The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 8): Thompson's Closing Statement

March 27, 2008 -

We're coming to the end of our exclusive series detailing the video game-related testimony in controversial attorney Jack Thompson's professional misconduct trial by the Florida Bar.

In today's episode, GamePolitics will present Thompson's closing argument. There is no cross-examination during a closing. It's an attorney's chance to summarize the case for the Court, recalling evidence presented and touching on points of law. As such, except for a couple of procedural matters, this is Thompson speaking.

In tomorrow's finale, GP will recap the series, including an explanation of how it all came together. If you've missed any of the previous installments, just click the Bar Trial series tag to catch up.

(In today's excerpted transcript, JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

JT: Okay. By way of closing argument... here's the text of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Did I give you that?...

TUMA: Yes.

JT: It says... "Exercise of religion means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious beliefs... The Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it is demonstrated that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest... A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief."

I'm simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivations - which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nausea - are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture. I quoted the biblical passage where Jesus says, reportedly: "If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea."

If I am disbarred, which is the wish of these [Florida Bar] people... I will continue to do what I'm doing on these issues whether they disbar me or not because this is what I was called to do, this is what I was enabled to do more effectively as a lawyer...



These [Florida Bar] people, Judge, in 1992, sought and got an order of the Supreme Court of Florida, telling me: "You will either submit to a mental health exam by the Bar's own chosen psychiatrist and psychologist because, A. we think you may have brain damage; and, B, we believe your obsession with photography -" they meant against pornography "- is so severe that you are mentally incapacitated by virtue of that disability and unfit to practice law."

As I recounted in my book... they found that Jack Thompson is perfectly sane... He doesn't have brain damage and, in fact, he's a Christian acting out his faith in this fashion. So they're stuck with a formal document that they generated to the humiliation of me in my community that I'm simply a Christian acting out my faith when I do these things.

When you've got hypocrites... then I have a right - in fact, I have duty, as Jesus did, the confront the Pharisees and say: "You are hypocrites. You are liars. You are whited sepulchers. You're in a den of thieves," and so forth... So these people now in this situation, it's all by stealth. They want to do it in the darkness...

I asked you, Judge, at the outset: Will they please disclose to me what in the world their position is as to my mental health. They wouldn't do that and yet they required the resolution of this matter with a demand that after I'd pled guilty to all these things, I'd then have to submit to a mental health exam. That's what they said, knowing my motivation is religious...

Then I submit to them the psychological forensic evaluation of me by Dr. Oren Wunderman, who's used by the Florida Bar because they considered him an expert... and he said: "Look. This guy's a competent attorney. He's, in effect, under attack by people who don't like what he's doing and his religious faith not only animates what he does, but also enriches his practice of law and enriches his capabilities as a lawyer..."

So, Judge, you have to make a determination, which I'm asking you to make, that the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act is being violated by the Florida Bar because of their effort to punish me for the acting out of my religion... Done - on that one.

DT: I'm sorry. You're asking me a question?

JT: No.

DT: Oh, I think that the Bar is going to submit their responses in writing. That's what I understood.

TUMA: We were... We already have a memorandum of law regarding this. Mr. Thompson has raised this in our pleadings before and we do have a memorandum of law and whether the Bar  is violating the Respondent's rights under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act case....

JT: ... Okay, Judge. May I finish?

DT: Yes. Of course.

JT: Okay. Another argument [by Florida law] Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, SLAPP suits, by governmental entities are prohibited... I'll just point out and ask the Court to read Section 4. It says" "No governmental entity in this state shall file or cause to be filed... any lawsuit -" and then the important phrase here "-cause of action-" differentiating it from a lawsuit "-claim, cross-claim or counterclaim against a person... solely because such person... has exercised the right to... petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state."

My book, which you wouldn't allow into evidence, recounts the efforts - past efforts - of the Florida Bar to improperly discipline me, which resulted in the payment of damages and so forth... That's in evidence by the virtue of my testimony. It's been my contention that what has animated the Bar... is the exercise of my First Amendment rights to be critical of the Bar and say no to them in the past and now for their attempt to wrongly discipline me. I think it's vindictive. I think it's a clear attempt to punish me for the exercise of my First Amendment speech... Judge, I was hampered in this defense when I asked for certain discovery from the Bar and I was told I couldn't look at documents the Bar had  without first paying a $4,000 up front fee to look at my own file up there...

So what the Court has to do is address the fact that this is nothing but a SLAPP action by the Florida Bar in pursuit of an attempt to chill my First Amendment speech... I'm done with that one.

