Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson's Past Legal Failures Resurrected
Yesterday we discussed Jack Thompson's upcoming legal hearing. Brian Crecente, over at Kotaku, has put up some documents related to (surprise, surprise) past run-ins Jack has had with the Florida Bar. The two (closed) cases dealt with past games-related cases the lawyer has tried to 'help' with, one being the much-discussed Alabama trial, and the other the Ohio trial that Thompson tried to interfere with. Also included are all 40 pages of the most recent scrape that has Thompson in front of the Bar again.
Jack Thompson is overly opinionated, overly impressed with himself, and doesn't know when to STFU.
So it's no wonder that he has gotten (and continues to get) himself in legal troubles.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
it's to change the way people think. In particular, it's to change the people who have *no* opinion into followers of his "there's certain levels of decency" dogma. As much as we think people like Jack Thompson only want to force their opinions on others, it's not true.. He truly believes he is right and wants others to agree with him. The publicity is what makes this possible, not winning or losing.
How we know is more important than what we know.
To be honest it doesn't seem like JT is pursuing this career path solely because he hates violent video games, but rather that his vitriol allows him to garner a lot of publicity.
When Jack Thompson gets disbarred, what will be his next profession?
Telemarketer?
His rants are priceless. My 4 yo makes more sense then this guy.
"Maybe he can conjure up some kind of cause of action against Ohio-based Bob Evans Farm Sausage for my illicit use of ham on my fists. This is the first time I can recall a Bar complaint that brings pigs into the discussion."
Maybe I'm not being fair though, maybe I'm just taking it out of context or he could be loon. I'm still debating it.
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Here's the context: In an April 25, 2005 letter to the Chief Branch Discipline Council, Florida Bar, Jack writes: (emphasis & reference added by me)
I mean, wow...
'nuff said.
I'm really gonna miss reading missives like that when he's finally disbarred.
Thanks for that! I tried finding the source but had to give up. Now it goes without saying that after reading that, I'm now deeply distrurbed though... *shudder*
Oh and this completes my internal debate. Loon he is!
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Internet Society for Utilitarian Choices for Kids: I.S.U.C.K.
Nothing Our Group of American Mothers Envision Sacred: N.O.G.A.M.E.S.
Thompson's Internet Mothers for the Eradication Of Unreal Tournament: T.I.M.E.O.U.T.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Long time reader, none time poster
:P
This may be totally unrelated but hey nevermind...
I was listening to the radio in the car today and there was a discussion about publishing soliciters names (lawyers - any difference?) that have had complaints brought against them. Granted - as the discussion progressed it appeared to me that the complaints would generally consist of a financial nature - where the soliciter in question was struggling for cash and was dragging the case along. Other arguments for complaining against soliciters was the so called "accident chasers" - 'nuff said there I think.
Anyway, I'm not sure how the US works with regards to official watchdogs (nor the UK for that matter heh). Is there any benefit of naming and shaming rogue soliciters/lawyers? Is this treading a dark path to naming and shaming any other 'profession'? Or should we just hope and wait for the professional bodies to become aware of any problems?
p.s. yes yes, my english sucks