Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial 258

Posted by Zonk
from the facing-the-music dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial

Comments Filter:
  • Cry me a river (Score:5, Insightful)

    by faloi (738831) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @09:50AM (#21491309)
    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.
    • Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)

      by radarjd (931774) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @09:55AM (#21491389)

      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.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @10:12AM (#21491601) Journal

      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.

      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @11:10AM (#21492205) Journal

        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.
        It means he can no longer speak from a position of *authority.
        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]
      • by Tom (822)

        I think he will go down on this.
        So do I. I'm fairly sure this is the kind of hearings that you don't even open unless you are fairly sure of the outcome already.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by rahvin112 (446269)
        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.
    • Re:Cry me a river (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jaysyn (203771) <jaysyn+slashdot@noSpAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @10:29AM (#21491741) Homepage Journal
      I agree. Submitting gay porn to the court in order to make the attorney that is practicing against you look bad is generally frowned upon.

      http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/26/jack-thompson-submits-gay-porn-to-court-judge-not-amused/ [joystiq.com]
      • I read the article. I am not too much into games. I was going "Who is this guy and what did he do to get into this mess?" The parent mentioned the event. I remembered the event, not the name attached to it. Thanks for the information the article is lacking and the link. It saved me from having to do a Google search.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197)
      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.

      If he was a doctor he could! [google.com]

      -mcgrew

    • by Poromenos1 (830658) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @03:35PM (#21495831) Homepage
      Jack Thompson walks into a bar, and the bartender yells "get out, you!"?
  • WHY?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bromskloss (750445) <auxiliary.addres ... NosPAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @09:52AM (#21491361)

    How can you post this without mentioning why they want him barred?

    • Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Funny)

      by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @09:57AM (#21491411)
      So.. "Because he's a douchebag" isn't an ample reason?
    • Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Asic Eng (193332) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @10:10AM (#21491559)
      Here is some helpful info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney) [wikipedia.org] From their page:

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mqduck (232646)

        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.

        I hate Thompson as much as anybody, and he may well deserve to be disbarred, but I don't think it's fair to do so for the reasons stated. He didn't invent claims out of nothing, he made interpretations of real things that were quite, uh, inflammatory. His reasoning was ridiculous, but not patently absurd. There's a logic to them that can't be categorically called false.

        • Re:WHY?! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by oahazmatt (868057) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @11:39AM (#21492641) Journal

          I hate Thompson as much as anybody, and he may well deserve to be disbarred, but I don't think it's fair to do so for the reasons stated.
          You don't think it's fair that someone be punished for slander or libel about the distribution of child pornography?

          Remember, until some evidence proves otherwise, it is an unfounded claim.
      • > "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.

        W
    • by sammy baby (14909)
      Sorry - minor quibble. It's disbarred. The "bar" here refers to a body of people legally recognized as being permitted to practice law - in this case, the Florida Bar.
    • by Tom (822)
      He is Jack Thompson. What else do you need to say?
    • by nuzak (959558)
      Disbarred. He's currently a member of the Bar, they want him off. Where the name "bar" comes from is something an actual lawyer will have to chime in and tell you. Probably an abbreviation of "barrister", though I don't know what that means either.

      Actually, the specific sanction they're looking for isn't publicly known. But he's been up in front of the disciplinary panel before, and there's supposedly 50 separate ethics complaints, from different states, including claims of lying to clients and judges.
  • About time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by godfra (839112)
    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.

    I hope he starves.
    • by jcr (53032)
      Sorry to nit-pick, but it's not a moral agenda. It's a self-aggrandizing agenda.

      -jcr
    • You may find yourself agreeing with him inadvertently.

      It's not really about his agenda. A lawyer can, if he wishes, pursue an agenda of turning the US into a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. It's not unethical for him to believe this would be a good idea.

      What's unethical is pursing his agenda -- any agenda -- by illegal means.

      Mr. Thompson would love us to believe he is being targeted for his agenda, specifically for being what he calls "a Christian". Apparently this version of Christianity does not inv
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      Minor correctiuon... his agenda is not moral.
    • by camusflage (65105)
      He does not deserve the veneer of credibility that is currently afforded him.

      So let's say he is disbarred. That doesn't, nor should it, preclude him from representing himself in court. Now, calling himself an attorney may be a bit of a stretch, if he isn't admitted to practice in any of the fifty states. Same with lawyer. He could say he's a "law-talking guy", but that doesn't seem to carry the same credibility that attorney or lawyer are afforded. He could (assuming he successfully completed law school [wh
  • 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.
  • Save Jack! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by poena.dare (306891) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @10:02AM (#21491487)
    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.
    • by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @10:22AM (#21491673)
      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 imagine no one who had a clue would seriously consider replacing him.
    • Re:Save Jack! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bandman (86149) <bandman@NOSPaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @11:52AM (#21492803) Homepage
      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.
    • 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.
      There is room for many nut cases in the US. The fact no one has shown up seems to show he won't be replaced.
    • by sm62704 (957197)
      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

      How about a clown/policeman/big brother/preacher/child molester? Yes, I'm referring to Klutzo the Clown [slashdot.org] who was recently tasered to death in the Sangamon County Jail (links to news articles included in that journal).

      Somehow I was amused as hell and thought you guys might be, too.
  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @10:28AM (#21491735)

    Everyone here initially and wishfully read that title as "Dismemberment Trial".

  • Now if we can just get the lawyers for the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone in Washington disbarred, we'll be on to something.
  • This trial (Score:3, Funny)

    by Fx.Dr (915071) <exterminans.paladinsofthelosthour@com> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @11:26AM (#21492439)
    Jack Thompson's trial has been rated 'M' for imMature

    May contain sniveling, whining, pandering and groveling.

    Online experience may vary and is not rated by the ESRB.
  • Does that mean it's Tuesday again?
  • I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anlprb (130123) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @03:03PM (#21495337)
    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.
  • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @04:40PM (#21496737) Journal
    ... it'd be a shame to see a public figure with genuine ethical convictions leave the public spotlight.

Are we running light with overbyte?

Working...