TUMA: I have a memorandum on this. The Bar is going to tender to Your Honor a memorandum on whether the Bar is violating Respondent's First Amendment rights to free speech....

DT: Thank you.

JT: Finally, we get to the last thing, the First Amendment. Did I give you all the Fieger ruling? I know the Judge has it...

DT: Is that a Michigan case, Mr. Thompson?

JT: Yes... Judge, do you have yours? If not, I've got another one...

DT: Thank you...

JT: Mr. Fieger [a prominent attorney] had some sort of a dispute... and Mr. Fieger had a radio program and he... was upset about what these judges had done and he called them Nazis. He said that their ruling was worse than if you had put a certain number of monkeys in a room and they had typed at typewriters and come up with the opinion. It suggested that they were in the pockets of commercial interests.

DT: He said this to whom?

JT: He said it... on his radio show to the whole state of Michigan.

DT: OKay. So he was a radio personality, a person on the radio.

JT: He's a lawyer. He's a very successful lawyer who's been on all the talk shows... Greta Van Susteren, and -

DT: Okay.

JT: He also represented Dr. Kevorkian, "Dr. Death." He ran for governor of Michigan...

(Fieger was sanctioned by the Michigan Supreme Court for his criticism of the judiciary; Thompson is referring here to a U.S. District Court decision which overruled the Michigan Supreme Court)

You'll note that that... this federal court says - if you compare the importance of the two - the respect for the judiciary or individual judges is less important than protecting the... judicial process because judges come and go... The opinion here is that unless someone said something that is false... or in reckless disregard of the truth then... you have to let it go and you're allowed to say these things.

Now, there's been no testimony, no evidence - in my opinion - anywhere in this case, Judge, that I have uttered anything that's false about Judge Moore or Judge Friedman or that I have uttered what I have said in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of what I've said.

I've said that Judge Friedman violated his own order, which he did. He didn't give me a hearing that he said he would give me. He didn't review the game [Bully] which he said he would do. Then I wrote some other things to him which he found annoying... So believe me, having been within the belly of Judge Friedman's courtroom and seen what he did improperly in an ex-parte proceeding where he didn't do what he said he would do, I had a right to tell the truth. I had a right to identify what he had done wrong.

DT: You mean an in camera proceeding?

JT: What did I say?

DT: Ex parte

JT: In camera... I didn't question of either Judge Moore or Judge Friedman their integrity.

(GP: although Thompson alluded that Alabama lawyer Clatus Junkin claimed to be able to fix cases with Judge Moore... and in his cross-examination of Moore, Moore said, "I saw a letter not long ago where you said I was corrupt." to which Thompson replied, " Yes, I think you are, but not in that [case-fixing] sense.")

JT: Clatus Junkin, the self-important king maker, as he views himself as having put this judge [Moore] on the bench - and believe me, there's plenty more about that - was upset that I had defamed him and he came here... to tell the Court what a despicable human being I was and how I had defamed him. I had no option whatsoever but to go to the authorities... and tell him that this guy was running around, according to every lawyer who knew him in Alabama, that he could arrange the result in a case. And having heard that, what did I do? I acted upon it to do what? To preserve the integrity of the bench, not to harm it...

The matter before [Bully case] Judge Friedman was over, and yet I'm charged... with engaging in conduct with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. First of all, I had no client. I brought a pro bono on behalf of the State as a private attorney general. I had no client... Secondly, I didn't attack the integrity of this judge or his qualifications... I didn't question his integrity. I questioned the propriety of a judge violating his own orders...

Further, what we've got here, Judge - and there was some discussion about this earlier - is: This is a libel case that these people brought against me, a criminal libel case.

(GP: this is Thompson's analagous characterization of the case; it is not in fact a criminal case, nor is it a libel case. It is a series of professional misconduct allegations under Florida Bar rules

JT: Criminal libel, by the way, is unconstitutional almost everywhere in this country. You can't punish anybody by anything other than taking money from them, which would be a civil libel action, but these people want to take my career away from me. It's clearly penal in nature as the Supreme Court defines this type of disciplinary proceeding. They want me to forfeit my license. So whether we want to consider it a criminal action... it's clearly violative of the Florida Constitution-

DT: What's violative?

JT: This proceeding against me as to my speech.

DT: Okay. I just wanted to follow that last argument.

JT: If you look -

DT: No, no. You don't have to - Say it again? ...

