October 4, 2007
In recent days we've been tracking Jack Thompson's legal antics in his lawsuit against the Florida Bar - the one presided over by Judge Adalberto Jordan.To keep things, um, straight, let's call this one the gay porn case, since Thompson's September 24th docket submission which feaured graphic pictures of men having sex has become a crucial, if bizarre, element.
But, until yesterday, there was another John Thompson vs. the Florida Bar case, also going on in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This one was presided over by Judge Paul Huck (left).
For clarity's sake, let's refer to this one as the Kotaku case, since Thompson at one point tried unsuccessfully to drag the popular game blog as well as its parent company, Gawker Media, into the case. Thompson sought to name Kotaku as a defendant along with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court.
Judge Huck, by the way, also presided over a 2006 Thompson suit against the Florida Bar, before dismissing it late last year. In dismissing last year's case, Huck wrote:
Thompson submits nothing beyond wild accusations of a vast conspiracy against him…
As he has done recently in the gay porn case with Judge Adalberto Jordan, during the Kotaku case Thompson filed unsuccessful motions to remove Judge Huck from presiding.
On Monday of this week, Judge Huck scheduled oral arguments in the Kotaku case to begin today. Yesterday, however, Thompson abruptly - and voluntarily - withdrew the lawsuit. In answer to GP's request for comment, Thompson wrote:
The Huck case is superfluous, as the other case is the one that has the relief I want and need.
So this one's over and the spotlight will remain on Judge Jordan's handling of Thompson and the gay porn case.
Comments
Or maybe my mind is just so twisted it sees sexual innuendo in everything nowadays...
Hey, maybe all this is just part of him getting ready to retire.
wow, is it just me or is JT sounding... weary?
CAN John Bruce constantly file, then after a time, withdraw from cases such as these, creating, in effect, a stall tactic? Or will someone, somewhere, in the legal system put their foot down and say "ENOUGH!" (or my more popular favorite Belushi quote from The Principal "NO MORE!")?
Just curious if the law sets a limit.
Nightwng2000
NW2K software
So how did he pass the sanity test? Isn't this the definition of paranoia?
i mean, this is like prank calling 911.
In March, long before the gay porn suit, he sues the Florida Bar and the entire Supreme Court of the State, and most of us laughed at as a foolhardy and ridiculous.
Then he gets into the suit, and asks the court to amend the suit not once, but twice.
Then he has to face numerous motions to dismiss by the Bar. so he pleads for a mediator, then he moves for clarification, then he moves for recusal of the judge, then he moves for disqualification of the judge, and then he moves for special hearings, all of which are denied, denied, and denied.
Then after he is bounced out of court once and again, he asks in August for more time to Amend his Complaint so he can perfect his claims, and guess what, he never does, announcing that the judge is too unfair to hear his case, and then finally, he gets what he always sought- a hearing, a forum, an opportunity to wax eloquently before the jurist about his cause of action- AND WHAT DOES HE DO ???
On the day of the hearing, he files a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of all his claims of action, the very claims he sent out in news releases last March were going to shake the foundations of the Florida Bar forever?????
The Court should fine him for filing a frivolous suit that wasted the time of the court and the Bar and they should move to tax costs against him, and continue to expose him for the nonsense he causes.
Of course, this shows that JT DOES have limits. The sheer volume of court documents and press releases he spits out is mind-boggling. I can't help but wonder how he juggles all his time and energy.
Folks, you can't make this stuff up.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Random Tower: Game News and Commentary
Oh, my... beautiful pun, sir!
.
.
.
What I find odd is that several judges/blogs/even Thompson himself throws the 'conspiracy' word around so much I wonder why no one is snatching on that particular aspect of Jack and asking him to go quietly into the good night...
- Read: No leg to stand on.
The match is over! Due to surrender, the winner is...JUUUUDGE HUUUUUCK!!
*Punch-Out crowd cheer and camera flashes*
In other words, he couldn't bully the judge, so he ran away with his tail between his legs.
I think I'm just becoming confused. This is just so weird.
-Mike Schwinger
@ Iniquus & VioletSon
I'm not so sure. You maybe giving Jack too much credit. He did send a Judge gay porn after all. If that's all part of some "master plan", its gotta be a pretty screwed up plan.
"So bored of this man now. Why is this process taking so long anyway?"
I've been thinking that for awhile. It appalls me that it takes so long to just get RID of him.
Another idle thought...when JT does get disbarred later this year, do you think the response thread here at GP will reach 1k? =)
Well, Jack Thompson has lost the "Kotaku case" (as in he withdrew from the case). This is another defeat for Jack Thompson (although he will say that this is another "victory" for Jack Thompson). This is another victory for the gamers.
@ Jack Thompson
Jack, give up, you have no chance of winning. You may, as well, admit defeat, before it's too late. Also, you are on the verge of being defeated, even now you are facing your "last stand" in this so-called "war" of yours.
That's right, the other one's got gay porn in it.
His 15-year-long crusade against the Florida Bar will end soon. I doubt, however, that it will be the end of his other crusades.
With regard to Thompson's claims to run against a judge. A judge's duty is to impartially uphold the law; a suitable candidate is one who has repeatedly shown to be fair and evenhanded (my mother, incidentally, is a Court Referee - like a judge, but hired, not elected). Someone who has a 15+ year-long-crusade against things he personally objects to can not in any way be described as "fair" or "impartial," no matter how valid the crusade may be.
But, if I lived in or near Miami, FL, and I knew a radio station which John Bruce, Judge Jordan, and Norm Kent all listened to, I think I would make a dedication that would go something like this:
DJ: Andrew Rhodes, from Wilmington, NC, known in some online circles as Nightwng2000, called in for a dedication to Attorney John Bruce "Jack" Thompson. If any of you Miami folks aren't familiar with this individual, there are plenty of online sites, including Wikipedia, to look up his antics.
Andrew calls in regarding recent events pertaining to John Bruce, who has recently had several lawsuits against the Florida Bar, who also have several lawsuits/complaints against John Bruce. One of the most recent suits filed by Mr. Thompson included several rather graphic images filed with the court regarding gay porn and a complaint by Mr. Thompson against Attorny Norm Kent. Needless to say, there are plenty of ways to Google to find more info on this. But, Thompson ended up getting into trouble with the court over the filings of the actual images of gay sex porn.
John Bruce has now dropped one of his suits against the Florida Bar while continuing with this one. When asked why he kept this one by GamePolitics.com, Thompson responded in part "The Huck case is superfluous, as the other case is the one that has the relief I want and need." (The "Huck case" being the one he dropped.) As some posters on GamePolitics have pointed out, this is a rather hilarious (and we agree) comment considering it has to do with gay porn images.
As such, Andrew offers up this excellent choice of dedications to Thompson, with props to Norm Kent and Judge Jordan, the latter two working hard to keep the legal system we know and love from being further mutilated by dishonorable and unethical attorney's like John Bruce "Jack" Thompson and make certain that attorneys like Thompson...
CAN'T GET NO SATISFACTION!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3jxmWU5lFA
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I'm not sure how it works legally, but it's something along the lines of denying voluntary dismissal, and instead invoking summary judgment instead.
I was just wondering about that. How can filing suits and then dismissing them when they don't look to be going your way be considered ethical? How can someone get away with that? In theory, you could just keep filing a claim and then dismissing it until things go your way. Sure, it would take a long time, but since Jack is a "ethical" "Warrior of God" who fights the good fight for the souls of teh childrens, he maybe willing to do that. Can Kotaku sue him for frivolous law suits in this case?
Ethical? No way. Legal? Technically yes, because he's the one who filed it, so he doesn't need the judge's permission to dismiss.
On the other hand, I believe the judge can force whether it was dismissed "with" or "without" prejudice. The judges in the RIAA cases have been forcing the "with prejudice" suit dismissals, so a) the RIAA can't just reopen the case later when conditions become favorable, and b) so the defendant can sue for legal fees, because "with prejudice" means that the plaintiff failed to prove their case, and admitted as much by withdrawing. Kind of a "you lose by default", but JT could still appeal to a higher court at that point.
Actually, this judge has has done just that. He gave Jack some leeway and Jack abused it. Even if the Judge didn't know Jack's legal history, he got tired very quickly of the inane babble that this Court Jester spewed and told him to 'shut up or put up'. Jack replied by trying to file to have the just made as a defendant to create a reason for the judge to have a conflict of interests, and the judge gave him a legal ruler across the knuckles and is getting ready to put him in the corner with the proverbial dunce cap on.
This judge is doing what so many other judges should have done in the past. They are making Jack act like an adult in the court room, or else they will send him to bed without his supper.
I guess he's just following the modern practice of pundits and flinging as much poo as possible until it starts to consistently stick. But he doesn't have nearly as much clout as BillO or Rush does, which is necessary to ensure you're never held accountable for any such statements or actions.
I guess he'll finally be able to focus on trolling the internet all day long once he doesn't have court to worry about.
What a great idea! Maybe I should start referring to those game-dropping jerks as "thompsons" from now on.
> CAN John Bruce constantly file, then after a time, withdraw from cases
Pretty much. But all it takes is one counterclaim and the case is still open, just with the shoe on the other foot. The defendant can also move to have the case dismissed with prejudice and put JT on the hook for legal fees.
No one is hiring Jack Thompson, no one is paying his bills. He's been finished as a lawyer for years now. Disbarring him is just a formality that will make it slightly more difficult for him to file, that's all.
/so, so sorry
He also seems fond of the "reach over and press buttons on the other player's controller" way of play.
i sure hope that somebody explained to jack what 'oral arguments' mean
But all it takes is one counterclaim and the case is still open, just with the shoe on the other foot. The defendant can also move to have the case dismissed with prejudice and put JT on the hook for legal fees.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was unclear how you got to dismiss with prejudice. So if a defendant in the case requests dismissal with prejudice, and JT tried to voluntarily withdraw his case before it's granted/denied, any idea what happens then? Do it trigger an immediate review of the motion to dismiss, or does JT still get off the hook?
Yeah, that's crossed my mind too. If he's putting so much time and effort into these "crusades", is he actually EARNING any money?
I mean, think about this:
If he's fined for ANYTHING, who's paying the bill? If John Bruce isn't actually working and earning money, then who's paying?
No, I'm not trying to bring "family" into this, GP. I AM, however, pointing out something that makes him look all that much more pathetic.
He runs around, firing off suits and filings (which COST), and facing many many fines, like he doesn't give a crap. Really, truly, he acts like he's got money to burn. BUT IT (most likely) ISN'T -HIS- EARNED MONEY!
And it's not like he isn't physically or mentally (questionable I know, but that's because of his own actions, not nature or accident) incapable of working and earning his OWN income. He SUPPOSEDLY has the education and the license to earn his own way. But what does he do? Doesn't really earn his part of the family income, and flitters away what income DOES come in on... what? His own irresponsibility?
And, certainly, his claim of not being afraid to go to jail is legit. HE WON'T LOOSE ANY INCOME BECAUSE HE ISN'T ACTUALLY WORKING! And the money being paid for his actions doesn't come from him, so apparently he doesn't care what he does.
Pathetic. Absolutely Pathetic.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software