The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 8): Thompson's Closing Statement

March 27, 2008 -

We're coming to the end of our exclusive series detailing the video game-related testimony in controversial attorney Jack Thompson's professional misconduct trial by the Florida Bar.

In today's episode, GamePolitics will present Thompson's closing argument. There is no cross-examination during a closing. It's an attorney's chance to summarize the case for the Court, recalling evidence presented and touching on points of law. As such, except for a couple of procedural matters, this is Thompson speaking.

In tomorrow's finale, GP will recap the series, including an explanation of how it all came together. If you've missed any of the previous installments, just click the Bar Trial series tag to catch up.

(In today's excerpted transcript, JT is Thompson, TUMA is prosecutor Sheila Tuma and DT is Judge Dava Tunis, who is presiding over the case…)

JT: Okay. By way of closing argument... here's the text of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Did I give you that?...

TUMA: Yes.

JT: It says... "Exercise of religion means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the religious exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious beliefs... The Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it is demonstrated that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest... A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief."

I'm simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivations - which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nausea - are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture. I quoted the biblical passage where Jesus says, reportedly: "If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea."

If I am disbarred, which is the wish of these [Florida Bar] people... I will continue to do what I'm doing on these issues whether they disbar me or not because this is what I was called to do, this is what I was enabled to do more effectively as a lawyer...



These [Florida Bar] people, Judge, in 1992, sought and got an order of the Supreme Court of Florida, telling me: "You will either submit to a mental health exam by the Bar's own chosen psychiatrist and psychologist because, A. we think you may have brain damage; and, B, we believe your obsession with photography -" they meant against pornography "- is so severe that you are mentally incapacitated by virtue of that disability and unfit to practice law."

As I recounted in my book... they found that Jack Thompson is perfectly sane... He doesn't have brain damage and, in fact, he's a Christian acting out his faith in this fashion. So they're stuck with a formal document that they generated to the humiliation of me in my community that I'm simply a Christian acting out my faith when I do these things.

When you've got hypocrites... then I have a right - in fact, I have duty, as Jesus did, the confront the Pharisees and say: "You are hypocrites. You are liars. You are whited sepulchers. You're in a den of thieves," and so forth... So these people now in this situation, it's all by stealth. They want to do it in the darkness...

I asked you, Judge, at the outset: Will they please disclose to me what in the world their position is as to my mental health. They wouldn't do that and yet they required the resolution of this matter with a demand that after I'd pled guilty to all these things, I'd then have to submit to a mental health exam. That's what they said, knowing my motivation is religious...

Then I submit to them the psychological forensic evaluation of me by Dr. Oren Wunderman, who's used by the Florida Bar because they considered him an expert... and he said: "Look. This guy's a competent attorney. He's, in effect, under attack by people who don't like what he's doing and his religious faith not only animates what he does, but also enriches his practice of law and enriches his capabilities as a lawyer..."

So, Judge, you have to make a determination, which I'm asking you to make, that the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act is being violated by the Florida Bar because of their effort to punish me for the acting out of my religion... Done - on that one.

DT: I'm sorry. You're asking me a question?

JT: No.

DT: Oh, I think that the Bar is going to submit their responses in writing. That's what I understood.

TUMA: We were... We already have a memorandum of law regarding this. Mr. Thompson has raised this in our pleadings before and we do have a memorandum of law and whether the Bar  is violating the Respondent's rights under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act case....

JT: ... Okay, Judge. May I finish?

DT: Yes. Of course.

JT: Okay. Another argument [by Florida law] Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, SLAPP suits, by governmental entities are prohibited... I'll just point out and ask the Court to read Section 4. It says" "No governmental entity in this state shall file or cause to be filed... any lawsuit -" and then the important phrase here "-cause of action-" differentiating it from a lawsuit "-claim, cross-claim or counterclaim against a person... solely because such person... has exercised the right to... petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state."

My book, which you wouldn't allow into evidence, recounts the efforts - past efforts - of the Florida Bar to improperly discipline me, which resulted in the payment of damages and so forth... That's in evidence by the virtue of my testimony. It's been my contention that what has animated the Bar... is the exercise of my First Amendment rights to be critical of the Bar and say no to them in the past and now for their attempt to wrongly discipline me. I think it's vindictive. I think it's a clear attempt to punish me for the exercise of my First Amendment speech... Judge, I was hampered in this defense when I asked for certain discovery from the Bar and I was told I couldn't look at documents the Bar had  without first paying a $4,000 up front fee to look at my own file up there...

So what the Court has to do is address the fact that this is nothing but a SLAPP action by the Florida Bar in pursuit of an attempt to chill my First Amendment speech... I'm done with that one.

TUMA: I have a memorandum on this. The Bar is going to tender to Your Honor a memorandum on whether the Bar is violating Respondent's First Amendment rights to free speech....

DT: Thank you.

JT: Finally, we get to the last thing, the First Amendment. Did I give you all the Fieger ruling? I know the Judge has it...

DT: Is that a Michigan case, Mr. Thompson?

JT: Yes... Judge, do you have yours? If not, I've got another one...

DT: Thank you...

