Background for today’s testimony: Rebecca Ward was one of two Blank Rome attorneys who testified against Jack Thompson in his November, 2007 Bar trial. Ward, along with James Smith, represented Take Two Interactive and other video game industry defendants in the $600 million Strickland vs Sony lawsuit which Thompson filed in Alabama.
It was upon a motion filed by Smith and Ward that Judge James Moore, in November, 2005, revoked Thompson’s pro hac vice (visiting) right to practice law in Alabama, essentially throwing him off the Strickland case, which alleged that a 2004 triple cop killing was prompted by the 18-year-old murderer’s play of Grand Theft Auto.
(Smith and Ward filed a Bar complaint against Thompson and were called to testify at his trial. In the excerpted transcripts, WARD is Ward. JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)
TUMA: Can you please identify that exhibit for the Court?
WARD: This is an e-mail... from Mr. Thompson, addressed to me, three other partners at my law firm, and our local counsel in Alabama, dated September 21, 2005.
TUMA: ...can you read the first sentence, please?
WARD: ..."Two of the partners in your firm, James T. Smith and Rebecca D. Ward, have decided to do a very foolish and very unethical thing... Your two partners have also presided over the decision of Rockstar to launch a website and suggest that I am a bisexual pedophile..."
TUMA: Can you tell me at any time if you have presided over the decision of Rockstar to launch a website?
WARD: No. In fact the particular website in question, I didn't even know existed until Mr. Thompson sent this e-mail.
(Ms. Tuma continues to have Ms. Ward identify several nasty e-mails from Thompson for the record...)
TUMA: Would you go to Exhibit 19 and identify that for the Court?
WARD: Exhibit 19 is an e-mail from Mr. Thompson in which I am cc'd... It is dated October 20th, 2005... "Now, let me be clear. Any Bar complaint coming from these morons arising out of the above incident is baseless and itself constitutes a violation of a specific Federal Civil Rights statute... It's okay for Mr. Smith to act like a Mafia thug, but it's unethical for me to point out the thuggery."
JT: Judge [Tunis], forgive me, but I'm wondering why we're excerpting - well, I know why, but I don't know if it's proper to be excerpting portions of these letters, having her testify to these excerpts out of context... I'm not sure what we're doing here.
TUMA: He has an opportunity to cross examine the witness, Your Honor... Just so that we're clear, every letter that I'm going over today and every quote I'm going over is exactly in the Bar's complaint against Mr. Thompson... This witness is here today so she can testify to those... He was on notice of all of this.
JT: That goes to the unfairness of the complaint because it's lifting comments out of letters out of context... So what she's doing is compounding the unfairness... and having this witness read only portions of the letter. I'm just objecting and I hope you'll read the whole letter, Judge, since you're the one who is going to decide whether or not I have acted improperly here.
DT: Well, I have absolutely every intention of reading every single thing... just as clearly, Ms. Ward is here and available for cross examination with regard to everything that she's testifying to.
(Ms. Ward continues to idenify e-mails sent by Thompson, including...)
WARD: This is another e-mail that I received from Mr. Thompson. This one is dated December 21st, 2005. It is addressed to a number of different people, cc'd to a number of different people, most of whom I don't know. The body of the e-mail is a letter that is addressed to Mr. Eibeler.
TUMA: The CEO of Take Two at the time?
WARD: At the time, yes. [reading] "Maybe the absolutely dumbest thing you did was hire Philadelphia's Blank Rome as your law firm of choice to represent you in courtrooms and to serve as your registered lobbyist in the U.S. House and Senate... Blank Rome also, very importantly, managed to lose all motions to dismiss in our wrongful death lawsuit in Alabama arising out of a teen's training on Grand Theft Auto... We expect to try this case in 2006. We also expect to take at that trial every single penny Take Two currently has."
TUMA: And so that the record is clear, by [the time of this e-mail], the order revoking Mr. Thompson's pro hac vice had not been vacated, had it?
WARD: No.
(the implication of this is that Thompson was no longer admitted to practice in Alabama at the time of the e-mail, but is still speaking of the case as though he were serving as an attorney...)
JT: Excuse me, Judge... But here [Ms. Tuma] is asking questions about... my representations that I'm saying apparently improperly that I'm representing people while the pro hac vice application has been revoked. So in light of the fact there's no unauthorized practice of law assertion in these complaints, why are we doing this?
TUMA: ... we have charged Mr. Thompson with false statement. He's indicated in the letters," I'm going to be in trial," "I'm going to the Courthouse."
(next, Ms. Ward continues to read Thompson's e-mails into the record...)
WARD: Exhibit 23 is a December 15th, 2005 letter addressed to [Alabama] Judge Moore... "Jim Smith is the moral equivalent of hiring this kid [apparently, some threat to Thompson] to threaten to castrate me and stuff my testicles down my throat. The difference between that kid and Jim Smith is that Jim Smith was paid to target me."
(Ward testified how a February 1st, 2006 e-mail from Thompson caused some problems for her at her firm...)
WARD: After this e-mail hit the mailboxes of my partners, I got many e-mails and phone calls from people at our firm wanting to know what it was about, why were these things being said, what happened in the lawsuit, why we were accused of telling lies in court. It was a matter of some number of conversations...
(Ward also testified about an e-mail which may contain a name familiar to GP readers...)
WARD: ...the one that's dated November 2nd, 2005. It's addressed to me, to Mr. Smith, to Dennis McCauley, who is a journalist - a freelance journalist in Philadelphia who runs the GamePolitics.com website... "Here you are, a woman representing the 'right' of a company to market to children a game in which they can simulate sex with a prostitute and then kill her to get their virtual money back... You disgrace us as lawyers. Shame on you. Shame on you as a woman as well..."
(I should point out that Thompson has cc'd me on hundreds - if not thousands - of e-mails since GP was founded... an e-mail the following day continued the theme...)
WARD: [Thompson wrote] "As to insulting Ms. Ward allegedly because of her status as a woman... I did just the opposite. Scripture tells us that women are to be exalted, and whether she likes it or not, to be protected by men who value women. What I did was not the unfortunate fact that she, as a woman, is protecting the misogynistic targeting of other women by her client [Take Two]. I was appealing to her better exalted nature and status as a woman, not demeaning her status as a woman. Only a man who feels comfortable facilitating the distribution of porn to kids that targets women would intentionally not get it...
TUMA: Can you tell us for the record what effect did Mr. Thompson's conduct in these type of letters being sent to you, your partners, your clients, have on you?
WARD: ...first, and on a most simple basis, every e-mail that he sends - and he sends numerous ones - they come in a flood, dozens at a time... they are not something we can afford just to ignore... As I said before, when we got the e-mail that was distributed to all the partners of our law firm -
DT: Do you want a tissue?
WARD: No. I'm just very tired. I apologize.
DT: That's okay.
WARD: As I said, there were a lot of difficult discussion that occurred because when they receive these e-mails without any understanding of the context about the sort of person that they're coming from - you know, when you have a large law firm, you take accusations of fraudulent activity very seriously... I'm sorry.
DT: Would you like to take a break?
WARD: Could I?
DT: No problem.
(a 15-minute break ensued... to give you an idea of how long these trial days were, the break ended at 6:05 PM with substantial testimony following...)
DT: Let the record reflect that we're back in Court and all the parties are present.
WARD: I think that we took a break before I finished answering that question. As I said, when the e-mail went around to all of our partners, there were a number of people who didn't understand the context of the letter and there were some questions asked about, you know, "Why would he be saying this" What was going on? What were you doing? What were you thinking?" ...it was trouble and it was a waste of time to have to spend time answering those questions.
Then the comments [by Thompson] about, you know, my role as a woman and my status as a woman and how apparently - the way it read to me and, frankly, the way it read to my husband was that the men in my life weren't giving me proper guidance about the values that I should have as a woman, as a wife, as a mother... It really irritated my husband quite a bit... I guess I didn't realize exactly how angry everything made me until you asked the question... to read [the e-mails] again [in Court], I just got angry all over again. It made me madder than I expected it would.
JT: Ms. Ward, it's easier to get angry with somebody sometimes than to deal with the things that you've done, isn't it? Isn't that kind of a rule of human behavior?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, to the relevancy.
DT: Overruled. Go ahead.
WARD: I don't understand the question, Mr. Thompson.
JT: Well, let's get at it this way. Take Two / Rockstar Games makes mature video games. Is that right?
WARD: Among other types of video games.
JT: But they make mature rated games.
TUMA: Asked and answered. Objection. She said mature rated -
DT: Overruled.
WARD: Yes.
JT: Do you know... if this is a correct characterization? Manhunt 2 is a game that has been banned for sale in the United Kingdom and other European Union countries and yet is being sold by your client to teenagers in this country. Is that right?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, of the relevancy of this to this proceeding?
DT: Could you please explain the relevancy?
JT: Oh, sure.
