Jack Thompson: Sweet & Sour
Jack Thompson: Sweet & Sour
June 5, 2008
A Florida Judge recently recommended that Jack Thompson be found guilty on 27 counts of professional misconduct. A federal judge tossed his lawsuit against the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday. And the Florida Bar yesterday moved to have him disbarred for a decade.
But, don't fear for Jack Thompson.
No dummy he, the controversial anti-game activist has his detractors right where he wants them. At least, according to Thompson.
Under the subject line of SWEET! (GP: I kid you not), an e-mail circulated by Thompson this morning cites today's Daily Business Review coverage of his case and reads, in part:
Because of the [DBR] article, which contains my entire Objections filing, I am now getting phone calls from highly respected people who are proving to me the criminal conduct of The Florida Bar... We are meeting with law enforcement officials about that.
This is all wonderful. Light is now being shone in some very dark places, and the Daily Business Review has assisted in that wonderfully.
I am now going to win this fight, by the grace of God and because of the First Amendment, most particularly the right to freedom of the press. Certain Florida Bar officials need to hire criminal defense lawyers today. The investigations are already underway. And if you think I'm kidding, then you don't know Jack.
So much for the sweet. Or should we say, the SWEET!
On the SOUR! side, after Thompson declared in a recent sworn federal court motion that Bar trial referee Dava Tunis had leaked case documents to GamePolitics, we pointed out that his claim - which he wrote that he was making under penalty of perjury - was untrue. We also explained that we had received the documents from Eunice Sigler, Director of the Office of Government Liaison and Public Relations for the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, pursuant to our various public records requests.
Just one day after our story debunking Thompson's false claim regarding Judge Tunis ran, the controversial attorney filed a document with Eunice Sigler's boss, demanding to see her official loyalty oath. Readers will recall that he has unsuccessfully targeted Judge Tunis over the loyalty oath issue as well.
Thompson's focus on Ms. Sigler, a court administrator simply carrying out her duties, seems from here like a case of very sour grapes.
Comments
Wow...he's lost it.
Lost it? He never had it!
Umm, guys... I think we should stop playing with Jack. I think he's broken.
Seconded.
This last tyrade is reaaaaly scary. This is definitely a man on the edge and God only knows if disbarment is going to push him over.
-Loudspeaker
"Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."
No no, Jack went over the edge years ago. Then he went over about 6 more.
He got kicked by Leonidas... and in that hole he was kicked by the persians who got tired of his useless ramblings
"Seconded."
Thirded.
Hope he shuts up when he's disbarred.
I AM A LOST SOUL, CONDEMNED TO HAUNT THE DREAMS OF JOHN BRUCE "JACK" THOMPSON UNTIL HIS CRUSADE AGAINST VIDEO GAMES ENDS. SOMEONE, PLEASE! END MY SUFFERING!
Well technically if he does lose it and go into a violent freak out... it could reasonably be viewed as videogames leading to violence... WHICH WOULD PROVE JACK RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING AND REALLY SHOW US ALL BWAHAHAHAHA!
/e smack self bad! very tasteless! bad
serriously someone needs to get the boy some really heavy counceling and some happy pills stat. he sounds like a lit powder keg. You can't help but look at this entire train wreck of a career and life and feel sorry for his family. Especially his wife and kid.
Well, psych help tends to work better when the patient acknowledges there's a problem and they want to change. Do you see this guy thinking there's anything wrong with how he is, or wanting to change it? All the drugs in the world probably couldn't help him now. (He'd probably refuse to take them, because "there's nothing wrong with him!")
I do feel bad for the rest of his family... and pretty much anyone who has to deal with him on a routine basis. Needless to say, somebody needs to send that judge in Florida a thank you card.
And maybe some flowers. >:)
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It wouldn't matter if he was able to find a credible therapist and psychiatrist at this point because he doesn't believe their is any problem with him. The first thing any person with a mental illness has to get through is the acknowledgment that they have one. And hell it's hard to do that even if you don't have a persecution complex like jack; it took me the better part of four years to finally get sorted out.
The problem with jack is that he is utterly certain that he is right, and everything that happens to him just contributes to that. Even the people telling him that he is off his rocker is just validation as far as he is concerned. I really feel bad for his son and wife, because jacks only a few steps away from a total breakdown and when that happens it will not be pretty.
On the other hand though, once he has that breakdown, maybe he'll be forced into treatment and all that. Little hard to not take yer medication if the nurses make him take it regularly and he's locked up in a madhouse.
On the other other hand, I'd feel bad for the facility's staff and the other patients.
Jack breaks the first ammendment and he expects it to save him...wow
Haven't I heard this from him before? Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't he do this every time he gets a slap in the face? Claims to have some kind of ace up his sleeve. Who am I kidding. This is Jack.
Jack only ever has a Jack up his sleeve.
The only Jack he has is his name, he's facing down a high straight with a pair of dueces.
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
and if i rememebr correctly.. usually nothing major happened and ends up embarassing him even more
So, Jack Thompson says the 1st amendment applies to the press, but what about games? Why oh why can't he accept this and walk away from it?
Jack can't seperate his crusade against his professional responsibility. He is one of those misguided fools that believes "The First Amendment" means "I can say anything I like, at any place, at any time, with no repercussions". Sorry, no, it doesn't. And, the right to say what you want does not grant you total immunity from what you said. I have the right to call my boss an idiot to his face, but I don't have the expectation that I will keep my job if I do so.
He seems to be unable to grasp that he is being disbarred because of his conduct, and not what he's crusading against. As many parents tell their kids "it's not what you said, it's how you said it". You can't lie in court, insult judges, intimidate witnesses, and place porn in the public records and expect to remain a lawyer. Lawyers are supposed to follow a code of conduct - if not, it would be perfectly acceptable for a defense attourney to throw the case because he thought his client was guilty. The system remains fair (compared to the alternative, anyway) because -everyone follows the rules-.
What Jack doesn't get is this - even if he WAS right, and was saving the world - lets say he also had the cure for cancer and famine, and a way to prevent all wars - he should STILL be disbarred. You simply can't act like he does and be a lawyer, no matter what the cause.
Isn't the loyalty oath just a formality ? I mean, the most important thing is the contract she signed to allow her to work as a judge.
It's like getting your diploma while missing your graduation ceremony. Doesn't make you less of a graduate.
Anyhoo, Jack Thompson probably is lying heavily.
There is one thing that scares me: He once succesfully sued the Florida Bar.
The loyalty oath requirement is a little bit more than a mere formality. It's more along the lines of the requirement that the graduate must obtain 128 credits before graduation.
Jack's "success" at suing the Bar is debatable. First, they settled with him to be rid of him and his bogus -ass lawsuit. Second, they were insured for the dollar amount of the settlement, so it aint like they had to pay outta pocket. Third, who do you think pays the insurance premiums? Jack Thompson and all the other Florida Bar attorneys. And, since settling, they've continued to collect from Bar membership fees for Jack damn-near equal to the amount they paid out to him. In a sense, they were just giving Jack back his own money.
You can call that a "success" if you want to, but I prefer to keep my standards for success more lofty.
Pretty much. Legal experts (and Florida justice investigators) have looked into it, and basically said that it has zero bearing on her abilities as a judge to preside over cases, and only affects her ability to receive her paycheque. And because she was never given the opportunity to sign it in the first place, it's a clerical error that is permissible to be corrected as long as she signed one as soon as she was notified that she needed to be. Which she did. So the whole point is moot.
Jack is latched onto it, because it's really the ONLY avenue he has left for de-legitimizing the proceedings. Every other attempt at declaring the process invalid has failed miserably.
Of course, this one has too, but he's still touting it around hoping that he can claim the air of legitimacy by throwing it around. Most people (myself included) confused with the Oath of Office, which IS required to hold office, but which Tunis executed the day she became a judge.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
That's simply not true. The loyalty oath is a statutory prequisite to holding office. If you don't have a valid loyalty oath, then you don't have a valid right to hold office. And the State Attorney Office's close-out memo did not state that the validity of the Judge's rulings were unaffected by the forgery. What they say is that it is an issue but one that their investigation wasn't tasked with investigating. That's all they on the issue of validity of rulings. That issue remains completely unresolved by the SAO's memo.
And if you're referring to Eunice Sigler as a "legal expert" and her -- essentially -- "press relaese" on the matter, you're wrong again. Ms. Sigler, with all due respect, isn't even a Florida-admitted attorney, much less anybody's legal expert.
You are correct, I was mixing up my sources. The justice dept just said the oath was forged (because Tunis said she never signed it), and they weren't going to charge the forger, because they weren't sure who it was, and besides, the statute of limitations was up.
Actually, it doesn't quite say that. It says that your paycheques cannot be issued until such time as it is signed, and if you don't execute it, your position is to be terminated (which essentially means that it's possible to hold office up until the point where the oath lands on your desk). And your boss can be charged for not making you execute it.
(in my interpretation) It doesn't mean your position is forfeit retroactively since you didn't sign it. It means if you signed it as soon as you were presented with it, then you are ok. If you REFUSED to sign it upon being presented with it, THEN that's grounds for immediate termination (see the California schoolteacher case). And if your boss was tricked by forgery into thinking you HAD signed it, then he's in the clear, because as far as he knew, everything was done, and HR is in the clear for issuing cheques they shouldn't have, because they didn't know either.
So, since Tunis's boss thought it was signed, and HR thought it was signed, and Tunis wasn't given a copy to sign, and then did sign one as soon as she was told she needed to, then there's really no grounds for any of the penalties associated with it's execution here, because she properly executed it as soon as she was presented with it.
At least that's the way I read it.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Fair enough. I won't disagree. But nothing you've said speaks to the real issue afoot: what effect does the absence of a valid oath for a certain period (and there's no disputing that there was a period in which an invalid oath was in effect) have on the validity of the Judge's rulings made during that period of invalidity. That's the rub.
Considering all the penalties for an individual not signing it are minor (withholding of salary and expenses until such time as it's signed), and the only known related case has resulted in termination only when the person was presented with an oath and refused to sign it (as opposed to being terminated the instant it was found out that they had not), that the wording seems to indicate that it is not an actual precondition to taking a position (rather it's a condition of KEEPING that position once appointed/elected)...
*shrug*
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Interesting to note that she HAD signed the oath when she issued the ruling on Thompson. She did so as a Bona-Fide judge, so even if it calls into question every single one of her other cases, since she was not guilty of breaking the law in any way, that means the ruling she gave on Thompson is valid under the Bar rules strictly speaking, not that Thompson will want to see it that way, I'm sure.
In the UK we have a thing that you simply cannot 'attack' in a situation such as this, you can't spend 3 months stepping over a loose wire, saying nothing, then one day trip over it and sue. If, however, you had informed your boss of the danger of the wire, and your concerns that you might trip over it one day, then you had a case. In other words, you have to attempt to resolve the situation through non-litigatious means first, and only seek legal recourse if that is the only option you have left, you can't ignore an obvious problem until it becomes convenient for you to benefit from it.
I'm not sure whether that is a 'law' or accepted practice, but certainly in the English courts, one of the first questions asked would be 'Wasn't it convenient that you just happened to find this information out during a trial for your own disbarment Mr Thompson? Have you ever attempted to raise the issue of Loyalty Oaths with your superiors prior to finding yourself fighting for your career?'.
I'm not sure if things work the same way in the US, but the UK magistrate courts certainly prefer some attempt at non-courtroom solutions before turning to lawsuits.
"Just one day after our story debunking Thompson's false claim regarding Judge Tunis ran, the controversial attorney filed a document with Eunice Sigler's boss, demanding to see her official loyalty oath. Readers will recall that he has unsuccessfully targeted Judge Tunis over the loyalty oath issue as well.
Thompson's focus on Ms. Sigler, a court administrator simply carrying out her duties, seems from here like a case of very sour grapes."
She complies with a perfectly reasonable request for public records, and Jacko starts going after her job. Damn, sour grapes indeed.
Forgive me if someone's already said this (someone probably has) or if I'm giving Jacky too much credit (I almost assuredly am), but this would explain the down right stupid accusation from the other day (as if the obvious answer doesn't).
By accusing GP of misconduct in their news gathering, and given that GP was at the forefront of coverage, Jack just about forced a response due to GP's high ethical standards. With the disclosure of the sources of the documents and information from these proceedings, Jacky knows exactly who to harass and defame as punishment for helping the mean nasty reporters say awful things about him
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Daily Business Review had the story first. I know they had the document posted before Dennis.
So, yeah, what about them, Jack?
By "meeting" he means he's blasting their fax machines to dust. And by "getting" phone calls, he means he's harassing everyone on his phone list... ;)
He can't perjure, he's protected by the power of Jesus!
"You're all communists out to get me!"
I'll have to laugh if her loyalty oath is 100% in order (no forgeries, signed years ago, notarized, etc).
Besides, it doesn't mitigate the fact that the documents were not sealed and publicly available. Doesn't matter who hands them out, or whether they're working for Stalin or not... (seriously, that's why they brought in these "loyalty oaths", McCarthyism at it's finest)
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Jaberwock:
You beat me to the reference I was thinking of. This definitely brings back thoughts of the Red Scare and McCarthy. If you don't agree with JT, or his line of thought you are against him and desereve to rot in hell. Give me a break with this holier than thou bull! Honestly if this man were anything of a "lawyer" he would actually have some brains and do his job. But listen to me, Brains and Doing his job shouldn't go in the same sentance as JT's name.
As for his statement on by the Grace of God and First Amendment....please...I'm all for religious beliefs but come on. And the 1st Amendment...theres a slippery-slope.
So Jack let me get this straight....your using the 1st Amendment to further your agenda and allow you to spout your lunatic rants and faulty statistics...but...doesn't the 1st Amendment cover Speech, Press, Art, etc. Yeah...do you see where I'm going with this...yeah....you probably don't.
Oh and Jack...just wanted to let you know you might want to rub right there...at the front of your head...you've...you've got a bit of crazy showing.
It was basically written as an excuse to fire people without cause for refusing to denounce communism. 876.06 says you are supposed to terminate their job immediately when said person "fails to execute [the oath]", but is vague enough on what they mean by "fails to execute". If Tunis was never presented the oath in the first place, then she cannot be held responsible for failing to execute it. And when she was presented with it, she immediately executed it properly.
One could argue that the failure lies with her boss, and that he's guilty of a criminal offense for not ensuring that she signed it (876 states penalties). But in her file was the forged one, and he had no reason to suspect otherwise. So really, as far as he knew, she had executed her oath properly.
Now that she's signed it anyway, the point is moot.
Jack's just grasping at straws.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
The oath thing may be a non-issue going forward from the point at which a valid oath was finally executed. Not so clear that it is a non-issue going backwards from that point.
Lemme ask you this: Do you think the fact that Judge Tunis knew or should have know of the requirement of a loyalty oath and knew or should have known that she hadn't effected one is of any importance? Claiming ignorance of the law usually don't the claimant too far, in my experience.
You should take a gander at Florida A.G. Butterworth's advisory opinion on the effect of failure to take to the oath. It's on the 'Net somewhere. It pretty much says, as I recall, "No loyalty oath, no right to hold office."
Here's what Butterworth said, "[T]he oath is a prerequisite to qualification for public office." Which conversely states that the absence of the prerequsite oath is a disqualification for public office.
And that the oath statute has its genesis in the Red Scare era and Communism is dead and all that has absolutely no effect on the validity of the Statute or its power of applicability.
He's misquoting the law then. It says that it's a qualification for receiving salary, and if it's not executed, is grounds for termination. That tells me it's not a pre-requisite, but a post-requisite.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
He's not "misquoting" the law. He's been called upon, as the Attorney General of Florida, to render an advisory opinion on the statute. That's called "interpreting" the law.
Ok, then he sucks at interpretation. The way it's written I think it's pretty clear you need to be holding the position for which the oath is required, before you can be required to take it. It was pretty clear it was written as a tool to fire people, not prevent them from being hired... just the thing you'd need to weed out those evil Ruskies...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Are you going to arrest someone in Manitoba, Canada, for not hiring someone with a red flag to walk in front of their car to warn carriage drivers? That one is still on the books.
Some laws are stupid and pointless, and they stop getting enforced, not because people are willfully ignorant of them, but because one day they didn't do it, and nobody got hauled away to jail or fined.
My point is that seeing as how many judges had their oaths forged, and nobody bothered to wonder why they were never asked to sign them, tells me that nobody told them about the forms required to be signed under the McCarthy "defense against the Soviets" acts that were hastily passed. Might even have been an office joke... "Oh yeah, and once you're done swearing your Oath of Office, you have to promise not to join the Communist Party, or the ghost of McCarthy will haunt you in your chambers..." *snigger* I'm willing to bet those who were appointed in the 60s-80s probably all signed, but anyone after '89 probably laughed at it.
So it gets dragged out of the woodwork by conspiracy theorists who think the Russians are still walking among us, and by loser lawyers on their last legs who are desperately seeking anything that could discredit the judges they have to face...
Has he ever fired anyone for not signing it? Has he ensured that each and every one of his employees has dutifully signed theirs, and fired anyone who hasn't? Has he sent any supervisors to jail for not ensuring their employees have theirs signed? Then he's not really *that* hard-core for enforcing with it...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
The fact that, for whatever reasons, a statute is never enforced has absolutely no bearing on its interpretation.
You could argue selective enforcement. That usually throws a kink into laws that have rarely been enforced. Especially if they're as blatantly pointless as promising you won't ever throw your lot in with the Commies when the Red Army comes knocking. You already swore to uphold the Constitution of the US and of Florida (the Oath of Office), doesn't "not giving aid & comfort to members of the Communist Party" fall under that? So the oath of loyalty is really just a redundant peice of red tape.
My point was that if he feels it's so critical to the job that you cannot hold any position without signing it, why isn't he enforcing it to the letter of the law? My guess would be that he takes it about as seriously as anyone else who's legal career isn't on the line, and probably trots out that threat just to make sure that the clerks have all the paperwork in order when people get hired. "Heads will roll, etc". Or just to ensure that it's signed and done with, so these idiots with an axe to grind have no leg to stand on when griping about all the judges they hate.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
"Lemme ask you this: Do you think the fact that Judge Tunis knew or should have know of the requirement of a loyalty oath and knew or should have known that she hadn't effected one is of any importance? Claiming ignorance of the law usually don't the claimant too far, in my experience."
Tunis: Hello, i want to make sure, is all of my paper work through
Clerk: hold on a moment, i'll check your files... hmm... yup everything seems to be here and in order
Tunis: hmmm, i don't think i got the paper work for a loyalty oath
Clerk: hmmm... no, it's in here, and it's signed. No need to worry
Tunis: oh really? huh guess i did take care it then, how silly of me to forget. I'll be on my way
And really, considering it has been a YEARS since she had to sign that paperwork, it would be easy for anyone to forget what was going through their mind that day... So they may not even be able to account for what exactly happened. Even if she were to check with the office to see if everything was done properly, they would tell them it was done since they don't know about the forgery. Essentially, it's easy for those judges to never realize something was not done since everyone was telling them it was done.
It's not so much the case that Tunis was ignorant of the law, but that anyone she could have talked to at the time would have told her that she never broke any law... afterall, from what she knows, had the oath NOT been signed, the offices would have told her because she would be terminated if she did not comply with signing it. The fact that no one said anything was a miss would only help support her belief that she had signed all the required paper work.
Your script, while humorous, isn't reflective of the point, as I understand it, that Jabrwok is trying to make. I'm not saying that the good Judge was in any way at fault. I don't think she was. But what Jabrwok and I were discussing was how the statute works. And how, in my opinion, it doesn't work is that the office holder can't say, "I didn't know I had to execute an oath" and/or "I didn't know I hadn't executed the oath." Which is Jabrwok's point as I understood it. Neither of those positions obviates the need to satisfy the requirement of the statute that the office holder execute an oath. That's like telling the traffic court judge, "I didn't know I was in a 35 MPH zone" and/or "I didn't know I was doing 45 MPH." Neither of those positions is legally sufficient to defeat the speeding ticket.
I see... granted though, i don't agree with that traffic analogy... afterall, the main reason the "i didn't realize i was going that fast" defense does not work is because it is well within the driver's means to know how fast he is driving. The only way the could not know is if they were not paying attention to their speed dial which is the basics of learning to drive.
In the case of the loyalty oath, it goes a step further beyond the judges' ability to realize the mistake they made. There are three things that could have made them aware; the clerks calling them up and telling them the forms were not signed; calling the office to make sure all their paperwork was complete; and actually checking their files to check for forgery. The first thing was obviously not done... the second thing, if it was done, would have ended, as i said, with the clerk's just telling them it was all done. The final thing, checking the paper work for forgery does not seem like it would be natural for them to ask; it something only a paranoid person would do... after all why would they even consider that the clerk's would forge their signitures?
not to mention a review of the judges' careers would probably show that, despite not signing the oath themselves, that they have been following the oaths. After all, even jack has not gone so far as to make the claim that the judges have been disregarding the agreements set by the Loyalty oath, just making noise about them not signing it.
Given that this was all an error on the part of the clerk and the judges' bosses, the fact that there was little way of knowing without suspecting that the courts would make such a serious error, and that the judges have never actually breached the rules of the oath and have shown every sign that they intended to sign the oath and no sign showing that they refused to sign the oath at the time... i think it would be incredibly ignorant for the courts to find Tunis or any of the other judges at fault and render their decisions void (and that's not even considering what would happen to the florida courts if ALL their cases were voided)
A better traffic example would be getting a ticket for doing 45 in a 35MPH zone, only the sign fell down two years ago, and the contruction crew had filled out a "job complete" form at the time saying they replaced it.
I think if push came to shove and this actually went before a court on how this affected their rulings, it would go something like this:
"So, they were forged right?"
"Yes, your honour."
"And when they found out they were forged, they signed proper ones, right?"
"Yes, your honour."
"So what's the problem? Bother me when one of them tell you to bugger off instead of signing. Case closed *thunk*"
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Part of the confusion might also stem from the fact that the Oath of Office contains language very similar to the Loyalty Oath. Either way, Tunis' actions should still be held as valid under the De Facto Officer doctrine.
If Jabrwok is correct, then there wouldn't be a need for the de fact judge doctrine in this case. The doctrine is designed to cure deficiencies in prerequisites to taking the bench. No need for a cure, if the patient isn't ill.
G.R. No. 130872March 25, 1999
FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, petitioners,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
To be sure, an oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office; a prerequisite to the full
investiture with the office. 15 Only when the public officer has satisfied the prerequisite of oath that
his right to enter into the position becomes plenary and complete. Until then, he has none at all.
And for as long as he has not qualified, the holdover officer is the rightful occupant. It is thus clear
in the present case that since Red never qualified for the post, petitioner Lenlie Lecaroz remained
KB representative to the Sanggunian, albeit in a carry over capacity, and was in every aspect a
de jure officer, 16 or at least a de facto officer 17 entitled to receive the salaries and all the
emoluments appertaining to the position. As such, he could not be considered an intruder and
liable for encroachment of public office. 18
15 Smith v. County Engineering ofSan Diego County Cal. C.A.
16 Tappy v. State ex rel. Byington, 82 So. 2d 161. [Ed: This decision is from the Supreme Court of Florida]
17 Kreidler v. State,24 Ohio St.
18 Ibid.
That covered an Oath of Office though, which is required as part of the process of being seated in a position. Section 5 Art II of the Florida Constitution. And it specifically states you cannot even qualify for a position until the oath is executed. The Oath of Loyalty however, goes about how you can be fired if you don't execute it, can have your paycheque withheld, can have your name removed from the ballot, etc. The only time it's listed as a "prerequisite" is when you're trying to get elected to public office.
Very much a club to use against opponents you don't like. Especially if you can make the notarized copy "disappear" from the records. The Oath of Office is a formality, part of the ceremony. The Oath of Loyalty is a sham designed to give them grounds to get rid of people they don't like.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
True, but the Florida case they cite (ex rel Byington) doesn't. That case involved the very same statute (the Loyalty Oath statute) we've been discussing. And that case held that the Governor's failure to execute a valid loyalty oath negated his right to office. Obviously, the court found that case instructive to oits case -- instructive enough to cite it as an authourity.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions about the ulterior motives inherent in the statute and it's worth in today's society and Commies hiding under the bed and all that, but all that does absolutely nothing at all to support your interpretation of the statute that it creates a post- and not a prerequisite to taking office.
Difference being though, that Byington was over an elected position. And for that, the the Oath of Loyalty specifically states it's a pre-requisite for even qualifying for the position.
That and the Byington case couldn't address the "de facto" issue, because it didn't involve a judge...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Let's not even get to the de facto judge doctrine issue, yet (although I agree with you that Bynington is entirely distinguishable from a case involving a judge because Byington involved a state governor and not a state judge). We're still at the interpretation issue, if you don't mind.
You're saying that, on your read, the Loyalty Oath staute is a prerequisite for at least an elected official? Correct? Good. Because judges of the Florida state lower court system (such as Judge Tunis) can at best be appointed to the bench but once (and many are not ever appointed but, instead, ascend to the bench on the results of an election). After an initial appointment, if they wish to remain in the bench, they must be elected. Making them, by your own interpretation of the statute, entirely subject to the prerequisite requirement of swearing or affirming the loyalty oath.
I admire the tenacity with which you hold your point of view. Even as your grip steadily loosens.
Actually, you bring up a good point. Yes, judges can be appointed, then must be re-elected. So here's the rift.
Tunis was appointed to the County Court bench in 2000. Her loyalty oath was forged, so nobody caught it in 2003 when she ran for re-election. BUT, in 2005, she was appointed to the 11th Circuit, which means that her current position is again valid (the FL constitution only lists residency and a valid Bar license as pre-requisites for appointment to circuit courts). She has now signed her own OoL, which means she qualifies for re-election this coming year.
Ironically, Jack has ensured that this time her re-election is airtight (paperwork wise), and cannot be disputed.
So while her rulings from 2003-2005 may be in dispute (although others have touched on the statute of limitations hampering any attempts to do anything about it), her rulings from 2005 and on are not, because she was properly appointed to her current position.
So we're still back to the "at what point does it go from being post-hiring clerical error to invalidation of position" question.
Really? Because from my end, while I'm seeing a lot of great discussion on "what if's" and "well what about this", I've yet to see my position weaken. I think I've adequately addressed any points you've brought up. It's been fun, seriously. I love doing this, because I end up learning a lot, just through thinking about things, and researching to answer questions.
EDIT: Arg, getting skrunchy. We should continue this in the ECA forum...
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Hold up a minute. We haven't at all moved beyond the point where your interpretation that the Loyalty Oath statute creates a prerequisite for elected officials (that is your stated postion) would neccessarily mean that an elected judge (who is an elected official as I understand you to use the term "elected official") would be subject to the prerequisite. Am I missing something, or have you not just made my case for me?
It is getting scrunchy. I'll meet you in the forum.
All of Tunis' past decisions will be held valid because even if she was not legally a judge, she was acting in good faith under color of law.
Let's put aside the facts of the instant case and discussions of posted speed limits for a while and focus on the simple stautory intrepretation issue of whether the execution of a loyalty oath is a prerequisite to taking office and, conversely, whether the failure to satistify the oath negates the right of the putative office holder to take office (Jabrwok argues isn't a prerequisite but, rather, a post-requisite). I'd like to believe that the language of the opinion I've posted a few posts below and which employs a decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in stating that the oath is a prerequisite and the failure to execute negates the right to hold office would decisively settle the debate. But if we wanna continue to flog a dead horse, I'm game. But, if we must continue to flog, can we limit ourselves to using something other than personal opinions to make whatever point we're trying to make?
Right where he wants them...
I find his claims specious...
More than likely he's getting calls from his fellow hacks who are seeking to make a buck off of attempting to (or actually) overturn the court's decision. The Johnnie Cochran of getting off legal hacks for poor misconduct.
I do not think we have seen a single Florida attorney come into this case and proclaim Thompson's innocence and the Bar's wrongdoing.
The sad thing is, things have been in motion since Alabama... Which was years ago. All the way leading up to 2007. You would have thought he would cool his jets and let his poor behavior space it out, but he just keeps heaping it up.
At least he's optimistic... ? He'll be happily gaining the advantage all the way down to his nice room with the padded walls, methinks.
@GP:
You got a hands-down winner of a libel claim against Jack behind that "leaked documents" nonsense. The Thompsons ain't judgment-peroof for lack of assets. You're sure to collect something out of it. Sue him.
The thought had occured to me as well, except GP would have to demonstrate some damages as a result of JT's false statements. According to Wikipedia, US law recognizes that some statements (including allegations of criminal activity) are defamatory per se - damages don't have to be proven in those cases. But what law is JT claiming that GP broke? Conspiracy to access public records?
The funny part, of course, is that JT's apparent inability to put together a coherent argument against GP may be what helps diffuse a case of defamation against him.
Previously, Jack Thompson has accused GamePolitics of libel for publishing court records in less than their full entirety.
Truthfulness is a defense against libel claims. Unmodified public records are truthful.
''I am now going to win this fight..."
AHAAAHAHAHA ! man you crack me up jack you are awesome. Is this like your 'gonna win it' like all those other times you claimed you were 'going to win the fight'? Like how you were going to win with some big suprise yesterday? that went well didnt it Jack hahahaah.
"most particularly the right to freedom of the press. "
see this is the bit that proves he's batshit crazy. Hes fightin essentially for 'freedom' lol. Except only for freedom for the things HE deems ok. HAHAAHAHAHA. man im not even gonan point out the hypocracy.
I think the recent game HAZE was based on JT. Hes pumpin himself full of something just like the mantel soldiers so he cant see whats really going on. 'im winning!, im winning!, im beating you!'. Despite that fact the Florida bar has esentially just chopped off his balls. But he still thinks hes the 'biggest' man in town.
Jack .. please keep it coming your totally right this is 'SWEEET'. You arent going to bother gamers any more since you wont be an attorney, but we still get to laugh at things like this its a win win situation.
Sweet for us , Sour for you.
Also just notices something, This may be a Freudian slip...
'Because of the [DBR] article, which contains my entire Objections filing, I am now getting phone calls from highly respected people who are proving to me the criminal conduct of The Florida Bar'
If JT KNOWS the FLorida bar is acting criminally, then WHY GOD WHY does he need respected people 'proving to him' that the Florida bar is acting criminally...? Is it because a) they are respected and he is not, or b) because in actual fact, despite his vocal rantings, he knows the Florida bar has every right to do what they are doing based on his insane actions...
either way it isnt a good explanation for him..
"It´s all part of the plan... bwa hahahahahahaha!"
I told you, Jack. You should throw acid to someones face and turn him/her in a supervillian...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/
I'm pretty sure that Jack IS the supervillain.
--
http://mallvillestory.blogspot.com
He could throw acid in his own face & attempt to blame Tunis, that way his rise to mask-wearing supervillainy and his elaborate vendetta/revenge plot can advance simultaneously
Jack "Doom" Thompson, Attorney at Lwal?
Oh my. I just got a hilarious idea in my head. Think Harvey Birdman, but backwards with Jack being a lame superhero, complete with repeat pans and a cheesy catchphrase. He wages war against, I don't know... a giant gnat.
@Jack Thompson:
O.K., Jack. You get Eunice Sigler's loyalty oath and discover that it's forged or otherwise invalid. So, what? Where does that get you? Other than some enjoyment outta making somebody else's life more miserable than it would have been without you. Don't Christians have some functional equivalent to the Hindu notion of "karma?" Isn't that one of the beatitudes? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Or is it "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Jack, you are one doing-unto-others-as-you-don't-want-them-to-do-to-you, stone-casting maddafacker. For which you are paying a price. And will continue to pay a price. Your tab's not quiet paid-up, yet. Cuntflap.
> Don't Christians have some functional equivalent to the Hindu notion of "karma?" Isn't that one of the beatitudes?
It's all over the Bible actually. Galatians 6:7, Hosea 8:7, Revelation 13:10, Job 4:8 ... Not the beatitudes though, you're thinking of "a time to sow; a time to reap" there
But just to set the record straight, karma is not strictly "what goes around comes around", though that's certainly a part of it. Karma is, in Hindu tradition, the "momentum" of the wheel of life and death, which is the force that keeps you coming back to earth instead of transcending. Technically, there's no such thing as good karma (unless you count "no karma").
He can't stop. He can't help himself. I'm starting to think that if SCOFLA disbars him, they'll do be doing a public service.
In theory, all disciplinary action is supposed to be a public service.
Lawyers are subject to strict ethical guidelines because they have extaordinary power in our society. The various codes of professional conduct exist to protect the public (mostly clients) and the system as a whole from abuse of that power. Though it's a big deal to take away someone's ability to practice his or her profession, it is sometimes necessary.
In reality, there may be times when someone's license is unfairly taken away, or some other disciplinary action is inappropriately imposed, but bar associations and courts are usually pretty careful about that. Notice how slow and deliberate this process has gone, with JT having every opportunity to contest the disciplinary charges. To many people, it appears that the Florida Supreme Court has put up with an awful lot, and been very restrained about it.
So, this is no different than how JT was going to:
- Destroy Rockstar and Take Two
- Depose the President on the stand
- Get Halo 3 banned in Florida
- Get Bully pulled from shelves
- Put Norm Kent in jail
- Get Kotaku, Gamepolitics, Destructoid, Gamespot, Penny Arcade, ect shut down.
- Help EA buy Take Two
He's finally gone batshit crazy.
Ironic isn't it, that Jack is saying the first amendment is helping him given that a lot of his career is based on crapping all over it?
"And if you think I'm kidding, then you don't know Jack."
Has he become a professional wrestler? I mean, if he's going to have to find something else to do for 10 years, it's not the worst idea.
You've got them right where you want them alright, Jack, standing over you with guns to your head (no, that's not a threat, it's a metaphor). All you need is a giant miracle, and you win.
--
http://mallvillestory.blogspot.com
You've got them right where you want them alright, Jack, standing over you with guns to your head (no, that's not a threat, it's a metaphor).
Don't you mean "figuratively speaking?"
I'd love to see Jack become a professional wrestler! The Big Show chokeslamming him off a 30-foot scaffolding? Yeah, I might pay to see that.
You know, I have a feeling he's still going to still be trying to submit all of these filings even if he's disbarred.
He's like the villains from one those 80's horror movie series like Nighmare on Elm Street or Halloween, no matter what you do to him he'll always be there jumping out of behind a tree or from inside a closet when you least expect him.
Yeah, but be would be a villain so weak you could push him with your pinky and he would fall to the floor.
Oh I REALLY hope he does try to file legal dockets after he's disbarred. I also hope he signs them as John Bruce Thompson, Attorney. If he does the docket will be thrown out and there will be even more legal hot water for him since he's misrepresenting himself.
-Loudspeaker
"Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."
He's free to file things on his own behalf, barring measures like those the Florida Supreme Court took to prevent him from filing anything without a different attorney's signature. But he'll get nailed for unauthorized practice of law if he tries to represent anyone.
He is also free, of course, to say anything he wants outside of legal filings, though he risks incurring liability if he says anything defamatory. Or if he knowingly makes a false statement under oath, which may incur criminal liability should the appropriate official elect to pursue the matter.
I've heard this threat many times before, even as recently as that radio interview where he said he was being assisted by local law enforcement. When aksed which precinct, he simply chuckled and said "I'm not telling you."
Then they told him he's done. It lasted for like one minute.
Jackhole's email reminds me of what Sex (yes, there's a contestant who calls himself Sex...) said about training with "the best and famous coreographers".
In other words, I'm calling bullshit. He's in contact with other ambulance chasers who have nothing else to do with their miserable law careers.
-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/
That "Sex" guy has me rolling on the ground. And it's the third season he's done whatever it is he does. But here's the even bigger bullshit part:
The judges all sit up there acting all peeved at Sex and accussing him of making a mockery of everything and everyone else, and just doing it because he wants attention, blah, blah, blah, blah. But every season you can bank on the producers airing the Sex audition and an in-depth interview with Sex on the show. That's some bullshit. THEY LOVE THAT SEX GUY!! HE'S RATINGS GOLD!!
Victory is mine! Mine! What do you mean I lost?! Victory is mine! ~ Jack Thompson
Which law enforcement agency's going to give Jack more than the time of day? They've got Google, too. They run "Jack Thompson" through the 'net, chuckle to themselves, and move on some other legitimate law enforcement business which, hopefully, doesn't involve a crazy person.
Do we have access to a copy of whatever mysterious document he handed out yesterday before he stormed out of the courtroom?
Yeah, if you go to the article on his storming out you can click the link and download his objection. Let me give you some highlights:
Its 14 pages long mentioning the following:
Loyalty oaths
Hitler
Clarence Thomas
Richard Nixon
Lynching
Christianity
Quoting Jesus
Florida Supreme court is illegal
and well...it just goes on...
Florida Supreme court is illegal
But what about all those cases he won because of them? Oh wait, never mind, I fogot who we were talking about.
Sometime ago there was a skit on Mad TV with Bob Newhart. It was a woman who went into a theripist to get some mental help. Everytime the woman would say she had a problem, Bob Newhart (who played the theripist) would say "STOP IT!".
Me: Jack Thompson, S