Jack Thompson Walks Out On Hearing 522
Erik J writes "Apparently Jack had heard enough.
The Florida Bar asked for an 'enhanced disbarment' in the disciplinary hearing of Jack Thompson, held earlier this afternoon. The recommendation means Thompson would be disbarred and prohibited from applying to practice law again for ten years, according to 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida spokesperson Eunice Sigler.
Thompson's disciplinary hearing apparently ended in the attorney walking out of the courtroom after saying the judge did not have the authority to hear his case."
Ten years is unusual (Score:5, Informative)
Ten years is unusual. I'm not even sure I've ever *heard* of "enhanced disbarment" before.
By its nature, disbarment is permanent. In many (most?) states, an attorney can petition to be considered for lifting of disbarment after five years--but has a heavy burden; he must show that he is no longer a danger if allowed to practice. The fact that he is a danger was established prior to disbarment; disputing it would end the possibility of showing the needed change.
Ten years, however . . . and that does *not* mean he gets the license back then, only that that is the earliest date at which he *could* request it and attempt to show fitness . . .
hawk, esq.
What not to do in a court room (Score:5, Informative)
.
No matter how badly things go for you in court, no matter how much you dislike the ruling, no matter how unjust you feel you've been treated... NEVER insult a judge or be less than totally respectful for the process.
And don't ever tell a judge they "don't have the authority". You'll be in a higher court soon. Judges don't like people being disrepectful of other judges, not even when the judge in question is wrong. Especailly when your own motives and reasons are (properly) called into question.
Bababooey! (Score:4, Informative)
Really, Jack? I thought it was because Sirius offered Stern a free hand with content and over $100 million per year on a 5-year contract.
Uhmmm.... (Score:2, Informative)
1. He
2. Is
3. Insane
'Nuff said.
The first rule of litigation . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously.
hawk, esq.
Re:Hasn't he... (Score:5, Informative)
In a prepared statement left with the court he called the florida bar association Fascists. While the final ruling isn't due until September(long process remember) I can't imagine a judge being called incompetent is going to help him any.
Re:Bababooey! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hasn't he... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The first rule of litigation . . . (Score:5, Informative)
1. Do NOT Piss off the Judge.
2. Do not piss off your defense attorney.
If you cause #1, you will cause #2, and you will be well and truly fucked.
Oh yeah, #3 Do NOT testify in your own defense (And even worse, Do NOT insist against the best advise of your lawyer that you be allowed to). It doesn't matter how well you think you'll do, or how innocent you think your ass is. It is almost always (i.e. 99% of the time) a horrible idea.
Re:What not to do in a court room (Score:3, Informative)
Appeal isn't a simple matter; it's a long and costly process that should be avoided if possible. There's nothing really wrong with respectfully pointing out in a pleading that the court you're before doesn't have the discretion to do something. Granted he didn't do that in this case, but in general judges have thicker skins than slashdotters give them credit for.
Re:Good thinking there (Score:3, Informative)
You do have the right to question a court's jurisdiction. However, there is a strong presumption that they do have it, and there are ways to go about it that do not constitute a challenge to the judge's personal integrity. If your problem is with the judge's personal integrity, you appeal to a higher court.
Re:The first rule of litigation . . . (Score:2, Informative)
In a jury trial the main thing you want to do is not alienate the jury. You can get by with a judge and a defense attorney angry at you, but if the jury hates you you're in trouble.
Re:You probably don't want to hear this, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Jack Thompson was even involved in the 80's daycare scare (the "ritual satanic abuse") that ruined dozens of lives. For that alone, he is not simply strident, objectionable, or obstreperous, but really and truly evil. Schadenfreude may be shameful, but today I nonetheless feel the joy.
Pull a Reiser (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Now What? (Score:4, Informative)
It would take a wormhole opened into bizarro world for them to actually overturn the recommendation. The worst they might do within the realm of probability is disqualify Tunis and make Jack do it all over again.
My guess is Thompson's behavior will be such that they may actually pass down a harsher judgment.
Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Informative)
You know that was such a good idea that every console maker decided to implement it as well as Microsoft with Windows Vista.
It's really a non argument.
Re:He might have a point... (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, it's somewhat farfetched.
Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)
I get your point however a colostomy [wikipedia.org] isn't actually the removal of the anus. I can't find what that procedure is called but the colostomy just changes the location for the function of the anus. No removal actually occurs from what I can tell.
Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good ridance (Score:2, Informative)
Also, he does, or did have a license to practice, as he was a member of his fathers practice. The sanctions prevent him from practicing independently, but not as part of a practice.
Re:Good ridance (Score:3, Informative)
The GP asked you to present evidence, by expressing doubt that you could do so. This is not an ad hominem, especially if he's correct.
I for one happen to agree with your point about culture feeding itself, but i have to say that i doubt that the past was as rosy as you paint it.