DT: -that she's a lawyer for a corporate client -
JT: They're the one who got into this thing about - and I brought it up in the letters and they want it to be front an center and we took a recess because it was upsetting to Ms. Ward about my assertions about what her client sells and about what, in my opinion, is a lack of moral circumspection on her part to facilitate that. I want the record to be clear about what these products are that concern me and that I think are inappropriate for any lawyer to facilitate - whether it's a man or a woman - the sale of.
DT: Okay, and this hearing before this Court -
JT: Yes?
DT: - is not a hearing in which this Court will be making a determination about what constitutes, hypothetically - pornography, what constitutes something of violence. The hearing before this Court has to do with allegations of conduct pursuant to Florida Bar rules.
JT: Judge -
DT: So whether or not the company, the corporation, that is represented by Blank Rome -Sony and all of its subsidiaries - produces the video games as you are describing or if they produce something else, the issue is still the allegation of the conduct.
JT: Yes, and its propriety; whether or not I have acted improperly in writing certain things to Ms. Ward or anybody else and whether or not there was a reason to do that, a legitimate reason to do that, and whether or not I have acted to disparage Ms. Ward or improperly affect the administration of justice by such disparagement and so forth. Your Honor, I need to be allowed to ask and put in context - and she's lifted these quotations out of the letters - what it is we're exactly talking about here because she's just spent an hour giving quotations about certain things that I have written...
DT: So what is the question that you were about to ask Ms. Ward?
JT: ...Does your client, Take Two, make a game, Manhunt 2, that has been banned for sale to adults in the United Kingdom and yet is being sold to teenagers in the United States of America.
TUMA: I objected to that on relevancy. It's not relevant to our proceeding whether or not Take Two sells Manhunt and whether it's been banned in another country to the allegations before the Court.
JT: It's right in the letters that she's been excerpting from.
TUMA: They're in evidence.
JT: Well, Judge, you said I was going to be able to do cross examination on these letters.
DT: If they're in the evidence, go ahead. Ma'am, if you know, you can answer the question.
WARD: Manhunt 2 is a video game that was released by -
JT: How about yes or no and then explain.
WARD: I can't answer your question yes or no, Mr. Thompson.
JT: Why not?
WARD: Do you want me to explain?
JT: No. I'd like an answer, but you can go ahead.
WARD: Manhunt 2, Your Honor, was a video game that was released I think in the summer of this year, more than a year after -
DT: 2007?
WARD: 2007. Manhunt 2. So I doubt very seriously that Manhunt 2 is mentioned in any of the communications that Miss Tuma asked me about because it hadn't been released yet. It wasn't released until this year.
JT: Manhunt. We're talking about the products of Take Two. We're talking about -
DT: Right. But you asked her about Manhunt 2.
JT: Judge, honestly -
DT: I just want the record to be clear that you asked he a question... about Manhunt 2, unless I misunderstood you. I wrote that down.
JT: Manhunt 2 is the sequel to Manhunt. -
DT: Okay, but you asked her -
JT: - and Manhunt is in the letters and Manhunt 2 is even worse because it's been banned for sale to adults.
DT: Here's what occurred, is that you told me that this was in the letters -
JT: Manhunt.
DT: - but you didn't say that. You said Manhunt 2, which is why I allowed the question because you said -
JT: So I get to ask about Manhunt?
DT: No. What I'm saying to you, sir, is that I trusted your representation to me because I had not read this - I don't know - 800 or maybe 1,500 pages. I have no idea how many pages. I'm taking it all in and will read it, but you said it was in the letters here -
JT: Manhunt is in the letters -
DT: Okay.
JT: - and the products of Take Two are in the letters -
DT: Okay. So you -
JT: - and the nature of the products.
DT: Your question now is about Manhunt?
JT: No. It's about Manhunt 2. No. Judge, look. Honestly, Judge. Forgive me. I don't want to argue with you, but we had to take a recess because she was upset about letters sent to her firm about what she represents and what she facilitates, what this law firm facilitates and I'm not going to be allowed to ask about what products there are that law firm puts out there and sells to children?
DT: I don't know what relevance it has to this.
JT: It has every relevance because her position is that she's upset about my having brought to the attention of her larger law firm - others in her law firm - what it is that she and Jim Smith have done. The context is what she has done and what she continues to do and what she did down here in Miami Dad Circuit Court before [Bully case] Judge Friedman and so forth; and how she makes a living and how she charges for every e-mail that she finds so offensive or letter that she reads. This is what she does and it ties into what Take Two does. I can't for the life of me understand why I don't get to ask her what her client is involved in.
DT: She is representing a corporate client... If she were representing a person charged with criminal misconduct - are you suggesting that what this Court should do is take the client that a lawyer represents and impute to the lawyer the conduct of the client?
JT: You know, Judge, you're going pretty far afield on your function when you say the purpose of these proceedings is not to determine the appropriateness of a particular product and yet I don't get to litigate fully the appropriateness of my characterization of what she and her clients have done. Those letters that she lifted sentences out of point out their methodology. Ms. Ward has put her name on these fraudulent pleadings to shoot the messenger, to characterize me as having misrepresented my disciplinary history. Why? In order to try and win a lawsuit in Alabama.
DT: But what is the relevance of what games, videos, whatever it is that her corporate client somewhere down the line - that's not the issue here. I don't even -
JT: Excuse me, Judge. It's the issue for me and it may be in your narrow perspective of what the law is and what lawyers concerns can only be, that it's not appropriate for a lawyer to ask questions about what other lawyers are facilitating and the harm they are doing in doing so and unethical acts by people such as Ms. Ward to put their names on pleadings that are fraudulent and deceptive and whose purpose is not to litigate the merits of the case, but to litigate the opponent.
DT: If you want to ask her questions about what she did that you are saying was fraudulent and deceptive and untrue and a lie, you have every right to do that...
JT: Okay. The proffer, so the record is clear, is that Ms. Ward - which I'm not going to be allowed to ask about regarding Manhunt 2 - represents this client that is selling to teenagers and in fact selling directly to minors from their own websites a game which has been banned for sale to adults, which you drive syringes into people's eyeballs and suffocate them with plastic bags and which has caused an uproar regarding the banning in Europe and the sale of it here in this country. Okay.
Is your law firm, Ms. Ward, the lobbyist still in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for Take Two?
WARD: I don't know...
JT: Has it been?
WARD: It has been, yes.
JT: And so what is your firm lobbying for on behalf of Take Two? Do you know?
WARD: I don't know...
JT: You have taken the position, have you not, in the Alabama case that... correct me if I'm wrong - that Take Two should be allowed to sell mature rated games to minors.
WARD: I wouldn't characterize our argument that way, no.
JT: You think, though, that the company has a constitutional right to sell mature rated games to individuals below the age of 17. Isn't that right?
WARD: I think it depends on the content of the game.
JT: Your position in Alabama and the Strickland case, Ms. Ward, has been that your company had a constitutional right to sell and market a mature rated game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City game to individuals under 17. Is that right?
TUMA: Objection to the relevancy to the charges here against Mr. Thompson.
JT: No, no. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is all over these letters.
DT: Overruled. Go ahead.
WARD: As to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and Grand Theft Auto III, which are the subject of video games in the Strickland lawsuit? Yes. Our argument is that it is protected by the First Amendment.
JT: And why did you not litigate that issue rather than assert to the Court in Alabama that I had withheld fraudulently and deceptively the nature of my disciplinary history?
WARD: We did litigate that issue, Mr. Thompson. We filed motions to dismiss and we also sought an interlocutory appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.
JT: And you lost that.
WARD: We lost the motion to dismiss before Judge Moore and the Alabama Supreme Court rejected the petition for an interlocutory appeal.
JT: You said Mr. Eibeler, the CEO of Take Two is no longer the CEO. Is that right?
WARD: That's correct.
JT: Would you tell us about the Hot Coffee incident which helped lead to his demise as the CEO of Take Two?
TUMA: ...Objection, You Honor. How is that relevant to this proceeding as to why Mr. Eibeler is no longer the CEO of Take Two?
JT: Well, we'll find out when she answers.
DT: How is that an issue that's relevant? ...about someone who is not a witness before this Court [and] is no longer employed by a particular corporation? ...if you want to refer to a particular letter and show me how that's relevant -
JT: No. I don't want to refer to a particular letter. She testified and read from letters to Mr. Eibeler and my question - I'm trying to get at the nature of this client, which is a criminal enterprise - it's a criminal enterprise... So my question is: can you answer the question as to what the nature of the Hot Coffee scandal was of Take Two?
TUMA: Objection to relevancy.
DT: I'm going to sustain the objection unless you can point to a particular letter that was gone over previously as part of these exhibits that you want explained for the record.
JT: ...I don't know what you're afraid of Judge, but it seems to me -
DT: Sir, do you have a question?
JT: - that you don't want me to -
DT: I mean, I -
JT: Yes. I'm putting on the record the fact that you don't want testimony, it appears, that goes to this issue as to the nature of the company that she represents, which is what I've written various people about.
DT: ...I've given you an opportunity - and the record should reflect this - to look through the exhibit book to pick out whatever letter you want to ask her about.
JT: Here's one, Exhibit 21... "Take Two's CEO, Paul Eibeler, was last week voted by Market Watch -which is, by the way, owned by Dow Jones - America's worst CEO?"
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.
DT: I'm going to allow it...
WARD: I don't know whether it's true or not...
(Thompson reads from some more of his e-mails...)
JT: What sort of person am I, Ms. Ward?
WARD: You're the sort of person who sends dozens of e-mails over a very short period of time; who makes claims which I know from personal knowledge are not accurate...
JT: Okay, but you're inclined to think that some of [Thompson's e-mails] may not be true because of the sort of person I am... your default setting is, if Jack Thompson says it, it may not be true. Isn't that right?
WARD: Today, is that my default setting? Yes.
JT: Okay, good. And your husband felt that I was criticizing him?
WARD: My husband took it personally, yes.
JT: He did. Were any husbands mentioned therein?
WARD: No... you were being critical of me and you were stating that you were exalting me as a woman, and I think the quote was that was your duty as a man.
JT: I think it was. That's the biblical meaning, the New Testament view. That's what I would hope, in that Jesus Christ was the first one, historically, who took on that role.
TUMA: Objection. Is Mr. Thompson testifying or asking a question?
DT: I believe he's formulating a question.
JT: Thank you - that's taking 2,000 years.
(there ensues a discussion as to whether Thompson might still participate in the Strickland case despite the revocation of his pro hac vice admission to the Alabama Bar...)
JT: Now, do you know what my contractual relationship is still with the plaintiffs in Alabama?
WARD: I know only what I've been told by [Thompson's former legal associate] Mr. [Ray] Reiser.
JT: Mr. Reiser. What did he tell you?
WARD: Mr. Reiser... filed his motion to withdraw as counsel in the Alabama case... and he told me at the time that the plaintiffs would be looking for a new lead counsel... I think he said that as far as he knew, the families in the Alabama case did not want you to represent them.
JT: Would it surprise you that I had a meeting with the client and with new counsel in Alabama so that we could all work together and have a new fee agreement and represent the people?
WARD: No.. I only said I knew what Mr. Reiser had told me... I don't know whether it's true or not...
JT: Finally, you know, I don't like to see anybody cry, Ms. Ward, and I don't mean to be - I'm not trying to be condescending or accomodating or dismissive of your tears and so forth. I'm sure I have caused you discomfort and pain and I think that's regrettable, but... I want to ask you this. Do you think that the three families in Tuscaloosa, Alabama in the Fayette area have cried any tears over their loss?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.
DT: Sustained...
JT: Is it your belief, Ms. Ward, personally or in any capacity that these products that your client is selling and that your position on their behalf is that these mature rated products should be sold to children - even these cop simulation murder games - that they have no deleterious effect upon anybody?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor. It's irrelevant.
DT: Sustained.
JT: That's also irrelevant, Judge? I'm sorry. That's irrelevant?
DT: Yes, sir. It very well may be relevant in the Strickland case in front of Judge Moore. Not here...
JT: Well, let me ask you [MS. Ward]. What was the reason for your emotion? You cried, but then you said when we came back you didn't know how angry you were.
WARD: I was angry; and, unfortunately, when I get angry, I tend to cry.
JT: Can you conceive that the families in Fayette are angry?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor.
DT: Sustained.
JT: what do you think in ranking things is more important, hurt feelings or loss of life?
TUMA: Objection, Your Honor, as to the relevancy.
DT: Sustained.
JT: Have you any personal qualms about what your client [Take Two] does in this regard?
TUMA: Objection to the relevancy.
DT: Sustained.
(Ms. Ward then discusses that she is still involved in the Strickland case, but no longer in a similar matter in New Mexico. She is unable to explain why due to a client confidentiality issue... Thompson finishes... Prosecutor Tuma asks some re-direct questions...)
TUMA: Ms. Ward, you talked about telephone conversations you had with Mr. Reiser regarding the Strickland case. In any of those conversations, did Mr. Reiser talk to you about Clatus Junkin?
WARD: He told me... this isn't an exact quote... The things that Jack is saying about the conversations with Clatus Junkin are not true... He said that Mr. Junkin had never claimed or depicted himself as a "fixer" who could fix a case with a judge...
(On re-cross, Thompson suggests that Reiser is not reliable... Ward's testimony concludes...)
Comments
'metalgearsolid.org incident?'
Never heard of THAT one. You have a link to a rundown of it possibly?
No matter how much I may hate my enemy, I will still respect them, just feels right to me. Reading these articles though has pretty much destroyed that, its gone from moral crusade to obsession to the point of insanity. Attacking someone and then essentially what amounts to kicking them when their down just because their a woman and they work for the company that you dislike? Thats really taking it low, makes you wonder if we lived in a past time would he have been a male supremist when it was acceptable or something worse.
GP: P.A., I believe Judge Tunis will rule by April 21st. That said, our friend is busily filing things about Tunis and the Bar and the Florida Supreme Court (which appointed Tunis to this task). He also apparently has a new federal lawsuit to stop the process...
My personal opinion on his conduct... He knows or believes that he is going to lose. As such, he is (a) lashing out at those that are behind the bar complaint and, of course, the judges allowing the complaint to go forward, (b) he loves to hear himself talk and truly believes himself to be a "righteous crusader" to protect kids and (c) he has chosen to act as a bully rather than as an advocate against his disbarment (he is trying to send a message - loud and clear - that he will not go quietly.
No attorney, who is worth his fee, would insult a judge in a trial - no matter how incompetent or biased the judge. Any attorney will tell you that such behavior will hurt you and your client (both current and future clients appearing before that judge). Thompson did so in the Strickland case. By his behavior here, it appears that Strickland was not an isolated case... he seriously has contempt, if not, outright hostility to the bench.
His primary defense appears to be that these particular lawyers represent a very bad, if not evil, client (his characterization, not mine). As such, he believes that his uncivil behavior is acceptable.
As an attorney, I have to represent clients that I would never associate with ... whether it be a corporate client like Wal-Mart or a drug dealer/murder/pedophile, etc. It is our job to represent everyone - no matter what they may or may not have done. It is fundamental to our justice system that everyone has the opportunity to be represented by counsel...
As such, even if Take Two is the corporate manifestation of Satan, they are entitled to counsel and Blank Rome has every right to represent them.
This is why I am surprised the Judges do not reign him in more... otherwise, Thompson could behave this way to every lawyer.
I think, however, that the Judges are giving him as much leeway so that he has less to appeal later.
JT: So I get to ask about Manhunt?
DT: No. What I’m saying to you, sir, is that I trusted your representation to me because I had not read this - I don’t know - 800 or maybe 1,500 pages. I have no idea how many pages. I’m taking it all in and will read it, but you said it was in the letters here -
JT: Manhunt is in the letters -
DT: Okay.
JT: - and the products of Take Two are in the letters -
DT: Okay. So you -
JT: - and the nature of the products.
DT: Your question now is about Manhunt?
JT: No. It’s about Manhunt 2.
Man, he can't even keep his own made up argument straight. I agree with a few others that this is not funny. Its clear from the last few days of this series that JT's sole defense is to flood the Judge with names, corporations, events, etc to deflect his short comings as a "lawyer". Mrs. Ward acted impeccably to the rambling arguments of JT. WEll Done.
I can only imagine his closing argument. I still think he is going to use the "Chewbacca Defense".
I understand what you mean by such attacks wearing on your.
I had my spiritual beliefs assaulted continuously, in fact one of the people who were doing it felt the need to private message me and state some "statistics" he found that proved I was full of crap.I reported him but by then the damage was done and I needed time by myself to cool down
What seems to have passed under Jacks' radar is that this is a complaint being brought by Blank Rome on behalf of Blank Rome, not on behalf of Rockstar, this is to do with Thompsons' conduct towards a law firm that just happens to be hired by a company he dislikes. The subject matter is irrelevant, because it doesn't change his behaviour towards the law firm, not the game producer.
And Judge Tunis also needs to be given props. My theory is that she would not have called Thompson in Contempt because she's giving him as much room as possible, so that if she rules that disbarament is the only viable punishment, her reasoning and verdict will be iron-clad placed in a indestructable box, so that no appeals court will even bother looking at it.
GP, is there anyway someone from here can get a copy of the transcript. My father is a lawyer (one of the best), and he really wants to read a few of these transcripts.
The two schools of thought are not mutually exclusive. Feel free to subscribe to both.
And it really really shows in his cross of Ward
Not saying all christians are this way, just the majority of those i have met.
Anyone else fell on the floor and started laughing when they read that line of absolute irony? I laughed for a good 2 minutes.
Seriously, just read it again. "You disgrace to us lawyers"
"You disgrace to us lawyers"...
And now for something completely different...
