Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
The Courts Government The Media Entertainment Games News

Thompson Kotaku Suit Dismissed 28

So, just yesterday we discussed Thompson's suit filed again Kotaku. Just as quickly as it came, it went. "Federal District Court Judge Paul Huck has dismissed a complaint filed Wednesday against Gawker Media, parent company of the popular Kotaku game blog. In his ruling, Judge Huck wrote that controversial attorney Jack Thompson had failed to follow the proper federal court procedure for amending a complaint." As the story says, "So, how's that Law 101 class going?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thompson Kotaku Suit Dismissed

Comments Filter:
  • by aadvancedGIR ( 959466 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @09:23AM (#18899261)
    The case was dissmissed because that guy can't properly write basic legal documents, but it would have been better if it was dismissed because it was frivolous, because the way I understand the ruling is that he can still ask a real lawyer to rephrase his request and try again.
    • Exactly. Even better would have been if the judge said, "I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul."
      • I the meantime, I poke a look at the complaint, and instead of God, it might be possible that the judge ask a psi to take care of JT. No kidding, no sane humorist could have done something as crazy as this document.
        • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I still find it funny that he tolerates having a phone number with 666 in it - 305-666-4366.
    • by nenya ( 557317 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @09:51AM (#18899601) Homepage
      Actually, the case itself was not dismissed. The news story got the facts wrong. The judge struck the amended complaints from the record, but at this time the case is still pending on the original amended complaint. This ruling doesn't really mean anything.
      • by HappyHead ( 11389 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @12:07PM (#18901753)
        As far as I could tell from reading the complaint itself, the part against and about Kotaku was the ammendment that got struck - the rest of the lawsuit is conspiracy charges against the Florida Bar Association. Reading it through reminded me of a grade appeal I got from a student once - over 200 pages of ranting about conspiracies and all of the people out to get him, and only one sentance actually related to the course, and his grade in it. (Only stating that he was appealing it, nothing more.)
      • The judge struck the amended complaints from the record, but at this time the case is still pending on the original amended complaint.

        Something can't be both original and amended, can it?

        I'm pretty sure you mean "original, un-amended complaint".

        • by nenya ( 557317 )
          Actually, no, I meant "original amended". Thompson had already made one amendment, as allowed by Rule 15. He then tried to make two additional amendments without asking permission first, and the judge struck both of those from the record.

          The case proceeds with the complaint as originally amended.
          • Actually, no, I meant "original amended". Thompson had already made one amendment, as allowed by Rule 15. He then tried to make two additional amendments without asking permission first, and the judge struck both of those from the record.

            Ah, that makes sense.

            My bad. Thanks for the (polite) correction. =)

    • I dunno, since ol' Jack prides himself on being a lawyer this would probably be akin to not being able to spell your name. I know if I was your bog standard lawyer-seeking citizen I wouldn't even DREAM of going to him after hearing he can't even fill out a legal document correctly.

      What a putz. I'm so glad he never gets taken seriously, it's a source of constant entertainment.
      • Yesterday someone said it's only a matter of time before JT sues himself. Maybe he'll sue for legal malpractice?

    • by adona1 ( 1078711 )
      Does this mean his next frivolous lawsuit will have the addendum 'IANAL'? :)
  • Court procedure (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 27, 2007 @09:40AM (#18899443)
    While people may think that filing various types of complaints and following through on them the proper way is fairly straightforward, it's often not as well-documented as you would think (although I would hope a qualified attorney would know what he/she was doing!). I'm currently acting as unofficial secretary to a pro se litigant in a Delaware divorce case, and digging up the information about the whole process is fairly painful. (IANAL, but I've always wanted to pretend to be one! [Thanks, George Castanza.]) There are some good references on divorce law (expensive to purchase, but available in some large libraries), and there are other references that detail previous cases as exhibits on how things /were/ done, but that doesn't tell you how things /should be/ done in your case. (I think there is a "Divorce for Dummies," but I'm not sure I would put my full faith in it.) Since most public policy is derived from the results of previous cases, not necessarily from any passed legislation, you have to either get access to the cases (not such an easy task in Family Courts), which involves paying fees to the Clerks of Court and knowing ahead of time which cases will be relevant, or finding attorneys who will advise you (sometimes you can get unofficial legal advice from a lawyer for much cheaper than being officially represented).

    Even if you can look over forms, case histories, and books and online documentation to give you a "rough idea" of what to do, you can easily miss a certain poorly-documented step or submit the wrong paper or not use proper wording in a Plea, Motion, or Answer, and be unable to actually achieve your goals of contesting, property division, or ancillary support.

    There are more and more free unofficial-advice or legal-chat forums online, and I think there's a few online HOWTOs for filing a Complaint against a source of UCE, named or unnamed, but I think there are lots of opportunities for semi-qualified legal advisement in various discounted or inexpensive ways. (I know there are some resources for representation for battered or deprived women and other such things for Family Court, as well as groups that might offer support in cases revolving around children, but I haven't seen any comprehensive directories of such services online; I know there are some in books, but, I'm an Internet whore, and I want everything to be online or at least referenced online!)

    I'm curious about any other /.'ers involved in pro se litigation, either as a designated party or in an unofficial capacity (e.g., nonrepresenting legal adviser or unofficial secretary), especially about spam cases. Any good websites for this? (Yeah, I know, there's Google, but I figure maybe some people who know of Really Good Places to Look(TM) are hanging around.)
    • Re:Court procedure (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @09:45AM (#18899505)
      I'm curious what percentages of civil cases DON'T follow producure to the letter but they go ahead anyway.

      I mean, Kotaku was appended onto the case that's originally Jack Thomspon vs. a whole bunch of entities (including the Florida BAR). Maybe the judge was just looking for ony slip up, any slip up, regardless of how minor, in order to toss it and avoid extending this debaucle.
    • by nenya ( 557317 )
      I'm not currently involved in litigation, but I am a law student. I'll be finished my first year in two weeks. I actually wrote my previous comment while in Civil Procedure II.
  • by nenya ( 557317 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @09:42AM (#18899461) Homepage
    The case was not dismissed. The judge simply called Thompson for failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which only allows a complaint to be amended unilaterally once. If a party seeks to file a second amendment to their complaint, Rule 15(a) [cornell.edu] requires that that party seek the leave of the court or the consent of the adverse party, and such leave or consent must be granted "where justice requires".

    Thompson is free to seek the consent of the adverse party or the leave of the court. If the case can't go forward unless the complaint be amended and the amendment required isn't too drastic, the FRCP generally require the amendment to be allowed. Thompson just forgot to ask is all. Still, the fact that he botched this uses up the judge's patience, and makes it marginally less likely that the amendment will be permitted.

    I haven't read the complaint, so I don't know just how bad this is for Thompson, but his case is still pending.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Wouldn't it have made more sense to sue them seperately anyway? People threatening him on a web forum doesn't seem to have anything to do with his complaints about the Florida Bar.
  • by Trails ( 629752 ) on Friday April 27, 2007 @10:05AM (#18899791)
    on how JT will spin this?

    Will he claim:
    1. Judge is a part of the homosexual multicultural fascist conspiracy against him
    2. Jude is a closet player of the ultra-violent video game Grand Suit Dismissal
    3. Violent knucklehead video gamers broke into his house and are holding his family hostage
  • I'm amazed that with all of Jack Thompson's [kotaku.com] very public antics that his personal web site has a higher page rank than all the "evidence" against him.

    I think most of us do stuff from time to time that we're embarrassed about, but I wonder if Mr Thompson is or has ever embarrassed by what he does. Sad to think he didn't wake up the next day and think "Damn. Did I really file that? What was I thinking!" Mistakes are fine, but someone without any introspection is someone who will never learn or grow.
    • by nuzak ( 959558 )
      > I wonder if Mr Thompson is or has ever embarrassed by what he does

      Perhaps when he's lucid. Reading some of his recent filings has changed my opinion of him from "That Jacky sure is wacky" to "This man quite probably has a serious mental illness."

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan