The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 7): Thompson Cross Examines the Bully Case Judge

March 26, 2008 -

For this segment we'll assume that you have at least read Part 6 of GamePolitics' Bar Trial of Jack Thompson, the direct testimony of Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman.

What follows is Thompson's cross examination of Judge Friedman, who became a target of Thompson's ire after he refused to grant the controversial attorney's 2006 motion to have Bully declared a public nuisance in Florida.

(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…)

JT: Judge, first things first. My lawsuit wasn't, as you testified, to prohibit the distribution of this game [Bully], was it?

RF: I do believe it was.

JT: Well, let's go to Exhibit 46... page 21 thereof... Why don't you read paragraph D. This is under the caption Injunctive Relief.

RF: "An order prohibiting Take Two from selling all of its mature-rated video games directly or indirectly to anyone under 17 years of age, which practice is violating the strictures of the [ESA] and of the [ESRB] as well as solemn promises made under oath to Congress and to others."

JT: So do you want to change your testimony about what the purpose of the lawsuit was?

RF: No. That's the way I read that.

JT: Prohibit the distribution.

RF: To adults? No. To teenagers, yes.

JT: Okay. I take prohibit to mean prohibit, and that is to prevent the distribution.

RF: That is exactly what it appears to be, to prevent the distribution to anyone under age 17.

JT: Right. Not across the board... But... we didn't have a hearing on that, did we?

RF: We certainly did have some [courtroom] argument.



JT: A hearing on the merits of the case?

RF: The merits of the case? No.

JT: No. Now you testified - correct me if I'm wrong here - that I had represented as to how bad the game was? Was that basically what you said?

RF: That's my recollection.

JT: I hadn't seen the game, had I?

RF: No.

JT: I couldn't have seen it.

RF: That's correct.

JT: And I couldn't have seen it because these people - correct me if I'm wrong - "these people" being Take Two - had released this game and shown it to people in the video game industry press. Then when I asked to see it - and I hadn't filed suit at this time -  I asked to see it before its release and then I asked you - correct me if I'm wrong, but I sought a release of it limitedly to you so that you could review it because no one had seen it other than the people I've mentioned. Isn't that right?

RF: I don't know who had seen it. I know you hadn't.

JT: I had not?

RF: Correct.

JT: And you had not?

RF: That's correct.

JT: So I wanted - correct me if I'm wrong. I wanted to have a hearing on whether or not this thing, this game, should be sold to anyone under 17 prior to its being released, with only the ESRB and maybe certain other people having seen it.

RF: Which was the purpose of having the in camera viewing.

JT: Correct. Now did you review the entire game - or, let me back up. Do you remember before we had this proceeding, this in camera proceeding or whatever you want to call it, this exercise in camera in your chambers - do you recall having said at the hearing prior to that, that you would review the entire game and that you would take all weekend if necessary and that I was welcome to attend if you did that?

RF: Yes.

JT: Okay, and so we had this - I don't know. How would you characterize it? - in camera proceeding review -

RF: Yes.

JT:  -in your chambers and we can't - correct me if I'm wrong on this. We can't really verify how long you reviewed through this cheat system, as you called it or as they called it - how long you spent reviewing it even under that situation because you ordered that the transcript of what went on there not be released except with your permission. Isn't that right?

RF: (no response)

JT: So we don't have that, do we, to time the hearing?

RF: That, I don't recall.

JT: Did you order that the transcript of whatever went on in there not be released except by your order?

RF: My recollection is that I ordered it not to be released probably - unless I ordered it for certainly not before the actual distribution [of Bully]. That's correct.

JT: Would you release it now?

RF: I don't have a problem with that.

JT: My point in asking that was we would then have a record as to how long that exercise took. You testified here that you may have taken an hour or an hour and a half to look at the game, actual time viewing the game?

RF: That's my recollection of about how long it was.

JT: Okay, and you thought - what did you call it, the cheat what?

RF: I thought what?

JT: No, I'm sorry. They called it a cheat -

RF: Whatever it was.

JT: - system?

RF: I'm calling it a cheater that allows them to jump from one part of the game to another.

JT: It allows them?

RF: Whoever is operating it.

JT: Right, and who was operating this game?

RF: Their representative.

JT: "Their" being Take Two's?

RF: Yes.

JT: Who had come down from New York. I wasn't allowed to see anything as to the game except the back of the screen. Right?

RF: That's correct.

JT: What was your concern in that regard?

RF: It was an in camera review.

JT: Right.