@Pierre-Olivier
That metalgearsolid.org incident you have mentioned... I've never heard of this one before. I just had to look it up on google and needless to say, this fucking pissed me off.
I read about the whole suicide thing, and I read Jack's response. That's one of the most fucked up things I've seen from the old bastard and I really want to punch his stupid nose in.
I don't give a damn if he reads this and gets all "offended". After reading this, I see him as a bigger prick in my eyes than I have before.
Absolutely agreed. I couldn't help but continue to notice how often she makes note for the record: she wants to make sure Jack cannot appeal under the defense that he wasn't given a fair trial or that the Tunis gave preferential treatment to the prosecution. Not only that, but these records might be pulled for JT's lawsuit against her as well.
Yeah, I'll take some! And I've got Smirnoff for anyone who wants some.
His disbarrment is a sure thing now.
Jacky Boy only has himself to blame, since he's unwilling to practice what he preaches about growing up and getting a life.
This part was pretty sickening to read--watching him try to kick up dust to cloud the issue with his own agenda. What a spoiled, pathetic crybaby.
"Black Manta Says:
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 am
You know, I’ve gotta say that I’m really enjoying watching JT’s career crash and burn before my very eyes. After following this man’s career for the last 20 years and having to endure his antics that brought misery to so many of my favorite people without every being held accountable for it for so long; to see him finally get his comeuppance after all this time is truly a thing of beauty. It really brings a tear to my eye. It really does.
I also have to admire Mr. Smith’s self-restraint. If I were on that chair and Jack came that close to me, he wouldn’t have been standing, let alone breathing.
There’s something I feel I should say: we all joke about how crazy we think Jack is, how incompetent he is. We use words to describe him like “douchebag,” “fuckwad,” “asshat,” and all sort of rude adjectives, but I think that falls short of saying what he really is. Maybe some of us are afraid to say it, fearing that it may be too strong a word or that we may be oversimplifying things or that by using it it makes us no better than him. But I think the description is apt and what we’ve seen here definitely proves it: Jack Thompson is evil.
I’ve read a lot about heroes and villains and what it is that separates them. The thing is, while we think of villains as evil, the villains don’t see themselves that way. In fact, from their own point of view, they see themselves as doing good, even if how they’re doing it makes sense only to them. Evil people don’t get up in the morning and think, “I’m going to be evil today.” But their motivations and their actions define them that way.
I keep hearing it said that Jack has the courage of his convictions. That may be true, but whenever I hear it, it sounds as if it’s trying to somehow excuse his behavior or find a redeeming quality about him. Evil people have the courage of their convictions too. They’d have to be or else they wouldn’t be so driven to do what they do and therefore wouldn’t be so dangerous.
“But Jack has a family,” I hear. “He has a wife and a son.” Yeah, well Hitler loved animals and children and loved to paint. He liked Wagnerian opera and his favorite movies were Snow White & The Seven Dwarves and King Kong. It still doesn’t excuse what he did.
As for the whole religious angle, some of the most evil people were religious. Look at Jim Jones or David Koresh. And of course we all know about Fred Phelps. Thompson is just as bad as they were/are.
No, Thompson may not have killed anyone, but I don’t think you have to kill someone to be considered evil. I think the utter contempt Thompson has continually shown to his fellow man is enough proof. I used to think people like Thompson didn’t really exist except in TV melodramas and sitcoms; that maybe he was just misguided or a prude. No human being could be that blindly arrogant I thought, and that if he could be made to listen to reason he might change his mind. But as you’ve seen, that’s been tried and he’s returned it with even more hostility.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m enjoying JT’s downfall as much as the next person. But to laugh him off and dismiss him as a joke I think is not seeing the full picture of what he is. Maybe we’ve grown a bit too accustomed to seeing evil depicted as the latest Johnny-come-lately evil overlord, supervillain or James Bond-style megalomaniac. But to me, Jack Thompson has proven that there are other, more subtle forms of evil. And I’ll rest a lot better once he’s finally disbarred and no longer a threat to our freedoms."
Also, was he seriously arguing that it's ok to attack a person for representing a client he dislikes? Everyone, no matter how unpleasant, is entitled to decent representation; the system wouldn't work or be fair if it were otherwise.
Gift.
The man is outright insulting the judge and going off on tangents about defending the right to sell games to minors (which is a major w-t-f) when they were simply defending the right for the product to be sold at all. As if that wasn't dumb enough on his part, he goes ahead into personally assaulting Ms. Ward and questioning the importance of he tears, of all things. He's doing exactly what got him into this case int he first place, and he's doing it for everyone to see.
Yes, Jack, continue to be unprofessional, abrasive, disrespectful, and as much of an asshole as you please, the scriptures say you're doing a great job, and I'm sure you think Jesus is giving you the thumbs up right now.
The reason they avoid it is because it is irrelevant to the case in hand. Blank Rome are not responsible directly for what Rockstar produce, if Rockstar closed down tomorrow, they would still have plenty of clients. This was an attack on them, and a complaint by them, so their opinion on the produce of one of their clients is totally irrelevant to the case being tried. It's like trying to hold law firms that represent the Film industry are responsible for the content of every film that is produced by one of their clients. They are not, they are their to represent them and ensure that i's are dotted and t's are crossed.
The reason Jack is so bitter at them is because Take Two chose to bring an action against him and, as their paid lawyers, Blank Rome were the organisation responsible to instigating and executing that request to the best of their abilities. It's a vendetta on Jack's part, because they were employed by Rockstar, they have become Rockstar in Jack's eyes.
Not really, remember Jack is on trial here and he was trying to use Manhunt 2 to excuse his attacks on various people. Given that:
1. the attacks were launched prior to release of Manhunt 2,
2. that he makes no mention of the game in his attacks
3 and he couldn't have predicted the temporary ban in the UK anyway,
he can't legitimately use the game to excuse his behaviour.
Remember Jack wants to turn this into a trial on video games and he isn't afraid to introduce irrelevant topics in the hope he'll slip one past the judge to drag everyone off at a tangent he dictates.
Gift.
Gift.
This is the most chauvanistic thing I've ever heard. Hypocritical at the same time, since nothing he's done to Ward can even be remotely described as exalted.
Although, we all know that once JT is disbarred, he'll blame that on video games as well.
@GP
Since he cannot file without another lawyer's consent, to whom is he filing towards? Or are these emails?
Technically, the Supremes order requiring the signature of an attorney other than Jack isn't yet final. Not yet.
And they are lawsuits. Bear in mind that the the SCOFLA's order relates only to Jack's filings with that particular court. He's free to file under his own signature in all other courts, which he has (e.g., the Southern District of Florida, where his most recent suit now pends).
It is my personal opinion that JT is highly opinionated, thee kind of visceral opinions that drive people in some country to strap bombs to their chests in public.
His defense really messes me up. He keeps getting angry and when he gets angry he gets stupid. He just needs to stick to the case evidence, but he doesn't. He keeps trying to guilt her into saying somthing incriminating, but there's nothing to say.
Somebody mentioned that this sounds like bad Phoenix Wright and I agree. Hell, I'll go further than that:
"In a jury trial there are only 12 opinions that matter and yours is not one of them..."
Jack seems to forget that fact. But, I believe that this isn't a jury trial if I'm not mistaken (If I am mistaken, Correct me.). In this case there is only one opinion that matters(The Judge) and he keeps arguing with her at length instead of trying to gain her support.
After reading this far, I can come to only one conclusion:
JT is not idiot, a douche or some other derogatory term. In my opinion, John Bruce Thompson is just a terrible human being.
Its disgusting conduct and I can't possibly see him winning this.
JackDon'tKnowJack is right as well, this wasn't funny at all.
And the man is giving miles of high quality noose rope.
Also.
I move for a motion that everyone that has had or are in contact (physical/verbal/writen/or other) be offered (digital) sainthood when jack is disbarred if they can prove they "put up" with jack for a long enough time.
(to put it short Dennis would become Saint (or St.) GP if he accepted it
Yes, I agree about the amount of rope.
And Ms. Ward is not the most sympathetic of Jack's victims. At least she has an advanced professional degree, a law license, and an established professional reputation. Worse case scenario and push come to shove, I'm confident she'll land on her feet (and I certainly hope so for her). But there are other victims who aren't as well-suit to withstand the Jack-Attack (at least not professionally and financially). They land hard, and not on their feet.
Thank you for the clarification. If he does continue to file, Wouldn't that speed up the decision on his court filings?
Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you're asking me. Can you restate your question?
I think I got ya.
The Supreme Court's order is not final until Jack's had his chance to convince the Court that they shouldn't make it final. Jack has asked them for that chance. However, he's just wasting time. They'll listen to whatever nonsense he has to say, then make their order final. Until then, he is, I believe, free to file under his own signature in the same way a normal, sane litigant would.
I mean isn't the old definition of insanity to keep trying the same thing and expect different results?
He does that several times in this one excerpt (hence the sustained objections)
How has he retained a law license this long?