JT: I understand. - and I just want to build on that, if I may... Article one, section 4 of the Florida Constitution. I don't have it in front of me, but basically it says-

DT: That's okay. I'll look it up.

JT: Basically it says... you can't impinge upon a Florida resident's First Amendment rights... if you look at all of these complaints, Judge, they're almost all violations of my speech rights. I've said some things that bothered Clatus Junkin and I said some things about Judge Friedman that the Third District in another case agreed with me about how he runs his Court, pre-judging cases... So, Judge, this is First Amendment speech. It's been engaged in to protect the integrity of the judicial process...

(GP: Thompson then says that it was his complaint that led to the removal of The Crying Judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case, so...)

JT: So, Judge, where do you draw the line? ...Am I allowed to write the Broward State Attorney about... [Crying Judge] Larry Seidlin, who's now going to have his own reality TV show? Am I allowed to do that?

Am I allowed to talk about Judge Friedman pre-judging cases, acting as if he were a tyrant in his chambers and in his courtroom and taking unsworn testimony from operatives of Take Two? Am I allowed to talk about that?

Am I allowed to talk about the fact that Clatus Junkin indicates to me and others that he's in charge in Fayette, Alabama... If I defame Clatus Junkin, who has said that this is the worst thing any human being had done to him, then he could bring a defamation action.

The restriction upon me as a lawyer, which I understand, is that I have to have within the bounds upon my rights a respect for the judiciary, of the integrity of a judge. Yet the standard that I'm held to in that regard as a lawyer which gives them, the Florida Bar, the right to discipline me if I go over that line is the same line that's delineated in libel law...

Judge, I'll conclude with this, and I appreciate the Court's indulgence. The Court had extended me many courtesies during the last nine days, and I appreciate the ones you extended to me and I'll say again with no disrespect for the Court in this regard. I would have liked a little less courtesy and a little more fairness...

You know, I don't know what's going to happen here. I've got an idea... So my detractors and opponents have the view that they can file Bar complaints against me, threaten to rape my wife, corporately incite the sending of sex products to my wife and me at our home, and I'm supposed to just sit there and be a human pinata for anything that the Florida Bar, which collaborates with these people - and, Judge, you don't know the half of it. You don't know the half of what has gone on here - and that I'm supposed to just sit there and take all this nonsense and not complain...

(GP: it's unclear what the "rape" allegation refers to. As we recall, the "sex products" allegation seems to want to blame Rockstar for somehow inciting unnamed persons to send the items to Thompson by way of harassment... )

Blank Rome, knowing my wife had just had ovarian cancer surgery, sued me with a lawsuit at our house - at our house - knowing she's stretched out on a couch, unable to move. Ray Reiser had asked them not to bother us at our home, and these people, knowing she had this surgery and is recovering from it, knowing I had a lawyer, Ray Reiser, to accept service, having been told that - my wife, she had to get up off the couch and receive this lawsuit at the door from a process server; and they knew it and they did it on purpose.

Judge, I apologize for any unkind comments I've had for you about my wife, and your total lack, in my opinion, of appreciation of the fact that to go through a process like this in which your profession is being threatened with being taken from you at the same time that your wife is fighting for her life and that you don't understand, apparently, Judge, that there are burdens in a situation like that, that it's almost too much for a body and a person to bear.

So, Judge, I appreciate you courtesies in the midst of all this. I think these [Florida Bar] people don't have any - don't have a sense of democracy in their bodies. They don't understand what freedom is about. They don't understand that the great infringer of freedoms in our nation's history and world history is government. These people don't care about that. They care about their view of ethics. They don't care about the little ones that are harmed by these people through their illegal commercial enterprises.

If this Court finds... If this Court wants to act upon their suggestion that you can find me guilty... for things that don't even involve the practice of law, then I will go on with my life... we'll just have to deal with that and we'll move on and we'll get a remedy in another venue [i.e. - the federal court system]

But, Judge, thank you for your kind offices and your courtroom for the last nine days; and I particularly appreciate your bailiff...

TUMA: ...The only thing the Bar would add is that we will put our closing in writing to Your Honor...

NEXT: GP's recap of the series...


Comments

@chadachada

We don't know that she is dying but if someone has cancer or something like it it's best to take care of him or her instead of doing something eles major.

He doesn't get it, does he?? I find myself wondering if he feels he has any professional obligations at all as a function of his station. If he feels some obligation to protest certain issues, he should do so; but if he were CIVIL about it, he would be well within his rights. What I don't quite understand is how he thinks he's helping his own case. If he really cares about the issues he protests, he must know that leaving a line of pissed-off-judges in his wake will not help him advance his own agenda. There is value in biting your tongue.