JT: Mr. Fieger [a prominent attorney] had some sort of a dispute... and Mr. Fieger had a radio program and he... was upset about what these judges had done and he called them Nazis. He said that their ruling was worse than if you had put a certain number of monkeys in a room and they had typed at typewriters and come up with the opinion. It suggested that they were in the pockets of commercial interests.

DT: He said this to whom?

JT: He said it... on his radio show to the whole state of Michigan.

DT: OKay. So he was a radio personality, a person on the radio.

JT: He's a lawyer. He's a very successful lawyer who's been on all the talk shows... Greta Van Susteren, and -

DT: Okay.

JT: He also represented Dr. Kevorkian, "Dr. Death." He ran for governor of Michigan...

(Fieger was sanctioned by the Michigan Supreme Court for his criticism of the judiciary; Thompson is referring here to a U.S. District Court decision which overruled the Michigan Supreme Court)

You'll note that that... this federal court says - if you compare the importance of the two - the respect for the judiciary or individual judges is less important than protecting the... judicial process because judges come and go... The opinion here is that unless someone said something that is false... or in reckless disregard of the truth then... you have to let it go and you're allowed to say these things.

Now, there's been no testimony, no evidence - in my opinion - anywhere in this case, Judge, that I have uttered anything that's false about Judge Moore or Judge Friedman or that I have uttered what I have said in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of what I've said.

I've said that Judge Friedman violated his own order, which he did. He didn't give me a hearing that he said he would give me. He didn't review the game [Bully] which he said he would do. Then I wrote some other things to him which he found annoying... So believe me, having been within the belly of Judge Friedman's courtroom and seen what he did improperly in an ex-parte proceeding where he didn't do what he said he would do, I had a right to tell the truth. I had a right to identify what he had done wrong.

DT: You mean an in camera proceeding?

JT: What did I say?

DT: Ex parte

JT: In camera... I didn't question of either Judge Moore or Judge Friedman their integrity.

(GP: although Thompson alluded that Alabama lawyer Clatus Junkin claimed to be able to fix cases with Judge Moore... and in his cross-examination of Moore, Moore said, "I saw a letter not long ago where you said I was corrupt." to which Thompson replied, " Yes, I think you are, but not in that [case-fixing] sense.")

JT: Clatus Junkin, the self-important king maker, as he views himself as having put this judge [Moore] on the bench - and believe me, there's plenty more about that - was upset that I had defamed him and he came here... to tell the Court what a despicable human being I was and how I had defamed him. I had no option whatsoever but to go to the authorities... and tell him that this guy was running around, according to every lawyer who knew him in Alabama, that he could arrange the result in a case. And having heard that, what did I do? I acted upon it to do what? To preserve the integrity of the bench, not to harm it...

The matter before [Bully case] Judge Friedman was over, and yet I'm charged... with engaging in conduct with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. First of all, I had no client. I brought a pro bono on behalf of the State as a private attorney general. I had no client... Secondly, I didn't attack the integrity of this judge or his qualifications... I didn't question his integrity. I questioned the propriety of a judge violating his own orders...

Further, what we've got here, Judge - and there was some discussion about this earlier - is: This is a libel case that these people brought against me, a criminal libel case.

(GP: this is Thompson's analagous characterization of the case; it is not in fact a criminal case, nor is it a libel case. It is a series of professional misconduct allegations under Florida Bar rules

JT: Criminal libel, by the way, is unconstitutional almost everywhere in this country. You can't punish anybody by anything other than taking money from them, which would be a civil libel action, but these people want to take my career away from me. It's clearly penal in nature as the Supreme Court defines this type of disciplinary proceeding. They want me to forfeit my license. So whether we want to consider it a criminal action... it's clearly violative of the Florida Constitution-

DT: What's violative?

JT: This proceeding against me as to my speech.

DT: Okay. I just wanted to follow that last argument.

JT: If you look -

DT: No, no. You don't have to - Say it again? ...

JT: I understand. - and I just want to build on that, if I may... Article one, section 4 of the Florida Constitution. I don't have it in front of me, but basically it says-

DT: That's okay. I'll look it up.

JT: Basically it says... you can't impinge upon a Florida resident's First Amendment rights... if you look at all of these complaints, Judge, they're almost all violations of my speech rights. I've said some things that bothered Clatus Junkin and I said some things about Judge Friedman that the Third District in another case agreed with me about how he runs his Court, pre-judging cases... So, Judge, this is First Amendment speech. It's been engaged in to protect the integrity of the judicial process...

(GP: Thompson then says that it was his complaint that led to the removal of The Crying Judge in the Anna Nicole Smith case, so...)

JT: So, Judge, where do you draw the line? ...Am I allowed to write the Broward State Attorney about... [Crying Judge] Larry Seidlin, who's now going to have his own reality TV show? Am I allowed to do that?

Am I allowed to talk about Judge Friedman pre-judging cases, acting as if he were a tyrant in his chambers and in his courtroom and taking unsworn testimony from operatives of Take Two? Am I allowed to talk about that?

Am I allowed to talk about the fact that Clatus Junkin indicates to me and others that he's in charge in Fayette, Alabama... If I defame Clatus Junkin, who has said that this is the worst thing any human being had done to him, then he could bring a defamation action.

The restriction upon me as a lawyer, which I understand, is that I have to have within the bounds upon my rights a respect for the judiciary, of the integrity of a judge. Yet the standard that I'm held to in that regard as a lawyer which gives them, the Florida Bar, the right to discipline me if I go over that line is the same line that's delineated in libel law...

Judge, I'll conclude with this, and I appreciate the Court's indulgence. The Court had extended me many courtesies during the last nine days, and I appreciate the ones you extended to me and I'll say again with no disrespect for the Court in this regard. I would have liked a little less courtesy and a little more fairness...

You know, I don't know what's going to happen here. I've got an idea... So my detractors and opponents have the view that they can file Bar complaints against me, threaten to rape my wife, corporately incite the sending of sex products to my wife and me at our home, and I'm supposed to just sit there and be a human pinata for anything that the Florida Bar, which collaborates with these people - and, Judge, you don't know the half of it. You don't know the half of what has gone on here - and that I'm supposed to just sit there and take all this nonsense and not complain...

(GP: it's unclear what the "rape" allegation refers to. As we recall, the "sex products" allegation seems to want to blame Rockstar for somehow inciting unnamed persons to send the items to Thompson by way of harassment... )

Blank Rome, knowing my wife had just had ovarian cancer surgery, sued me with a lawsuit at our house - at our house - knowing she's stretched out on a couch, unable to move. Ray Reiser had asked them not to bother us at our home, and these people, knowing she had this surgery and is recovering from it, knowing I had a lawyer, Ray Reiser, to accept service, having been told that - my wife, she had to get up off the couch and receive this lawsuit at the door from a process server; and they knew it and they did it on purpose.

Judge, I apologize for any unkind comments I've had for you about my wife, and your total lack, in my opinion, of appreciation of the fact that to go through a process like this in which your profession is being threatened with being taken from you at the same time that your wife is fighting for her life and that you don't understand, apparently, Judge, that there are burdens in a situation like that, that it's almost too much for a body and a person to bear.

So, Judge, I appreciate you courtesies in the midst of all this. I think these [Florida Bar] people don't have any - don't have a sense of democracy in their bodies. They don't understand what freedom is about. They don't understand that the great infringer of freedoms in our nation's history and world history is government. These people don't care about that. They care about their view of ethics. They don't care about the little ones that are harmed by these people through their illegal commercial enterprises.

If this Court finds... If this Court wants to act upon their suggestion that you can find me guilty... for things that don't even involve the practice of law, then I will go on with my life... we'll just have to deal with that and we'll move on and we'll get a remedy in another venue [i.e. - the federal court system]

But, Judge, thank you for your kind offices and your courtroom for the last nine days; and I particularly appreciate your bailiff...

TUMA: ...The only thing the Bar would add is that we will put our closing in writing to Your Honor...

NEXT: GP's recap of the series...


Comments

Re: The Bar Trial of Jack Thompson (Part 8): Thompson's Closing

I cannot believe this. I'm a Christian, and this guy is giving us all a bad name! How dare he! Anyway, the passage symbolises trying to persuade someone to stop being a Christian. It has no real reference to children. "Children of God" is what they are.

oh and countles emails calling people 'stupid' and 'idiots' and saying gamers 'frontal lobes are fried' is in no way , and can be in no way construed, as being religiously motivated.

sorry for the triple post, im just very angry about this.

So he threatens that if disbarred he'll keep being an ass. Wasn't the point of this to give him a chance to defend his being an ass, rather than to threaten more of it?
"Soandso you are accused of robbing banks!"
"Yes! And if convicted I'll keep doing it! AN INVISIBLE SKY MONSTER TELLS ME TO DO SO!"

and now at the end he trys to put on the charm. Althou i think his earlyer actions have screwd its chances of working. Jack claims christianity and the early testiment has a bit ya know an "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (jack loves this) but new testiment (jesus) kind of revoked that you know with the whole if someone strikes one cheek turn and let him strike the other. also the new testimint didn't revoke the 10 commandments even the “If any one of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast in the uttermost depths of the sea.” dos'nt say your allowed to break any of the 10 commandments for the sake of the children, my interpritation of the verse jack quoted is: dont cause childeren to break the 10 commandments or god will be a bit pissed at you.
but then when has jack been any good with scripture, and/as well as contexts?

I laughed when he plugged his book. I also laughed when he said he tried to enter it as evidence.

I am sorry John Bruce. Conjecture and hearsay do not qualify as "evidence". It has to be real.

He seriously misses the point of the bar hearing. He also misses the point of the First Amendment. The first amendment gives him the right to say the things he did. But it does nto give him the right to break rules that he agreed to follow. This hearing is about him breaking ethics rules. Not speaking out against judges and lawyers.

He seems to think that he has a right to be a lawyer. He seems to think that the First Amendment means he can be a lwayer. I am sorry. It does not. You still have the right to petition the government. You still have the right to speak out against corruption or what you conceve as corruption. You don't have the right to break ethincs rules that you agreed to follow.

His bringing up religion is laughable. He claims that his religion gives him the right to be a jerk. I am sorry. That is not the case. You have the right to excersize your religion, but you don't have the right to break ethics rules you agreed to follow.

I hope you are seeing a trend here.

@mogbert
Exactly.

How does his argument help him?

@GoodRobotUs:

And it's not like the Bar Rules stop Jack from doing his thing as he describes his thing. The Florida Rule at issue doesn't prohibit Jack from shouting his concerns about a jurist to the world. The way I read the Rule, it says, "Have at 'til your hoarse and blue in the face." What the Rule does prohibit is shouting false statements or statements made with reckless disregard for truth. I'm all for a robust discussion about the faults of the judiciary. That's a good thing. Running around and spewing a pack o' lies about the judiciary: bad thing.

My fax machine broke today at work... I suspect foul play. I think JT had something to do with it... It makes sense, because I read all of the transcripts at work...

Ok, all joking aside. GP good job with the transcripts. If he gets disbarred it'll throw his credibility out the window. It'll be a win for the gaming communtiy. People like JT have been using video games to blame for the younger generations problems for way too long. The real problems are the parents (which more than likely purchase the violent video games) and the retailers (for selling violent games to minors).

Also, my thoughts on the controversies brought on by JT, as well as everyone else that thinks like him, are IMO pushing Video Games as art just like Film, Books, Comic Books, etc...

anyway that was random and just wanted to put my thoughts out there

I was under the impression of ass kissing towards the end there.

He's been known to get out of the hot seat many many times in the past...though while his sacationed from the supreme court shots he couldn't get out of that one.....

His track record shows.

So in other words. I'm not holding my breath untill a ruling has been passed.

Though the evidence seems stacked against him.

All complaints against him where VERY consecutive. They all where pretty much the same exact argument and shows a pattern.

This may not bold will for him.

Sorry for the double post, but two more things.

1. Mr. Thompson, i'd hardly call a current scholarship-paid math major in college would be 'undereducated.' Oh wait. To you, learning how to be a lawyer is the only smart thing anyone can do. I forgot. My bad.

2. Out of curiosity, anyone got that clip he bragged about?

@ Jack Thompson, Attorney

"Most of you are so you and so undereducated that you don\’t even know what that term means."

Just like how you're so undereducated that you can't type a complete, grammatically correct sentence?

And no one here buys your bullshit about Dennis working for someone other than for the good of the public. Maybe on Fox News, but not here.

New Calvinball rule!
All press releases sent to more then three non-press members have opposite meaning regardless on whether opposite day is in effect or not. Additionally, after each each press release, you have to eat a watermelon before you can issue another one.

Can anyone get word to Attack of the Show? I'd like to nominate Jack's post for Epic Fail. It's pretty much proof that /b/tards can fail independantly of the chans.

@jadedcritic:

I do it for reasons which are more akin to those for which the living attend the funerals of the deceased (and which have very little to do with benefiting the recently departed).

Well... Jack has done it in style this time. Just the fact that he goes old testament on a court room is like watching the planets of "comic" and "irony" collide.

And what is this BS he is spouting about our first amendment (note "our")! As a Lawyer, of all people, he should know that that amendment is a double edged blade. The way he argued it he would have been better off stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the beginning of all of this. Anyway he needs to realize that the first amendment gives us all the right to be right, wrong, intelligent, unintelligent, strait up genius, and downright STUPID(i.e JT)! America is country of Religious Freedom and that means the ideals you hold high should not cast an unwanted shadow upon your neighbors.

@Mogbert
Jack Thompson - Epic Fail
lolz

A brief view into the mind of John Bruce "Jack" Thompson:

"Macaroni, CHA CHA CHA!!!"

And now for something... completely different.

Bring out the Guinesses, people! The end is nigh for Mr. Thompson!

what.. so he basically says he can do what he wants , because its down to his religion?

im sorry but no even if i believed he were genuinely motivated due to religion i cant agree with that. In an extreme situation which could result in some severe personal aggreivement, i.e. being forced to have a blood transfusion against your religious beliefs, througha method which basically amounts to an invasion of your body, then yes. but this.. this is merely his opinion. There's no serious gravity of consequence like in my previous example. And you cant go around doing anything you like because its 'opinion'.

On top of that i believe this is a man who knows the legal system and uses religion as an excuse. I dont believe any christians would condone the severe harrassment and insults he has thrown about. I dont beleive he is truly motivated by religion at all. At least not the religion of christianity.

The religion of ego and money... perhaps.

''As I recounted in my book… they found that Jack Thompson is perfectly sane… He doesn’t have brain damage and, in fact, he’s a Christian acting out his faith in this fashion.''

talking in the 3rd person.. and plugging your book...

yeah i definitely believe his religion is that of ego and money.

"So, Judge, I appreciate you courtesies in the midst of all this. I think these [Florida Bar] people don’t have any - don’t have a sense of democracy in their bodies. They don’t understand what freedom is about. They don’t understand that the great infringer of freedoms in our nation’s history and world history is government. These people don’t care about that. They care about their view of ethics. They don’t care about the little ones that are harmed by these people through their illegal commercial enterprises."

How is that any different from Thompson own actions... trying to take away other's liberties?

what you was called to do.

you freak.

This was a lot more coherent than I expected it to be.

Emotionally manipulative, but pretty effective. I hope all will go well.

"Judge, I apologize for any unkind comments I’ve had for you about my wife, and your total lack, in my opinion, of appreciation of the fact that to go through a process like this in which your profession is being threatened with being taken from you at the same time that your wife is fighting for her life and that you don’t understand, apparently, Judge, that there are burdens in a situation like that, that it’s almost too much for a body and a person to bear."

So basically his argument is "My wife was sick so that gives me the right to act like a total douchebag?" I also like his arrogant assumption that the Judge doesn't understand what it's like to have a sick family member.

There's also so many lies and misstatements in the whole thing...but I'll leave that to other people to comment about. XD

He just contridicted himself, If he says he has the right to say these things then Rockstar and Take-Two has the right to release any game they want.

JT do NOT compare youself to Jesus it will only make you look more of an ass.

Adding religion to anything is a slippery slope it may help you or will will hurt you. This will hurt JT.

I highly doubt that Jack cares about his wife at all. If she is sick then the right thing to do after losing this is for Jack to take care of her. Jack if you read this, take care of your dying wife....

I guess religion make him say that so-and-so should molest children
I guess religion make him post kiddie porn to judges and lawyer from around the US
I guess religion make him post porn to judges and lawyers from around the US
I guess religion make him say to those that disagree with him "currupt" and "Lie"
I guess religion make him say to those that disagree with him do un-Christian like things like being a bully and cussing
I guess religion make him lie about just about anything
I am not an athist but if you throw the word Religion and "Jesus made me do it" It better be for something a hell of a lot better than this.

Yes Jack Thompon has the right to be a lawyer (even if we don't agree) but Jack time and time again that being a lawyer to a loseing cause can only lead downhill. If Jack was a normal Lawyer he might even be good (notice the word might) but as far as I am concern he need to retire now to not face the harsh facts that is about to be giving to him.

the thing i hate is the fact he picks and chooses which bits of his 'religion' to follow when it suits him.

apparently he can ignore the teachings to treat your neighbour as you would like to be treated, and turning the other cheek, and showing compassion. If hes using religion as a defense he cant pick and choose which bits to apply

My religion demands that I must play Bully extensively. Consequently, Thompson's attempts to have it banned infringe on my religious liberty.

Actually, NovaBlack, that's what religions do.

However, I don't understand Thompson's argument at all. So he can sue against freedom of speech and arts because his religion tells him so? What religion in the world tells people to forbid things to people who are not members of that religion?

Right, Mr. Thompson. You're a christian, so you're allowed to be a complete and utter asshole to people, and everyone else, INCLUDING other Christians, cannot. Right. That sounds SOOOO fair.

"JT: Finally, we get to the last thing, the First Amendment. Did I give you all the Fieger ruling? I know the Judge has it…"

Anyone else misread this as 'Did i give you the finger'?

"Now, there’s been no testimony, no evidence - in my opinion - anywhere in this case, Judge, that I have uttered anything that’s false about Judge Moore or Judge Friedman or that I have uttered what I have said in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of what I’ve said."

Right, like that other lawyer or whoever it was that you thought was DECEASED.

"So, Judge, this is First Amendment speech. It’s been engaged in to protect the integrity of the judicial process…"

Yes, it gives you the right to speak. But it also gives everyone the right that, if you annoy the bejesus out of them, they can tell you to STFU. Guess you missed that one.

"So my detractors and opponents have the view that they can file Bar complaints against me, threaten to rape my wife, corporately incite the sending of sex products to my wife and me at our home,"

Whoa, wh-ch, wha, whoa, WHAT?? He's crazy...

"Blank Rome, knowing my wife had just had ovarian cancer surgery, sued me with a lawsuit at our house - at our house - knowing she’s stretched out on a couch, unable to move. Ray Reiser had asked them not to bother us at our home, and these people, knowing she had this surgery and is recovering from it, knowing I had a lawyer, Ray Reiser, to accept service, having been told that - my wife, she had to get up off the couch and receive this lawsuit at the door from a process server;"

While i may not know the differences in debilitating effects between a surgery for different cancers, but my mother had several different treatments and surgeries for breast cancer over the past year and a half or so. While its certainly tasking on the body, as far as i could see, it wasn't so tasking that she couldn't walk up to the door of her OWN HOUSE for two seconds to pick up the newspaper or something.

So really, he's trying to throw in the sympathy card that his wife had to lift a finger for almost literally two seconds to get something at the door. BRILLIANT.

I'm sorry, did Jack just say that he was Called By God to do this? Woah... bad point to make in Court.

Are we ever going to see the whole of the texts?

Hhm, the problem is, while his argument was completely irrelevant and pointless, it was still quite good for what it was.
For the first time ever, I reckon he made a good speech.
Hopefully the judge will remember that Thompson's on trial for completely different reasons.

@Jesse

Do we know that she's dying...or just has cancer? I suppose it's possible she has non-terminal cancer, idk. Either way, it doesn't condone being a douche bag to everyone that disagrees with him..

So once again, the sum of Jack's argument is - I'm a Christian, And a much better attorney than all of you put together, so bow down before me! or suffer the terrifying consequences.

Seriously Jack, how many more times do you think that will work?

And using his wife's cancer as a sympathy card? Jack's tactics just got a helluva lot lower. Shame on you. I'm not a Christian, but you give them a very bad name.

It's amazing how he misses the point entirely. He is attempting to make the whole issue into how he has been denied his 1st amendment rights by the florida bar and how they have attacked him for saying things they don't like. Unfortunately for him, this is not the issue at hand. It is not the fact that he spoke out against judges he did not agree with, but HOW he went about it.

There are proper channels to go through with reporting grievances or concerns about officials, and writing nasty, personally hurtful letters and making false statements about those you view as enemies are not the proper channels.

Funny how he claims he has a "duty" to speak out against the "pharisees" as he refers to them. Would he not have a more basic and overriding duty in the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbour"?

Finally, it's disgusting for a lawyer to try and shill his book in his closing argument, and even worse, to play the sympathy card in an effort to make him look like the victim, when it's his unprofessional and vile behaviour that has put him in the position he is in now.

Actually, reading this part - I thought about how it really read:

"I don’t understand what freedom is about. I don’t understand that the great infringer of freedoms in our nation’s history and world history is narrow minded idiots like myself. But I don’t care about that. I care about their view of ethics. I don’t care about the little ones that are harmed by my actions through my frivolous legal enterprises.”

I just hope this ends with him disbarred, his conduct in a defense of his conduct was a comical irony in itself.

By the way, does anyone know the reletive date when the judge might give a decision?

It really bugs me when Thompson uses the bible and Jesus to defend himself and his actions. I may not be the most practicing Catholic but Thompson is the biggest hypocrite there could possibley be and seeing someone like him quote biblical text just...

He wanted his BOOK submitted as evidence? Would he supply it or would the court have to buy their own copy?

Ovarian cancer, whilst a nasty thing, is not the most complicated of cancers to treat. My sister had uterine cancer and she was very fatigued from the radiation therapy but managed a normal life throughout. Either way, using that as a way of gaining points is a pretty disrespectful & manipulative thing to do. Wonder if he'd have done it if the judge was male or if he's trying to make Tunis think "Hey, I have ovaries, it could have been me!"? Lets all hope that Mrs T has/will recover from this.

Damnit! I shouldn't have shortened her surname, now all I can see in my mind is jack thompson coming home at the end of the day to greet his wife, Mr T in a frumpy dress & badly plastered on makeup... A fool I would truly pity.


@GP
Will we get to hear Tuma's closing argument as well or is the written statement not part of the transcript you got?


@DavCube
“So my detractors and opponents have the view that they can file Bar complaints against me, threaten to rape my wife, corporately incite the sending of sex products to my wife and me at our home,”

Whoa, wh-ch, wha, whoa, WHAT?? He’s crazy…


Not only that, it's poor grammar. He should have said "My wife and I"

@SeanB
Are we ever going to see the whole of the texts?
GP said that we might get them after this article series is over, its a hell of a lot of work to scan all those pages.

Jack really does have a martyr complex... which is amusing given the way he harasses anyone he disagrees with.

It does look like the Fieger case may get him off the hook for some of his bad behaviour, so at least that's a coherent argument. The problem of course is the Fieger comments don't sound like they amounted to anything like the kind of persistent and wide ranging hate campaign Jack conducts. Moreover, and even more critically, the Fieger ruling certainly does not get him off the hook regarding accusations of trial fixing (as GP mentions). All in all, it doesn't sound hopeful for Jack.

BTW did you guys know he wrote a book!? Love the way he slips that in there :D

Gift.

I'm worried.

I really don't think he'll be disbarred people. I think the games he has played, espically in regards Judge Tunis' oath (how pathetic), and his performance against Judge Friedman, as well as this mostly coherent, though rampantly self obsessed, closing arguement might tip the favour.

Dennis, whats your gut feeling? Have you spoken to any lawyer about this? How do they feel? (is it bad form to ask dennis questions like this?)

Personally, i'm disgusted by how he has manipulated facts and twisted events to suit himself, but i'm informed of all of his tricks. Judge Tunis, however, will be unaware of his lies.

Like i said, i'm worried

GP: I think Judge Tunis, both through the testimony at the Bar trial, as well as the various suits and complaints and criticisms Thompson has thrown at her has a pretty good idea of who JT is and what he's about.

I do expect that she will recommend he be disbarred. That said, I also expect that he will do everything he can to delay, block or legally challenge any such recommendation.

Umm... freedom of religion doesn't allow one to violate legal rulings, or harass other lawyers/judges. Sorry, that's not how it works. Bad lawyer, no cookie.

What the hell was that?

Yet again he seems confused as to why he's on trial.He's not on trial because he's saying unpopular things. He's on trial for acting like a petulant child unbecoming of an attorney.

Not only that, but right in the beginning he said it himself. He's going to continue acting the way he does no matter what.

If I was the judge on this case, I'd have issues my ruling immediately after closing arguments and disbarred Jackhole right there. He didn't put up a defense at all.

@chadachada:

I believe in another segment, he mentions his wife's potentially terminal cancer.

JT: "... I’m simply making the argument, Judge, that my motivations - which I have tried to make clear, maybe to the point of nausea - are religious and that my efforts against the distribution of adult material, pornographic material, violent material, adult rated material to children is violative of the law as well as violative of Scripture."

Motivation isn't what this is about. It's practice. It's not even practice of religion. It's practice of law.

JT: "'... A. we think you may have brain damage; and, B, we believe your obsession with photography -” they meant against pornography “- is so severe that you are mentally incapacitated by virtue of that disability and unfit to practice law.'"

As for point B: No. I think they meant obsession with photography. It's proven you are obsessed with photos if, for nothing else, you decide to send photos in your e-mails, and in your filings with the court system. One "children's book for adults" comes to mind at this point.

As for pornography, you appear to be obsessed with that as well, hence the filing of a gay porn picture to the courts at one pont. You try to shroud your obsessions under the guise of "religion tells me to do so," but it's the frequency at which you mention these.

JT: "... As I recounted in my book… they found that Jack Thompson is perfectly sane… He doesn’t have brain damage and, in fact, he’s a Christian acting out his faith in this fashion."

I wouldn't say "perfectly" in this case. Sane? That point I'll cover in a bit. There's no way you're "perfectly" sane. If you were, you wouldn't have been sanctioned by SCOFLA because of frivelous and improper filings.

JT: "... When you’ve got hypocrites… then I have a right - in fact, I have duty, as Jesus did, the confront the Pharisees and say: “You are hypocrites. You are liars. You are whited sepulchers. You’re in a den of thieves,” and so forth…"

Didn't anyone ever tell you that being licensed isn't a right but a priveledge? That's all I heard about getting a driver's license growing up. The concept is the same here. And let me make this perfectly clear. Your words and actions in these hearings as well as other moments while practicing law suggest that you are a hypocrite and a liar yourself. There are times when you think you're using hyperbole, but some of those instances, you out and out lie.

JT: "...I asked you, Judge, at the outset: Will they please disclose to me what in the world their position is as to my mental health. They wouldn’t do that and yet they required the resolution of this matter with a demand that after I’d pled guilty to all these things, I’d then have to submit to a mental health exam. That’s what they said, knowing my motivation is religious…"

You're wicky in the wacky woo. That's their position. Again, it's not a matter of motivation. It's a matter of practice. There's a reason there's a separation of Church and State.

I have to laugh at this next bit...

JT: "... Then I submit to them the psychological forensic evaluation of me by Dr. Oren Wunderman, who’s used by the Florida Bar because they considered him an expert… and he said: 'Look. This guy’s a competent attorney. He’s, in effect, under attack by people who don’t like what he’s doing and his religious faith not only animates what he does, but also enriches his practice of law and enriches his capabilities as a lawyer…'"

You may have been competent in '92. You don't appear to be anymore. It is true that many, many people don't like what you're doing there, Mr. Thompson, but don't let that confuse the issue at hand. It is your antics, not your faith, that's on trial here.

I'm tired of quoting, but the second part (and segued into the third part) pretty much says they're infringing on his First Amendment rights. Again, that's not what's on trial here. It's the professionalism and decorum while practicing law that is. Again, having a license is a priveledge, not a right... and it is shown here that you have abused that priveledge several times over.

Okay, so help me out here (for I, admittedly, am not a lawyer). With all of Jack's usual paranoid conspiracy theories and messianistic jibber-jabber... exactly how relevant is all this to the hearing at hand? I didn't see where he was claiming to have been provoked into acting like a spoiled child and becoming a fax-murderer... the only thing I really noticed was at the end where he said his actions had no relevance to his status as a lawyer. Is that the crux of his arguement, or am I missing something?

@paul

You'd think even any half-good judge knows when someone tries to buy symphaty points with a pretty speech. Don't know how it works if you make youself look like an ass instead...

Even this text, that has to be much, much more charming than most of the stuff he has said, has more than couple parts that rub you most sane people the wrong way...

He claims his opposers have threatened to rape his wife? It figures some random idiot has, considering how much of an asshole the guy is, but the same ones who have filed complaints about him? Can't possibly be a good move to imply so... Though it sounds like that, it's more likely that he just puts all his opposers in the same box, that works single mindedly to take him down. Too bad he didn't go deeper into that conspiracy, isn't it?
Jacko, when you piss off people at the rate you do, there has to be no plan to put you down. It's you who is organizing all the hate towards yourself, not the people who hate you. That's what happens when you let the whole world know you're an asshole.

And he compares himself to Jesus? He was close to doing it before, I must admit I hoped he would do it again bit more drastically... Looks I got my wish.
Never ever compare yourself to Jesus. It might work as joke when you act ridiculously egoistic on purpose, to get a few laughs with your friends, but it sure as hell won't work in a court room.

The whole thing of religion just stinks mile away. You can't do ANYTHING under the cloak of faith.

And the First Amendment... From what I've gathered, lawyers do have their own set of rules they need to follow, so it really doesn't work that way. But hey, he can complain when they take his license away. He'll have the full freedom of speech then.
Besides (while I don't know the system there), there has to be other ways to complain that send countless of insulting letters, not to mention, makes both insulting and false claims of these people more or less public.

There's no way he can get away with that.

Gift:

The Fieger case doesn't get him off the hook. If anything, he should get the hook for misrepresenting to the court the holding in Feiger. The Fieger case was an apple. Jack's case is an orange.

He's thanking the Court (and thus the Judge) Repeatedly for their time, and yet he's filing motions to see Dava Tunis thrown off the case?

I CALL BULLSHIT!

@paul:
the man is good at twisting thing true, and he gets out of alot because he can paint a lie as truth unless you know the truth then his lies look poorly constructed
my gut says nothing neither yes, neither no (even thou you asked dennis)
however Judge Turnis seems to be taking the max ammount of time before ruleing on the matter, and that means the judge is waiding through all the evedence submited, the courts notes, her notes, the record, and hopefuly doing research.
as to the oath thing if and only if it works (Judge Turnis did seem to give JT some leeway and ground to scamper about on aka a bit of preferental treatment to jack otherwise he would have been nailed on all the rules of conduct, etc that he breeched (includeing giveing the presideing judge lots of lip)) it will work only once. He may get retrialed with another judge (who will probably not be so nice and forgiving), but if he attempts the same crud again im sure he would get hoisted for delaying the legal prosses.

no im not in the legal profession so i have no clue about the subtelty's of law that jack seems weild with all the grace of a riverdanceing sloth having a seisure, but im sure that law is ment to be used more like a olympic fencing match.

@Jack Thompson:

If you're saying that because you take a client's matter pro bono, you're not, in handling that matter, still subject to the Bar's Rules of Conduct, then you are more ignorant than I had imagined. That don't even get you a "nice try."

So, his defense is "I'm religious, I can do whatever I want" and "This is a criminal libel case"

Except his religion says to love every man, and this is neither a criminal, nor a libel case. He really is in his completely own world isn't he?

Coherent agrument? Ha!! When you can't keep straight the difference between "in camera" and "ex parte," you get no coherency points. Not in my book.

Well, that was, Disturbing.

Not to be mean, but that was about the most pandering thing I've ever seen. it's also very strange to hear him bitch and whine about his Rights and his Liberties while he spends his life attacking the rights and liberties of others.

Dennis, I can only assume that your wrap up will hopefully include the closing arguments from the other side?

Good work but dang, is it just me, or does this guy really seem to be hiding his panic?

GP: Yuki, the Bar had no verbal closing. They submitted it in writing to the Judge.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Montewell thanks for the info Eisen; try that the next time i need something off the eshop09/23/2014 - 3:54pm
james_fudgere: MP, i've sent tech support a note - thank you :)09/23/2014 - 3:14pm
IanCNah that wasnt directed at you Andrew :)09/23/2014 - 3:00pm
Papa MidnightRe: SIEGE 2014 Keynote: oh dear...09/23/2014 - 2:44pm
MaskedPixelanteDear GP, something called "doubleverify" is causing some nasty browser issues on my end. Probably one of your ads.09/23/2014 - 2:36pm
Andrew EisenOh hell no. No, it took Nintendo a dog's age just to get to the point its competitors have been at for a while! (And it's still not there yet, in a lot of respects.)09/23/2014 - 2:26pm
IanCSame as PSN handles it, fi you are trying to say only nintendo do that.09/23/2014 - 2:23pm
Andrew EisenYou have to try to purchase something first. Pick a game, hit purchase and if your wallet doesn't have enough to cover it, you'll be given an option to "add exact funds" or something like that.09/23/2014 - 2:05pm
MonteI have seen no option for that on my 3DS; anytime i want to add funds it only gives me the option to add in denominations of $10, 20, 50 or 10009/23/2014 - 2:03pm
IanCWhat Andrew Wilson said. PSN is the same when you make a purchase over a certain price (£5 in the UK)09/23/2014 - 2:02pm
Andrew EisenNeither eShop charges sales tax either. At least in California.09/23/2014 - 2:00pm
Andrew EisenBoth Wii U and 3DS eShops allow you to add funds in the exact amount of whatever's in your shopping cart. If your game is $39.99, you can add exactly $39.99.09/23/2014 - 1:57pm
Infophile@Matthew Wilson: As I understand it, any regulations to force tax online would also set up an easy database for these stores to use, minimizing overhead.09/23/2014 - 1:30pm
MonteReally, the eshop just does next to nothing to make buying digitally advantagous for the customer. Its nice to have the game on my 3DS, but i can get more for less buying a physical copy at retail. And that's not even counting buying used09/23/2014 - 1:18pm
MonteIanC, The Eshop wallet system only lets you add funds in set denominations and the tax makes sure you no longer have round numbers so you ALWAYS loose money. A $39.99 game for instance requires you to add $50 instead of just $4009/23/2014 - 1:13pm
Matthew Wilsonbut thats just it those sites, even the small ones, sell all over the country.09/23/2014 - 11:12am
Neenekoeither that or it would follow the car model of today. big ticket items are taxed according to your residence, not where you buy them.09/23/2014 - 11:07am
NeenekoI doubt it would be the retailer that handles the tax in the first place. If it goes through it would probably be folded in as a service on the processor end or via 'turbotax' style applications.09/23/2014 - 11:05am
Matthew Wilsonsimple there are over 10k tax areas in the us for sales tax. it would be impossible for small online retailers to handle that.09/23/2014 - 10:55am
IanCWhats wrong with charging tax in an online shop?09/23/2014 - 10:47am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician