GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms Out of Court

June 10, 2008 -

In March of this year GamePolitics serialized the courtroom transcripts of Jack Thompson's Florida Bar trial. The response was overwhelming.

Based on that, we knew GP readers would be interested in reading the transcript of last Wednesday's sanctions hearing before Judge Dava Tunis - the one that Thompson stormed out of and in which the Bar recommended that the 56-year-old Thompson be disbarred for a minimum of ten years.

So we broke open the GP piggy bank and purchased a copy from the court reporter.

To set the scene (in case you haven't been following the Florida Bar vs. John B. Thompson saga): Judge Tunis, who was selected by the Florida Supreme Court to preside over the Bar trial and who recently recommended to the Court that Thompson be found guilty of 27 violations of professional misconduct, scheduled last week's hearing to hear arguments from both Thompson and the Florida Bar concerning possible sanctions. Judge Tunis has until September 3rd to provide her final report to the Florida Supreme Court, which will make the final determination of Thompson's fate.

(GP: The transcript that follows is abridged where noted)

JUDGE = Judge Dava Tunis

JT = Jack Thompson

TUMA = Florida Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma

JUDGE: Good afternoon, everybody... I trust everyone has some water at their table?... so, for the record, we are here on the matter of the Florida Bar versus John Bruce Thompson... If all the lawyers would like to announce their presence for the record.

TUMA: Sheila Tuma, counsel for the Florida Bar

JT: Jack Thompson, presently a lawyer.

JUDGE: ...Miss Tuma, my understanding would be that, pursuant to the rules, you would be going first?

JT: Your Honor, may I please--

TUMA: Yes.

JT: -- so that I can state at the appropriate time, which would be now, my objections to this proceeding on the record?

JUDGE: And you have done so through writing --

JT: No. I have to do it here, Judge.

JUDGE: Go right ahead.

JT: May I move the podium?

JUDGE: No. Just everybody leave it in one spot. That's the way we usually do it in the courtroom.

JT: Can we change that one spot? No?

JUDGE: I'd prefer that you leave it right there.

JT: Nice. Can I pivot it?

JUDGE: Is that what you'd like, sir?

JT: I'm asking you.

JUDGE: Okay. That's fine.

JT: I was allowed to move it before. I object strenuously, as I have in the past, to the very notion that this proceeding can even occur on various grounds, any single one of which is fatal --

JUDGE: I'm going to interrupt you. Excuse me one moment. Mr. Thompson, this Court has been in receipt of many, many motions which this Court has already ruled on. So this would not be a time for you to simply make a statement.

JT: No, I'm not.

JUDGE: If you wish to state an objection, I will be more than happy to take from you any written motion and then rely upon it. But what I do not want is for you to be making a speech at the beginning of what is essentially a disciplinary hearing where I'm supposed to hear aggravating and mitigating factors. I have addressed numerous motions of your objection. If you have something in writing, I will gladly accept it from you now.

JT: First of all, Judge, so the record is clear -- and I heard what you just said and I'm going to abide by it even though it's in error -- you don't know what I'm going to say, number one. Number two, I have a right to make here today my objection to this proceeding on the record with the additional things I want to say.

JUDGE: And I will be giving you the opportunity --

JT: Excuse me Judge. Just to state my objection to your preventing me from doing what I have a right to do here today, note my objection to your ruling in that regard. Note my objection to the fact that you don't want to hear my objection, which I have a right to put on the record orally and heaving heard yet another erroneous ruling from you which simply digs your hole deeper -- with all respect for at least this Court -- let me then give you what I have in writing. May I approach?

JUDGE: Absolutely. Miss Tuma, do you have a copy?

TUMA: No, I don't.

JT: Let me give it to you. One for the court reporter (handing), one for Miss Tuma (handing), one for the Daily Business Review (handing). Ms. Roberts, try to get the story right this time [GP: Thompson made this remark to DBR reporter Alana Roberts]. Mr. Min, you're not supposed to be here, but here's your copy (handing)--

[GP: Barnaby Min is an attorney with the Florida Bar; Thompson has been highly critical of Min in the past.]