Something about all the scripture nonsense really doesn't sit right with me. I'm not an overly religious person, nor do I know much about the bible, but quoting one comment where Jesus talks about drowing people strikes me as..questionable. I suspect Jesus might have understood that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

I hope Judge Tunis' Report says something to the effect of:

Respondent asserts that, regardless of the outcome in this matter, he will continue his present conduct unabated. That may be both Respondent's choice and right. However, it is my recommendation that Respondent's future conduct does not bear the imprimatur of the Florida Bar.

If he really wanted to be like Jesus he'd be more two-fisted about it. Jesus didn't send faxes to the moneychangers until they left the temple because he broke their machine.
Too bad jack-jack's such a coward that he can't even be a _real_ religious nut.

There's a bit of a problem in his using of the Fieger thing, at least as far as I understand it.

Geoffery Fieger (let me be clear in that I'm no fan of the guy) said what he did in the capcity of his job as a radio show host. While he is indeed a lawyer and certain standards of behaviour do apply, they only apply when he's actually acting as a lawyer.

Evey single one of Thompson's bad behaviours have been commited while he has been acting as a lawyer. It would appear, based on that, that the bar standards would apply.

"If this Court finds… If this Court wants to act upon their suggestion that you can find me guilty… for things that don’t even involve the practice of law, then I will go on with my life… we’ll just have to deal with that and we’ll move on and we’ll get a remedy in another venue [i.e. - the federal court system]"

in other words...... "it doesn't matter what happens here, I'll still escalate this as high as I can"

@GP:

I assume Jack previously presented evidence to support his closing "private attorney general with a pro bono client" argument and that's why Bar Counsel wasn't leaping to her feet, shouting, "Objection!"

GP: Not having seen his testimony, I can't say. But that was always the operative theory in his drive to have Bully declared a public nuisance. I think the law itself is well-established, but is typically applied to environmental issues.

I believe Mr. Thompson played his hand well. I've been following the series (Awesome job GP), and seen a lot of criticism about his legal...umm...tactics (line of questioning, arguments, evidence).

However, all of his effort has tied in kind of nicely with his closing argument. When it comes to his own self defense, he is kind of consistent, neh?

He usually is able to justify his means through his religious beliefs, pity, martyrdom, passion, and personal strife. This has worked for him in the past, so again, pretty well played. Without emphasis on specific events,he is using the 1st Amendment and his crusade to defend his vitriolic attacks on those who have opposed him or ruled against him.

So, this is a conduct hearing. He has presented his argument defending his conduct, and his case isn't as weak as some think because it has worked for him before. However, the mountain of evidence and witnesses leveraged against him also presents a very strong case for misconduct. I'll hold back my prediction of the outcome until the official ruling is released.

@jkdjr25:

The Fieger case held that the language of the Michigan Bar Rule regarding statements critical of the judiciary was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Florida Bar's functionally equivalent Rule employs language totally different from Michigan's Rule and is not, in my opinion, either unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. In the Fieger case, Fieger's conduct wasn't approved by the court but, rather, the Michigan Rule that Fieger allegedly violated was disapproved -- a subtle but important difference.

For all who think Jack did a good job, I can only say that if my license hung in the balance and I hired Jack to defend me and the best he could do on closing is spew drivel all over the courtroom floor, he'd haffa gimme summa my money back -- or else.

I was thinking he'd pin his misconduct on some ethical obligation to act the way he acted. Turns out I was wrong; seems it's a religious imperative.

I like "ethical imperative" better. Cleaner and more clinical, not as touchy-feely.

@JDKJ

I'm sure he equates ethics and religion anyway.

jack thompson's internal thoughts



Oh god they can't do this my lively hood is gone....money need money......BUY MY BOOK..........wait cancer everyone feels sorry for cancer.....MY WIFE HAS CANCER.......and mocking the judges court and bailiff? I wish you were less kind and more fair? all i have to say is WTF?! it has been almost 5 months since the proceedings and the judge still hasn't come up with what todo? is the judge trying to read ever fax email court filing that thompson has ever done?

So in Jacko's world Being Christian = I get to act like a douchebag.

Reading this it seems clear that Jacko clearly has no idea why he is in trouble. He lacks a fundamental understanding of the problem. He seems to think that this is about whether or not he can defend himself from these evil wrongdoers when in reality it is whether or not he is acting like an ass.

Before reading this I thought Jacko would get a slap on the wrist. Now, I'm not so sure because he so completely failed to defend himself. I find it hard to believe that the judge won't take his fundamental failure to understand why he's in trouble into account.

OMFG I think I just figured Jack's motivation out:

Somewhere in the Gospels it mentions the Roman soldiers who crucified Jesus, throwing dice to see who gets his garments. See where I'm going? Those soldiers were playing a game -- They were early gamers! Gamers crucified Jack Thompson's Lord and Savior, THAT'S why he hates us all so much! Am I onto you, Jack?

@JDKJ: Opposing counsel's right to object is extremely limited during closing arguments, which is a better reason why bar counsel didn't object to anything.

@1AgainstTheWorld:

To use a line from Bully which uses a term from D&D: "Aaah! Critical Hit!"

@Jack Thompson:

Put down the Bible. Pick up a book of laws. Start with the Florida Bar Rules of Conduct.

Hmm... I must still be missing something since it seems that his defense somehow relies on "ability to practice law" == "freedom of speech," but I'm trying all sorts of comparisons and nothing has worked yet.

@JT,

I certainly hope that if you read this you actually listen, as I recommend that you re-read the bible a few times and learn that if you're going to call yourself a Christian you don't get to pick and choose which parts you pay attention to. Remember to pay attention to what you read in there too. All too often in the fanatical factions of Christianity members not only pick and choose what they listen to, they also pick and choose what it means and who it applies to (generally holding themselves faultless no matter what they do, while condemning anyone else for even breathing on the sabbath in a way the fanatic doesn't like). You and your kind are in no way Christian, but you sure do make great servants of whatever evil force there may be in the universe. While not a Christian anymore myself, I still feel offended for them every time I see one of your ilk giving all of Christianity a bad name, so for the good Christians that are out there please consider becoming a true Christian yourself.

In regards to your case, it appears that you're trying about the same thing you've done every time you've lost in the past, so how on Earth do you think it's going to suddenly and magically work this time? Sure there are some differences, but not enough to really make this a different defense than what you've tried offensively in the past, though I do have to congratulate you on your fairly coherent closing, given your track record it surprised me to see it.

@ everyone else,

Has anyone seen JT cry or show other powerful emotions? I'm pretty sure that a sign of being a sociopath is lack of these emotions (if I recall from my psychology classes and books correctly), though I've also heard of ones that can emulate emotions at will to "fit in" and better manipulate others. I mainly ask this since most of the transcripts in this series, along with everything else he's done that I know of, makes a strong case that he maybe a sociopath. The harassment and lack of compassion for other people along with claiming persecution whenever things don't go his way all point to this possibility.

Wait, the Bar's closing statements are going to be the last one? Why haven't we heard from Jack's testimonies? If anything his unapologetic zeal would be some of the best evidence against him- aren't we going to get to see any of it?

GP: JT testified, as I understand it for five days straight. He had no witnesses. I have also heard, but cannot confirm, that much of this consisted of reading things. I did not see that as a productive use of the space here. In addition, there is a cost in obtaining each of the transcripts.

We also did not present the testimony of a couple of non-game related witnesses for the prosecution. While probably damaging to JT, they just weren't relevant to the GP coverage.

I believe that we have fairly presented his cross-examination of the five witnesses as well as quoted his closing argument extensively.

@GetWellGamers:

Seems the Bar submitted their arguments in writing. Therefore, they wouldn't appear in GP's transcripts.

i like how he defends himself with the first amendment and claims it protects his frivolous attacks on these people with insults and constant badgering.
but then he himself does the exact same as they are, and presses charges against any and all who would disagree and insult him in some way.
Pop him a single email calling him an idiot and your immediately hunted by law enforcement and charged with harassment as he himself has stated he does with those e-mails. but its okay for him to do that, its all good? just because his religion makes him do it?
I don't believe for one moment religion has anything to do with it besides being his aliby to try and look like the good guy (playing the religious bill is just like bush talking about his religious duties to the voters)
what i find additionally funny is outside of a few other activist lawyers and a small group within, most religious outlets, churches, patrons and so on, have all but pushed Thompson aside as a self proclaimed wannabe.
They themselves play Halo 3 in church!
I still don't see how he can use incomplete data to make his games cause violence case.
when theres more solid evidence all over to the opposite of his claim. (look at the crime rates! they've DECLINED since vid games were introduced. Though more open "slaughters" of the sort have become rampant, anyone ever bother thinking how its glorified by the media as being the best way to get yer name known for a week if yer suicidal and feel alone?)

Jack could easily have followed what he believed to be his religious belief without behaving like a petulant 6 years-old or filing spurious legal complaints all over the place. God didn't make him do that, he did, he can hide behind God and his personal problems all he likes, but that doesn't change the fact the he chose to act in such an infantile manner.

He just cannot seem to get his head around the idea that it was his actions, not his beliefs, that got him into trouble.

Ah well, from the look of that closing statement, we won't have to worry about him as a lawyer any more.

Oh, that's about the WORST thing he can say. What's driving him is his /religion/? Yeah, right, more like abusing it. I can only see this turning out 1 way...

I didn't hear him discuss religion at all previously, why does it come up now?

You know, one of the first things you're told when you take a job, any job, is that your personal beliefs are not allowed to influence your professional conduct. In other words: when you come in to work, check your religion at the door. This is rule applies whether you're an employee at McDonald's or at a major credit card company. Breaking it goes against policy and it is something taken very seriously by all companies. And I believe it holds true for public officials as well.

Jack does not seem to understand this and never has. Being a Christian has nothing to do with your status as a lawyer. Nor does it automatically give you the God-given right to "beat your drum in the public square" as he's often put it, force your religion and brand of morality down everyone's throat through litigation and otherwise act in a disrespectful manner to those who don't live up to your moral criteria (which in Jack's case would apparently include just about everyone). It is for these reasons he should be disbarred. To put it succinctly and to reiterate, the 1st Amendment only goes so far; as a professional you are beheld to a certain level of conduct. Part of that conduct involves not allowing your personal beliefs to color and/or influence said conduct and does not protect you. I'm surprised he never realized this and hias twisted the law around to justify it.

JT's next book should be "One Angry Man." I think a more suitable closing argument would've been to address everything brought up in court in and justify them as to the ethical practice of law. After all, that's why he was there. Mentioning cases all over the country that had nothing to do with his hearing was not very coherent.

@GoodRobotUs,

Good point, I never really consciously made that connection, but it is true. JT has a complete inability to realize that it's his actions and not his beliefs that he's in trouble for. While his closing statement was more coherent than normal, it still doesn't change the fact that it was mostly unrelated to actually defending himself, so I agree that we won't have to worry about him as a lawyer much longer.

Objection!

He's taking the Bible out of context! After all, I'm sure the entire document wasn't submitted as evidence...

@me:

He actually did mention religion during his cross examination of Ms. Ward in Part 5.

Then I submit to them the psychological forensic evaluation of me by Dr. Oren Wunderman, who’s used by the Florida Bar because they considered him an expert…

Wait... Dr. Wunderman wasn't used by the bar. He was chosen by Jack because he was a family friend and attends the same church as Jack. (I'm pulling this from memory, so if I'm wrong let me know.)

It seems to me that at every turn, Jack tries to lie a little bit more, like a fisherman retelling the story of the fish he almost caught.

He is constantly lying more and more, and yet proclaims to be Christian. He is trying to pull out claims of pettyness and such that we have only seen in him. Come on, the idea that they served him at his home because they knew that his wife would be home alone with bedrest and unable to get up? That is a rediculous accusation. It's like he thinks people sit around and try to think up stuff, as if the lawyers said, "We need to serve him this lawsuit, but we must think of the way to cause the most pain to his family in the process. Until the R&D dept comes up with the papers with razor blades embeded, the best I can think of is to..."

Even in his closing statements, he tries to play the martyr, tries to play the First Admendment card, claiming that he is the only one who is allowed to it because he is the only perfect one.

Also, he seems to forget that there is a difference between free speech and harrasment. He was harrassing anyone who stood against him. He claimed he was exercizing free speach and free religion, he might as well have just said they were "Fair Game". And now this Judge is experiencing the same thing.

SPeaking of which, he knows he is in trouble, which is why he is trying this F.B.I. thing. He is claiming that the Judge having the signature forged (as told by an unlicenced amature forensic hobbiest who has had their testimony thrown out of court) means they don't have the right to pass judgement. But the logic is missing. What did they have to gain by faking a signature? Did the judge have some sort of sleeping sickness they had to cover up? In short, he is trying everything he can do to derail his disbarrment.

I'm afraid any parties you have planned for when the sentence is passed will be premature. You already know he will do everything he can to go up the chain of appeals. And he will be preaching intollerance and trying to grab the limelight as much as he can, meanwhile waiting for someone to get hurt so he can rush to their families aid by claiming that all of their problems are caused by thetan... I mean video games.

@Jack Thompson, who stated in closing:

"Then I submit to them the psychological forensic evaluation of me by Dr. Oren Wunderman, who’s used by the Florida Bar because they considered him an expert… and he said: “Look. This guy’s a competent attorney. He’s, in effect, under attack by people who don’t like what he’s doing and his religious faith not only animates what he does, but also enriches his practice of law and enriches his capabilities as a lawyer…”

Jack, where does Dr. Wunderman's evaluation, whether expressly or impliedly, say anything of the sort?

There's this thing called "The Truth," Jack. You may do well to one day acquaint yourself with the concept.

"JT: My book, which you wouldn’t allow into evidence, recounts the efforts - past efforts - of the Florida Bar to improperly discipline me, which resulted in the payment of damages and so forth… That’s in evidence by the virtue of my testimony."

So the court wouldn't allow a book, written by a person who spent 9 days spinning yarns of vast conspiracies against him because he belonged to the most popular religion in the world, into evidence? Good job, court system isn't broken after all.

@ Ragnaar

OVER RULED!


So let me understand this.

He's on trial and I'll sum it all up in a single word, Asshatery. (If that word isn't in the dictionary I'm copywriting that.) But through out the trial he tries to bring Take Two into the trial. Brags in front of the judge that he told a witness to "Go Fuck themself" And questions witnesses about non sense crap that has nothing to do with the trial. Then has a closing aruement that sounds like "I'm chatolic so there for I'm god soldier and your all going to hell!"

Did I understand all this correctly?

Shouldn't the Bar lawyer have called out Jack on his lies about the psych exam? Or is there no "Objection, he's lying"? I certainly hope not, and I also hope that the actual documents are included in the evidence for the judge to see how badly JT was lying at that point.

So, to sum up Jack's argument:

1) He's not guilty because God told him to act like a jackass.
2) His wife has cancer.
3) No, U!

Did I miss anything?

I've figured it out... this is Moby Dick.

JT = Captain Ahab
White Whale = video games

Okay, so it's not quite like Moby Dick...

The thing is, if I were a lawyer, with my current personal belief that religion is a personal thing, not something you force upon those around you, and started posting these spurious accusations and insults, not as an opinion piece on a Radio Show, but as a Press Release, then I would be looking at disbarment.

That closing statement isn't saying 'I'm being persecuted because of my religion', it basically says, 'I should be allowed to do things that would get an atheist lawyer fired, because I'm a Christian.'

He's demanding that the rules be relaxed because he is religious, but trying to dress it up as persecution.

You know how Jack likes to quote the bible at the end of his harrasments? I have a quote for him:
2 Corinthians 11:13; "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ."

I just think it's an appropriate line.

@Jack Thompson:

Just because Dr. Wunderman was willing to subject his professional reputation to public scorn by erroniously concluding that you suffer from no mental impairments which would effect your ability to practice law does not at all force the conclusion that you are a competent attorney. Dr. Wunderman is not an attorney nor did he subject you to the Bar's skill and knowledge examination. He is completely unqualified to render an opinion as to whether or not you are a competent attorney. And, perhaps accordingly, his evaluation of you reports no such thing.

@Ebonheart,

Basically, as far as I can divine from all this, yes you are correct, though he's also working on the "me practicing law == my first amendment right" fairly ineffectively. He's also playing for sympathy in his closing, but from my understanding when being served with something it has to have a copy goto your house directly so they can be sure that you received it in a timely manner, so his sympathy ploy basically equates to "they did what they were supposed to do while my wife was recovering so shame on them."

Dennis, thanks for answering my question, and thanks for taking the time to do this.

Judging from the hundreds of comments on each segment, its clear just how important this is to gamers.

Personally, i find the man morally repugnant, and i can only hope that Judge Tunis can see the man as he really is, a vicious, twisted creature, who cannot abide anyone or anything that does not meet his criteria of 'good'

@Mogbert
An excellent retort to Jack.

I couldn't keep reading after the third paragraph. I swear that guy just loves to hear himself talk.

Ix:

I think it's clear for all to see that Jack's the kinda guy who would take advantage of an opponent's wife having cancer in order to say, "See, that's God's retribution raining down on you for distributing a pornographic murder-simulator." Sympathy for Jack? Ha! About as likely as sympathy for the Devil.

So my interpretation of his entire closing argument is this:

JT: It's my first amendment right to violate your [gamers] first amendment rights.

GP -

You should write a book detailing this guy and the fun you've been able to have weaved into your life for reporting on, and having contact with him.

I think it would be a good read.

@jds:

I beat him to it. And got a copyright to prove it. But I do mention GP frequently and in glowing terms. :)

"Little Ones" in the bible does not mean children. Jesus was talking about weak believers and the path to redemption, and how those in the place of redemption (i.e. the apostles) should not hinder a believers ability to repent. Children were irrelevant in the matter.

Furthermore, Mr. Thompson is arguing that his crusade is religiously motivated, but time after time he has been on hand during tragedies to whisper poisoned words of lawsuits and multimillion dollar settlements. I believe there was a line about the merchants in the temple from that book he enjoys so. Care to postulate on the peddling of his wares in tattered and shabby robes?

@JDKJ,

Yes, I'm well aware that he's not getting any sympathy from it, and I agree that he is the sort of person who would claim it was divine judgment against an opponent who either they, or their spouse, gets cancer. This however is not the reason why he's not going to get any sympathy for his point, he gets none since he it seems to me he's saying exactly what I quoted above, "They did what they were supposed to do while my wife was sick so shame on them," which has no ability to garner sympathy from really anyone towards him. Maybe a bit for his wife, but none for him since his argument for getting it is completely wrong.

@Ghost Coins:

My favorite was his allusion to Matthew 23:27 (Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.). That's Jack-O in a nutshell.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenOr no! It wasn't Y3K compliant. Microsoft thought it best to super future proof its OS and skipped straight to 10 which is Y3K compliant!09/30/2014 - 5:01pm
Andrew EisenJust tell them it wasn't Y2K compliant.09/30/2014 - 5:00pm
Craig R.Looking forward to having to explain to coworkers down the road what ever happened to 9 *sigh*09/30/2014 - 4:57pm
Craig R.2k was crap. XP was solid, 7 is good, 8.1 is actually really good once you make it look like 7 :)09/30/2014 - 4:52pm
Sora-Chan@MP As someone who has used each version of windows since 3.1... I prefer Vista over 7 for various reasons. The only thing I give 7 over Vista is preformance. They really screwed up a bunch of things when making 7. Also, XP was a pain. 2k was better.09/30/2014 - 4:13pm
Jessy Hart@E. Zachary Knight Is that show called Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures?09/30/2014 - 3:34pm
IanCWin 8 isn't bad, it just can't decide whether to be a desktop OS or a tablet OS.09/30/2014 - 2:40pm
IanCI think its a way of getting round giving it free to Win 8 users...09/30/2014 - 2:39pm
MaskedPixelanteWindows alternates between bad and good versions. XP was good, Vista sucked, 7 was good, 8 sucked, therefore 10 will suck, QED.09/30/2014 - 2:18pm
E. Zachary KnightPerhaps they are calling it "10" because on a scale of 1-10 of how awesome it is, it is a clear 10.09/30/2014 - 2:06pm
E. Zachary KnightTo be fair. Microsoft has had a bit of a numbering issue lately. What with going from XBox 360 to XBox One.09/30/2014 - 2:06pm
NeenekoI remember the pac man show from the 80s, but I was more picturing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWL6j0SvqV0 which is probably more source accurate then Tetris will be...09/30/2014 - 1:42pm
Andrew EisenThat is so dumb. That would be like Sony saying, "Hey guys! The next Playstation is going to be so awesome, so far beyond what the PS4 can do that we're going to call it the Playstation 6!"09/30/2014 - 1:42pm
Matthew WilsonMicrosoft reveals windows 10 http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/09/the-next-version-of-windows-will-be-windows-10/09/30/2014 - 1:26pm
E. Zachary KnightThere is actually a Pacman tv show and it isn't bad. My kids like it.09/30/2014 - 12:53pm
NeenekoTetris.. the movie? It is sad when a joke becomes real. Next up pacman and minesweeper!09/30/2014 - 12:42pm
Andrew EisenIt remixes existing content into different scenarios, yes.09/30/2014 - 12:34pm
ZippyDSMleeIn't the adventure map just regurtiated content in diffrent sqaures?09/30/2014 - 12:24pm
MaskedPixelanteThe phasing out of the iPad 2 begins. Pokemon TCG Online REQUIRES an iPad with a retina display to run.09/30/2014 - 12:05pm
Andrew EisenIf you can't get enough of Hyrule Warriors' gameplay, yeah, it's looking like a pretty good deal.09/30/2014 - 12:03pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician