The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 6): Bully Case Judge Testifies
Whatever you think about Jack Thompson, there are times when he can play the media like a Stradivarius. And so it was that he managed to hold the attention of both the mainstream and gaming press for several weeks in 2006 while he sought to block the release of Rockstar’s Bully in Florida.
Thompson’s unusual suit, which charged that the T-rated Bully was a public nuisance, came before Judge Ronald Friedman on the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court. In an early-round win for Thompson, Friedman ordered Take Two to produce the game for an in-chambers viewing prior to its retail launch.
That would be Thompson’s only victory in the case, which quickly turned contentious (anyone surprised?). Thompson blasted Friedman endlessly following the judge’s ruling that he would not grant Thompson’s petition to block Bully’s release. Thompson upped the ante by announcing that he would run for Friedman’s seat in 2008. We note that Thompson does not appear to be following through on that claim.
For his part, Judge Friedman wasted little time in filing a complaint against Thompson with the Florida Bar. The Friedman complaint was one of several on which the Bar opted to take Thompson to trial last November. In this multi-part series GamePolitics has been publishing excerpted transcripts from the video game-related portions of the Thompson Bar trial. Today’s edition covers the direct testimony of Judge Friedman. Due to the length of Friedman’s testimony, Thompson’s cross examination of the judge will appear in the next installment.
( In the excerpted transcripts that follow, RF is Judge Ronald Friedman. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)
TUMA: Can you tell us what Mr. Thompson asked you to do to make the determination of entering an injunction [to bock the release of Bully]?
RF: He wanted me to review the game and prohibit its distribution, which was scheduled a few days later, maybe a week later.
TUMA: Did you entertain his request?
RF: I did… I heard arguments from both sides. The counsel for the defendants [Take Two] did not think it was necessary to do any of this because under the First Amendment, they had a right to make the distribution.
Mr. Thompson believed this video was so bad that it should be prohibited from distribution to teenagers; and as bad as he made it sound, I indicated that I would in camera view the entire game. I ordered counsel to provide the equipment as well as somebody who could operate the equipment - I wouldn’t know how to do it - and have him come down from, I believe it was New York.
They met - Mr. Thompson was present as well - in my chambers and proceeded to play the video. Now, even though I indicated that I would watch the entire game, they had I think what they call a cheater. They can skip from one spot in the game to another spot, etc. So it wasn’t necessary - they indicated it would take about 200 hours to view the entire game, which of course would have been day and night for a long time.
I viewed somewhere bewteen and hour, and hour and a half of the video from spot to spot to get an idea of what the game was and, hopefully, the worst parts of the game. I made the determination - and I set a hearing for the following week - but I made a determination while I was watching it that it did not rise to the standard that would be required to prohibit the game under the First Amendment, which would be a standard of something that would incite to immediate violence.
While I found the game offensive… I wouldn’t want my granddaughter watching it and it probably should have a different rating, that is, a mature rating rather than a teenage rating. That’s not my call. That may be for the legislature or Congress or some other body, but under the First Amendment, they had the right to make that distribution…
TUMA: I would like you to look at Exhibit 48… Can you identify that letter, please?
RF: This is a memorandum from Jack Thompson to myself by e-mail and it is dated… October 13th, 2006… “Now that you have consigned innumerable children to skull fractures, eye injuries from slingshots and beatings with baseball bats without a hearing as to the danger, let me tell you a few things, with all respect for your office and with no respect for the arbitrary way in which you handled this matter-”
JT: Let me object, as I did yesterday [during Blank Rome attorney Rebecca Ward’s testimony] to reading portions of the letter. Obviously, the full context is the letter itself… Of course, the fact that Ms. Tuma is doing this underscores the reason why she’s doing it. She’s trying to highlight some portion of this out of context. It’s improper. It’s also reversible error [on appeal].
DT: Do you have any response, Ms. Tuma?
TUMA: No, Your Honor, the same response as yesterday [that the full letters are submitted as evidence for Judge Tunis’ review].
DT: Okay. The objection is overruled and Judge Friedman is available for cross examination. The Court is not going to limit your questions regarding these documents that are in evidence.
JT: Your Honor, I don’t like to argue with you, but just to protect the record. The opportunity for cross examination has absolutely nothing to do with what the prosecutor is doing and what’s improper that she’s doing. And that is she can’t have this witness or any witness testify to anything out of context… So having said that… Can I have a standing objection?
DT: Yes, sir…
TUMA: If you can go to the third paragraph…
RF: “What you conducted in your chambers, Judge, was the equivalent of Iran leading U.N. weapons inspectors around the country, taking them to places where the illegal activity was not occurring… I couldn’t care less what you did to me. What I care is that you, through judicial arrogance, have hung countless kids out to dry at school that will now be meaner and more dangerous. Next time you promise a hearing, I’ll bring a parent with me whose kid is in the ground because of a kid who trained to kill him or her in a violent video game. Try mocking that person, I dare you.”
TUMA: Can you tell the Court who that letter is copied to?
RF: Defense counsel, the media and the Florida JQC [Judicial Qualifications Commission, i.e the agency that monitors judges].
Tuma: …can you move to Exhibit 49? …Can you tell the Court what that document is?
RF: “Verified motion to recuse presiding judge.”
TUMA: And that was to recuse you in the case of Mr. Thompson?
RF: Yes, ma’am.
TUMA: Can you go to page two of that Exhibit, please? …In paragraph 10, can you read the sentence…?
RF: “The late respected Dade Circuit Court Judge Reah Pincus Grossman, when she returned to the practice of law could not abide appearing before this judge, and now the undersigned [Thompson] knows why.”
TUMA: Do you know Judge Grossman?
RF: Very well.
TUMA: Is she deceased?
RF: Rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated.
TUMA: Is that a no?
RF: She is not deceased.
TUMA: Can you tell me, have you had a conversation with her regarding the statement that Mr. Thompson has made in this pleading?
RF: I was shocked to learn she had died. So I called her office, only to find that she had not. I spoke with her and she was just as shocked as I was about these pleadings.
TUMA: Can you tell the Judge what she told you if she ever spoke to Mr. Thompson?
RF: She said she didn’t know Mr. Thompson, she has never spoken to Mr. Thompson, and she certainly didn’t agree with anything alleged by Mr. Thompson.
TUMA: Thank you. Can you now read paragraph 11…?
RF: “The behavior of this judge was abominable, which was made all the worse by the fact that he engaged in these childish antics in front of the media in the courtroom.”
TUMA: Thank you… can you please go to Exhibit 50…?
RF: This is a letter from Mr. Thompson to myself dated October 17th, 2006… “When the victims start contacting me, I’ll tell them how you prevented the hearing and didn’t review the entire game before you unleashed it upon them. I have never run into a more discouraging abortion of justice than in your courtoom. But it’s not about me, Judge Friedman. It’s about these kids. You think the riot in the OD -” that’s the Orange Bowl - “was bad? Just wait.”
TUMA: Thank you. Can you look at Exhibit 51 and identify that for the Court?
RF: A letter from Mr. Thompson to myself dated October 18th, 2006… “Gee. Care to go for violating 10 of your own orders in one week, Judge Friedman? How about your oath of office? We can count that as one… I’m wondering where this judicial misconduct is going to take us all… I have a pretty good idea, even if you don’t. The great thing about our system of law is that it was spawned in the crucible of throwing off the yoke of a tyrant.”
TUMA: Can you look at the next Exhibit…
RF: This is a [Thompson] pleading in the same case… “The Court then unethically and improperly then proceeded to enter his ruling in contravention of its own order… He then denied Thompson’s request to cross examine and the Judge then violated his own order to view the game to completion, topped off by his childish and unethical refusal to conduct a hearing the next day as he had ordered… If this [Friedman’s] Court is so foolish as to enter a show cause order [for contempt, against Thompson] as Take Two requests for trying to remedy this Court’s unethical misconduct… then the aforementioned federal civil rights action will be amended to add this judge.”
TUMA: Thank you. Can you please look at Exhibit 53?
RF: …This is a news release entitled, “Dump the Bully Judge.” …”Thompson has chosen his opponent carefully, incumbent Ronald M. Friedman. Friedman is the man… unleashing upon America’s preteen and teen children the extremely violent Columbine simulator video game Bully.”
TUMA: And if you could go to the last of the media news release?
RF: …”Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman is the embodiment of what more and more citizens understand to be the greatest domestic threat to liberty, a tyrannical judiciary that thinks it is above the law.”
TUMA: And if you now look at Exhibit 54 and identify it for the record.
RF: This is a letter from Mr. Thompson dated October 24th, 2006 to the Attorney General of the United States… “Now [Take Two’s law firm] Blank Rome is at it again, having enlisted a pliable Circuit Court Judge, Ronald M. Friedman, to abuse his contempt power to try to throw me in jail for for blowing the whistle on the judge’s incredible misconduct and Take Two Blank Rome’s as well. Judge Friedman… has improperly paved the way for a Columbine simulator video game to be sold to children. Interestingly, this game also contains gay sexual activity. Real cool stuff for 10-year-olds, no?”
TUMA: And this letter was also cc’d to Blank Rome, the media, congressional Democrats and yourself?
RF: That’s correct.
TUMA: Can you please look at Exhibit 55?
RF: …It’s a letter from Mr. Thompson dated October 24th, 2006 to myself… “Dear Judge Friedman: Transmitted herewith is my application for [your] recusal… If you cannot decide whether or not to grant it, then I would suggest flipping a coin. Heads I win, tails you lose…
TUMA: Can you look at the next exhibit 50 and identify that for the Court, please?
RF: …This is a pleading in the Bully case [from Thompson]… “Defendant’s [Take Two] position - and it appears to be this Court’s position as well - is that it can order secrecy worthy of a Star Chamber in order to shroud its misconduct from any review of any kind, judicial or public… However, this court has indicated that it looks with favor upon the notion that it can use its contempt power to cover up from judicial and public scrutiny its misconduct… Judge Friedman has even drawn his pleasant judicial assistant into this cover-up, the Judge’s misconduct charade… This court now appears to be in full court press to abuse its contempt power to keep the lid on how thoroughly it botched its duty to have a real judicual inquiry into whether… the sale to school children of this Columbine simulator, poses a safety risk as the Miami-Dade School Board found unanimously that it did.”
TUMA: “Thank you. Can you now look at Exhibit 60?”
RF: …A [Thompson] pleading in this case… “…This is not acting like a judge. It’s acting like a Bully. How ironic. How appropriate. No wonder this [Friedman’s] Court had no problem with hundreds of fists landing on students’ faces. He [Friedman] beats up lawyers for fun himself…”
TUMA: Can you please look at Exhibit 62 and read that for the record?
RF: …A [Thompson] pleading in this case… “Judge Friedman was hoodwinked by Take Two employees who sat there in his chambers and presented to Judge Friedman with unsworn testimony with no cross examination by Plaintiif [Thompson], to which Plaintiff objected on the record, by falsely stating this [Bully] is not a violent game and that violence is uniformly punished in the game. These were lies which this Judge swallowed hook, line and sinker… Is this Judge [Friedman] going to admit to the whole world that he was taken for a ride by Take Two; that he violated his own orders in not reviewing the game to conclusion; and that his own misconduct was a travesty that explains why we are sitting here with tens of thousands of these [Bully] units sold abd played by minors?… Does a single sane person… think that this judge… is going to prove himself to have been fooled by a porn to kids video game company that is now know to have placed homosexual acts in this game sold to 10-year-olds?”
TUMA: …If you can look at Exhibit 64…
RF: This is a transcript of proceedings before myself on October 25th, 2006 in this [Bully] case… My recollection is that there were two matters that were supposedly to be heard. One was the matter of contempt that the defendants [Take Two] were seeking [against Thompson] and the other was the [Thompson] issue of recusal [of Judge Friedman].
TUMA: Did you recuse yourself in this case, Your Honor?
RF: I did… Because I filed a complaint with the Florida Bar… As the Court has heard… I thought that the conduct of Mr. Thompson was unprofessional and violative of his oath as a lawyer in the state of Florida. I thought, number one, while I found it offensive and I, like everyone else, don’t like to have my name besmirched; nevertheless, even if everything he said about me was true - and it was very hurtful to me - it was an abuse of his oath because it was demeaning to our system of justice and the court system, and I couldn’t tolerate that.
TUMA: Thank you. Can you now look at Exhibit 65…
RF: That’s a letter from Thompson to myself, October 25th, 2006… “Here’s a tip for you, Judge. I don’t just practice law. I save lives from reckless jurists like you… I serve those broken-hearted people, not arrogant tyrants like you… I’m a lot of bad things, but I’m not a liar. You are. You promised and ordered hearings that never occurred and you even told the nation that you reviewed a video game that you didn’t even see but for one percent of it. You then came out before the cameras and pronounced the game perfectly safe. You’re the kind of guy who would wave into the intersection a child to be run over by a semi. I’m looking forward to my judicial race against you and win or lose, you’re going to be exposed as the prevarictator and a facilitator of violence and porn to kids that you are. You will never agree to a debate in our race because you can’yt control that situation. You won’t have a Sheriff to shut me up. America’s a great place where citizens get to cleanse the public dole of thugs like you. I’m looking forward to doing just that…”
TUMA: If you can look at Exhibit 66, Judge…
RF: This is entitled, “An open letter to the Florida Bar about the Bully judge,” dated October 27th, 2006… “There’s a transcript of the bizarre seance he [Friedman] held in his office with Take Two employees giving him testimony, not under oath, and preventing cross examination by me. I call it the Kim Jong Il guided tour of North Korea to find where the nukes are not…”
TUMA: I just have one last question. Can you explain to the Court the effect that Mr. Thompson’s conduct and sending you these letters have had on you?
JT: Objection, relevance.
DT: Overruled.
RF: Well, I think I previously said it hurt me to see in writing or even hear somebody demean me the way he has. But I was even hurt more for our judiciary because I wear the robe - and it’s not about me. It’s about our system of justice and the respect that’s due to the judiciary.
NEXT: Jack Thompson cross-examines Judge Friedman…
WHILE YOU’RE WAITING: Check out this amazing video of Thompson’s appearance in Judge Friedman’s court, filmed by Niero of Destructoid.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Lulz. That’s all I can say.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Also, sorry for the double post, but nice Stradivarius reference.
Honestly, the things that JT have done go beyond the pale of what a lawyer can do. Lawyers used to have to take classes on courtroom civility, so that they don’t turn the court into a place of ad hominem attacks and shouting matches. Obviously, he was too busy out finding the quick buck and chasing an ambulance to go to class that day.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:02 am
What a Jerk this is guy is. I don’t see how he gets away with calling people names like this. Hope this is the end for him
March 25th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Still reading the log — just wondering how recent that pic of JT is. He’s looking more frazzled than I remember.
GP: Pic is from a 2006 protest outside T2 HQ in NYC… with the Peaceoholics community group to protest Bully.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Jack, Jack, Jack (shakes head). Did you skip the entire chapter on hearsay? In addition to the one on the rule of completeness? Because you always make the objections you can’t win. And never make the ojections you can.
BTW, apparently former Dade Circuit Court Judge Reah Pincus Grossman is respected but not late.
GP: Yes, Judge Friedman made it clear that Jack completely got Grossman’s death wrong… Jack explains that - sort of - in the next segment.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am
@Simon Roberts
Well, to be fair, he was completely slammed by every question asked by Tuma in this preceeding. Just look at it. I don’t know if I would be doing as well after that crap (which may be why I don’t act like JT)
March 25th, 2008 at 10:11 am
RF: …A [Thompson] pleading in this case… “…This is not acting like a judge. It’s acting like a Bully. How ironic. How appropriate. No wonder this [Friedman’s] Court had no problem with hundreds of fists landing on students’ faces. He [Friedman] beats up lawyers for fun himself…”
Uh oh. Jack forgot to put in the magic word “figuratively” in there. Hes gon get it naw!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
This is quite possibly the funniest one yet. Not because of JTs antics in court, but reading all the e-mails. Honestly this just keeps getting better and better. And yeah, this is probably the end of his florida legal career, though he may try to get a license in another state. I don’t know if he is prohibited from doing that or not…
March 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am
OMG. The more I read this the more I believe Jack needs his own I Love Myself jacket! It’s ironic that a man who was trying to prevent the sale of the game Bully is acting like one. But, of course, it’s for the children.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I also have to wonder if they can introduce the fact that his e-mails turned out wrong, ie No increase in slingshot injuries, no increase in fist fights, etc.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Let the record show that Exhibits 48 through 66 show the defendant being a royal douchebag, in addition to violating Bar rules regarding codes of conduct.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:17 am
@Rabidkeebler
As amusing as that would be, him being a faulty prognosticator is not the issue before the court.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Was it Dr. Wunderman who found Jack to be of “above average intelligence?”
@ Dr Wunderman:
Wanna re-test Jack? Your initial results appear just a bit off.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Wow this was a long one. I never realized just how many letters, press releases, etc Jack sent to and about Judge Friedman. I wonder if he broke Friedman’s fax machine, too.
I now feel very sorry for every judge that has had to put up with Jack. He wasn’t “speaking truth to power”, or bringing a corrupt judge to the people’s attention, or any like that. No, this was harassment. No wonder Friedman filed a bar complaint.
@ GP
So will the cross-examination be up tomorrow? Or will it be part of Jack’s closing argument? Are we looking at seven or eight parts now?
GP: I’m hoping for the cross-exam tomorrow, Thursday at the latest. Yeah, I didn’t plan on breaking Friedman up into two parts, but it was really too long for just one. So, I guess 8 parts…
March 25th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Hard to pick a favourite out of this one, but Friedman’s “rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated” is pretty classic, given that this whole case feels like something that Twain would’ve written if he lived in this millennium.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“Thompson upped the ante by announcing that he would run for Friedman’s seat in 2008. We note that Thompson does not appear to be following through on that claim.”
Of course not. Everything he’s done in court when the tables turn has been nothing but stalling tactics. Deny everything, blame everyone. Do anything possible to try to discredit or remove anyone in his way.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
It’s obvious JT thinks he is on some kind of Crusade to defend and protect the children. I am pretty sure he thinks he is 100% right and justified when he goes through his antics, but I still can’t help laughing at him and staring at the trainwreck of the JT express.
I wonder how much different things would be if he tackled something else like the RIAA/MPAA or maybe even went on an campaign to educate parents about the ratings system.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I find it funny how Jack Thompson goes about the emails being ‘out of context’ but that what he does every time he goes in the courtroom, on TV, interviews, etc.
GP: The links you have to the videos have been taken down by youtube.
GP: really? I wonder why… Hmmm…
March 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but two things really stand out:
“Now that you have consigned innumerable children to skull fractures, eye injuries from slingshots and beatings with baseball bats”
Slingshots? Really? When did we go back to 1951?
“Now I don’t like to argue with you, Judge”
Did he really say that?
As I said in the last part, I’d love to get the opinions of JTs Law Professors on his conduct/behaviour/antics over the last few years…
March 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I love how Thompson tries to cover up his blatantly disrespectful and demeaning way of treating people by saying his words are “out of context.”
I also love how he subtracts a few years from the intended audience of videogames. If it’s rated M (17+), it’s for 14 year-olds. If it’s rated T (13+), it’s for 10 year-olds.
By the way, the two videos at the end of the article are no longer available.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Jesus Christ that’s a lot of evidence.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Wow. I really can’t see how context would make those emails any less insulting. Or does each letter begin with “the following is a joke, ha ha, pay no mind, they’re coming to take me a way ha ha”?
And yet there’s more? *boggle*
As usual, JT is going to try to turn the tables on Friedman, try to justify his pathetic behaviour, by somehow blaming it all on the judge…
“I di’int wanna have a tantrum, but he, he… he’s a big meanie!”
March 25th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Pwned, with a capital P.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:30 am
If someone referred to him as the late Jack Thompson, he’d consider that a death threat. Heck, he’ll probably consider this post a death threat (which it’s not, don’t get your hopes up Jacko. I want you to live a long life in a wonderful facility).
March 25th, 2008 at 10:32 am
He doesn’t get what he wants so he throw a tempter tantrum. He’s such a little baby. When in this guy going to grow up and act his age? Hopefully this is the end of his legal career. We have more important issues that we should be seeing in court.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am
That was amazing to read. I mean the stuff he said to the Bank Roman lawyers was bad but I’m stunned at the stuff he released to the press etc about this judge. He’s completely hammered the guy because he didn’t get his own way and when the judge quite rightly took offence he threw a paddy! I always knew JT was a massive tool and a not particularly nice a guy, but in reality he’s actually a really, really, really nasty piece of work. You really get the sense from this piece that the means always justifies his twisted and sick end.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am
1. If I tried even a tenth of this nonsense in a Texas Court, I can be certain two things would happen. One, my ass would be sitting in a cell for contempt and Two, my ass would be forking over a large amount of money in sanctions. Whats really amazing is that he has gotten away with it for this friggin long. Do Florida judge lack spines? truly incredible.
2. Standing objections DO NOT preserve error, must still make the objection adn receive the ruling everytime.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:37 am
“violated his own order to view the game to completion”
JT keeps bringing this up, that the Judge didn’t play the game to completion. Thing is, has JT EVER played a game to completion? He’s so quick to lambast everyone for not playing these 200 hour games, but then he bases all of his accusations about them being murder simulators on what?
Seriously…you can see his hypocrisy from the Moon.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:37 am
When will all these injuries caused by Bully start? JT promised that emergency rooms across the nation will be full of children with slingshot wounds.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:38 am
So, having read this now, It only confirms those things we already knew about Jack - That he’s a liar, a bully, an egotist, and self deluded fantasist.
But really? Lying about a Judge’s death to scare someone? How much lower can he get?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
“… I’m a lot of bad things…”
Only smart thing Jack said the entire time.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
@Captain Sensible
I believe that quote was pointing out the different methods of inflicting injury within “Bully”.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
And another thing - JT deriding a Judge for not playing the game.
How many of these Violent, sadistic murder trainers’ have you played through Jack? Oh yes, that’s right. Zero (to my knowledge).
March 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Geebus. Can JT is going to be buried under a mountain of stupid letters he’s written. I love the irony that he’s getting slaughtered by his own hand.
Good going JT. A winnar is u!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:44 am
@Joker
Yeah, It probably was, but I thought it also served to demonstrate how detached JT is from reality and everything in between cloud cuckoo land.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Both of the videos are down GP…..Jack Thompson is one of the worst lawyers ever even without his clouded views
March 25th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Wow…this is just pathetic. I can’t believe that the judge hasn’t just stood up, waved his gavel in the air, and said, “ENOUGH! I can’t take this shit anymore! It’s the same thing, over and over! Mr. Thompson, you are hereby disbarred, so go sit in the corner and think about what you’ve done!”
“Also, you’re an idiot!”
March 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Thompson just keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper…
March 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
God knows what he’ll do though if he’s disbarred. *shudder* He might even try and run for public office. “Senator Jack Thompson”, now THAT’s a scary thought.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Part of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is an inability to STFU. The sheer bulk of offensive letters, emails, forum posts, court docs is effectively proving to be his undoing.
Jack has only one person to blame in all of this.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
GP: “Yes, Judge Friedman made it clear that Jack completely got Grossman’s death wrong… Jack explains that - sort of - in the next segment.”
I can’t wait to see THAT explanation. Will he pull the “figuratively speaking” card? Will he pull the “I meant what would happen if you continued to be reckless” card? Will he pull the “she would die of embarassment, IN THE PAST” card? Will he blame Friedman’s staff for misinforming him? Will he claim her staff called HIM? Stay tuned!
March 25th, 2008 at 10:52 am
@ Blindgibbon
From what i understand, Jack makes a point of pissing everyone off, so that if they act against him, he will claim they were unfairly biased.
I imagine that Judge Tunis is more than aware of this, and is forced to act like a saint, in order to make sure the entire hearing is not invalidated by Jack’s legal trickery.
Jack is a wretched human being, who clearly hates himself, and therefore wants everyone to suffer.
Pity then Judge Tunis and Shiela Turna who are forced to bite their tongues in order to ensure justice is properly served.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Every time I read a Jack Thompson story i feel exceedingly violent. Could it be that Thompson himself and not GTA is the cause of Violence?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Hmm, I need to go hurry and play GTA to calm down!!!
ROFL
March 25th, 2008 at 10:57 am
“TUMA: I just have one last question. Can you explain to the Court the effect that Mr. Thompson’s conduct and sending you these letters have had on you?
JT: Objection, relevance.
DT: Overruled.”
Do i recall incorrectly, or didnt JT consistently refer to the emotional distress of the grieving mother in regards to that murder case, just before? Hypocrite much?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:58 am
@Captain Sensible: I have a feeling Mr Thompson would go lower than anything you, or I, or any of the readers here think is possible and I’m sure we will eventually see it wrriten about here as well.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Thanks to those who let me know the video links were bad. Here’s a link that will work. Amazing stuff.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:59 am
man, if i could, i’d PAY dennis money, so he could get the whole thing typed up quicker
March 25th, 2008 at 11:02 am
[b]RF[/b]: Rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated.
[b]TUMA[/b]: Is that a no?
[b]RF[/b]: She is not deceased.
Can you say classic?
Ok, but a little more serious now, those letters to the judge, they’re aweful, not to mention those press-releases. Assuming he treats all his targets like this, how has he not been accused, tried and found guilty of slander, harassment, defamation and probably quite a few other charges???
I do find it very amusing that JT is essentially riding his own trainwreck to disbarment.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I’ve been reading all of these since Dennis has started posting them. Jack just sounds like a sore loser and a petulant child in almost everything he says and does both in regards to the immediate proceedings as well as in almost every communication cited as evidence.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
LOL
March 25th, 2008 at 11:17 am
@ Paul
after reading these transcirpts I can say with 100% certainty the last thing I would be scared of is Jack Thompsons “legal trickery” as this would imply that he infact has some workable knowledge of the law.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
@Jack Thompson:
Have you at all started to dig your way out from under that mountainous pile of exhibits? If not, you should get to it, chop-chop. It’ll be a while digging before you hit any air.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Hmmmmmm… it seems like JT’s ego-maniacal rantings will really be his downfall. I imagine that they could have drawn the evidence on this out for several days if needs be.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Isn’t this something like watching a train wreck in progress? Ya can’t bear to watch it, but yet ya can’t turn away from it…
March 25th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Hahahahahahaha…
I like how he can’t even object to this crap.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:34 am
I have to disagree with those of the “He’s just deliberately throwing his license away so can he claim martyrdom and a Christ-like sacrfice, etc. etc.” school of thought. My though is that Jack is about to have his license taken away because he’s dumb. Not martyrdom. Just incredibly dumb.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:36 am
TUMA: Is she deceased?
RF: Rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated.
TUMA: Is that a no?
RF: She is not deceased.
omfg. this judge is awesome.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:37 am
I actually can see him thinking that if he makes the judge and opposing council angry and if he can make them show their anger, he can point to that as bias and a cause for a mistrial. It would never work, and even if it did it’s just a temporary solution at best, but it would allow him to keep his license for another day, and therefore would be a victory to him.
However, Judge Tunis is having none of that, and I bless her for it.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Wow, I’m suprised Jack actually kept his trap shut through most of that!
GP: Well, he made a standing objection for the record to the reading of excerpts from the Exhibits, so there was really nothing for him to do… He has a LOT to say in the next segment when he cross examines Friedman.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Honestly, I’m gonna hate to see how nasty Thompson gets o nthe judge. If how he was toward the first of the Take Two attorneys is any indication.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
@burke
actually im enjoying watching this
March 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“My though is that Jack is about to have his license taken away because he’s dumb. Not martyrdom. Just incredibly dumb.”
I agree. HE may feel he’s going down as a martyr for the cause, but yeah, in the end, he’s the (figuratively speaking, of course
) suicide bomber standing at the only embassy gate that doesn’t have a bunch of targets, who forgot to pack the detonator. Or explosives… 
*click*
And then he trudges sadly home to face reality for another day…
March 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I think this could be submitted as evidence to the wealth of SPAM (that’s all it is really) Jack tries to clog up the legal system with.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Jack misrepresents Judge Pincus so he can publicly mispresent Judge Friedman who won’t aid his effort to misrepresent Bully.
What’s that called? A lie, cloaked in falsehood, and wrapped in bullshit.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:42 am
just for those who don’t know…
The “rumors of her death have been greatly exaggerated” line is a quate from Mark Twain after the rumors of his death had been spread.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
@Blindgibbon
“after reading these transcirpts I can say with 100% certainty the last thing I would be scared of is Jack Thompsons “legal trickery” as this would imply that he infact has some workable knowledge of the law.”
My thoughts exactly.
Of course, this doesn’t stop him from accusing his opponents of using legal trickery. Like evidence, or testimony, or… laws and such things… Cheaters!
March 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
@GP:
How low is “low?” Whale poo-poo low.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
@BlindGibbon
“The “rumors of her death have been greatly exaggerated” line is a quate from Mark Twain after the rumors of his death had been spread.”
Get the feeling that this is some wild and crazy adventure out of Innocents Abroad? Like any minute now Jack is going to don a tophat and announce that he is really the great French tourist guide… Bill Goldfinger…
March 25th, 2008 at 11:48 am
haha..wow. ol’ JT has really dug himself a hole with the bashing comments to Judge Friedman. how can you show that much disrespect for a man in his position? just from reading these transcripts from the last few days..I would have called the case closed and disbarred him. save the taxpayer some money. he has put his disrespectful and unprofessional comments in Black and White..
March 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Sorry, GP.
@Dracis & Captain Sensible
March 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am
GP, what do you find most amazing about the video you linked? For me, “sigh and gaze at the ceiling” the giant sign makes me giggle with insane glee.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:50 am
i cant wait for jackass to cross examine the honorable judge friedman
(you guys think this is a train wreck ill bet money the cross exam makes this look like a picnic)
March 25th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Is Judge Tunis male or female? I feel really stupid for not knowing because I know it was said somewhere.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:52 am
TUMA: I just have one last question. Can you explain to the Court the effect that Mr. Thompson’s conduct and sending you these letters have had on you?
JT: Objection, relevance.
DT: Overruled.
You know, I think Jack forgot what he is in court for. He keeps going off onto tangents about Take Two, but then he tries to object on the basis of relevance to the effects of his own actions, which the most relevant thing here. Does he really have no idea why he is there? Or does he have a set of dice, and on one it has things like “Objection”, “Move to Strike” and on the other things like “Relevence”, “Heresay” and he just rolls them each time a new line of questioning starts.
What was so funny and different about this one is that there is very little of the witness talking, and very much of just reading the things Jack sent.
I’d like to make a prediction. In the next update, Jack will attempt to villify the witness by pressing why he didn’t play the whole game. Then he will go off on a tagent about how he was justified for doing what he did because he was worried about the children. And neither one is really relevant.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am
KayleL Says:
…
GP: The links you have to the videos have been taken down by youtube.
GP: really? I wonder why… Hmmm…
Considering YouTube is now the property of Google (a highly visible company), I’d wager that Jack Thompson placed legal threats against the moderators of Youtube, etc. etc… He’s done the same thing to Wikipedia over his own article [it’s well documented in the discussion page], so now they heavily restrict what is placed on their website about him, just to avoid the trouble.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
@Delin:
Female. In most languages, names ending in “a” have a better than good chance of being female.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:56 am
@delin
the honorable dava tunis is female
(in case your wondering why im using the correct titles even though im not in court the fact that they both have dealt this long with jack and havent snapped, this has earned them a lifetime of respect in my book)
March 25th, 2008 at 11:57 am
@ Delin
Judge Dava Tunis is female (google is your friend)
March 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Man this one was boring. I was expecting them to bring up his conduct in the hearing that’s depicted in the video.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
@JDKJ & Azhrarn
I know, which only makes my failure more complete.
I had thought so, but wasn’t sure.
The video was enjoyable. I enjoyed how he kept pushing the contempt motion after the judge recused himself and said that he wouldn’t be hearing the contempt motion.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
What I want to know is, has Jack not said anything about GP publishing this series on his trial? I’ve been expecting a tantrum this whole time, demanding you pull it from the site.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“I’m a lot of bad things, but I’m not a liar.”
Ah, that’s just funny, since Jacky’s the biggest liar I know. Then again, I suppose he believes every word out of his mouth, so I guess he’s technically not lying, just wrong.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
@ pwcapone
I’m pretty sure JT has threatened GP after the first edition of this series.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I think the best part of this is that when Thompson first wrote those and GP published them, we all told thompson of his errors, yet he( I believe he was able to post at that time) just kept calling us names (most notably comparing us gamers to the hitler youth).
now everything we gamers said back then is coming full circle
March 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
GP did say that Jack demanded that the only way that it should be allowed on is if it were in it’s entirety, which would have been impossible. Jack was trying to use his typical scare tactics, which had their typical result…Failure.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
@Delin:
The part I like is when Judge Friedman says (I think, the audio wasn’t the greatest), “Bailiff, if Mr. Thompson raises that sign again, cuff him.” I tend to think that’s what was said because Jack ain’t never raise his sign again afterwards. That’s some fall out ya chair stuff, right there.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Jack Thompson is a great guy!
He should go into constructions!
I mean look at him digging that hole! wooot!
He digs deep and digs fast!
(sadly he keeps forgetting to leave a way OUT of his holes)
@Jack Thompson
seriously… this is so unbecoming of you.
remember, even if you fight with the right motives for the right reasons, doing it the wrong way is just as bad as having the wrong motives.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
@Azhrarn — Norm Kent won a $10k defamation settlement against Thompson in the past. I think the reason you don’t see more of it is, as some of the witnesses have alluded, they just want no contact at all with the sleazebag and suing him will only make his harassment of them worse.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Just so it’s clear where Jack is going (well, more like, not going) with his “read the whole thing” objection:
Under the so-called rule of completeness, “[w]hen a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously.” Fla. Stat. § 90.108(1) (2007).
As Judge Tunis rightly ruled, the entire document being read from is already admitted into or will be admitted into evidence. The rule of completeness is thereby satisfied. Moreover, whatever negative effect may be caused by having the witness read a portion of the complete document (which, again, is already or will be in evidence) is subject to cure by Jack when he cross-examines the witness.
I hope Jack ain’t hanging his appeal on a claim that Judge Tunis’ overuling his completeness objection is reversible error.
Dumb, duh, dumb, dumb. Dumb.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I remember when this Bully case came up. But to see all of the ridiculous briefings all at once, it’s incredibly outrageous!
RF: Rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated.
Hehe, I like when people say that
March 25th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
But all these emails are out of context! I’m certain the last sentence of each email reads
“…is what a rude jerk who wants to get disbarred by the Florida Bar would write! I love you man! -JT”
I figured it out!
Also “I’m a lot of bad things, but not a liar. You are.” EPIC LULZ
March 25th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Unless I missed something, all of those appear to be over the course of about a week. Thompson comes across as a whiny little kid.. he doesn’t get his way, so he throws a tantrum, accusing the judge and the game of more and more outrageous things as time goes on.
“I’m a lot of bad things, but I’m not a liar”.
No, Jack.. you’re a liar. You stretch the truth so far its not even recognizable anymore.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I just realized, after all these years, who Jack Thompson reminds me of…
Ever see Ferris Bueler’s Day Off?
Remember the principal of the school?
Yah… that’s who Jack Thompson reminds me of.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
But had Bar Counsel attempted to have her witness read part of document but wasn’t moving to have the entire document admitted into evidence, then rule of completeness would require that as much of document that should be considered in all fairness be read into evidence. But obviously, there’s no need to read other parts or all of the document if it’s being entirely admitted into evidence.
This ain’t brain surgery. I can get it. You can get it. Anyone but Jack can get it.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
This is a fun read — mostly because we get to see Jack reap what he’s sown.
I remember reading most of these mails/press releases/etc here the last several years thinking “how does he get away with this..?”
Well, he isn’t — its coming back to haunt him, and it is BEAUTIFUL to watch (figuratively).
March 25th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Wow - surprised he didn’t go into Judge Friedman = Satan. (yeesh)
These articles are really fun to read. I don’t know much of anything about the courts. It’s educational. Honestly, if the prosecutor weren’t there, I’d be wondering if all lawyers argue with/snap & threaten the judges when they don’t get their way.
(The real irony is all of this only makes me want to go buy Bully. How did porn creep into this? Since when does Bully have anything in it that you can’t see worse on fox prime-time?)
March 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
@ Delin & JDKNJ
I was pretty sure Judge Tunis is a woman, but what I want to know is how do you pronounce her first name? Is it with a hard A (like “Dave”) or a soft A (which would be pronounced “Dah-va”). Sometime these names have unusual pronunciations. For example the actress Daveigh Chase (who played Samara in The Ring and had leading voice roles in Lilo and Stitch and Spirited Away), I used to think it was pronounced “Dah-vey,” but I’ve since come to understand it’s actually pronounced like “Davey.” I’m wondering because I read these transcripts and articles alound to my girlfriend for her entertainment.
I’m not going to say anything more about Jack because I think I’ve said all there is to say about him fro right now. That and all those excerpts Judge Friedman read are old news, having already been reported here.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I cringe over what his cross exam is going to be…
March 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Good GOD Jack, I thought you were screwed but DAMN!
March 25th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
is it just me or was the worst segment for old whacko jacko?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
@Chadius
no need to cringe it will be horribly beautiful lol
March 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@lothar ill bet the cross exam of the honorable judge friedman will be much much worse (for jack)
March 25th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Now then.. Would it be considered to be in bad taste to break out the popcorn and cola? This is kinda like a B-Grade movie of sorts..
March 25th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I think in it’s source tounge it’s a soft first syllable (Dah-vah). In ‘Merican (not to be confused with English) it’s a hard first syllable (Day-vah). But, then again, you can spell your name “John” and pronounce it “Freddy,” if you like. Free country.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
i still get annoyed about people talking about ‘playing videos’ .. why cant people take time ti understand what they are talking about.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
His closing statements should just be “no, u”.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
This case is like the train wreck in Batman Begins… Only after it explodes the building collapses THEN the earth opens beneath and swallows up everything.
I can only imagine what he pulled in his cross examination. You almost want to take the proverbial shovel away from him… I did say almost
March 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Kids are gonna be piling into the emergency room with slingshot injuries after playing bully? hell, if that was the case….wouldnt it have happened after bart simpson started using slingshots?Bart has shot nearly everyone with his slingshot
March 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Speaking of, is GP having me wait until tomorrow for Jack’s (cough) cross-examination of Judge Friedman? Say it isn’t so.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@jdkj
sorry to say man but
tune same batshit crazy time same batshit crazy channel!!
March 25th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@Blindgibbon
re: thrown in jail for contempt of court.
I was thinking just the same thing. I can not understand how he wasn’t called into Judge Friedman’s office and offered a chance to withdraw his filing or face being in contempt of court. Just incredible.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
re: thrown in jail for contempt of court.
its very simple really, every other prisoner would have screamed cruel and unusual punishment being locked in a room with jack thompson and had to be released =p
March 25th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
@Pixelantes Anonymous
“I can not understand how he wasn’t called into Judge Friedman’s office and offered a chance to withdraw his filing or face being in contempt of court.”
Because that would have involved JT going into Judge Friedman’s office… And I think at that point, it was the last thing the judge wanted… He’d had enough of Jack’s antics. Better to close everything down, file a complaint, and be done with it (at least until he’s called as a witness).
@JDKJ
Yep, GP said Thursday at the very latest for Part 6-2.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“I’m a lot of bad things, but I’m not a liar.”
err you just lied when you said that sentence JT
March 25th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
@Pixelantes Anonymous — I get the feeling that Judge Friedman’s opinion was “I don’t get paid enough to deal with this shit,” so he simply recused himself to allow someone else to deal with it. That’s the sense I got at the time, and his testimony did nothing to sway me away from that.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
That judge must charge Thompson for harassament, among many other things.
By the way, I made a title for the movie of this trial:
“WHO KILLED MY FAX MACHINE?: THE TRIAL OF JACK THOMPSON”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
@jadedcritic
Porn crept in as Jack thinks two males kissing (which is possible in Bully IIRC) is pornographic.
Back to the article, I think it’s great that all of these (most of which I’m sure I’ve seen before) are coming back to haunt Jack. Besides that, only a couple things I find note worthy offhand.
JT: Let me object, as I did yesterday [during Blank Rome attorney Rachel Ward’s testimony] to reading portions of the letter. Obviously, the full context is the letter itself… Of course, the fact that Ms. Tuma is doing this underscores the reason why she’s doing it. She’s trying to highlight some portion of this out of context. It’s improper. It’s also reversible error [on appeal]. DT: Do you have any response, Ms. Tuma?
TUMA: No, Your Honor, the same response as yesterday [that the full letters are submitted as evidence for Judge Tunis’ review].
You’d think Jack would have figured out the day before that he’s in the wrong on his objection. Then you remember it’s Jack and he never learns. Still I find it funny that this basically reads “I object same as yesterday.” “My response is same as yesterday.” “Overruled, same as yesterday.”
TUMA: I just have one last question. Can you explain to the Court the effect that Mr. Thompson’s conduct and sending you these letters have had on you? JT: Objection, relevance.
DT: Overruled.
Anyone else find it hilarious that the moment the questioning turns to what impact Jack’s actions have had on the judge, he objects that it isn’t relevant?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
@Dog_Welder:
Which brings me back to the Florida Bar. Judge Friedman did the right thing: send him back to the ones who let him prance around with a license in the first place. With a note: “Here. He’s your problem. You deal with him.”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I like how Jack’s disposistion changed when he was interviewing Ms Ward (the female lawyer from part 5) and then back again afterwards (assuming these parts are in chronological order). He seemed to tear into her harder than any of the male witnesses. It was almost like he was pouncing on, what Jack could have percieved as, her moment of weakness after Ms Ward started crying.
So much for “exalting” women. Jack is more of a bully than he would probably like to admit to anyone but himself.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Fix italics
March 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
JT: “I’m not a liar.”
ANY person who says this is LYING!
Let me fix that for you, Jack…
JT: “I’m not a lawyer.”
There, now you’re telling the truth. Or soon will be.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
@JDKJ
The problem is he has never once invoked the rule of completnece, he simply states” I object that she is reading it out of context”
My answer as a judge would be…OK, and…?
Its like saying “I object!” and then sitting down, really doesn’t do much haha
March 25th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Mph…mmmm…MAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh Jesus!
Did he actually claim a freaking judge was dead? Oh Jesus!
March 25th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Oh… and isn’t this the judge whose courtroom he snuck a slingshot in to in order to make a point? Was that brought up?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
This trial can only end in two ways. And in both of them, Jack loses.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
TUMA: Is she deceased?
RF: Rumors of her demise are greatly exaggerated.
TUMA: Is that a no?
RF: She is not deceased.
I like this guy.
I would say that out of what we’ve seen, this is the most damning. Just reading some of those emails, it becomes clear that Jack Thompson is a raving lunatic crackpot who writes a hundred emails a day to the FBI about how their neighbor is in cahoots with Iran and their boss is a communist.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
This is just getting too good.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Thompson is trying to ban bully yet he is bullying the judge. More like cyberbullying. Why did he claim a judge died?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Blindgibbon:
He isn’t really required to state his objection with exacting specificity. In fact, I’m not sure he even has to state a basis for the objection. Just yelling out, “Objection!” may sometimes work. That’s because it’s Judge Tunis’ responsiblity to give him every benefit of the doubt and, if he states a colorable objection, it’s kinda her job to fully color it for him.
But that’s the make-it-funnier part. Even with the court helping him to color, he still can’t get his crayon inside the lines.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
@ Gameclucks
Liar, lawyer, mirror tell me what’s the difference?
-Tool, “The Pot”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
@JDKJ
March 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
@JDKJ
March 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
@JDJK
I’m not sure if its a difference in States or simply because its Jack Thompson and no one wants to give him even a little tiny crack to cling too, but were I practice you must state a legal basis for your objection, simply objecting never ever works. I have seen judges shut down many many attorneys for not stating the reasons behidn their objection.
Now I have seen judges “nudge” attorneys to what the objection should be in really bad cases, but most of the time if you don’t state exactly why or if you state the worng one (seen that alot) then tough shit the question/answer gets in.
Ex. Cop is testifying about what a non-tesitfying victim told them about a crime.
1. Objection!….Overruled
2. Objection hearsay….overruled.
3. Objection- violates my clients sixth amendment right to have allwitness presented againt them as set out in Crawford…..Sustained.
and of course there are two good reasons and one “tacitical reason” to object.
1. to keep out evidence that is improper.
2. to preserve error (which has not once done correctly)
and finally the only one jack knows of
3. to interupt the opposing counsel and make their jobs harder.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
[…] Nevertheless, having spent the last couple of weeks playing through Rockstar’s 360 conversion of the PlayStation 2 game ‘Bully’, I found Thompson’s quotations and accusations aimed towards the game in today’s post super annoying. […]
March 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
you forgot one
4.i object this makes me look bad!!!
March 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’ve just been watching the video from Destructoid.
I think his body language, and behaviour directly to the judge shows what contempt he has for anyones opinions, and the law, except what he believes to be right. He is a sexist, homophobic misanthrope.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
you forgot fascist lol
March 25th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it’s devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!
March 25th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Man this is sweet! So long Jack!
March 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I’d like to catch cases on appeal outta those courts. I’d have fun arguing against opposing counsel that the lower court wasn’t in error to overule “Ojection, conjecture” (which is, ironic, an objection that Jack kinda almost made at his hearing (and he kinda almost had a good point but just couldn’t manage to put the damned thing together properly) because it wasn’t stated as “Objection, speculation” (which is what most attorneys who aren’t out to lunch would say). I’ll always take the easy lay-up.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
@ Cullarn
Seconded XD
March 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2007&p_casenumber=354&psCourt=FSC&psSearchType=
Looks like we were right. After the Sanction, he filed four times on Thursday (skipped Good Friday) and filed four more times yesterday. I give him until Thursday for them to actually take action for ignoring his sanction.
Maybe he feels that they don’t have the authority to sanction him. After all, he is God’s Lawyer.
Maybe he wants to push them to find him in contempt because he still thinks he can claim they are denying him his rights (even after in their santioning they provided cases where the US Supreme Court has done the same).
Maybe he is a bad lawyer AI with an extra Goto 10.
Who knows?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
@gameman9:
I believe they were clarifying the fact that Thompson meant the judge no longer had the amount of respect she had before. But then again, she had never heard of Thompson before, so it kinda shows how far Thompson is going to misconduct himself as a lawyer.
It could also be that he was trying to drag as many judges under the dirt as he could. Emphasis on trying because he wasn’t succeeded very well.
On topic:
Is there a place where I can read the entire transcript of the trial? I’m rather curious to see if there are other parts of the trial that don’t involve the gaming industry that are testifying against him. Reading those might be worth a look to me. Not sure about everyone else.
In any case, Thompson is in some serious trouble if he couldn’t counter any of that. He could get summary judgment then and there if he doesn’t.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
re: video
did he really bring a sign about improper criminal conduct in regards to judges to his hearing on contempt??? or were my eyes mistaken?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
@mogbert:
Are we entirely sure that the Supremes dismissed his Motion for Re-hearing outta hand and on the same he filed it? In a case where I’m sure they’g wanna CYA, that’s kinda weird. I figured they’d wanna give him an opportunity to make a fool of himself for their record.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
@James Collette
IIRC, this transcript is from paper copies that GP obtained. So there’s no place to get a full transcript online at this time to my knowledge.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
@mogbert
Well, the motion for re-hearing via oral arguments, that one he is allowed. It’s basically giving him one last chance to appeal the sanction order (essentially it’s an opportunity for him to apologize and promise that he’ll cease and desist, but fat chance of that happening)
The rest just seem to be spammy shotgun notices he’s trying to cram in before the order comes into effect…
March 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
@mogbert:
Are we entirely sure that the Supremes dismissed his Motion for Re-hearing outta hand and on the same he filed it? In a case where I’m sure they’d wanna CYA, that’s kinda weird. I figured they’d wanna give him an opportunity to make a fool of himself for their record.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@mogbert:
Thanks for the link. As I read the docket (I could be wrong), they haven’t ruled on his Motion for Re-hearing and, therefore, the “get another attorney to sign” order is not in final effect.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
@JDKJ
There’s no note on the file as to what’s happened to his request for a re-hearing. His requests to Recuse/Disqualify Justices, and dismiss both complaints for prosecutorial misconduct were both denied, but they were filed the same day the order came down.
The new stuff is:
- the request for re-hearing via oral argument
- request for court-ordered mediation (his usual stall tactic) (you can read his filing on Google Groups, do a Google for “Dava Tunis”) In it he basically threatens to take this to federal court, but he’s already tried that and been told to wait for the Florida courts to finish with him…
- and some kind of notice to the court (seems to be a letter, could be the CC of him demanding the FBI arrest Bar members…)
March 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
@Jabrwock:
Yep, he’s spamming ‘em.
Motion for Mediation, Jack? Yeah, right.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Jab and JDKJ,
Don’t know, can’t read all that legal jibber-jabber (sorry, just heard about an A-Team movie).
I guess we will find out in a few hours to see if four more show up…
March 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
@Jabrwock:
“There’s no note on the file as to what’s happened to his request for a re-hearing.”
That’s what tells you the court hasn’t ruled. When it does, it’ll pop-up as an entry on the docket.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
@Gray17
Well, I admit, that sort of thing tends to make you jump back a step, but damn, if he thinks that’s porn; he must be leading quite a cloistered life.
@Paul Kerton
Honestly? I’m wondering if there’s anyone out there he actually likes. New Gamepolitics contest, find someone Jack Thompson actually gets along with. No fair cheating and using his immediate family.
You know what doesn’t make a lick of sense to me? How does one manage to continue to be a lawyer for 20+ years, if all one’s really doing pretty much is pissing of judges from court to court? Is it my imagination or did the bar prosecutor not have any real difficulty lining up judges willing to testify against him? Setting aside any professional code, wouldn’t a line of pissed off judges make it harder, to, I don’t know, WIN CASES?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
@GP: Will the whole trial procedings eventually be put up for access for us to look at later on?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
wait the fbi arrest bar members???!!!!
is he really that insane??!!
March 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
@cullarn
“wait the fbi arrest bar members???!!!! is he really that insane??!! “
Yes, he’s apparently alleging Criminal Conspiracy in Violation of 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242…
March 25th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
umm for those of us who didnt study . . . usc241 and 242 are. . . ?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Google?
Basically 241 it makes it a crime for two or more people to conspire to deny someone their constitutional rights. 242 extends this to include law officials acting on their own.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
true enough but i figured it would be just easier to have someone explain it too me (im recovering from the flu go easy on me)
March 25th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
@Jabrwock:
You’re beginning to make me think my time spent playing 20 Questions with you wasn’t a total waste.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Unlike Jack, I learn good.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
k ive read both laws and my reading skill has increased by 1 yay me!!
March 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
jaded,
What about that lawyer that had to chip in what Jack should say? The Judge sounded upset that someone was giving hints from the peanut gallery. What I don’t get is that the judge said he could stay as long as he wouldn’t be talking from the audience, but he decided he would leave instead. I mean, he at least was trying to keep Jack from looking foolish (-er), would that count?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
USC stands for “United States Code” they are the federal laws. Title 18 is crimes and criminal procedure. The specific sections involved are
18 USC § 241
Conspiracy Against Rights
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured–
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
18 USC § 242
Deprivation of rights under color of law
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
March 25th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
@mogbert
What was funny was Jack trying to argue that the guy was somehow his “assistant”, which of course the judge didn’t buy (if he was assisting, why was he in the audience and not at Jack’s table?)
From the guy’s background, it seems he too has been spanked by the Bar for violating Bar rules of conduct. He too has appealed to the Florida Supreme Court stating the Bar is acting illegally.
Other than that, don’t know much about his deal.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;…
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
LOL!
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Double LOL!
March 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Part 4 was the best so far, this one was ok. I like reading Tompsons cross examinations the most.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Third time’s the charm?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
@Billy
“I like reading Tompsons cross examinations the most.”
Ditto. The rest is just rehashing what we already know. The cross-exam is Jack’s chance to shine. Er. Well… to at least entertain us with humorous attempts at defending his bad behavior, by attacking his opponents, with bad behavior…
The Judge Friedman cross-exam should be good, especially how Jack will likely try to focus on the “you violated your own order” rant he’s been going on since that day…
March 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’m actually kinda interested in how JT would go about trying to prove violations of those statutes. Probably pretty funny to watch
March 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Jab,
So he isn’t supporting Jack as much as he is wanting someone to beat the FL Bar? It must have been very frustrating to know the right things that should be said and having Jack always say the wrong things. He might have just left in frustration.
It is funny Jack trying to spin that the balliffs were threatening the man so he left. Do you really think the Judge would say “You can stay” then have the balliffs grab him and drag him out?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Anyone play LOK: Defiance? Way I see it, Kain would be the Florida bar. And Moebius would Be Jack.
Moebius: Kain!?
Kain: Is there a crack in your omniscience after all, Moebius?
“(Moebius tries to use the scepter of power used to control/weaken kain… it doesn’t work)”
Kain(with a grim smile.)
Kain:First your omniscience, and now your powers. You are slipping badly.
Moebius takes a step back.
Moebius
This is not possible…
I just got done playing that again last week.
BANE XXIII
Minneapolis, MN
March 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
For some reason this reminds me of an episode of “Duckman”
Cornfed: Objection your honor.
Judge: On what grounds?
Cornfed: So the Jury doesn’t hear the truth.
If he thought he was actually wrong, Jack might do that.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Two words for Thompson:
Douche Bag
March 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
In TV & movies all the time they have lettered exhibits in court. At first I thought it odd that they had numbered exhibits in this case. Then I thought, “They must have more than 26…” Not surprising when you consider it IS JT.
When they get to, “TUMA: If you can look at Exhibit 66″ Only one thought went through my head.
Damn….. That’s a lot of dirt.
JT must have his own personalized shovel with his name on it.
He just keeps digging himself a hole.
If it wasn’t illegal, I would bet real money at this point on a theory I have.
I would bet money that JT is going to use the, “Why didn’t you view the whole thing?” Argument and Friedman will respond:
“As I previously stated, I don’t know how to play these games. My kids do that..”
FOllowed by the, “You can’t get the experience of playing Bully or GTA until you’ve played them” argument.
Followed then by: Friedman, “HAve you ever played Bully Mr. Thompson?”
JT: “ahhh….No…”
But that might be just wishful thinking.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“threatened by shadows at night and exposed in the light”
bonus points if you know where that came from
March 25th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
You posted Niero’s video. That’s f’n sweet!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Besides the numerous lies and person attacks something stuck out…
He claims he’s “defending the children, the families, and future victims”… that’s an insult to all the teachers, parents, and organizations who tackle the real problems and make a real difference in the lives of kids….
Back to your cave, sir, for the children..
March 25th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Pardon my ignorance of US federal Law (dutch here) but those 2 USC code sections are both about interference with a persons constitutional rights, however JT is given loads of room to defend himself, using anything he wants basically, how is that infringing on a persons constitutional rights?
His right of free speech isn’t being compromised (far from it infact) and neither is his right to a fair trial. (speedy is questionable, but he’s causing most of the delay)
He probably sees this as an “unfair” trial (since it makes him look like an ass) but procedure is being followed and as such his right to trial isn’t affected i think.
Am i correct in thinking this??
March 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
@mogbert
“So he isn’t supporting Jack as much as he is wanting someone to beat the FL Bar? It must have been very frustrating to know the right things that should be said and having Jack always say the wrong things. He might have just left in frustration.”
It’s entirely possible.
“Psssstt! You were supposed to say “objection - hearsay! No! You’re doing it all wrong!”
“It is funny Jack trying to spin that the balliffs were threatening the man so he left. Do you really think the Judge would say “You can stay” then have the balliffs grab him and drag him out? “
You’re not thing conspiratorially.
Of course the judge would do one thing and say another. Jack was just, as usual, being whiney. I’m surprised he didn’t have a temper tantrum right then and there…
March 25th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I’m looking forward to the Cross Examination, we can only wait in excitement for the silly questions Thompson will ask.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
@Azhrarn, Death-of-Faxmachines
Jack firmly believes that his right to a Bar license is somehow linked to his the 1st Amendment. In that by trying to take his license away, the Bar is somehow preventing him from his right to speech and to petition the government for redress.
Except they’re not. They’re just preventing him from representing anyone else (in his capacity as a Florida lawyer) who wants to do so. Which of course, is not a right… hence the Bar exam and license…
March 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Azhrarn, Death-of-Faxmachines:
He say his free specch rights are violated because he’s not being allowed to say whatever he wants about whoever he wants to whomever he wants. He also says his free exercise of religion rights are violated because he’s been targeted for having particular religious beliefs.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
@Azhrarn — the problem is you’re looking at those statutes with logic and rational thinking. If you apply JT’s logic, they make perfect sense. Here goes:
1) SCOFLA asks him to Show Cause for his many, many filings clogging the system and states they have the right to sanction him via several precedents listed in their order.
2) Jack responds with “you’re insane” and “you can’t deny me my 6th Amendment rights to petition the court because of Faretta v. California.”
3) SCOFLA issues sanctions and states that Faretta doesn’t apply (it’s for criminal trials only) and again lists the precedents that apply, but