JUDGE: Let me just stop you right there. This is going to be a professionally conducted hearing. Whoever is in this courtroom has a right to be here because it's a public courtroom. I saw you basically throw onto Mr. Min's lap a motion --

JT: You saw me drop it on his lap because he wouldn't take it.

JUDGE: Mr. Thompson, he has no requirement to take anything from you. He's here as a person watching the proceedings... So I'd like us all to take a step back and to conduct ourselves professionally. Having said that, I have now received--

JT: Your Honor--

JUDGE: I have now received a motion entitled "Thompson's Formal Objection to June 4th Sanctions Hearing" and--

JT: It's not--

JUDGE: I will read it and when I receive a reply by the Bar, I will rule accordingly; but it's not going to stop this hearing from going forward.

JT: Nobody wanted to stop the hearing from going forward. Secondly, it's not a motion, It's an objection.

JUDGE: Okay.

JT: Thirdly, I'm entitled to give this to Mr. Min, if I feel like it. He wouldn't take it, so I gently dropped it on his lap. You can mischaracterize what I did if you want to, as you have before. Having stated my objection, Judge, which I wanted to do on the record orally, which I have a right to do, I want to wish you a very good day because I'm done here. Because I want you to understand that I cannot, Judge -- Referee, whatever -- object to the legitimacy of these proceedings and at the same time participate in them. I understand that. Others understand that. I don't know whether you understand it or not, but I'm done. I'll see you.

JUDGE: Are you choosing to walk out of the courtroom?

JT: Absolutely, Judge, because that's what I should do. If you will read the objections, you'll see why. You may not understand it, you may never understand it, but that's what I have to do because of the fact that you don't even have the authority to sit there. Thank you, Judge.

JUDGE: Have a pleasant day... Alright. Let the record reflect that Mr. Thompson has chosen to voluntarily absent himself from these proceedings and, according to the case law, they are going forward. Miss Tuma, go right ahead... 

TUMA: What I have done is, I have an aggravation memo -- I also have a copy for Mr. Thompson -- which sets forth the testimony of the witnesses and the aggravation that was presented at the hearing.

JUDGE: Okay.

TUMA: I also have an affidavit for you of Mr. Thompson's prior discipline... [GP: Tuma goes on to name additional documents which she plans to present]...

JUDGE: Okay. Well, obviously, I can certainly simply -- and, in fact, will read all of this. Having said that, is there something here that you would like to outline right now to give me an overview?...

[GP: There was a brief discussion of a letter sent in support of Thompson, of which the Judge directed her bailiff to make copies for the Bar]

TUMA: ...The aggravation memo, what it sets forth is each of our witnesses who testified here in November and December had testified to the effect on them of Mr. Thompson's continuing bombarding of e-mails, correspondences, also the effect on their law offices for our lawyers and for the judges, the effect on the tribunal themselves and their chambers, and what he was sending them... He continued to contact them even after the Bar complaint... it really did affect them, which we think is important. It goes through an aggravator of showing the harm to the people that were involved in this matter.

[GP: There was some discussion of a 1992 reprimand Thompson received from the Bar. Ms. Tuma said that it could be an aggravating circumstance in that it was a prior offense, but that Thompson could also have argued it as a mitigating circumstance because it had been so long ago. Ms. Tuma then raised the issue of an affidavit submitted by Florida attorney Lawrence Kellogg, one of the complainants against Thompon in a non-video game case.]

TUMA: [Mr. Kellogg] has indicated that since they have been here to testify, they have received more than 100 e-mails, most of them which contain attacks upon the Florida Bar officers, employees, the Florida Supreme Court, including himself and [law partner] Mr. Cardenas... that's to show you that Mr. Thompson has continued to engage in the same conduct even after we have had our hearing in this matter. What I would like to do now is just briefly outline for you some of the things regarding out position of discipline in this matter... and why we're asking for enhanced disbarment...

[GP: a discussion of timelines ensued.]

TUMA:  [Thompson's] conduct or misconduct in this case and throughout these proceedings clearly prove he's unable to conform and conduct himself in a manner that's consistent with the rules regulating the Florida Bar. As an attorney and as an individual, Mr. Thompson has a right to his religious belief and his moral belief. What he does not have a right to as an attorney and an officer of this Court is to accuse, disparage, humiliate, harass, burden, threaten opposing counsel or Judges, as he did in this case.

It is a privelege to practice law in the state of Florida. It's not a right; and with that privlege, you have certain rules you have to follow. Mr. Thompson refuses to follow those rules. Mr. Thompson has made it very clear that the conduct he engaged in, he will continue to engage in whether he's disbarred or not. He, in fact, testified to that when he was at the trial here in November of 2007. The case law that we've presented to you makes it very clear that Mr. Thompson's conduct deserves no less than an enhanced disbarment, with at least 10 years before he can reapply for readmission.

This is very necessary in this case and the case law will support that Mr. Thompson will continue in this conduct if we do not disbar Mr. Thompson from the practice of law.

[GP: Tuma wrapped up and offered that the Bar would provide suggested language for Judge Tunis's report on her findings to the Florida Supreme Court. The Judge declined the offer and the hearing ended just 25 minutes after it had begun.]


Comments

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

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.

 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

For a moment there I thought we were trapped in an "infinite objection"

JT wants to put in an objection verbally

The judge objects to this and wants it in writing.

JT objects to this and walks out.

I also found the whole "podium moving" thing a complete farce. What a dick.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Is it just me or does Jack Thompson do alot of double talking in this transcript?

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Honestly, I don't even believe Thompson's underlying motivation is the good of the community. Someone said in a comment that also in this case, he was trying to turn it into a soap-opera (by pivoting the stage around and adressing the courtroom like it's some kind of movie) And in my opinion, that's all he's been trying to do all this time. Is he really this concerned with today's youth or is he just trying to become famous? Granted, he's already acquired quite the status, be it by tv stations like Fox praising his opinion, and by us gamers trying to defend our favorite pastime, and the rules and regulations and consequences tied to it, but it just looks like he's aiming for more.

None of this is doing him any good, but as they say, bad publicity is still publicity. Using any kind of method to get yourself back in the news, be it on the websites, TV, newspapers, whatever, will make sure that people won't forget about you. You see it all the time in hollywood as well. How many celebs haven't "accidentally" released a sex-tape? Or have publically announced their drug-habits and their failed rehabs? It doesn't matter what they're saying about you; as long as you're in the spotlight.

In my book Mr. Thompson is just an attention-whore throwing around false accusations while trying to prove his point by unconfirmed research materials, and when confronted with his own appaling behaviour or when his statements are proven wrong, he just throws a hissy fit to make sure that even his downfall gets him more and more attention.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

 

If I’m correct for a person to practice law in any given state they first have to pass the bar examines for that state and agrees to abide by the acts of conduct as out lined by the bar.
 
If one passes all the requirements they are granted a license to practice law only with in the state in which they received the license. Acting as an agent of the law the bar has the right to issue licenses as well as baring someone from practicing law if they fail to a hear to the terms and conditions of the licenses.
 
The first step to disbarment is to hold hearings as to cause giving both parties the opportunity to present both sides of the argument which in it’s self is the hallmark of the judicial system.

 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Now, quick question for all the legal minded people out there. Would the final disbarment proceedings actually be in front of a jury, or will it just be before the Florida Supreme Court. Logic dictates that since it is a civil and internal matter is would be just before the court, thus denying Thompson his ego-maniacal desire to act out in front of an audience However, in Thompson-land he probably thinks it will be a full court house with jury, news cameras and him standing at the front as the martyr of the day with a bible in one hand and the torn up copy of the law licences of those against him in the other.
 
I do wonder sometimes if he really thinks that he is on his very own legal drama acting out the scene for the audience at home. That's what I suspected he wanted to do with that podium; move it so it faced the audience, possibly even with his back to the judge and spout his drivel like he was Perry Mason. I really do wonder where he learned his courtroom behavior, becuase I doubt his law professors would have taught him this infantile method he uses.
 
Oh well, the ass will have his day in court, and no matter what delusion he may have, it will be a happy day for his 'enemies' and one that may end in a self-inflicted gunshot for him.

 

"The Good, the Bad, and the Videogame" Reviews on the best, worst, and controversial issues of Videogames. gryphonosiris.blogspot.com/

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

It is not a civil matter. It is just internal matter of the court, and it is decided by the court not because its a matter of law, but because he is the officer of the court. So no jury.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

If it were here (Iceland) it would be infront of a "supreme court". Then again we don't have juries at all and I do find the concept of them very odd (granted, not having them may taint my view of them. But I always found it peculiar how people with no legal background can judge whether someone has broken the law or not =p).

From what little I know of the U.S. justice sysem I'd think that matters such as this (a internal & civil matter as pointed out) would be handled by the court exclusively,

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Ugh. He is such a child.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Well, considering how judge sounded on the record, she would glafly approve not only disbarrment but a burning the Jack at the stake.  And considering, how he harassed the Florida Supreme Court, any opunishment for Jack will go through in flying colors. 

Unfortunately, Florida Bar has poor imaginationa. Simple disbarrnent is not interesting :)

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

well unlike JT, they're bound by the law and they can only give disbarment

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

New rebuttal to Jack if he claims that he was railroaded, star chambered, kangarooed.  If you refuse to participate in the process you cannot claim that it isn't valid.

I'm guessing he went outside to pout that his finely crafted objection to life, the universe and the unfairness of everything was on paper only, because he wrote the whole thing to be read in the first person.  It actually sounds really dumb if he's not reading it out loud and it just looks like a whiny blog post about how he can't be sent to his room because his parents didn't sign the release forms at the hospital when he was born.

I'm actually quite surprised that the lawyers, judges et all haven't filed some kind of civil harassment suit against him, lawyer or no if that kind of thing isn't what a lawyer should be doing then he's commiting a tort and that kind of thing should be actionable no matter what his status as an officer of the court.

 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Hey guys and girls...  I hate to rain on everyone's good times here taking stabs at JT, but if you read the content in the document he prepaired for the Judge he actually has a case against them...  He has also been able to stay around all these years, so I believe he is smart enough to figure his way out of this stink as well.  I hope he does - stick it to the bar and the corrupt system they have going there.  He may seem a little over the top, but at the base of it all he does have a case. 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

He has also been able to stay around all these years, so I believe he is smart enough to figure his way out of this stink as well.

Not that I know the full deal with his last run in, but this time I have my doubts with the way he keeps pushing the limits.

Other then that, I give your lame troll a 1/100.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Errr.. Where did you study law? Legoland?

I've been around for years as well, so therefore I must be right as well...

Seriously...

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Don't you have a sick wife to take care of, Jack?

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Not to mention, there arent those obnoxious slashes from his proxy posts.


 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I highly doubt that that comment is JT's. He is way too abrasive and would probably Balk at hiding behind some fake comment.

HOWEVER, I do believe that that person is either wayyyy misinformed, or is probably attempting to troll us.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

That's it. I've absolutely had it with Jack Thompson.

That podium was FINE where it was dagnabit! He had no constitutional, nay no MORAL right to move that podium whatsoever. My father built that podium with his bare hands and the very thought of him moving it just makes me ... /sniffle...

I need a moment. Where's Grand Theft Tissue? I need to input the infinitie tears code...

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Are there any Christians left in america besides Jack Thompson? Granted he's not a great example of one, but as soon as standing up for what you believe in becomes punishable by law, then you've just turned into a fascist nation. Bear with me, because this actually does make sense.

Standing up for what you believe in is something not all people get. Its something not all people are for, and it's definately something controversial that people hate to hear. Jack Thompsons methods are just as controversial as the games he wants banned. I don't like how he parades Christ around as the forefront of his crusade of doing what he does, but he's doing what he believes is right.

On the other hand he may be an arrogant jerk that aims to do whatever he pleases. He doesn't strike me as the person who's up at 6am praying for Jesus to guide his path, but you never know, i'm not here to judge him.

I'm a Christian, I'm not perfect, but neither are any of you. Give Jack a break, let him do what he does. If it's Gods will, he'll get the gamnes banned, if its not, then they won't get banned. I personally dont believe violence is stemmed from games. Especially if the people playing it are the required age to play. (Unless of course there's a mental problem involved, and then you can't pin it down on the games.)

I don't deny kids copy what they see, but kids aren't supposed to be seeing violent games. And if they do, thats hardly the Developer/Publishers fault. You'd have to have something mentally wrong with you beforehand to shoot someone or beat them up or run them over.

Remember we're all in the same boat here, we're no better than Jack Thompson. He wants games banned, gamers want him banned and make videos mocking him. Which doesn't really help anyone, now does it? Just makes gamers look like stupid jerks that don't have a serious bone in their bodies.

Have a great day everyone, Jesus loves you all.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

we dislike him and is against him not because of his goals, but the way he conducts himself.

 

i bet if he be more Christlike in his attitude and behaviour, more profesional, more respectful, then he would've gotten more sympathy.

However he just refuse to do that and act like, if you'll excuse the term, a JACKass. He calims to be always correct, does not accept any correction, and is a big fat hyprocite! He treats people like crap and when others do that to him he goes and complains and moans and sue. Remember that image of the monument of the hiroshima bombing that he sent to several media and the court and claims the bar will (figuratively speaking) look like that if he gets disbarred? Dennis (gamepolitics) pointed it out that if someone send him that and wrote exactly the same way he did, and he goes and argue about what the word 'figuratively speaking".

 

How about filing GAY PORN? Sending too much fax to harras other lawyers? how much fax? so much that the fax machine DIED! How about outright insulting people, including judge, lawyers, witness both in and out of court? Or claiming that it was video games that caused the recent school shootings before ANY PROOF/INVESTIGATION BEGAN!? And did he ever retrract what he said when evidence of depression, violent history on the gunner and not a single video game was found in their dorm room?

 

Why can't he learn to act civilized? Is that so difficult to ask!?

 

I think you've heard it already but i just have to say it.

The end NEVER justifies the means!

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I'm not getting on at you man. But if he's doing this with Christ in mind, then it'll be something to do with getting rid of sin on yet another medium satan has procured. It starts in buildings, moves on to newspapers, magazines and books, moves onto TV and video, moves onto internet, then finally DVD and Videogames. I think he's crusading against the content partly because theres a lot of 'evil' in them, like the sex and violence. And obviously partly for what he sees as something he doesn't want kids to copy. It's not as simple as telling your kids what they can and can't play, if he's looking at a grander picture in what could only be surmised as his calling from God, then he'll want to let everyone know the dangers involved, not just his own kids. I agree with the person who said 'hes holding his religion hostage' yes it does seem like he's using his faith as a human shield. On the other hand, as a Christian, Jesus should be all that you need in the good and the bad times. One man's madness is another mans reason I suppose.

We may not see why he acts the way he acts, but I doubt theres no reason for it. While crusading against violent and provocative games seems futile and almost stupid. He doesn't seem like an Idiot to me but he comes over as brash, and If he can't stand in front of a mortal man and accept whatever 'justice' they place on him, how will he ever get through God's judgement? I can see him placing a hefty defense booklet down at the throne of grace and walking out. lol. But again, thats between him and Jesus.

And I agree that he really needs to calm down a bit. I understand where you're all coming from, but I also understand where he's coming from. I wish we could all just get along, lol.

I understand that lots of things I say are controversial, like the whole perception of sin in games. And I agree that its simply a form of entertainment, which could (or just as easily couldn't) cause just as much violence generated by reading a book or watching a film. However people who walk with Christ almost seem to have a heightened sense of wrong and right. No I'm not saying Christians morally better than everyone else, I'm just saying we can see a lot if it where others would think 'theres nothing wrong with that.' (For example, say you opened a softcore mag and was oogling a woman in a bikini. You may not think there was anything wrong with that, but the very act of looking on in lust is considered a sin. And how many times has any man done that? If this Christian stuff is true and all sin is equal, we're all doomed! Luckily Jesus came to pay that price!)

I believe this copying violent behaviour is something based on an individual level, so to deal with it, you have to deal with it as individual cases. Tragic shootings and violent outbursts can't be controlled by simply mass banning a game, games have to be banned by the parents of the children they wish to protect.

We're all intelligent people, and we're all sometimes blinded by our own opinion and we really need to let go of that stuff sometimes, but thats just the way we all are.

Ok I think I've said enough on the subject, I was mainly trying to clarify the angle JT was coming from if it was truly from a Christian perspective. I'm a gamer, but I'm also a Christian. and for me Christ is first and foremost. But I'm also able to see both sides of the spectrum's arguments.

Have a fantastic day people, Jesus loves you all!

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you. RAmen.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I have to throw in my two cents worth. Standing up for what you believe in is one thing. Smacking down someone else for what you believe in is something else entirely. He makes claims he is doing this because of his religion, but that doesn't really work with his threats to destroy Take2, or his non-christian behavior.

Standing up for what you believe in doesn't have to mean you insult or force your beliefes on others. It means that in his house, he wouldn't let his children play these games. That would be standing up for what he believes in.

For JT, the declaration of Christianity is the same as the Oath, and playing for sympathy for his wife, just another ploy in which to try and continue acting the way he wants by using a technicality. To restate what an earlier poster said, the terrorists are also standing up for what they beleive in, and putting their lives on the line (well, that implies they might survive, so there is probably a better turn of phrase for it) for what they beleive. But that doesn't make them right.

As much aggro as a statement like this might generate, I have to go back to a theme in Naruto. Standing up for what you believe in, or who you believe in, is only as good as what or who you are standing up for. If the person or ideal you are standing up for is rotten from the start, then there is no worth in it. His beliefe is that parents should not be in control of their own children, while at the same time claiming that he is giving more chioce to the parents. Personally, I don't see this as an admirable stance, and therefore cannot applaud him for standing up for it.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

You see Jack is not being persecuted for his beliefs.  There are certain rules that he vowed to uphold when he took the career path that he did.  He is being "persecuted" for lying and threatening everyone who does not agree with his crusade 100%.  So he isn't being persecuted for his religion, but rather he is using his supposed religion as a hostage.

 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

He's perfectly welcome to hold any belief he so desires, that is not, and never has been, the problem. Yes, there are people here who try to make an issue out of the fact that he is Christian, there are also as many people who defend the religion when this happens. If he wants to think of games as 'evil', then, once again, that is up to him.

As I believe many of us have said, we don't doubt his campaign will continue when he is disbarred, fine, no problem there. The problem here isn't the fact he is a Christian, or, at least for me, even the fact he feels as he does, it is the fact he repeatedly tried to use his position as an attorney to bludgeon anything and anyone who got in his 'way'. That, to me, was abuse of a position of responsibility.

I'll agree with you that a lot of the ridicule and insults are quite uncalled for, but then, so were his, Freedom of Speech is as you percieve it, I don't need to bring you up to speed on his opinion of us, I am certain, since you sound like you've been keeping up with things here.

As for Satire, to a certain degree I agree with you, but not entirely, for one, it should be noted that Satire has been used by Thompson, in the form of his 'modest proposal', which was, really, quite a bloodthirsty little document, we would never tolerated the kind of things suggested by him in that proposal from our own posters, and he would certainly have considered it a death threat had someone suggested doing some of these things to someone who had his name with only one or two letters changed.

Yes, there's some immaturity involved, unfortunately, this being the Internet, you are destined to get it, but it needs to be remembered that we aren't against Thompson's right to protest computer games, though I suspect we will vehemently disagree with his position, what we are against is the fact he's been using his position as a lawyer to promote his own personal agenda, and using his religious position as something to hide behind while doing it.

In summary, we don't think that standing up for what you believe in should be punishable by law, regardless of how many times this very site has been threatened, purely for doing so, it is still here. However, we also don't believe that someone should use their position as a lawyer to threaten and intimidate people, we don't think he should be arrested, just disbarred, and then (I hope) ignored.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Sorry, that was me, still haven't reset that password...

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Penny Arcade sums it up so we don't have to.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/6/6/

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

jack T is a fool.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

A song springs to mind

insane in the membrane, insane in the brain

as others have pointed out, imagine the craziness if he stayed!

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I don't care what the views are of the judge because she knows how the law works, and seems to respect it, and conducts herself very well. She is a judge I feel like I could stand behind.

Jack on the otherhand was an ass. Than again that's nothing new.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Basically, Jack Thompson is finished. Even if he goes onto FoxNews and spreads his lies and miss-information, all someone needs to do is to show the views what this man had done in the Florida Bar and to understand not to listen to what this guy is saying.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

For a laywer he does a tremendously little ammount of lawyer-ing in the court room. He seems to have become a laywer to move podiums(?) and complain. I've seen better behavour from children.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

i see better behaviour from 1 year old kids!

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

"JT: Nice. Can I pivot it?"

That made me lawl.

What the heck is up with this guy? Does his submitted-in-writing rant gain power levels over nine thousand when facing north/south/whereeverhefacedit?

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Thompson likes an audience, I think he's actually living inside his own personal episode of Law and Order in his head. His 'objection' was never intended to be addressed either at the Judge nor at the Prosecution, it was intended for the spectators, which was why he wanted to turn the podium so he could address the room in general, I would suspect.

That was why the judge cut him off, he was trying to turn his own disbarment trial into a soapbox session.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Actually, I think he was trying to turn it into his own private episode of America's Next Top Model:

(JT thwacks Min with three-pound objection)

"Tyra Mail!"

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I think that JT was planning on reading his long objection and then walking out at the end of it for a big dramatic event, and thought that it would stop the procedings, like in some scene out of a movie.

Or imagined he would break Tunis by making her confess she's not a real judge, and then she gets arrested on the spot, leaving JT a hero praised in the media...

Can't stop but having the scene from the movie "a few good men"

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?!?!

YOU DAMN RIGHT I DID!!!

 

 

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I understood his general intentions with his "objection" I was just curious what the purpose of pivoting the podium was after he'd already been told he couldn't read it aloud...

Jack Thompson's Sweet Turns Sour

JT: Ms. Roberts, try to get the story right this time [GP: Thompson made this remark to DBR reporter Alana Roberts].

LOL, no surprise at all that he hates the truth, it is just what I would expect from the egotistical bastard.

As for the story that he claims isn't "right":

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421944039

I soooo guessed he would have a problem with it, and that it wouldn't be as "sweet" as he thought or wanted.

Again I post the best part in that one:

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.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

In reference to the "you're not a judge" thing, Jack was never able to figure out, is that he can't do the whole Dick Cheney  "I said it 8 times, so that makes it true" debate. It just doesn't work for him.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

That formula of arguing was pioneered by Lewis Caroll (he was a logician, among other things) in The Hunting of the Snark.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

So, once he is disbarred and he continues his harassment, does that make him subject to the anti-spamming laws? God, that would be beautiful.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

You guys have anti-spamming laws? Why doesn't anyone use them? That would send Jack broke by now!

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

Lets just say our "anti"-spamming laws are just as good as our "do not call" list....

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

They should make a video game about this case :)

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I heard that harvey Birdman Attourney at Law was loosely based on it.

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

I dunno... doesn't harvey actually win his cases?

He could probably be Peter Potamus with all the 'things' he sends out. :P

 

400 Episodes, TEN YEARS and counting: http://www.orangeloungeradio.com/ | Voice of Geeks Network - http://www.vognetwork.com

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

@Theoden

By and large, I agree, but there's at least a couple flaws in the logic.  For example, I can think of one occasion that Jack stated one of his goals was a federally regulated ESRB.  By and large, I'm against federal regulation, BUT, in the name of compromise, I could accept that.  A federally regulated ESRB would NOT be the end of the world.

Problem with this logic lies in the assumption that compromise with people like Jack is possible. Imagine for a moment, that he got his way, that sale of violent/questionable content to minors came under heavy and strictly enforced regulation.  Do you suppose he'd stop there? Who gets to decide what's violent and what's questionable? You think he'd be satisfied with the ESRB?  How many times has he criticized Pat Vance by now?  (Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the ESRB, but I have allot of respect for Pat Vance.  Think she's repeatedly demonstrated considerable diplomatic skill, but that's a different subject.)

I , for one, am not completely unsympathetic to jackhole, I mean jack; I just don't trust him to not try to take a yard if we give an inch.  Contrary to what Jack may believe, I know that I for one find his means far more objectionable then his ends. I think you'll find a reasonable percentage of GP readers don't disagree with you - not all of Jack's ideas are bad. He's essentially reaping what he sows.  He treats people badly, and it's being repaid in kind.  Not any more complicated then that.

"Even if it was online gaming that somehow inspired him to kill his parents, he must have realised at some point that they wouldn't drop any good loot." - GP member, Doomsong

Re: GP EXCLUSIVE: Read the Transcript as Jack Thompson Storms

i'm not for letting the government decide what i can or cannot read/think/play.

good game, but try again.

Here are we -- and yonder yawns the universe.

Here are we -- and yonder yawns the universe.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenOkay, I'm drawing the line here. The Shout box is not for discussing other people's private lives.09/19/2014 - 10:54pm
Neo_DrKefkaI wish there was an, "I don't care." for the whole Minecraft poll thing09/19/2014 - 9:27pm
TechnogeekMy third "dart" wound up hitting a Chinese website for soccer scores, and the fourth hit Pokemon.com. Not one of those had anything to do with white guys getting harassed because they're white guys.09/19/2014 - 8:56pm
TechnogeekFor the record, I actually tried "throwing a dart at the Internet", or at least approximating it as best I could by zooming in at random spots on internet-map.net. First hit was a perfume seller, and then some sort of insurance spammer.09/19/2014 - 8:56pm
Technogeek"While you could throw a dart at the internet and find a site where Gamers in General are being harassed, doxxed, hacked, just because they are being perceived as white males." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M09/19/2014 - 8:47pm
Andrew EisenSarkeesian and Quinn continue to get harassed and attacked (with the majority of said harassment and attacks being about their gender) and so, the story stays in the headlines. If Wolfe gets swatted again, it will be in the news again.09/19/2014 - 6:56pm
Andrew EisenYou mean Wesley Wolfe? The swatting appeared to be over his DMCA takedown, not due to his color or gender.09/19/2014 - 6:53pm
ConsterSo Sleaker, what's the sand like?09/19/2014 - 6:53pm
quiknkold@CraigR. Spreading Misandry is not going to kill Misogyny. Its just going to fuel it. half the people supporting that arguement are mysoginists themselves. They just dont know it.09/19/2014 - 6:51pm
Sleaker@CraigR - there's nothing to get over. There's no issue here until someone does an actual study on harassment rates.09/19/2014 - 6:48pm
quiknkoldWe never said Gamers were the only victims. Yes, Anita and Zoe got a bad rap. Yes, Zoe's ex was way out of line. Do I disagree with them? Depends on the arguement. Did they deserve what happened to them? Hell Effing No.09/19/2014 - 6:48pm
Sleakerbut news outlets have a tendency to blow up and sensationalize it if the person can be desrcibed as a minority, maybe because it gets the hits. How long were the 2 recent swattings in the news for? 1 was a white male developer....09/19/2014 - 6:47pm
Craig R.Get over it.09/19/2014 - 6:46pm
Craig R.Gamers are just lucky that their behavior wasn't brought to attention of everybody else sooner, and gamers are pissy about that09/19/2014 - 6:46pm
SleakerIn fact, just because a few female developers every year get harassed doesn't make it systematic. As a whole developers are harassed by people.. Swatted, etc.09/19/2014 - 6:46pm
Craig R.And if you don't think misogyny and sexism is widespread, then you're living with your head buried in the sand09/19/2014 - 6:45pm
Craig R.Apparently it's the gamers who are the only victims from GamerGate09/19/2014 - 6:44pm
Sleaker@AE - 1 person getting harassed is a problem. But just because 1 person gets harassed for being a female developer doesn't mean it's a systematic problem or indicative of a whole demographic.09/19/2014 - 6:44pm
Andrew EisenI don't believe anyone said or even remotely implied that harassing anyone was okay.09/19/2014 - 6:41pm
quiknkoldGeneral are being harassed, doxxed, hacked, just because they are being perceived as white males. And what about the White Males who are victims. Its ok to harass them? Anita Sarkeesian gets a bomb threat yeah, but what about the others.09/19/2014 - 6:36pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician