Jack Thompson Walks Out of Hearing, 10 Year Disbarment Recommended

[CSN NewsBot]

Jack Thompson walked out of his own disciplinary hearing today after going on a rambling 4,500-word objection in front of the court. His objection was largely targeted at the Judge that was overseeing this hearing, Judge Dava Tunis, in which he called her "incompetent" and "arrogant" before threatening to remove her from office in the near future.



He then proceeded to call those running the Florida Bar a group of "fascists" and boldy proclaimed that he was not involved in a "petty culture war." His statement concludes with the following.

I am "guilty" of being right and ahead of the curve when it came to Howard Stern and as to Grand Theft Auto. Because I took on Bar complainant, Al Cardenas, the Howard Stern Show is off terrestrial radio and his influence diminished. Because I took on this cop-killing, woman-bashing video game, the Presidential race is now addressing the issue and this particular video game.



Try to get me disbarred. Go ahead, do your worst, Referee Tunis. I will continue to do my best.

He even went so far as to quote passages from the Bible in his 14-page objection to the court. This was not before making the claim that the Florida Bar was "anti-Christian."[break="far more insanity than you can shake a stick at"]

To do otherwise, to participate in any fashion in these invalid, unauthorized, unconstitutional, vicious proceedings, waives my objection to them and in fact validates them. I will not do that because I am too good a lawyer to do that, having practiced law, Referee Tunis, in continuous good standing for 31 years, despite the efforts of the anti-Christian Florida Bar that recruited you to do exactly what you have done like a good little soldier in your own little culture war on a man who protects the children you should be protecting.



Jesus said, "If any of you should cause one of these little ones to stumble, then it would be better for you that a millstone be tied around your neck and that you be cast into the uttermost depths of the sea."



By perseverance and by God's grace, I have fashioned a legal millstone that I will place around your neck and the neck of The Bar. Don’t blame me, Referee Tunis, when you feel the water rising.

Following his leave of the court, the proceedings continued in his absence. The Florida Bar is now recommending an "enhanced disbarment" for Mr. Thompson.



According to Eunice Sigler, of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, this enhanced disbarment will find Thompson disbarred and forbidden to practice law for a period of ten years. Kotaku has the full, un-abridged version of Thompson's objection.

[Diamond Dust]

I don't particularly enjoy howard stern but he got like a $500 million dollar contract or something ridiculous with Sirius. That is why he went of terrestrial radio. So how did he hurt howie?

[AzN_PrOPh3t]

Serves the bastard right..

[Ryosuke T]

i would like to see this guy do jail time. but ain't gonna happen. haha.

[K-16]

Hmm... So if the recommendation happens, does this mean we'll be hearing from the whistle-blower lunatic indirectly through Hilary Clinton for the next ten years? After that period ends, I would imagine he'll then return to do the exact same thing as what he's doing now.



As a side note, I'm not here to state my opinion on any of the U.S. presidential candidates in case you're wondering as it's not related to my point I'm trying to make; I just recall the psychopath (who somehow manages to get the media to believe he's sane and informative) having constant contact with Clinton in the past. That is all, nothing else.

[Thortok2000]

Edited by [user="152360"] @ [time="1212639650"]

I read his full objection.



If any of what he says is true, he's got a point. That's the thing, though, much of what he says could be lies, or avoidance of other facts that counter his arguments. That's what lawyers do, of course.



I hope he gets disbarred and pulls down anything crappy in the system with him.



By the way, his e-mail address is in there if you want to flame him.



The main basis of his defense is two points: He did not have a client, and he did it inspired by religion. And he quotes the laws to correspond with those two points.



Other points that Zips felt the need not to quote:



-His 15 year old son did a sting operation at best buy and bought GTA4.

-He was not allowed a continuance for a wife with cancer. The judge said no and "have a nice day" with a smile.

-Every step of the way, this same judge that he says did not get her position legally, has said no to every request that he is authorized by law to be allowed to do. This is why he calls her incompetent and arrogant.

-This judge (who's position in this scenario is referee) did not get her position legally, he says, and quotes the laws that prove it.



If everything he said was true, I would've walked out, too. He's done everything by the letter of the law, and they're basically disbarring him because he's loud and annoying moreso than because he's broken any laws. According to him, and with some proof to back up his claim.



