Jack Thompson Petitions Court to Sue GP, ECA
Jack Thompson Petitions Court to Sue GP, ECA
November 16, 2007
Jack Thompson wants to sue me.
For a million bucks.
He also wants to sue the ECA, which represents video game consumers and is the parent company of GamePolitics.
Yesterday, the controversial Miami attorney filed a motion with the U.S. District Court in Florida seeking to add myself and the ECA as defendants in his ongoing lawsuit against the Florida Bar.
The Bar, as reported by GamePolitics, has disciplinary proceedings in the works which could see Thompson lose his license to practice law. Thompson's Bar trial before a referee appointed by the Florida Supreme Court is scheduled to begin on November 26th. Thompson is also suing that referee, Judge Dava Tunis.
So, what does Thompson allege that GP and the ECA did? That's a bit unclear. He seems to hang his hat on the fact that I filed a Bar complaint against him in April, 2006. The Bar investigated my complaint for several months before opting not to proceed on it. From yesterday's Thompson court filing:
One of Thompson’s SLAPP Bar complainants has been Dennis McCauley, who owns and operates the video game industry apologist site... GamePolitics is owned by the ECA, which is the Entertainment Consumers Association. The ECA is part of the collaborative effort within the industry to disbar Thompson. The ECA represents retailers and others who seek the continued distribution of Mature-rated video games to minors.
Wow. Quite a few inaccuracies in Thompson's opening paragraph...
For reasons known only to himself, Thompson has often tried to paint me as a game industry stooge. I think the various game industry entities I've zinged over the years would have a chuckle at that notion.
As for his assertion that the ECA represents game retailers? Hardly. ECA is a consumer group. It would seemingly be difficult for a regular reader of GamePolitics - like Thompson - not to be aware of that fact.
Collaborative game industry effort to disbar Thompson? The Supreme Court referee will decide Thompson's fate based on complaints filed by, among others, two judges, neither of whom has ties to the video game industry. As for the ECA, neither it nor anyone associated with it has ever filed a complaint against Thompson. My complaint, which I filed months before the ECA even existed, was closed out by the Bar in September of 2006.
Thompson has a longstanding, contentious legal relationship with a Florida attorney by the name of Norm Kent. In the motion he seeks to tie GP to Kent:
Mr. McCauley has provided Norm Kent... the opportunity to hold forth on Mr. Kent’s analyses of Jack Thompson on his http://www.gamepolitics.com/ site, with no opportunity by Thompson to respond.
I've searched Kent's name on GP. It appears only four times. Three of those stories carry brief quotes from Kent. A couple of those were published during a time when Thompson was not permitted to post at GamePolitics, so I guess that is what he is saying here. On the other hand, no one has held forth more fervently than Thompson in GP's comments area since I lifted his ban in July. And, thanks to his frequent press releases and high profile in the game violence debate, Thompson gets covered so frequently here on GP that we created a category tag for him. So it's not like he hasn't been given a chance to be heard.
More immediately, what seems to have sparked the attempt to add GP/ECA to the suit was an e-mail exchange yesterday morning. In the daily roundup GP blogged about a gameindustry.Biz interview with Lorne Lanning, Thompson's debate opponent at the recent VGXPO. Thompson took offense to one of Lanning's comments and let us know about it.
Based on Thompson's own words and writings, I didn't think Lanning's remark was especially off-base, but agreed to delete the disputed sentence from the GP story by way of keeping the peace. Within a few hours Thompson had included the Lanning quote as part of the basis for dragging me into his lawsuit. So much for making a conciliatory gesture...
Of the Lanning quote, Thompson wrote to the court:
As if trying to further prove the above-stated point, the ECA’s http://www.gamepolitics.com/ has linked to an interview of Lorne Lanning, whom Thompson debated in Philadelphia two weeks ago.
And then, along comes some anonymous idiot who proceeeds to post a quasi-menacing comment to GP's Lanning story. Thompson was upset about this and I don't blame him. However, I don't screen comments (unless the spam filter grabs them) and I never saw this one. Thompson started sending e-mails to me about the post at 12:12 PM but I was away from my PC for several hours. By 1:30 PM he had added it to court record as a basis for his ridiculous claim against me. At about 2:30 PM, I returned to my PC, saw the comment, deleted it and IP-banned the fool who posted it - as I always do in such cases.
So apparently I am being sued for something inappropriate that someone else wrote. Something that I deleted when I discovered it. Something that, by banning its author, I took steps to prevent from happening again. Yeah, I guess that's justice...
Thompson, however, writes in his motion to the court that I have "allowed" the menacing post:
Dennis McCauley and his http://www.gamepolitics.com/, owned by the ECA has, for quite sometime, been part of that conspiracy... Now the conspiracy has taken the form of solicitations of murder against Thompson... McCauley has allowed the posting of... solicitation of murder...
It's always pleasant to see one's name attached to "solicitation of murder"... Oddly enough, Thompson, who seems to take this "solicitation" so seriously, jokes about it in his lead-in to the court:
WARNING: CONTAINS DEATH THREAT. THOMPSON DOES NOT WANT THE COURT TO BE OFFENDED… OR ENCOURAGED
Frankly, I don't expect Thompson's motion to go anywhere. Federal court cases involving alleged civil rights violations generally pertain to allegations of abuse by governmental entities. In this case, Thompson brought his original suit against the Florida Bar. So he's alleging, essentially, that myself, the Florida Bar and others are wrapped up in this vast conspiracy to get Jack Thompson.
What's more, Judge Adalberto Jordan has to approve this amendment to Thompson's complaint. I don't believe that's likely to happen. Did I mention that Thompson also tried to add Judge Jordan himself as a defendant last month?
Comments
Good. We'll be here forgetting you existed.
Is this the amount that he estimates he'd have made if allowed to run his mouth off unchecked? Or did he just choose that number to seem more like Dr. Evil?
But calling a swan a goose does not make it a goose, now does it?
I was too tired to think of "a spade is a spade".
Exactly.
@ Lard
A duck is a duck...
...and a Jack Thompson is a Jack Thompson (I'd say sir but I'm not one to make blind assumptions, such as what one's gender is here on this site)
@Gamepolitics
Jack Thompson's claims of this site soliciting murder is nothing short of defamatory. Now I'm not a lawyer (at least Jack Thompson has one thing right as far as I'm concerned), but I think you should countersue him for his defamation of this website and your character. The fact that you deleted the comment and IP banned the loser who posted it should be enough evidence for a countersuit
"Promotional stunt now that the Manhunt fervour is dying down?"
I'll take the question mark as indicative of speculation and conjecture.
I'm not sure about everyone else. But I have the feeling the Florida Bar is going to have a lovely present for us this Christmas.
OMG. If I ever put something like that in a filing I was drafting for my boss (I'm a paralegal) I would probably get fired.
I don't see this as shameless JT promotion-- if anything a slightly tongue-in-cheek attempt by GP to discredit JT. Sure, he could ignore all the ridiculousness that is Jack Thompson, but then in all honestly how many of the readers here who fully believe he was a crackpot be entrenched in that idea if it wasn't for the coverage, JT posts, and GP's occasionally snarky reports.
The journalism isn't completely unbiased, but the uncertainity principal applies (since we are citing mathematical principles heh) in that you can't relate something without changing it. Do I think that GP would like nothing more than to see Thompson finally crash and burn is passively trying to help that along? Sure, that's a lot more plausible to me than what you propose and in fact, fits all the criteria you already listed.
I know this great attorney in Florida who can help you with that...
In short, Jack is obsessed with Dennis and this site. It's not the other way around.
The evidence?
Jack writes books worth of news releases and files them with Dennis, whom he expects to put them up on the site immediately regardless of relevancy. (Dennis does not do so.)
When Jack had more liberal posting rights on these forums (back at the old site), he would literally blanket comment fields with a gazillion "press releases" that basically said the same thing ("I was on TV," "murder simulators," etc.) over and over and over and over again.
Again, if you have a theory, it is up to YOU to prove it, not for us to disprove it.
i posit that unicorns exist. if you cannot provide me evidence of scientific nature that disproves unicorns, they must exist.
i dare all to disprove my Chewbacca Defense.
