Jack Thompson: Sweet & Sour

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.

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

214 comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    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.

  2. sabin_blitz ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  3. Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    "You did NOTHING, because you get NOTHING. You LOSE. GOOD DAY SIR."

    Well said, DavCube, or should I say… WILLY WONKA!?!?!?

    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!

  4. Aliasalpha says:

    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

  5. Anonymous says:

    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.

  6. Anonymous says:

    > 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").

     

  7. hayabusa75 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  8. Mackenzie ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  9. Mackenzie ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  10. Mazinger-Z says:

    Nevermind the fact that "anti-porn" seems far more righteous than "anti-violence."

    Anti-porn means what normal people think it means.  You’re against the showing of boobs, genitals and fornication.

    Anti-violence means that you’re a wuss and a bleeding heart liberal.

    A Texan is far more likely to back anti-porn than anti-violence.

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

    Thompson: I’m not gonna tell you. (He said, much in the way a five year old might)

    Yeah i heard that it was hilarious. IT was EXACTLY like a 5 year old in the playground, when they try to pretend they know something when they clearly dont.

    Kid 1: So.. you dont have an answer then…

    Kid 2:’ I SO do, I COULD tell you , I just dont WANT to tell you ….‘ .

    Kid 1: Well go on then.. tell me if you know it.. theres absolutely no reason not to tell me if you do know.

    Kid 2:’ I DO know, i dont HAVE to tell you anything though!’

    Kid 1: But.. that doesnt make sense. Why wouldnt you just say if you really know….come on surely you can see what your saying makes NO sense..

    Kid 2:’ La La La , im not listening, im not listening!’

  12. Loudspeaker says:

    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."

  13. Anonymous says:

      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?"

  14. Gray-17 says:

    Jack’s anti-"a whole bunch of stuff that he thinks is porn". Calling him an anti-porn crusader is likely just the simplest thing to do rather than expland the actuality of things.

  15. jccalhoun says:

    i have no doubt that jacko is getting contacted by other people who have beefs with the florida bar. I’m sure there are tons of people in jail who claim that it is all part of a conspiracy to get them just like Jacko.

  16. Jack Wessels says:

    Are these the same law enforcement agencies that you refused to comment about on Neil Conan, I think? The same ones that happened to do Jack shit for you in the past.

    Conan: Might I ask what law enforcement agencies you are working with?

    Thompson: I’m not gonna tell you. (He said, much in the way a five year old might)

    Besides, assuming this all pans out well for Jack, the BAR and the FSC go down, it would all go to the next highest court: The United States Supreme Court. And their findings would almost undoubtedly mirror that of Florida’s. Leading to disbarment.

  17. DavCube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    So who are you going to investigate for loyalty oaths next, Mr. Thompson, the justices of the supreme court of florida? Because that seems to be your only angle right now…

    "And if you think I’m kidding, then you don’t know Jack."

    Jack, you kid a lot. You threaten a LOT. And 9 times out of 10… nay, 99 times out of 100, you don’t do jack shit. Pun intended.

    What happened to deposing the President?
    Where’s your client for the EA-T2 deal?
    Where’s the guy that said you were "the only lawyer in America" who could win a case?
    Where’s your police badge so that you could legally "do" a sting?
    Where’s our epidemic of slingshot injuries from the release of Bully two years ago?

    You did NOTHING, because you get NOTHING. You LOSE. GOOD DAY SIR.

  18. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Jack’s a straight-up biter. This is the second in two days he’s said, "if you think that blah, blah, blah, then you don’t know Jack. I should have gotten a copyright and a trademark. 

  19. Benji says:

    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.

  20. DarknessDeku! says:

    Yeah, but be would be a villain so weak you could push him with your pinky and he would fall to the floor.

  21. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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!!

  22. nightstalker160 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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…

  23. thefremen says:

    Have any of you listened to Talk Radio late at night? Like when 10 people call in all claiming to be possessed by Satan Himself at the same time? Have you ever seen that 4-sided cube guy’s site? Well, there’s a lot of nut-cases out there and some of them are even crazier than Jack Thompson.

    Also, he really can’t tell when someone is leading him on or troll-baiting him.

  24. 1AgainstTheWorld says:

    I love Jack lately.  The man just makes my freakin’ DAY.

    BTW I couldn’t help but notice the Daily Business Review article only refers to him as an "anti-porn crusader", and makes no mention of his battles against gaming.  Could it be that Jack is only recognized as an anti-gaming figure within the gaming community itself?

  25. Anonymous says:

    If all things are a part of God’s plan, so is Jack’s disbarment. If you want proof that God is forgiving, I’d point out the "ten years" bit. Yes, God’s forgiveness must be infinite to tolerate a bunghole like Jack.

  26. Rene Rivers ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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, STOP IT!

    JT: But I have the children to protect…

    Me: STOP IT!

    JT: But Jesus…

    Me: STOP IT!

    JT: But the oath…

    ME: STOP IT! JUST STOP IT!

  27. Arad ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Do we have access to a copy of whatever mysterious document he handed out yesterday before he stormed out of the courtroom?

  28. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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. 

  29. Thomas Riordan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Victory is mine!  Mine!  What do you mean I lost?!  Victory is mine! ~ Jack Thompson

  30. Pixelantes Anonymous says:

    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/

  31. Anonymous says:

    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.

  32. Kaiselius says:

    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.

  33. Void Munashii says:

      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

  34. Azhrarn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    So mr. Thompson thinks he has them right where he wants them….. If that isn’t proof of the man’s slipping sanity i don’t know what is… Sure, there will always be people who think he was doing the right thing and who will pledge "support", but only as long as they can see themselves make a profit out of such a venture, mr. Thompson would do well to question the motivations of such "highly respected people" before playing right into their hands.

     

  35. Zerodash. ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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

     

  36. jadedcritic says:

    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.

  37. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    @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.

  38. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    "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/

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

    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..

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

    ”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.

     

  41. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    @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.

  42. oto kirlama says:

    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.

    YES.

    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.

     

  43. Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    I third your seconding in its entirety, Ix. That man has won… the INTERNET.

    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!

  44. GryphonOsiris says:

    From law.com

    "Thompson also filed a federal lawsuit against the Bar, arguing it has overstepped its bounds regarding its discipline of him. In March, the Supreme Court issued an order preventing him from filing documents with the high court without the signature of another Florida Bar member. The court’s clerk has since refused to accept documents filed by him in the case. Thompson countered the high court’s decision violates his Sixth Amendment right to choose his own legal representation."

    Call me crazy on this one, but I’m damned sure that the Sixth Amendment says, and I quote "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

    Read the first four words: "In All Criminal Trials." Not civil cases you brain dead schmuck. Also, it says nothing about choosing one’s own lawyer, it says that a lawyer can be assigned to someone who doesn’t have it, but that is a moot point, because the Amendment is for Criminal cases, ya frickin’ idiot. I mean seriously Jack, have you ever actually read the complete text of all the Amendments? Because you are seriously getting them wrong left and right. I mean really, you are like an idiot I knew in High School who was so stoned on pot that on tests, like his driving test, he answered only 3 questions correctly.

  45. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    Subscriber or not, if you go to JAAblog, they’ve got a link there that’ll hook you up. It’s under the tiny, scowling picture of Jack, and is entitled "The Saga of Jack Thompson" or somesuch, as I recall.

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

    I’m saying if we could collect or use all that hot air he could power (or heat) a small village.

  47. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    The Daily Business Review has a recent article on Jack’s recent walk-out at his sanction hearing (it’s also got the audio of the entire hearing, if you’re interested). There’s a recent picture of Jack included. I was a little taken aback. He’s aged 20 years in the last 12 months and looks likes he’s been hitting the bottle. I figured that scary picture of him holding up the copy of GTAIV was a one-time thing (maybe taken on a Sunday, after a weekend of not shaving and staying up late) and he’d clean up nicely. He ain’t cleaned up nicely. He looks like warmed up dog doo-doo.  

  48. black manta says:

    I call BS!  Prove it Mr. Thompson.  Name your sources.  Name your co-conspiritors against the noble video game.  Show us your evidence and put all your cards on the table.  If your evidence cannot withstand the light of day then it is better that you never even trouble us with your lies and constant yammering.

    Acutally we know the names of three of his six so-called "experts," but he rarely mentions them.  You really have to listen to all his interviews and appearances as he has only mentioned at least one of them.  Here the ones ones known so far that I have gleaned over the years.

    Col. David Grossman– Mentioned by JT during his debate with Lorne Lanning at the 2007 VGXpo.  No doubt he appropriated the term "Murder Simulator" – which Grossman actually coined – from him.  No confirmation from Grossman on if they are actually working together.

    Eugene Provenzo- Professor at the University of Miami.  Confirmed in court record as having appeared with Thompson during the Bully trial.  His big moment was when Judge Friedman asked him to speak when JT suddenly told him not to, then later turned around and accused Friedman of denying Provenzo the right to speak.

    Neil Bushman– Psychologist.  Author of the report that asserted violent video games posed just as great a health risk to kids as smoking and obesity.  Was mentioned by JT in the podcast interview with Danny LeDonne about SCMRPG.

    It’s not clear whether these indivduals are in true collusion with him or he’s just pulling names out of his ass.  It’s also not clear if any of these "experts"  "testified before Congress" as he says.  At least Provenzo can be confirmed.  But the rest we can’t be sure.  In any case, one wonders why he doesn’t readily mention them, as getting him to tell us their names is almost like pulling teeth.  But it could be for the reasons you mentioned.

  49. Kyle says:

     Wow…You know, a reasonable person would just cut their losses and run.  What a whiney little girl he is.  He just can’t call it quits until his professional reputation is COMPLETELY unsalvageable.  You’re going to lose, Jacky, just like you’ve lost EVERY case before this one.  Idiot…

  50. Ixian says:

    She was one of my favorite characters too, but she does overuse desu enough to be known for it and, since I liked the character, she was the first one to come to mind when I needed someone who overuses desu. I can recall someone else doing the same thing, even more-so than Suiseiseki, but I can’t remember the character name or series.

    Given all the desu animations involving her, she was also the one most likely for other people to recognize here, even if they aren’t into anime.

  51. Jabrwock says:

    The FBI won’t return his phone calls, i’m pretty sure after the debacle with bully the local PD isn’t all that intrested in talking to him since he wanted to put former police chiefs on the stand to make fools of themselves by calling Bully a public neusience.

    I like the Daily Show’s quote from yesterday (on a different issue, but with regards to calling the PD over stupid crap):

    "Stop calling us, we have real crimes to deal with."

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

  52. Ixian says:

    Seconded. Now, who’s got an internet to give him?

    Also seconding the statement about JT not knowing how to write. I have read works done by children that were better than anything Jack has done that’s been publically available. Heck, there was a contest I remember from a while ago that published books by kids who wrote and illustrated their own stuff that produced a lot of books that are far superior to anything of JT’s. Dunno how easy it would be to find them anymore since the company went under, but if anyone does want to look for kids books (I know there’s gotta be some parents around here who could appreciate some good kids books), hunt down the Landmark Editions "Written and Illustrated by" winners. I read them all as a kid, and know that with the exception of maybe 5-6 books they’re all better than JT’s drivel. I think it’s telling when an 8 year old who’s writing and illustrating his own book manages better writing that a lawyer, ’nuff said.

    I’ll second the call of BS and demand for the facts/evidence to be brought forward, along with the names of everyone working with/for you. Until the evidence and people can be validated as true, in favor of you, and actually on your side all you’re doing is wasting air and other natural resources. I’m afraid at the rate you waste stuff, on behalf of the evnironmentalists, I’m going to have to ask you to hold your breath and stop sending faxes, because while air and paper are renewable resources you’re going through both way too fast for the environment to restore itself.

  53. Ixian says:

    I’m starting to feel like I’m watching a cross between Navi from Zelda and Suiseiseki from Rozen Maiden. About all I see coming from JT these days is "Hey listen, desu desu desu desu desu!" repeated over and over again. In fact I don’t think his arguments are any worse off if we actually replace them all with that quote.

    Reporter: "Jack, how do you plan on getting out of disbarrment?"

    JT: "Hey listen, desu desu desu desu desu!"

    Reporter: "O..K… umm…. right, next question. Why are violent video games bad or harmful to children?"

    JT: "Hey listen, desu desu desu desu desu!"

    Reporter: "Interesting answer Mr. Thompson. Lets hear about some of those studies that you’ve said in the past show a causual link between video games and violent crime?"

    JT: "Hey listen, desu desu desu desu desu!"

    Reporter: "*sigh* Ok, time for one last question. We’d like to know some about your book you published?"

    JT: "Hey listen, conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy! Desu!"

    Strangely enough all of the above still makes as much sense to a common sane observer as the stuff JT has actually said.

  54. Killj0y ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

    I can’t help but think that if Jack had simply shut up and hired a competent lawyer to handle his bar trial he wouldn’t be in the pickle he’s in.

    Jack is above all else a liar.  And as a christian that basically means he’s going to hell.  He’s not working with law enforcement, they won’t have anything to do with his gungho crusade.  The FBI won’t return his phone calls, i’m pretty sure after the debacle with bully the local PD isn’t all that intrested in talking to him since he wanted to put former police chiefs on the stand to make fools of themselves by calling Bully a public neusience.

    The Center for Media and the Family gave him the brush off and told him to never claim association with them again.

    The Florida Bar is sick of him, the florida Bench is sick of him, the florida supreme court is acting like the girlfriend of a stalker and refuses to even look at his filings.

    Jack is a horrible lawyer.  I cannot seem to locate anything that he’s outright "won".  Settlements don’t really count because we can be reasonably sure that he simply harrassed the other party into giving up, rather than dazzleing them with his legal thrashings.

    It’s actually painful to read his filings, postings, emails and other output.  I feel very sorry for Tunis who had to wade through thousands of pages of his drivel.  The man cannot write.  His grammer is infantile, as is his attitude.  He rambles on for pages of run-on sentances, lies, defamations, half-truths, and out right garbage without a single consistant paragraph.  What’s worse are the hints he drops.  He NEVER has ANY evidence to back up what he claims.  He doesn’t present anything that can be confirmed.  He only talks about surprises, and nameless compatriots who have come out of the woodwork to support his cause.

    I call BS!  Prove it Mr. Thompson.  Name your sources.  Name your co-conspiritors against the noble video game.  Show us your evidence and put all your cards on the table.  If your evidence cannot withstand the light of day then it is better that you never even trouble us with your lies and constant yammering.

    I will predict what response he would make to that request.  He will claim that his evidence would then be tainted.  That someone would work to destroy the prescious facts he has worked so hard to glean.  And I will tell you why that’s a lie.  If something is fact, then no matter how hard anyone works to discredit it, or remove it or destroy it then it will stand on its own without the legal trickery, the constant character assassinations and the back door tricks.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Jack,

    Getting into an argument with the meter maid who gave you a parking ticket outside the courthouse on Wednesday does not constitute "meeting with law enforcement officials".

  56. paul says:

    Is it just me, or is there a little daffy duck in jack

    i mean the spittle, the constant moaning, the greed, etc

    i’m just curious about one thing, why are these mysterious people calling jack now

    why not call him during the trial, you know, when they might have been able to something

    wasn’t their a report on GP not too long as well, that the FBI weren’t even listening to him anymore?

  57. Deamian says:

    The past year has been quite rough for me, ranging from job loss to family deaths, but what thing truly TRULY kept me smiling ;

     

    Jack Thompson.

     

    Once justice will be done, rightfully and righteously (just the way JT likes it), I won’t be laughing as much…

     

    I’ll miss you JT… Now get off our lawn you attention-whore!!

  58. Ryno (awaiting my login info) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I agree with everything you say, except the "slightly loopy" bit. I think any psychologist trained in abnormal behavior will find him much more than that. I’ve put forth Narcissistic Personality Disorder, as others have done with Sociopathy and Martyr Complex. The man is clearly deranged. His rantings and boasts should prove this.

    Hopefully, one day, society at large and the court system will realize this and he can get the help he so desperately needs to deal with it so that his family can live somewhat of a normal life, especially his son, for whom we can only hope the best.

  59. HoRnO ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Ah the Black Knight of the legal industry once again claims ’tis only a scratch’ as he lies on the ground with no arms or legs.

    Really, I mean what’s beyond delusional? Whatever that line is he’s now well over it and heading into uncharted.

    Plus I doubt that I’m the only one that catches the scent of hypocrisy:

    ‘I am now going to win this fight, by the grace of God and because of the First Amendment’

    The one shred of hope he’s hanging onto is the very thing he’s been trying to deny people all these years!

  60. L42yB says:

    I agree.  It also really annoys me that people send him angry emails and stupid death threats which he then just uses against the games industry by showing them to the media and flouting it as proof that gamers are aggresssive and violent.

    *sigh*

    Why can’t we just take comfort in the fact that we know we are right, he is slightly loopy and especially that he has absolutely no decent arguments or evidence?  That should be enough to let us just deal with idiots like Jack calmly and reasonably…

    So no more childish piss taking or angry threats (baseless as they are, he will use them against us).  Reasonable arguments, and laughter at his antics is all that is necessary 🙂

    — mostly harmless

  61. Henry Windgates says:

    Woah, Jack’s erratic behavior is certainly uncalled for. I mean, it’s more like Hitler shouting in his speech to his supporters. Except it’s much worse.

  62. Paul says:

    Mad, mad as a hatter

    I’d love to live in his world, where everything bad is good, and everything good is SWEET

  63. Ryno (awaiting my login info) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I hope everyone impersonating Jack gets banned. It’s uncalled for and has no place here.

  64. Pierre-Olivier ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Yeah. As tempting as it is, it’s really low. I just imagine him crying

    "They’re stealing my job. I’M the one who’s supposed to do that. And to top it all, they’re better than I am. I’ve worked for 31 long years of a lawyer carreer to be such a perfect jerk and now kiddies are beating me to it. *sob*."

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

    @Everyone Who Impersonates Jack Thompson

    Guys, that is a low blow.

    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!

  66. InJM says:

    That’s a wonderful way to ask for something.  Jack might have less enemies if he were a little nicer about the way he does things.

  67. Anonymous says:

    I’m hoping you’ve been around for at least one round of voir dire and maybe done a couple to see in glorious, HD detail just how this would go down.  Now imagine this: you have your pool.  They’re sitting there in their "business attire" (which in CA means a damn pink track suit – NEVER have I seen such an enraged bailiff), kind of bored, wondering how they’re going to get out of this one and get back to work/watching TV/doing whatever the hell veniremen do after they claim hardship.  The plaintiff, acting pro se, stands for voir dire and begins to question the pool, maybe remembering something from that Trial Adv. class at Vanderbilt about using your questions to influence the jury.  So begins the Jack Attack.  On the pool.  So they all get dismissed for collectively saying something along the lines of "yeah, I’d be prejudiced in this matter because you just convinced me you’re a flaming whacko conspiracy nut who asked me why I would not believe it to be my ‘Christian duty to place myself upon the gears of the machine and stop the immolation of countless children.’"  Comes now pool two.  Rinse, repeat.  Counsel for the defense hasn’t even stood up.  Hasn’t said a word.  Just sits there, letting it all happen.  How many shell-shocked citizens would come stumbling out of that courtroom and how many judicial clerks would come dashing in, word of mouth having spread that Jacko was up to this shenanigan, before the judge would get fed up, push the little red button, duck behind the faux-wood bulletproofing, and watch the CSOs apply shotgun butt to Jack-skull until he stopped resisting?

  68. Gray-17 says:

    I’ll say it again, this comparison does a diservice to the Iraqi Information Minister.

  69. Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    "God has a message, he says ‘leave me outta this, you’re on your own buddy.’"

    I heard him loud and clear when he said it.

    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!

  70. Anonymous says:

    Got to be either Egypt or Paris, he’s either in ‘De Nile’ or ‘In Seine’, I’m just trying to figure out which..

  71. cullarn says:

    also you forgot one very important thing

    The process of jury selection (voir dire) gives a savvy attorney .

     

    the key word is SAVVY

     

  72. Adamas Draconis says:

    Priest: Jack, I’ve been hearing some disturbing things about and from you in the news. The way your acting isn’t how God tells us to act towards each other.

     

    Jack: The video game companies have gotten to you! Your with THEM, but you will never stop me. GOD  is on my side!!! *Followed by him singing "Jesus he knows me" by Phill Collins as he runs from the chapel*

     

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  73. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    The process of jury selection (voir dire) gives a savvy attorney — to some extent — the ability to stack the deck. Each side is allowed a certain number of challenges to the other sides selections and, for some number of that certain number, for cause (i.e., a good reason) request of the court that the juryperson not be seated and, for some number of that certain number, for no stated reason demand by right (i.e., the court has no say in the matter) that the juryperson not be seated. There’s a billion dollar industry for consultants who help attorneys pick juries. It is often at the jury-picking stage that cases are won or lost.

    However, Jack doesn’t get to re-litigate his Bar proceedings before a jury in a civil action. That don’t happen. I suspect he’s talking about coming up with some kind of civil action by which he thinks he can indirectly invalidate his Bar proceedings. What that is I have absolutely no idea. My mind don’t work like Jack’s does. 

  74. Anonymous says:

    Sure he does, that is where he is moving his just bought Jack Thompson Memorial Bridge (aka the former Brooklyn Bridge) to!

  75. Loudspeaker says:

    Question…

    "…I am now getting phone calls from highly respected people who are proving to me the criminal conduct of The Florida Bar…"

    …Were those phone calls before, inbetween, or after the supposed threats against you and your family from gamers?  You made it sound like you couldn’t even get an inbound call from a local charity organization let alone someone who had proof of criminal conduct of the Florida Bar.

    Again JT I think the truth has caught up to your lies and deceit.

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

  76. SithLibrarian says:

    Was that before or after Hitler’s generals told him that Universal and Warner dropped support of HD-DVD in favor of Blu-Ray?

    So, so sorry! I couldn’t resist 🙂

    (If one doesn’t get the reference, search youtube.com for "hitler hd-dvd")

  77. Anonymous says:

    Heh, now I picture Jack being his usual paranoid self and having a witch hunt with the picking of the jury members…

    But would it really be a witch hunt if they are out to get you?  If you are a gamer, you are more then likely to have heard about him, and "are very sympathetic" to his cause….  Same for all the other people & stuff he has attacked, I’m sure those with such feelings would be just as ethical as him when questioned about such….

  78. notashamed7688 says:

    Jack had a fair idea on GTA, he just took it way too far.  1st amendment applies to all including gamers and game developers.  Just because he didn’t like it doesn’t mean that he can run it through the mud and make playing games a deplorable act.  He was around when Pong came out and that can be looked at as two dicks passing a piece of ass.  No one was protsting that.

    JT should seriously look at his priorities alittle more carefully and consider what this could do to the rest of his family.

  79. Loudspeaker says:

    T. Trollerton!  LOL!  Well done sir!

    I’d have been caught if not for my reading it as sarcasm.  Well played.

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

  80. Anonymous says:

    DBR wrote:

    Thompson contends he is the target of a wide-reaching conspiracy to get him disbarred.

    Gee, having them print that doesn’t sound like a good thing.

    Throughout the battle, he insists, the Bar has sought to silence him in violation of his First Amendment rights.
    Lies, 1st amendment doesn’t mean you have the right to force others to hear you, not going to bother going back into this…

    As the Wednesday hearing began, Thompson rose to object to the proceedings in a testy exchange with the judge, whom he has attempted to get removed from his case.
    That sure sounds SWEET to me….

    She invited him to submit his objections in writing. In response, Thompson said he had a right to state for the record his objection to the hearing.
    And they let you do it, in written form while not allowing you to monopolize their ruling and time.

    … the tables will be turned. It will then be my time at bat and a jury of normal people in this county will undo all that you have done."
    Ohh, now that would be a good one!  Lets have this potential "jury of normal people" catch up on your history, and see how well you win them over to "undo all that you have done"!  Like I have said, his last run in has encouraged his immoral and unethical behavior, making him think he can overturn anything.

    "I wish you a very good day because I’m done here," Thompson told the judge before leaving."

    Classy move there…

    Tunis recommended in May that Thompson be found guilty of 27 violations of Florida Bar rules….[snip a few paragraphs]
    Again, that sound sooo good….

    Tuma said Thompson’s behavior isn’t likely to stop unless he is disbarred. "Respondent’s conduct or misconduct in this case and throughout these proceedings clearly prove he’s unable to conduct himself in a manner consistent with the rules of the Florida Bar," Tuma said.
    Best & most truthful quote in that article.

    Thompson countered the high court’s decision violates his Sixth Amendment right to choose his own legal representation.
    You got what you wanted, and they politely just told you to STFU for wasting their time & resources.  Again, free speech doesn’t mean they have to listen to you.

    As for the phone calls, who wants to bet it turns out like last time?  He said lots of people were calling him up over the last one, and only ended up with one person who also has the same questionable ethics and failure to follow proper legal procedures….

  81. Anonymous says:

    Doesn’t "I have them right were I want them sound like something out of a really bad and really old super hereo movie? What a child

  82. Jonathan says:

    "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."

    Your right, we don’t know Jack cause you are completely nuts.

  83. Koichan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I’ve been trying for ages to think what JT’s attitude reminded me of…

    i finally remembered it!

    The Iraqi Information minister! (scroll down the page a bit for the awesome quotes)

    "They’re not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any
    place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion … they are
    trying to sell to the others an illusion."

    I think he’d get on perfectly with JT, as they both could only see Victory no matter how badly they failed

  84. jonc2006 says:

    Jack for once in your life face the consequences of your actions and shut the fuck up, even Jesus is starting to get annoyed.

  85. Rauggo says:

    So JT is all about being a christian, and he says everything he does is because he’s a christian. Now, imagine if a priest tells him he’s being very uncristian-like. When you’re done laughing, please post what you think the reaction would be. Let’s have fun here!

  86. cullarn says:

    im surprised his letter didnt include the phrase "they think im crazy ill show them whos crazy" (insert manical laugh here)

  87. Anonymous says:

    It really reminds the last days of WWII when Hitler propaganda claimed that Germany win even when Red Army started the offense on Berlin. Everybody knows how it ended up.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Always makes me laugh how Jack refers to SLAPP litigation against him when he is the source of more SLAPP suits than any other lawyer on the bar. If any of the Media outlets dares to disagree with or disprove him, it’s lawsuit time, this has happened for Joystiq, Kotaku and GamePolitics, and there’s absolutely no denying that those lawsuits were about the fact they said something that Jack didn’t want people to hear and nothing to do with them breaking the law in any way.

    So yes, Thompson is the ultimate case of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

    As for the article, white noise. The people who read the defence got only Thompson’s side of the story, you can be certain that almost, if not all of those people contacting him, assuming people are contacting him, are finding out he’s the sort of person who writes complaints to Strauss Zelnicks mum and are backing off very quickly. Those that aren’t, considering he’s not naming names (as usual), most likely consist of other lawyers who didn’t get away with turning their responsiblity into a personal dictatorship.

  89. Meggie ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    God has a message, he says "leave me outta this, you’re on your own buddy."

    If Thompson were a video game character, he’s be flashing red right now.

  90. Mnementh2230 says:

    No, the problem with America today is the lack of personal responsability. People are always looking for a scapegoat, and right now violent video games are the current favorite. Previously, comic books, Elvis, rock & roll, rap, and music videos have all been blamed for the same things, with the same results. Games are just the newest scapegoat, and if you believe otherwise, you’re horribly naieve. What evidence do you have to support your position? There are a few studies that show a correlation between violent video games and agressive behavior – THAT’S IT.

    Bottom line on this: A game isn’t going to make anyone do anything. It won’t force a person to do anything. There are millions of gamers in the US, and yet violent crime has been going DOWN.

    As for banning violent games, it’s unconstitutional. Under what possible grounds would you ban them?

    EDIT: I just read the name… T. Trollerton. I’ve been trolled! Well done, sir!

  91. Sai ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    So not only is the entire video game industry conspiring against him with certain webcomics, but the entire judicial system of the United States is as well? Or at least the Florida courts?

    It might be interesting to see how batty he gets when he’s finally disbarred, but despite his railing against video games, his almost equally hilarious history of harrassing of rap groups and Janet Reno, and the fact he brought all this on himself you almost feel sorry for the guy.

  92. Formose says:

    Funny how he cites the first amendment as his defense when all of his dealings have to do with violating exactly that in the form of censoring video games…

  93. T. Trollerton says:

    Jack Thompson is an amazing person for continuing his crusade, and is absolutely right!

     

    GTA should be banned, along with all other violent video games! This is the problem with America today!

  94. ChrowX ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Not that I ever believed that JT was a competent attourney beyond knowing a handful of legal terms, but this… This is just silly. A disbarment trial for him, which is likely to end with him losing his ability to practice law is going to miraculously turn around and expose some massive conspiracy that will turn JT into some sort of epic hero? Let’s say this whole thing does get turned around. The only thing JT will get out of this is a shred of dignity, even though, as far as I understand, the case is already decided against him. So JT gets off scott-free, but as it stands, his reputation as an unprofessional, loud, obnoxious, amoral idiot are still in existence. Where does he get the delusion that by not losing a case he is suddenly free from all of his past mistakes, thus making him some glorious beacon of hope?

  95. BinaryGeek ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I bet Jack’s going to be the most optimistic guy in the unemployment line "my career isn’t over, I’ve got them just where I want them! Lull them into a false sense of security then bang! I’m back on top again!"

  96. GryphonOsiris says:

    I wonder if the people who Jack has been contacted by are from the Law Firm of "Dewey, Cheatum and Howell", and if the police officer he’s been talking to is Inspector Detector.

    I can see it now, hundreds of pages of drivel being faxed to countless sources, perhaps even black-faxing to torture those poor, poor machines. Fax Machine rights activists won’t stand for this Jack; this is cruel and unusual punisment for these workhorse Fax Machines. Haven’t they suffered enough?

    Fax Machines United!

    [/sarcasm] O.k, I’m done now.

     

    But seriously, I’ll put $100 in cold hard cash down that everything after the word "Because" is an outright lie.

    Site sources and evidence Jack, who is contacting you, name of the police officer in charge of the investigation, have them verify all of this, and a crisp, new $100 bill is yours.

    I dare ya.

    I double-dog dare ya.

    I triple-dog dare ya.

  97. Ayon ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The fact that Jack is being disbarred is fantastic. However, I feel deeply sorry for anyone who has to deal with him for the next four months. This is indeed the desperate act of a desperate man and he will do anything and everything he can not to prove that he is right, that being far too difficult of a task, but try and prove that no one has the "authority" to tell him hes wrong. Jack is the kind of person who will make everyones lives miserable as much as he possibly can simply becuase he is not getting his way. Judge Tunis, Ms. Sigler, hell everyone involved with the Florida Bar are now being harrassed by this lunatic who has a wonderful knack for getting on TV and shouting obsurdities. To steal some of Jacks words, Im glad we have people like Judge Tunis who are willing to "fight the good fight".

  98. CK20XX says:

    I read this about Jack having everyone right where he wants them, and two things come to mind:

    1. He must be lying again, perhaps trying to scare the bar into not disbarring him.

    2. As many have pointed out, he’s pulled this stunt many times before, and it’s so convuluted by now that it’s essentially a Xanatos Roulette.

    What is a Xanatos Roulette?  From the website tvtropes.org:

     

     

    "Ha, loser. A true tactician doesn’t know WHAT the hell he’s doing until he’s halfway done with it."

    Quint, MS Paint Masterpieces

     "Ah, my ridiculously circuitous plan is one-quarter complete!"

    –Robot Devil, Futurama, "The Devil’s Hands Are Idle Playthings"

    In a Xanatos Gambit, an especially cunning villain is able to trick the heroes into giving him what he wants. The Xanatos Roulette takes this one step too far. The villain is upgraded from "cunning" to "seemingly omniscient". The plan is ridiculously convoluted, often relying on events that are completely within the realm of chance — yet it comes off without a single hitch (or so we’re told; it’s only in retrospect that we find out that pretty much everything that’s happened in the series up to this point was part of one huge, overarching plot).

    Basically, an attempt to make a villain seem impressive, stretched to the point where Willing Suspension Of Disbelief is broken. You really have to establish a character as The Chessmaster for them to be able to pull this off without arousing your audience’s skepticism.

    Often part of retconning in a new Big Bad, as it turns out everything up to then (including the supposed successes of the heroes against the old villains) is all part of their scheme. Also often the justification of the Omniscient Morality License; their control over events is supposedly total. Additionally, if a character messes with their own mind, getting their memories back almost inevitably becomes a Xanatos Roulette at some point.

    May be parodied by having events obviously (and blatantly) be out of the character’s control, and yet still have them take credit for it. Or, y’know, have the Xanatos Gilligan topple their Rube Goldberg plot with a poke.

    Useful litmus test for distinguishing a Xanatos Gambit from a Roulette: If your first reaction on hearing the plan explained is "Dear God, that’s brilliant!" it’s a Gambit. On the other hand, if you inadvertently burst out "There is no way you planned that!" it’s a Roulette.

    When the main story is several of these folding out at once, you have a Thirty Xanatos Pileup.

  99. LovePuffin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You know, sometimes I think Jack believes he’s the hero of some really bad ’70s action flick… the Video Game Industry is like some evil organizatrion that apparently killed his best friend who was about to retire from the police force, and now he’s out for vengeance. Clearly, all these court aides and judges who are following the law or doing their jobs, have been bought off by the Video Game Industry — the faceless conglomerate of all Man’s sins. Close-ups and cheesy music abound. And hot chicks from ‘fros, because it isn’t a bad ’70s movie without hot chicks with ‘fros…

    So yeah, clearly, EVERYONE is out Just to get Jack. He is the center of the universe — or did you not get that memo?

  100. black manta says:

    While I’m still failry certain SCOFLA will succeed in disbarring Jack, his quote form the DBR concerns me:

    "When this is done, and when you recommend my disbarrment and when the Supreme Court does disbar me … the tables will be turned. It will then be my time at bat and a jury of normal people in this county will undo all that you have done."

    We all know how Jack’s strength is playing to the ignorance of others.  Just how many jurors could he be able to find that know enough about him or even be sympathetic to him?  How many people in Florida, let alone Miami-Dade County, actually know about him?  To wit, half my family lives in Florida and they’ve never heard of him until I told them all about him.  My cousin and his partner have lives in Miami for the last several years, and considering he’s gay they should have almost certainly heard about Thompson’s anti-gay activities.

    So really, how much influence would Jack have over the jury selection process?  And if, by some long shot, they find him not guilty or not guilty on only half or a few of the counts and SCOFLA decides he’s as guilty as a cat in a goldfish bowl, what could SCOFLA do then?  Anyone?

  101. Torven ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  102. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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?

     

  103. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    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.

    I admire the tenacity with which you hold your point of view. Even as your grip steadily loosens.

    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…

  104. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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. 

  105. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    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…

  106. JackDon'tDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.

  107. Jabrwock says:

    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…

  108. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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?

  109. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.

  110. Torven ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  111. Jabrwock says:

    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…

  112. Jabrwock says:

    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…

  113. Jabrwock says:

    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…

  114. Monte says:

     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)

  115. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    The fact that, for whatever reasons, a statute is never enforced has absolutely no bearing on its interpretation.

  116. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.

  117. Monte says:

     "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. 

  118. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

     

     

     

    G.R. No. 130872 March 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 of San Diego County, 72 Cal. Rptr. 501, 266 C.A. 2d 645.

    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. 22.

    18 Ibid.

     

     

     

  119. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.

  120. Jabrwock says:

    [T]he oath is a prerequisite to qualification for public office

    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…

  121. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    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…

    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."

    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…

  122. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.  

  123. Anonymous says:

    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. 

  124. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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." 

  125. Jabrwock says:

    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…

  126. Ryno (awaiting my login info) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Did that, no luck. Anyone I can contact for help? It hasn’t been a day yet, so I’m not that worried… yet.

    NPS – does anyone else have a problem with using a ‘ in contractions/possesives? Whenever I do it opens up the "Find" box in Firefox. Very annoying. Maybe it’s my Logitech keyboard, except it doesn’t seem to do it anywhere else?

  127. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    It only took mine (my password) a couple of minutes. You might want to check and make sure it didn’t get pulled in as spam or something.

    -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.

  128. Ryno (awaiting my login info) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Considering her title and position, I’m sure everyone who works or has a case in the courthouse knows who she is and what her job is. Jack probably even knows this.

    He’s just acting like the spoiled brat he is by trying to punish anyone who doesn’t agree with him, no matter how immature and petty it is.

    PS – anyone know how long it’ll take to get my password?

  129. thefremen says:

    Well he tracked down the Take 2 CEO’s Mom. Never underestimate what a lunatic with no job can accoplish with a lot of money.

  130. Anonymous says:

    Eunice Sigler, Director of the Office of Government Liaison and Public Relations for the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida

    Not the court reporter.  Technically, it isn’t a big deal.  But we are dealing with Jack here and how would you feel if the woman that helped get documents for our enjoyment had her fax machine killed by Jack?

     

  131. An amused bystander says:

    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.

  132. Grendal says:

    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.

     

     

  133. An amused bystander says:

    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. >:)

  134. Anonymous says:

    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.

  135. An amused bystander says:

    Does anyone else think it would be poetic if he flips out and grabs a gun when he gets disbarred? Granted, it would royally suck for any innocent bystanders (or gaming industry executives?) in the vicinity and I hope such a scenario remains firmly in the realm of amusing speculation… But it would probably be the only time where one could say that violent video games caused a violent crime 😛

  136. Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    "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!

  137. shaoron says:

    He got kicked by Leonidas… and in that hole he was kicked by the persians who got tired of his useless ramblings

  138. LovePuffin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    No no, Jack went over the edge years ago. Then he went over about 6 more.

  139. Loudspeaker says:

    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."

  140. Ryno (awaiting my login info) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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?

  141. Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    "I wonder if she’s really sick, or just sick of him…lol. Only another cancer survivor like myself can really get away with that"

    I once e-mailed him about that, and he said she was doing fine.

    A friend of mine lost a loved one to cancer back in October of 01. Last time he ever cried at a funeral.

    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!

  142. Adam ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Doesn’t he pull his "I have them right where I want them" bullshit everytime his back is up against the wall on any issue? It almost sounds like something a little kid would say to his grade school teacher when there in trouble at school and want to get mommy or daddy’s help because "The teacher is being mean". Why can’t he just accept the fact that he did wrong, and now he has to pay for it.

    GO HOME JACK!!!! GO TAKE CARE OF YOUR SICK WIFE (I wonder if she’s really sick, or just sick of him…lol. Only another cancer survivor like myself can really get away with that) AND LEAVE THE GAME INDUSTRY ALONE!!!!

    I once had a teacher tell me when I was a kid in Junior High and I got into trouble at school "You do the crime, you do the time, don’t whine". Jack did the crime, knows he did the crime, is facing doing the time, doesn’t want to do the time, and now he’s whining like the little bitch that we all know that he is. What an ass. He says God and Jesus are on his side and he’ll win. Trust me, I have a feeling they’re laughing at him even harder than we are.

  143. Shadow Darkman Anti-Thesis of Jack Thompson says:

    I’ve been pointing that out for some time now. Thanks, DavCube. Good to have some support.

    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!

  144. Anonymous says:

    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.

  145. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    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…

  146. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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. 

  147. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    If you don’t have a valid loyalty oath, then you don’t have a valid right to hold office.

    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…

  148. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.

  149. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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.

  150. thefremen says:

    She’s the court reporter. It’s not a secret anymore than the name of the Judge in the case.

    He stalks anyone and everyone in anyway involved in his “persecution”.

  151. Anonymous says:

    So the only reason Jack has this woman’s name is through GP?

    Big time slap on the wrist for mentioning that poor women’s name on here if that is the reason for Jack going after her.  You know Jack as well as anyone and you should have seen that coming.  You owe her flowers and a big time apology.  Don’t give the man more people to annoy to tears or worse. 

  152. Jetbomb24 says:

    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

  153. Gray-17 says:

    "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.

  154. shaoron says:

    and if i rememebr correctly.. usually nothing major happened and ends up embarassing him even more

  155. Melchiah says:

      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.  

  156. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    That picture of Jack is fucking hillarious.

    -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.

  157. Jim Strathmeyer ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "The lurkers support me by e mail."

    Gee, I haven’t heard that since graphical interfaces.

  158. Steve says:

    You know, I hope he does go even farther off the edge after disbarment. Maybe then NO ONE will take him seriously anymore. (Not that many do as it is)

  159. SammyDKat ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I just wonder how people like this make a living?  I mean, who would hire him as a lawyer anyway?  Does he just get appearance money?  Did he slip & fall in a WalMart?

  160. Adamas Draconis says:

    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.

  161. Anonymous says:

    Are you sure he typed the right subject line?  He might have been in the middle of replying to an email containing several files of evidence ending with the extension ".jpg" for all we know.

  162. Vake Xeacons ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You said it. The 1st Ammendment applies to him but not to us? What, does he want exclusitivity to the Constitution? By the grace of God, who I’m pretty sure is on our side, the fight is over.

    Sorry Jack, Freedom’s back!

  163. Coit ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "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." 
     

    Florida State Penitentiary (FSP): "Hello Mr. Thompson.. this is the Florida State Penitentiary Calling.."
    Jack Thompson (JT): "Why hello, are you calling me in regards to the criminal conduct of the Florida Bar?  I want all the dirt!"
    FSP: "No, actually, we are calling to commit you.  Sir, you are off your rocker and we will have someone coming to your house shortly to obtain…."

    JT: "Great! You can give me all the dirt then!"
    FSP: "I don’t think you underst…."
    JT: "See you soon.. together we will rock the Bar!!"
    FSP " Okay…… sir?"

  164. Wyvern says:

    Can I just say that anyone who didn’t see this coming, shoot yourself in the foot right now.

  165. Craig R. says:

    Only Jackass could make a pile of manure sound like its candy for the kiddies.

    Highly respected people? Obviously none who would be willing to do so publically, which means Jack is creating even more imaginary friends. Time for another psychiactric exam.

  166. DavCube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You know, you don’t need to at-sign other comments anymore. There’s a reply button under every comment. Like i’m doing right now.

  167. Eville1NSI ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @DavCube:

     

    Oh wow, I just got that. I channeled Gene Wilder the other day myself.

  168. Gray-17 says:

    "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. "

    Incidently here’s how to interpret this passage: "Highly respected people" means people people that Jack thinks are highly respected, which essentially just means people that aren’t on Jack’s shit list yet; "Proving to me" means exactly that – proving to Jack – and given that Jack has a rather warped perception of reality where any unfriendly word is a death threat, that something is proof to him is meaningless; "Meeting with law enforcement" means that Jack’s started harassing the police and FBI about the Florida Bar’s "crimes" – likely without the knowledge or consent of the "respected people" he says he’s talking with.

  169. GryphonOsiris says:
    I now know what Jack Thompson’s new job should be; a Mafia enforcer. Think about it. If he can’t get one person he attacks their family and friends, he is ruthless, about as charming as an angry croc, and he is brain-dead persistant. He’d make a great Mafioso, call him Jack "The Whiner" Thompson.

     

  170. Linenoise says:

    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.

     

     

  171. DarknessDeku! says:

    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?

  172. Mike ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  173. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    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… 😉

    his claim – which he wrote that he was making under penalty of perjury – was untrue.

    He can’t perjure, he’s protected by the power of Jesus!

    the controversial attorney filed a document with Eunice Sigler’s boss, demanding to see her official loyalty oath.

    "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…

  174. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    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…

  175. JackDon'tKnowJack says:

    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. 

  176. DoggySpew ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  177. Neoelasticman ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  178. Mazinger-Z says:

    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.

Comments are closed.