Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-07-20 06:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:amicus, hb1381, jack thompson, judge brady, legislation, louisiana, roy burrell

Motion Denied... Federal Judge Says No to Jack Thompson

In a terse, one-page ruling, Federal District Court Judge James Brady has refused to permit controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson to file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in the ongoing lawsuit over Louisiana's recently-enacted video game law.

Thompson, of course, was heavily involved in the Louisiana statute, helping Rep. Roy Burrell (D) draft the underlying legislation, HB 1381. The anti-game attorney claimed in his request to the court that Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti, a named defendant in the case, approved of Thompson's amicus motion.

As previously reported here on GamePolitics, Thompson's request to file an amicus brief - if granted - would have permitted the long-time video game industry nemesis to provide information to the court even though he is not a party to the lawsuit.

Shortly after Thompson made his request to the court, game industry lawyers objected to the Miami attorney's participation on a variety of technical grounds. Among these was Thompson's signature on his amicus motion, which lists him as "Defendant and Co-Counsel." The game industry contends that he is neither. For his part, Judge Brady appears to have found the industry's argument convincing.

Thompson's amicus motion (in MS Word format) can be seen here. The industry's objection (pdf) is here. For all GamePolitics coverage of the Thompson amicus issue, click here.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]biff_larken
2006-07-20 11:55 am UTC (link)
if *i* were a court, i wouldn't be his friend either.

(Reply to this)

Can we say...
[info]jesdk
2006-07-20 11:58 am UTC (link)
0wned? :)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Can we say...
[info]chenry
2006-07-20 12:38 pm UTC (link)
yes. yes we may.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Can we say... - [info]samsoneffect, 2006-07-20 01:42 pm UTC
Re: Can we say... - [info]ferrarimanf355, 2006-07-20 02:31 pm UTC
Re: Can we say... - [info]jamesweis, 2006-07-20 03:30 pm UTC
Re: Can we say... - [info]gatz111085, 2006-07-20 03:07 pm UTC

[info]beardoggx
2006-07-20 12:10 pm UTC (link)
Wow, it didn't take long for the judge to deny Thompson's amicus motion, did it?

Good move by the judge.

(Reply to this)


[info]jahbulon
2006-07-20 12:13 pm UTC (link)
Hah! Something to be expected from a rational justice system.

This has been fun, Jack. I'm sure we'll do it again some time. Next GTA release perhaps? See you there with lies on.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jahbulon
2006-07-20 12:27 pm UTC (link)
Does anyone know if Thompson has a website? I imagine if he did it would have been shut down repeatedly by hackers, but I also imagine that if such a website existed he would immediately hit his blog to type up an angry, angsty retort to the court, like a tortured teen on myspace relating his parent's denial of a request to attend a party.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 12:32 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jahbulon, 2006-07-20 12:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kurisu7885, 2006-07-20 02:58 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jahbulon, 2006-07-20 11:12 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]zewrestler, 2006-07-20 01:31 pm UTC
Reasoning
[info]dog_welder
2006-07-20 12:14 pm UTC (link)
Talk about your "legal briefs," but that was as brief as it gets. It's too bad there was no reasoning given for the decision by the judge to mull over.

It's also too bad that Jack seems to have no concept of how actual legal procedings work. His filing as a defendant in the case was, at best, delusional.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Reasoning
[info]chenry
2006-07-20 12:38 pm UTC (link)
i don't like legal briefs, too binding. legal boxer-briefs are better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Reasoning - [info]jamesweis, 2006-07-20 03:37 pm UTC
Awesome.
[info]aniki21
2006-07-20 12:18 pm UTC (link)
Awesome to the max.

(Reply to this)


[info]chenry
2006-07-20 12:48 pm UTC (link)
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Ha-Ha!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]startropics
2006-07-20 02:38 pm UTC (link)
HAHAAHA that's the best one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]malonscronie, 2006-07-20 09:40 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]terminator44, 2006-07-21 10:09 pm UTC
I never thought it would happen.
[info]jquilty
2006-07-20 12:49 pm UTC (link)
But Thompson just got his ass served to him on a nice, but short judical plate.

I somehow think he's sitting naked in the shower eating girl scout cookies and mumbling about how Rockstar is after him.

XD

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I never thought it would happen.
[info]jythie
2006-07-20 02:36 pm UTC (link)
I am pretty sure there are quite a few gp readers right now trying to remove thier eyes with a spork for fear of ever being shown that image.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Obligatory "Owned" Image
[info]startropics
2006-07-20 12:50 pm UTC (link)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Obligatory "Owned" Image
[info]kajex
2006-07-20 07:21 pm UTC (link)
That's too awesome. XD

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Obligatory "Owned" Image - [info]darktetsuya, 2006-07-20 10:17 pm UTC

[info]bane_keldare
2006-07-20 12:53 pm UTC (link)
And to think: this guy's a lawyer.

Such a smart profession, such a stupid mistake. I don't know much about the business, but I'm pretty sure attourneys are supposed to identify these people within his motion. To me, the whole thing looks like this.

JT: I have evidence from some people! Let me speak!
Judge: And...who are these people?
JT: I'm not telling until you let me speak!
Judge: Um...no. Go away. *shoo's*

(Reply to this)

ACESS DENIED!
[info]the1jeffy
2006-07-20 01:32 pm UTC (link)
This is not suprising in the least, but it sure feels good, right?

Further prediction from NostroJeffmus: Jack is not done in Louisiana.

(Reply to this)


[info]agentch
2006-07-20 01:57 pm UTC (link)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mrpat___
2006-07-20 04:16 pm UTC (link)
darn you for beating me to the picture! :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]udx
2006-07-20 02:16 pm UTC (link)
Man, with Jack Thompson forced off the involvement of the bill now, the bill may end up coming to a grinding halt.

Of course, Hillary may get involved. But as long as she doesn't, all we can do is see the bill's last breath.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-20 02:19 pm UTC (link)
nah, Thompson's contribution was writing the bill and helping Rep. Burrell get it through the legislature. Now it is up to the LA Attorney General to defend the bill in this court case.

Hillary is not involved in any way. She is a U.S. Senator. This is a state-level bill in Louisiana. It is strictly up to the judge.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Hmmm - [info]mjolnirjack, 2006-07-20 06:01 pm UTC
Re: Hmmm - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 06:22 pm UTC
Another indication that Thompson was absent...
[info]duncan_922
2006-07-20 02:21 pm UTC (link)
the day they taught law at law school. Claiming that he's co-counsel when he's not??? Geeeezzzz! Do law degrees come on cracker-jack boxes now?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent...
[info]taintedecho
2006-07-20 03:13 pm UTC (link)
*holds up his lawyer licence* And I will see you in court good sir!

But honestly, I mean whatever his reasoning, I guess he thought the judge would let him in. Oh well, another time, Jack and the gamers will face off, just not this time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]eternallegenduk, 2006-07-20 03:45 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 05:54 pm UTC

(Deleted post)
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 06:31 pm UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]gabrielcelesta, 2006-07-21 03:22 am UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]semperar, 2006-07-20 05:05 pm UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]loopychew, 2006-07-20 09:58 pm UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]lordwank, 2006-07-23 06:15 pm UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]loopychew, 2006-07-24 12:15 am UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]gatz111085, 2006-07-20 03:14 pm UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]xwaix, 2006-07-20 03:53 pm UTC
Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent... - [info]terminator44, 2006-07-21 10:14 pm UTC
Ha ha!
[info]mazinger_z
2006-07-20 02:33 pm UTC (link)
Incoming "Judge is a corrupt puppet of the gaming industry" appeal in 5... 4...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Obligatory "Owned" Image
[info]semperar
2006-07-20 03:51 pm UTC (link)
Porn industry. That comes first, then Take Two Interactive. He accuses of Gaming industry as a last resort.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Ha ha! - [info]sprngpilot, 2006-07-20 04:31 pm UTC

[info]rhanlav
2006-07-20 03:36 pm UTC (link)
No one wants to be Jack Thompson's friend, neither the courts or those groups who distanced themselves from him. Not very suprising, but satsifying to see that the judge gave Jacko the boot.

I'm just suprised how freakin' short that denial is though. I mean, I would have expected it to be more than a line. I wonder what stuff came up for the judge to decide the ruling. I wonder if all the weird crazy stuff he did in Alabama's courts came up, or all the other things he's done like harassing Penny Arcade.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-20 04:29 pm UTC (link)
the judge ruled on a fairly limited motion by the game industry which is described in some detail in yesterday's GP (and linked)...

There was really no reason for the judge to say anymore than he did, yes or no...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Not to nitpick
[info]jamesweis
2006-07-20 03:41 pm UTC (link)
"Thompson, of course, was heavily involved in the Louisiana statue,"

But shouldn't that be statute?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Not to nitpick
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-20 04:28 pm UTC (link)
why, yes, it should...

:-(

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Not to nitpick - [info]semperar, 2006-07-20 05:04 pm UTC
Re: Not to nitpick - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-07-20 06:02 pm UTC
Re: Not to nitpick - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 06:16 pm UTC
Re: Not to nitpick - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-07-20 07:21 pm UTC
Re: Not to nitpick - [info]terminator44, 2006-07-21 10:17 pm UTC

[info]ianc14
2006-07-20 03:54 pm UTC (link)
As i said in the forums, great news if not that surprising.

So JT, guess this Judge is corrupt eh?

(Reply to this)

Rebuttal?
[info]nightwng2000
2006-07-20 04:20 pm UTC (link)
So...
Has there been any word as yet from him (it's 15 minutes past noon EST at the time I'm writing this)?
I know there was some speculation from members on how he would respond. I was just interested if he's made a public statement yet (not merely a GP post attempt blathering that he can't post to GP).
I mentioned the tactical plays in the previous article on this so I was just wondering what his next move is, how he'll respond. We can speculate plenty, I'm just curious what he WILL do.

nightwng2000

(Reply to this)


[info]boffo97
2006-07-20 04:28 pm UTC (link)
I'm sure that he will now say that the judge was paid off by the gaming industry, or Blank Rome, or is otherwise corrupt.

Go for it, Jack.

You could use a FIFTH complaint on you with the Florida Bar.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]attackgypsy
2006-07-20 05:03 pm UTC (link)
I would laugh my ass off when the judge orders Jack to appear before him, and throws him in jail for contempt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 05:55 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]attackgypsy, 2006-07-20 07:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]darktetsuya, 2006-07-20 10:53 pm UTC
It's about time
[info]raynesftl
2006-07-20 04:36 pm UTC (link)
It's about time that someone put that man in his place. Jack Thompson is just one of many lawyers that seem to think their moral beliefs give them the authority to go above the law or that don't have to follow the law. Well guess what, they have to follow the law just like everyone else. The sad thing is he will come out now with the "activist judges" BS and act like this judge is looking to hurt children.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It's about time
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-20 04:47 pm UTC (link)
I don't think he will, and for a couple of reasons.

First, it's a really bad idea for aa lawyer to mess with a judge.

Second, this judge is still going to be the one ultimately deciding on the fate of the law that Jack wrote.

Third, the Louisiana A.G., who has strongly supported this bill, has to face this judge in court over this very bill. Mr. Foti won't want the judge in a bad frame of mind and won't want to get behind any circus atmosphere.

Finally, I'd worry less about what Jack might do or say and focus on the court case. This ruling has effectively ended his participation in the matter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: It's about time - [info]lordlundar, 2006-07-20 07:02 pm UTC
Re: It's about time - [info]dustin1986, 2006-07-21 08:13 am UTC
Re: It's about time - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-21 11:07 am UTC
Re: It's about time - [info]jerrydavid, 2006-07-21 07:41 pm UTC
Re: It's about time - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-21 07:59 pm UTC

[info]chuma
2006-07-20 04:36 pm UTC (link)
Reading through the motion and the objection, it is painfully obvious in the quality and style between Jack Thompson and a REAL lawyer.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-20 04:42 pm UTC (link)
I do find it surprising that Jack would expect a federal district court judge to be impressed by all of the fluff.

Where's the beef?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

agreed - [info]mattaugamer, 2006-07-21 04:48 am UTC
ew.
[info]premo_maggot
2006-07-20 04:38 pm UTC (link)
Two very digusting formats, .doc and .pdf -.-

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: ew.
[info]gamepolitics
2006-07-20 04:40 pm UTC (link)
yeah, well... you could always go to another source for this material.

If you can find one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ew. - [info]premo_maggot, 2006-07-20 04:42 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-07-20 04:49 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-07-20 05:41 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]premo_maggot, 2006-07-20 06:43 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]the1jeffy, 2006-07-20 06:59 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]ianc14, 2006-07-20 05:57 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]ss_ebonclaw, 2006-07-20 06:32 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]phantompvp, 2006-07-20 08:04 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]malarac, 2006-07-21 02:42 am UTC
Re: ew. - [info]jerrydavid, 2006-07-21 07:44 pm UTC
Re: ew. - [info]premo_maggot, 2006-07-20 06:43 pm UTC

[info]raptonx
2006-07-20 04:49 pm UTC (link)
Remember kids, just say no to Jack Thompson.



(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]dustin1986
2006-07-21 08:14 am UTC (link)
Yes... dammnit, I mean NO!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]terminator44, 2006-07-21 10:21 pm UTC

[info]caelum
2006-07-20 05:25 pm UTC (link)
Ah, what wonderful news to start the day off with.

(Reply to this)


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…