As a loud and annoying person myself, I identify. Hate me all you want, but you can't take the law into your own hands to punish me with, if I haven't broken any rules. I don't fit well into society for that very reason. There's a reason why 'snitch' and 'tattle-tale' and 'whistle-blower' are used as demeaning terms; society hates these people. My opinion is anyone with that attitude isn't worth respecting, and probably just doesn't want to have to worry about getting snitched on. They don't want to change their behavior to comply with the rules, they want the person who will probably report them for breaking the rules gone. This means I'm often hated by society.



My philosophy is make the rules, obey the rules, enforce the rules, change the rules. Nowhere in there is there an allowance for break the rules. This sets me apart from society severely, as most people feel like a rule should just be broken if it's a bad rule, instead of making the effort to get it changed.



I'm playing devil's advocate here, but that was a clearly well written and composed objection. He's a good lawyer. I recommend even people who hate him (and don't get me wrong, I really hate him) to give it a read.



I think the flaw in all this is Christianity. His defense is basically that he was inspired by his religion to perform these acts. And that there's a law that allows that. Stupid law, in my opinion. Get rid of that law, you get rid of him.



And he didn't say he 'hurt' Howard Stern, just that he got him off the radio.

[Diamond Dust]

Thortok2000 wrote..

I recommend even people who hate him (and don't get me wrong, I really hate him) to give it a read.

I disagree? This guy is a publicity hound, he wants people reading about him and forming opinions on him. The best way to deal with him is to ignore him.



His comments about getting Stern off the air show how delusional this guy is. Stern didn't get thrown off anything, his contract ran out and he signed a huge contract with sirius radio.

[ph03nix(k)]

Thortok2000 wrote..

I read his full objection.



If any of what he says is true, he's got a point. That's the thing, though, much of what he says could be lies, or avoidance of other facts that counter his arguments. That's what lawyers do, of course.



I hope he gets disbarred and pulls down anything crappy in the system with him.



By the way, his e-mail address is in there if you want to flame him.



The main basis of his defense is two points: He did not have a client, and he did it inspired by religion. And he quotes the laws to correspond with those two points.



Other points that Zips felt the need not to quote:



-His 15 year old son did a sting operation at best buy and bought GTA4.

-He was not allowed a continuance for a wife with cancer. The judge said no and "have a nice day" with a smile.

-Every step of the way, this same judge that he says did not get her position legally, has said no to every request that he is authorized by law to be allowed to do. This is why he calls her incompetent and arrogant.

-This judge (who's position in this scenario is referee) did not get her position legally, he says, and quotes the laws that prove it.



If everything he said was true, I would've walked out, too. He's done everything by the letter of the law, and they're basically disbarring him because he's loud and annoying moreso than because he's broken any laws. According to him, and with some proof to back up his claim.



As a loud and annoying person myself, I identify. Hate me all you want, but you can't take the law into your own hands to punish me with, if I haven't broken any rules. I don't fit well into society for that very reason. There's a reason why 'snitch' and 'tattle-tale' and 'whistle-blower' are used as demeaning terms; society hates these people. My opinion is anyone with that attitude isn't worth respecting, and probably just doesn't want to have to worry about getting snitched on. They don't want to change their behavior to comply with the rules, they want the person who will probably report them for breaking the rules gone. This means I'm often hated by society.



My philosophy is make the rules, obey the rules, enforce the rules, change the rules. Nowhere in there is there an allowance for break the rules. This sets me apart from society severely, as most people feel like a rule should just be broken if it's a bad rule, instead of making the effort to get it changed.



I'm playing devil's advocate here, but that was a clearly well written and composed objection. He's a good lawyer. I recommend even people who hate him (and don't get me wrong, I really hate him) to give it a read.



I think the flaw in all this is Christianity. His defense is basically that he was inspired by his religion to perform these acts. And that there's a law that allows that. Stupid law, in my opinion. Get rid of that law, you get rid of him.



And he didn't say he 'hurt' Howard Stern, just that he got him off the radio.

lol srs posts on CSNATION.NET



Go outside, you sound like a faggot with assburgers.

[Zips]

Thortok, shut up. Thompson went on a 4500 word insane rant in which he very nearly stated that he was about to undertake the same or similar actions that Jesus Christ did. He essentially equated himself to a passage from the Bible. Lunatics do that. He then proceeded to run from the court, from his own hearing. Pathetic.



His argument holds no water and if you honestly want to side with him, I'm going to have to say you're just as insane as he is.



He's made a mockery of the court, a mockery of himself, and that's all there is to it. He's getting off light for his three ring circus behavior.

[Admz]

This man doesn't deserve to have his name on any headlines, and I hope the end of this is coming soon.

[HEAD NOOB]

Justice prevails

[kalabalana]

Poor little Jacky, chilidish rants, and using religion as a defense for his illegal actions is a fools charade

Hopefully his disbarment will give less credence when he tries to brainwash the overly Christian populace.

[Thortok2000]

[skankuser]

Zips, I disagree with Thortok, but don't delete his comments simply on the basis of not being in agreement with him.

[Thortok2000]

Edited by [user="152360"] @ [time="1212689239"]

Honestly, Zips, did you even read my post before you deleted it?



Is playing devil's advocate and seeing both sides of the issue a fundamentally incorrect stance to take?



Because you disagree with me, my posts get deleted and you tell me to shut up? Wow.



I actually agree with you in that he's a lunatic and should be disbarred.



However, I think he has made a few good points and I can identify with some of the things he said. For that, I get my comments deleted.



Sheesh.



Also, the deleted comment policy needs a tweak. "We deleted this comment, we won't tell you why, and you're not allowed to even mention the deleted comment." That sure promotes better behavior, doesn't it? Tell me why, and at least I'll know what not to do next time. Simply telling me to read the rules (which I'm already familiar with) does nothing if I don't believe I've broken them.



Even saying "this comment was deleted because: X" would be better. *sigh*

Zips wrote..

Thortok, shut up. Thompson went on a 4500 word insane rant in which he very nearly stated that he was about to undertake the same or similar actions that Jesus Christ did. He essentially equated himself to a passage from the Bible. Lunatics do that. He then proceeded to run from the court, from his own hearing. Pathetic.

Just like a lawyer quotes the law, he compared himself to a passage in the bible. I didn't even know that passage was there, but if it is, then it does compare. He is being hated for having a different opinion than others. (This is his argument, I'm just repeating and rephrasing it.)



As I said before, there may be other factors which counter his arguments, of course. But he still makes a good point. He's being oppressed, and he's not going to stand for it. I wouldn't either, if it was me. I wouldn't compare myself to a quote in the bible, because I'm not a Christian. I'd make a similar statement to what I've made above, that people hate whistle-blowers because they'd rather get away with stuff they shouldn't be doing. Society outcasts the snitches. As a snitch myself, I know well what he claims is his pain. That's the point he was making in his bible quote where he "very nearly" compared himself to Jesus.



Hey, Jesus was pretty smart. I think I'm pretty smart. I just compared myself to Jesus. Whoop de doo dah day. Saying that "comparing yourself to Jesus is something only lunatics do" is...very bad logic.



The basis of his defense is that he's allowed to do these things when inspired by religion. If that's his defense, then the more he quotes the bible, the better his defense. It's kind of obvious. I might even do that myself, just to exploit a loophole in the law so that I can pursue goals, if I cared enough.



"Hmm...I want the media cleaned up. In order to do that, I need to act like a God-loving lunatic. But, if I do, there's a chance the media might get cleaned up. Guess I will, then." Makes sense to me. Now, he might actually be a complete lunatic (although he says repeatedly that psychiatric evaluations describe him 100% sane), I could care less. But it's something that makes sense to me, even if I don't like or agree.

His argument holds no water and if you honestly want to side with him, I'm going to have to say you're just as insane as he is.

His arguments hold water, unless there's factors that counter them and poke holes in them. Simply saying they don't doesn't make it true.

He's made a mockery of the court, a mockery of himself, and that's all there is to it. He's getting off light for his three ring circus behavior.

His return is that the judge acting as referee for this didn't even get their position legally, and that the judge is preventing actions he is legally allowed to undertake in defense of himself. Going along with this farce would be the true mockery. I get what he's saying. Whether he's right or wrong, I at least get what he's trying to say. Do you? Do you even listen?



"You're wrong" is not a valid counterargument. By all means, counter his points, I'd love to see it. And I'm not being sarcastic. I want this guy proven wrong. But name-calling is not gonna get anywhere.