With Subpoenas for Strauss Zelnick, Jeb Bush, Bully Judge & 30 Others Denied, Jack Thompson Will Boycott Sanctions Hearing

Much has happened on the Jack Thompson front Since GamePolitics broke the news last week that Judge Dava Tunis had recommended to the Florida Supreme Court that the controversial attorney be found guilty on 27 counts of professional misconduct.

With a sanctions hearing scheduled before Judge Tunis on June 4th in Miami, Thompson has been tirelessly pushing his position that Tunis has no legal authority due to an issue with a forged loyalty oath (but not forged by Tunis –  more on that below).

Thompson also tried to subpoena 33 people for next week’s hearing, including Take Two Interactive Chairman Strauss Zelnick, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Judge Ronald Friedman, who presided over the notorious Bully case in 2006. Judge Tunis denied that motion, however, citing procedural errors made by Thompson’s side.

And, with federal lawsuits already pending against the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court, Thompson has  filed yet another suit in U.S. District Court, this time naming the State of Florida as defendant. In the new case, Thompson yet again invokes the loyalty oath issue and seeks to block the Bar from proceeding against him.

In a separate federal court filing, Thompson refers to the June 4th hearing as a kangaroo court and vows not to attend unless U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard strikes down a Florida Supreme Court order which bars Thompson from filing anything with the Florida Supreme Court unless signed by another attorney.

Finally, in a just-issued filing with Judge Tunis, Thompson seeks a stay of next week’s sanctions hearing while demanding a mental health exam. Thompson complains in the document that he "has put up with this ‘Jacky is whacky’ charade long enough."

So that’s the recap… What follows are some details regarding the loyalty oath issue.

While Thompson has sought to cast Judge Tunis in a highly negative light by saying that she was the "beneficiary" of a forged loyalty oath, an investigation by the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s office indicated that a clerk apparently signed the oath without the knowledge of Tunis and two other judges. GamePolitics has received these comments from Eunice Sigler, a spokeswoman for the Miami-Dade Courts:

There are two separate and distinct documents being addressed. One is called the Oath of Office and the other is called the Oath of Loyalty. The Oath of Office is a document which, when properly executed, allows a judge or any other constitutional officer in the State of Florida to act in their official capacity in office.
First and most significantly, when Judge Tunis was appointed to the County Court bench in 2000, re-elected for a term beginning in 2003, and elevated to the Circuit Court bench in 2005, she properly executed the Oath of Office each time, as required by section 5, Article II of the Florida Constitution, before beginning her duties as a judge. These documents, provided by the Governor’s Office, were found to be in order by the Department of State as well as the Division of Elections for the State of Florida, and are not required to be notarized. That Oath of Office includes the promise to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the Government of the United States and of the State of Florida,” which incorporates the less specific Oath of Loyalty specified in section 876.05, Florida Statutes.
The second document, called the Oath of Loyalty, applies to all public employees and elected officials of the State of Florida and has no effect whatsoever on any judge’s authority or jurisdiction to act and therefore has no legal consequence as to the decisions made by any judge while serving on the bench.
When new judges as well as all new state employees begin their employment, they are given certain documents to sign.  If those individuals are employed within the court system, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides them with a packet of documents to sign. When Judge Tunis received this packet at the beginning of her service on the bench in 2000, the Oath of Loyalty, required by section 876.05, Florida Statutes, was not provided to her for her signature. However, it appears that several days later, this Oath of Loyalty was completed with a forged signature and improperly notarized by a former AOC employee, then placed in the judge’s file without her knowledge.
When Judge Tunis first became aware of this on January 31st, 2008, she immediately executed the Oath of Loyalty, which has been properly filed.
As stated before, the Oath of Loyalty has no effect whatsoever on any judge’s authority or jurisdiction to act and therefore has no legal consequence as to the decisions made by any judge while serving on the bench.
The Eleventh Judicial Circuit takes any prohibited act by a court employee very seriously. Accordingly, a request has been made that the State Attorney and Inspector General investigate the forgery and the actions of the former AOC employee, which have unfortunately victimized Judge Tunis and other judges.

Indeed, the State Attorney’s investigation into the loyalty oath issue found that Judge Tunis committed no wrongdoing whatsoever.

GP: While Thompson is pulling out all the stops to either remove Judge Tunis or postpone next week’s sanctions hearing, neither appears likely to occur. Thus, the wheels of justice are moving inexorably toward the June 4th court date. At that time, it is expected that Judge Tunis will recommend penalties against Thompson that could include disbarment. From that point, it will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to issue a final ruling.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    "So where’s the party going to be held when Thompson gets his ass disbarred?"

    Try my place on June 9, the Monday after my school gets out for summer. I’d do it the Saturday after, but my school does Graduation that day and we can’t afford to screw that up.

    As for where my place is, I wish I could tell you, but I’m not allowed to.


  2. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    "Can anyone say ‘understatement?’"

    Understatement. Yes, why yes I can.


  3. 0
    JustChris says:

    There’s a quip about a highway driver that was driving on the wrong lane, disrupting traffic. His wife calls him on his cellphone, telling him that she sees a crazy driver on the news that’s driving against the rest of the traffic. The husband replies, "funny, I see that everyone else is going the wrong way but me".

  4. 0
    Chuck says:

    Symtomaticity isn’t enough — there also has to be significant impairment of normal functions.

    Then again, disbarment is a pretty darn good indicator of that, isn’t it?


  5. 0
    Chuck says:

    Wunderman’s report was in fact dismissed.  No order was made for a psychological evaluation, except perhaps as part of privately negotiated arrangements before this came to a tribunal.  The bar is perfectly fine with calling him sane, because that makes him perfectly cognizant of his actions.  To that degree, I believe JT is perfectly sane as well.  He’s quite probably narcissistic with persecution complexes, but he’s still quite functional, and frankly he’s the same old Jack he’s always been.

    Now for a tangent:

    For a short time, I was a Buddhist, and one of the overarching themes of Buddhism and Christianity both is compassion.  While both traditions have typically stressed the pathos angle of compassion — feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and so on — there’s also the community aspects of it that get a little more elaboration in Buddhism, namely the whole "inviting the tax collectors to dinner" sort of thing.  The reasons given are different ("We’re all sons and daughters of God" vs "Their suffering is their worldview that causes them to treat others poorly") but the dictum is the same: people like Jack Thompson deserve compassion.

    I gotta tell you though, it’s hard to feel the compassion.  And I don’t really count myself as either a Christian or a Buddhist anymore, so while I don’t feel particularly _commanded_ to feel compassion for the guy, I have to catch myself whenever I start really reveling in the Schadenfreude surrounding his meteoric burnout.  When he’s disbarred — and I truly hope he is — I really hope for that to be the end of it.  He’s still going to be a wonk, he’s still going to make noise, and he’ll still need to be fought, but I’m also fairly confident he’s going to marginalize himself within five years.  Another Buddhist tenant is to not hold on to destructive attachments, after all.  I don’t have a lot of faith in JT taking that tenant to heart, but perhaps we all can.



  6. 0
    Zerodash can't login ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’m still not convinced his wife was ever sick.  He only brings it up as a bargaining chip- which is reprehensible. 

    If she was really ill, then he wouldn’t have the time to spam emails, faxes, phone calls, message boards, etc.

  7. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    I agree 100% with you that the de facto judge doctrine would function to cure a deficiency in Judge Tunis’ Loyalty Oath, In fact, I’ve been saying as much on this and other blogs for the last week or so. But that is nowhere near what the Court is saying through its spokeperson. They’re saying, if I’m reading it right, that an Oath of Office cures a deficient Loyalty Oath. Which, to me, is pure nonsense. And it’s nonsense which, unless they’re interesting in seeing Jack Thompson wiggle through a loophole, they need to quickly abandon for some other theory that maks just a little bit more sense.

  8. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    It would be funny if he brought that up. I’d have my friend remind him that he [JT] told me over e-mail that his wife had cancer a year ago and is now doing fine.


  9. 0
    Lost Question ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    your first question hav been awnsered in different posts but to condense what i have read so far the phycological evaluation he passed was administered by a member (and friend) in his congrigation at his church when the bar was trying to force to get a evaluation since he acts so crazy he fought against it with everything he could muster as you could guess things where not going well for him and before he was ordered to see a court mandated psychologist he had the test done by his friend who saw nothing wrong with jacks mental health and just said that jack is just a devout christian and since the bar wanted to force him to have a eval this move got him off the hook however now he’s paying for that move because he’s cretified sane and guilty of 27/31 misconduct charges (so sayith the referee) so now he wants another eval (aka a slap on the wrist for him) instead of facing the consiquences of what he’s been doing

  10. 0
    Lost Question ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "seek not monsters, lest ye become one." it describes jack quite well heres why.

    basically dont go looking for monsters or thats what you will become. Jack has a lot of "monsters" that he’s trying to chase regardless of his actions in trying to "catch/destroy" his "monsters" the problem is that for the most part the monsters, the victorys, and the glory exists only in his head.

    I also liked his you better agree with me and allow me to flood the court or im not going to show up forgive my lack of legal savy but not showing up isnt that contempt of court? something else? but overall its probably a very poor and ill advised idea

  11. 0
    Anonymous says:

    No idea on his psych eval, but…


    Narcissistic Personality Disorder

    1. Behavior or a fantasy of grandiosity, a lack of empathy and a need to be admired by others. As indicated by at least five of the following:

    1. Grandiose sense of self-importance.
    2. Fantasies of and preoccupied with beauty, brilliance, ideal love, power, or unlimited success.
    3. A belief of being special and unique and can only be understood or a need to associate with people of high status.
    4. A need for excessive admiration.
    5. An unreasonable expectation of being treated with favor or excepting an automatic compliance to her / his wishes.
    6. Will use others to achieve her / his goals.
    7. Lacks empathy.
    8. Believes others are envious of her / him or is envious of others.
    9. Contemptuous or  haughty attitudes / behaviors.


    Paranoid Personality Disorder

    1.   Marked distrust of others, as indicated by at least four of the following:

    1. Believes without reason that others are exploiting, harming, or trying to deceive her / him.
    2. Unjustified doubts about a friends / associates loyalty or trustworthiness.
    3. Believes with out reason that if she / he confides in others, this information somehow be used against her / him.
    4. Finds hidden demeaning or threatening meanings in harmless remarks or events.
    5. Unforgiving and bears grudges.
    6. Believes with out reason that people are out to attack his / her character or reputation and is quick to react with anger.
    7. Believes with out reason in the fidelity of their sexual partner.

    2. Symptoms not due to another mental disorder.


    quoted from http://psyweb.com/Mdisord/DSM_IV/jsp/dsm_iv.jsp

  12. 0
    Anonymous says:

    quoting from http://lp.findlaw.com/

    �0 1. JUDGES–"Judge de Facto."
    A judge de facto is one acting with color of right, and who is exercising the judicial functions he assumed.
    2. SAME–Judge do Facto Distinguished From Mere Usurper of Office and From Judge de Jure.
    A judge de facto differs, on the one hand, from a mere usurper of the office who undertakes to act without any color of right, and on the other, from a judge de jure, who is in all respects legally appointed and qualified to exercise the duties of the office.
    3. OFFICERS–Possession Plus Color of Title to Office Sufficient to Make Incumbent de Facto Officer.
    While mere possession of a public office is not sufficient to make the incumbent a de facto officer, possession plus color of title to the office, if the office actually exists, is considered sufficient.
    4. JUDGES–Validity of Official Acts of de Facto Judge.
    The official acts of a de facto judge are as valid as those of a de jure judge.

    What does this mean? By being appointed and taking the oath of office, Judge Tunis’s legality was assumed, and was therefore a judge de facto, so everything ruled on stands valid. Granted the quote was for a case in a different state, but I think Florida would have the same standards.

  13. 0
    Ryno says:

    I’ve never understood this, "I’m a Christian!" Defense in the US. Sure, in Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, or maybe 2nd C Rome, it would work. But saying that in the US is like saying, "I’m an American!" (not that all Americans are Christians, of course, but it IS the religion of the majority, and the Founding Fathers were all Christians, in one form or another).

    You just can’t pull the martyr card when "everyone else" is just like you. When he uses it, the judge(s) should respond, "Well, so am I. Your point?"

  14. 0
    black manta says:

    I’m just saying from my read, the two seem to be mutually exclusive.  Maybe you’re seeing things differently from me.  I’ll admit I’m not as versed in the study of law, but it sounds from Sigler’s wording that the Oath of Loyalty is not quite as significant as the Oath of Office.

    Either way, as the report stated, the matter is officially closed.  And the point is moot as it is stated the statute of limitations has expired and Tunis has since signed an OoL form.  Jack can shut his pie-hole about this.

  15. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I had to do the same in Arizona when I was a grad student.

    My first thought was, "WTF! I’m a freaking grad student. Why do I need to preserve, protect and defend (or whatever it was) the Constitution of the USofA?"

    Not that I wouldn’t do this normally, as it is a most excellent document, but as a lowly grad student I have to sign an oath?

    Sadly, I grew up in San Diego a couple miles from Moonlight Beach, we have no beaches here, but we do have a lot of sand :D. But it did ring the same way, which only makes it funnier for the lack of commies.

  16. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Why, from the way you read it, are you willing to conclude that Judge Tunis’ rulings should still be legally binding? On my read, there’s nothing to support that conclusion. And please don’t say, "She took the Oath of Office." If we start from the premise that the invalid Loyalty Oath negates her right to office (which is what the Loyalty Oath Statute provides), then it can’t logically follow that the Oath of Office cures that negation. 

  17. 0
    black manta says:

    Even if true, this should have little impact if any from the way I read it.  Tunis’ rulings should still be legally binding.  That and I’d hate to see Jack get off because of a bureaucratic error.  It’d be just his luck for that to happen, as he’s been known to escape accountability due to some oversight or loophole.

  18. 0
    black manta says:

    And that report should have been dismissed out of hand, as Jack saw a shrink of his choosing (Dr. Wunderman) and not one selected by the court as was mandated.  I think they were about to when Jack did an end-run around them and beat them to it.

    Still, considering Jack and Wunderman went to the same chruch should have made the report automatically suspect.  Of course a religious zealot is not going to find anything wrong with the behavior of another religous zealot.

    As for that case you mentioned, which I think applies to Christian Scientists, that’s something a bit different I think.  This is a case of a man who has clearly abused his privelage to practice law by allowing his personal and religious beliefs to influence his professional behavior.  IIRC, that is a big no-no, especially when it comes to the practice of law where you are supposed to be impartial.

  19. 0
    DarkTetsuya says:

    Yeah, see, If you win a game that you wrote the rules for, no one cares.

    Things don’t quite work that way in the real world… maybe that’s how they do things in Thompsonburg, but here on earth? nuh-uh.


  20. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    Hey Grim. I know a cool Zen Bhuddist shrink that may be able to administer the evaluation. GOOD luck trying to pull "God wants me to do this." with him.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  21. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    I was asking myself that as well and the only thing I can think of is that someone in good standing with the Bar actually IS co-signing these fillings. ( I’m not sure I’d want one of Jackie’s Lackeys in my court if I was a judge.) Either that or the contempt procedings are going to be announced after the hearing on the 27 counts.


