Jack Thompson Disbarred 522
Sockatume writes "The Florida Supreme Court has approved Judge Dava Tunis' recommendations for the permanent disbarment of John B. "Jack" Thompson, with no leave to reapply and $43,675.35 in disciplinary costs. The ruling is a step up from the enhanced disbarment that had been suggested by the prosecution, which would have forbidden him from reapplying for ten years. Thompson has 30 days to appeal the ruling before the disbarment is permanent. Thompson responds to the ruling."
Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe now we won't have to hear about him all the damn time.
~t
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about damn time this poor excuse for a human being was disbarred. Maybe now we won't have to hear about him all the damn time. ~t
Fat chance. Now he'll have his own talk show on Fox
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Fat chance. Now he'll have his own talk show on Fox
The man doesn't appear to be entirely sane. It's near-impossible to tell if his ravings are the product of delusions - or just attempts to apply ANY potential perversion of logic to avoid the crop he's sown.
With the lunatic rambling this guy uses to defend his arguments, and all of his abuse of supposition in lieu of actual logic, I'm pretty sure no network would dream of giving him his own show.
Wait... did you say Fox?
Forget everything I just said then...
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Are any hardcore religion fanatics "entirely sane"
As long as they understand that their beliefs are based on faith, they can be. Then again, "fanatics" usually don't seem able to think that way - and like everyone who believes in something, it's hard for them to imagine anything else.
:)
Think religion is whacked? Do you believe in things like "justice", "morality", "liberty", or even a difference between "right and wrong"? All of these are based on millenia of philosophy, but are still abstracts based on truths we only hold as articles of faith. And just like religious beliefs, all logical arguments in support of them end up circular arguments (ie all arguments in support of a need for justice depend on an implicit assumption that it's desirable, ditto just about every other abstract we hold dear).
Then again, I just got done arguing that "white" is effectively the same thing as "black" with a coworker - and taking the framework of the entire EM spectrum, you have to admit it's true.
Now if I could only convince him that the Terminator storyline is totally incompatible with parallel realities...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
American fundamentalists != modern Christianity
The rest of the Christian world != a few fringe Christians
I guess by your type of assessment, Catholicism is a fringe Christian group and Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't even exist. There is a whole world outside of the U.S. In some parts of it, they even speak languages other than English.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends on your point of view. If you're an "American fundamentalist" or "modern Christian", I am sure you'll think you're miles apart, but seen from e.g. a pagan point of view, the two are as close as to be near indistinguishable.
Or, to use the obligatory car analogy, you may think that your Honda Civic Hybrid is very different from a Ford Explorer, but for someone normally flying a plane, the difference is minor. And from the point of view of someone walking or using a bicycle, none of them are eco-friendly.
A "modern Christian" walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and even floats, so what colour the feathers are is rather irrelevant. He's still a monotheist with a Judeo-Christian belief system that he claims also applies to those not sharing the faith. Show me one Christian that's open to believe that I won't be judged because I don't believe, and I'll be open to change my classification. Until then, I only see various Christian denominations as different flavors of ice cream, and I don't want ice cream, whether it's pistachio or rotten herring flavoured.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if you aren't willing to learn the differences, then those differences either don't exist or don't matter in any context.
The GGP claimed that Fox News reflects the views of modern christians because it's popular with said modern christians. The GP pointed out that fundamentalist christians in the US are at odds with the majority of the world's christian population, and that Fox is popular to a small subset of christians. So, claiming that if Fox says it it must represent Christianity is untrue.
Someone being a monotheist with... as you described has nothing to do with what they think about video games, WMD's or whatever else gets talked about on Fox.
Actually, they're NOT representative (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I don't think they're seen as representative by anyone in, say, Western Europe. If you started foaming at the mouth about how "teaching the controversy" (about evolution,) or putting bible studies back into secular schools, or persecuting homosexuals because "God" told you so, here in Germany (and, I _think_, at least in France too) everyone would look funnily at you and wonder what mental institution did you escape from. The impression even among relatively religious people about the lunacies coming from America in the name of religion, isn't as much, "man, those are real christians, we should be like them", but rather along the lines of, "where did America go wrong?"
The last time any kind of fundamentalist bible thumping had any kind of street cred in Europe was during the Counter-Enlightenment of the late 18'th and early 19'th century.
The funny thing is that even, say, the Catholic Church, much as a lot of Americans like to think it must be like their own born-again zealots, actually went a very long time ago through what was called the "counter-reformation" to try to stop the tide of protestantism. They learned to be a lot more laissez-faire about, say, science and even sponsored such orders as the Jesuits. Which were and still are primarily an academic order within the church. Those guys actually run universities and research labs. From the very start, Ignatius de Loyola insisted on an academic education to high standards before one could join the order, in a stark contrast to the stereotype of ignorant and poorly educated clergy of the time.
At any rate, positions like ID or young earth are as foreign to catholicism as it gets. And that's just one of the denominations which, by and large, just looks funny at the bible-thumping puritans from across the oceans and think at best, "Lord, what have we done to you, to be lumped into the same category as _those_?" ;)
So, no, the USA fundamentalists aren't seen as representative by any christian except themselves. Just as they're not representative for the larger and more moderate mass of US citizens, I think. (Or hope.) Just because a group is loud and vocal, doesn't mean they represent anyone else but themselves.
And if anyone else decides to judge, say, the largely secular Europe by what the bible-thumpers in America say or do... well, I guess some things can't be helped. Some people are ignorant and ill educated everywhere, and if they want to believe something that hasn't been true for two centuries, it's not my problem.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The person who modded this "Troll", exemplifies that there's not a lot of difference, seen from an outside view. A fundamentalist Christian might mod me a sinner or Satanist or witch, and a moderate Christian might moderate me Troll, but in any case it shows off what the Christans share as seen from the outside-- a deep and fundamental resistance to accepting outside views as as valid as theirs.
From my point of view, there's not a lot of difference, even if there is from where you stand. The difference is that I don't consider you to be trolling for having a different point of view. Please show me the same courtesy.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Funny)
Hello friend,
But have you TRIED rotten herring ice cream?
I have this information pamphlet I'd like to share with you...
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Funny)
A "modern Christian" walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and even floats . . .
Does that mean they're made of wood?
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Funny)
There is a whole world outside of the U.S. In some parts of it, they even speak languages other than English.
Fry: "What do we care? We live in the United States."
Leela: "The United States is part of the world."
Fry: "Wow, I have been gone a long time."
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you. As a Christian living and practicing my faith in modern America, I often find myself frustrated and dismayed at damage done to the public perception of the Christian faith by groups like the Christian Coalition; and by those who would rather point to carefully selected parts of scripture as an attempt to justify hatred, violence, and nationalism than to truly embrace and grow into what is really a faith of love, hope, and compassion.
I am persistently puzzled by how the Republican Party came to be associated with Christianity in the US. Looking at the actual actions taken by Jesus (the miracles) he seemed to be in favor of lots of free medical care, and a fair amount of feeding of hungry masses, and being rather forgiving of debts. That looks to be far more in line with policies associated with the Democratic Party than with traditional Republican policies. My Bible doesn't have "The Miracle of the Multi-National" or "The Blessing of the Interventionist Army".
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a discussion of fundamentalism. No matter how ludicrous or outlandish a statement may be, someone is going to take it literally. That's kind of the point.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely. You can't legislate true Christianity, it completely goes against the definition of what Christianity is. (For proof, you need look no further than the Catholic church in history to see what the result is of legislated Christianity.) Christianity is about choosing the right path (which is never the easy path). This is also why as a Christian I cannot support religious people (Christian or otherwise) as government officials. It puts a true Christian in a no-win situation. As a Christian, it is your duty to do everything you can to try to show others the way... but at the same time you have to let them choose their own way.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope he gets the help he needs. I think its getting obvious that his mental condition is far from normal and his obsession with finding wrongs in videogames has ruined his life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay:
I'm no fan of this guy, but what exactly did he do that was worthy of debarment? I'm not aware of any illegal activities?