Re:Hasn't he... (Score:2, Informative)
Phelps makes Jack Thompson look like Gandhi. In terms of evil Phelps and Thompson aren't anywhere near each other.
Re:Freedom of speech yes, abuse of due process no. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly. I'm a member of the Florida Bar, and when I took my oath (presumably the same one Thompson took) I was consciously binding myself to a certain standard of behavior, and agreeing to limitations as to what I can say and how I can behave. If I ever find those limits too restrictive I can resign from the Bar. What Thompson wants is to be able to use the tools available to him as a licensed attorney, but not follow the restrictions he agreed to when being given those tools.
Re:He might have a point... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:fp (Score:0, Informative)
http://www.physorg.com/news5230.html
Re:fp (Score:4, Informative)
North's conviction was overturned, so technically he's not a convicted felon. Of course he's an amoral, deceitful, arrogant swine who admitted under oath to breaking the law, but he's not technically a felon.
Re:fp (Score:4, Informative)
Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)
It's only for women though. I assisted on several in my former career, not a fun thing the help with, I can tell you.
Re:Good ridance (Score:4, Informative)
Loyalty oath issue (Score:4, Informative)
The loyalty oath issue is interesting. The loyalty oath in Florida used to contain the language "that I am not a member of the Communist Party; that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party". This was a big deal during the Red Scare era in the 1950s. It's not an oath of office; all state employees were required to sign it.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that language to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and association [justia.com] in 1961. So the legislature took out the "Communist party" part. The shortened oath is still required of all state employees and candidates [myfloridalegal.com].
Florida law says that any state employee refusing to sign the oath shall be discharged. It's not clear there's any penalty for an employee who, through some omission of the state, was never asked to sign it.
Florida judges are mostly elected, and normally the loyalty oath is required as part of the paperwork for getting on the ballot. But it seems that Judge Tunis [countyjudges.com] was appointed (by Gov. Jeb Bush) to fill a vacancy created when the Legislature increased the number of judgeships. For most state employees, it's the responsibility of the employee's superior to make sure that the loyalty oath is signed. But for elected positions, there's no "superior", so it's not clear who's supposed to get this done. Which is probably how she became a judge without signing the loyalty oath first. Anyway, Judge Tunis did sign the oath at a later date.
Re:Good ridance (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hasn't he... (Score:2, Informative)
On the outside chance anyone cares, it's called barratry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry [wikipedia.org]
Re:Hasn't he... (Score:2, Informative)
No sitting or former president has ever been disbarred by the Supreme Court.
Re:Ten years is unusual (Score:3, Informative)
The point he was proving is that first amendment rules would apply to the filings. He's correct if he had asked permission first, proved they were relevant to the case, and not done great disrespect to the judge. That is what he's in trouble for, the FBI puts legal gay porn in evidence all the time so the press will leak it against politicians they don't like... it's not the images that are the problem.
The second reason he did it was the "think of the children" facade. Because he "backdoored" the images, they were filed as public documentation where normal filings of this type would be restricted by the judge to attorneys. He then proceeded to point out that now "children" could legally access this horrible vile imagery by requesting public documents, the court is providing Porn!!! Look how broken the system is... imagine that's what video games are doing... putting graphic images in a "child's toy", never mind the clear MA rating that says not to sell to kids.
He wants the "Law" to protect kids, but completely disrespects all aspects and rulings that have been made legally.
SCO... (Score:3, Informative)
-making public threats to Linux users without providing evidence for their claims
-using all sorts of delay tactics in court to prevent a quick trial
-filing for bankruptcy a few days before an important court decison, which smacks of an attempt to get a venue change (because the bankruptcy court gets jurisdiction)
IBM's and Novell's legal teams looked much more respectable by comparison. If they have gamed the legal system themselves at a few points, it was insignificant beside SCO's behavior.
In other words, even a moderately sleazy lawyer will look good compared to SCO's legal team. So don't be surprised if some minor abuses from SCO's opponents were overlooked (I'm not saying there were such abuses, I merely consider the possibility).
Re:Good ridance (Score:5, Informative)
Re:fp (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/Ce-Fi/Exenteration.html [surgeryencyclopedia.com]
Consoles have controls too (Score:5, Informative)
Here is handy instructions for each one:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2006-12-28-parental-controls-consoles_x.htm [usatoday.com]
Re:Good ridance (Score:2, Informative)
True. I know hell plays at my friends!
Re:Good thinking there (Score:3, Informative)
They're not "thinking" per se; they're using the amygdala [wikipedia.org] instead of the prefrontal cortex [wikipedia.org]. People with bipolar disorder do this a lot.
According to a recent study [reuters.com], Jack should start smoking pot. Lots of pot. Seriously. I've known bipolars who said that smoking pot keeps them sane, and from the cited study one can see why.
Re:Good ridance (Score:3, Informative)
(and runs flawlessly on Vista)