We get that you weren't blurting out names at the two of them. How about you not be an ass towards everyone else at the same time, Mr. 'Get your tongue out of Dennis' ass."?
@Lard
I've seen comments that Rockstar may employ JT due to how much publicity and sales he brings them. You've made your comment about JT and GP. Move on.
@Everyone else
Let it go. It's the intertubes. People make "unusual" comments all the time. Best not to get hung up on them or you can derail a whole conversation.
On a lighter note, what do we think JT will do after his inevitable disbarment? I would say he could be an author, but as evidenced by his spectacular failures in that field, I doubt it. What about game design? The last design he proposed had several folks jump to develop it, some of them pretty good. He could even, I don't know, give money to help sick kids and soldiers in the line of duty. Hey, it could happen! The Vatican finally admitted that the earth goes around the sun and evolution occurs in nature, anything's possible. Hell, evangelicals might follow their lead in accepting science when every single piece of evidence supports it.
And if an organization were to oppose biased or racists legislation, it would not be a social organization with the mindset of protecting specific cultural sections of the country?
Last I checked, lobbyists do not fight flawed legislation in state courts to overturn unconstitutional laws passed by knee-jerk politicians.
Lobbyists, as I am to understand, are there to convince politicians that certain legislation, such as video game restrictions to minors and excessive penalties, is pushed onto citizens of a state that really do not have a say in the matter until post facto.
I'll take those odds! Wait... 2-1 in favor of JT?
There ARE statutes, however, about evading bans on internet sites; if that Florida resident's internet provider were informed of his shenanigans, there's a good chance his internet service would be revoked, as it is against the Terms of Service of most providers.
He's a Shitforbrainsologist.
I would like to say demise and stuff like that. I know GP and everyone here is assuming he's going to loose his license this time. I mean I'd loved for that to happen but Jack's been known to get out of the hot seat on several occasions...even at the worst time with that gay porn thing...we all thought he'd finally done himself in but manage to wheasel out of that with a slap on the hand...
Well that makes your retail stings pretty darn pointless.
"Dennis McCauley has the ability to stop the posting of death threats against me at his site, and he won’t do it. I’m tired of it."
What do you expect GP to do, sit at his computer 24/7 and screen every single post that comes in?
"I have been banned, in the name of “freedom of expression.” That doesn’t strike you as hypocritical?"
Nope. A GP ban doesn't prevent you from expressing yourself or making your opinion known. You are completely free to say anything your little heart desires, you're just no longer welcome to do it here.
Besides, you haven't been banned in the name of "freedom of expression," you've been banned because you've been acting like an ass. You constantly spam the comments section with off-topic press releases and other nonsense, you rarely add anything to the discussion, you're belligerent, abusive, and threatening, and you're suing GP for a million dollars.
And you wonder why you're suddenly not welcome to post here? In your own words Thompson, "duh."
Andrew Eisen
GP: I have had a number of comment & e-mail requests from readers to ban him for some of the reasons you mentioned, AE. However, I have resisted these requests for a number of reasons, the main one being that he is, inarguably, a player in the arena which GP covers.
In recent days, however, he has been threatening to sue me. I advised him that I wasn't putting up with the threats and if he continued, he would be banned. He clearly has now taken that beyond the threat stage. I'm not providing a service to someone who is actively litigating against me.
even in the complaint he is taking potshots LOL
at least chronologically lol
Thank you for being so awesome.
GP: Thanks, Yuki, but this is really about every gamer's rights. To me it's an effort to silence GP via the SLAPP tactic he's always complaining about.
Glad to know you've got my back.
Let's say, just for kicks that video games actually did compell the people in these cases to murder. Let's have a look at the statistics you claim are soo important:
GTA 3 - 7 million+ sold
GTA Vice City - 15 million sold
GTA San Andreas - 12 million+ sold
So there we have 34 million copies of the game you claim trains people to kill sold, and 3 people have become murderers because of it?
"Dennis McCauley has the ability to stop the posting of death threats against me at his site, and he won’t do it."
He has the ability to remove offending posts that come to his attention, but not to block them. True, he could put some kind of word filter in there, but how does that catch everything? Let's say he gets a filter that stops every post with the words "Jack", "Thompson", "attorney", "lawyer", "kill", "murder". I could come along and post "I wish to end the life of Ackjay Ompsonthay". Or refer to you in any number of ways that no person would be able to predict. If you don't like the threats, all you need to do is mail Dennis with the quote and as soon as he is able he will delete it. However, do not expect it to be done the second you press the send button. If Dennis is not at his machine, he cannot do it.
Another point, let's say he did implement a giant filter that caought every single word that could pertain to you. I might make a comment along the lines of "I disagree with what Jack Thompson says, and in my opinion, labelling games as "murder-simulators" is an alarmist and inflammatory tactic."
Even with the simple filter I described above, this post would be caught, and would not be posted until reviewed by Dennis. Now think of how many other legitimate posts would also be blocked? Dennis would not have enough time to do this, considering the amount of work he puts into his journalism and reporting here.
"I’m tired of it. How would you like people threatening to kill you and harasssing you day and night because of dennis mccauley? Would that bother YOU?"
I really wouldn't care, internet tough guys don't frighten me. Perhaps it's because I'm not a big enough fool to spam my address and phone number all over the net. Maybe it's because I don't intentionally antagonise people with my manner and words.
"Why don’t you post this at GP, where I have been banned, in the name of “freedom of expression.” That doesn’t strike you as hypocritical?"
I believe in freedom of expression but i do believe also in a right to privacy and a life free from harassment. If you had been polite to people instead of offering childish insults, threatening (and now finally going ahead with) legal action (doomed to fail though it may be) against the administrator of the site which has been very patient with your behaviour, you would not be banned.
I throw a party, many of my friends come along, but one of them brings a partner who I don't particularly like, but I allow him to come anyway. Over the course of the night he starts insulting me and others at the party, calling names and threatening people. He has every right to do so, but it is not behaviour I will accept in my house, so I throw him out. Is that against his freedom of speech? He has every right to call me an asshole, but I don't have to allow him to do it in my house.
"The coward McCauley isn’t even in the phone book, he’s so afraid of being bothered, and yet he think she can run a site that is a clearinghouse for criminal harassment of me and get away with it.""
It is not criminal harassment you idiot. The comments in question are removed at the administrators convenience (ie. not when the guy is in the shower, or out for a meal, or enjoying a lie-in at the weekend). You are claiming that the people who built a wall are responsible for the words of someone who came along in the middle of the night and wrote "kill Jack Thompson" on it in spraypaint, and the reason they are responsible, is that they did not drop what they were doing, or get out of bed and come along to paint over the message the second it was done.
It's a lose lose situation with you Jack. You are allowed to post, and you do nothing but insult, threaten and spam with irrelevant, self-congratulatory press releases. Your posting status is revoked, and all you do is complain that your freedom of speech is being denied. You are free to speak, but if your speech is not welcome, then Dennis has every right to not accept it. Would you criticize a Black heritage museum for not allowing a clan rally inside it? Or would you criticize the families of deceased soldiers for not allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to attend the funeral. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a platform from which to speak.
Actually, he has referred to himself as "Wacky Jacky" in the past:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/21/0044205
GP: correct, both banned...
If the references to a judge in your post are to Judge Alberto Jordan, then I think you are being unduely unfair to Judge Jordan in your criticisms. He's clearly indicated by both the substance and tenor of his rulings in Jack's case before him that he's not tolerating Jack's nonsense, including prohibiting Jack from innundating the court with countless filings. He rules quickly and decisively on Jack's [bowel] motions and doesn't in the least way send the signal that he's at all willing to entertain him. Some of his orders, in my opinion, do indeed border on scathing in their criticisms of Jack's conduct before him. And let's remember that he did refer Jack to the Ad Hoc Committee for filing homoerotic photographs with the court. Yes, he later relented and stayed his referral, but at least he made it initially. Personally, I wish the Florida bench was occupied by more jurists like Judges Jordan and Friedman (who filed a Bar complaint against Jack and damn near had the Sheriff's bailiffs escort Jack from his courtroom in handcuffs). We'd be better off if it was.
I don't think there the same scuzz makes me laugh lard was just a never ending series of *head-desk*.
@GP
I'm behind you and if I did ever post anything that caused you trouble i apologize.
We'd be better off if half the justice system was like that.
@DeusPayne
Either it's his selective hearing or his thinking he's the second coming of christ.
I know he'll be disbarred soon, but this indescribably awful man deserves no mercy. He's only gotten worse since his "modest" video game proposal. You should get something back after all the crap he's dragged you through.
At least spell 'hypocrite' correctly.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PbAoXw_DqvM
First, because he really needs to get a haircut and a real job, and second, he might do better as a rockstar than a lawyer, which he fails miserably at.
So he could theoretically use all this as evidence against him? Wow, Christmas is coming early this year. :P
The Countdown has begun! In 7 more days (1 more week), is Jack Thompson's BAR trial. I don't know what's going to happen in the courtroom, but I hope to hear about Jack Thompson's BAR trial.
And I would hope Dennis isn't losing any sleep over a toothless dog like Thompson, but I can tell you from experience that getting served in a $1 million lawsuit is rather jarring.
Snowmen will be prevalent in hell before this suit goes forward.
2) Thank you for keeping up the good fight
3) Jack Thompson reminds me intensely of John Grubor. Are they related? And does asking that reveal my age?
4) Maybe Jack Thompson has solicited your murder, and he just figured you were returning the favor. :)
@ GP
Any chance you can link to the file?
GP: yeah, it's now linked... near the top
I truly think this man needs professional psychiatric help.
Oh well after he's disbarred he'll have lots of time for finger-painting.
Ive said it before - but he really has lost it this time. Or is that too much? I dont know anymore.
Dennis, I just have to say that I envy your patience dealing with this kind of thing.
This is exactly the kind of abuse that makes our legal system look like a joke. If you don't like what's happening to you, legal basis or not, just sue!
Oy. Here we go again. Another frivolious lawsuit by JT. Where's my lawnchair and popcorn?
GP: actually, I think it's less about the money and more about the amount stress that can be created.
The very idea that GP would want Jack dead is proposterous. Much of GPs traffic is, I'm guessing, because of this extremist's antics.
As for a conspiracy to get him disbarred, it's only a conspiracy if the desired goal is illegal or immoral in nature. Taking away a fanatic's ability to practice law is not morally questionable, it's a moral imperative.
This will go nowhere.
One question though, is this an entirely new case that is being brought to the court system, or did Thompson file a motion on an already existing case? Wish you the best of luck (not likely to need it once the Judge realizes how much of a lunatic Thompson is).
GP: It's an existing case that he filed against the Florida Bar on May 15th. He's trying to add me and the ECA as additional defendants.
Oh, god, will he ever learn...
Thanks.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/16/jonathan-coulton-sings-still-alive/
Another thing I am curious about is the logic in aggressively suing (and harrassing) the very organization that has the power to take away his ability to practice law. It seems that you would want to play nice with such a group.
GP: It's ironic that he refers to my Bar complaint (which I filed to end some really unbelievable issues) as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)... This guy has "participated" to an amazing degree here. Yeah, I see this a true SLAPP suit. He wants to shut GP up, in my opinion.
He isn't paranoid everyone is out to get him. To be completely serious I have to give him a hand for standing his ground. Unlike most people to day at least he is willing to fight for what he believes in.
GP: Do you REALLY think he believes all of that nonsense?
True he does, unfortunately for him hes wrong.
This will get tossed pretty quick. Under "offensive content" rules, service providers are allowed a "reasonable" amount of time (hint: more than 2 hours), to remove offensive content once notified...
That and the whole idea that he has some inalienable "right" to post here. It's laughable.
Wouldn't that make Jack seem right that there is a massive conspiracy out to get him?
Because judging from the sheer insanity of his own filing, not to mention the plainly out-of-touch conspiracy theories, the man IS unstable.
The only reason why he hasn't snapped in public view already most likely lies with his obsession about (potentially) having a camera focusing on his balding old mug.
"Wouldn’t that make Jack seem right that there is a massive conspiracy out to get him?"
No. Think of it this way. Say you go into a bar and you one by one spit into the face of every patron in the bar. When they all gang up to kick your ass its not a conspiracy, rather its people you pissed off defending themselves. It just seems like a conspiracy when you've attacked a LOT of people.
GP: It's difficult, but given what we cover here, he is a newsmaker... So you just deal with it.
I am not a lawyer, but are you allowed to insult people in court documents? I thought not.
But this is one of the best documents ever. John Bruce realized that it was not up to his usual length of 14+ pages so he had to use large fonts to fill it out. I also love the red font colors he used liberally through out.
Judging by the inacuarcies, lies and misinformation used frequently throughout the document, this will not last longer than the time the judge takes to stamp it "Denied"
I'll just be glad when his last leg of 'credibility' is gone.
As he adds more defendants it is becoming more clear how much he will abuse his privilege to practice law. I think it is just a matter of time before the lawsuit becomes the end of him.
That would be one of the best memberships ever. :D
Whatever...
Well it is obvious that Jack has a habit of tweaking the facts to his own advantage. So he would just scream conspiracy.
I do think its funny that Jack Thompson calls us a conspiracy when its really just a bunch, well a massive amount, he pissed off and all wanna see him fail. He created the "conspiracy" against himself.
Don't hold back. Its okay. You are in no danger. The chances of John Bruce following through on one of his law suit threats is slimmer than the chance of you being struck by lightning while being hit by a train after falling out of a charter flight on a crash route into an iceberg. ;)
Isn't that what paranoid people do?
The guy is a weasel.
Did Jackass just call Dennis immature? Oh god, that whole filing is hilarious. The changed fonts, the asshole sentiments...its classic. I'm making a poster out of it and hanging it on my wall.
Anyway - I don't see how he can get away with this whole "being mentally healthy" thing. I mean, the guy is engaging in self-destructive behavior for himself and his family. The old adage keeps coming to mind, "Crazy people don't know they are crazy..." as un-PC as that statement is, I think it's applicable here.
I really don't know what to do. Try to prove that he's a danger to himself and others, and have him committed for unbiased psychiatric evaluation for 48hrs. See what's really going on with him.
ha thats a good one. He should retake the 5th grade. well then lets see if we can get jack thompson on are u smarter than a 5th grader.
@GP
Keep up the great work! Obviously you're doing something right when someone tries such a desperate attempt at taking you with their dying career.
@GP
Is this really a concern? I'm not clear, but I was under the impression that he long ago lost his right to practice in many other states, which suing you would fall under eh? (unless your in Florida I guess...)
Either way, good luck and we're all supporting you.
In the spirit of the upcoming season we should be better than JT and get him a gift. Perhaps Manhunt 2?
Even if you didn't delete the comment (I'm glad you did tho, those people don't help anyone), wouldn't you be able to fall under the multiple ISP Safe Harbor Laws? If Jack wants to go after the numbnut that left the threat let him, but I would think you're covered.
if this was a criminal case, Dennis could use the insanity plea and back it up with what Thompson said. That's what happened with Charles McCoy Jr. (Thompson said McCoy was the “functional equivalent of a 15-year-old,” which ironically added to his insanity defense)
Can GP try to publish as little Jack Thompson stories as possible?
As Dennis rightly noted, 42 USC 1983 requires a deprivation oif civil rights by a state entity (e.g., the police) or someone acting as an agent of the state. How Mr. Thompson intends to make the arguement that any conduct by gamepolitics and the ECA falls under what the statute refers as "under color of state law" is beyond me, but'll sure be entertaining to watch him try.
If jackie feels insulted (the gods know we have tried) then he has always been free to post elsewhere.
There is a vast conspiricy against him... this is considered common knowledge since he has spounted that line of BS often enough. GP/Dennis is just another in the line of those like Norman Kent, Another that failed or refused to conceed that JBT is correct in all things (or much of anything really) or to bow to his greatness. Dennis even had the gall to ban jackie... obviously Dennis in the heart of the conspiricy and has to be punished I guess.
Mutter. Please, can someone tell me again how JBT was found to be sane?
Personally I think someone should send Judge Jordan a link to jackies wikiquote site (always fun readng). If anything would give an idea of just how unstable he is that would do it.
Don't forget Bioshock, Bully, and of course his favorite GTA. Maybe a 2 Live Crew CD as well.