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)
"In 1992, Thompson asked a Florida judge to declare the Florida Bar Association unconstitutional. He said that the bar was engaged in a vendetta against him because of his religious beliefs, which he said conflicted with what he called the bar's pro-gay, humanist, liberal agenda. He also said that the "wedding of all three functions of government into the Florida Bar, the 'official arm' of the Florida Supreme Court, is violative of the bedrock constitutional requirement of the separation powers and the 'checks and balances' which the separation guarantees."[121] Thompson accepted a $20,000 out-of-court settlement.[122]"
Ouch. It looks like he really did hit a sweet spot. Otherwise they wouldn't have given him the 20k. But why is nobody on /. mentioning this?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Read the Kotaku link on it... as of this writing, it's still up, while the other one is slashdotted...
http://kotaku.com/5054772/jack-thompson-disbarred [kotaku.com]
The document they posted is quite brief, but for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing, the paragraph that answers your question is paragraph 4:
Quoted, unmodified. Every paragraph of the filing is pertinent... it's only about a page's worth of text, so well worth the read. And IMHO, it's well worth disbarring him. And the only way he's affected *me* personally was that, thanks to one of his initiatives, I had to ask the staff at EB Games to sell me a copy of Bully, because they didn't have it actually *on* the shelves.
Hey, Jack, Welcome to /. (Score:5, Funny)
Not to defend Thompson, consider the following charges:
Doesn't this list make him sound like a pretty typical Slashdotter?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but I've worked with them for years now as a paramalegal. There are ethical rules that attorneys need to follow (some of which we follow, too). AFAIK, Thompson was acting contrary to many of those standards which are part of staying with the bar, hence his disbarment.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Funny)
Jumping Jesus in a hopped up chariot. A lawyer being kicked out of the club for being unethical?
Isn't that like being kicked out of Aeorosmith for having a drug problem??
I mean, how bad would it have to be before a group of lawyers thinks what you are doing is too unethical?
That all being said I really think it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)
How about his filings disrespectful to the courts [wikipedia.org] for starters? Perhaps submitting gay porn as court documents so they're part of the public record [digg.com] strikes you as a better reason? How about "making false and disparaging statements" [law.com] about judges and other attorneys?
The claims are that he repeatedly makes false and inflammatory claims about others in and out of court, disrespects the officers of the court, and refuses to follow the rules of the court or to act with decorum in the courtroom. I'd say those are sufficient grounds. The Florida Bar Association and the courts appear to think so, and they consider the complaints against him legitimate enough to act. IANAL, but I know they need to abide by some rules and that they should know those rules better than the rest of us.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Disbarment doesn't have anything to do with illegal activities...You should read the trial transcripts. I read them as a lark, because I get a kick out of JT's nutbaggery, but I lost my enjoyment about halfway through reading all the testimony from lawyers and judges about a truly obscene level of harassment.
It's clear that they felt that bringing a suit against him for libel and slander would only further his aims, so you see, for example, a prominent partner at a law firm, another member of which was involved in a suit against JT, being publicly accused of peddling pornographic materials to minors. A clear attempt at intimidation.
Likewise the Alabama case, when the judge revoked JT's pro hac vice after JT's blatantly contradicted the Judge's instructions regarding talking to the press, which also included some basic lies regarding his status on the case (the pro hac vice had not been approved when he started representing himself as the actual lawyer on the case, which he couldn't have been without the PHV). After the PHV was revoked, JT started making criminal racketeering charges against the judge, and the judge who had held the seat previously, who, as in the first case, wasn't even involved.
Imagine being dragged through the mud by a rabid, paranoid jackass who is just out to intimidate someone else whom you happen to know.
Here is a link to the Referee Report Recommending his disbarment [libsyn.com] (pdf warning). It's part funny, and part disgusting.
It's frankly amazing that he got away with it as long as he did. You'd think, if gamers were as violent as he swears we are, someone would have killed his dumb ass.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe now we won't have to hear about him all the damn time.
~t
Not even close.
Jack is going to call out against video games until he dies or retires. He enjoys the attention and the money.
He's now completely free to so whatever he wants and say whatever he wants and act in any manner he pleases - he has no professional association to give him any oversight.
We haven't seen the last of him, not by a long shot.
Even if we had seen the last of him, that would be a bad thing. He's a raving loon, and if he represents those who are against violent games, that's good for those of us who are 30+ years old, have jobs, mortgages, kids, spouses, and the entire GTA series.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Jack is going to call out against video games until he dies or retires.
Um, hope nobody has to explain to you that being disbarred IS a retirement. He's retired. He cannot practice his profession legally. He may start a new career as a news commentator (Nancy Grace already filled CNN's quota for shrill moralistic harpies but there's always CBS or NBC or something). That's a separate career if it ever materializes, so as of now, he IS retired.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, yes, he's been forcibly retired from being a lawyer.
There's no "Crazy Fucker" Association that can do the same thing and prevent him from getting in front of a camera.
He fucking loves being in front of a camera and hearing himself talk.
I guarantee that he'll be all over the news for the next school shooting.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Informative)
Bar associations take a disbarment, especially one as exceptional as this (lifetime) very seriously. I also doubt that he could, in fact, pass most states' bar exams.
For those not familiar, getting admitted to the bar isn't just passing the exam, it involves being reviewed for professionalism. I imagine that he would piss off the reviewers in the same way he apparently pissed this judge off into giving the absolute most powerful punishment available.
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to the supreme court (florida or otherwise), 1.5 years *is* sudden.
Bad news for GTA (Score:5, Funny)
Not that I see that as a bad thing...
Re:Bad news for GTA (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. He will simply, make the talk show circuit, get backing and funding by some "think of the children" and christian groups, and bam he is back in business using OTHER lawyers.
In fact, I can imagine that software makers are going to be paying him, via a proxy group, to sue them.
on the plus side (Score:5, Funny)
this will give more time to sit around in front of the computer at home, playing video games
Re:on the plus side (Score:4, Funny)
this will give more time to sit around in front of the computer at home, playing video games
Bad idea. Thanks to him, we all know that violent video games are a direct cause of violent behavior, and I don't think we need someone as dangerously imbalanced as him getting violent.
What's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Contempt of court, I guess...
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's next? (Score:5, Funny)
Just nuke him from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Not Quite... (Score:3, Informative)
Now that Jack is defying the court order requiring him to have another member in good standing of the Florida bar to submit motions for him,
From TFSCD, "The Court approves the corrected referee's report and John Bruce Thompson is permanently disbarred, effective thirty days from the date of this order so that respondent can close out his practice and protect the interests of existing clients. If respondent notifies the Court in writing that he is no longer practicing and does not need the thirty days to protect existing clients, this Court will enter an order making the permanent disbarment effective immediately. Respondent shall accept no new
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You misunderstand. This has nothing to do with his disbarment; rather GPP is referring to a previous court order prohibiting him from submitting briefs that were not signed by another bar member in good standing.
By submitting this motion he has violated that order, though I doubt much will come of it since he has already been disbarred.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It gets better. Read his emergency filing, and you learn that basically his whole argument is this:
1. Innocent person "Bob" is in jail, due to a conspiracy by the Bar.
2. Due to Thompson's disbarrment, Thompson (the only one who sees the conspiracy) can no longer represent "Bob".
3. "Bob" is doomed unless Thompson's disbarrment is stayed.
Of course, they could always suspend the disbarrment until "Bob"'s case is decided, and then disbar him. That would be even more awesome, because then they get to smack him d
Kind of a shitty link, sorry guys (Score:5, Informative)
JT's emergency filing press release (Score:4, Informative)
1. Doesn't he mean "pwn" that Bar?
2. Thompson knew this was going to happen, so last week he file an action against the bar; now he claims his disbarment was retaliation. Nice pre-emptive strike last week, Jack -- too bad it's as transparent as day that it's unrelated to the numerous reasons the Florida Bar Association decided you're unfit to practice law.
Well I'll be... (Score:5, Funny)
This will be a day long remembered. (Score:5, Interesting)
It has seen the end of a RIAA lawsuit [zdnet.com],
The end of copyright cops [wired.com],
The end of Comcast's forging of RST packets [pcauthority.com.au],
It will soon see the end of the Empire itself!
Re:This will be a day long remembered. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can add to that list
http://torrentfreak.com/european-parliament-says-no-to-three-strikes-law-080925/ [torrentfreak.com] (URL pretty much tells what's that about)
and
The Pirate Bay's blocking in Italy is apparently overruled [brokep.com] after TPB sent in their lawyers.
This is a *very* good day :)
Re:This will be a day long remembered. (Score:5, Funny)
I also hear Duke Nukem Forever went gold today!
Re:This will be a day long remembered. (Score:5, Funny)
The end of an error.
Re:This will be a day long remembered. (Score:5, Funny)
wait until after the mortgage bail out fails and then even with global petrol reduction the global economy tanks without americans able to borrow money to buy big houses they can't afford to drive
"One day, when I came home from work, I accidentally put my car key in the door of my apartment building. I turned it and the whole building started up. So I drove it around. A policeman stopped me for going too fast. He said, 'Where do you live?' I said, 'Right here.' Then I drove my building onto the middle of a highway, and I ran outside, and told all of the cars to get the hell out of my driveway." -- Steven Wright
He doesn't know when to quit... (Score:5, Informative)
April fools? (Score:5, Funny)
I mean seriously - this is just too good to be true.
Jack Thompson disbarred. The RIAA loses its first court case on their "making available" theory.
I'm waiting for the OMG ponies to show up.
Re:April fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean seriously - this is just too good to be true. Jack Thompson disbarred. The RIAA loses its first court case on their "making available" theory.
Wait till you get to the one about your government wanting $2000 of your money to bail out banks who apparently still thought that pyramid schemes were a good idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They want to bail out banks and still let them collect on as many of the loans as they can, too. Don't you think if they're going to cover the loan losses that the loan should be fully forgiven and the people should keep the collateral? After all, the government is paying the loans with the taxpayers' money.
Re:April fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
They want to bail out banks and still let them collect on as many of the loans as they can, too. Don't you think if they're going to cover the loan losses that the loan should be fully forgiven and the people should keep the collateral? After all, the government is paying the loans with the taxpayers' money.
No.
Don't you get it?
"Personal responsibility" is for working-class peons. They were stupid enough to take loans they couldn't afford (and if they believed the financial planner who said they could, that's also their fault) and they can't get out of that just because the chickens have come home to roost. They need to take responsibility for their irresponsibility, not have the government come in like a dad whose son spent their tuition money on beer.
"Too big to fail" is the mantra for the movers and shakers in the finance industry. For one, it's not their money they're screwing around with, so it's not personal. For two, building an entire economic edifice on top of the backs of debtors who can't afford their debt isn't irresponsible, it's simply a calculated risk. Taking risks is what the pioneers did, and it made this country great, so we shouldn't discourage that by making them suffer the consequences of that risk. Besides, these people are important.
Ahem. Sorry. I'm depressing myself in a thread that should be full of glee.
Re:April fools? (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean poor Republicans having to fix a problem caused by Democrats that started all the way back with Carter? Have you seen any calls for congressional hearings? Investigations? Know why? Because the Democrats can't find any Republicans to blame it on. The NYT tried to blame one of McCain's aides but their article was quickly debunked as total crap. I'd love it if one day the media started getting sued for the crap they invent.
Poor Democrats are having to face up to the brutal reality that their beloved socialism doesn't always work so fucking well. A few hundred years of history should have made that obvious though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:April fools? (Score:5, Funny)
This just in: SCO admits shenanigans, forfeits all future appeals!
Microsoft declares the war is over; adopts open-source licenses for all of its products
P is proven not to equal NP; poor grad student becomes king of shit fuck mountain ...I mean seriously, what a day! I don't know about all of you, but I'm going to go celebrate by playing my "murder simulator"!
Re:OMG PONIES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah! There they are. Thanks.
Now that that's out of the way, where's my copy of Duke Nukem forever? Or my notice of an auction at SCO so I can buy Darl McBride's desk?
BTW speaking of Slashdot on April Fools day - this would be a really excellent move on the part of the industry.
Everyone knows /. is completely useless on April 1. Wouldn't it be funny if the industry took use of that fact and posted an important story on April 1st specifically to take advantage of that?
"RIAA admits to wrongdoing in their ongoing lawsuit cash grab. Offers refund to everyone who contacts them today."
We'd all say, "Yeah right! OMG ponies." and not email them. They'd be in the clear.
Nerd-vana (Score:5, Funny)
So today we have stories in which the DOJ opposes becoming the Federal Copyright Cops, the RIAA loses a couple hundred thousand dollar lawsuit, and Jack Thompson gets disbarred. To quote Perfect Strangers: Now we are so happy, we do the Dance of Joy!
Can somebody.... (Score:5, Funny)
.... Please give him a cup of hot coffee to calm him down?
Now they need to add this to the next GTA. (Score:5, Funny)
Have a Bar called "Jack's Bar" and as you walk in there is a white haired lawyer that the bouncer is int he process of throwing out.
Bouncer: Sir you are being a nuisance to the customers please leave.
Lawyer: But.... I am a prominent lawyer in the community, I was on nationwide TV for crying out loud!
Bouncer: Shutup and get out, NOW!!!
Bouncer then throws the lawyer out on his his ass, get it, "Dis-Bar-ed" LOLZ!
He has friends? (Score:4, Funny)
From his 'response':
With enemies this foolish, Thompson needs only the loyal friends he has.
I have some bad news for you, Jack: Your Mom and Dad don't count as 'friends'... and they can't stand you anymore either.
There is a God. (Score:5, Funny)
Jack Thompson disbarred. On my birthday.
Happy birthday to me, happy birthday to me...
Decision (Score:4, Funny)
<singing>Hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more no more no more no more, hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more!</singing>
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Funny)
Thompson always wanted to own a Bar. Now, armed with multiple US Supreme Court rulings that no state bar can do what it has done to Thompson, he is set to own that Bar.
Different kind of bar?
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Funny)
"Sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes, well... he eats you."
That kind of bar. I think.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Funny)
He did what with the piss of some judges?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
/rimshot
Thanks folks, I'll be here all night!
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Interesting)
He was disbarred in Florida. Doesn't this mean he can still take the exam and be re-barred (okay, probably not the word, although anything involving Thompson and rebar sounds like fun) in any other state?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many states do you think let someone apply to the Bar if another state has this sort of ruling against the person.
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Informative)
From what I limitedly know about the Bar (in Indiana) is that once you've been disbarred in one state, you cant reapply in any other states.
Any lawyer types care to comment?
Same rule in health care (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about law, but in various health care professions (I keep my chiropractic license for pro bono patients) and licensed engineers (I know a few), one of the first questions they ask on any application for a license is something along the lines of
"Has your license to practice ever been suspended or revoked in this or any other jurisdiction, or has any [insert profession] board taken disciplinary action against you? If yes, please provide a detailed explaination."
That usually means that if you were booted in one jurisdiction, your chances of being licensed in another jurisdiction are sufficiently close to zero to be indistinguishable from zero for all practical purposes.
Oh, and if you are found out to have LIED on that question, your license is automatically revoked (at least in SC) and you're fined heavily. For some professions, that's even a felony and includes jail time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering they basically invented a new type of disbarment for him, I think his lawyer days are over.
Normally (in florida) they block you from trying to get your license back for 5 years, but the original trial recommended 10 years, and the referee, upon reviewing the evidence, recommended permanent disbarment, because 10 years wasn't enough. Even with the minimum disbarment, it would have been extremely unlikely for him to get re-certified...With this extraordinary disbarment? Impossible.
He may do someth
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Informative)
Every state bar requires a background check before allowing anyone to sit for the bar exam. The background check of Jack Thompson would reveal the Florida disbarment, and there is approximately a zero percent chance that any state bar association would let him sit for the exam.
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. If all it took was pissing off some judges, he'd have been disbarred a long, long, LONG time ago. He demonstrated compete disregard for the legal system with meritless filings for YEARS, and as a result got exactly what he deserved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Funny)
All it takes is pissing of the Bar and a few judges, and you've lost what you made with 12 years of college.
To be fair, he did more than that, he did his darndest to further the stereotype of lawyers as being rabid, idiotic, greedy, power hungry attack dogs. More significantly, he was tying up a lot of time and wasting a lot of other people's money by using completely frivolous lawsuits as a soapbox. Then he was blatantly disrespectful to everyone else, even those who disagreed with him.
This isn't like being fired because you beat your boss at golf, this is like being fired because you lost your temper, took out an ad in the local newspaper saying your company kills puppies, and then took a shit on your boss' desk.
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Funny)
You sound like you've thought this through. ;-)
Cheers
Sucks when actions have consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you think everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want whenever they want, and if people don't like it, they can piss off?
Actions have consequences. When you screw up, you have to pay the price. I know, making people pay for their mistakes is taking away their freedom to be douchebags. Obviously these professional associations, by holding their members to certain standards, must hate our freedoms.
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Informative)
Have you actually been following the cases? Thompson has done more than just to piss off some judges. In many cases, he crossed the line of professionalism. The problem with Thompson is that you are his personal enemy if you oppose him in anyway whether it was your job or whether you simply ruled against him. If you read the judge's opinion against Thompson, you would see that. And the ABA (not AMA) had nothing to do with this: The Florida Bar has disbarred Thompson. Other states will not accept you as an attorney once one state disbars you.
Re:Hrmmm.. I dont like this. (Score:5, Informative)
Even suspensions are survivable.
Jack Thompson, among other things, submitted porn to the courts, accused multiple judges of bribery in open court and public filings, violated numerous ethical rules regarding practice without a license, good character, etc. He falsely represented himself as being the lawyer for criminal victims, profited off their suffering, and then lied in court about it. He accused other lawyers of just as bad offenses, without a shred of evidence. On a more personal level, I can confirm that years ago, he physically broke into at least one lawyer's office to drop of papers and "scare" them (I know the lawyer personally).
Jack Thompson is a festering boil on the hide of the law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, he's still open to civil lawsuits by other groups. For example, from my reading of the public documents about his se
Professional Iicensing boards (Score:5, Informative)
I am speaking from my understanding as a licensed chiropractor. (I don't practice any more except for pro bono cases. I much prefer my computer-related work now.)
The _theory_ behind a professional licensing board is that members of a profession that requires extensive and specialized education are the only ones qualified to make informed judgements regarding the practice of that profession. These judgements include, but are not limited to, appropriate standards of practice including what would be considered "unprofessional conduct".
This is intended to protect the public from unqualified and/or unscrupulous practitioners. Usually, this works well. However, it is possible for the boards to become "good ol' boys' clubs" in which they are more concerned for each other than the public. Fortunately, this is usually rare. Many licensing boards include a "member of the public" (that is, someone who is _not_ licensed in the professon) in order to help prevent such abuses.
Since the licensing board controls who is licensed and, thus, who is allowed to practice the profession, unless otherwise allowed by law the highest sanction that they can impose is to bar the offender from ever practicing that profession again. Lighter sanctions (again, unless also allowed monetary damanges by law) include temporary suspension of a license for various periods of time or other license-related sanctions. I have heard of chiropractors having their licenses revoked and being required to re-apply as if a new graduate, including needing to take all of the exams again. I have also heard of chiropractors being required to take and pass classes to demonstrate an understanding of the areas that resulted in the disciplinary actions. (Fortunately, I have never been subject to disciplinary action by any licensing board.)
So, the theory is that the licensing board can revoke a license in order to protect the public from someone who is deemed unfit to practice the profession. For lawyers, for historical reasons, that licensing board is usually called the "bar" or the "bar association".
And I would _hope_ they would do thorough background checks on school teachers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And then I realized I might miss his special brand of crazy...
Don't worry, the world is full of crazy. When one falls, seven more rise up to take their place.
Re:Holy cow (Score:5, Interesting)
Not gonna happen. You quote people in stories to give arguments authority (again, not to toot my own horn, but I was a journalist for two decades). The only thing Jack is good for going forward is as an example of how the people who think videogames make children commit murder are themselves crazy. How hard is it to get disbarred? John Yoo, the lawyer who wrote the opinion saying it was fine for the United States for disregard 100 years of treaties, international law, and the Geneva Convention and torture people, *he* hasn't been disbarred. Getting disbarred is really highly unusual, absent some kind of criminal conviction (like President Clinton's perjury charges). Jack's credibility is gone forever. I predict a new standard bearer against video game violence will arise: Female, mother with young children, probably calling herself doctor but with a PhD in education. You heard it here first...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is the world actually getting better?
It was, until my email address was seized by the state of Kentucky...
Re:Discomprehension? (Score:5, Informative)
Admission to the bar is the term commonly used in the United States to indicate that a person is licensed to practice law as an attorney at law.
Being disbarred is a gramatically correct term referring to the act of revocation of a licence to practice law.
Basically this decision means Jack Thompson is unable to earn his living as an attorney (at least in Florida) any more.