ABA Journal - Law News Now

Comments

• Report Abuse

1. Posted by silencedogood - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 20 hours, 3 minutes ago

   Personally, I would have given the judge a heads up this was comming and therefore an opportunity to object ahead of time, but isn’t this a case of shooting the messenger? 

   Wasn’t Thompson just reprinting evidence of what was on the web page?  How is this different than if he had included grisly murder photos?  Would the Judge’s reaction have been different if they were photos of heterosexual intercourse?

2. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 18 hours, 41 minutes ago

   I appreciate the above comments by silencedogood.  Contrary to what this story indicates, what I did has not “backfired badly.“
   This serves to prove the excesses of the federal judiciary that grows in part from the lifetime tenure that has bred activism and arrogance.  The readers o fthis article have no idea what this judge has also done, by his own hand, to prove how improperly he acted.  I’m off to the Eleventh Circuit in days, and then we’ll see just who did something that “backfired.“  I’ll keep you all posted.  Jack Thompson

3. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 51 minutes ago

   By the way, I placed a huge warning sign before one reached the photos.  The judge said “children” would be harmed by what I did.  Anybody know any kids out there that surf government court file sites, with no search engines, hoping to pay for porn pics they can get for free through at a Florida lawyer’s site who has been facilitated in doing that by The Florida Bar?  If anybody knows such kids, tell the Judge.

4. Posted by R - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 38 minutes ago

   I can tell that Mr. Thompson’s absolutely loving this publicity. Since he’s reading this article and the comments, perhaps he could explain why he didn’t first file a motion to seal?

5. Posted by Crawford Rose - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 25 minutes ago

   What sanctions would the grievance committee issue?  Usually the penalty for filing impertinent matter is that it is stricken from the record. If the impertinent matter is obscene but arguably evidence, its difficult to determine what the committee’s position would be with respect to sanctions.

6. Posted by Joseph T. Leone, Esq - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 49 minutes ago

   Publicity and limelight issues aside, Mr. Thompson is clearly in the right.  The case at hand revolves around the obscenity of these materials, and Mr. Thompson has a right to have these issues aired in all their glory (or gory).  Moreover, so does the public.  Therefore, the public record should not be “sanitized” to suit the judge’s sense of decorum.  The facts are what they are, and they should be aired fully.

7. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 48 minutes ago

   Dear R:  Wow, besides being an amateur psychologist, you can do your assessments long distance without even talking to the subject.  Congratulations.  You’re the new Katherine Kuhlman.

   Enjoying the publicity?  No, I would have liked to litigate the case, but the Judge, foolishly, prevented that.

   Why would I seal the record?  Why would I?  The stuff was and is being distributed by this other Florida lawyer from his website free of charge, with no age restrictions.

   The judge can’t answer the question of whom I harmed.  Children don’t peruse court files, which they would have to pay to get on and then stumble across this case among the tens of thousands of them, and then somehow find these pics with no search engine in a specific pleading.

   Further, a huge WARNING sign was put on the pleadings before they were seen so that no member of the public would see them that did not choose to go forward.  Funny how the “freedom of choice” types are all atwitter about having been given this choice.

   Finally, I have found in 20 years of these battles that most people don’t know what is “obscene” that is out there and think you’re a prude if you protest.  The judge would have seen the link to the site and never would have clicked on it. 

   The judge himself used the word “obscene” to describe the materials.  He knows what that word means, under Miller v. California.  Did he call the US Attorney to seek a prosecution, having himself used that word?

   No, he went after the whistleblower.  Typical.

   The judge can’t point to a single person of the general public who saw this file.  Not one. 

   I’ll win this one, and we’ll see who regrets having turned this case into what it now is.

   I was asked by the court to come forward with evidence of The Bar’s selective prosecution of me and not others.  I gave him, at his request, the “best evidence” of that.  He asked for it.  He got what he asked for.  This is judicial silliness like I have never seen.

