Jack Thompson Facing Disbarment Trial

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.'"

Cry me a river

[faloi]

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

[radarjd]

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.

Re:Cry me a river

[MosesJones]

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.

Re:Cry me a river

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn... how messed up are you when you can't even pass the ethics requirements to be a lawyer?

Re:Cry me a river

[Jeremy Erwin]

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.

Re:

[The Evil Couch]

Unlike rendition to Guantanamo, eh?

Guantanamo, a.k.a. Godwin v2.0.

The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:The 90 days was HIS idea, not theirs

[TubeSteak]

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]

Re:

[sumdumass]

National Inquirer? That could be a bad thing. The National Inquirer has a large readership base that is more along the lines of believing the hype he puts forth. Aliens, Elvis, Monika all were/still are alive and well because of the National Inquirer at one time. It would be like asking "Why do things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me" (homer Simspon)

Re:

[Tom]

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:

[rahvin112]

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

[Jaysyn]

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]

Re:Parent needs moded informative.

[Technician]

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:

[sm62704]

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

You mean like...

[Poromenos1]

Jack Thompson walks into a bar, and the bartender yells "get out, you!"?

Re:

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Cry me a river

[michrech]

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.

Re:

[LingNoi]

More likely is that he'll get protesters to gather outside the bar and tell everyone that take-two paid the judges to take away his license, because Jack had "got too deep in the rabbit hole!" and now the "games industry black helicopters are after him!!".

Re:

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:

[LoadWB]

Accusations of judicial corruption are extremely bold. To make such an accusation without any kind of evidence could land him in even more trouble.

I have no doubt he'll be disbarred. But he won't lose his livelihood -- people like him cannot be silenced without more extreme measures. He'll take to the media, whore himself out as an "expert" in the field, go on the speaking circuit, and find other ways to corrupt to issue. If only his powers could be used for Good.

He'll probably start his own church, pis

Re:

[plague3106]

His only credentals are that he's a lawyer. Take that away, and what would he be an expert in? Its not like he's retiring, he's being told he acted unethically. I think anyone would be hard pressed to try to use him as an "expert" anymore.

Re:

[Sigma 7]

Jack Thompson is a "good thing" and if he gets disbarred he might be replaced by someone more intelligent to fight the cause he is fighting.

The replacement, if that person is more intelligent, would be able to do something without being insulting or counterproductive. For example, passing laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors without violating the first amendment. (This would be difficult, but possible if it doesn't restrict the speech in question.)

Furthermore, the replacement would be able to retain allies such as NiMF [mediafamily.org] and Clinton without alienating them on their next concession.

The replacement would know how to deal with hor

Re:

[Orange Crush]

The replacement, if that person is more intelligent, would be able to do something without being insulting or counterproductive. For example, passing laws that restrict the sale of video games to minors without violating the first amendment. (This would be difficult, but possible if it doesn't restrict the speech in question.)

Remember Mortal Kombat? That's already very nearly happened [advancedmn.com]:

On December 9, 1993, the ax fell and the public federal hearings scrutinizing the ethics of the video game industry as a

Re:

[king-manic]

A nutjob (soon to be former) lawyer is much less of a threat than a couple of busybody senators trying to shore up their concerned soccer mom support.

Of course it's not either or, it's both right now. And after there will just be one.

Re:

[Sigma 7]

Remember Mortal Kombat? That's already very nearly happened:

As I stated, the restrictions have to not-violate the first amendment. The reason this is the case: the recent batch of "violence-as-porn" laws were declared unconstitutional before enforcement, and the government had to cover legal expenses.

A nutjob (soon to be former) lawyer is much less of a threat than a couple of busybody senators trying to shore up their concerned soccer mom support.

Correct. However, at the rate of their progression, the senators shown in the link aren't a threat either and merely increased the popularity of the games they tried to restrict.

As you can tell from my posting, the replacement should be intelligent - not someone who

Re:

[Orange Crush]

As I stated, the restrictions have to not-violate the first amendment.

Ultimately, yes. But even if Congress does pass an anti-violent-video-game law that violates the first amendment, it stands until a court rules it unconstitutional. Add in a few rounds of appeals and we can be stuck with that law for years.

Re:

[jasen666]

If somebody else wanted to do this, they would be. I highly doubt Thompson's existence is hindering that.
He is so inept, that any intelligent lawyer who felt the same way would be trying to take over his role already, because he's screwing things up.

Re:

[nuzak]

Jack Thompson is a "good thing" and if he gets disbarred he might be replaced by someone more intelligent to fight the cause he is fighting.

Yes, and if they conduct their campaign with the same ethics as John Bruce Thompson, they'll be disbarred too. Fred Phelps was disbarred, and he's still the sort of living boundary marker of the religious right everyone can point to. Don't imagine JT will stop making his silly squawking noises either.

Besides, JT isn't just about videogames -- he was an intolerant, int

Re:

[bigbigbison]

How is Thompson preventing anyone else from hating videogames? It isn't as if it is a real job that only has one opening or anything.
Regardless, it doesn't matter who opposes videogames because there is no solid argument for banning or making laws against videogames in the American legal system. There have been numerous laws passed (Oklahoma, Illinois, St. Louis, Indianapolis just to name a few) and they have all been found unconstitutional.

Re:

[jinxidoru]

Actually, quite the contrary. He has had plenty of impact. Except the impact has all been positive for the gaming industry.

WHY?!

[Bromskloss]

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

Re:WHY?!

[EveryNickIsTaken]

So.. "Because he's a douchebag" isn't an ample reason?

Re:WHY?!

[coolGuyZak]

Legally, no.

Re:WHY?!

[Bromskloss]

Legally, no.

Are you sure? How about dismemberment?

Re:

[1001011010110101]

For some reason I read dismemberment instead of disbarment in the article summary and I was all like "whoa".

Re:WHY?!

[ag0ny]

For some reason I read dismemberment instead of disbarment...

You obviously play videogames too much.

Re:

[Donniedarkness]

OBJECTION!

It was a fair question...

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's obvious why they want him disbared. The question is, why did anyone let him pass the exam in the first place -- in other words, why did anyone want him bared?

Re:

[jamstar7]

Because, like all lawyers starting out, he was a nobody back in the day. They had no clue he'd turn out the way he did. The Bar isn't a bunch of fortune tellers, they're a bunch of fortune stealers.

Owww

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Trying not to imagine a visual of a bared Jack Thompson.

Re:WHY?!

[Asic Eng]

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:

[mqduck]

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?!

[oahazmatt]

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.

Re:WHY?!

[ls -la]

He didn't accuse them of "distribution of child pornography," he accused them of distribution of pornography *to* children. Not the same thing at all.

Re:

[bckrispi]

^No, but it's still a Felony in many states.

Re:

[PhoenixOne]

Yes, but it is still slander. I think that lawyers that knowingly lie in a court of law should not be allowed to practice.

Re:

[garett_spencley]

I'm not picking sides here. Only making a correction. None of his accusations went anywhere near CP. He accused the guy of distributing porn to minors. A very big difference between the two.

Motivated by his Christian faith?

[cpu_fusion]

> "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

Re:

[Torvaun]

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.

Re:

[sammy baby]

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.

Re:

[Tom]

He is Jack Thompson. What else do you need to say?

Re:

[nuzak]

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

[godfra]

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.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

BE careful

[hey!]

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

Re:

[sm62704]

Minor correctiuon... his agenda is not moral.

Re:

[camusflage]

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

dog may lose it teeth

[techpawn]

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.

Re:

[cskrat]

Without his ability to practice law, I can imagine him running the talk-show circles for whatever he can get.

"Free buffet lunch and airfare, count me in." -- Jack Thompson in the near future.

Oh PLEEEEEASEEEE be the anti-game authority!!!

[PhoenixOne]

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?"

Save Jack!

[poena.dare]

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.

Re:Save Jack!

[aadvancedGIR]

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.

Re:

[nuzak]

> extorsion

Is that when someone untwists your knickers?

Only if we're wrong.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I imagine no one who had a clue would seriously consider replacing him.

Re:Save Jack!

[Bandman]

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.

Re:

[Bandman]

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

Re:

[king-manic]

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.

Re:

[sm62704]

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.

Re:

[Aladrin]

A clue about the legal system and the best ways to win unreasonable cases.

I seriously doubt the poster meant that Jack is correct in his lawsuits.

Re:

[poena.dare]

Exactly!

Good grief, nobody wants someone that crazy to be a good litigator!

Suffer the Pucks for they displace the Torquemadas.

Well almost...

Go on, admit it.

[Sponge Bath]

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

Re:

[Sockatume]

Dibs on his heart, I want a perfect black body for some physics demonstrations.

One down...

[thomas.galvin]

Now if we can just get the lawyers for the RIAA, MPAA, and everyone in Washington disbarred, we'll be on to something.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So Jack's having trouble with the Florida Bar...

[Minwee]

Does that mean it's Tuesday again?

Re:

[PhxBlue]

Inasmuch as Tuesday ends with "day," yes.

I don't get it.

[anlprb]

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.

As much as I disagree with him...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... it'd be a shame to see a public figure with genuine ethical convictions leave the public spotlight.

Re:

[ByOhTek]

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.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Can't wait

[KDR_11k]

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.

Re:

[sm62704]

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.

Re:

[sm62704]

Yes yes and yes

("slow down cowboy it's bee 8 seconds since you hit reply" grumble grumble... ironic that only on slashdot, "news for nerds" are you punished for reading fast and typing fast.)

Re:

[montyzooooma]

Look hard enough and you use the bible to justify virtually anything.

Re:

[dosius]

Look hard enough and you use the bible to justify virtually anything.

Doesn't mean that it *does* justify it, and most of the time a closer reading will reveal otherwise. But a lot of people who thump the Bible don't really read it.

-uso.

Re:Can't wait

[pedestrian crossing]

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone

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..."

Re:

[ByOhTek]

He's facing a disbarment trial, not a crowbar trial!

Re:

[LiquidCoooled]

Well whats wrong with hitting him with 'dis bar in my hand or 'dat bar over there?

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

Re:

[Asic Eng]

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[sm62704]

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.

"Tou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". Slander is one of the "big ten", right up there with thievery, adultery, and murder. I may hire the occasional prostitute (hey, I'm single) but JESUS!!! I'd say this guy was evil if it weren't for the injunction against

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[NickFortune]

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.

Interesting. His actions may be motivated by his faith, but his actions appear to routinely involve lies and deceit and it is these activities for which he is being called to account.

I have to say, your defence of the man sounds an awful lot like "the end justifies the means" to me. Is that what you really mean to imply?

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[SanityInAnarchy]

I mean really it's not like he's truly evil

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.

Re:

[mabhatter654]

the grievances listed by various posters seem to be for abusing court proceedings (that he is often not a party to?) to attack judges and lawyers personally following their LEGALLY assigned duties and not the plaintiff or the case or the issue at hand. Many of the things seem to be in the line that a lawyer doesn't have the right to defend the case, and he's filing abusive, unsolicited motions to prevent the lawyers from presenting evidence, because the defendant is "morally" bad and doesn't deserve Consti

Re:Is there joy in having your opponent removed

[spun]

Even Mike Godwin thought he was doing the right thing, but his so-called 'Law' is obvously just the sort of fascist crap Hitler would come up with.

Re:

[mazarin5]

s/Hitler/Chaney/
s/Stalin/Bush/

Leave Lon Chaney out of this!

Re:

[jamstar7]

I'm thinking that'd be a case of 'too little, too late'. They shoulda done it before he had the chance to breed.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article on him doesn't give any family details, so there's no way to assess the damage done to the gene pool.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're misunderstanding the situation entirely. Thompson is in disbarment proceedings because of complaints made by other lawyers *and* judges because of his actions in court. It has little to do with the basis for his cases, and everything to do with the way he is pursuing them.

It is kind of like saying that the inmates that run the prison are trying to decide if Jack needs to be locked in a cell because of his consistently bad behaviour.

This is definitely one of those "You know it's bad when..." mom