pwizard2 writes "Gamepolitics reports that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson faces the start of an ethics trial this morning, a process which could ultimately see him disbarred. The review board has set aside the entire week to hear details on the case. 'Over the weekend, Thompson turned to the Florida Supreme Court in an apparent effort to block this morning's trial from moving forward. In one court filing Thompson asserted that he was willing to accept a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law. The embattled attorney claimed that such an offer had been on the table, but that the Florida Bar was now seeking his permanent disbarment.'"
Should've taken the 90 days when he could, it sounds like. With all his antics, I think a disbarment is pretty much in the cards. The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.
With all his antics, I think a disbarment is pretty much in the cards. The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.
Disbarment is considered an extremely serious sanction -- it basically takes away a person's main livelihood, so it's good that it's a relatively slow and deliberative process. The argument, of course, is that a person's actions render him or her unfit to practice. Fraud against clients or the court are generally considered the most serious infractions. That said, it may well be warranted in this case.
As for being admitted someplace else, each state has different requirements, but all have some sort of ethics requirement. Being disbarred in one state is serious enough that it would likely be quite difficult to pass the ethics requirements of another state.
each state has different requirements, but all have some sort of ethics requirement
Errr ethics for lawyers? What is the question "would you sell your grandmother for a BMW or cash?" The "ethical" answer being cash as cars contribute to global warming.
Considering that a lawyer may (conceivably during my lifetime) be privy to my secrets (attorney client privilege), control my finances (trust funds),, act as a representative for my interests in negotiations, or be called upon to explain or negotiate contracts, I'd want someone who could keep a secret. could refrain from embezzlement, and keep his or her cllient's interests at the forefront.
The 90 days disbarment was an 'offer' from his side, it has NOT been offered to him, so it was not HIS to take but rather the bar's(?)
The fact that he tried this, suggests he really is worried. He might have good reason.
He is making lawyers look bad, yes "they replaced rats with lawyers in lab experiments, because the scientists don't bond with them like they do with rats" lawyers and I can't help but feel that NOT finding him guilty won't make them look any better.
I think he will go down on this. Offcourse that won't stop him, just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up.
You don't get disbarred for making lawyers look bad, lawyers in general always look bad because one side always loses. You get disbarred for ethical violations. His use of deliberately misleading, unscientific and downright false data in his lawsuits along with frivolous and baseless lawsuits simply apparently only for press attention is what's going to bring him down.
The biggest question is, and I don't know enough about the process to know whether this could happen, if he can get accepted into the bar anyplace else.
I doubt that. He's an initiating source. He's not acting as a representative for others as far as I can tell. His disbarment would be something of a deterrent for others not to "take his place" so to speak. If there were 'others' the time to "join the fight" has long since passed. He would have welcomed backers for his cause.
Actually, since several major media outlets have already used him as an "expert", I have a feeling we'll see just as much of him. Hell, with the way he's acted, I have a feeling he'll turn into a Cindy Sheehan, so to speak. I fully believe he'll gather up a group of similar-minded people to protest everything he can, and I'm sure he'll do everything in his power to keep showing up on news segments after more school shootings.
No, I don't think he'll go away. I think we'll hear even more out of him. "Ohh.. The gaming industry feared me so much that they manipulated/bribed people to get me disbarred!"...
Bah..
I also see it as if someone else gets in there and does the same thing, people will just be like, oh look, another Jack Thompson. I doubt anything will really change if he does get disbarred other than we wont have to hear about him as much. Instead, he'll just start writing letters to the editor and blogging, but his creditability will be shot so it wont matter.
Well, the solution would seem to be, Get a couple black helicopters with Take Two or Vice City logos on the side and have them fly around the the disbarment trial dropping 10% discount leaflets a few days into the trial and the day the verdict comes in.
Then maybe he would blow a gasket and get committed to a mental ward after the fact.
