Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
2006-07-20 06:53:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next

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...

Tags: amicus, hb1381, jack thompson, judge brady, legislation, louisiana, roy burrell

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 121 comments
Previous
← Ctrl← Alt
  • 1
  • 2
Next
Ctrl →Alt →

[info]biff_larken

July 20 2006, 11:55:31 UTC 5 years ago

if *i* were a court, i wouldn't be his friend either.

[info]jesdk

July 20 2006, 11:58:27 UTC 5 years ago

Can we say...

0wned? :)

[info]chenry

July 20 2006, 12:38:14 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Can we say...

yes. yes we may.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

[info]samsoneffect

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ferrarimanf355

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jamesweis

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gatz111085

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]beardoggx

July 20 2006, 12:10:04 UTC 5 years ago

Wow, it didn't take long for the judge to deny Thompson's amicus motion, did it?

Good move by the judge.

[info]jahbulon

July 20 2006, 12:13:01 UTC 5 years ago

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.

[info]jahbulon

July 20 2006, 12:27:46 UTC 5 years ago

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.

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jahbulon

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]kurisu7885

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jahbulon

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]zewrestler

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]dog_welder

July 20 2006, 12:14:32 UTC 5 years ago

Reasoning

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.

[info]chenry

July 20 2006, 12:38:54 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Reasoning

i don't like legal briefs, too binding. legal boxer-briefs are better.

[info]jamesweis

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]aniki21

July 20 2006, 12:18:22 UTC 5 years ago

Awesome.

Awesome to the max.

[info]chenry

July 20 2006, 12:48:20 UTC 5 years ago

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Ha-Ha!

[info]startropics

July 20 2006, 14:38:58 UTC 5 years ago

HAHAAHA that's the best one.

[info]malonscronie

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]terminator44

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jquilty

July 20 2006, 12:49:18 UTC 5 years ago

I never thought it would happen.

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

[info]jythie

July 20 2006, 14:36:32 UTC 5 years ago

Re: I never thought it would happen.

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.

[info]startropics

July 20 2006, 12:50:10 UTC 5 years ago

Obligatory "Owned" Image

[info]kajex

July 20 2006, 19:21:01 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Obligatory "Owned" Image

That's too awesome. XD

[info]darktetsuya

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]bane_keldare

July 20 2006, 12:53:53 UTC 5 years ago

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*

[info]the1jeffy

July 20 2006, 13:32:11 UTC 5 years ago

ACESS DENIED!

This is not suprising in the least, but it sure feels good, right?

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

[info]agentch

July 20 2006, 13:57:28 UTC 5 years ago

[info]mrpat___

July 20 2006, 16:16:48 UTC 5 years ago

darn you for beating me to the picture! :P

[info]udx

July 20 2006, 14:16:08 UTC 5 years ago

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.

[info]gamepolitics

July 20 2006, 14:19:12 UTC 5 years ago

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.

[info]mjolnirjack

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]duncan_922

July 20 2006, 14:21:23 UTC 5 years ago

Another indication that Thompson was absent...

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?

[info]taintedecho

July 20 2006, 15:13:15 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Another indication that Thompson was absent...

*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.

[info]eternallegenduk

5 years ago

  • Loading...

Deleted comment

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

Deleted comment

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gabrielcelesta

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]semperar

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]loopychew

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]lordwank

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]loopychew

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gatz111085

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]xwaix

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]terminator44

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]mazinger_z

July 20 2006, 14:33:20 UTC 5 years ago

Ha ha!

Incoming "Judge is a corrupt puppet of the gaming industry" appeal in 5... 4...

[info]semperar

July 20 2006, 15:51:33 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Obligatory "Owned" Image

Porn industry. That comes first, then Take Two Interactive. He accuses of Gaming industry as a last resort.

[info]sprngpilot

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]rhanlav

July 20 2006, 15:36:25 UTC 5 years ago

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.

[info]gamepolitics

July 20 2006, 16:29:54 UTC 5 years ago

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...

[info]jamesweis

July 20 2006, 15:41:42 UTC 5 years ago

Not to nitpick

"Thompson, of course, was heavily involved in the Louisiana statue,"

But shouldn't that be statute?

[info]gamepolitics

July 20 2006, 16:28:25 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Not to nitpick

why, yes, it should...

:-(

[info]semperar

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]goodrobotus

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]goodrobotus

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]terminator44

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ianc14

July 20 2006, 15:54:45 UTC 5 years ago

As i said in the forums, great news if not that surprising.

So JT, guess this Judge is corrupt eh?

[info]nightwng2000

July 20 2006, 16:20:20 UTC 5 years ago

Rebuttal?

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

[info]boffo97

July 20 2006, 16:28:17 UTC 5 years ago

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.

[info]attackgypsy

July 20 2006, 17:03:40 UTC 5 years ago

I would laugh my ass off when the judge orders Jack to appear before him, and throws him in jail for contempt.

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]attackgypsy

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]darktetsuya

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]raynesftl

July 20 2006, 16:36:04 UTC 5 years ago

It's about time

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.

[info]gamepolitics

July 20 2006, 16:47:24 UTC 5 years ago

Re: It's about time

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.

[info]lordlundar

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]dustin1986

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jerrydavid

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]chuma

July 20 2006, 16:36:57 UTC 5 years ago

Reading through the motion and the objection, it is painfully obvious in the quality and style between Jack Thompson and a REAL lawyer.

[info]gamepolitics

July 20 2006, 16:42:15 UTC 5 years ago

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?

[info]mattaugamer

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]premo_maggot

July 20 2006, 16:38:06 UTC 5 years ago

ew.

Two very digusting formats, .doc and .pdf -.-

[info]gamepolitics

July 20 2006, 16:40:34 UTC 5 years ago

Re: ew.

yeah, well... you could always go to another source for this material.

If you can find one.

[info]premo_maggot

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]gamepolitics

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]the1jeffy

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]premo_maggot

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]the1jeffy

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ianc14

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]ss_ebonclaw

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]phantompvp

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]malarac

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]jerrydavid

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]premo_maggot

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]raptonx

July 20 2006, 16:49:39 UTC 5 years ago

Remember kids, just say no to Jack Thompson.



[info]dustin1986

July 21 2006, 08:14:47 UTC 5 years ago

Yes... dammnit, I mean NO!

[info]terminator44

5 years ago

  • Loading...

[info]caelum

July 20 2006, 17:25:10 UTC 5 years ago

Ah, what wonderful news to start the day off with.
Previous
← Ctrl← Alt
  • 1
  • 2
Next
Ctrl →Alt →
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…