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

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.]

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


  1. EthanGray says:

    A little bit off topic but….

    A member of my local council who is known for causing trouble did in fact attempt to sue God in a court of law to disprove his exsistence.

    Good to know JT hasn’t yet cornered the market on crazy

  2. Aragorn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Even so, tell me with a straight face that if you were judge tunis, you wouldn’t want to verbally castrate him.

  3. mogbert says:

    Lord Vetinari is very cool and this judge does remind me of him.

    "You have to admire a man who really believes in free choice."

    That quote is from the end of the book "Going Postal". I tried to get the correct line, but I may have misquoted it. When searching Quotepedia for Going Postal, I was amused to find JT was the forth entry.

  4. DarkTetsuya says:

    I heard campaign contributions would be the most helpful, and correct she can’t take gifts.

  5. tollwutig says:

    ooohh going Vetinari on JT would cause his head to explode… figuratively speaking.


  6. Kris O. says:

    I had entirely forgotten about that Blank-Rome woman, and how he jumped down her throat about not being the "correct" type of woman. Thanks for reminding me about that. I think that answers my own question.

  7. shaoron says:

    these would most likely be the same Christians who would throw African-americans out of their church and says the jews must die for killing Christ…


    1) Jesus said "Forgive them for they do not know what they do." Besides.. phisically, it might be the Jews (more specifically the pharisees and the priest), who forced the romans to crucify him, ultimately, it’s all our sins who did.

    2) read the "good samaritan" and John 4, you racist b-tards!

  8. shaoron says:

    Jack wouldn’t understand that.. it should be something like.. OLD ENGLISH!


    "Layeth thy leagal smaketh down on thy Jack’s arse"

  9. shaoron says:

    i can suddenly see that a new rule be added to court procedures stating

    "One may not move the podium, table, chair or any thing in the court unless necessary and agreed by the ruling judge"


    Nice on JT!

  10. shaoron says:

    Just like EA, JT Challenges everything…

    the wrong things, for the wrong reasons, for the wrong motives…

    and for arguments sake, even if those three were not wrong, he did it the wrong way.

    Congratulations JT and EA! We salute you![/sarcasm]

  11. Adamas Draconis says:

    On a whim I decided to Google the term Enhanced Disbarment, wanna know what I got? 278 articles shown out of 332,000 (As much as I love you guys I am NOT looking through that many listings) and ALL of those 278 were about Jackie boi. Not really apropo to anything, just thought it was fun to know.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  12. Adamas Draconis says:

    Actually I could swear I heard a low growl in the transcript, but from Judge Tunis for his behavior or from Min for having to be that close to JT i’m not sure.

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  13. Adamas Draconis says:

    I would rather JT’s shadow never darken the earth of my home state of Alabama ever again thank you very much!


    EDIT: And before I forget again, Thanks Dennis for the hard work!

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  14. Mr. Manguy says:


    James 1:26:
    If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.

    “A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw

  15. Anonymous says:

    Fun fact: that "Render unto Ceasar" quote was really a bit of verbal jujitsu to avoid answering the trick question.  On its face, it says "pay your taxes", but he made a big deal about the coin to pay the taxes with.  They showed him a denarius, which made it easy — pay roman taxes with the roman money.  Thing is, most Jews didn’t carry around denarii, they paid in shekels.  So you could also be interpreted as "if you’re not getting paid in roman money, you don’t need to pay them anything"


  16. Kincyr says:

    it seems that Jack thinks all women should be prostitutes, as those are the only type of women Jack has no beef against.

    ๅฒฉใ€Œ…Ace beats Jackใ€

  17. Sheps says:

    At this rate he’ll go from the Internet to Copper to the world to the universe until he’s suing God himself.  Now there’s a smiting I’d like to see…

  18. Anonymous says:

    Not to put down Judge Tunis, but she’s basically doing her job, no more or less.  Most judges in fact are even-tempered, analytical, and soft-spoken — in short, they’re the types of people who want to be judges.  Most of them don’t even use their gavel except possibly for a perfunctory tap to close proceedings.

    The fact that JT managed to stay out of contempt might mean she’s a little more cool headed than average, but then again contempt during a disciplinary tribunal is pretty redundant, and she did in fact make at least one recommendation based on JT’s conduct during the proceedings.



  19. Aliasalpha says:

    I’ve always said that a counterstrike machinima would be a great way to show the insanity and also take the piss

  20. Aliasalpha says:

    Well judges aren’t allowed to accept gifts from what I’ve heard. What would be better is to send her some games, sounds like after putting up with this kind of childish shit for so long, she probably needs some serious stress relief.

  21. Megahedron says:

    I wouldn’t be so sure that she was so even-tempered and polite. There’s a LOT of context lost in translating speech to text, especially in terms of body language, inflection, tone of voice, etc. She could easily have been frustrated and snapping at Thompson, and that’s how I was imagining her voice–and who wouldn’t be at least a LITTLE flustered after having to read hundreds of pages of legalese courtesy of one guy who’s been sniping at the legitimacy of your position?

  22. Seiena_Cyrus ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Honest to goodness as a Christian, he’s doing a piss poor job of being a Christian. As I recall there’s something about Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and render unto God what is God’s…which was in a case of paying taxes but think about it…he was saying Follow the Rules don’t bring God into it unless it’s an area that is God’s domain and something he’s actually interested in…so if you look at it that way, he’s not doing his job all that well o_O;

    Thus using the I’m a christian approach is really just making the rest of us look bad o_O

  23. Seiena Cyrus ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Ha! Favorite Discworld character XD Though that’d be just really really creepy o.o

  24. Brainswarm says:

    Good for you for not going there.  You know our buddy Jack would go there in a second.

  25. Loudspeaker says:

    Apes will rule the Earth by then. 

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

  26. Anonymous says:

    As any lawyer or member of the legal profession will tell you even a 1 year disbarment can end your chances of renewing your status as a lwayer permently. Piss off one state’s bar and you piss them all off. Even other countries wouldn’t grant you status as a lawyer. You are fubared. Ten year disbarment you would be lucky to even get in a court building without being in handcuffs due to how the legal system would view you.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Funyn how he said his religion shouldn’t be mocked yet he seems to believe anyone else’s should be if it isn’t exactly like his


  28. Thad says:

    A group of enterprising members of the gaming community could still dramatize it.  That would actually be a really cool project…

  29. Thad says:

    Anti-woman, actually.  Because of the prostitute-killing in GTA.  He basically said she was a traitor to the female gender and it was his job as a Christian to make her see the error of her ways.  It was some of the most appallingly paternalistic drivel I have ever read.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Exactly, if Jesus told him to sue, then who does he blame when it all goes horribly and embarrasingly wrong?

    In Jacks’ mind, Satan himself must be against him, because otherwise Jesus is giving him poor advice, so Jack personifies everything that stands against him, all the First Amendment defenders, as ‘Satanic’ in nature, otherwise he’d have to accept that he himself is ‘pathetic’ in nature.

    Yes, I really do believe that Jack thinks of anything that doesn’t measure up to his own supposed ‘morality’ as Satanic, because any other option means he’d have to take responsibility for his own actions and failures.

  31. Thad says:

    Forgot to add: thanks so much for getting this for us, Dennis.  Your dedication to this case and breaking it for the community deserves commendation.

  32. Thad says:

    I laughed out loud.

    And I read the "Having stated my objection, Judge, which I wanted to do on the record orally, which I have a right to do" bit in my head with the voice of Milton from Office Space.

  33. jadedcritic says:

    I can’t help but wonder if he would’ve stayed around if she’d let him move the podium. For the life of me, there’s something about all this I don’t understand.  It’s well documented that Jack-o believes he’s in the moral right, and essentially serving god’s will.  Forgive me for being blunt, and I suppose I might offend the GP christians, but if he is serving god’s will, isn’t he doing a piss-poor job of it?  Wouldn’t he serve gods will more effectively, if he, I don’t know… won cases??  How does being willfully argumentative to judges help anybody? I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if I were a lawyer, it might behoove me to get along well with the judges in my district.

    I guess I’m just sitting here trying to imagine his agenda and how he intends to accomplish it.

  34. LovePuffin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    It would have been unprofessional of her to say "Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

    "Have a nice day," is a nice burn, though.

  35. LovePuffin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    This can be more dangerous. All he has to do is scream "PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" and it’s Corruption Of The Innocent aaaaalll over again…. not that it hasn’t been, lately.

  36. Anonymous says:

    I wouldn’t be so quick to say that.  We’ve seen he can act in a somewhat respectable manner in the past when he knows he has to.  He doesn’t treat the Bar, with any respect because he doesn’t have any for it, but if he has to prove he won’t go apeshit to someone, he’ll do whatever he can just long enough to prove it.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Apok here –

    In addition to having to retake the BAR exam, he has to demonstrate, to someone’s satisfaction (I cannot remember who’s) that whatever conduct caused his disbarment in the first place will not be repeated.  As these very proceedings demonstrated that he would continue that conduct whether or not he was disbarred, I doubt very much that he would be able to demonstrate such to anyone’s satisfaction.

    Then again, who knows what could happen in 10 years?

  38. Lanodantheon says:

    Why would it not surprise me if JT posts a comment going, "Dennis…Watch yourself…" or, "Wait til’ you see the plans I have for you Game Politics, BWAHAHAHA!!!!!" ? That’s it, because JT’s probably going to do it if he hasn’t already….again. JT dug his career’s grave deeper walking out of that court room. I would have stuck around.

    The only unlikely if not impossible thing that could happen would be if his case gets to the Florida Supreme Court and the judges say, "We actually like Mr. THompson. Case dismissed." But that would never happen, it’s going to get there and they will say, "John B Thompson, you be F#*%"

    At least when he gets disbarred, the people involved in his case can , A) redirect JT’s future E-Mail to their SPam filters and/or B) redirect them to the local PD so they can throw him in jail for Harrasment.


    Thank You Judge Tunis ๐Ÿ™‚

  39. Trevor McGee says:

    I wonder when Jack will come in with claims of GP bribing the court or some crazy nonsense like that.

  40. Neeneko says:

    Depending on exactly version of fundementalist christian he is, he might not really care what his wife thinks about his behavior.  Many churches really push the ‘women are a gift to men and are always subserviant to them in all regards’.

    Given his behavior towards that female blank rome lawyer I would wager that is his basic attitude twoards women.  Wasn’t he ranting how her husband should be protecting her and realing her in from doing the unwomanly task of working for an ‘anti-child’ client?

  41. Neeneko says:

    It is amazing how quickly you can get actual WORK done when you do not have someone around specificly trying to stop you.

  42. Gene says:

    What would have been even cooler would have been if she’d gone all Lord Vetinari on him and calmly said "Don’t let me detain you" after he decleared he was leaving.


  43. black manta says:

    I was able to hear the actual audio of the hearing through JAABLOG’s link to the DBR (thanks, JDKJ!)  Jack sounded every bit as petulant as the transcript suggests.  Personally, I wished I could have been standing by the courtroom door and muttered, "Arrogant prick" to him as he walked out!

    I really don’t see where he thinks he has a leg to stand on in this if he keeps acting this way and can’t comport himself.  He has to be able to follow the rules, yet keeps insisting the rules don’t apply to him because he’s a Christian.  People don’t hate you because you’re a Chrsitian, Jack.  In fact, no one would really mind all that much if you conducted yourself like a decent human being and and accorded a certain amount of respect.  But instead Christians of your stripe like to be bigoted and pre-judge people whose lifestyles disagree or are at odds with your own and want to force your brand of religion down everyone’s throats, and that’s what we here at GP and other people whom you’ve dealt with resent.  And that’s why you’re so hated.  Of course, to you it’s perfectly justified because you beleive that’s what your "religion" says you should do.  So there’s no sense arguing with you.

    Jack said to Danny LeDonne when he called last weekend that his religion shouldn’t be mocked.  But I think it’s perfectly in order.  Jack’s at least right in his objection when he describes himself asn an "uppity Christian."  And uppity people need to be mocked so as to take them down a peg or two and put them on the same level as the rest of us.  So I’d say mocking his religion in this case is perfectly reasonable, since his religion makes him think he’s so much better than the rest of us, which he’s not, and knock him off that moral high-horse of his.  So we’ll continue to mock away.

    Fianally, even though Jack may be eligible to reapply in ten years, I doubt that will happen, as JDKJ pointed  out he would need to show evidence of rehabilitation.  Jack as admitted, and Tuma has noted, that he will continue to act the way he does regardless.  So I’d say evidence of any rehabilitation would be doubtful.  Jack is and will always be unapologetic for his actions.

    Q: "What’s the difference between Jack Thompson and a brick wall?"

    A: "The brick wall will never say how morally superior it is when you argue with it."

  44. Gene says:

    "I’m also suing everyone who has every used the internet! Yes, that includes myself, but God says I can do it and therefore I can!"

  45. point09micron ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    That’s true.  Yee is an incomptent child psychologist with an agenda, not an incompetent attorney with an agenda.

  46. Mnementh2230 says:

    “Enhanced Disbarrment* – I love that term.

    With any disbarrment over 90 days, I believe he has to re-take the exam. And we all know how well he did on that the first time…

  47. TheEdge says:

    Judge Tunis put the smack on Jackey boy!

    Honestly,I laughed when I read this,good freakin stuff.Thanks Dennis,I appreciate the great read.

  48. Serrenity ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Its amazing – my 3yo nephew has better manners than this man.  I’d hate to be that guy, but I can’t help but wonder what kind of father he is if this is how he acts in public … I mean, really I find it kind of disturbing.  Imagining all the potential emotional trama that kid could potentially be going through. 

    Maybe his paranoia over video games amounts from his own insecurity at being able to effectively raise a child.  I don’t know, I just … kinda feel bad for his son, even if Jack-o is better in private the public, it’s gotta be downright embarassing to see your father result to childish antics in such a public, and venerable setting.  It’s the kind of thing you’d expect from dredges of society – not from a lawyer. 

  49. Normally, I hate so-called "reality TV" with a passion, but now…

    I’m thinking that if this whole train wrecki had been videotaped and turned into a miniseries, I would be absolutely freakin’ GLUED to the set, I’d watch every single episode, and I’d be certain to tell all of my friends.

    It would be absolutely *riveting*, and I wouldn’t miss a minute.

    Too bad it didn’t happen ๐Ÿ™

  50. JC says:

    I was somewhat hoping he’d start jumping around going nuts and saying, "hahaha! Joke is on you, you aren’t legitimate; weeeee~"

    Oh well. Thanks for the transcript Dennis. You’re always great at doing things like this.

  51. Freyar says:

    I’m just glad for the sake of Tumas and the Judge that they only had to deal with him, what.. five to fifteen minutes?


    —- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians.

  52. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    That was awesome how she was like "Have a nice day" when he walked out! BURNED!!!


    -If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we’d all be livin’ large.

  53. Kris O. says:

    I’d really like to know if Jack’s wife is familiar with how he behaves in public. I can’t imagine any woman knowingly tolerating that kind of childish behavior–especially considering that she already has a child to raise. It’s ridiculous that the judge also has to play the part of Jack’s mother during the hearings. "No, Jack!" "Stop it, Jack!" "Jack, put that podium back!" "Jack, don’t talk back to me!" "Jack, wait your turn!" "Jack, don’t throw things at people!"

  54. dedre ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Nice to see this transcript, sorry you had to get into the piggybank for such a short transcript, priceless though it is.

    Now I’m imagining Regis sitting there before Thompson leaves the courtroom asking "Is THAT your FINAL answer??"

  55. Kincyr says:

    I’d add to that, but it would fulfil Godwin’s Law.

    ๅฒฉใ€Œ…Ace beats Jackใ€

  56. Scot Boyd says:

    I’m glad Thompson is an inept bully.  Can you imagine what a talented, personable lawyer could do to harm the video game industry if they had the same determination as Jack Thompson?

  57. Anonymous says:

    Don’t forget electricity…can’t have internet without electricity…and computers…and operating systems…

    *Head Explodes*

  58. Shih Tzu says:

    Thanks for the transcript!  It’s more fair to everyone involved when we have the exact court transcripts to refer to.  I’ll miss watching Thompson harass and alienate everyone he needs to work with.  Hopefully he’s already planning other high-profile activities outside of the courtroom.

  59. Jabrwock says:

    I think it’s more JT’s stance that he has a right to exercise his religious beliefs, which happen to include that violent or sexual media is a menace which must be exterminated from the face of the earth.

    That’s no excuse for his behavior though. There are many who believe the same, and manage to do more about it than he’s accomplished, without being inane arseholes.

    And he seems to think that his claiming religion gives him a free pass to do whatever he wants to further those goals.

    I’m reminded of Calvin & Hobbes, when Calvin was writing a quiz:

    I refuse to answer the question because it would violate my religious principles.

    He can be as much of an ass as he wants. But not as a licensed professional. He should never have applied to the Bar if he never believed in their rules in the first place. Breach of contract, plain and simple.

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

  60. jccalhoun says:

    I love that Thompson’s obsession with the podium continues here.  Remember that in the actual trial there was some fight over moving the podium then as well. 

    I wonder if he will cite not being able to move the podium into his numerous faxes and objections?

  61. Delta says:

    It is a privilege to practice law in the state of Florida. It’s not a right; and with that privilege, 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.

    This is my favorite line in this synopsis by far. The entire time, Thompson tells us it is his right to do whatever he wants in court or as a lawyer, that it is his right to harass and disrespect people, and when that is turned back on him, he cries foul and accuses us of going against his religious beliefs. This trial will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this man has no compassion for anyone but himself and is unfit to be a lawyer, and in my opinion, unfit to be a religious man. I may not hold many religious beliefs, but I respect those who hold genuine beliefs, and he uses his as a shield from backlash from his behavior.

  62. Aragorn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You beat me to the punch. She really is a very even headed woman. If she ever decided to get into politics, I’d most likely be behind her.

    Though as mentioned before, please do not attempt to send Judge Tunis anything. It can be construed as bribery, and throw the entire trial and hearing into disarray. It’s a major No-no in law.

  63. Aragorn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Judge Tunis has my respect. She handles JT perfectly… she doesn’t react to his remarks, when he does something rude, she calls him on it, and when JT pulls one of his classic stunts, she just shrugs doesn’t make a big deal of it.

    She really is the perfect person for the job, and I don’t think there are many people out there who can handle him like that.

  64. Trails ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "Dennis, you didn’t post it all.  You purposely omitted the part where I came back into the courtroom, cured cancer, and then danced a jig with the Archangel Gabriel.

    You have done this to disparage me, hence I will be suing you, your parents, and the Internet.  I will also sue copper, since it is an integral part of the Internet and clearly complicit in your disparaging of my illustrious self."

  65. Benji says:

    I think it’s more JT’s stance that he has a right to exercise his religious beliefs, which happen to include that violent or sexual media is a menace which must be exterminated from the face of the earth. And he seems to think that his claiming religion gives him a free pass to do whatever he wants to further those goals. Perhaps he should be reminded that the 9/11 terrorists were religious extremists who were also exercising their religious beliefs.

  66. Jack Wessels says:

    You’re forgetting something though. If Jesus made you do it, you don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else. You’re above the law.


  67. Salen says:

    Well, its nice to see that JT can’t even be bothered to save his butt when its being tossed under the legal bus.

  68. Helpless Kitten says:

    May I humbly recomend Judge Tunis for sainthood?  Rarely have I seen a person face such rude behavior and insults with such an even temper and polite maner.

    Does anyone know her address and if so can we hold a collection for sending her a fruit basket and some flowers?  She deserves not just our admeration but the admeration of all those who feel that dignaty and decorum in the courtroom are worth protecting.

  69. Jabrwock says:

    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.

    And that’s why it boggles my mind every time him and the fruit-loops he associates with claim that this is a freedom issue. He agreed to those rules, even though he clearly doesn’t believe he has to follow them.

    You are not guaranteed a "right" to work. Especially if you want to work in a Professional field such as law, medicine, engineering, etc. You agree to certain rules to be licensed, and if you break those rules, you lose your license to "practice".

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

  70. Weighted Companion Cube says:

    Am I the only one who can picture JT, sitting in a courtroom in Alabama or Mississippi, saying, "Not Jerry Gallo! Jerry Callo!"

  71. Anonymous says:

    "The Judge declined the offer and the hearing ended just 25 minutes after it had begun."


    25 minutes eh? Things sure do move a lot smoother without JT in the room.

  72. 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.


  73. Anonymous says:

    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.

  74. Prime says:

    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!

  75. shaoron says:

    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!

  76. Seroth says:

    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.

  77. Anonymous says:

    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.

  78. Anonymous says:

    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.

  79. Ace ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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,

  80. Anonymous says:

    Errr.. Where did you study law? Legoland?

    I’ve been around for years as well, so therefore I must be right as well…


  81. Anonymous says:


    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.


  82. mogbert says:

    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.

  83. GryphonOsiris says:
    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.


  84. Anonymous says:

    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.

  85. Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.


  86. Anonymous says:

    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 ๐Ÿ™‚

  87. Killj0y ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.


  88. zevorick says:

    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…

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

    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!"

  90. Anonymous says:

    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. 

  91. Anonymous says:

    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.

  92. Prime says:

    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.

  93. Paul says:

    A song springs to mind

    insane in the membrane, insane in the brain

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

  94. DarkTetsuya says:

    I dunno… doesn’t harvey actually win his cases?

    He could probably be Peter Potamus with all the ‘things’ he sends out. ๐Ÿ˜›


  95. Anonymous says:

    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.

  96. TBoneTony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  97. Anonymous says:

    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"





  98. Baggie says:

    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.

  99. Ravenhawk ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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…

  100. Anonymous says:

    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.

  101. Wookiee ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

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

  102. Ravenhawk ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    "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?

  103. Anonymous says:

    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":

    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.

  104. Oz says:

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

  105. Aragorn ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  106. Vinzent ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    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.

  107. Anonymous says:

     ["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, and threaten opposing counsel or Judges".

    Priceless. Truly priceless. Blows every argument he makes out of the water.

    {From my vantage point, but most likely not, it appears as if I have first post.}]

    What are you people whining about? It looks like he has more than just "first post!" in there to me. Also, what about the guy that says only "Thompson=pwned"? Isn’t that less content than the "first post" guy? Stop being hypocrites, people.

    Also, on an unrelated note, this comment system needs some fixing. When I move the cursor to the end of the line, it teleports to the beginning and so I have to have an extra space to the right of the cursor at all times.


  108. Soundemon says:

    "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, and threaten opposing counsel or Judges".


    Priceless. Truly priceless. Blows every argument he makes out of the water.

    {From my vantage point, but most likely not, it appears as if I have first post.}


  109. vellocet says:

    You’ve fallen into a logical fallacy here.  Just because all progress is reliant on unreasonable men does not mean that ALL unreasonable men drive progress.

    Some unreasonable men are just unreasonable and don’t contribute to society at all.

  110. Doctor Proctor says:

    You’re assuming that "progress" is a positive.  An unreasonable man, like Thompson, can control progress by impeding it.  This is what he does…  They’re trying to conduct a very serious hearing, and he’s holding up the progress of that hearing by fiddling with the podium. 

    — "Life’s short and hard, like a body building elf." — The Bloodhound Gang

  111. Anonymous says:

    I think Thompson is the kind of unreasonable that gets him eaten by dinosaurs instead of the kind of unreasonable that invents the spear or fire.


  112. Iliad ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I love the weird places these convos go.


    I actually think he meant the opposite, the UNreasonable man would change them (laws of the bar in this example) the reasonable man would abide by them while simultaneously adapting to them in a manner which most benefits himself.


    Its not so much about fighting for a cause as it is just living life and letting others do the same.

  113. Mr. Manguy says:

    That is my sig.


    “A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw

  114. Jabrwock says:

    Shaw is saying that all progress depends on people who have to adapt their environment to themselves, like Thompson having to shift the podium.

    I suspect Shaw was talking about much more than just shoving a podium around so he could make a better soap-box. More likely, Shaw meant that the better course of action would be not to conform to the rules of the bar, but to change the rules of the bar. Effect change in a meaningful way.

    Not stamp your feet and whine about them… or rely on technicalities to get yourself out of trouble so you can continue to practice within the rules you despise…

    Jack has never once started a campaign to change the Bar rules. He just whines about them when he breaks them and gets caught.

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

  115. Arad ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think the Shaw quote is actually his footnote/signature, so that it appears at the bottom of every post.

    Maybe?  *scratches head*

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

    ROFL Doom’s "God Mode" cheat password! Sweet!


  117. DarkTetsuya says:

    Especially after how many years of Jack Retardson and his antics?

    But yeah agreed, save that crap for those other gaming blogs.

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

    I take this person’s side. Just because you don’t like it when someone posts "First Comment" doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to. They lose that when Dennis bans it. Last I checked, the closest thing towards that is EZK replacing "First Comment" with a Thumbs Down thing. Personally, I want to know if Dennis has approved that. If he has, I have no objections to it.


  119. tenno says:

    Because I said so and I’m a unique voice on the internet? HAR!

    Or because all of a sudden we have people with FIRST! for 5-6 posts because they have some inane idea that it’s important.

  120. DavCube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You’re absolutely right, you have the right for it. It’s just that no one really cares. AT ALL. In OR out of the internet. It just makes you look like a jerk going ‘hey look at me.’ Nobody likes that.

  121. Anonymous says:

     I object to your objection of his refuting of the original rebutal regarding first post mentioned in a comment adendum to comments regarding the transcript of the hearing of said person being a Mr Jack Thompson vis a vis disbaring hearing of arguments persuant to codes of conduct under Law society. (see appendix 3c, 3d and 3e subsection alpha)


  122. tenno says:

    It’s hardly crying. It’s an irritating and petty action, that this forum was awesomely without for quite some time. This isn’t AICN.

  123. DarknessDeku! says:

    Everybody has a right to yell first post.  Please don’t cry and try to censor it like Jack Thompson.

  124. Casey says:

    You know if you look past all of Jack’s childish antics, I really have to give it to him. He’s going down down down with the ship, or any other metaphorical equivalent.

  125. Glen Haupt says:

    You realize that’s actually a compliment for Thompson.  Shaw is saying that all progress depends on people who have to adapt their environment to themselves, like Thompson having to shift the podium.  Should have just left the last sentence off (but then that would be sleazy).

    On another note, over the years I’ve realized that Thompson is an honest-to-God real life troll.

  126. Mr. Manguy says:

    Why does he always want to move the podium around?

    “A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw

  127. Gray-17 says:

    Let’s put it another way. A federally regulated ESRB would mean that some government bureacrat’s stamp of approval would be requried before one could speak or publish in the form of a videogame. If said speech did not meet an arbitrary standard, it would be restricted.

    Sounds like a first amendment violation to me.

  128. Anonymous says:

    Most of us that disagree with you disagree for the same reason you disagree with Thompson. If we give the government an inch, more than likely they’ll gradually start taking a few miles more.

  129. Monte says:

    A big problem you are not taking into account is the fact that the government bureaucrat also gets to decide what does and does not get an AO rating; and as we all know, thanks to Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and game retailers, the AO rating is effectively like banning the game… retailers won’t sell it, and console makers refuse to have it on their consoles. With the government running the show, you can know damn well that their standards will be very different than the ESRB’s… games like GTA are certain to be rated AO, and there’s probably a lot of other games that would be thrown in there that don’t deserve it… you really can’t trust the government run this kind of thing; their seemingly never ending attempts to pass game legislation despite the constitutional issues, the complete lack of real evidence proving the "danger" and absolutely no chance of passing, is proof of that… 


  130. Anonymous says:

    There’s 2 requirements it would take.

    1. Coverage of all Media types.

    2. The removal of the ‘Porn’ stigma from AO rated games. Possibly even seperating them into two distinct ratings, Adult rated for Violent content and Adult rated for Sexual Content.

    Until that, at the very least exists, then the federal government would have the power to effectively censor video games if rabble-rousers create enough pressure, purely by pushing it into a rating group that isn’t sold anywhere.

    In fact, I’d say that the ‘AO problem’ is at the very core of the dilemma in many ways. The ESRB gets accused of underusing by an anti-game crowd that want it to stay as an effective banning, because they can censor things while pretending they are merely ‘helping parents’.

    This is the one thing I can agree with Yee on, something needs to be done about that rating, it shouldn’t be interpreted as it currently is.

  131. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    I think the whole "Government bereaucrat would decide what does and does not get an M rating" thing is part of what people are afraid of. Many of us have a "what can happen will happen" attitude when it comes to this. I’m not saying that’s the right or wrong logic (it’s the logic I use, though it may well be faulty), but I suppose it is best to play safe. As have I said, a constitutional matter like this has reprocussions that can stretch far beyond the mere videogame veil. The reason we aren’t supposed to have compulsory speech is to keep us from being swayed from hearing certain speech. The reason private groups aren’t supposed to have legal power is to avoid something like a private group gaining power to enforce the law without recourse from citizens, ala the secret police of Russia, and as it has been noted, when you give an inch, people tend to take a mile. Obviously I’m not saying it will leap straight to some post apocolyptic "Running Man" world (surely people would have enough sense to draw the line, so it will probably never happen), I’m simply trying to illustrate that constitutional rulings have broad effects that don’t stop at videogames. The slippery slope is quite real.

    Again, I would like to aknowledge that my above example sucks ass. Just trying to illustrate a point. If I come up with something less over the top, I’ll edit this.

    -If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we’d all be livin’ large.

  132. jadedcritic says:

    Aren’t you guys thinking a little bit in extreme terms?  A federally regulated ESRB would just mean a government bureaucrat would decide what does and does not get an M rating, doesn’t necessarily mean you couldn’t play the game. It’s not like the ESRB has censor powers.  It’s the console manufacturers that do that.

    That said, I’m in agreement to the extent that I’m not particularly interested in the government’s opinion of what is morally correct beyond the bounds of common sense law – (do onto others as you would have done onto you.) So called "moral values" politics, is a load of #$@#$@#$.

    But I will re-emphasize, even if I was in a position to accept such a compromise from the jack-camp, I wouldn’t do it, because I wouldn’t trust him not to try and take a yard after we give him an inch.  I sincerely doubt that he’s being forthright in terms of his entire agenda. I truly don’t think it ends at regulation and enforcement of sale to minors.  Think he has larger terms in mind. 

  133. Origin says:

    mmm, let me just, mmmm, eat this delicious moment.

    Honestly though, 100% agrre with Ashton, Jack sounds like a stammering child. I learned proper ettiquette in public places….. when i was 4. He just wants any excuse to say he was fighting until the end…….in his basement…… all alone…….while playing GTA4.

  134. shaoron says:

    when did he ever grew up!?

    I couldn’t even act like that when I was 8, else my mom and the belt… >.<

  135. Ashton says:

    JT’s arguments are like a child’s. "I dropped it into his lap gently! What are you saying that for?!" It sounds like me – when I was 8.

  136. Justin says:

    Mr. Thompson, I don’t understand, why did you just file a motion that said "iddqd" and nothing else?

  137. Manuel deBettencourt ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    As it proves to show you, Thompson thinks he’s turned on invulnerability from disbarment, in order to try to prove games are the source of violence. Show you how cheats never work in real life.

    And they say that people like Thompson have manners….to those people who say that, I respectfully disagree.

  138. Neoelasticman ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    The other thing about it that I’ve heard people talk about, and which convinced me personally, is the idea that if you take a law that limits sales of "objectionable content" in a reasonable way, eventually some idiot will look at that law and say that it’s not enough. Essentially, if you give them an inch they take a yard, and if you give them a yard they want a mile.

    I am reminded of some lines from the song "Fortunate Son" by Credence Clearwater:

    And when you ask them, how much should we give?
    Ooh, they only answer more! more! more!

    One law leads to another, and eventually gaming loses its… well, it loses its games, really.

  139. Chuck (why can't GP keep me logged in?) says:

    > I’m all for the gov. fining companies that sell them to children.

    Let me just cut this off here: I’m not.  Not in any form.  The ESRB system is supposed to be VOLUNTARY.  I will not stand for a government mandated production code or rating system.  I will not have posturing jowl-wagging moralizing autocrats determining what is art and applying force to those who disagree.  And no, I do not give a tinkers damn about the fact that it’s done in the name of "protecting the children".

    This is a problem that can be and has been fixed by the free market.  Would we even consider for a microsecond such a ratings regime for books?






    -I don’t know why you won’t stay logged in try Firefox or Flock. -Toll

  140. Dog Welder says:

    The only problem there is no other form of media is regulated in any way, and this law certainly doesn’t try to do that, as well.  I do agree…12 year olds should not be playing games like GTA IV or Halo or Gears of War.  But I’d prefer that be left in the hands of parents.

  141. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    The reason most people oppose those laws is because it’s the parent’s responsibility to parent and not the government’s. But yes, not all of his ideas are bad, it’s mostly the fact that he’s such a piece of shit.

    -If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we’d all be livin’ large.

  142. Anonymous says:

    Well, my own problem is with the fairness of the idea of only regulating one system when others are not regulated by the government at all, such as Movies.

    People use the whole ‘Interactivity’ thing far too freely as an excuse as well, a lot of Latino dances were once considered morally threatening, because the acts ‘simulated sexual activity’ and therefore promoted promiscuity and overtly sexual behaviour. The whole ‘interactive’ thing has actually been used on various dances from the Salsa, the Twist, throughout the years without success, that’s why the film ‘Dirty Dancing’ was called ‘Dirty Dancing’ ๐Ÿ˜‰

    If the government wanted to introduce a system that regulated all media under the same umbrella, I’d simply step back and see where the dice landed, I only really object because it is so obviously singling out a newer, politically weak, medium to try and gain political points.

  143. Theoden says:

    You know Jacks Ideas aren’t always bad. I think it’s in foolish when game makers say that laws, like the one b4 the gov now, are wrong or infringe on our rights. Who can disagree that a 12 year old doesn’t need to play GTA4 or any other M-rated game. They shouldn’t. I’m all for the gov. fining companies that sell them to children. And most already post ESRB rating systems. Who can say that’s wrong? But Jack isn’t trying to keep them out of childrens hands. He wants to keep them out of everyones hands. He wants to make money off of familys that lose loved ones from violence, MUCH more often then not, have nothing to do with games. The sooner Jack’s disbarred and his kind of "Ambulance Chaser Law" is gone the better the chance for change that helps everyone and hurts no one can happen.

  144. Conejo says:

    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.

  145. Anonymous says:

    No, it wouldn’t be the end of the world, but it would be the end of the 1st amendment. 

  146. jadedcritic says:


    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.

  147. GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    The reprocussions of such blatant violations would stretch far beyond videogames.

    -If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we’d all be livin’ large.

  148. Hammith says:

    I think for the day the decision finally comes down we should all set up a party as close to the supreme court as legally allowable with signs saying "The system works!" and ones with "The system doesn’t work", for if he isn’t disbarred for some reason. The should also be cake, and possibly piniatas.

    And GTA4 Posters, and Photoshopped pictures of Johnny-boy.

    And cake, I cannot overstate the importance of the cake.

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

    What, you don’t think he would’ve done something crazier if he had stayed? It’s a sad day for us all…

    Otherwise, it was obviously a planned move. He was going to stay until things stopped going his way.

  150. tenno says:

    You know, considering how prolific he is in his writing, you’d think he’d have much more literary fluff of his own out there, and considering that, I’m going to now look for his site and see what amazing truths he’s posts there for the betterment of mankind.

    But, then again, from the multiple examples of how he acts in he ‘real world’ I’m not sure my selfless search for improvement will be helped.

  151. Loudspeaker says:

    You know after reading that trascript I wonder what gets under JT’s skin more.  The fact that people aren’t going to just bow down to him simply because he tries to sue them into his viewpoint, or the fact that his supposedly large support group hasn’t appeared to bail him out?

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

  152. Nevexst says:

    I could sware I remember him saying "Try to get it right this time" to the people from DBR.

    LOL EDIT: It’s already there. My mistake!


  153. Neeneko says:

    Not yet no, but he has sent nasty offical letters to at least one record’s persons’ boss.

  154. GdRobotUs says:

    Has he sued the Court Reporter yet? Between the posturing and the multiple filings to just about everyone, and, in Strauss Zelnick’s case, their mother, I’m starting to lose track.

  155. Anonymous says:

    I can not by the life of me comprehend how much of an ass someone can be. That someone being "JT". Treat the judge with respect you imbecile.

  156. Anonymous says:

    Don’t forget this is Thompson Land, where only Jack can have "free speech rights," and no one else can.

    Now I picture Jack standing on some street corner, doing his usual rambling, and instead of giving people pamphlets of such, he is throwing copies of his book at people who refuse to take it….

    Of course if someone tried to extend the same "right" back at him, he would call the cops and then sue you for it.

  157. Eville1NSI ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Yeah, that whole "I have a right to give it to him!" Doesn’t really address his right NOT TO TAKE IT.

  158. Anonymous says:

    ….so he spent his time trying to move his podium and then eventually just went crazy go nuts? Wow he’s 32 flavors of Crazy

  159. Jack Wessels says:

    Yes. Thank you Dennis. I really wanted to read this.

    "[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…"

    Seriously? A little discretion on Thompson’s part may have been a good thing for him to try. Continuing to act in the same manner that landed him there in the first place was not smart at all.

Comments are closed.