UnpleasantlySexy

Vindication?

For those of you longtime readers of my blog, you may recall this post, in which I ranted about the political backlash against video games, and their inevitable connection to anything bad that happens anywhere, ever.

It turns out that Jack Thompson (the weaselly, opportunistic lawyer that has spearheaded the ignorant attack on video games) has been recommended for disbarment. Woohoo!

Judge Dava Tunis' concluding report:

The Florida Bar has recommended disbarment for a period of ten (10) years. This Court respectfully declines to follow the Bar’s recommendation... This case involves factual findings of cumulative misconduct, a repeated pattern of behavior relentlessly forced upon numerous unconnected individuals, a total lack of remorse or even slight acknowledgement of inappropriate conduct...

Additionally, the Court is taking into consideration a review of the Respondent’s conduct not only as proven by the evidence, but by what this Court has witnessed of the Respondent’s behavior throughout the eighteen (18) months of litigation. The undersigned finds no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the Respondent is amenable to rehabilitation, or even remotely appreciates the basis upon which a need or purpose for such rehabilitation is warranted...

Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, the Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct to strike out harshly, extensively, repeatedly and willfully to simply try to bring as much difficulty, distraction and anguish to those he considers in opposition to his causes. He does not proceed within the guidelines of appropriate professional behavior, but rather uses other means available to intimidate, harass, or bring public disrepute to those whom he perceives oppose him.

Thus, after careful consideration of the underlying facts in the instant cases, together with the Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors and the precedent case law, this Court makes the following recommendations for John Bruce Thompson:

A. Permanent disbarment, with no leave to reapply for admission.
B. Disciplinary costs currently totaling $43,675.35.

Woohoo! Right? Well, maybe... He's certainly going to appeal this thing.

See below for a summed-up response from Thompson's side:

This disbarment is in retaliation, among other things, for Thompson’s Tyndale House book Out of Harm’s Way, published in 2005, which blew the whistle on the Florida Supreme Court’s earlier efforts in the 1990’s to literally pathologize his faith-based and successful activism against the American entertainment industry. The Florida Bar’s insurance carrier was forced to pay Thompson money damages for that earlier assault upon his First Amendment rights, which is the only known payment of damages by any state bar to any lawyer for improper disciplinary efforts. It appears that the State of Florida will be paying Thompson more damages this time around for its illegal, now repeated, use of “discipline” to punish a Christian lawyer for his activism in the public square.


Hmm..."faith-based" activism, you say? Punishing a Christian lawyer for his public square activism?

This from the court report:

Among the extensive findings of fact presented in the report, the Court takes particular note of the following which occurred during the three-year period at issue in five counts in these cases:

(1) respondent made false statements of material fact to courts and repeatedly violated a court order;

(2) respondent communicated the subject of representation directly with clients of opposing counsel;

(3) respondent engaged in prohibited ex parte communications;

(4) respondent publicized and sent hundreds of pages of vitriolic and disparaging missives, letters, faxes, and press releases, to the affected individuals;

(5) respondent targeted an individual who was not involved with respondent in any way, merely due to "the position [the individual] holds in state and national politics;"

(6) respondent falsely, recklessly, and publicly accused a judge as being amenable to the "fixing" of cases;

(7) respondent sent courts inappropriate and offensive sexual materials;

(8) respondent falsely and publicly accused various attorneys and their clients of engaging in a conspiracy/enterprise involving "the criminal distribution of sexual materials to minors" and attempted to get prosecuting authorities to charge these attorneys and their clients for racketeering and extortion;

(9) respondent harassed the former client of an attorney in an effort to get the client to use its influence to persuade the attorney to withdraw a defamation suit filed by the attorney against respondent; and

(10) respondent retaliated against attorneys who filed Bar complaints against him for his unethical conduct by asserting to their clients, government officials, politicians, the media, female lawyers in their law firm, employees, personal friends, acquaintances, and their wives, that the attorneys were criminal pornographers who objectify women.


If I were presiding over this case, I'd have the bailiff tie him to a sack of dead fish and launch him out into the Atlantic Ocean from a gigantic catapult.

And my concluding statement would say, "BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAA!"