Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

May 29, 2008 -

As GamePolitics reported yesterday, controversial attorney Jack Thompson was unsuccessful in a bid to subpoena 33 witnesses for a June 4th sanctions hearing before Judge Dava Tunis.

Tunis, the Florida Supreme Court-appointed referee who presided over the Florida Bar's prosecution of professional misconduct charges against Thompson, quashed the subpoenas in response to a motion from the Bar. In doing so, Tunis ruled that:

[Thompson] is precluded from presenting witnesses or documentary evidence in mitigation in this case due to his failure to comply with the bar's discovery requests.

An order issued by Tunis in October, 2007 elaborates on what the referee terms Thompson's "failure to comply." The upshot is that Judge Tunis will not allow Thompson to subpoena witnesses for next week's hearing. Thompson has indicated that he will boycott the hearing.

In any event, GamePolitics has obtained the list of Thompson's proposed witnesses (although not from Thompson, who declined our request). Read on as we analyze the 33 names and guess at Thompson's legal strategy (never an easy task):

  • Jeb Bush: Former Governor of Florida, brother of President Bush; Last week Thompson sent the ex-Guv a rant explaining (sort of) why he wanted him to appear.
  • Strauss Zelnick: Chairman of Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two Interactive; a longtime target of Thompson's. Four of the five Bar complaints against Thompson stem from his involvement in cases targeting Take-Two games.
  • Judge Ronald Friedman: presided over the 2006 Bully case; testified against Thompson at last year's Bar trial.
  • Ian Comisky: Partner in Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome; the firm defended Take-Two in Thompson's Alabama lawsuit and two of its attorneys testified against Thompson at last year's Bar trial.
  • Norm Kent: Florida attorney who has represented shock radio in Florida; he and Thompson have a long and contentious legal history.
  • Gwynne Alice Young: an attorney at the Miami firm where Thompson's wife is a partner; during the course of the Bar's prosecution against him, Thompson has been critical of what he claims is Judge Tunis's lack of sensitivity to his wife's battle against cancer; possibly related to that issue
  • Various Past & Present Florida Bar officials: John Berry, Kenneth Marvin, Tony Boggs, Mary Ellen Bateman, John Harkness, Jan Wichrowski, Lorraine Hoffmann, Arlene Sankel, Barnaby Min, Frank Angones, Jesse Diner, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, Hank Coxe, Barry Richard, Ben Kuehne, John White
  • Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero: unknown why Thompson would single out Cantero from the other justices; the Florida Supreme Court oversees the Bar disciplinary process. Thompson is currently suing the justices in federal court
  • Florida 11th Circuit Court Chief Judge Joseph Farina: Judge Tunis's boss.
  • Al Cardenas: Prominent Florida attorney; his firm's complaint was part of last year's Bar trial (the non-video game related part); Judge Tunis has recommended two findings of guilt against Thompson in regard to Tew-Cardenas
  • David Pollack, Florida attorney: Thompson has claimed in court filings that Pollack was appointed by the Bar to investigate a complaint against Thompson, found no evidence, but was overruled by the Bar
  • Sam Partridge, General Counsel, Alabama State Bar: Alabama Circuit Court Judge James Moore testified against Thompson at his 2007 Bar trial; however, Partridge's specific connection to the case is not known.
  • Oren Wunderman, PhD: Thompson has written that Wunderman gave him a clean bill of mental health.
  • Kenneth Harms, former Miami Police Chief: he was mentioned as a potential witness in Thompson's 2006 attempt to have Rockstar's Bully declared a public nuisance before Judge Friedman in a Miami Court.
  • Janet Folger, Christian conservative commentator, author and activist - possibly a Thompson character witness.
  • Judge Richard Yale Feder: a Florida jurist with experience in Bar disciplinary matters; connection to Thompson's case unknown.
  • Randall Marshall, Legal Director, ACLU of Florida: connection unknown, but Thompson claimed recently that he had joined the ACLU and might be seeking its support on what he deems an issue of expressing his Christian views.
  • JR Rosskamp: Jo Edda Rosskamp filed a lawsuit last year against a partner in the Tew-Cardenas law firm; Thompson represented her. A JR Rosskamp is a South Florida financial advisor. It's unknown to GP whether they are the same person.

