles down my throat. The difference between that kid and Jim Smith is that Jim Smith was paid to target me."

(Ward testified how a February 1st, 2006 e-mail from Thompson caused some problems for her at her firm...)

WARD: After this e-mail hit the mailboxes of my partners, I got many e-mails and phone calls from people at our firm wanting to know what it was about, why were these things being said, what happened in the lawsuit, why we were accused of telling lies in court. It was a matter of some number of conversations...

(Ward also testified about an e-mail which may contain a name familiar to GP readers...)

WARD: ...the one that's dated November 2nd, 2005. It's addressed to me, to Mr. Smith, to Dennis McCauley, who is a journalist - a freelance journalist in Philadelphia who runs the website... "Here you are, a woman representing the 'right' of a company to market to children a game in which they can simulate sex with a prostitute and then kill her to get their virtual money back... You disgrace us as lawyers. Shame on you. Shame on you as a woman as well..."

(I should point out that Thompson has cc'd me on hundreds - if not thousands - of e-mails since GP was founded... an e-mail the following day continued the theme...)

WARD: [Thompson wrote] "As to insulting Ms. Ward allegedly because of her status as a woman... I did just the opposite. Scripture tells us that women are to be exalted, and whether she likes it or not, to be protected by men who value women. What I did was not the unfortunate fact that she, as a woman, is protecting the misogynistic targeting of other women by her client [Take Two]. I was appealing to her better exalted nature and status as a woman, not demeaning her status as a woman. Only a man who feels comfortable facilitating the distribution of porn to kids that targets women would intentionally not get it...

TUMA: Can you tell us for the record what effect did Mr. Thompson's conduct in these type of letters being sent to you, your partners, your clients, have on you?

WARD: ...first, and on a most simple basis, every e-mail that he sends - and he sends numerous ones - they come in a flood, dozens at a time... they are not something we can afford just to ignore... As I said before, when we got the e-mail that was distributed to all the partners of our law firm -

DT: Do you want a tissue?

WARD: No. I'm just very tired. I apologize.

DT: That's okay.

WARD: As I said, there were a lot of difficult discussion that occurred because when they receive these e-mails without any understanding of the context about the sort of person that they're coming from - you know, when you have a large law firm, you take accusations of fraudulent activity very seriously... I'm sorry.

DT: Would you like to take a break?

WARD: Could I?

DT: No problem.

(a 15-minute break ensued... to give you an idea of how long these trial days were, the break ended at 6:05 PM with substantial testimony following...)

DT: Let the record reflect that we're back in Court and all the parties are present.

WARD: I think that we took a break before I finished answering that question. As I said, when the e-mail went around to all of our partners, there were a number of people who didn't understand the context of the letter and there were some questions asked about, you know, "Why would he be saying this" What was going on? What were you doing? What were you thinking?" was trouble and it was a waste of time to have to spend time answering those questions.

Then the comments [by Thompson] about, you know, my role as a woman and my status as a woman and how apparently - the way it read to me and, frankly, the way it read to my husband was that the men in my life weren't giving me proper guidance about the values that I should have as a woman, as a wife, as a mother... It really irritated my husband quite a bit... I guess I didn't realize exactly how angry everything made me until you asked the question... to read [the e-mails] again [in Court], I just got angry all over again. It made me madder than I expected it would.

JT: Ms. Ward, it's easier to get angry with somebody sometimes than to deal with the things that you've done, isn't it? Isn't that kind of a rule of human behavior?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, to the relevancy.

DT: Overruled. Go ahead.

WARD: I don't understand the question, Mr. Thompson.

JT: Well, let's get at it this way. Take Two / Rockstar Games makes mature video games. Is that right?

WARD: Among other types of video games.

JT: But they make mature rated games.

TUMA: Asked and answered. Objection. She said mature rated -

DT: Overruled.

WARD: Yes.

JT: Do you know... if this is a correct characterization? Manhunt 2 is a game that has been banned for sale in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries and yet is being sold by your client to teenagers in this country. Is that right?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, of the relevancy of this to this proceeding?

DT: Could you please explain the relevancy?

JT: Oh, sure.

DT: -that she's a lawyer for a corporate client -

JT: They're the one who got into this thing about - and I brought it up in the letters and they want it to be front an center and we took a recess because it was upsetting to Ms. Ward about my assertions about what her client sells and about what, in my opinion,  is a lack of moral circumspection on her part to facilitate that. I want the record to be clear about what these products are that concern me and that I think are inappropriate for any lawyer to facilitate - whether it's a man or a woman - the sale of.

DT: Okay, and this hearing before this Court -

JT: Yes?

DT:  - is not a hearing in which this Court will be making a determination about what constitutes, hypothetically - pornography, what constitutes something of violence. The hearing before this Court has to do with allegations of conduct pursuant to Florida Bar rules.

JT: Judge -

DT: So whether or not the company, the corporation, that is represented by Blank Rome -Sony and all of its subsidiaries - produces the video games as you are describing or if they produce something else, the issue is still the allegation of the conduct.

JT: Yes, and its propriety; whether or not I have acted improperly in writing certain things to Ms. Ward or anybody else and whether or not there was a reason to do that, a legitimate reason to do that, and whether or not I have acted to disparage Ms. Ward or improperly affect the administration of justice by such disparagement and so forth. Your Honor, I need to be allowed to ask and put in context - and she's lifted these quotations out of the letters - what it is we're exactly talking about here because she's just spent an hour giving quotations about certain things that I have written...

DT: So what is the question that you were about to ask Ms. Ward?

JT: ...Does your client, Take Two, make a game, Manhunt 2, that has been banned for sale to adults in the United Kingdom and yet is being sold to teenagers in the United States of America.

TUMA: I objected to that on relevancy. It's not relevant to our proceeding whether or not Take Two sells Manhunt and whether it's been banned in another country to the allegations before the Court.

JT: It's right in the letters that she's been excerpting from.

TUMA: They're in evidence.

JT: Well, Judge, you said I was going to be able to do cross examination on these letters.

DT: If they're in the evidence, go ahead. Ma'am, if you know, you can answer the question.

WARD: Manhunt 2 is a video game that was released by -

JT: How about yes or no and then explain.

WARD: I can't answer your question yes or no, Mr. Thompson.

JT: Why not?

WARD: Do you want me to explain?

JT: No. I'd like an answer, but you can go ahead.

WARD: Manhunt 2, Your Honor, was a video game that was released I think in the summer of this year, more than a year after -

DT: 2007?

WARD: 2007. Manhunt 2. So I doubt very seriously that Manhunt 2 is mentioned in any of the communications that Miss Tuma asked me about because it hadn't been released yet. It wasn't released until this year.

JT: Manhunt. We're talking about the products of Take Two. We're talking about -

DT: Right. But you asked her about Manhunt 2.

JT: Judge, honestly -

DT: I just want the record to be clear that you asked he a question... about Manhunt 2, unless I misunderstood you. I wrote that down.

JT: Manhunt 2 is the sequel to Manhunt. -

DT: Okay, but you asked her -

JT: - and Manhunt is in the letters and Manhunt 2 is even worse because it's been banned for sale to adults.

DT: Here's what occurred, is that you told me that this was in the letters -

JT: Manhunt.

DT: - but you didn't say that. You said Manhunt 2, which is why I allowed the question because you said -

JT: So I get to ask about Manhunt?

DT: No. What I'm saying to you, sir, is that I trusted your representation to me because I had not read this - I don't know - 800 or maybe 1,500 pages. I have no idea how many pages. I'm taking it all in and will read it, but you said it was in the letters here -

JT: Manhunt is in the letters -

DT: Okay.

JT: - and the products of Take Two are in the letters -

DT: Okay. So you -

JT:  - and the nature of the products.

DT: Your question now is about Manhunt?

JT: No. It's about Manhunt 2. No. Judge, look. Honestly, Judge. Forgive me. I don't want to argue with you, but we had to take a recess because she was upset about letters sent to her firm about what she represents and what she facilitates, what this law firm facilitates and I'm not going to be allowed to ask about what products there are that law firm puts out there and sells to children?

DT: I don't know what relevance it has to this.

JT: It has every relevance because her position is that she's upset about my having brought to the attention of her larger law firm - others in her law firm - what it is that she and Jim Smith have done. The context is what she has done and what she continues to do and what she did down here in Miami Dad Circuit Court before [Bully case] Judge Friedman and so forth; and how she makes a living and how she charges for every e-mail that she finds so offensive or letter that she reads. This is what she does and it ties into what Take Two does. I can't for the life of me understand why I don't get to ask her what her client is involved in.

DT: She is representing a corporate client... If she were representing a person charged with criminal misconduct - are you suggesting that what this Court should do is take the client that a lawyer represents and impute to the lawyer the conduct of the client?

JT: You know, Judge, you're going pretty far afield on your function when you say the purpose of these proceedings is not to determine the appropriateness of a particular product and yet I don't get to litigate fully the appropriateness of my characterization of what she and her clients have done. Those letters that she lifted sentences out of point out their methodology. Ms. Ward has put her name on these fraudulent pleadings to shoot the messenger, to characterize me as having misrepresented my disciplinary history. Why? In order to try and win a lawsuit in Alabama.

DT: But what is the relevance of what games, videos, whatever it is that her corporate client somewhere down the line - that's not the issue here. I don't even -

JT: Excuse me, Judge. It's the issue for me and it may be in your narrow perspective of what the law is and what lawyers concerns can only be, that it's not appropriate for a lawyer to ask questions about what other lawyers are facilitating and the harm they are doing in doing so and unethical acts by people such as Ms. Ward to put their names on pleadings that are fraudulent and deceptive and whose purpose is not to litigate the merits of the case, but to litigate the opponent.

DT: If you want to ask her questions about what she did that you are saying was fraudulent and deceptive and untrue and a lie, you have every right to do that...

JT: Okay. The proffer, so the record is clear, is that Ms. Ward - which I'm not going to be allowed to ask about regarding Manhunt 2 - represents this client that is selling to teenagers and in fact selling directly to minors from their own websites a game which has been banned for sale to adults, which you drive syringes into people's eyeballs and suffocate them with plastic bags and which has caused an uproar regarding the banning in Europe and the sale of it here in this country. Okay.

Is your law firm, Ms. Ward, the lobbyist still in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for Take Two?

WARD: I don't know...

JT: Has it been?

WARD: It has been, yes.

JT: And so what is your firm lobbying for on behalf of Take Two? Do you know?

WARD: I don't know...

JT: You have taken the position, have you not, in the Alabama case that... correct me if I'm wrong - that Take Two should be allowed to sell mature rated games to minors.

WARD: I wouldn't characterize our argument that way, no.

JT: You think, though, that the company has a constitutional right to sell mature rated games to individuals below the age of 17. Isn't that right?

WARD: I think it depends on the content of the game.

JT: Your position in Alabama and the Strickland case, Ms. Ward, has been that your company had a constitutional right to sell and market a mature rated game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City game to individuals under 17. Is that right?

TUMA: Objection to the relevancy to the charges here against Mr. Thompson.

JT: No, no. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is all over these letters.

DT: Overruled. Go ahead.

WARD: As to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Grand Theft Auto III, which are the subject of video games in the Strickland lawsuit? Yes. Our argument is that it is protected by the First Amendment.

JT: And why did you not litigate that issue rather than assert to the Court in Alabama that I had withheld fraudulently and deceptively the nature of my disciplinary history?

WARD: We did litigate that issue, Mr. Thompson. We filed motions to dismiss and we also sought an interlocutory appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.

JT: And you lost that.

WARD: We lost the motion to dismiss before Judge Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the petition for an interlocutory appeal.

JT: You said Mr. Eibeler, the CEO of Take Two is no longer the CEO. Is that right?

WARD: That's correct.

JT: Would you tell us about the Hot Coffee incident which helped lead to his demise as the CEO of Take Two?

TUMA: ...Objection, You Honor. How is that relevant to this proceeding as to why Mr. Eibeler is no longer the CEO of Take Two?

JT: Well, we'll find out when she answers.

DT: How is that an issue that's relevant? ...about someone who is not a witness before this Court [and] is no longer employed by a particular corporation? ...if you want to refer to a particular letter and show me how that's relevant -

JT: No. I don't want to refer to a particular letter. She testified and read from letters to Mr. Eibeler and my question - I'm trying to get at the nature of this client, which is a criminal enterprise - it's a criminal enterprise... So my question is: can you answer the question as to what the nature of the Hot Coffee scandal was of Take Two?

TUMA: Objection to relevancy.

DT: I'm going to sustain the objection unless you can point to a particular letter that was gone over previously as part of these exhibits that you want explained for the record.

JT: ...I don't know what you're afraid of Judge, but it seems to me -

DT: Sir, do you have a question?

JT: - that you don't want me to -

DT: I mean, I -

JT: Yes. I'm putting on the record the fact that you don't want testimony, it appears, that goes to this issue as to the nature of the company that she represents, which is what I've written various people about.

DT: ...I've given you an opportunity - and the record should reflect this - to look through the exhibit book to pick out whatever letter you want to ask her about.

JT: Here's one, Exhibit 21... "Take Two's CEO, Paul Eibeler, was last week voted by Market Watch -which is, by the way, owned by Dow Jones - America's worst CEO?"

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.

DT: I'm going to allow it...

WARD: I don't know whether it's true or not...

(Thompson reads from some more of his e-mails...)

JT: What sort of person am I, Ms. Ward?

WARD: You're the sort of person who sends dozens of e-mails over a very short period of time; who makes claims which I know from personal knowledge are not accurate...

JT: Okay, but you're inclined to think that some of [Thompson's e-mails] may not be true because of the sort of person I am... your default setting is, if Jack Thompson says it, it may not be true. Isn't that right?

WARD: Today, is that my default setting? Yes.

JT: Okay, good. And your husband felt that I was criticizing him?

WARD: My husband took it personally, yes.

JT: He did. Were any husbands mentioned therein?

WARD: No... you were being critical of me and you were stating that you were exalting me as a woman, and I think the quote was that was your duty as a man.

JT: I think it was. That's the biblical meaning, the New Testament view. That's what I would hope, in that Jesus Christ was the first one, historically, who took on that role.

TUMA: Objection. Is Mr. Thompson testifying or asking a question?

DT: I believe he's formulating a question.

JT: Thank you - that's taking 2,000 years.

(there ensues a discussion as to whether Thompson might still participate in the Strickland case despite the revocation of his pro hac vice admission to the Alabama Bar...)

JT: Now, do you know what my contractual relationship is still with the plaintiffs in Alabama?

WARD: I know only what I've been told by [Thompson's former legal associate] Mr. [Ray] Reiser.

JT: Mr. Reiser. What did he tell you?

WARD: Mr. Reiser... filed his motion to withdraw as counsel in the Alabama case... and he told me at the time that the plaintiffs would be looking for a new lead counsel... I think he said that as far as he knew, the families in the Alabama case did not want you to represent them.

JT: Would it surprise you that I had a meeting with the client and with new counsel in Alabama so that we could all work together and have a new fee agreement and represent the people?

WARD: No.. I only said I knew what Mr. Reiser had told me... I don't know whether it's true or not...

JT: Finally, you know, I don't like to see anybody cry, Ms. Ward, and I don't mean to be - I'm not trying to be condescending or accomodating or dismissive of your tears and so forth. I'm sure I have caused you discomfort and pain and I think that's regrettable, but... I want to ask you this. Do you think that the three families in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in the Fayette area have cried any tears over their loss?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.

DT: Sustained...

JT: Is it your belief, Ms. Ward, personally or in any capacity that these products that your client is selling and that your position on their behalf is that these mature rated products should be sold to children - even these cop simulation murder games - that they have no deleterious effect upon anybody?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor. It's irrelevant.

DT: Sustained.

JT: That's also irrelevant, Judge? I'm sorry. That's irrelevant?

DT: Yes, sir. It very well may be relevant in the Strickland case in front of Judge Moore. Not here...

JT: Well, let me ask you [MS. Ward]. What was the reason for your emotion? You cried, but then you said when we came back you didn't know how angry you were.

WARD: I was angry; and, unfortunately, when I get angry, I tend to cry.

JT: Can you conceive that the families in Fayette are angry?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.

DT: Sustained.

JT: what do you think in ranking things is more important, hurt feelings or loss of life?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, as to the relevancy.

DT: Sustained.

JT: Have you any personal qualms about what your client [Take Two] does in this regard?

TUMA: Objection to the relevancy.

DT: Sustained.

(Ms. Ward then discusses that she is still involved in the Strickland case, but no longer  in a similar matter in New Mexico. She is unable to explain why due to a client confidentiality issue... Thompson finishes... Prosecutor Tuma asks some re-direct questions...)

TUMA: Ms. Ward, you talked about telephone conversations you had with Mr. Reiser regarding the Strickland case. In any of those conversations, did Mr. Reiser talk to you about Clatus Junkin?

WARD: He told me... this isn't an exact quote... The things that Jack is saying about the conversations with Clatus Junkin are not true... He said that Mr. Junkin had never claimed or depicted himself as a "fixer" who could fix a case with a judge...

(On re-cross, Thompson suggests that Reiser is not reliable... Ward's testimony concludes...)


Really? I enjoyed this one greatly. The slew of objections was hilarious, you can see him try to tighten the screws on Ward, and pretty much failing because he's turning all the wrong screws. His entire argument consists of "It's okay for me to call them names because they represent a company I don't agree with", but it obviously doesn't change the fact that he's calling people names.

@Jonathan Janosi

There's isn't one.

Well, actually that's not exactly true. The games were in the letters to some extent, which finally let JT get a chance to say something. But since there's no real connection beyond that, and JT tried to divert things back to his crusade, he was shut up again.

Poor shit, the one time he gets to speak up and it backfires. Maybe he should of taken the hint from DT and just kept his trap shut.




That's some poor lawyering there..

You don't cite foreign law as evidence of a "crime" when said action isn't illegal here. Even if selling Manhunt 2 was illegal here, and as Judge Tunis tried to point out, defending such things is a lawyer's job. Implying that Ms. Ward is violating legal ethics for doing same is ridiculous.

I couldn't even read the whole thing, this is too rich. Even the presiding judge, the one that will decide John's fate, is getting a lil fed up...

Well now Jack is just being a complete dick. You know say or do those kinds those kinds of things to women. It really speaks volumes about his character that he thinks he talk down to a lady. This makes me suprised he's still married.


Jonathan Janosi, he is trying to make the court think that his actions towards the lawyers, and Ward especially, were appropriate because of the situation...i.e. the types of games they sell, her position fighting for them to sell those games, yadda yadda. It is pretty much the only defense he has to go on at this point... too bad he isn't very convincing.

"JT: Ms. Ward, it’s easier to get angry with somebody sometimes than to deal with the things that you’ve done, isn’t it? Isn’t that kind of a rule of human behavior?"

I lol'd at the irony of JT making that statement. Wish I hadn't been drinking my morning orange juice at that point though.

"Know" should be "don't", sorry.


I agree that's his argument. I guess I was just saying his argument is an afront to the court. I haven't really read a lot of these transcripts, just started going back through and reading them from the beginning. No better line yet than from the first day. "I despise you. You know that?" I don't think it gets much clearer than that. Now, I have to get off this board before I wind up bring consumed by it. It's not anything about you fine people, but I've got an addictive personality and a project I need to be working on today.

So...correct me if I'm wrong but is Jack saying that Mrs.Ward was not a 'good' woman by his standards and that it was his 'duty' as a man to correct her?

Just checking because that's what I got from that.

Anyone else feel like this is playing out like a bad Phoenix Wright game? :D


You said Duty

Wow, Jack sure has a great strategy, he'll win for sure...

I get the feeling he's confused about what this particular trial is actually about.

I could see he was trying to make her cry again.

All I got from him was "You participated in murder and you know it."

And from other parts, he was being sexist, no two ways about it.

1. He makes girls cry.
2. He uses a Bar regulations trial to promote his own anti-game tyrade.
3. He is making stuff up again.

JT, what a douche.

He can't even get off his high horse long enough to defend himself properly.

It's incredible. Does he REALLY think whatever he says in court for this particular case has any bearing whatsoever to his "mission to destroy Take Two"?

It boggles my mind that someone who is SUPPOSED to be trained in winning oral arguments is doing what he's doing. He's behavior is completely and utterly irrational.

He's trying to make this trial completely not about his disbarrment and his conduct which would allow the disbarrment and instead he's making it about video games. I think this guy Jack thinks about video games more than all the games I know combined.

Adding on, if I were the judge he would have been disbarred right away after that stunt.

.. oh, and bringing up the Bible.. what the efffff?

This testimony isn't necessarily as funny, but rather a bit surprisingly as to how much the judge allowed Thompson to go on his wild goose chase as to trying to bring up the video game issue repeatedly. However, after a few times she let him through with testimony, she apparently did get sick of it and started sustaining objections against his questioning. Still, it seems he just seeks to waste time with delay tactics and hoping to anger the witness to establish some "conspiracy" against him.

games = gamers**

Jackie boy, you are doing well. Keep this up and you'll no longer be able to practice law by April 12th! Way to go!


Probably, I guess.. His argument kinda turned too convoluted somewhere along those lines when he started quoting from the bible... He's taking that whole "my religious beliefs justify and look favourably upon my actions and hence there are no grounds to accuse me of misconduct" stance and ignoring all else...

@Jake D

Oh come on, you know you want to be here. Look deep inside yourself, you know it to be true.. Come, take your place amongst us... =)

I think the judge is trying to give Jack Thompson ample time to display his inappropriate actions and behaviors in this court proceeding. I seriously see this as the court/audience is just reeling jack in by dangling Take-Two people in front of him just for their own entertainment.

What the hell, who is this other JC? >_>

The JT method of saving himself:

JT: Hey poopyheads! Look at what an asshole I was through the emails. The evidence proves it, I am not going to defend it, nope. I am just going to prove I am a bigger asshole than I did in my emails. Did you guys know I break fax machines. Also, Take Two is a murdering baby-raping muder simulating pedophile lover. Manhunt 2 kills things. Jesus Jesus, God I love Jesus. I bet Jesus hates Manhunt 2. Hey, baby, your on Take Two's side? Murderous wench. Wanna cry, baby? How about you cry while I throw this busted fax machine at you. I wonder if Fox wants to hear about all this? Let's write them right now..

(JT leaves courtroom, comes back 15 minutes later)

JT: Where was I? Oh yeah, Hey murdering simulated slut, wanna rape your parter Take Two and it's bum-buddy Rockstar? Gunna cry? Is it because you kill people like the cop killing muder simulaters. This completely false and unmade study I just pulled out of my ass proves that Super Mario shot up a highschool. No, I won't blame the gunman, or the parents, or any other number of facts.. it was a freaking plumber. Is that why you are crying, because you thought I was a plumber. No, you are safe. Be right back fellas, I am going to go feast on babies!

Another thing I'm picking up on maybe, it's quite obvious that she's angry about him questioning her worth as a woman, value as an employee of Blank Rome, as well as numerous other things, but he's trying to push the argument (or believes) that she's only angry at him for slandering Take Two and Rockstar.

haha. JC is my initials. I figured it was better that way.. I will now go as JC2

@JC - That was probably the funniest thing I have ever read as a post in regards to this trial and it sums up his total defense succinctly.

By the way... (sorry I feel I have to do this)...

"JT: They didn’t have C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S.?"


YOu forgot "Oh, and as to the New Mexico case, child abuse is A Ok as long as no video games are involved."

I'm quite amazed, much like everyone else, that he actually did any of this. I mean, at a disciplinary trial that could/will decide the fate of his career and livelihood, what does he do? He displays for the court, Judge and everyone else the exact behavior that got him into this situation in the first place.

I love how he refers to Take Two as a 'criminal organization', like it's Mafia, or a Triad or something.

Also, I forgot what this trial was about, since Jacko keeps straying off the topic. Maybe it's to buy time, until his Vidjagame Killin Ray is complete...

Gorrrsh.. I forgot to mention C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S.. I guess that will be in round 2.

This Rockstar obsession is worrying. He really comes across as deranged in this one.

"(On re-cross, Thompson suggests that Reiser is not reliable…)" I reading this right in thinking that Laddy Jack and Reiser are no longer BFF? I note that Reiser signed onto the Posey v Sony case here in NM and had not withdrawn as of the time the case was dismissed (though Reiser himself wasn't at the dismissal hearing in December).

Hey Jack, since we all know you're reading this series of articles with great interest, why don't you explain to Dennis and to everyone else the trouble that you're having with the Posey appeal?

GP: Yes, Reiser & JT had a falling out and it appears also that Reiser has retired from the law.

This who thing sounds like he's saying that Ms. Ward should be at home, in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

Bloody bible thumping fanatics.


Perhaps. The way I was reading it was that he was trying to show she was angry at him for showing her that she represents, in his mind, this evil,awful company that corrupts and murders children and by extension of this representation she too engages in these acts. Perhaps it could be both, though.

He really can't stay coherent for more than five minutes, can't he?

And now, I'm even more disgusted by him. I already lost the little respect I had for him after the GamerDad incident and the incident, but now, that tops it. Who is he to make such statements?

Bet it'll read on his tombstone:
"The great Jack Thompson, dead after biting his tongue."

@ patrick Yeah, thats how I understood that. JT is just diggin his own grave deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper. Hes gonna pop out in china and then he will be their problem. Tunis is being extremely lenient with this dbag. He could have been found in contempt of court about 3 articles ago. Although, I for one am happy that she is being lenient. Its showing exactly how big an idiot he is, and he wont be able to whine about not getting to give his arguement.

lol. the last time I saw that many objections sustained was in my classes mock court when the prosecuter was attacking the credibility to pretty much every one in the room. Even me, and I was the freaking cameraman.


I don't understand what the hell he's trying to say about her. It may sound like that, but it sounds hypocritical since his own wife has a better career than he.

I think he may be trying to say that she should be a christian that doesn't represent a client like Take Two or something. >_>

Wow. Jacko has no idea what logic is or how to form an argument does he? What a moran...

When Jack keeps asking questions, sustained objection after sustained objection, it reminds me of Law And Order!

@ GP

Has anything come of JT's threats of a lawsuit against you and the ECA? Jack's gotta be foaming at the mouth about all of this!

GP: No, and there was no basis for the threat he made to block publication of these excerpts. It was a bluff and I will have much more to say about that topic at a later time. That's not to say he won't sue myself, Hal Halpin and the ECA at some point, for this or some other contrivance. But you can't let that stop you from printing the truth.

In defense of Ms. Ward and in accusation of Jack Thompson, I think it is important to note that Ms. Ward doesn't appear to cry primarily from a sense of "hurt." Not in the "Aww, Jack made the little girl cry" sense. The woman is an accomplished and seasoned litigator. She couldn't, I don't think, have gotten there if she was an easily-offended cry-baby. No. What forces Ms. Ward to tears is "anger." And that makes her tears a much more profound respond than had they merely been from hurt.

GP: I don't know that she needs defending. She acquitted herself well in her testimony and is clearly a competent attorney and partner at a major firm. I think her display of apparently genuine emotion is a predictable consequence of the personal and professional strain under which the attacks placed her. As a longtime recipient of similar attacks, threats, insults (someday I will detail them), I can tell you: it wears on you.

Jack's problem is that he can't separate the issues.

The issue here is: Jack is behaving like an asshole to other attorneys and to judges.

Of course, in Jack's world he has the right to do so because he doesn't agree with the client. As was inferred by Tunis, Jack seems to believe that an attorney acting in defense of an accused killer somehow condones the actions of the accused and he, therefor, has the right to disparage, insult, threaten and belittle them. And if the judge doesn't agree with him, he has the right to do the same to the judge.

Jack, you have proven yourself to be one of the lowest human beings ever. Congratulations.

GP, has Jack sent any emails in defense of himself or is he still refusing comment on the articles?

GP: He was offered a chance to comment before the first one was posted. He declined, I haven't asked him again (not going to chase him, certainly).

I seriously will lose all faith in humanity if Jack's license is not revoked. I mean look at this, all of this is proof of what he's being accused off. He's talking back to and insulting the judge in many instances, he's harassing witnesses and constantly trying to ask questions or phrase things in a way that are both inappropriate and irrelevant, etc. Every bit of this should be an extra nail in the coffin that is Jack's miserable attorney career.

*reads enthusiastically, munching on popcorn*
anyone want some? I got plenty...

Actually, I'm half-considering taking the articles and having a text-to-talk program speak it out for my amusement.

I don't really know what to say here... I've been covering JT's trials back and forth on my website ( , a Swedish GTA fansite), and even though I have not always published articles over what he's doing, I've been reading GP to find out how this "Jack"-ass behaves both in and out of court.

Earlier, what I felt for JT was just "how stupid can you get?", and various feelings about him suing T2 every now and then, blaming Rockstar for every crime in America -- but now? I can't believe how horrible a person could become. Making people cry while in testimony (is that the correct English word?), then after the break asking why she cried if she was angry. "I was angry; and, unfortunately, when I get angry, I tend to cry." Why on earth was this question relevant?

He must be obsessed, since he doesn't seem to understand the word "relevancy" at all. How many games were mentioned here, and what is the case all about in the beginning? San Andreas or Vice City? Mentioning all of the games Manhunt, Manhunt 2 (which wasn't even released at the time), GTA III, GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, GTA: Liberty City Stories (the pedophile-thing, you know) and earlier GTA: Vice City Stories can't be relevant to this case. What on earth will happen with GTA: IV? Wasn't there a settlement a few months ago that declared, basically (if I got it right), that JT musn't sue T2 and T2 musn't sue JT in return? Or what was that all about?

Honestly, I can't understand what he really wants to say when questioning people. Does he have any questions or is it just a opportunity for him to babble on and on about how disgraceful video games are, now that he is finally allowed to speak freely?

And as for R*/T2 characterizing JT as a pedophile, really, what evidence is there? All there is is in the "C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S." radio commercial in GTA: Liberty City Stories. "Who is that man in your closet?" "That's Jack!". Why is this necessarily Jack Thompson? It's just someone named "Jack". I visited the C.U.N.... website, and I can't see anything about who's in charge of the fantasy organization.

Please reply if you can, I'd like some answers for these questions I've had for a long time now.

That was horrible. The way he kept harassing Ward just wasn't right.

I know someone already said this before, but it needs to be said again in light of this. Jack is evil. Pure, unfiltered evil.

Jack's using the tried and true "C.U.N.T.F.L.A.P.S." defense. Cut Under Negotiations 'Til Frugal Lawsuits Allow Personal Stupidity

or something of the sort.
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :


Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenI agree than many of the titles are kinda bunk though. For example, Ars Technia's "The death of the 'gamers' and the women who 'killed' them" doesn't really work for the article.07/31/2015 - 4:47pm
Andrew EisenAnd I still don't see how articles like Polygon's "An awful week to care about video games" can be construed as an attack.07/31/2015 - 4:25pm
Andrew Eisen18 total? I've seen several lists and the total has never been above 14. The most popular collection seems to be 9 on Aug. 28 then three more on Aug. 29, Sep. 2 and Sep. 3.07/31/2015 - 4:24pm
Infophile@Goth_Skunk: Your distaste for TMS is noted and given exactly the respect it deserves. The fact that you don't like a site doesn't mean they can't be right. In the linked article, they are.07/31/2015 - 4:06pm
Goth_SkunkAnd the worst volleys are the ones being fired by the kind of people who should be standing up and saying 'Hey! This isn't cool! Stop that!'07/31/2015 - 4:05pm
Goth_SkunkNow let's come full circle: One such confrontationally titled article is easy to dismiss. Within a day, nine similarly titled articles are written. Within 4 more days, nine more articles are written. This can't be ignored. This is a blatant attack.07/31/2015 - 4:04pm
Andrew EisenAnd that's totally fine. I too often skip articles and videos based solely on an unappealing title.07/31/2015 - 3:56pm
Goth_SkunkPersonally, I would not waste time reading an article with such a blatantly confrontational title.07/31/2015 - 3:52pm
Andrew EisenGoth - Depends on how the article was written and what it actually said.07/31/2015 - 3:49pm
Goth_SkunkThis is like going fishing and castign a HUGE net that captures tuna, dolphins, sharks, cod, and salmon when all you really want to capture are clownfish.07/31/2015 - 3:48pm
Andrew EisenPerm - If the specific make and model are made clear, I have no problem with the article saving space by refering to them as "these cars" or whatever.07/31/2015 - 3:47pm
Goth_Skunk... Hasbro's widening horizons..." would it not make sense that some would object there is no distinction being made between a reactionary brony and a stable-minded brony?07/31/2015 - 3:47pm
Big PermCars are being recalled because they explode. Editors Note at the end: Not all cars, only this specific make and model07/31/2015 - 3:46pm
Andrew EisenI still feel it was clear that they were admonishing a particular and very specific type of gamer. It's why I had no problem with any of the articles (especially since about half of them weren't really about "gamers" anyway).07/31/2015 - 3:45pm
Goth_Skunk@Andrew: If a columnist had written a "Bronies Are Dead" article, but in the article stated: "Note: I'm not talking about every guy who watches MLP or who self-identifies as a brony, just the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by..."07/31/2015 - 3:45pm
benohawkYou would if you didn't care.07/31/2015 - 3:43pm
Big PermIf you're referring to a certain subset of gamers, you wouldn't refer to that subset under the umbrella term of gamer. Or at least I wouldn't, because I think that's ridiculous.07/31/2015 - 3:42pm
benohawkI buy it, I think they honestly have no problem with most gamers. But it was more important to get links and page views, so gamers were a whipping boy for the media again.07/31/2015 - 3:41pm
Big PermI won't defend people going too far with harassment or email campaigns, but I also won't say they're in the wrong for feeling hostility towards their identity.07/31/2015 - 3:41pm
Andrew EisenI do. I felt the articles made it very clear who specifically the authors were referring to.07/31/2015 - 3:41pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician