September 26, 2007 -
That gurgling sound you hear could be Jack Thompson's legal career swirling down the 'loo.The frequent video game critic, already facing professional misconduct charges from the Florida Bar which could see him stripped of his license to practice law, has outraged a U.S. District Court judge by including images of men having sex in a document filed with the court last week.
It's difficult to fathom what Thompson was thinking, but here's how it all, um, went down:
As GamePolitics has previously reported, Thompson has a pair of lawsuits underway against the Florida Bar in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. One of the cases, presided over by Judge Adalberto Jordan, has been the recipient of a flurry of motions by Thompson in recent weeks.
In a document filed with the court on September 19th, Thompson criticized the Bar for allegedly collaborating with Norm Kent, a criminal defense attorney from Fort Lauderdale. Thompson and Kent have a contentious legal history dating back nearly two decades. From Thompson's motion:
The Bar’s demonstrable mindset is that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as indicated by The Bar’s enthusiastic, recidivist collaboration with Mr. Kent, over a twenty year period, at Thompson’s expense. Lunacy proceedings have been sought and secured, Bar complaints have recently been maintained for nearly three years.
Kent, who publishes the National Gay News website, was criticized by Thompson in last week's court filing for "distribution of hardcore porn to anyone of any age." Not content to make that alleged point in writing, Thompson attached several gay porn pictures to his motion with Judge Jordan. The pictures apparently do not come directly from the National Gay News site, but rather are contained on sites linked from NGN's adult links section.
In any case, His Honor was not amused.
In an order issued on Monday, Judge Jordan directed Thompson to show cause as to why he should not face sanctions, including possible contempt charges. Judge Jordan wrote:
The attached exhibit, which includes several graphic images of oral and genital sex between adult males, was filed electronically in the docket in this case, without prior permission from the court...
To the extent that the other attorney’s alleged conduct is in any way relevant... there was no need for Mr. Thompson to file these graphic images in the public record. A simple reference to the website and its alleged links would have sufficed...
Through his actions, Mr. Thompson made available for unlimited public viewing, on the court’s docketing system, these graphic images.
For this reason, by October 5, 2007, Mr. Thompson shall show cause why this incident should not be referred to the court’s Ad Hoc Committee on Attorney Admissions, Peer Review, and Attorney Grievance for appropriate action.
In the wake of Judge Jordan's order, Thompson has filed (at last count) four responses. In the first, he proclaims that he is ready to go to jail over the issue:
Thompson may have more to say in his own defense as to his alleged contemptuous behavior, but at this juncture, with all respect, he does not apologize for nor regret what he has done... if this court desires to throw Thompson into jail for trying to sound the alarm in this dramatic fashion... then Thompson is prepared to go there.
In another response Thompson likens his actions to those of a rather more famous American:
To hold Thompson in contempt for alerting the federal court system to the criminal activity... is akin to arresting Paul Revere, in 1775, for “disturbing the peace” with his midnight ride...
Via e-mail, Thompson told GamePolitics:
I'm not the one in trouble. The judge found a certain lawyer's material obscene. I absolutely love it. This is the best thing to happen to me in a long, long time. Check my [case] filings, sweetie.
We have, and this isn't the first time Thompson has been warned by a court not to include suggestive photos in those case filings. An April 12th entry in the Florida Supreme Court docket covering the Florida Bar's case against Thompson includes this notation:
...the Court notes that [Thompson] has attached inappropriate and pornographic materials to his petitions that are irrelevant to his arguments. Respondent is warned that should he continue to submit such inappropriate filings, the Court will consider imposing sanctions which may include, but are not limited to, a limitation on Respondent's ability to submit further filings without the signature of an attorney other than himself.
GP: As we said earlier, it's really hard to imagine what Thompson thought he might have been accomplishing by including the offending images.
What he has apparently succeeded in doing, however, is seriously upsetting the judge who must decide the merits of Thompson's attempt to block the Florida Bar from taking action against his license to practice law.
UPDATE: We've received comment from Norm Kent:
On a legal note, I am thinking most heterosexual lawyers... could better advocate their cause and arguments in the United States District Court than by... seeking, searching out and subsequently then downloading homoerotic images, that may or may not be found within our advertisers website content, over which I have no authority or control.



Comments
"The British are coming! The British are coming!"
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2186/jackthompsonhardgaynm1.jpg
I would like to think that legislators and news producers wouldn't listen to a man that was disbarred. Being disbarred is like being given a dishonorable discharge from the military in my mind.
Jack maybe an incompetent lawyer, but without his own license he would find it difficult to file claims like his ridiculous effort to have Halo 3 declared a public nuisance. True, he could still do it, but do you really think a claim from a disbarred attorney (even if he had other representation) would hold much water in court? More importantly, he couldn't leech onto some unfortunate people who just lost a child in a violent crime and convince them that a video game pulled the trigger.
But hey, he's willing to go to jail over this, so I say we let him. Maybe then he'll learn what true criminals are and what truly motivated them.
Please die.
....
And if you try to sue me, I live outside that legal hell call USA.
So, do not waste my time.
Step 2: Show said pictures around to everyone in an inappropriate fashion???
Step 3: Profit?!
No, it's more like arresting Paul Revere, after he tries to warn the British are coming, by shooting fellow Americans...
He provided advanced warning of British troop movements for the opening battles of the American Revolution. The result was a nasty surprise for the British.
Its different for "Men of God"- they exist to push God's agenda. They call themselves "Culture Warriors", but I think their actions and fanatacism is more akin to "Culture Terrorist".
I have said it before, but JT is about as "Christian" as Jim Jones, David Koresh or Fred Phelps. He is an extremist, nothing more.
Sweet damn you are a delusional fuck. Yes the judge called the pictures obscene. The pictures that YOU put into a legal document were obscene. YOU provided pornographic material to the judge. YOU are in trouble. I know you've been railing your whole career against personal responsibility, but everything here does seem to point to YOU.
Jack Thompson provided these obscene photos, not Norm Kent. Well see how much fun you have with a contempt charge held against you.
It wouldn't stop him, but it would sure as hell kill his credibility. If he got disbarred for any of the reason they've listed, he'd pretty much be blacklisted. Nobody would want an attorney who was disbarred the way he would be as a "close advisor" or "expert witness".
Having fun? Looking at gay porn.
Man, I don't even NEED to come up with a punchline for that one.
-P
Old hat really.
But this, This is right up there with supenaing GWB in the department of ridiculous legal stunts.
Let's say for the hell of it that Kent did in fact have pornography on his website. How is this an issue relating to his personal legal troubles?.
That has got to be one of the creepiest things I've ever read.
He doesn't have an actual job. He's not a member of any law firm I'm aware of, and it's been decades since he did any legal work for money.
I'm sure the judge would not be pleased at Jack's self-confessed attempts to game the legal system at their expense if he read that.
Oh, an why don’t you tell the kiddies what the Judge called this material, what legal term he used? You have purposely deleted the “o” word from the Judge’s description.
Yeah, and way to go leaving out the "d" from "and". :P
Shame on you, Denny Doo. Jack Thompson
Again, this coming from someone who's supposed to be a professional. ::rolleyes::
Among his bloopers, this has got to be the deed that ends his career.
@Orange Soda
I agree 100%
Jack Thompson distributing gay porn through public records corrupts children.
Now, I'm not educated in law but I do have a few things about this that make me curious:
How can a website linked to another website through a 3rd party script be construed as a concious act of soliciting adult material? First: the linked website is not, by any other means than word association, run/operated/owned by Kent. Second: the script used to generate the adds is based on a search engine, which means that the links generated are based on "meta" tags and, without changing the script to the search engine, there is no way you can filter out all adult related material. Third: would this not then indicate that he [Thompson] could then bring not only Kent but; the company in charge of the advertisment script [Google], and each and every adult linked site through the advertisment script to court for makinging adult related material accessible to children?
Such a broad term for Thompson to make an allegation surely means that there is something behind these tactics. Either he is trying to pull off some "coup de grace" to his own carrer or he is going to try to pull off some stunt which, in light of these actions, will send him spiraling like a suicide bomber towards the Atlantic...
@GP: considering the wording that Thompson used in his comments to you, wouldn't it be appropriate to take actions to either stop or, using the same excessive force, bring Thompson up on sexual harrasment charges?
"sweetie"
Suure it is.
You planned on looking like a Douche, right?
Hey thompson, is that Dominos Pizza down the street still hiring Delivery Boys? Maybe you can work for them.
theres nothing to say hes fucking lost it
the marbles are rolling down the street as we speak
(and it sounds like hes ready to start dating dennis) we will cover you dennis head for the hills!!!
Either he is nuts or that porn has changed him.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
"OOOOOH WAAH AHH AHH!"
-David Draiman.
GREAT MOVE JACK
No! Jack, don't! We need you to ridiculize the anti-video-game cause! Come back! Please!
Franckly this made my day. I'm going to have to hunt down some lesbian porn now, before JT's goatse'ing of the whole universe.
Considering that only 5 days ago Jack Thompson filed a motion for an injunction on the sale of Halo 3 until such time as it could be declared a "public nuisance" under Florida law, he's very much an important part of "Game Politics" today. His meltdown is equally important since he is someone that has helped draft numerous bills, crafted several lawsuits and attempted to bar the sale of many games because of their harm to minors.
Also, only 3 of the 20 stories on the front page involve JT...and this has been a busy week for him too, what with three legal actions (or threats of legal action) going on at once. I hardly think that qualifies as being "Jack Thompson Politics".
It's my understanding that paper filings (the sort of things that can be submitted to an automated system) are only supposed to be clear, factual TEXT statements of one side's position.
Pictures are not text; they're evidence. Evidence is not entered into the public record until the judge has reviewed it and determined whether it is: A.) relevant to the case, and B.) suitable for the public record.
If my understanding (as stated above) is correct, then Thompson attempted to do an end-run around a Judge's authority to enter these pictures into evidence and the court record - something that is a very serious breach of protocol and procedure.
That is what disbarments are made of...
hes gone . . . he cant come back
just wave goodbye and relax, we have won this battle without lifting a finger
So you're now proud of having submitted obscene material to a publicly viewed venue?
Shame on you, you pervert.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Jack, they might not have taught you this in lawyer school, but I'll let you know: obscenity is a CRIMINAL charge. You are potentially facing CRIMINAL charges.
If you'd like, I can explain to you what CRIMINAL means.