Jack Thompson Disbarred
Is it finally game over for Florida lawyer and violent video game opponent Jack Thompson? Judgment has been entered in the case that started last year and came to a head when Judge Dava Tunis recommended permanent disbarment for the bombastic, showboating law man. The court has approved the report and has ordered that JT is officially disbarred as of 30 days from today.

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 business from the date this order is filed.

Note that Thompson still has a chance for a retrial, only due to court sanctions the motion must me submitted by a member of the Florida Bar in good standing, and I don't know that anyone wants to touch this one. It's also worth noting that along with disbarment, Thompson has been ordered to reimburse the Florida Bar fees amounting to $43,675.35. Ouch.

We've contacted both the Supreme Court of Florida and Jack Thompson for comment and will update the story if both or either respond.

UPDATE: Jack Thompson has responded to us, at length.

Supreme Court of Florida
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
CASE NOS.: SC07-80 and SC07-354
Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2005-70,305(11F),
2005-71,125(11F),
2006-70,570(11F),
2006-70,766(11F),
2006-70,909(11F),
2007-30,805(11F)
THE FLORIDA BAR vs. JOHN BRUCE THOMPSON
___________________________________________________________________
Complainant(s) Respondent(s)

The referee has filed a corrected report recommending that respondent, John Bruce Thompson, be permanently disbarred without leave to apply for readmission to The Florida Bar. Respondent submitted a petition for review of the referee's report. The Clerk did not accept the petition for review for filing. This action was in accord with this Court's opinion dated March 20, 2008, which sanctioned respondent for abusive filings and barred him from filing on his own behalf. The sanction opinion provided, in pertinent part: "the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject for filing any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other filings submitted by John Bruce Thompson, unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than himself." Fla. Bar v. Thompson, 979 So. 2d 917, 921 (Fla. 2008). The opinion also noted: "in sanctioning respondent, we are requiring him to retain qualified counsel so that his arguments might be properly presented through the appropriate procedures in the appropriate forum. We do not limit such counsel's ability to challenge the referee's findings and recommendations on review." Id. at 919.

Ignoring this bar on self-submitted filings, respondent has submitted numerous filings in violation of the sanction opinion, including the petition for review of the referee's report. The Clerk properly rejected each of these submissions. Thus, there being no authorized petition for review filed, and the time period to seek review has passed, the Court has treated this as an uncontested case. The Court has reviewed the 169-page corrected report of the referee filed on July 16, 2008, for sufficiency and has determined that permanent disbarment is merited on this record. (This report is posted on the Court's public website). The report Case Nos. SC07-80 and SC07-354

Page Two details the extensive misconduct of respondent and his complete lack of remorse. In her report, the referee states: Over a very extended period of time involving a number of totally unrelated cases and individuals, [r]espondent 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.

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 Case Nos. SC07-80 and SC07-354 Page Three pornographers who objectify women.

The Court concludes that the facts, as even more extensively detailed in the referee's report, support the referee's numerous recommendations as to guilt. The referee cited various cases indicating that disbarment is an appropriate sanction and recommended permanent disbarment because "[r]espondent has repeatedly stated in these proceedings that he will not change his conduct" and she "finds no evidence whatsoever to indicate that [r]espondent is amenable to rehabilitation, or even remotely appreciates the basis upon which a need or purpose for such rehabilitation is warranted." Indeed, as noted by the referee: Respondent has repeatedly failed to follow the appropriate rules and orders throughout these disciplinary proceedings as evidenced by the granting of the Bar's Motion for Sanctions and the Supreme Court of Florida's orders of February 19, 2008 and March 20, 2008, wherein the Court found that [r]espondent "abused the legal system by submitting numerous, frivolous and inappropriate filings," despite being warned not to do so. In fact, the referee reported that respondent walked out of her courtroom at the final hearing in this matter because she would not allow him to "to turn the [d]isciplinary proceeding into a press conference." Based on the record before it, the Court agrees that respondent is not amenable to rehabilitation. Further, the Court approves the referee's recommendation that permanent disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

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 business from the date this order is filed. Judgment is entered for The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2300, for recovery of costs from John Bruce Thompson in the amount of $43,675.35, for which sum let execution issue. Case Nos. SC07-80 and SC07-354 Page Four Not final until time expires to file motion for rehearing, and if filed, determined. The filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this permanent disbarment. Consistent with this Court's sanction order, no motion for rehearing will be considered unless signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar other than respondent. QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS, BELL, and CANADY, JJ., concur. A True Copy Test: cic Served: HON. DAVA J. TUNIS, JUDGE JOHN F. HARKNESS, JR. KENNETH LAWRENCE MARVIN SHEILA MARIE TUMA BARRY S. RICHARD JOHN BRUCE THOMPSON

Thompson Responds To Disbarment

Today's stunning news that controversial attorney and anti-gaming zealot Jack Thompson will be disbarred for life from practicing law by the Supreme Court of Florida seems to have done little to faze the attorney himself.

In response to our request for comment Thompson sent Kotaku a copy of an emergency motion he filed with the court, this despite the ruling which states that only another attorney in good standing with the Florida Bar could file a motion for rehearing on Thompson's behalf.

In the motion Thompson outlines what he hints at as a perversion of justice, one that won't allow him, for instance, to meet with a potential client who he says is an inmate in a state prison.

Thompson also sent over a press release saying that the disbarment is in retaliation for, among other things, Thompson's Tyndale House book Out of Harm's Way which he says blew the whistle on what he describes as the Florida Supreme Court's attack on his activism against the American entertainment industry.

The timing of this disbarment transparently reveals its motivation: This past Friday Thompson filed a federal civil rights action against The Bar, the Supreme Court, and all seven of its Justices. This rush to disbarment is in retribution for the filing of that federal suit. With enemies this foolish, Thompson needs only the loyal friends he has.

The emails from Thompson wrap up with: "...this should be fun, starting now" Full press release and motion are on the jump for your perusal.

Immediate News Release – Sept. 25, 2008

Miami Attorney Jack Thompson Disbarred by Florida Supreme Court

Miami attorney Jack Thompson, nationally and internationally known by virtue of his effective and successful opposition over the last 20 years to the broadcast, marketing, and sale of adult-rated entertainment to children, has just been informed by the Florida Supreme Court that he has been disbarred from the practice of law today.

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.

The timing of this disbarment transparently reveals its motivation: This past Friday Thompson filed a federal civil rights action against The Bar, the Supreme Court, and all seven of its Justices. This rush to disbarment is in retribution for the filing of that federal suit. With enemies this foolish, Thompson needs only the loyal friends he has.

Thompson looks forward to successfully litigating his federal claims, now before US District Court Judge Marcia Cooke in the Southern District of Florida.

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 08-22603-CIV-JUDGE COOKE/MAGISTRATE BANDSTRA

JOHN B. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE FLORIDA BAR; THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA; RAOUL G. CANTERO, INDIVIDUALLY; THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES: CHIEF JUSTICE PEGGY A. QUINCE, JUSTICE CHARLES T. WELLS, JUSTICE HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, JUSTICE BARBARA J. PARIENTE, JUSTICE R. FRED LEWIS, JUSTICE KENNETH B. BELL, JUSTICE CHARLES T. CANADY; THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALLY: REFEREE DAVA J. TUNIS, BENEDICT KUEHNE, THE ESTATE OF STEVE CHAYKIN, BARNABY MIN, SHEILA TUMA, KEN BRYK, JAN WICHROWSKI, BARRY RICHARD; THE FOLLOWING FLORIDA BAR EMPLOYEES INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES: JACK HARKNESS, JOHN BERRY, KEN MARVIN, PAUL HILL, MARY ELLEN BATEMAN; THE FOLLOWING FORMER FLORIDA BAR
OFFICERS INDIVIDUALLY: KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON, ALAN BOOKMAN, HENRY COXE, FRANK ANGONES; THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES WITH AND FOR THE FLORIDA BAR: PRESIDENT JOHN G. WHITE, PRESIDENT-ELECT JESSE DINER, BAR GOVERNORS RAMON ABADIN, ALVIN ALSOBROOK, ALLISON BETHEL, ROBERT BRUSH, ARNELL BRYANT-WILLIS, BRIAN BURGOON, DOMINIC CAPARELLO, JAY COHEN, JEWEL COLE, GREGORY COLEMAN, IAN COMISKY, DANIEL DECUBELLIS, MAYANNE DOWNS, CHARLES EBBETS, STEPHEN ECHSNER, EVIN GONZALEZ, NANCY GREGOIRE, ROGER HAUGHEY, SCOTT HAWKINS, JACK HICKEY, DENNIS KAINEN, WILLIAM KALISH, LAIRD LILE, DENISE LYN, CLIFTON MCCLELLAND, SCOTT MCMILLEN, ERIC MEEKS, EUGENE PETTIS, DAVID PRATHER, ANDREW RINGERS, DAVID ROTHMAN, JULIET ROULHAC, CLIFFORD SANBORN, ANDREW SASSO, EDWIN SCALES, JOHN SCHICKEL, WILLIAM SCHIFINO, CLAY SCHNITKER, CARL SCHWAIT, LAWRENCE SELLERS, MURRAY SILVERSTEIN, LISA SMALL, JOHN STEWART, RICHARD TANNER, NORMAN VAUGHAN-BIRCH, FRANK WALKER, SAMUEL WELLS, and GWYNNE YOUNG.

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S PERMANENT DISBARMENT ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2008

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, on his own behalf, and moves this federal court, pursuant to the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the following emergency relief on the following grounds, stating:
1. All seventy-seven defendants have been served with the complaint herein; thus, they are all fully on notice as to the nature of this suit, the relief sought, and the basis therefor.

2. Today, at approximately 11 am, on September 25, 2008, the Florida Supreme Court, has entered an order, a copy of which is attached hereto, permanently disbarring plaintiff Thompson, the respondent therein, effective in thirty days. Thus, the clock is now running on those thirty days. This is an emergency.

3. Under this order, Thompson is unable, for example, to meet, as he is scheduled to do next Friday, with Richard Gorman, who is an inmate in a state prison for the purpose of being retained by him as his lawyer. Mr. Gorman is sitting in his prison cell solely because of the unethical conduct of Assistant State Attorney Matthew Alex Smith and the obstruction of justice by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. The attached Report of No Probable Cause is a smoking gun document that proves that the entire Board of Governors of The Florida Bar is involved in a cover-up in order to keep this innocent man in jail, all for the purpose of protecting the corrupt Leon County State Attorney’s Office. It is the single most remarkable document Thompson has ever seen in his 31-year legal career. It indicts the entire Bar’s disciplinary process which in that instance is being perverted to keep an innocent man in jail. It is little wonder that these same Governors would then do to Thompson what they have demonstrably done over the past four years.

4. Thompson was to meet with Mr. Gorman for the purpose of securing his release from jail, and now Thompson cannot be retained by Mr. Gorman for that or for any other purpose. Thus, one of the consequences of this disbarment order is not only Thompson’s inconvenience, to say the least, but more importantly the thwarting of the retention of Thompson by an innocent man in jail who is the victim of the obstruction of justice of The Florida Bar and its Governors.

5. Plaintiff herein thus seeks an immediate stay, on an emergency basis, of the Florida Supreme Court’s disbarment order because he can show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm unless the injunction issues, including public damage to his career and to the rights of others, such as those of Mr. Gorman, that this harm far outweighs any conceivable harm to defendants if the injunction issues, and that the injunction will not disserve but actually serve the public interest.

6. Further, there are demonstrable factual errors in the disbarment order itself, which provide the basis for the disbarment, which can be easily and quickly proven. Additionally, it is fascinating that Justice Cannady, who has undoubtedly reviewed absolutely nothing about this disciplinary case, has put his name to this disbarment order on the day that he was served with the federal civil rights action. What a coincidence.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully seeks an order, on an emergency basis, staying the Florida Supreme Court’s disbarment order until such time as an evidentiary hearing, either before Judge Cooke or Magistrate Bandstra, can be secured as to the granting of apreliminary injunction sought in the complaint.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this pleading has been provided to all defendants and/or their counsel by various means, including fax and e-mail, this September 25, 2008.

JOHN B. THOMPSON, Plaintiff
Attorney, Florida Bar #231665