In February 2007, the Florida Bar filed disbarment proceedings against Thompson over allegations of professional misconduct. The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them.[115] According to the complaint, Thompson accused attorney Cardenas of "distribution of pornography to children," claimed that the Alabama judge presiding over the Devin Moore case "breaks the rules, even the Alabama State Bar Rules, because he thinks that the rules don't apply to him," and sent a letter to Blank Rome's managing partner, saying, "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.
> "Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith."
I wonder which part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" he doesn't understand.
Funny how nearly all of our public figures who espouse Christianity (including the guy in the White House) conveniently forget these teachings.
Faith is fine, zealotry is the problem. Faith is when religion prompts people to do the right thing and live their lives in pure and wholesome ways. Zealotry is when you tell everyone else what they should be thinking and doing, while simultaneously thinking and doing the things you're speaking out against.
This idiot is pushing his own short-sighted moral agenda and abusing his standing as an attorney to do it. He does not deserve the veneer of credibility that is currently afforded him.
But he'll still seen as an authority on the topic of video game violence. Just because he can't bring or be a lawyer for these lawsuits the media companies will still talk to him and use him as a face man.
An easy to discredit 'authority' of video game violence.
"Interesting point Mr Thompson, but isn't true that you have been found in a court of law to be a habitual liar? One who will say any crazy thing to try to push an agenda?"
Jack Thompson is one of the best things ever to happen to Penny Arcade, the ERSB, Gaming Journalism, and communist pedophiles who make snuff films. He makes such a spectacular punching bag that we need to keep him around. Be warned, the guy who ends up taking his place might have a clue, and then we'd be fucked.
Don't worry, in the end, Gabe and Tycho will save him by making a donnation to the Crazy Attorney Fund in his name and he will react by suing them for extorsion.
I always hear people saying this, but I don't agree. I just can't.
The arguments aren't flawed because of the people spitting them forth. The arguments are flawed because the premise is ridiculous.
Video games don't turn impressionable kinds into raving maniacs any more than ultra-violent Warner Brothers cartoons did, or playing cowboys and indians did. The premise is flawed, but there's money to be made and TV time to be had in putting it forth, and there will be as long as scare tactics are used to cajole an uninformed public.
No, don't worry about whoever replaces Jack in this fight. The next person will look just as ridiculous, but it'll be because of what they say, instead of how certifiably crazy they are.
Alright, since you brought it up: Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.
In those studies, they specified that the youths responding adversely to video games were already aggressive, or otherwise disruptive. It's in the first sentence of the actual report [indiana.edu], if you don't want to rely on
He is fighting for something he believes in. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him and I think he is causing more harm than good. Why go after him, when there are lawyers out there who will get an obviously guilty man off for double murder even with DNA evidence pointing to him doing it. Ohh, and by the way, my gloves don't fit when I have a rubber glove on either, especially after they have shrunk due to being soaked in a liquid and dried. I want that lawyer disbarred. So, get a murderer off on a technicality, he is a hero, try to remove an evil (perceived by him) and improve society, disbar him. Gotta love it.
One thing I've found is typical: the louder they preach, and more specifically, try to force it on others, the less they practice. Although this is not an absolute, Jack is not one of the exceptions.
It's from Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary.
Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
Pat Robertson has converted far more Christians to athiesm than atheists to Christianity.
My sins have been paid for and are forgiven. In return I must forgive others who harm me. Seems a fair enough deal to me, since I'm imperfect. If I was a banker or a lwayer or a $5000 suit-wearing preacher I might have cause to worry.
Do you feel that people should be held accountable for their actions? This disbarment trial is due to specific grievances that have been filed against him. If he is found guilty of those, then he loses his license. It's not like this is something that "just happened" to him. This whole process is a direct result of actions that he has chosen to take.
As for your "I mean really he's been fed by the media to a certain extent" comment, remember that more often than not, he sought out the media as a platform to pound his chest (and bible). Again, his actions, not anyone else's.
Well if he states stuff like "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." He shouldn't be surprised if that firm defends complains about him. On top of that, he is trying to take away some of our freedoms, so I understand why he is not getting any sympathy.
Should he lose his right to practice his profession?
I don't know - it's up to the bar association to decide that. Lawyers are in a powerful position - there need to be
Yes, it is. An evil person, by definition, is one who does evil things. Thompson seeks to impose his values on others through malicious, frivolous litigation, slander, and harassment. That's evil, even if he himself believes otherwise.
Yes, he is. His actions speak for themselves -- and I don't mean just because I disagree with his opinion, I mean I despise his methods.
I know other lawyers who really are truly evil, the worst kind of people, who I think should burn in hell.
And so is he.
Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone to burn in hell, if there were an alternative. But this isn't hell, it's only unemployment.
Jack is someone who felt they found their cause in life, it's just that his cause positions him such that he's an opponent to those who partake in the enjoyment of action games.
I'm an opponent of people who require and produce DRM. That doesn't mean I'm willing to slander, sue, and outright lie every chance I get. Jack is willing to do all that and more.
Yes he's an annoyance, but take away they guy's career completely, especially when there's such worse out there practicing law.
Oh, I agree, there are worse who should be gone. But that doesn't excuse Jack.
Wouldn't just some kind of restraining motion to limit his outbursts be sufficient?
We tried that. He violated his restraining order.
Should he lose his right to practice his profession?
Yes, absolutely. Not because I'm vindictive, but because the way in which he practices his profession reflects poorly on the whole profession -- and that's saying something, when we're talking about lawyers. And because there are people who will take him seriously simply because he's a lawyer -- say someone goes to him for legal advice. Should they have to suffer just so Jack won't have to find a new job?
Say it was murder. We don't always jail people to punish them -- sometimes, we jail people because they are actually a danger to society.
The only remaining question is why it took so long.
Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
As for being admitted someplace else, each state has different requirements, but all have some sort of ethics requirement. Being disbarred in one state is serious enough that it would likely be quite difficult to pass the ethics requirements of another state.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Funny)
Errr ethics for lawyers? What is the question "would you sell your grandmother for a BMW or cash?" The "ethical" answer being cash as cars contribute to global warming.
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Cry me a river (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Guantanamo, a.k.a. Godwin v2.0.
The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (Score:5, Informative)
The 90 days disbarment was an 'offer' from his side, it has NOT been offered to him, so it was not HIS to take but rather the bar's(?)
The fact that he tried this, suggests he really is worried. He might have good reason.
He is making lawyers look bad, yes "they replaced rats with lawyers in lab experiments, because the scientists don't bond with them like they do with rats" lawyers and I can't help but feel that NOT finding him guilty won't make them look any better.
I think he will go down on this. Offcourse that won't stop him, just because he is no longer a lawyer doesn't mean he can't speak up.
Parent
Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs (Score:4, Interesting)
I imagine this will make him much less popular on the talk show circuit.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#Examples_of_appeals_to_authority [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/26/jack-thompson-submits-gay-porn-to-court-judge-not-amused/ [joystiq.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If he was a doctor he could! [google.com]
-mcgrew
You mean like... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't think he'll go away. I think we'll hear even more out of him. "Ohh.. The gaming industry feared me so much that they manipulated/bribed people to get me disbarred!"...
Bah..
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Then maybe he would blow a gasket and get committed to a mental ward after the fact.
WHY?! (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you post this without mentioning why they want him barred?
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure? How about dismemberment?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)
You obviously play videogames too much.
Parent
Owww (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Informative)
In February 2007, the Florida Bar filed disbarment proceedings against Thompson over allegations of professional misconduct. The action was the result of separate grievances filed by people claiming that Thompson made defamatory, false statements and attempted to humiliate, embarrass, harass or intimidate them.[115] According to the complaint, Thompson accused attorney Cardenas of "distribution of pornography to children," claimed that the Alabama judge presiding over the Devin Moore case "breaks the rules, even the Alabama State Bar Rules, because he thinks that the rules don't apply to him," and sent a letter to Blank Rome's managing partner, saying, "Your law firm has actively and knowingly facilitated by various means the criminal distribution of sexual material to minors." Thompson claims that the complaints violate state religious protections because his advocacy is motivated by his Christian faith.
Parent
Motivated by his Christian faith? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder which part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" he doesn't understand.
Funny how nearly all of our public figures who espouse Christianity (including the guy in the White House) conveniently forget these teachings.
W
Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, until some evidence proves otherwise, it is an unfounded claim.
Parent
Re:WHY?! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
About time (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope he starves.
Re: (Score:2)
-jcr
dog may lose it teeth (Score:2)
Oh PLEEEEEASEEEE be the anti-game authority!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
An easy to discredit 'authority' of video game violence.
"Interesting point Mr Thompson, but isn't true that you have been found in a court of law to be a habitual liar? One who will say any crazy thing to try to push an agenda?"
Parent
Save Jack! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Save Jack! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Save Jack! (Score:5, Insightful)
The arguments aren't flawed because of the people spitting them forth. The arguments are flawed because the premise is ridiculous.
Video games don't turn impressionable kinds into raving maniacs any more than ultra-violent Warner Brothers cartoons did, or playing cowboys and indians did. The premise is flawed, but there's money to be made and TV time to be had in putting it forth, and there will be as long as scare tactics are used to cajole an uninformed public.
No, don't worry about whoever replaces Jack in this fight. The next person will look just as ridiculous, but it'll be because of what they say, instead of how certifiably crazy they are.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal - and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.
In those studies, they specified that the youths responding adversely to video games were already aggressive, or otherwise disruptive. It's in the first sentence of the actual report [indiana.edu], if you don't want to rely on
Go on, admit it. (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone here initially and wishfully read that title as "Dismemberment Trial".
This trial (Score:3, Funny)
May contain sniveling, whining, pandering and groveling.
Online experience may vary and is not rated by the ESRB.
I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I disagree with him... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Informative)
Christian, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My sins have been paid for and are forgiven. In return I must forgive others who harm me. Seems a fair enough deal to me, since I'm imperfect. If I was a banker or a lwayer or a $5000 suit-wearing preacher I might have cause to worry.
Re:Can't wait (Score:5, Funny)
And then a stone came flying out of the back of the crowd and hit Jesus smack in the forehead.
Jesus picked himself up off the ground and grumbled, "Mother..."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:5, Insightful)
As for your "I mean really he's been fed by the media to a certain extent" comment, remember that more often than not, he sought out the media as a platform to pound his chest (and bible). Again, his actions, not anyone else's.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Should he lose his right to practice his profession?
I don't know - it's up to the bar association to decide that. Lawyers are in a powerful position - there need to be
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it is. An evil person, by definition, is one who does evil things. Thompson seeks to impose his values on others through malicious, frivolous litigation, slander, and harassment. That's evil, even if he himself believes otherwise.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, he is. His actions speak for themselves -- and I don't mean just because I disagree with his opinion, I mean I despise his methods.
And so is he.
Now, I wouldn't condemn anyone to burn in hell, if there were an alternative. But this isn't hell, it's only unemployment.
I'm an opponent of people who require and produce DRM. That doesn't mean I'm willing to slander, sue, and outright lie every chance I get. Jack is willing to do all that and more.
Oh, I agree, there are worse who should be gone. But that doesn't excuse Jack.
We tried that. He violated his restraining order.
Yes, absolutely. Not because I'm vindictive, but because the way in which he practices his profession reflects poorly on the whole profession -- and that's saying something, when we're talking about lawyers. And because there are people who will take him seriously simply because he's a lawyer -- say someone goes to him for legal advice. Should they have to suffer just so Jack won't have to find a new job?
Say it was murder. We don't always jail people to punish them -- sometimes, we jail people because they are actually a danger to society.
The only remaining question is why it took so long.
Parent
Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
s/Stalin/Bush/