    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  22. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Not surprising. Ms. Siegler is the Court’s Public Information Officer. She’s probably giving the same statement she gave GP to everyone else who asks her for a statement. But her statement, to the extent it’s intended to address the validity of Judge Tunis’ rulings in Jack Thompson’s matter, doesn’t, in my opinion, really do so at all. First, we can toss the whole line about the Oath of Office. (A) Jack ain’t complaining about the Oath of Office and (B) the Oath of Office line does nothing to cure Jack’s contention that Judge Tunis, by virtue of not having a valid Loyalty Oath (regardless of the fact that its invalidity is no fault of Judge Tunis’), wasn’t legally entitled to hold her office —  at least for the period of time in which she had no valid Loyalty Oath. I hate to admit it, but Jack’s contention that Judge Tunis was under no legal authority to hold office for that period of time before she finally effected a valid Loyalty Oath isn’t entirely meritless. And an Oath of Office can’t cure that problem because swearing an Oath of Office to an office the swearer has no authority to hold is a non sequitor. That don’t make a lick of sense to me. The issue then becomes what effect, if any, the possibility that Judge Tunis had no legal authority to hold office, if true, has on Judge Tunis’ rulings. And nothing Ms. Siegler has said meaningfully begins to answers that question. The answer can’t lie in some Oath of Office. That’s just begging the question.  

  23. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    i thought so!

    and as such that phsyc evail should’ve been thrown out IMHO, since its like the judge knowing the defendant…

  24. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    sad thing is many use the "god made me do it" defense and still get away clean without even so much as a slap on the hand.

    like the parents of one girl who died (reason i forget) because her parents decided to let "god handle it" and never once even considered hospitalization or even talking to a doctor.

    they were let off clean since their religion was the reason for it, as in almost any other case the parents would’ve been hammered with negligence charges and endagerment of human life or something to the extent of. i think it was only a few monthes ago, but i forget where exactly it happened. somewhere in the mideastern states i think…  lest more happened post news report (as often happens) but last i heard they weren’t having charges placed

    IIRC, jacks last phsyc evail ended with the shrink speaking of how religion has determined his (jacks) moves, and even had mention somewhere of the shrinks own religion being the same and finding jacks "crusades" perfectly proper (not exact words, not even close, but something to the extent)

    i don’t recall to well, and i’m to lazy to look it all back up :p


  25. 0
    Archgabe says:

    Ah, the final death flail on the career of the most entertaining enemy we have ever had.  This is the sweetest wine of them all.  I pose this question to the community:

    How many of you have spruced up on your knowlege of law because of JT either to prove him wrong or just out of the "see what he does and do the exact opposite" effect?  I know that before JT I could not pass the Bar exam and now I can ace the practice exam.  Thanks Jack, I was not going to be a lawyer but I am glad that I know I will make a better one than you will ever be.

  26. 0
    cullarn says:

    too be quite honest is there even a need for him to show up hes facing a guilty count on 27 charges!!! maybe hes just trying to save gas

  27. 0
    Repudiator says:

    Take it like a man, shorty!                                                                                                                               -The Engineer

    Anyway, it seems that he has already learned how screwed over he is concering his lawyer career.  I can’t wait for the day. I’m serious, the entire internet will crash the day he’s disbarred. We will not have any internet access for the next week…

    —                                                                                                                                                                          Ignorance is bliss, I guess…

  28. 0
    black manta says:

    And it is that very thing that Jack has repeatedly failed to understand as a lawyer, as he has stated on more than one occasion that all of his actions have been religously motivated, which is also the reason why he claims he is being persecuted as he is a Christian (funny how all Christians of his stripe love to play the martyr card, isn’t it?)

    As far as I understand the legal profession, you are not allowed to use your faith as jusitifaction to wield the law like a blunt instrument to smack down those things you don’t like as Jack so often has done.  That goes for just about any profession, as they all tell you from day one that your personal faith is forbidden to interfere with your professional conduct.  It amazes he that he does not or refuses to understand this.  And in fact has gone to great lengths to do the very opposite.  It’s amazing that he’s been allowed to get away with it for as long as he has.

  29. 0
    HurricaneJesus says:

    I was reading some link in regards to the loyality oath, and it said the same thing as D reported in this story, but also added that the statute of limitations was up on any action being taken. This is despite the fact that the Judges had no knowledge of the oath being signed for them.

  30. 0
    Linkreincarnate ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The shrink happened to be a shrink that jack knew (they go to the same church) and had worked for the court before hand. (Probably for jack) So no I don’t feel he’s passed an impartial psych evaluation either.

  31. 0
    Hurricanejesus says:

    What a dirty fucker Thompson is. He says that he will not show up because they have denied him the ability to appeal.


    Wait a fucking second here Jacky Boy. You have the ability to appeal, you just need another lawyer to sign off on it. This is simply to avoid you sending 100 faxes a day and wasting everyone’s time and money. Get your thoughts together, and when you have checked and re-checked your filing, get it signed.


    Don’t feed anyone that bullshit about lawyers being too scared to support poor JT because of what the court did to his friend. You told the fucking guy to leave the court when the Judge said he could stay. Not only that, but it was no who told him not to speak. You are a fucking lunatic.

    You already got in shit for writing things in these filings that you know to be false, yet you continue to do it.

    I don’t live in the same country as you John, but I am a gamer. You attack gamers. Fuck you shitbag.

  32. 0
    Paul Farinelli ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I laugh at Thompson getting sick of the "jacky is wacky" stuff. He’s such a childish hypocrite, he wishes others to quit insulting him, meanwhile 95% of his speech involves insulting or degarding somebody else. So we should all stop accussing him of being insane, but him referring to videogame players as such is perfectly acceptable in his mind? Where does this guy get his out of whack values from, anyway? Certainly not the Bible, despite how he likes play the "Holier than thou’" card.

  33. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    No extra points for you.

    The more correct answer is Show Cause Order (why the court shouldn’t just go ahead and impose whatever sanctions they were gonna impose had Mr. Thompson attended the Hearing and been heard on whatever rubbish he was going to present).   

  34. 0
    cullarn says:

    well the other lawyer got fined for the defendants court costs and i wanna say an added 90 days in jail (considering jacks "legacy" i wouldnt be surprised if jack had to pay all court costs for the trial (at least for the missed day)and got jail time too ) p.s. jack heres a hint tell them you wont go to jail that will go over great (when you appear on cops its customary for men to be shirtless =p )

  35. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    I’m not so sure about the "absolutely meaningless" part. At least,  not based on the Court’s explaination, which contains a glaring disconnect.

  36. 0

    He’s just an asshole. A total fucking asshole.

    -GRIZZAM PRIME(c)is property of the U.S. Marine Corp. Wetworks Dept., and also The Incredible Hulk-GRIZZAM PRIME is not to be associated with GRIZZAM 512 or any other GRIZZAM entity under penalty of law, so sayith ZARATHOS.

  37. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:


    Damn! Come down to front of the class and receive your gold star.

    For extra points, what’s the sanction that could be imposed for such a contemptious act?

    (Hint: If no one’s in the forest to hear the tree fall, does it still make a crashing sound?)


  38. 0
    Ken ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I don’t know what’s funnier: Watching Wacky Jacky make every attempt to keep his license, or the Florida Bar and everyone making him squirm by prolonging his suffering. Let’s just say nobody’s going to be upset about him getting disbarred. In fact, it’ll be the opposite. Break out the beers and champagne guys!

  39. 0
    cullarn says:

    hmmm jacky boy refusing to show up oh boy can you say contempt charges i knew you could hey jacky boy just tell them your going on sabatical that worked great for glen lerner just great!!

  40. 0
    Helpless Kitten says:

    Does anyone know anything about this phycological evaluation he suposedly passed?  His behavior in public seems so illogical and even demented, certaintly he has show signs of narcisim at the very least.  I find it strange that in a private session he would not be found to have some level of phycological problems.  Or was the test simply to see if those problems would interfear with his ability to serve as a lawyer?

  41. 0
    Anonymous says:

    From what I understand, that’s still in the cards. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

    He was specifically told not to submit documents not signed by another lawyer, or else he could be "be subjected to contempt proceedings or other appropriate sanctions". And then he did, repeatedly. The last time he was threatened by that (after the Bully fiasco), it was noted that it could lead to imprisonement, although that was only the maximum penalty for it and chances were he could only get fined.

    Still, I would love to see him being the only one to lose his job and go to prison in his insane crusade, after he’s threatened/tried to do the same to so many others.

    Why is he not accused of comptempt already?

  42. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    actually isn’y it possible for them to press charges against him for "interferring" with things?

    seeing as he is rather abrupt in pushing himself out against these judges, faxing, e-mailing, calling and all that, evidence post court hearing….

    any normal person would’ve been sent a cease and desist, then thrown in jail…. seems to me he’s already been given some special treatment.

    i love how he still thinks he’s "in the clear" and claims to be unphased, when clearly he’s panicking like a raving lunatic.

    he’s lost and he sees it, so he’s scared and trying any to inflict as much damage on his way out as he can.

  43. 0
    hayabusa75 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    So Jack basically wasted all this time trying to screw Dava Tunis on a Loyalty Oath that has absolutely NO bearing on her ability to perform her duties as a judge?  Typical.  Jack’s such a blunder factory, and somehow he always manages to top himself.  And now he’s saying, "Ooooh, you guys better do what I say, or…or…I won’t attend your stupid hearing!!!"  Good one, dummy.  I’m sure that’ll fly like the Hindenburg.  Although I will say, his pouty vow to not show up may actually be a good strategic move…I mean, he can’t shoot himself in the foot if he’s not there, right?

    Did anyone read his mental health filing?  Don’t waste your time like I did, it’s just like anything else he ever files.  Unprofessional and full of insults, irrelevant references to his past "accomplishments", and blatant self-aggrandization, including a laughable comparison to Job from the Bible.  It just baffles me how he thinks that when everyone thinks you’re a dick, the solution is to be an even bigger one.

    Well, it’s beginning to look like Jack’s days of stalling are finally coming to an end.  Man, I feel like I’ve been waiting forever and a day for this.  I hope doesn’t take too long for the Florida SC to render the punishment whatever it is.

    Oh, and Jack, because I know you’re reading this, I just read through the Memorial Day comments, and may I say that whatever punishment the FSC lays on you, it won’t be anywhere close to what you truly deserve.  Hey, considering you’re such an upstanding Christian, here’s a quote for you: "His judgement cometh and that right soon…"

  44. 0
    HollywoodBob says:

    Wishes it read: "At that time, it is expected that Judge Tunis will recommend penalties against Thompson that could include imprisonment." 

    Seriously, there should be criminal charges taken against this bozo for wasting taxpayer money and time that courts could be doing something productive.


  45. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Jack’s like the man who fell in the quicksand pit and struggles violently against his inevitable fate. Which only serves to more fully ensure the inevitable fate.

    That being said, I’d feel a whole lot more confidence in Eunice Sigler’s assertion that the "Oath of Loyalty, applies to all public employees and elected officials of the State of Florida and has no effect whatsoever on any judge’s authority or jurisdiction to act and therefore has no legal consequence as to the decisions made by any judge while serving on the bench" if she’d provided some sort of statutory or case law citation in support of the assertion. If nothing else, the failure to satisfy Section 876.05, calls into question the right of the putative office holder to hold their office. Plainly put, they are without authority to hold office. And Sections subsequent thereto require that steps be taken to remove from office the putative office holder if indeed they are without a valid Loyalty Oath. I can’t see, based on anything Ms. Sigler says and nothing more, how we arrive at the conclusion that this doesn’t effect the acts of the office holder with no authority to hold office. I’m not saying it does. I’m just saying that nothing Ms. Siegler has said fully connects the dots between "no authority to hold office," which the Statute says, and "full authority to render binding decisions," as Ms. Siegler asserts.

  46. 0
    Jack Hollow says:

    Jacky is whacky? Can anyone say ‘understatement? You’re a fucking insane idiotic moron Thompson. Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain can figure that one out. It’s about time all your bullshit comes back to bite you in the ass. I agree with Klokwurk, just shut up and take it like a man. Best take something to bite on to court on the 4th, because I bet Judge Tunis is gonna be aiming for penatration without any lube. Figuratively speaking of course.

    So where’s the party going to be held when Thompson gets his ass disbarred?

  47. 0
    tony selby ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    i’ve had to sign an oath of loyalty before for the state of California, it’s actually rather humourous to read, as it tends to come off as "when the commies invade i will be on the beaches ready to fight them off"

  48. 0
    GrimCW ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    also, wasn’t his last exam done by a family friend no less?

    problem is, as i see it anyways, most shrinks would prob side with jack since many are religious, and base much of their stuff either on religion or what the drug companies sell’em.

    so most shrinks prob would side with jack either way as long as he quotes a few bible verses and whatnot and can convince them he’s doing something that "god would want him to do"

    its why seperation of church and state needs to be upheld, state employed shrinks and such shouldn’t have any obligation to any religion that could "persuade" their analysis of things.

    "god" has no place in the court of law (U.S. anyways) and anything said to be under "gods will" should be cast out immediatly, otherwise almost any crime could be summed up as such despite how serious or pitiful it could be.

    not to say religion is bad, not to bash it either, but it can’t mix with politics and law, as the past has shown, its a dangerous mix that leads to serious disaster and false accusations.

  49. 0
    Walkonwater says:

    What’s annoying, and a little sad, is that even after all this is over and Mr. Thompson has lost his licence, he’ll still believe that he’s done nothing wrong. He will continue to think that every action he has taken was the right thing to do and that he has been mercilessly persecuted by gaming companies, judges, lawyers and anyone else that has disagreed with him.

    I wish there were a way to open his eyes to how he’s gone about his crusade completely the wrong way…

  50. 0
    black manta says:

    Wow!  Does Jack really think that he can stave-off his sentencing if he refuses to show up at his own hearing?  I mean, I knew the guy was crazy and he doesn’t understand the law as well as he thinks he does.  But still…

    And he has the gall to issue summons to 33 people, many of whom are unlikely to show up, then turn around and demand a mental exam after years of trying to avoid one?

    Sorry Jack, but this kind of behavior isn’t helping your case at all.  Better get used to people saying, "Jacky is whacky" for a long, long time.

  51. 0
    oto kirlama says:

    Nintendo is indeed selling SOME of these on the Virtual Console but not even close to all of them. While i agree in part to his piracy he was filling a market that Nintendo failed to recognize. Maybe someone doesnt want to buy a Wii. maybe they just want a console with 50 – 100 NES games on them?? maybe just maybe?

    but no Nintendo wants everyone araba kiralama to buy the Wii. thats their excuse but thats not what copyright is supposed to protect. i am real sure that the makers of 10 yard fight were losing sleep because they were missing out on their $0.00025 worth because they didnt get royalties from this player. *smirk*

    my question is, should Super Mario Bros. be banned from public domain forever? isnt 23 years enough time for Nintendo to have made their profits?

    If you have followed the Steamboat Willie case regarding Mickey Mouse you can rest in your bed well at night knowing that the MOUSE will still be under copyright law, away from public domain after your great grandchildren are in nursing homes. That is beyond ridiculous dont you think??

    Gallagher can araç kiralama say all he wants, but I strongly rent a car believe it’s due to his crappy leadership and E3 being a joke. ESA’s Board of Directors need to find a way to get out rent a car of this horrid contract with this Bush cronie before there’s no one left on the Board.

    Btw, I think Atari and Midway will drop out too, but mostly travesti because  these guys have done nothing ttnet vitamin or little and need to start saving costs.


    Now I don’t have to get off my ass for the important shit anymore!

    Whats next, ordering pizza from Xbox live?

    Wait… I think that sounds like a good idea.

    But I think voting should MAKE you get off your ass, and see outside or a second while you go vote. I mean, your picking the president of the United States of America for God’s Sake… least you can do is drive down there and punch out a card.

  52. 0
    Quinlyn says:

    I read through all of his rants – yes I do have alot of time and find them amusing.  He loves to play up how much he is the victem despite all the wonderful things he has done for the world……

    Anyway I read through his demands for the psychiatric evaluation and had to laugh at one statement that he made in his demands:

    "Thompson also moves as a condition of this testing that it be videotaped and that Dr. Oren Wunderman, the esteemed forensic psychologist who examined Thompson and found him perfectly sane,be allowed to observe the testing by another, either in the room during the testing or through a one-way window.  Dr. Wunderman is an honest man and a superb forensic psychologist recognized by The Bar as such.  Dr. Wunderman has agreed to this and he endorses this motion made by Thompson."

    Not sure if anyone else pointed this out but wouldn’t that in fact negate the examination by another psychologist.  We are well aware that Dr Wunderman is of the same church as dear Mr Thompson and shares his views regarding religion almost exactly the same.  In fact it was Dr Wunderman who signed off and completed the recent voluntary assesment of Jack when he was told to have one done earlier in 2007.  There was much speculation and I believe downright disbelif that this psychologist could be in any way a fair evaluation of Jack’s mental health as he shares the exact same religious beliefs.

    Anyway just thought to laugh as if the Florida Barr does agree to have Jack evaluated by a psychologist – there is no way in hell that they will agree to the stipulation that Jack gets to pick a second oppinion from a psychologist that he chooses himself by hand.

    I do not know if anyone else laughed at this – but I did :).


  53. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    Can me and [censored] request that JT be cooked MEDIUM RARE? Please?


  54. 0
    Chuck says:

    JT’s bread and butter job is medical malpractice.  Presumably he represents plaintiffs, but concrete information is hard to get without exhaustive and expensive searches.  The wikipedia page doesn’t even contain the word "malpractice", and JackThompson.org only mentions that that’s his practice.

    Disbarment would make him pretty much reliant on his wife’s income and assets, which are believed to be pretty substantial.



  55. 0
    Chuck says:

    The oath was indeed forged — someone wrote Judge Tunis’s signature on the document without her knowledge or consent.  Whaddya know, a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.

    As for who put the idea in his head, the fella is an even nastier character than Jack Thompson, actually.  His name escapes me — our own JackDon’tKnowJack has posted previously about him and knows quite a bit more than I do about the fella.  It’s pretty certain that the whole loyalty oath angle was something this character put into JT’s head.  It’s already a sure sign of JT marginalizing himself, hanging around with these characters now that he’s been drummed out of respectable circles like NIMF.

    JDKJ, if you’re reading, could you fill in the blanks?


  56. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    Relax Shadow. We won’t flame YOU. Unlike Jackass Thompson you know we actually care about what the other guy says. That being said *attaches the flamethrower to it’s swivel mount* I fully admit a part of me wants to flame JT like an FAE.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  57. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    …..If thats true, then wouldn’t that mean that a giant redwood is being made into the world’s largest wodden phallus?


    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  58. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    It’s also a verb. As in, "Jack Thompson has subpoenaed Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ to appear as witnesses at his Hearing."

  59. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Yes, the Sixth Amendment grants its therein contained rights only to criminal defendants. Yes, the Seventh Amendment grants the right to trial by jury in certain civil matters. No, Jack doesn’t have a leg to stand on because Florida Bar disciplinary proceedings are neither criminal or civil in nature. They are "quasi-judicial administrative law proceedings" to which neither the Sixth or Seventh Amendments would properly apply.

  60. 0
    State of Gameplay ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It really makes you wonder how he has the audacity to submit such a poorly researched, spelt and worded document.

    It shows how little seriousness he places on the system that his filings should ever treat it with even that minimum of disdain, let alone his general "two fingers to the courts" actions he has taken.

  61. 0
    nightstalker160 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    To be fair, Jack styles himself a "first amendment expert" I seriously wonder if he’s even read the rest of them but:

    You’re right the sixth amendment clearly says "in all CRIMINAL proceedings." Now the right to a jury trial is preserved in civil proceedings involving for than, I think, $20.  I guess Jack could argue that’s the case hear (given he stands to lost A LOT of money) but he can’t say that for certain and courts love certainty.

    It sounds to be like Jack hasn’t actually READ these amendments he’s just remembering grade school civics and going

    "Hmmm, 1st amendment was freedom or religion, speech and all that, second amendment was right to bear arms…sixth amendment was oh yeah RIGHT TO JURY!!!  YAY!!!"


  62. 0
    Voligne the Archon says:

    I bet jack cuts out of his blog posting time to do all these filings, he IS fighting for the children of course, just not his own kids >.>


    Jack, I pose a question, do you ever THINK? about your own children? after this your going to need a job to support your family, fighting for the children, a good cause, a noble one even one I am all for, but if you cannot even raise your own children why should we let you try to raise our own? Please, after this just shut up get a job and raise your offspringe to be upstanding and productive members of society.

  63. 0
    NovaBlack. ( User Karma: 0 ) says:



    From Jacks official court request for mental examination:


    "Thompson moves and demands of this referee an order mandating his mental health examination by a qualified person.  He demands that the tests that be administered be the three universally recognized objective tests, which are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Millan test, and the other whose name escapes the undersigned presently.  Amnesia may be a sign of early onset dementia.  That’s a joke for the humorless."


    wow jack. just wow. you DEMAND 3 tests, yet you cant even remember them. pretty hard to accept that demand isnt it. how on EARTH have you ever won any cases if you dont know what you are demanding……. oh yeah now i remember… you dont win cases.

    And i am far from ‘humorless’, (see i made a funny about you not winning cases just moments ago) but even i draw the line about making jokes about dementia. wow. hilarious isnt it jack. hilarious for all the families caring for victims of dementia. they all find it SO funny caring for a loved one day after day seeing them slowly degrade into a worse and worse state. damn f*****g hilarious jack. Oh im sorry, you only care about families when they are vicitms of ‘cop killing simulators’. Oh wait.. that would mean you care about nobody. Well except for yourself.


    Please if you read this answer me why you find it objectionable that people allegedly have made fun of your wife’s illness, yet you feel it ok to make fun the illness of others. double standards as usual jack. its getting old. Fortunaltely we wont have to deal with you much longer. Bye Bye.


  64. 0
    LaserShark ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I looked over his filing considering the upcoming hearing and ‘boycott’, and amongst the lies (he said the Judge has ‘never’ signed a Loyalty Oath, but she did in January; he said he’s not allowed to appeal, but in truth he just has to go through another lawyer, and ‘inconvenient’ does not equal ‘impossible’), something struck me: his reliance, in this case, on the Sixth Amendment.


    Now, IANAL, but I wiki’d that one, and the language of the Sixth seems pretty clear that it only applies to criminal trials.  Since this isn’t a criminal case, does Jack have a leg to stand on here?

  65. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    Hey, can we cut JT a break here? I mean, shit, I know he’s not as right in the head as the rest of us (only a very teensy tiny bit) but still, damn! Put yourselves in his shoes! What if some random blog started jumping on you for all the mistakes you make?

    Shadow: Uhh, [censored]*? You do know you’re posting that on GP, right?

    ??????: Oh, I know that, Shadow.

    Shadow: *sigh* Fine. Do what you will, but if you get me flamed, you will burn. Got it?

    ??????: You think they’ll flame you? Jeez, lighten up, Shadow!

    *I censored his name because it’s his real name, which nobody here needs to know. Though I think Dennis knows him from somewhere. I don’t remember, though.


  66. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Finally, in a just-issued filing with Florida Supreme Court, Thompson seeks a stay of next week’s sanctions hearing while demanding a mental health exam. Thompson complains in the document that he "has put up with this ‘Jacky is whacky’ charade long enough."

    You know, demanding yet another mental health exam after preemptively getting one –out of fear of getting and stopping a real one — from someone with some personal ties to you, sure doesn’t sound very sane…  Not to mention all the other stuff he has said and done.

    Did someone give him some Cliffs Notes or "How to pass a mental health exam for insane dummies" book?


  67. 0
    LaserShark ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Actually, no.  He says he won’t be at the trial if a different judge doesn’t strike down the decision preventing him from filing things on his own without another lawyer to sign off on it.  I’m not exactly sure what one has to do with the other, but at least in this case it’s nothing to do with the Oath of Loyalty garbage.

  68. 0
    Henry Windgates says:

    “When deeds speak, words are nothing.” – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

    And this quotation seems to be quite apt for Jack’s pathethic actions. If history of Jack Thompson himself would tell us anything, it would be that he’s a intolerant and dictator-like faggot who takes pleasure of mocking dead gamers and taking credit from murdered victims by being an ambulance or massacre-chaser, in short, this guy should die fast.


  69. 0
    Paul says:

    I’ll say one thing, that man has energy

    Where does he get the time to do all this filing? More importantly, how is he making money? From what i see, all of his time is taken up with games?

    Does he do anyother work?

  70. 0
    Tom90deg ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Ok, hold on. I’m not one of those fancy law-types, but it seem to me that saying, "Unless that judge is removed, I’m not going to show up to the trial!" is a bit…how you say…stupid. There may be a reason for not showing up, for example, the trial can’t go on if he’s not there or something similar, but if he just stands outside saying "I’m boycotting this trial!" dosn’t that mean he’ll LOSE the case? Correct me if I’m wrong of course, but if I had some trial, and I said, "I’m going to Botcott this trial unless I get a new Judge!" they’d just laugh and say, "Alright, it’s your funeral."

  71. 0
    Wyvern says:

    I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the instant this man gets disbarred, I am going to sing the entire score from the Sound of Music with musical accompanyment from my clan.


  72. 0

    Now maybe someone will step up who isn’t a total moron. Someone who sounds at least somewhat intelligent, or better yet, a legislative baddass. Then, when we tear his/her ass up in the courts…it will be official. WE WILL BE THE VICTORS! Except…y’know…there will still be all the sad people who buy into all those moronic stereotypes and myths about videogames and those who play them. But hey, at least we won’t have to go to court all the damn time. We won’t be fully excepted until all of the old guard dies off and this generation enters office. I hope that happens soon…

    -GRIZZAM PRIME(c)is property of the U.S. Marine Corp. Wetworks Dept., and also The Incredible Hulk-GRIZZAM PRIME is not to be associated with GRIZZAM 512 or any other GRIZZAM entity under penalty of law, so sayith ZARATHOS.

  73. 0
    Freak4all says:

    Just wondering is he rich or something? Doesn’t it cost quite a bit of money to file suit? I remember him claiming some nonsense about how he hasn’t accepted any money whatsoever for his game related cases and considering his track record I don’t think he’s a particularly good lawyer so whose funding him?

  74. 0
    Anonymous says:

    Just who gave Jack that loyalty oath bull?

    As if he could tell such on his own, didn’t he have some online "hand writing expert" "confirm" the sig was forged?  Unless he was taking a stab in the dark( Um…. Which I guess is kind of likely, he frequently throws curd around just to see if it sticks), I have my doubts that he came across that one on his own.

    Hmmm you know, I could see someone just telling him such info — while it being true — just to toy around with him.  Seems like this issue is no issue, so maybe someone just wanted to get Jack’s hopes up over something that they knew wasn’t going to get Jack anywhere. 

    I mean, it isn’t like Jack has made any friends outside of his "game are porn, make people killers, and should be banned" crusade either….

  75. 0
    Aliasalpha says:

    So Dennis, are you happy or insulted that you didn’t make jack’s subpoena’d (What is the past tense of subpoena?) character assassin list?

    Is it possible for the public to submit evidence for a hearing or the mental health test? Maybe you could burn the GP database to a DVD or 5 & post it to the court

  76. 0
    Anonymous says:

    I honestly highly doubt it. Even if he loses his liscense he’ll likely still paint himself as an attorney, and honestly, I hope he gets found out for it.


  77. 0

    Oh how the irrelevant have fallen!!!

    -GRIZZAM PRIME(c)is property of the U.S. Marine Corp. Wetworks Dept., and also The Incredible Hulk-GRIZZAM PRIME is not to be associated with GRIZZAM 512 or any other GRIZZAM entity under penalty of law, so sayith ZARATHOS.

  78. 0
    Near Fantastica says:

     Look at this crap. All of these useless court documents being thrown around just so this loser can delay his execution? Come on. He needs his right to practice law revoked so he stops wasting the courts time and money pursuing his own selfish causes. Does he really believe this is acceptable? I think he may actually be a sociopath.

  79. 0
    OmegaWarrior says:

    Does anyone here really think that this will be the end of JT?  Yes, he’s almost certain to get disbarred, but isn’t he just as likely to be offered his own show on Faux News?

  80. 0
    Henry Windgates says:

    Looks like Jack Thompson doesn’t give a damn especially if he’s fighting for a lost cause, or at least, a worthless cause. To be honest, this kind of person isn’t really worth of our time and how I wish dictators like him will die of heart diseases or something so we don’t have to suffer under their iron fists.

    I may be harsh, but hey, it would be best for all of us and most of all best for the people in North Korea and Burma who are ruled by despotic faggots and their very own "Gestapos".

  81. 0
    Anonymous says:

    If I needed to bomb a somewhere next time mining explosives than do I really need much more than a sparkler.

    Right tool for the job. 😉


  82. 0
    Chuck says:

    If this were a chess game, Jack would not only already have been checkmated, but his king already taken, yet he’d still be moving the rest of his pieces, insisting he’s not beaten.

    He’s got pluck.




  83. 0
    GryphonOsiris says:
    The thing about him being found ‘sane’ actually works against him as well, because it then proves that he isn’t delusional, but instead that he is a outright liar and an asshole. Perhaps he wants to be re-examined so he can fail, like you said, and use it as an excuse, but I doubt it. Knowing him he wants to prove for the sake of his ego that he is completely sane. Of course, as I said before, it just proves him as a liar.
    You know, if all of this were a Chess game, most of us would have him in check or check mate in about 10 moves or less.


  84. 0
    SithLibrarian says:

    I like how Jack is asking for another mental health check, since he’s been waving around the results of the one he got in the past.

  85. 0
    GryphonOsiris says:

    The thing about him being found ‘sane’ actually works against him as well, because it then proves that he isn’t delusional, but instead that he is a outright liar and an asshole. Perhaps he wants to be re-examined so he can fail, like you said, and use it as an excuse, but I doubt it. Knowing him he wants to prove for the sake of his ego that he is completely sane. Of course, as I said before, it just proves him as a liar. You know, if all of this were a Chess game, most of us would have him in check or check mate in about 10 moves or less.

  86. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Excellent observation. No one but Jack thompson has put his mental health at issue in this matter (apart for the Bar’s settlement offer which included the requirement that he be psychologically eveluated). Certainly none of his misconduct charges implicate his mental health. I suspect it’s just another puff of smoke to add to his smoke-screen.

  87. 0
    Zerodash can't login ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Why is JT demanding a mental exam anyway?  I don’t recall the court alleging that he is mentally unstable.  Perhaps he is unable to differentiate between the comments he reads about himself on the internet and actual court comments.

    Or, he just wants to fail the test as a means of getting out of this- make it look like the persecution of the courts/games industry has stressed the poor little crusader out…boo hoo.

  88. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Yes, there is a period of time in which Judge Tunis was operating under the forged Loyalty Oath and making rulings in Thompson’s matter. There is also a period of time in which Judge Tunis was operating under a properly executed Loyalty Oath and making rulings in Jack Thompson’s matter. Put another way, the correction of the invalid Loyalty Oath to a valid Loyalty Oath occurred in the midst of Thompson’s proceedings. Is this a problem with respect to the validity of any of the rulings that Judge Tunis has made, whether pre- or post-correction. I would argue not. That’s was the de facto judge doctrine was designed and intended to address and cure.

    But that the 11th Circuit would publicly present a statement so open to ridicule, as I think it is, about the Oath of Office curing an invalid Loyalty Oath and an invalid Loyalty Oath having no effect on a judge’s authority (at least if their use of the word "authority" is intended to include authority to hold office) because all state officials, not only judges, must effect such a Loyalty Oath, frankly, infuriates me to no end. The forged Oath thing is an embarrasment. Fine. But it’s also water under the bridge. Attempting to spin the situation like some swarmy politician’s press agent does nothing to remove egg from face. Moreover — and this is the part that really gets my goat — it helps Jack Thompson in his attempts to wiggle out from under. Why not do the more appropriate thing, in my opinion, and confess that, yes, we messed up royaly but., good for us, the law provides a way for us to get around that mess up and it’s called the de facto judge doctrine. It doesn’t sound as nice for P.R. purposes as the nonsense they’ve put forth, but at least it makes some sense.



  89. 0
    nightstalker160 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    So it seems that Judge Tunis’ rulings from the time she took office until she signed a valid loyalty oath may be problematic (altough I don’t see court deciding to overturn however many rulings that might be on logistical grounds).  Was JT’s case on her docket before the oath?  Cause if JT didn’t come before her until after she fixed the oath then JT is shit outta luck.

  90. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Of course, if the putative office-holder subsequently effects a valid Loyalty Oath, then going forward there’s no real issue. It’s going backwards to the period of the invalid Oath that’s a problem.

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m not arguing Thompson’s case for him. But I do feel that if I disregard the applicable law as I understand it because I want to see him get the shaft, then that makes me no better than him.

  91. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    On my read, the statute says (to paraphrase), "before you can legitimately take your office you must effect a valid Loyalty Oath." It doesn’t appear that the fact of invalidity through forgery was of no fault of the putative office-holder is of any consequence. Effectively, you look for a valid Loyalty Oath and, if for whatever reasons you can’t find one, the statute says (to paraphrase) "if no valid Loyalty Oath, then no authority to hold office, and your Boss has to take steps to remove you from the office." But that’s pretty much all it says.  

  92. 0
    NightStalker160 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Interesting, I guess one question is what does "non-compliant" mean.  After all Judge Tunis complied with the statute as soon as she was aware there was a problem.  I guess the issue is whether her simply not having signed the Oath right away would be "non-compliance" or if there is an implied requirement of "willful non-compliance"

  93. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    And, believe it or not, best that I can tell, it would be a case of first impression for the Florida Supreme Court . No one’s ever challenged the validity of a judge’s ruling on the basis of an invalid loyalty oath but for the that of the judge in the Terri Schiavo case and, I could be wrong, but before the matter ever came before the Supremes, it was mooted by Schiavo’s death or in some other way resolved without the High Court ever having to address the issue. Of course, the absence of precedent doesn’t auger in Thompson’s favor. And may explain why he’s making up his own legal precedent. 

  94. 0
    Saint13 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    It’s another delaying tactic.  Nobody mentioned the potato, there is no potato and no one is accusing you of having a potato… but if you stand up and scream "WHAT ABOUT THE POTATO???" then people are going to stop and say "What potato?  Is there a potato?  Should we be looking into the potato?"  In theory, you can potentially buy more time.

    Realistically, this might work if he hadn’t been using these same tactics for so long that his gambits are as transparant as air.  (Well… most air, anyway…)

  95. 0
    Zerodash can't login ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I disagree.  I don’t want religious belief OF ANY KIND dictating LAW.  It doesn’t matter if its a Christian, Satanist, or Wiccan- their BELIEFS should not be the basis of any laws.

  96. 0
    Weighted Companion Cube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Delta, we all pretty much agree that violent videogames shouldn’t really be in the hands of children, but it’s up to the parents to enforce it, rather than the retailers/developers/government, etc.  

    However, Jack’s idea of doing this means demonizing gamers to the point where games shouldn’t be sold to anyone, because as he puts it, if a murder happens somewhere, there’s about a 101% chance that the killer is a gamer.  Stuff like that is what makes him an absolute moron. 

    It really makes you wonder what Jack could have actually done with his law degree if he actually had the slightest amount of common sense (and legal know-how).  It’s a shame.  Well, congratulations on wasting a good portion of your life, Jack.

  97. 0
    Adamas Draconis says:

    Delta, while I can agree with being careful about what children see in the media, I fear that Thompson’s methods have caused us gamers (Which as you noted JT basicly think of as the offal of pond scum) too much frustration. I know as a Christian you are supposed to love the sinner while hating the sin. But after almost 20 years of his constant tirades most of us want to see him fall, if for no other reason then the closure of a period in the sub-culture of gaming.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  98. 0
    Delta says:

    I can certainly understand someone making every last ditch effort to save thier job and career, but I’m afraid this has gone too far, and I am someone who actually supports Jack’s underlying cause for keeping violence and sex in the media away from children. The difference between myself and Jack however is I see this as an issue that must be faced at the family level, a level I believe the Christian, no, every religious faith, supports. Endless litigation and lawsuits against big corporations will not dent the wheels that already turn in this industry, and I believe Jack saw this in the 90’s and just spiraled down into a pit of egotism and doubt. He began pursuing the very media he condemed for putting that filth out there as a way of self-promoting his faith and agenda. He clung to each and every newspaper and TV interview he got, he touted himself as the man God chose. I don’t know if it was insecurity or such an inability to communiate with people that he resorts to treating them like low-lives beneath him, but now he scours the Internet trying to squash anyone who disagrees with him, and makes frivilous and unprofessional complaints about fellow lawyers, judges, and officials that don’t agree with him.

    Case in point, I think Jack’s cause is still valid and worth him pursuing, but he’s made too many mistakes of his own free will. It’s high time he face reality and sink with his ship, only then will I truly respect the man for what he has accomplished, foolish or otherwise.

  99. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    The Loyalty Oath statute indeed mandates removal of non-compliant officers. But this required removal isn’t automatic or easy to obtain. The statute also provides for either swearing or affirming. The constitutionality of loyalty oaths have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

  100. 0
    nighstalker160 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Jack, do you have a statute citation for that mandatory removal?

    Ya know, one of those little Bluebook citations that usually read something like

    32 Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. 1312 or something (I don’t know the Florida citation format off the top of my head but I had to do extensive research on Ohio law last year).  If you don’t have that…well then…don’t be quoting or citing statutes.

    Also, what does the case law say?  Again, those citations that are usually something like:

    Thompson v. Florida, 321 F.2d 311, or Thompson v. Virginia, 112 Va. Cir. 213 (again those are totally fake case cites, just reminding you what they look like).

    Does the case law say anything about what happens when the Judge is not provided the loyalty oath but corrects that oversight?  Does it change the validity of previous rulings?  Come on Jack, you are a lawyer (for now) at least pay lipservice to proper citation or reference.  You generally aren’t allowed to just make arguments in court without SOMETHING to back it up.

    Tell me you have at least ONE precedent, I seriously doubt this is an issue of first impression.

    Also, what about Supreme Court and first amendment issues.  "Loyalty Oaths" run afoul of certain religious beliefs, Jehovah’s witnesses I KNOW have issues with "swearing oaths" that’s why when you take the stand you now are asked"

    "Do you solemnly swear OR AFFIRM that the testimony you are about to give…"

    Certain religions will not let you SWEAR so you are asked to AFFIRM instead.  If Florida’s loyalty "Oath" requires judges to SWEAR, the oath is probably unconstitutional on first amendment grounds.

    But as a First Amendment "Expert" I’m sure you were aware of that.

  101. 0
    David D. ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "I’m not wacky!" shouted the little diapered man in the Napoleon hat as he stomped his way through the produce section of the local supermarket, flinging subpoenas for Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman left and right.

    Honestly, if Grand Theft Auto really does drive someone to becoming a mass-murdering sniper, I think we all know who that someone is likely to be.

  102. 0
    Mackenzie ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Actually, you’re correct.  When a lawyer is facing disciplinary action, the best possible course of action is to be open and honest with the authorities and cooperate fully.  If the lawyer does that, the level of discipline could be lowered (it might mean the difference between being suspended and disbarred).

    In this case, though, I’m not sure it makes much of a difference.


  103. 0
    The conspiracy says:

     I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t this the worst possible thing that he could do at this point? I mean, he does want to keep his license, right? Is there any logic reason for this or is it His unique brand over paranoia and self rightouesness with a zesty madness sauce?


  104. 0
    Freak4all says:

    I think at this point he realizes he’s got no chance of winning so he’s going on a kamikaze rampage, either that or he’s just pulling off his usual stunts while he can, kinda hard to tell the difference.

  105. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    Hopefully, if a mental exam is considered, there will be someone there to argue the point of conflict of interest in using Dr. Wunderman, or anyone else of similar religious beliefs to John Bruce, as the evaluator. 

    And as to the "boycott":

    Stand stock still, cross your arms, put your head down and stick out your bottom lip and and whine "I don’t wanna go!"

    Yup.  True to form.

    GP: Thanks for changing your post comments to red.  They stand out well enough to know when they suddenly appear so I can catch them after having seen the non-commented post earlier.  I guess I can live with that.  :)


    NW2K Software

    Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  106. 0
    cullarn says:

    this just proves jack never read the bible (much less followed it) unless jack is claiming his disbarrment is "a test from god" which i would absolutely LOVE him to argue to the honorable dava tunis

  107. 0
    Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    You win the Internet.


  108. 0
    Felgard says:

    He has already had two of them both ordered by the court and those he fought with teeth and nails and now he demands one? What for?
    He’s trying for the insanity defence? And what of the two test before which both stated that he was sane how will he explain those? that he bribed them?

  109. 0
    Loudspeaker says:

    So he’s demanded a psych test eh?  Little late for that Jacko.  That would have been a brilliant defence in the courtroom during your trial, HOWEVER since we’re well past that it’s irrelevant.

    Jack I have one bit of advice for you.  Now that you’re FINALLY learning in your life that actions have consequence I do hope you’ll pass this along to your son so he understands long before he reaches your age.

    As for all the attention you quest for on a daily basis take heart.  There will be MILLIONS of gamers rejoicing and partying once your final punishment has been cast down.  I will be one of those and taking said judgement as a fine birthday present.

    Now would be a good time to focus on your family and forget the world of gaming ever existed.  Good luck on your future endeavors.  You’re going to need it.

    "Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."

  110. 0
    Aliasalpha says:

    Just desserts indeed, we’ve got the icecream of the 27 charges topped by the whipped cream of his filing prohibition & the hot fudge of his potential disbarment. I think Jack knows a source of nuts…

  111. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    Jack Thompson is getting his just desserts, all because he refuses to practice what he preaches about growing up and getting a life.

    So grow up and get a life, Jack. Man up and accept your punishment.

  112. 0
    Nekowolf ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Are you speaking of a rather recent one or something? Cause, the last one I know of, HE chose the shrink, and she was also a former priest or pastor or something like that.

  113. 0
    Jabrwock says:

    As stated before, the Oath of Loyalty has no effect whatsoever on any judge’s authority or jurisdiction to act and therefore has no legal consequence as to the decisions made by any judge while serving on the bench.

    Good to hear. That’s pretty much a slam dunk on Jack’s pathetic blithering about "she has to vacate her seat and I get another stall as they pick another judge I can nitpick to death".

    — If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap…

  114. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Same dumb reason he was trying to depose and add as a witness Pres. Bush, Gov. Bush, and a gazillion other impossible-to-get-a-hold-of persons before his guilt phase started: clog up the process as much as possible in order to delay.

  115. 0
    SeattleMan2 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    He certainly is a  …er…  HAS character. Why he would want people like Strauss Zelnick and Ronald Friedman to attest to it is beyond me.

  116. 0
    cullarn says:

    . . . jack  . . . character witnesses?

    jacks character witness list would be comedy gold

    need i say anything else (i know your just pointing out the law and procedure)

  117. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Jack’s supeona list makes me think that perhaps he hasn’t come to grips yet that it is he, not the video game industry that is on trial.  Just what would having Strauss Zelnick there prove?  Regardless of what Strauss’ actions it doesn’t change the fact that Jack is an infantile, unprofessional liar who has treated everyone around him with venom.

  118. 0
    shaoron says:

    it’s a conspiracy i tell you! A CONSPIRACY!



    jokes aside.. n oone should really be surprised by this. this is usual Jack Thompson bull

  119. 0
    JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    That’s not entirely true. While he can’t put on a witness to testify as to matters that relate solely to his guilt or innocence (the time for that, as you rightly noted, has come and gone), he can put on witnesses to testify as to matters that would tend to mitigate his sanction (e.g., character witnesses).  Just like a criminal defendant can do during their sentencing phase. 

  120. 0
    SeattleMan2 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    To Mr. Thompson

    Just a reminder. You DO have the ability to send filings to the court, you just need to have another member of the Bar sign them for you. Either you are unaware of this, refuse to acknowledge it, or are unable to find another member of the Bar willing or able to help you.

    Care to enlighten us?

  121. 0
    SeattleMan2 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This hearing is basically the same as the sentencing phase in a criminal trial. Thompson is not being allowed to call any witness to this hearing simply because the trial has already ended. He had every opportunity to call relevant witnesses during the trial, but chose not to and instead testify himself for several days. (You are free to speulate as to why this was.)


    Big thank you to Eunice Sigler letting us know the difference between the Oaths. I can imagine how much paperwork Judges and other elected officials need to fill out upon taking office. That’s one of the reasons they hire assistants to handle the ‘formality’ signing and filing of documents. Perhaps Thompson’s shining the light on this practice will help to eliminate the vast amount of needless and outdated documents.


    (to GP: I tried to register, but the system is not sending my my password. Another glitch in the site’s update?)

  122. 0
    Cattleprod says:

    He compared himself to Job? Weren’t all the bad things that happened to Job done by God? That means when we kick Jack while he’s down, we’re doing God’s work. Good to know.

  123. 0
    Zachary Miner ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    From the JT filing demanding a new psychiatric examination:

    "That article destroyed Thompson’s career, but it has been restored, as was Job in the Bible that Thompson’s dare adhere to."


    Uh, what? I guess when you’re sending 100 faxes and e-mails a day, you don’t have time for proper grammar and checking to make sure that what you’re writing makes any sense at all. I got tired of that filing after the first paragraph and skimmed most of it. It was a document as full of Fail as anything I have ever read.

    June 4th can’t some soon enough…

  124. 0
    Dick Ward says:

    Speaking as someone who has been fired before, I checked over the rules, the papers, etc… very carefully searching for any loophole.  That was from a part time job at Best Buy, I can only imagine what it’d be like to lose the opportunity for lawyerin!


  125. 0

    My damn comment didn’t show up the first time…god I hate dial up…anyway, BURNED!!!! -GRIZZAM PRIME(c)is property of the U.S. Marine Corp. Wetworks Dept., and also The Incredible Hulk-GRIZZAM PRIME is not to be associated with GRIZZAM 512 or any other GRIZZAM entity under penalty of law, so sayith ZARATHOS.

  126. 0
    Loudspeaker says:

    The games made me do it defence followed by the wookie defence. 

    "Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."

  127. 0
    SolidSnark says:

    "At that time, it is expected that Judge Tunis will recommend penalties against Thompson that could include disbarment. From that point, it will be up to the Florida Supreme Court to issue a final ruling."

    Fortunately Jack has been careful and respectful in his dealings with the Florida Supreme Court so they should be respectful of his non-defense. 

  128. 0
    AgostoTheo ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It’s a pity that filing didn’t go through, actually. A LOT of those 33 people have reason to dislike Jack, and the rest aren’t likely to give a damn.

Leave a Reply