8. Posted by washington park - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 46 minutes ago

   Mr. Thompson, an apparent conservative, appears to be mounting a political crusade through the courts system.  I was under the impression that his political cohorts oppose using the courts as a substitute for petitioning the legislature. 
   What an utter waste of our limited judicial resources.  A waste that is compounded by fourteen filings.  I wonder if this tactic is the judicial equivalent of “starve the beast.“  An attempt to prove that the courts are incompetatant by overwhelming the resources available to that system.
   If Mr. Thompson believes the courts are in need of reform or that porn is to be combatted, he should run for office and stop wasting the time of all his fellow members of the bar patiently waiting on decisions that languish while he has a pissing match with this judge.

9. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 37 minutes ago

   Mr.Leone, thank you very much.  This thing is even worse than you all know.  The judge has the power to discipline me for this.  He did not do so.  Instead he turned me over to an “Ad Hoc Committee” to recommend discipline.  Fully 11 of its 32 members are either partners to Bar Governors, whom I am suing in the civil rights action, or are partners to the lawyer, Barry Richard at Greenberg Traurig, who represents The Bar! 

   If they were part of a venire, they would be kicked off for cause! 

   If the judge thinks I did something wrong, then whack me, but he wanted to have it both ways.  He wanted to embarrass me and then say his fingerprints were not on it.

   Further, he gave me until October 5 to show cause why I should not be sent to this rump committee, and then he panicked and closed the show cause window to October 2 ,with no hearing, no warning, no nothing.

   And the judiciary wonders what is meant by “activist judges.“  This fellow was appointed by the President who didn’t know what the meaning of the word “is” is.  That same President had some other problems.

   The judge then, after he calls the material “obscene” in his order, reverses himself and says “Oh, it might enjoy First Amendment protection.“  Really?  “Obscenity,“ by definiton under Miller is contraband.  Obscenity, by definition, enjoys no First Amendment protection, at least not as to its commercial distribution.  So for his judge who supposed knows the three-prong test of Miller, having actually tried obscenity cases, to suggest that material that he calls “obscene” might be protectected is absurd.

   Further, and here’s the clincher, and I’ll ask the judge since he’s apparently reading this blog:
   If the other lawyer might have “First Amendment” protection to traffick in “obscenity,“ then how is it that I don’t have First Amendment protection to put into our,not your, court file material that answers a question you asked and also constitutes “petition the government” speech under the First Amendment?  Riddle me that, Batman. 

   I caught the Bar, and the good ole’ boy network that our own Bar poll here that shows that “Club” is the tail that wags the Bar’s disciplinary dog, and the judge didn’t like it.  That is what offended him, not that “children” were harmed by me by putting evidence he asked for into a paid-for PACER file.
   Jack Thompson

10. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 35 minutes ago

    Mr. Park, apparently you are unable to read with any comphrehension.  The underlying federal civil rights action against the Bar is about the illegal use of “discipline” to silence me.  It began when I appeared on 60 Minutes in March 2005 at Ed Bradley’s request.

    The Bar is using governmental power to shut me down, and this judge joined in.  Either go to case 07-21256 and read it, or be still.  You have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

11. Posted by Brent J - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 16 hours, 16 minutes ago

    The Court’s statement, “A simple reference to the Web site and its alleged links would have sufficed,“ is inaccurate.  Content on web sites can be changed or deleted at any time.  If an attorney has a legitimate need to put web content on the record, a link to a website would not suffice.

12. Posted by washinton park - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 14 hours, 45 minutes ago

    My understanding is that you were neither silenced or disciplined.  Thus, your issue is with the bar investiagtion and disciplinary process, which is a political issue.  You have apparently asked the court , in this suit or a previous one to declare the Florida Bar unconstitutional.  I do not know how you reconcile this with your stance against judicial activism, since you have asked the courts to effectively inact legislation controlling the bar.

    I have read your Motion to Recuse.  This seven page rant contains a mere one legal citation.  The absence of meaningful reference to the law or precendent demonstrates an abject disdain for making a coherent legal argument.

    You apperently use ad hominem attacks in lue of professional discourse.  That alone indicates to me that bar supervision of your activities is appropriate.  This lack of civility was, in fact, the reason for the investigation by the bar which propelled your lawsuit.  As the judge indicated, the attachment of gay porn is utterly irrelevant to the suit.

    I encourage everyone to read the Motion at http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/legal/JT-jordan-recuse-1002.pdf before further defending Mr. Thompson.

    I applaud the Florida bars effort to preserve professionalism in our industry an to control individuals, such as yourself, who are seemingly unable to state a legal argument without resorting to name calling.

13. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 13 hours, 44 minutes ago

    My dearest Mr. Park:

    Your own words betray you.  “I applaud the Bar’s effort to CONTROL individuals…“

    Good Lord.  You want the Bar to conrol individuals.  There’s a country about three hundred miles south of here called Cuba where you would fit right in.  Also, you don’t typically cite case law in motions to recuse.  This judge just ruled on whether or not to allow the adding of him as a defendant.  Pause.

    Finally, before you lecture me on how to practice law, get yourself a dictionary.  You can’t even spell.

14. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 13 hours, 37 minutes ago

    Kudos to Brent J.  In point of fact, the lawyer took down the material once he was “caught,“ so the point is right on point.  It’s amazing how the common folks are smarter than some federal judges.

15. Posted by Peter J - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 13 hours, 2 minutes ago

    Jack Thompson,

    Do you not have other clients and cases?  I’m shocked that you’d devote this much of your time to discussing a case with random people on the internet rather than litigating.  For example, it does very little to diminish the claims that you’re simply seeking attention and publicity at every turn.  Besides, I can’t imagine that you could ethically bill for your time spent attacking people on the internet who disagree with you.

    If you think you’re in the right, why not spend your time litigating rather than writing board posts and making ad hom attacks?

    Incidentally, I agree with several other posters.  Lawyering appears to be the wrong forum for you.  Sure, you wouldn’t be able to sign everything “Jack Thompson, Attorney.“  But your tactics and agenda seem better suited towards politics.  In law these tactics are just unseemly.

16. Posted by Jack Thompson, Attorney - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 12 hours, 51 minutes ago

    Well, kids, it looks like the Judge is having second thoughts.  He has just stayed his order referring me to the disciplinary committee and is providing me a hearing.  For all the wiseguys who think they know what is going on and how stupid I am, nice try.

17. Posted by Aaron Rittmaster - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 12 hours, 39 minutes ago

    Mr. Thompson was previously specifically warned about filing documents that included pornographic images. (A warning that he obviously completely ignored). Back in April an order was issued stating:
    “the Court notes that [Thompson] has attached inappropriate and pornographic materials to his petitions that are irrelevant to his arguments. Respondent is warned that should he continue to submit such inappropriate filings, the Court will consider imposing sanctions which may include, but are not limited to, a limitation on Respondent’s ability to submit further filings without the signature of an attorney other than himself.“

    Furthermore, Mr. Thompson shows a shocking lack of undestanding about the web and the state of the law with regard to websites. The images that he attached were never part of the NGN website. They were reached by following links to 3rd party sites. NGN had no control over the images on those sites. And before Thompson retorts that they obviously had control, since they have now removed the links, it should be made clear that there’s no reason that NGN had any obligation to do so, nor any legal authority over the content of those 3rd party sites.

    It is glory-mongerers like Thompson who give the rest of us lawyers a bad name.

18. Posted by washington park - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 11 hours, 27 minutes ago

    Mr. Thompson,

    Your license is a privilege, not a right and there are standards that go with it.  Imposing a code of profession conduct upon you does not make this country into Cuba.  The statement is absurd. 

    My apologies for not running a spell check, but the insult to me proved my point about decorum rather nicely.  What an utterly petty response.

    I will not waste further time on this.  The forum is yours.

19. Posted by JackDon'tKnowJack - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 11 hours, 10 minutes ago

    Jack Thompson criticizes someone else for their spelling mistakes. That’s always a good one.

    I’d ignore him, washington park, if I were you. It’s not much more than the pot trying to kettle you. Just read (if you can—and there are parts where his spelling and typographical errors will render it impossible) any court filing by Mr. Thompson.

20. Posted by bystander - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 11 hours, 10 minutes ago

    Mr. Thompson, you should spell check your own entries before criticizing others.

21. Posted by JackDon'tKnowJack - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 10 hours, 33 minutes ago

    @ Brent J:

    A link would have sufficed the court because, frankly and as a practical matter, the theory which the filed homoerotic material allegedly supports is so insane on its face that no reasonable jurist would waste taxpayer time and resources actually looking at anything submitted in support. If I was a judge, you’d have to move beyond crazy, insane rantings and on to some articulated and facially sustainable legal theory of some sort before I wasted my time thumbing through your pornographic exhibits.

22. Posted by Chris - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 10 hours, 7 minutes ago

    I think my favorite Jack Thompson quote mentioned in the article was: “Check my filings, sweetie.“  I’ll be sure to use that in my next memorandum, under the “Legal Arguments” section.  God knows I’ve wanted to before.

23. Posted by northdixiechik - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 8 hours, 6 minutes ago

    Well, I find this all fascinating.  As a 1L from Tennessee, I had no idea that there was such tension between lawyers and the bar.  I cannot wait for the day when I, too, can say, “Check my filings, sweetie.“  Although I have to say, I also had no idea judges censored what attachments were allowed (and I have filed many US DIstrict Court cases on PACER).  This has been an interesting lesson and one that I will follow to the end.

24. Posted by JackDon'tKnowJack - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 4 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes ago

    @northdixiechik:

    Allow me to teach you something that law schools don’t usually teach (but, perhaps, should):

    Every public paper-shuffling system, including courts, their clerks, the public records office, the building permit office, the land title office, etc., has some if not many built-in means of ensuring that they don’t shuffle any more paper than they absolutely have to in order to keep the system serving the public and running. It’s never left to the public to tell the shuffler how and what to shuffle. They tell the public what they’re gonna shuffle and how they’re gonna shuffle it.

25. Posted by Andrew Stirling - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 55 minutes ago

    Posted by Jack Thompson: “Finally, before you lecture me on how to practice law, get yourself a dictionary.  You can’t even spell.“

    That is fucking hilarious coming from you, you petty piece of shit. You are a pathetic Christian. You hold yourself above all others, and do not treat your fellow people with respect. That makes you the scum of the earth. I can’t wait until you lose everything you disgusting filth.

26. Posted by LawandLogic01 - 1 year, 1 month, 2 weeks, 18 hours, 9 minutes ago

    Like the judge, I do not see how filiing pornographic photos was in any way relevant to the case. Perhaps in Mr. Thompson’s mind it was but it seems that is because he lacks a clear understanding of internet laws and liabilities.

    That this “other lawyer” should be found guilty (in Mr. Thompson’s mind) of criminally distributing porn to children because his law firm website links to a gay news website which in turn, under a banner marked “adult sites” links to what is, amazingly enough, adult sites is ridiculous.

    Mr. Thompson is facing impending action from the Florida bar for his use of legal threats and insults in his cases. Mr. Thompson claims he is being threathened by the bar not because of his unprofessional conduct but because of his christian faith. When the judge asked how the Florida bar was personnally targeting him and not equally targetting other lawyers, he brought the pornographic photos as proof.

    Only in Mr. Thompson’s knowledge of the law could this be construed as criminally distributing porn to minors