 


Comments

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Nuremburg eh? What's jacks plea "I was only following my internal orders to be an arrogant, belligerant, childish, domineering, egotistical, filibustering, grandstanding, hypocritical, ineffectual, judgemental, klannish, lunatic, manipulative, nonsensical, odious, pejorative, quizzical, rapacious, slimy, thick-headed, unberable, vile, wanky, xylophone-hating (Hey I had to get an X in there somehow), youth-phobic, zit on the arse of humanity"?

Edit: I just thought, the X could have been xenophobic but is he actually xenophobic? From what I can tell he's open minded towards race, religion (somewhat), nationality & political persuasion, its just people's hobbies that matter.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

> I just thought, the X could have been xenophobic but is he actually xenophobic?

Oh my goodness, yes.  He has a number of choice quotes about Sony and "a second Pearl Harbor".  He's run his mouth off about Islam more than once, and heck he's even got it in for Scotland (where Rockstar is).

I dunno tho, "xylophobe" has a great ring to it tho :)

 

 

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

I was thinking more of the "tried in absentia" aspect of the Trials (i.e., despite the fact that several defendants had already absconded to South America and parts elsewhere, the court still tried and convicted them -- just like imagine Jack's court will, if he makes good on his promise to not show up). But, now that you mention it, Jack's "I was motivated by the voice of God I hear in my head to do what I did and that therefore makes it perfectly acceptable" isn't too far removed from the "acting under orders" defense of many of the defendants at Nuremberg.

As an aside, remember Miles Gopman? Jack's wanna-be co-counsel at his hearing before Judge Tunis? There's an interesting court opinion concerning a matter in which Mr. Gopman was involved as an attorney which gives, I believe, interesting insight. And makes you wonder who learnt their courtroom style from whom. Miles from Jack? Or Jack from Miles? opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2008/02-25-08/07-1189.pdf 

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Reading through that list, there's one thing that really strikes me.

Oren Wunderman, PhD is seriously one of the most awesome name/title combinations that I've ever seen.  I wonder if he has "Dr. Wunderman" business cards, presumably with a garish color scheme and flashy embossed logo.  Hm...

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

This means JT's either incredibly dense or incredibly shrewd. I have to wonder if he didn't deliberately decline to give a witness list so that he can later cry about how the court wouldn't allow him to bring in witnesses. Most people would be upset to know that the courts essentially are hamstringing his defense and don't have the legal proficiency to understand the procedural mistake that resulted in the subpoenas being quashed. It certainly sounds good for JT to say that SCOFla was so hellbent on persecuting him that they wouldn't let him call witnesses or submit his own motions, and it takes some research to learn that there's a plausible reason for both sanctions being ordered against JT.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

> This means JT's either incredibly dense or incredibly shrewd.

Considering he has not once won, ever, it's not hard to fathom which of these choices I'd wager on.

 

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Actually JT used to be pretty effective at winning cases, including suing the FL supream court and getting a $20,000 settlement.  He also was forced in for a psych exam and passed at one point (not talking about the more recient church buddy one).

So I'm guessing that he has been getting less stable but looks back on when he was functional then assumes that similiar tactics will continue to work.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

He also was forced in for a psych exam and passed at one point (not talking about the more recient church buddy one).

You mean the one in 1990?  Makes me wonder how much things, like such exams, have changed in psychology after 17 years...

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

I think you're pretty far out on a limb to call what he has done in regard to cases "effective."

 

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

He won, or at least settled in his favor, which essentialy means he won.

Over the years JT has won or weasled his way out of quite a few cases.  It is only lately that he has turned into a trainwreak with one failure after another.

So like him or not, he was quite an effective lawyer once upon a time.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Well that's the thing, he didn't actually win that case, he got a settlement. They gave him money to shut him up (court cases are long and expensive regardless of how irrelevant they are) but the message he got from it was that if he's loud enough people will give him money. His only tactic is to threaten people and hope they give him what he wants out of fear ( /ignorance that all of it is bullshit) or just to have peace.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Like I have said before, his last run in with the Bar obviously has influenced his behavior.

Don't like the way your case is going?  Try to get those involved ticked off enough, play innocent about doing it while saying it is interfering with your case and is causing them to be prejudged.  Also play the "they hate my religion" card whatever chance you get for an excuse.  Make the case hell for others anyway you can, like by submitting numerous documents, killing fax machines, sending out lie filled press releases, etc to do whatever you can to tie up the judge and court's resources....

Don't like the outcome?  Threaten those higher up, along with filing the usual follow up suit, then same as above.

Thus he believes that no matter what he does or is the outcome, he can always invalidate it or at least get it overturned, and that he is untouchable/stoppable by the Bar.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

I'm kinda wondering what the logic is behind subpoena-ing people to a hearing that wouldn't include testimony.  Is he really so vindictive that he would subpoena people just to interrupt their normal workday to hang around the courtroom?

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

There you go again, using 'logic' when reffering to JT, you should know better by now. :P

400 Episodes, TEN YEARS and counting: http://www.orangeloungeradio.com/ | Voice of Geeks Network - http://www.vognetwork.com

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

I do believe the unfortunate awnser to that may be yes.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Let's not forget the people he eventually decided not to include on his final witness list:

 

Michael Jackson: Former king of pop and african-american male. Currently resides in "Neverland" a theme-park styled home/fortress which is actually a front for a child-molestation ring. Current relation to Jack's case is unknown although both can testify that "Wacko Jacko" is detrimental to their feelings.

Janet Reno: Former political opponent in Jack's bid to be elected Dade-County State Attorney. Jack ultimately lost in a landslide win for incumbent Janet Reno. Thompson filed battery charges against Reno and tried to portray her as a "non-heterosexual". Current relation to Jack's case is unknown, but Jack still probably harbors some hatred against Reno and would probably like to point out her specific involvement in the vast conpiracy theory against him.

Kaz Hirai and Ken Kuturagi: Current and former Cheif Executives for Sony Computer Entertainment. Thompson alleges that "Krazy Ken" and "Krazy Kaz" are responsible for Japan's involvement in a subversive "Pearl Harbor 2" campaign against the youth of America. Thompson claims that a popular YouTube clip of Kaz Hirai, in which Hirai shouts "It's Riddddggge Raceeeeeerrrrr", is actually a hypnotic message designed to trigger the programming installed by Sony's video games a la "The Manchurian Candidate". Thompson also claims that Ken Kuturagi's "Dual Shock" line of controllers plays a key role in "programming" today's "Manchurian Children" and that the vibrations emitted by the controller elicit a "pleasurable jolt straight out of B.F. Skinner's basement".

Claude, Toni Cipriani, Tommy Vercetti, Victor Vance, Carl Johnson, and Niko Bellic: Although researchers were unable to locate any information pertaining to these particular witnesses, Thompson claims they are defectors from "Rockstar" and "Take-Two" who want to blow the lid on the misdeeds of their former employers.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

"'Neverland' a theme-park styled home/fortress which is actually a front for a child-molestation ring."

Of which the Burger King is a member.

I AM A LOST SOUL, CONDEMNED TO HAUNT THE DREAMS OF JOHN BRUCE "JACK" THOMPSON UNTIL HIS CRUSADE AGAINST VIDEO GAMES ENDS. SOMEONE, PLEASE! END MY SUFFERING!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I AM DOOMED TO HAUNT JACK THOMPSON'S DREAMS UNTIL HIS CRUSADE AGAINST VIDEO GAMES ENDS.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

I would also love to see Hanover Fiste called in as a character witness.  If you ever saw the movie Heavy Metal (one of my all time favorites), you know how that went down!

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

That was some good LOL's.  Thanks for making my morning.

---------------------------------

So speak I, some random guy.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Jack,

You had the opportunity to answer the questions in Discovery and notify who your witnesses are and what their testimony would be about.  Instead, you decided that was "too good for you" to respond to.  So, in essence, it's your own fault that you can't call these witnesses to the hearing.

So long Jack, Happy Trails!

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

To Mr. Thompson:

Just because you're a Christian doesn't make you right. Just because that's what's motivating you doesn't mean you need to win your cases by default. What motivates you doesn't make things not related to religion (ie, video games, violent or not) magically shift to your viewpoint.

You lose. The ACLU won't help you. Good day sir.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Thompson claimed recently that he had joined the ACLU and might be seeking its support on what he deems an issue of expressing his Christian views

Sorry Jack, they only deal with REAL instances of suppression of freedom of speech. Nobody's taking that away from you.

This is about your license to practice as a lawyer, nothing more.

-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

What does subpoea mean???

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

It is an order of the court requiring the recipient to appear and give testimony.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

I've long tried to discern a method to Jack's madness, trying to see if there may be a point and some over-arching legal strategy and shrewd maneuvering behind all these wild filings.  But if there is some grand, intricate plan, I don't see it and I've since given up.

Has Jack really joined the ACLU?  I find that laughable, especially since they once labled him "Censor of the Year."  Then again, the ACLU has never been picky when it comes to what kinds of people they choose to defend, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised to find if it's true.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Joining the ACLU is a matter of sending them $20 a year or more, and they send you a membership card and newsletters.  It certainly doesn't get you any special consideration from them.  I send them $100 a year myself, though I think I've recently let my membership lapse (bad me).

(BTW, not a fan of the rich text edit box -- is there any way to disable it by default?)

 

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

...what don't you like about the edit box?

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

It's *extremely* slow to load up, and this is on two different brand new PC's.  It's as if it's not getting cached.  It does something like focus stealing by jumping to the input box once it finally loads, losing my position in the thread I was reading, and it causes the scroll position of the browser to reset every time I hit enter.

 

ACLU

The ACLU defends the rights of people from the best to the worst of them. They wouldn't support Jack Thompson as he has done plenty of bad crap that they would not support. Be nice to the ACLU

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

YES! I was just thinking that myself, its the same on my piece of crap XP machine, my good XP machine & my great vista machine.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Can you tell where they said that and their reasons (Not that I don't agree, but I'm curious about what they wrote about him). I searched on their website, but I didn't found anything.

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

Even if he could subpoena these people, it doesn't seem like any of them would offer testimony that would help his case...

Re: Analyzing Jack Thompson's Would-be Witnesses

That's a lot of people, it won't matter though. He's career is as good as done ;).

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Michael ChandraSo really the guy's own words strike me as "wah! How dare you disagree with me!" behaviour, which is the sort of childish attitude I am unfortunately not surprised by.10/20/2014 - 2:17pm
Michael ChandraCorrect AE, but then again the owner's own words are about "wishes", not about an order. No "we told him not to", but going against his wishes.10/20/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonyup. sadly that has been true for awhile.10/20/2014 - 2:10pm
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
Michael Chandra'How dare he ignore my wishes and my advice! I am his boss! I could have ordered him but I should be able to say it's advice rather than ordering him directly!'10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP goes "EZK, do not talk about X publicly for a week, we're preparing a big article on it" and he still tweets about X, they'd have a legitimate reason to be pissed.10/20/2014 - 8:52am
Michael ChandraIf GP tells Andrew "we'd kinda prefer it if you stopped talking about Wii-U for 1 week" and he'd tweet about it anyway, firing him for it would be idiotic.10/20/2014 - 8:51am
Michael ChandraLegal right, sure. But that doesn't make it any less pathetic of an excuse.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
ZippyDSMleeYou mean right to fire states.10/20/2014 - 8:50am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician