Judge Bans Thompson from LA Videogame Case

BluePariah writes "The ever-vigilant folks at Game Politics are reporting that Federal District Court Judge James Brady has refused Jack Thompson's request to file an amicus curiae brief in the lawsuit over Louisiana's videogame law." From the article: "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."

lol pwned

[adam.dorsey]

Good to see the rest of the world recognizing his abject insanity.

Jack gives lawyers a bad name

[tbannist]

Wow, he tried to list himself as co-defendent and co-counsel on the amicus brief. I can't think of any rational reason to list yourself as either when you're neither. It makes me suspect he was trying to create evidence that he could later use to show that he had been personally sued by the video game industry, and then complain about how they hound him relentlessly for his pursuit of American Justice. Of course, the co-counsel part is obviously there to pad his resume.

"I can't think of any rational reason"

[Ahnteis]

"I can't think of any rational reason"

And yet, he did it. That pretty much sums up Mr. Thompson.

The Tale of Old Jackie

[BluePariah]

I have been following the Jack Thompson effect for sometime now and I have tried wrap my head around why exactly he has chosen roam around the country like a snake-oil peddler. It's easy to assume he does it for the money, but in many of these cases he's not the being paid. He tries to files these friend-of-the-court motions and calls himself an expert in a field that doesn't exist (often citing his television appearances as somehow legitimate proof of his expertise).

Old Jackie is dumb and insane. He is a hateful little wretch of a man doing everything he can to reconcile his crumbling world view. This is not a matter of republican or democrat, liberal or conservative. Jackie is a whore and a junkie of the first order and he'll side with anyone who will get him a taste. He comes up with dubious data from studies conducted by his cronies that supposedly expose the dangerous and seedy underbelly of the vicious peddlers in the video game market. Yet his attacks are vapor all over and he knows it. There is an old saying amongst the legal crowd:

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the facts are not on your side, pound the table

This is how Old Jackie rolls. It will bite him in the end, though, when people remember more about his woefully disillusioned ramblings then they do about his countless attempts to ban video games state by state. He has only been allowed to get this far because gamers are a notoriously lazy bunch, but that will only last so long. Eventually, as they say in the gamer crowd, Old Jackie will get omgwtfpwned and go crawling back to whatever rat-infested Florida swamp that he came out of.

Why is he still a lawyer?

[Jtheletter]

But his practice is in Florida, where it seems it's virtually impossible to get disbarred.

Agreed. Although IANAL, given what I have seen of his communications which get posted online from time to time I can't believe that there hasn't been enough evidence yet to get him disbarred. Whenever his logic is torn asunder by an opponent he is quick to revert to little more than "OMG STFU or I'll sue you!" He relies on his position as a lawyer to bully or intimidate others into either agreeing with him or keeping quiet. If nothing else don't state bar associations have rules regarding general conduct under which they could remove his right to practice?

I also wonder about his motivations. His stance against video games verges on psychotic at times. What happened Jack? Were you molested by an Atari as a child? Never got that ColecoVision you so desperately wanted for Christmas and so are taking your vengence out on all the other kids? Or is he planning on running for senator under the "I saved every child in the world from the video game horror" banner? It's like he lives and breathes destroying an entire industry, he won't be happy until we're playing pong with anti-alias blurred paddle graphics because the original versions too closely resemble a phallus. :P

Re:The Tale of Old Jackie

[drinkypoo]

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the facts are not on your side, pound the table

The sooner you realize that this is how the majority of people on this ol' mudball operate, the sooner you can expect life to get a little easier.

Most people cling to their illusions like they're the only thing keeping them from drowning, because it's easier than thinking, and most people don't seem to want to that. I can only assume that they've had it knocked out of them by the experience of public school.

Re:I Call Shenanigans!

[geminidomino]

Yes. The court just realizes that anything he's likely to say is going to be largely irrelevant and/or content-free, and doesn't intend to let him shoot his mouth off in thier courtroom.