RF: And I was concerned that nothing was to leave that room until I made a decision.

JT: What was going to leave the room?

RF: I had no idea.

JT: What could have left the room?

RF: I have no idea.

JT: You have no idea?

RF: It was an in camera inspection. That's what an in camera inspection is.

JT: What could I have made off with?

RF: I have no idea what you would have done.

JT: Could you have ordered me not to disclose. - and in fact you did order me not to disclose what happened in there -

RF: That's correct.

JT: -as far as the content of the game or whatever.

RF: That's correct.

JT: But that wasn't sufficient.

RF: I don't know whether it was or not.

JT: Well, somebody could have held me in contempt if I violated that order. Right?

RF: That's certainly true.

JT: But you had an inspection, which wasn't really in camera. We had other people in there. Do you typically do in camera inspections with other people there and with one of the party's employees taking you through the exhibit?

RF: Sometimes.

JT: When does that happen?

RF: When it's necessary for someone to explain something to me.

JT: Can you recall a case in which you had an in camera inspection of -

RF: I've had several.

TUMA: Objection to the relevance of all this.

DT: Overruled.

JT: ...Can you recall a case in which you had an in camera inspection in which one of the parties got to see what you were doing and another party didn't get to see the item?

RF: Sure. Lots of times when one side possesses the item, in an in camera they present it to me, I review it, and the other side doesn't see it.

JT: Have you ever let one side determine what part of the item you got to see?

RF: No. This is a first.

JT: Now, you said, I think you testified here that, hopefully, you saw the worst parts of the game. Do you remember saying that?

RF: I do.

JT: How do you know if you did?

RF: I only rely upon the people following my directions and hope that they're following my directions.

JT: Did you see the melee at the end of the game where the hero of the game, Jimmy Hopkins, goes on a rampage and beats up just about everybody in the school?

RF: No.

JT: No?

RF: No.

JT: Do you have much familiarity with video game play?

RF: No.

JT: In fact, you said that you watched the game - right? - and that you wouldn't want your children to watch it.

RF: That's correct.

JT: You understand that you don't watch a video game, right?

RF: Excuse me?

JT: Do you understand that you don't watch a video game? Right?

RF: Are you making a distinction between watching and playing?

JT: Yes.

RF: Okay. When you're playing, you are watching.

JT: And how do you play the game?

RF: I don't know how you play the game. I don't play video games.

JT: You don't know how to play the game - or any game. Did you know that I had an expert there, Dr. Eugene Provenzo, to testify at this hearing we didn't have?

RF: Yes.

JT: Okay, and do you know who he is?

RF: No.

JT: Do you want me to tell you?

RF: By all means.

JT: Eugene Provenzo is a tenured professor -

RF: Excuse me one second. Let me interrupt. I'm sorry. Was he the gentleman seated next to you?

JT: Yes... Eugene Provenzo is a full tenured professor at the University of Miami who has testified multiple times before committees of the United States Congress as to the powerful way in which video games and interactive media - which you play - are powerful teaching tools that can not only teach things, but modify behavior. Would it have been of interest to you that Dr. Provenzo could have told you that some guided tour of any video game by anybody - regardless of what their motivations are and financial interests are and who their employees are - is not a sufficient way to understand the content, the full content of a game? Would that have been of any interest to you?

RF: Mr. Thompson, as I recall, and I believe the transcript will reflect, at the end of the hearing, I said, "Does anyone have anything further to say to the Court?" and the doctor raised his hand, and I called upon him to say whatever he wanted to say and you told him to lower his hand and be quiet.

JT: Because he told me what he was going to say. Do you want to know what he was going to say?

RF: I don't care.

JT: You don't care?

RF: I don't care at this point. I made my ruling. That was that.

JT: Since you raised it as to what you think he might have said or that he wanted to say something, would it have been of interest to you to know that he wanted to say that this was the worst misconduct by any judge he had ever seen?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor. How is this relevant?

RF: Do I care about that?

JT: What do you mean, how is it relevant?

DT: I'm sorry. Are you speaking to me?

JT: I'm asking, how is this relevant? We're here to talk about whatever I did and what I did was appropriate and there was a reasonable basis for me to be critical of what this judge did and how he did it. This witness, this judge, has suggested, implied, that somehow I gagged this particular witness and that he would have been prepared to testify about things that, if we had had a real hearing on something, he would have testified on.

DT: Overruled. Go ahead. Answer the question.

JT: Go ahead, Judge.

RF: Having viewed what I did and having reached the determination in my mind that the First Amendment would preclude me from making a decision in any way contrary to what I did and that I probably made a mistake in even taking the time to view what I did, I denied your motion. Nothing would have changed that.

JT: Nothing.

RF: If I found that something would have incited to immediate violence, that would have changed it; which is the only reason I granted the opportunity to have a viewing of the game.

JT: But you didn't see the end of the game. Right?

RF: That's correct.

JT: And you're not aware, apparently, are you, that video games of this genre typically result in more violence as you go through the game and you have a culminating act of violence to "finish the game." You don't know anything of that, do you?

RF: No.

JT: Do you remember before we ended this - you ended this - in camera inspection through which you were led by Take Two's employees, that you indicated having seen whatever you saw as to how you were going to rule in this case?... Do you remember that?

RF: I do.

JT: Tell us about your recent reversal of the Third District Court of Appeals for having done this same thing.

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.

JT: No, no. Excuse me, Judge. I'm sorry.

DT: I'm going to ask you if there's an objection being made that you don't say, "No, no." Okay?

JT: I apologize.

DT: Let's just do this in a proper manner.

JT: I apologize.

DT: What is your legal objection?

TUMA: To the relevance to this case. It has no relevance to this case. It's not an appeal of the case.

JT: Before you rule -

DT: Yes, I was going to ask you... are you talking about a ruling that has to do with the case that was filed -

JT: You bet.

DT: -right here?

JT: It has everything to do with it - and let me explain... you'll see that the documents that were excerpted and read from [by Judge Friedman on direct examination] talk about... his terrific reputation out of the Third District Court of Appeals and what this witness has also said is that even if the things I said [about him] were true, that I had acted improperly. There has been reading from portions of letters about this Judge's reputation and that he has a history of doing and acting improperly... this is not an isolated incident. So that when I recount what this Judge's reputation is and what he does on a routine basis and the the Third District Court of Appeals has held him to task recently for having done the same thing to another litigant, then it goes to my credibility, it goes also to his credibility, and more importantly, it goes to the [Florida Bar] rule 4-8.2(a), which talks about whether or not lawyers can be critical of judges...

We're here litigating in this trial - you call a hearing, other people call it a trial. It feels like a trial to me - that one of the issues is whether or not there is a reasonable basis for a lawyer to say something about a judge... So what he [Friedman] has done in another case in which he prejudged and which the Third District Court reversed him on for having announced his ruling before there was a hearing in the case goes to whether or not this was an isolated incident, whether or not I had any reason to say what I said about the Judge in these admittedly caustic letters, and whether or not I'm a truth teller, a prevaricator or someone who just makes this up out of whole cloth.

He's the one who talked at his hearing... about what a great reputation he has out of the Third District when he's just been reversed on doing pretty much what he did to me.

DT: Do you want to ask a question about Judge Friedman's ruling in a specific case?

JT: If he'll answer.

DT: Okay. Overruled... But if you're going to ask him a question, you have to ask him a specific question.

(thereupon Friedman discusses a case involving a property dispute and a possible false arrest... )

RF: There was a motion to recuse, a motion denied, and the Appellate Court found I should have recused.

JT: On what basis?

RF: Having prejudged.

JT: Okay, and we never had the hearing in my case about the merits of the case. Right?

RF: No.

TUMA: Objection: Asked and answered.

DT: Sustained.

JT: And your answer to that was no, just so the record is clear. Now we all make mistakes, right. I've certainly made some. Have you made some?

RF: I certainly have. And you may recall in that record, I said, "While I have general respect for the Third District, they don't always agree with me."

JT: I understand. My wife, who loves me, doesn't always agree with me... When I said Judge Reah Pincus Grossman [despised Friedman, see part 6], I got the wrong judge and her demise, I found out, is premature, as Mark Twain would say; but it was another judge, and I heard that story from someone whom I've known as a practicing attorney for 30-some years. Are there some attorneys who find you somewhat arbitrary in your jurisdiction?

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, to relevancy.

DT: Overruled.

JT: If you know.

RF: I don't know. I do know that the Bar polls show that 10 percent of the lawyers don't think I should be here. Ninety percent do. So apparently there are some who would agree with you.

JT: Did you see the homosexual activity in the game that Take Two - I would call them manipulators - but the Take Two employees, the ones who showed you portions of the game? Did you see that?

RF: No.

JT: Now, I want to see if you understand this. You're not to be faulted for not being a video game player or for knowing how video games work and so forth. I've had a crash course since 1998 when I represented the families in Paducah whose daughters were killed by a kid who had played the same game that the killers at Columbine played and the...  I lost my train of thought.

DT: You were saying you're not to be faulted for not being a video game player.

JT: Right. That I remember.

DT: And that you got a crash course in it yourself.

JT: Right, I understand. Oh, forgive me. You said - and correct me if I'm wrong - your testimony was - and I'm not re-asking you the question. I want to get us on the same page here. You said in both the transcript here and here today that this game maybe should have a mature rating, but that that's not for you to put on the game -

RF: That's correct.

JT: - that it might be up to the legislature or whomever.

RF: That's my thought.

JT: It's my thought, too, in one regard. Do you know that legislatures - either state or federal - or municipalities can't put a rating on a game?

RF: There is some entity that does the rating.

JT: Right. It's owned by the [video game] industry, the ESRB.

RF: That doesn't mean they can't legislate to do something about that; but again, that's not my job.

JT: Well, actually you can. Under Miller vs. California, which has a three-pronged test which one would apply to obscenity, you really couldn't - and it would be unconstitutional and there have been Supreme Court rulings on this since the 30's - that if government is to put a rating on a game - or back then on a movie -then you're arrogating to the government a censorious function based upon an arbitrary rating type system as opposed to looking at each game on its own basis. Does that make sense?

RF: Okay. If you say that's what the law is, that's fine.

JT: And that's what I wanted you to do, to take a look at this game... just this individual video game - and correct me if I'm wrong as to your understanding of  what I was seeking for you to do, and that was to get the game before its release - and I appreciate your order granting me that portion of my relief. Then under the nuisance laws of Florida, which is one of, I think, eight states which allows an individual to serve in effect as a "private attorney general" to say to the government, I think this constitutes a public safety hazard; for you then to look at the game and make a determination not on what the rating ought to be but on whether or not this game ought to be sold to anyone under 17, which is roughly reflective of the industry's system. Is that your understanding?

RF: I understand that; but it's my belief under the case law and the Constitution, I can't make a determination that it has to have a mature rating - even though I think it should - nor under the circumstances of the game could I prevent its distribution.

JT: Okay, but you didn't hear my constitutional arguments and you didn't hear from any experts and you didn't get a fuller explanation of the Miller test as it applies to the violent material. You didn't hear any of that because we didn't have a hearing on that, did we?

RF: What we had was initial argument the very first time the matter was brought, and your position - as I recall - was so strong from what you thought of the game even though you hadn't seen it -

JT: Well, I was basing it on reviews in magazines of people who had seen it.

RF: I understand - that I thought, okay. I will take the bull by the horns and I will look at this game, even though basically the case law says I don't have to do that; that they [Take Two] have a constitutional right under the First Amendment to distribute this. Oh, wait a minute. If it's that bad, then let me take a look at it; but I didn't find it that [bad].

JT: But you didn't see the whole game.

RF: No. I didn't spend 200 hours seeing the whole game.

JT: Well, so we're clear, you didn't see the violent ending of the game, which would be the most violent part. You didn't see the homosexual activity in the game... Let me ask you if you would be surprised by the following. David Walsh is the clinical psychologist who every year gives, at the Congress' request, his Annual Video Game Report Card. Last year he stood between Senator Brownback, a Republican, and Senator Lieberman, an Independent, and Senator Clinton, a Democrat - I think. So he's respected on both sides of the aisle and by an independent and has an organization, the National Institute on Media and the Family. Dr. Walsh, having seen the game - and he was following this litigation down here - saw the game and issued the opinion that this should be a mature-rated game. It should not have a teen rating and it should not be sold to anyone under 17. Would that surprise you, based upon at least the part of the game that you saw?

RF: No.

JT: So you know that by virtue of this game having received what at least Dr. Walsh and some others felt was a bogus - industry-provided through the ESRB - rating, released a game for sale to anyone of any age. Is that right?

RF: I don't recall whether it's anyone of any age. A six-year-old probably couldn't buy this, but a teenager could.

JT: I can assure you there's no checking of I.D.'s for teen-rated games.

TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, to the relevancy.

DT: Sustained.

JT: And your testimony was that, even if everything I said was true, my having said it was abuse of my oath and of my status as a lawyer. Is that right?

RF: Yes, sir.

JT: That's your view of what the canons require?

RF: Yes, sir.

JT: And that's why you filed a Bar complaint against me?

RF: Yes, sir.

JT: That's all I have, Judge. Thanks.


Comments

@Michael Brooks

Well, you would have to understand that while on a logical level, we can understand that not all christians are as bad as ol' Tack Jhompson, its hard to feel positive about christians in general if you've had the bad luck to only have met the nasty ones...

@Simon Roberts

Oh dear me, Tack Jhompson doesn't let petty things like facts get in his way..

"RF: I don’t know how you play the game. I don’t play video games.

JT: You don’t know how to play the game - or any game. Did you know that I had an expert there, Dr. Eugene Provenzo, to testify at this hearing we didn’t have?"

... so Thompsom brought in an expert to explain how you play video games?

Was Jack trying to argue his "games treated same as porn" approach here? He was arguing that Judge Friedman could in fact make a ruling, based on Miller. But there's no pornography in it, and other than the gay kiss, Jack had no proof there was... And arguing that "there might have been, but you didn't see it" seems pretty weak...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

@burke

and im sure you can understand that us christians cannot stand being lumped in with the likes of jack thompson (not trying to be rude but i must be heard )

far as im concerned jack and all those assholes are trying tp make a profit off of faith (and god threw the moneylenders out of the temple a very long time ago) i dont mean to cause any hostility but lumping me in the same group with jack thompson . . . hell no

@ Burke

So if every black person I see on the news is a criminal, that makes it ok for me to label black people as criminals? Or if every Hispanic person I saw was homeless, that makes it ok for me to label them as homeless?

Hmmm, jack did do quite well here, which scares me, even though he was lying about the content of the game.

I hope the judge understands that he was using false facts to support his case

There is a little culmination of some fights between hopkins and the preps, jocks, nerds, greasers and perfects. I didn't play the game myself, but a video of it is online.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wud1bxszWWY

I too am noticing a change in Jack's attitude. Like he's actually calmed down, and isn't arguing with Judge Tunis as much... and when he does, it's over a legit legal point, not just because the testimony isn't going his way.

He's still going way off topic, rambling, and trying to re-try the bully case instead of defend his behaviour, but he's doing it, dare I say, more politely this time? What gives?
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

And that result obtains under either the Brandenberg test (intended and likely to incite violence), (which it seems Judge Friedman was inclined to apply ) or the Miller test (speech value judge against prevailing adult community standard). There's about enough case law out there to almost say that the issue is "well-settled." Jack's Bully complaint was about as frivolous as all his other lawsuits.

That, actually, was remarkably reasonable, at least in flashes. Where I would have trouble with it is in the bits and pieces. Like that section from the evidence where he was claiming that he sought judge friedman to bar the "direct or indirect" sale to minors. How, in hell's bathroom, does one prevent the indirect sale of something? Is that even physically possible???

It is also somewhat amusing to me when Jack Thompson pretends he's knowledgeable about video games. I don't know how that could be considered any less hypocrisy then me pretending to be a lawyer.

Curious that, at least in this section - I think I actually understood his point. Most of these articles I haven't understood his defense, at least in this part; I understood that his defense was proving the judge was somehow negligent. I would say that doesn't really cut it though. It's one thing to accuse a judge of negligence and prosecute, it's another to stop about six inches short of calling him satan and a murderer of children.

@jabrwock

ex stregth ritalin lol

What's ironic is Jack is bitching that Judge Friedman is somehow incapable of admitting when he's made a mistake, yet that was the whole reason that he refused to rule, was that he'd realized that he'd erred in allowing the hearing in the first place...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

So JT's whole point is he maybe a jerk and a spaz and a moron, but the judge started it first and thats why he took his football and went home? Uh. Kay.

And I'm curious about this 'violent' ending to Bully. Does it actually happen or not? I wanna know. I'll check Youtube tonight but I'm wondering if anyone here knows.

Heh. I lol'd when he got so wrapped up in his own rhetoric that he forgot what he wanted to ask Friedman.

@jadedcritic

"It’s one thing to accuse a judge of negligence and prosecute, it’s another to stop about six inches short of calling him satan and a murderer of children."

Yeah, that's where it all falls apart. Jack is trying to re-open the hearing on Bully, to show that Friedman erred in his ruling. But he's completely sidestepping the reason JF filed a complaint. He didn't do it because Jack claimed he erred. He did it because of the WAY Jack claimed he erred.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

I love the way Jack bangs on about other scenes in the game despite the fact Friedman was already of the opinion that the game was certified too leniently. The extra material would hardly make a difference to the Judge's personal opinion and none of it would pose any more of a public nuisance than the material he had seen.

Besides which, it's a total red herring Jack is on trial here not Bully no amount of post hoc rationalisation can excuse Jack's bad behaviour. Criticism of a judge may well be allowed, but I'm pretty sure it's not carte blanche to be as rude as you'd like.

Gift.

I really, really, really failed to see any relevance whatsoever in his cross to the case at hand.

He was, yet again, going on and on about his "crusade to save the souls of children". Judge Friedman ALREADY tried that case and JT lost. Why is he arguing for it now when he should be arguing to save his ass from getting reamed by the Florida Bar Association.

Even if he somehow manages to convince everyone that Judge Friedman was wrong to rule the way he did or to not recuse himself, it still doesn't excuse how he went about trying to make that happen last time around. He acted like a pottymouthed child back then, and nothing in his cross quoted above addresses ANY of that.

Disbarment, here we come.

I think what is key in this excerpt is that nowhere does Jacko actually talk about the reason why he is being investigated. It is as if Jacki is trying to retry the obscenity case all over again but that isn't why he is in trouble. If he wanted to say all the things that he says in this exceprt then why didn't he say them in the court case?

None of the crap he talks about here has anything to do with his millions of emails and faxes and his outrageous behavior and he simply doesn't understand that is the issue.

The issue isn't whether Ronald Friedman made the right call or not it is whether or not Jacko is a jackass. Even if Friedman was a total jackass doesn't give Jacko a license to be a jackass and Jacko just can't seem to see that.

This is so confusing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what this case is about is the fact that the judge felt Thompson is a bad lawyer because he filed a case which insisted that a video game HE HAD NEVER SEEN constituted a public nuisance. The judge entertained that notion, looked at the game, and decided that, despite the fact that he didn't *like* the game Thompson is an idiot and doesn't deserve to practice law.

And now Thompson is trying to make this an issue of whether the judge has the ability to rate the game "M," and using anobscenity case to try to prove that? Objection to relevancy, indeed...

@jadedcritic

It’s one thing to accuse a judge of negligence and prosecute, it’s another to stop about six inches short of calling him satan and a murderer of children.

That was sort of one of Freidman's points. Even if the stuff about negligence and so forth about him was true, Jack was still over the line, and in violation of rules, oaths, etc.

jadedcritic: Indirect sale would be like a parent buying GTA, then giving it to their kid -- a problem which I would've thought the retailers were handling, given how much hassle they gave my mother when she tried to get me San Andreas for Christmas. (She regaled us with the amusing tale of how a manager spotted the distinctive title font from twenty feet away and came over to make sure she wasn't buying it for a seventeen-year-old.)
---
Fangamer

"I think what is key in this excerpt is that nowhere does Jacko actually talk about the reason why he is being investigated."

This entire series has been like that. Instead of defending his actions, he's trying to show that everyone around him is evil, or criminal, or incompetent, and so therefore the rules of conduct no longer apply to him, so even if he was an ass, it was ok.

Unfortunately for him, the rules of conduct for Bar lawyers provide no such exception.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

"RF: There is some entity that does the rating.

JT: Right. It’s owned by the [video game] industry, the ESRB."

Is this sufficient grounds for perjury?

@Zachary Miner:

It's about countless e-mails and faxes and press releases sent by Thompson in which he improperly assinates the judicial character of Judge Friedman.

@BlackIce

Not really. The ESRB is fully funded by the industry, so in a roundabout way, it *is* owned by them. He's lying by omission, leaving out that they are non-profit, and their charter ensures they stay at arms-length from the companies they are rating...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

@Digipen89
Yes this happens frequently. He vamps on something he tinks is relevant, but in actually is just his soapbox.

This is also an example of JT's case having more logical fallacies than a presidential election speech and of JT "Missing the Point". Though I will say, early on he does a good thing in clarifying the situation. In essence, he's picking the battlefield and choosing his weapons.

WHat gets JT into a hole is his line of questioning and his goal. His goal in this case should be to prove that his conduct was justified or otherwise not inappropriate. Instead, his goal in this cross-examination seems to be to get Friedman to admit he was wrong about Bully. THat is really stupid because it's moot at this point.

As I've said before, in this trial there is only 1 opinion that matters (Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case.) and JT's is not one of them. So, every time he vamps to try and win the room over, I laugh because in this matter it's worthless.
What he's trying to do is win the court over to his point of view. He thinks, "If the court sees the Pixelantes for what they are, they'll this case out" Problem is, Tunis isn't that dumb.

If JT thinks he's going to win the case at this point, he's dead wrong. His hole is too deep and the allied soldiers are ready to bury him and move on.

On Bully: As I said, Bully = Glorified Dating Sim. Also, the final battle(I haven't played Bully) would be moot because there are no real weapons, no blood and no death. So, it is far from simulating anything.

This is my impression of Bully Training in action:
"How do fire this gun?"

"I don't know, I only ever found the slingshot" *Cop races towards them*

"He's got a nightstick and he's pissed! How do I fire this thing?"

"Square button, man! Square button! Square Button!!!" *Cop takes them down.*

@Zerodash: Well, honestly, I still don't agree with you, never will, and honestly, this asshole, yes, Thompson is an asshole makes normal Christians look bad, so, sorry, not true.

What the hell was the point of any of that? Oh, thats right to deflect blame onto someone else while accepting no responsibility of acting like a petulent 2 year old in court (See video from part 6 for and example).

What a waste of Judge Firedmans time as well. Rambling nonsense questions and crying about a Judges past ruling. JT completely blew any chance of actually trying to prove his innocence with that.

@ Zerodash

LAWL! Agree to disagree? You offend myself, friends and family, and then I'm supposed to agree to disagree? lawl dude lawl

"Hey, black dude. I think you're lazy and selfish because you're black, but hey let's agree to disagree."

@Zachary Miner:

With some falsesaying and/or reckless disregard for truth thrown in for good measure.

Jimmy Hopkins saves the school at the end of the game.

@Mredia

"love how he smooshed columbine in there."

I'm surprised he didn't mention 60 Minutes...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

***Sort of end spoilers***


IIRC the ending to Bully involves the school involved in a somewhat riot due to certain circumstances and you have to "take care" of the leaders of each group and trouble with the cops. Or something like that, it's been awhile since I played it.


***End of spoilers***


I like how he talks about the "homosexual content" but doesn't actually say what it is he's talking about. The game got a "T" rating because the violence in it isn't graphic, there's no blood, there's no death, there's no real sexual content, no swearing and of course no guns. Or anything that would warrant a M rating. A T-15 rating maybe, but the ESRB doesn't have that now do they?

@ ZeroDash

I hope you were being sarcastic there buddy. While there are several christian... sects? sub-groups? organizations? - whatever you want to call them - that have had racist/sexist/etc views, do not throw them all in the same boat. I know many churches/christains who support same sex relationships and marraiges, even if the state doesn't, which is the most current debated religious issue i can think someone would have with most Christian organizations.

I'm athiest, but my parents are episcopalian. I know many good, fair-minded people who call themselves Christians, and I'm offended for them that you would generalize like that.

There are lot of things to speak of with this lengthy transcript, (THANKS BTW) but one thing that happens to irratate me is the homosexual activity that is spoke of. It isn't cinematicly graphic. Its optional. And when the fuck did homosexuality become so taboo that it should affect a rating. That seems to homophobic and hateful to me.

What I mean by "take care" of is making them fall into line and bring peace back to the school.... Not much of a spoiler since you can see it coming a mile away but oh well..

think think jacko did a bit better on this one wit the arguement that there were no proceedings after the iewing. but honestly i think the judge saw in the viewing what every other sane person sees. there is no way that that game or anything on that medium can incite people to imediate violence and therefore jacks allegations were baseless.

You don't beat up EVERYBODY toward the end of Bully, you bring all the clique leaders back to their senses,after they were lead astray by Gary and became bullies themselves.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, you're never supposed to fight back against bullies, you're supposed to just take the abuse till you break.

Hell,Jack was hardly defending himself, he was just trying to prove the judge wrong.

Least the judge made light that Thompson has never seen the full game himself, course, he'dbe too busy scourign the net for the "AK 47cheat" which doesn't exist.

Also:

JT: And how do you play the game?

RF: I don’t know how you play the game. I don’t play video games.

JT: You don’t know how to play the game - or any game. Did you know that I had an expert there, Dr. Eugene Provenzo, to testify at this hearing we didn’t have?

Do YOU, Jack? Yeah I thought not. LOL

I like that Bully was such a violent game (and we all know that all gamers run and play all violent games) that most of us have no clue what Jack is talking about ... I also love the huge riots that occurred in every school after a couple kids played Bully and went on rampages .... oh wait there weren't any riots/rampages ... I guess we will just have to wait for Bully 2 to force that to happen.

I'm also lost on the misdirection Jack is playing ... He is filling the record up with nonsense but I'm not sure such a tactic will actually help him out. He has yet (imo) not actually attacked and defended himself from the allegations that this whole proceeding is about. In fact since part of the allegations are that he doesn't behave in a manner befitting a lawyer I would think he is actually giving them more fuel for the fire. Of course disbarring and what not forces the Bar/Judges to admit that one of their own wasn't perfect so I don't see a judgment actually occurring that affects Jack beyond a smack on the hand.

@ Jack:

You're right, "homosexual activity" isn't one of the criteria for an M rating and especially not same-sex kissing (which is the extent of the "homosexual activity" in Bully as I understand it).

Does anyone know for sure if E rated games can contain kissing?

@Jack

"but one thing that happens to irratate me is the homosexual activity that is spoke of."

Too bad Judge Friedman hadn't seen it. Then he could have said "You mean that kiss? How do I apply Miller to THAT?"

Then again, it really had nothing to do with Jack's behaviour. So unfortunately, it's irrelevant. Still, would have been nice to see him slapped down over misrepresenting what was in the game...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

@PHOENIXZERO

IMO, he's never specific because he wants the judge or jury to speculate, imagine it as the worst thing they can and rule in his favor.

Jack at his best; incomprehensible, irrational, and rambling.

How ever did he convince anyone to let him represent them anyway?

"that video games of this genre typically result in more violence as you go through the game and you have a culminating act of violence to “finish the game.” You don’t know anything of that, do you?!"

i REALLY wish somebody hasd asked him for the name of the genre. I bet he wouldnt even know it. I havent personally actually experienced a game all about increasing violence.

@ ZeroDash

We do Agree to disagree as we do with others that make ignorant, ill informed, and just plain dumb statements (like... Thompson!)

We also agree your name should be legally changed to

'John Bruce Thompson Jr.'

@NovaBlack

Yeah, I'd like to know what genre Bully fits into. Then again, we all know what genre JACK thinks it fits into... Columbine Masturbatory Brain Programmer Murder Simulators. "Now with 50% more masturbating!"
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

All and all, I think JT is grasping at strings here. He has nothing viable to defend himself with, either from a conviction that he can do no wrong (99.99% likely), or from outright sheer stupidity (00.01% likely), so therefore he is going to revert back to his jack-ass self, and start trying the Bully case all over again. Either way, he hasn't changed one bit.

Immediate News Release – March 26, 2008

Lawsuit Filed in Miami to Remove Judge for Forged Loyalty Oath and Illegal Oaths

Miami attorney and anti-violent video game activist Jack Thompson has today filed what is called a “petition for writ of quo warranto” to remove from the bench Dava J. Tunis who is presiding over his Bar “disciplinary” proceedings brought by the video game industry to shut him up because of his successes against it.

Miami-Dade Chief Judge Joseph Farina, because of information provided him earlier by Thompson, has commissioned a criminal investigation of the fact, not the surmise, that Tunis had filed on her behalf a forged loyalty oath when she became a county court judge, or should we say pretended to become a judge. Subsequently, Tunis filed two loyalty oaths that do not comply with state law and are not even notarized, as required by statute. Jeb Bush appointed Tunis to the circuit court bench, and probably now regrets it.

Florida has a State Loyalty Oath law, which is Florida Statute 876.05, because the United States Constitution requires in Article 6 that all state judges execute such loyalty oaths. Tunis has never done so. There may be other judges in the state as well who have not complied with this crucial law, so this may be a scandal that engulfs Florida’s bench.

The United States Supreme Court and the Attorney General of Florida have ruled that Florida’s loyalty oath is a) constitutional, and b) must be complied with strictly.

The consequence of Tunis’ failure to comply with this law is a) removal from office, b) vacating all of her orders since she went on the bench, since they were entered without any legal authority, c) return by her of all salary payments made by the state, and d) possible criminal charges.

Thompson has today alerted the criminal defense bar in South Florida that all of Tunis’ orders while on the criminal bench could be challenged and vacated on behalf of their clients. This is what happens when a judge, who applies the law to others, chooses to ignore and violate the law as it applies to her.

This thumbing of their noses by judges at the law and the Constitution is what we are increasingly seeing from judges at all levels, state and federal. Poll after poll of Americans indicates they are fed up with it and want something done about judicial arrogance and tyranny.

Contact Jack Thompson for more information and/or a copy of the lawsuit at 305- ------------ and ---------------@comcast.net

@ Bogans

Yes E rated games can have kissing. Take the Sims as an example. It is the sex that bumps up the rating.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician