Tuesday, October 09, 2007

The Jack Thompson hearing (by Jack Thompson)

Rumpole, you want answers?

Well, all I have on the Jack Thompson hearing today in front of Judge Jordan is (what purports to be) Jack Thompson's summary of the hearing posted on GamePolitics here:

I’m delighted to announce that Judge Jordan vacated his order regarding referring me to the disciplinary committee, and he decided to forego all disciplinary remedies.
The judge started out by suggesting that he did not feel comfortable doing so unless I admitted I had done something wrong. I said I did nothing wrong and would not admit that I did. He asked, “Then how do I know you won’t do it again.”
I pointed out to him that Christ said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and unto God what is God’s.” Christ, then, was making it clear that people of faith are not free to disobey civil authority, and if he now entered a court order for me not to do this, then I would not, as Christians are not free to disobey the law without consequences. But I told him he could not order me to say I did something wrong, because as a matter of conscience I could not do so.
That obviously satisfied him, and he voided out the entire disciplinary matter. Norm Kent was there, which was hilarious, having moved the court last night at 10:30 pm to let him “intervene” and appear before the disciplinary committee against me. Poor Norm, he went away from the hearing sad.
As to the Bar’s motion to dismiss, the judge will rule in two weeks. I expect to receive from the court certain federal relief against this Bar. You all don’t know the case, and I do. Norm Kent, who is now unofficial legal consultatnt to Dennis McCauley as to all things “Jack” smugly predicted here and elsewhere that this disciplinary blow by Judge Jordan was sure to unravel everything for me.’
Now the disciplinary matter does not even exist. How did that prediction turn out for Norm and Dennis?
Kids, leave the lawyering to lawyers. I’ll leave the mind numbing games to you all.
I had a great day, standing before a federal judge for a 2 hour and 45 minute hearing, and I did just fine. Even Norm Kent would have to admit that.
Besides, Norm is a Yankee fan, and grew up in Cleveland. I’m having a very good 24 hours. Jack Thompson, Attorney and You’re Not

UPDATED -- GamePolitics has more on the hearing here.


Anonymous said...

Yes, Jack Thompson always comes across as this mature and professional. Norm Kent's posting at GamePolitics covering the event follows:

Jack, poor Jack

Here is a guy about to be legally beheaded by the Florida Bar announcing that the judge decided not to cut off his eyebrow. That’s a metaphor only jack…

A few things, this was first of all a hearing on a motion to dismiss, and the court spent an hour asking jack to justify why his fourth amended complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice, him having numerous chances to amend without being able to state a claim that was legally sufficient.

Jack’s rambling argument invoked King Canute and a number of other Biblical references that had very little to do with caselaw under what we call the rules of civil procedure.

The court said it will enter a written order in the next fourteen days after the hearing concluded, and while jack was making his argument, by reciting the bible, relating how he was living with death threats, and being denied due process, I just do not believe that within the four corners of his complaint he was able to give the court any new legal reasons why this case will not eventually be dismissed under what is known as the abstention doctrine, which means that a federal court will not intervene in an ongoing state investigatory proceding which is being conducted already by the Florida Bar.

Basically jack is arguing his civil rights are being vioated by the Supreme Court and the referee charged with trying him for professional misconduct. The judge wanted to know why he went to federal court prematurely, because the referee has not yet held his trial, and the Supreme Court has not yet made a finding based on the referee’s recommendation. Jack said he is trying to get the federal court to stop the referee from trying his case because the Bar, the referee and the investigators against him are all biased because he is a Christian a, a stall tactic at best from the Florida Bar’s standpoint.

Jack of course is telling the judge his constitutional rights are being violated by being subject to any discipline at all because as far as he is concerned he told the truth about everyone, all the rules are illegal, and everyone is picking on him and that he is being selectively prosecuted. Unfortunately for him, he cannot frame his argument cogently and telling the judge how he was once on sixty minutes with ed bradley and that all gamers hate him and he predicted columbine is not the kind of proof you need to make a case.

As to the show cause order, the judge did agree to vacate it as long as jack promised not to do it again, and WHEN JACK SO PROMISED, afer repeated efforts by the court to get him to do so, the judge decided to forego further referrals. That was the court’s call at this time.

But the judge also refused to recuse himself from the case even though jack asked again, and the chief judge refused to remove the judge from the case even though jack asked the chief judge as well.

For jack to brag he is not facing a peer review committee from a local judicial circuit who could recommend to a judge that maybe he should not be allowed to practice in that court is like a guy who is about to go to jail for life bragging that he beat a traffic ticket…………….

You cannot lose sight of the fact that the reason Jack is in court in the first place is because the Florida Bar is moving against his license to practice law anywhere, and the fact is that jack is on trial in alabama this month by their bar association, in november in orlando by the florida bar, and december in broward for violating a separate show cause order.

South Florida Lawyers said...

What a trip -- Judge Jordan must be eager to get rid of this one.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that Chief Judge Moreno entered an administrative order last week prohibiting the filing of materials depicting "sexual acts or execretory acts that could be described as pornography or indecent or vulgar."

Who gets to "describe" what is pornography or vulgar? Judge Moreno? Aunt Millie?

Rumpole said...


Anonymous said...

Jack is stupid :P