The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 8): Thompson’s Closing Statement
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…
March 27th, 2008 at 5:26 am
what.. so he basically says he can do what he wants , because its down to his religion?
im sorry but no even if i believed he were genuinely motivated due to religion i cant agree with that. In an extreme situation which could result in some severe personal aggreivement, i.e. being forced to have a blood transfusion against your religious beliefs, througha method which basically amounts to an invasion of your body, then yes. but this.. this is merely his opinion. There’s no serious gravity of consequence like in my previous example. And you cant go around doing anything you like because its ‘opinion’.
On top of that i believe this is a man who knows the legal system and uses religion as an excuse. I dont believe any christians would condone the severe harrassment and insults he has thrown about. I dont beleive he is truly motivated by religion at all. At least not the religion of christianity.
The religion of ego and money… perhaps.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:28 am
‘’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.'’
talking in the 3rd person.. and plugging your book…
yeah i definitely believe his religion is that of ego and money.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:31 am
oh and countles emails calling people ’stupid’ and ‘idiots’ and saying gamers ‘frontal lobes are fried’ is in no way , and can be in no way construed, as being religiously motivated.
sorry for the triple post, im just very angry about this.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:35 am
“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.”
How is that any different from Thompson own actions… trying to take away other’s liberties?
March 27th, 2008 at 5:39 am
what you was called to do.
you freak.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:40 am
This was a lot more coherent than I expected it to be.
Emotionally manipulative, but pretty effective. I hope all will go well.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:45 am
“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 basically his argument is “My wife was sick so that gives me the right to act like a total douchebag?” I also like his arrogant assumption that the Judge doesn’t understand what it’s like to have a sick family member.
There’s also so many lies and misstatements in the whole thing…but I’ll leave that to other people to comment about. XD
March 27th, 2008 at 5:51 am
He just contridicted himself, If he says he has the right to say these things then Rockstar and Take-Two has the right to release any game they want.
JT do NOT compare youself to Jesus it will only make you look more of an ass.
Adding religion to anything is a slippery slope it may help you or will will hurt you. This will hurt JT.
I highly doubt that Jack cares about his wife at all. If she is sick then the right thing to do after losing this is for Jack to take care of her. Jack if you read this, take care of your dying wife….
I guess religion make him say that so-and-so should molest children
I guess religion make him post kiddie porn to judges and lawyer from around the US
I guess religion make him post porn to judges and lawyers from around the US
I guess religion make him say to those that disagree with him “currupt” and “Lie”
I guess religion make him say to those that disagree with him do un-Christian like things like being a bully and cussing
I guess religion make him lie about just about anything
I am not an athist but if you throw the word Religion and “Jesus made me do it” It better be for something a hell of a lot better than this.
Yes Jack Thompon has the right to be a lawyer (even if we don’t agree) but Jack time and time again that being a lawyer to a loseing cause can only lead downhill. If Jack was a normal Lawyer he might even be good (notice the word might) but as far as I am concern he need to retire now to not face the harsh facts that is about to be giving to him.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:51 am
the thing i hate is the fact he picks and chooses which bits of his ‘religion’ to follow when it suits him.
apparently he can ignore the teachings to treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated, and turning the other cheek, and showing compassion. If hes using religion as a defense he cant pick and choose which bits to apply
March 27th, 2008 at 5:57 am
My religion demands that I must play Bully extensively. Consequently, Thompson’s attempts to have it banned infringe on my religious liberty.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Actually, NovaBlack, that’s what religions do.
However, I don’t understand Thompson’s argument at all. So he can sue against freedom of speech and arts because his religion tells him so? What religion in the world tells people to forbid things to people who are not members of that religion?
March 27th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Right, Mr. Thompson. You’re a christian, so you’re allowed to be a complete and utter asshole to people, and everyone else, INCLUDING other Christians, cannot. Right. That sounds SOOOO fair.
“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…”
Anyone else misread this as ‘Did i give you the finger’?
“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.”
Right, like that other lawyer or whoever it was that you thought was DECEASED.
“So, Judge, this is First Amendment speech. It’s been engaged in to protect the integrity of the judicial process…”
Yes, it gives you the right to speak. But it also gives everyone the right that, if you annoy the bejesus out of them, they can tell you to STFU. Guess you missed that one.
“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,”
Whoa, wh-ch, wha, whoa, WHAT?? He’s crazy…
“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;”
While i may not know the differences in debilitating effects between a surgery for different cancers, but my mother had several different treatments and surgeries for breast cancer over the past year and a half or so. While its certainly tasking on the body, as far as i could see, it wasn’t so tasking that she couldn’t walk up to the door of her OWN HOUSE for two seconds to pick up the newspaper or something.
So really, he’s trying to throw in the sympathy card that his wife had to lift a finger for almost literally two seconds to get something at the door. BRILLIANT.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:12 am
So he threatens that if disbarred he’ll keep being an ass. Wasn’t the point of this to give him a chance to defend his being an ass, rather than to threaten more of it?
“Soandso you are accused of robbing banks!”
“Yes! And if convicted I’ll keep doing it! AN INVISIBLE SKY MONSTER TELLS ME TO DO SO!”
March 27th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I’m sorry, did Jack just say that he was Called By God to do this? Woah… bad point to make in Court.
Are we ever going to see the whole of the texts?
March 27th, 2008 at 6:20 am
Hhm, the problem is, while his argument was completely irrelevant and pointless, it was still quite good for what it was.
For the first time ever, I reckon he made a good speech.
Hopefully the judge will remember that Thompson’s on trial for completely different reasons.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:21 am
and now at the end he trys to put on the charm. Althou i think his earlyer actions have screwd its chances of working. Jack claims christianity and the early testiment has a bit ya know an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (jack loves this) but new testiment (jesus) kind of revoked that you know with the whole if someone strikes one cheek turn and let him strike the other. also the new testimint didn’t revoke the 10 commandments even the “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.” dos’nt say your allowed to break any of the 10 commandments for the sake of the children, my interpritation of the verse jack quoted is: dont cause childeren to break the 10 commandments or god will be a bit pissed at you.
but then when has jack been any good with scripture, and/as well as contexts?
March 27th, 2008 at 6:23 am
@Jesse
Do we know that she’s dying…or just has cancer? I suppose it’s possible she has non-terminal cancer, idk. Either way, it doesn’t condone being a douche bag to everyone that disagrees with him..
March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 am
So once again, the sum of Jack’s argument is - I’m a Christian, And a much better attorney than all of you put together, so bow down before me! or suffer the terrifying consequences.
Seriously Jack, how many more times do you think that will work?
And using his wife’s cancer as a sympathy card? Jack’s tactics just got a helluva lot lower. Shame on you. I’m not a Christian, but you give them a very bad name.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am
It’s amazing how he misses the point entirely. He is attempting to make the whole issue into how he has been denied his 1st amendment rights by the florida bar and how they have attacked him for saying things they don’t like. Unfortunately for him, this is not the issue at hand. It is not the fact that he spoke out against judges he did not agree with, but HOW he went about it.
There are proper channels to go through with reporting grievances or concerns about officials, and writing nasty, personally hurtful letters and making false statements about those you view as enemies are not the proper channels.
Funny how he claims he has a “duty” to speak out against the “pharisees” as he refers to them. Would he not have a more basic and overriding duty in the commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour”?
Finally, it’s disgusting for a lawyer to try and shill his book in his closing argument, and even worse, to play the sympathy card in an effort to make him look like the victim, when it’s his unprofessional and vile behaviour that has put him in the position he is in now.
March 27th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Actually, reading this part - I thought about how it really read:
“I don’t understand what freedom is about. I don’t understand that the great infringer of freedoms in our nation’s history and world history is narrow minded idiots like myself. But I don’t care about that. I care about their view of ethics. I don’t care about the little ones that are harmed by my actions through my frivolous legal enterprises.”
March 27th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I just hope this ends with him disbarred, his conduct in a defense of his conduct was a comical irony in itself.
By the way, does anyone know the reletive date when the judge might give a decision?
March 27th, 2008 at 7:04 am
It really bugs me when Thompson uses the bible and Jesus to defend himself and his actions. I may not be the most practicing Catholic but Thompson is the biggest hypocrite there could possibley be and seeing someone like him quote biblical text just…
March 27th, 2008 at 7:05 am
He wanted his BOOK submitted as evidence? Would he supply it or would the court have to buy their own copy?
Ovarian cancer, whilst a nasty thing, is not the most complicated of cancers to treat. My sister had uterine cancer and she was very fatigued from the radiation therapy but managed a normal life throughout. Either way, using that as a way of gaining points is a pretty disrespectful & manipulative thing to do. Wonder if he’d have done it if the judge was male or if he’s trying to make Tunis think “Hey, I have ovaries, it could have been me!”? Lets all hope that Mrs T has/will recover from this.
Damnit! I shouldn’t have shortened her surname, now all I can see in my mind is jack thompson coming home at the end of the day to greet his wife, Mr T in a frumpy dress & badly plastered on makeup… A fool I would truly pity.
@GP
Will we get to hear Tuma’s closing argument as well or is the written statement not part of the transcript you got?
@DavCube
“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,”
Whoa, wh-ch, wha, whoa, WHAT?? He’s crazy…
Not only that, it’s poor grammar. He should have said “My wife and I”
@SeanB
Are we ever going to see the whole of the texts?
GP said that we might get them after this article series is over, its a hell of a lot of work to scan all those pages.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Jack really does have a martyr complex… which is amusing given the way he harasses anyone he disagrees with.
It does look like the Fieger case may get him off the hook for some of his bad behaviour, so at least that’s a coherent argument. The problem of course is the Fieger comments don’t sound like they amounted to anything like the kind of persistent and wide ranging hate campaign Jack conducts. Moreover, and even more critically, the Fieger ruling certainly does not get him off the hook regarding accusations of trial fixing (as GP mentions). All in all, it doesn’t sound hopeful for Jack.
BTW did you guys know he wrote a book!? Love the way he slips that in there
Gift.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I’m worried.
I really don’t think he’ll be disbarred people. I think the games he has played, espically in regards Judge Tunis’ oath (how pathetic), and his performance against Judge Friedman, as well as this mostly coherent, though rampantly self obsessed, closing arguement might tip the favour.
Dennis, whats your gut feeling? Have you spoken to any lawyer about this? How do they feel? (is it bad form to ask dennis questions like this?)
Personally, i’m disgusted by how he has manipulated facts and twisted events to suit himself, but i’m informed of all of his tricks. Judge Tunis, however, will be unaware of his lies.
Like i said, i’m worried
GP: I think Judge Tunis, both through the testimony at the Bar trial, as well as the various suits and complaints and criticisms Thompson has thrown at her has a pretty good idea of who JT is and what he’s about.
I do expect that she will recommend he be disbarred. That said, I also expect that he will do everything he can to delay, block or legally challenge any such recommendation.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Umm… freedom of religion doesn’t allow one to violate legal rulings, or harass other lawyers/judges. Sorry, that’s not how it works. Bad lawyer, no cookie.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:37 am
What the hell was that?
Yet again he seems confused as to why he’s on trial.He’s not on trial because he’s saying unpopular things. He’s on trial for acting like a petulant child unbecoming of an attorney.
Not only that, but right in the beginning he said it himself. He’s going to continue acting the way he does no matter what.
If I was the judge on this case, I’d have issues my ruling immediately after closing arguments and disbarred Jackhole right there. He didn’t put up a defense at all.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:37 am
@chadachada:
I believe in another segment, he mentions his wife’s potentially terminal cancer.
JT: “… 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.”
Motivation isn’t what this is about. It’s practice. It’s not even practice of religion. It’s practice of law.
JT: “‘… 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 for point B: No. I think they meant obsession with photography. It’s proven you are obsessed with photos if, for nothing else, you decide to send photos in your e-mails, and in your filings with the court system. One “children’s book for adults” comes to mind at this point.
As for pornography, you appear to be obsessed with that as well, hence the filing of a gay porn picture to the courts at one pont. You try to shroud your obsessions under the guise of “religion tells me to do so,” but it’s the frequency at which you mention these.
JT: “… 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.”
I wouldn’t say “perfectly” in this case. Sane? That point I’ll cover in a bit. There’s no way you’re “perfectly” sane. If you were, you wouldn’t have been sanctioned by SCOFLA because of frivelous and improper filings.
JT: “… 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…”
Didn’t anyone ever tell you that being licensed isn’t a right but a priveledge? That’s all I heard about getting a driver’s license growing up. The concept is the same here. And let me make this perfectly clear. Your words and actions in these hearings as well as other moments while practicing law suggest that you are a hypocrite and a liar yourself. There are times when you think you’re using hyperbole, but some of those instances, you out and out lie.
JT: “…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…”
You’re wicky in the wacky woo. That’s their position. Again, it’s not a matter of motivation. It’s a matter of practice. There’s a reason there’s a separation of Church and State.
I have to laugh at this next bit…
JT: “… 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…’”
You may have been competent in ‘92. You don’t appear to be anymore. It is true that many, many people don’t like what you’re doing there, Mr. Thompson, but don’t let that confuse the issue at hand. It is your antics, not your faith, that’s on trial here.
I’m tired of quoting, but the second part (and segued into the third part) pretty much says they’re infringing on his First Amendment rights. Again, that’s not what’s on trial here. It’s the professionalism and decorum while practicing law that is. Again, having a license is a priveledge, not a right… and it is shown here that you have abused that priveledge several times over.
March 27th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Okay, so help me out here (for I, admittedly, am not a lawyer). With all of Jack’s usual paranoid conspiracy theories and messianistic jibber-jabber… exactly how relevant is all this to the hearing at hand? I didn’t see where he was claiming to have been provoked into acting like a spoiled child and becoming a fax-murderer… the only thing I really noticed was at the end where he said his actions had no relevance to his status as a lawyer. Is that the crux of his arguement, or am I missing something?
March 27th, 2008 at 7:50 am
@paul
You’d think even any half-good judge knows when someone tries to buy symphaty points with a pretty speech. Don’t know how it works if you make youself look like an ass instead…
Even this text, that has to be much, much more charming than most of the stuff he has said, has more than couple parts that rub you most sane people the wrong way…
He claims his opposers have threatened to rape his wife? It figures some random idiot has, considering how much of an asshole the guy is, but the same ones who have filed complaints about him? Can’t possibly be a good move to imply so… Though it sounds like that, it’s more likely that he just puts all his opposers in the same box, that works single mindedly to take him down. Too bad he didn’t go deeper into that conspiracy, isn’t it?
Jacko, when you piss off people at the rate you do, there has to be no plan to put you down. It’s you who is organizing all the hate towards yourself, not the people who hate you. That’s what happens when you let the whole world know you’re an asshole.
And he compares himself to Jesus? He was close to doing it before, I must admit I hoped he would do it again bit more drastically… Looks I got my wish.
Never ever compare yourself to Jesus. It might work as joke when you act ridiculously egoistic on purpose, to get a few laughs with your friends, but it sure as hell won’t work in a court room.
The whole thing of religion just stinks mile away. You can’t do ANYTHING under the cloak of faith.
And the First Amendment… From what I’ve gathered, lawyers do have their own set of rules they need to follow, so it really doesn’t work that way. But hey, he can complain when they take his license away. He’ll have the full freedom of speech then.
Besides (while I don’t know the system there), there has to be other ways to complain that send countless of insulting letters, not to mention, makes both insulting and false claims of these people more or less public.
There’s no way he can get away with that.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Gift:
The Fieger case doesn’t get him off the hook. If anything, he should get the hook for misrepresenting to the court the holding in Feiger. The Fieger case was an apple. Jack’s case is an orange.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:07 am
He’s thanking the Court (and thus the Judge) Repeatedly for their time, and yet he’s filing motions to see Dava Tunis thrown off the case?
I CALL BULLSHIT!
March 27th, 2008 at 8:08 am
@paul:
the man is good at twisting thing true, and he gets out of alot because he can paint a lie as truth unless you know the truth then his lies look poorly constructed
my gut says nothing neither yes, neither no (even thou you asked dennis)
however Judge Turnis seems to be taking the max ammount of time before ruleing on the matter, and that means the judge is waiding through all the evedence submited, the courts notes, her notes, the record, and hopefuly doing research.
as to the oath thing if and only if it works (Judge Turnis did seem to give JT some leeway and ground to scamper about on aka a bit of preferental treatment to jack otherwise he would have been nailed on all the rules of conduct, etc that he breeched (includeing giveing the presideing judge lots of lip)) it will work only once. He may get retrialed with another judge (who will probably not be so nice and forgiving), but if he attempts the same crud again im sure he would get hoisted for delaying the legal prosses.
no im not in the legal profession so i have no clue about the subtelty’s of law that jack seems weild with all the grace of a riverdanceing sloth having a seisure, but im sure that law is ment to be used more like a olympic fencing match.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:12 am
@Jack Thompson:
If you’re saying that because you take a client’s matter pro bono, you’re not, in handling that matter, still subject to the Bar’s Rules of Conduct, then you are more ignorant than I had imagined. That don’t even get you a “nice try.”
March 27th, 2008 at 8:15 am
So, his defense is “I’m religious, I can do whatever I want” and “This is a criminal libel case”
Except his religion says to love every man, and this is neither a criminal, nor a libel case. He really is in his completely own world isn’t he?
March 27th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Coherent agrument? Ha!! When you can’t keep straight the difference between “in camera” and “ex parte,” you get no coherency points. Not in my book.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Well, that was, Disturbing.
Not to be mean, but that was about the most pandering thing I’ve ever seen. it’s also very strange to hear him bitch and whine about his Rights and his Liberties while he spends his life attacking the rights and liberties of others.
Dennis, I can only assume that your wrap up will hopefully include the closing arguments from the other side?
Good work but dang, is it just me, or does this guy really seem to be hiding his panic?
GP: Yuki, the Bar had no verbal closing. They submitted it in writing to the Judge.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:17 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:25 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:25 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:27 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:29 am
“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”
March 27th, 2008 at 8:32 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:37 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:48 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:49 am
I laughed when he plugged his book. I also laughed when he said he tried to enter it as evidence.
I am sorry John Bruce. Conjecture and hearsay do not qualify as “evidence”. It has to be real.
He seriously misses the point of the bar hearing. He also misses the point of the First Amendment. The first amendment gives him the right to say the things he did. But it does nto give him the right to break rules that he agreed to follow. This hearing is about him breaking ethics rules. Not speaking out against judges and lawyers.
He seems to think that he has a right to be a lawyer. He seems to think that the First Amendment means he can be a lwayer. I am sorry. It does not. You still have the right to petition the government. You still have the right to speak out against corruption or what you conceve as corruption. You don’t have the right to break ethincs rules that you agreed to follow.
His bringing up religion is laughable. He claims that his religion gives him the right to be a jerk. I am sorry. That is not the case. You have the right to excersize your religion, but you don’t have the right to break ethics rules you agreed to follow.
I hope you are seeing a trend here.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:56 am
@JDKJ
I’m sure he equates ethics and religion anyway.
March 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:04 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:07 am
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:08 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am
@1AgainstTheWorld:
To use a line from Bully which uses a term from D&D: “Aaah! Critical Hit!”
March 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
@Jack Thompson:
Put down the Bible. Pick up a book of laws. Start with the Florida Bar Rules of Conduct.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:12 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:15 am
@GetWellGamers:
Seems the Bar submitted their arguments in writing. Therefore, they wouldn’t appear in GP’s transcripts.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
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?)
March 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
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…
March 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I didn’t hear him discuss religion at all previously, why does it come up now?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:32 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:33 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:34 am
“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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:36 am
@ 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?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
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…
March 27th, 2008 at 9:39 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:42 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:42 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:43 am
@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.”
March 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I couldn’t keep reading after the third paragraph. I swear that guy just loves to hear himself talk.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:54 am
So my interpretation of his entire closing argument is this:
JT: It’s my first amendment right to violate your [gamers] first amendment rights.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:55 am
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.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:58 am
@jds:
I beat him to it. And got a copyright to prove it. But I do mention GP frequently and in glowing terms.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
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?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:05 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:08 am
@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.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Best wishes to Mrs. Thompson. I hope you have a complete recovery, but your husband is still nuts.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am
JDKJ (Re: Mat23:27)
The irony is palpable.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am
*headdesk* I know many, many christians, some of whom are very concervative, who still manage to behave in a reasonable and polite manner even when confronting things they are quite against.
So I would say his religious freedom argument falls pretty flat.
@Ghost Coins
Somehow I doubt JT is actually all that familiar with bibilical issues. He seem the type to cherry pick quotes that he hears without any real understanding of them.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:13 am
@Phalanx
Hear Hear!
Let’s prove that we aren’t satanistic murdering perverts, as Jack claims. Not that it’ll make any difference to him.
So yeah, to Mrs Thompson, I wish you a speedy recovery.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:16 am
@phalanx
I have the same sentiment for the wife…. but calling the husband nuts is like calling a hurricane a light drizzle, and even then the magnitude of insanity is still pretty unreal.
GP: Major agreement on the recovery wishes to Mrs. JT (who is a partner in a major Miami firm herself)… I have studiously avoided mention of this on GP as I don’t believe it is appropriate to drag families in. However, since he made it a significant part of his close, I could not justify leaving it out.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I honestly still have this sinking suspicion that Jack Thompson still isn’t going to be disbarred. It sucks to say, but I really just have a hard time imagining it happening, especially when he’s hiding behind religion.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am
If he were up in front of a disciplinary board for timekeeping, productivity, or falling asleep at his desk and he used the fact he was caring for his wife as a defence, then that, to me, would be perfectly acceptable defence.
Still not sure I buy the ‘I’ve been sending people 10-20 Emails a day and being even more prolific as a censor and hippocrite, but you should let me off because you pulled me up on it when my wife was ill’ really cuts the biscuit. As sorry as I feel for his wifes’ illness, and I wish her a speedy and full recovery, I simply cannot see how this defence is supposed to work.
I lost an uncle some months ago to Motor Neuron Disease, and that, I can assure you, is no way to go, in the end, your lungs end up not receiving the message that says ‘breath’, I was pretty torn up about it, had some problems getting motivated for work, and was generally irritable. Work were very good about it, but had I started behaving as Jack does, making official statements that people around me are ‘crooks, murderers and paedophiles’, then I would at least have been looking at forced medical suspension and the requirement of bereavement therapy before I returned. My job isn’t nearly as responsible or ‘visible’ as that of a lawyer, but there are standards and requirements at all levels of employment.
Had I kept that behaviour up for over 2 decades, however, far longer than my partner had unfortunately been ill for…..
March 27th, 2008 at 10:19 am
@Ghost Coins,
Hmm… yes, something about Christ kicking them out and I believe condemning them? It’s been a while since I last read that particular part, but I’m pretty sure it had something about people who set themselves up to profit by using the church have a special place down below for them. Claiming a crusade and all, then seeking enormous sums of money that’ll mostly goto himself seems even worse than the merchants and moneychangers in the temple, which themselves were bad enough that Christ actually got angry and violent. Were I still Christian, I’d say your salvation is not at all in question JT, it’s already clear that you’re trying to and have set yourself up to burn for all time based on your supposed beliefs. Heck even as someone no longer in that faith, just by past knowledge of it, I’d still be able to say that with confidence based on your actions.
Also, while your point about “little ones” is very true, it does also mean children at the same time, being one of the parables with multiple meanings to interpret from it. Children require guidance in religion and the ways of the world, at least as much as someone of weak faith, as both have little experience with divine matters and can easily be convinced of many things should an adult who appears to have authority say them. Though I must disclaim that I don’t agree with the indoctrination methods of teaching only one religion to a child and telling them it’s right before they’re even old enough to make decisions like that on their own, the fact still remains that they need moral guidance in their early age and any religion worth calling a religion will provide that.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I’ve only gotten half-way through, but what I’ve seen can be summed up in one word…sound…whatever…
BWAAAHH?!?
Where in his trial, of what we’ve seen did he ever, ever, ever, mention that this was a religious issue?
March 27th, 2008 at 10:23 am
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.
Actually, no they wouldn’t have known. They aren’t medical folk, they’re legal folk. They wouldn’t know when her surgery was, how long after it she’d be ambulatory, and so forth. Plus as I recall at the time you complained that your teenaged son had to accept the serving, so which is it him or your wife? Not that it’s a particularly taxing thing to do in any case. Rather like signing for delivery of a parcel unless I’m mistaken. Certainly it wouldn’t tax most cancer patient that I’ve known.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Yes, being a Christian allows you to believe in your faith and god,
You are entitled to it, also other people with different religions are also entitled to their own beliefs and religion,
But being a Christian, it DOES NOT allow you to bash homosexuals, rape children, or blame Videogames for Violent actions without having the evidence to back you up.
Also if Jesus was walking on earth today, he will be so embarressed by your comments that he will be entitled to have his say, and that is to say that no one else is Jesus except for the son of God.
So Jack, mate…you are NOT Jesus…
March 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Acting out of religion doesn’t absolve you of your inappropriate comments, Jack.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
I’m taking a step back to comment on his mention of his wife.
It’s not that he’s complaining at the timing. He’s complaining that they didn’t go to their family lawyer with the papers. I could be wrong, but don’t the papers need to be brought to the individual who’s being sued anyway, even if they have representation?
I do wish her well (I know the transcript is of hearings that took place a couple months ago, so here’s hoping she is and continues to be well).
March 27th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The old.. “Jesus made me do it, defense”.. god call, Jackie.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am
@JackDon’tKnowJack
“The Fieger case doesn’t get him off the hook. If anything, he should get the hook for misrepresenting to the court the holding in Feiger. The Fieger case was an apple. Jack’s case is an orange.”
Heh, I might have guessed he wasn’t being truthful. I’m not a lawyer though, so could you explain the difference please? I’d be interested to know what the Fieger case was really about. (Don’t worry if it’ll be a bit of a hassle though.)
Gift.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
@Ragnaar
I’d also normally be inclined to avoid mentioning his family, if, however, he chooses to bring them into the proceedings as part of his defence, then I think it is ok to comment on it insofar as the comments are restricted to objective opinion on it with relation to the case, and not subjective opinion of the individuals involved.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
consistency- its only a virtue if your not a skrewup. jacko has been way to consistent
March 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am
@ Ix
In other words everyone is going “WTF is he talking about?” as well. Becuase I have no idea what in the hell he is trying to prove.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:47 am
While i am no longer a practicing christian (in the sense that i no longer attend mass every week, or pray regularly), i was brought up as such. And what that taught me was that in all things, you need to treat your fellow man with respect, regardless of your own feelings towards them.
Nowhere is this more true than in a court of law, where only the rules set out by your country apply and no other things matter, not even religion or ones own feelings on the matter at hand.
Using religion, christianity in this case, as an argument for what can only be seen as the deepest of disrespect towards those who have differing opinions to your own is possibly one of the gravest deviations from the teachings i can imagine.
With your actions you have tried time and again to ruin the life of those you oppose, which is not what the bible teaches us, no matter how you twist its contents. I hope you will realise this once this is over.
Your attempts to influence the court by playing on its emotions and feelings of decency are also signs of your weakness mr. Thompson, in a court of law, it is facts and facts alone that are relevant, emotions have no purpose there. And i admit you have given preciously few facts that your actions were not breaking the rules of the Florida Bar, rules to which you yourself agreed to be kept when you received your license from them.
I see only one end in this mr. Thompson and that will be with your disbarment.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:48 am
@Ebonheart,
Yup, you got it in one. No one has so far found anything legitimate to his defense that I know of. I believe even a few lawyers came on in one of the earlier parts (part 6 maybe? not sure which one it was) of this series and agreed that he’s done nothing that actually defends his actions.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:50 am
100% Chewbacca.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Personally I think it’s funny that he is now trying to characterize himself as some sort of champion of the First Amendment (where was that argument throughout the rest of this trial? And where was the religious argument? He seems to have concocted those just for the closing statement and nothing else…), and meanwhile his entire career is based around stifling T2 and R*’s First Amendment rights. He’s a major hypocrite.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I think I see where he’s going in his defense: Yes, he’s an ass, and yes, he’s said some mean stuff, but in his defense, the actions are a) outside the court or b) retaliatory remarks at grievances against him.
Very nice, indeed. But how would that actually hold against the judge? Seems to me it would be irrelevant.
March 27th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Yes, there’s an epic level of hypocrisy in his First Amendment defense, since if it applies to everything he’s done it certainly more than covers everything he’s tried to stop/ban. But since JT decides what parts of the bible he uses when he wants to use them it’s fitting that he misunderstands and interprets US law in the same way.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
And after finishing the Closing I can still only say BWWAHH?!?
JT,
I don’t like you, and the fact of the matter is, I’m a gamer, who doesn’t like you, therefore it stands to reason that you don’t like me. But I’m still going to give you some unsolicited advice.
Honestly, your wife is/was sick. Cancer is not a fun thing, I’ve watched many people fall to it. The absolute best thing for to do/have done for her was to be with her during this/that time. She loves you more than anything on this Earth, with the obvious exception your child(ren). Be with her guy. She could be the strongest person in the world, but I bet you it would mean tons to her if you stopped your crusade long enough to help her get well. And though this might floor you, I sincerely hope she gets/has gotten better and I believe many here feel the same way.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I just have to say that yes. JT as a private citizen has the right to say whatever he wants about whoever he wants and they in turn have the right to sue him for libel or slander.
But JT was not acting as a private citizen when he filed his motions, made his statements and sent out press releases. He was acting as an officer of the court which has a standard of behavoir and an expectation of professionalism.
So yes he can say that he feels a judge is corrupt and he can submit as many lawsuits as he wants to that effect but he has to act like a human being while he does it an limit himself to facts and not rhetoric.
JT is a liar. He has repeatedly said things that he knew were not true. Has made promised in open letters, court statements and press releases that he has never had any intention of following through on.
Where is the $10k that he promised for the rock start mod that was made to his specs.
When will he announce his running for the judge’s seat?
When will he appear at the rockstar stockholders meeting?
The answer is a simple never. JT is a liar and cannot be trusted.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I love to laugh at how ludicrous this man is. He’s so blatantly stupid he fails to even notice it. On a news video about the Virginia Tech shooting, he made several stupid and illogical comments such as “I was at Virginia Tech years ago debating this issue” ok, so you can debate an issue years before IT HAPPENS? Or how about “A surveillance video showed that Cho’s heart rate was not above 60″ alright, so, how in God’s name can a surveillance camera tell you what anyone’s heart is?! He also got verbally pwned by Adam Sessler on Attack of the Show, something I found to be very amusing.
I can’t wait for this to end in his demise. He may not be actually impacting games, but he gives gamers a bad name and gives the industry, which I plan on going into, a bad name as well.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am
“I was sent by a MYTHICAL being, to save you all”
Yes, Jack… of course you were…
Zeus and the God’s of Olympus sent me to stop people like you too, by using the power of sarcasm against you. I’ve got more Gods than you!
Whatcha gonna do?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am
@JackDon’tKnowJack
“I beat him to it. And got a copyright to prove it. But I do mention GP frequently and in glowing terms.
”
You practically write a chapter each time a new GP article goes up :rolleyes:
March 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
i respect religious people, provided they respect me in return, but this whole agenda of his is just downright stupid. dont get me wrong, you can believe in whatever the hell you want to believe in provided it doesnt intrude on the lives of other people, but what he is doing does and i really hope people who have authority over him will in time recognize this. and to say the least, i hope this time is now. the whole “protect the children” element isnt something that is wrong or anything, but its now very obvious its nothing more than a front in this case and this man has no real intentions of “protecting the children”. frankly, he doesnt give a rats ass about that. and that is what is going to lead to his downfall.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:24 am
@ Paul Kerton
Attacking someone for abusing religion and attacking the religion itself are two different things. Bad form.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Bear in mind that, as noted by GP, these transcript excerpts reflect only the Bar Counsel’s case-in-chief. All the witnesses we’ve heard from are her witnesses, cross-examined (and poorly so) by Mr. Thompson. Futhermore and as also note by GP, Mr. Thompson’s case-in-chief amounted to little more than his reading documents already entered into evidence. This likely had to do with Mr. Thompson’s complete misunderstanding of the rule of completeness and his complete lack of any meaningful evidence to present. He calls not one witness to testify on his behalf. No doubt, he couldn’t find one. Mr. Thompson’s case-in-chief, consisting mostly as it does of reading previously admitted evidence into the record, can therefore fairly be described as a complete redundancy with no effect whatsoever on Bar Counsel’s case-in-chief. If Bar Counsel was ahead on points when she rested, then her point-position should be unchanged when Mr. Thompson rested.
Who thinks Jack did a “good job” defending?
March 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I know I don’t think he did a “good job” defending.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
@ yowzers
Excuse me? I don’t think I attacked religion at all there. God is a mythical being.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:41 am
I give him a C+ in his closing statement… that’s about it.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Jack Thompson!
STOP KILLING PEOPLE’S FAX MACHINES AND E-MAILS!!!
March 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
JT: “They don’t understand that the great infringer of freedoms in our nation’s history and world history is government.”
Jack understands this very well. That is why he keeps trying to push anti-game legislation despite already knowing that it completely violates the Constitutional protections of Free Speech.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:48 am
JT: “…Christian…”
Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
March 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I won’t say JT did a good job defending, because if he did then he would have brought up and attempted to defend every one of the points he made in he closing. He didn’t though. What he did do with his closing was make some arguments that to a complete layperson, sounds almost legit. He cited a case that on it’s surface looked applicable, you and other have already explained why it’s not. That’s a big deal, and a huge surprise because before this moment it was in my mind that JT was using the ‘they’re biased against me, it’s a conspiracy’ defense.
This time he looked at least kind of like a lawyer.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
@mogbert
Exactly.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I am genuinely surprised. All this time, I thought his rambling, offensive, meandering and pointless cross-examinations were building up to something a little more coherent, or at least based in law.
But nope, it turns out that JT’s entire defence can be summarized as ‘Jesus told me to’.
It is at the same time depressingly anticlimactic, but also rather revealing.
Alternate summary of his cl