Jack Thompson Faces Trial Before the Florida Bar Today (Batjack!)

Controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson faces the start of an ethics trial this morning which could see him disbarred.

The Florida Bar is pursuing several complaints concerning Thompson’s professional conduct in court cases against the video game industry.

As reported by GamePolitics, Thompson’s bid to block the trial failed last week when U.S. District Court Judge Adalberto Jordan dismissed his suit against the Florida Bar and Judge Dava Tunis, the referee appointed by the Florida Supreme Court to preside over the case.

Thompson’s attempt to add myself and the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) as co-defendants in that federal suit also failed.

Over the weekend, Thompson turned to the Florida Supreme Court in an apparent effort to block this morning’s trial from moving forward. In one court filing Thompson asserted that he was willing to accept a 90-day suspension of his license to practice law. The embattled attorney claimed that such an offer had been on the table, but that the Florida Bar was now seeking his permanent disbarment.

A second document appeared to outline a lawsuit against the State of Florida, which has authority over the Florida Bar. Thompson claims that the Bar’s pursuit of him is motivated by his Christian activism and is designed to silence his outspokenness.

UPDATE: GP called down to the Florida Bar this morning and learned that the entire week has been set aside to hear Thompson’s case. Following arguments, referee Judge Tunis has until December 21st to issue a ruling. Extensions are possible, however, so the end result could come even later than that date.

Not till you open your mind.

It is. For example to the fact that there are many views of the world beyond the Christian one. That while Christianity brought a lot of good stuff to the world, the idea of morals wasn't among the unique achievements.

With equal justification I could say that you see everything through an anti-religious filter.

I've never been anti-religious. But you could be like the Muslims, "If you're not with us, you're against us." At least being a Christian I doubt you'll be calling for my head.

The government always had that power. Sodomite porn was illegal until, what, the late sixties? The seventies? And guess what...it didn’t lead to tyranny. It was caving in to evil that has put us in danger of tyranny.

How has that possibly put us in danger of tyrrany? If anything, what you see is a loosening of government power. In my book, that's always a good thing.

It is only the collapse of morals that has allowed her to attain legitimacy in the first place.

You don't get it. The leftists have a sense of morals, that entitlement == morals, and Hillary wants to give it to them. If she gets elected, it's because the populace didn't consider what the Republicans do as moral.

You can’t stop evil from attacking you by refraining from attacking evil.

You know those movies where both the good and evil forces are trying to get a golden sword or some such thing, and good has to get there first in order to stop evil? How about the sword never existed in the first place. How about the possibility of wiping out that evil didn't exist, but also the possible of wiping out good didn't exist either.

Now imagine that instead of both going for the sword, you have to trade it off every decade or so. That is not a good situation, as by allowing the sword to exist, you've guaranteed that evil gets a chance to use it.

Simplified: Your own lust for power gave evil access to power.

If you're going to win this, you're not going to do it with government enforcement, and any freedom-loving person shouldn't want you to do that. The Constitution ultimately gave rights directly to the people, so it is directly with the people that morality is supposed to be maintained. Anything else is false morality, people with immoral thoughts, just restraining themselves because it's illegal. But the immorality is still there.

“It is.”

Well, no, it is not open to the truth. That is one thing to which your mind is closed tightly.

“For example to the fact that there are many views of the world beyond the Christian one.”

Knowing that does you no good unless you also know what it means. You seem to think it means that none of the views is true, or that one cannot discover which one is true, or that all are equally true, or some other buncombe.

“That while Christianity brought a lot of good stuff to the world, the idea of morals wasn’t among the unique achievements.”

There you go. That’s not even the right question to ask or answer.

“I’ve never been anti-religious.”

Well, yes, you call yourself a Christian, but deny at least some of the fundamental, indispensable tenets of Christianity.

“But you could be like the Muslims, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”

That’s the one thing they have right. There can be no compromise between good and evil. Pick a side, because it always comes down to battle in the end.

“How has that possibly put us in danger of tyranny?”

Caving in to evil always has bad consequences. In 1955 neither Beelzebubba nor the Hildebeeste could have been candidates for anything, because their immorality would have disqualified them. Now that morality has been largely abandoned, there is a real danger that she’ll be voted in.

“If anything, what you see is a loosening of government power. In my book, that’s always a good thing.”

Hardly anything is always a good thing. This loosening of government power is a very, very bad thing, because it has as its object the seizing of power by the evil, which will then bind us all with the chains of slavery.

“You don’t get it. The leftists have a sense of morals”

No, you don’t get it. There is no such thing as “a” sense of morals. One either has a properly formed conscience or not. One either understands morality, or one does not. There is only one true and correct morality, and that is the one that comes from God. What the leftists have is satanic deception, not morality.

“If she gets elected, it’s because the populace didn’t consider what the Republicans do as moral.”

You say that as though there could possibly be some validity to the “thoughts” of those who are deceived by Satan.

If she gets elected, it will be because Satan has deceived enough people, that’s all.

“You know those movies where both the good and evil forces are trying to get a golden sword or some such thing, and good has to get there first in order to stop evil? How about the sword never existed in the first place. How about the possibility of wiping out that evil didn’t exist, but also the possible of wiping out good didn’t exist either.”

Yeah, that’s what Satan wants you to think, so that you won’t fight him.

“Now imagine that instead of both going for the sword, you have to trade it off every decade or so.”

There is no point in imagining that, as it bears no relation whatsoever to reality.

“Simplified: Your own lust for power gave evil access to power.”

Yeah, that’s what Satan wants you to think. He loves it that you mistake hatred of evil for a lust for power. He loves it that you think you can put down the sword without him picking it up. It’s exactly the same mentality as the “unilateral disarmament” idiots during the cold war.

“If you’re going to win this, you’re not going to do it with government enforcement, and any freedom-loving person shouldn’t want you to do that.”

Utter nonsense. Any freedom-loving person with a properly formed conscience would want sodomite porn banned.

“The Constitution ultimately gave rights directly to the people, so it is directly with the people that morality is supposed to be maintained.”

Road apples. We are supposed to be a representative republic. We elect representatives to pass laws to do the things we want done.

“Anything else is false morality, people with immoral thoughts, just restraining themselves because it’s illegal. But the immorality is still there.”

Boy, are you confused. Laws are supposed to have an effect on what people do, not what they think. That’s the whole point. Teaching people morality is the job of the parents, the Church, the schools, and organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

Well, no, it is not open to the truth. That is one thing to which your mind is closed tightly.

Your "truth." Not any absolute truth. I've heard a lot of truths.

Well, yes, you call yourself a Christian

When did I ever do that?

That’s the one thing they have right. There can be no compromise between good and evil.

Then remember that to a billion -plus people, you're on the "evil" side. But the two religions should be a lot alike, since Islam is largely cribbed from the Bible.

Caving in to evil always has bad consequences. In 1955 neither Beelzebubba nor the Hildebeeste could have been candidates for anything, because their immorality would have disqualified them.

You mean Bill's sexual indiscretions vs. Kennedy's? The Hildebeast's lust for federal power over FDR's? Buchanan driving his fiancee to suicide? Even my own favorite Jefferson wasn't exactly a saint.

Most conservative Christians in this country think capital punishment is moral. A well-respected Christian (even by me), the Pope, says that capital punishment today is immoral in pretty much every case we do it. Who's right? Who's following the one God-given morality? The Pope's opinion is mirrored by one large group in this country -- the left. The same left you'd say is immoral.

We are supposed to be a representative republic. We elect representatives to pass laws to do the things we want done.

You've forgotten the 10th Amendment? You think the people directly have no powers? Wrong. The government only has those specific powers delegated to it by the people. Anything not specifically defined as a power of the government is a power of the people. At least that's the design before it got corrupted by people wanting to do "moral" things.

Laws are supposed to have an effect on what people do, not what they think.

You want to erase "evil." All consensual crime laws do is mask it, or drive it underground to make it even more dangerous.

That’s the whole point. Teaching people morality is the job of the parents, the Church, the schools, and organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

I don't agree with you on the school part, but otherwise we agree here at least. And if you raise a moral people, this will be a moral country. Laws do not make a moral country.

“Your “truth.” Not any absolute truth. I’ve heard a lot of truths.”

Satan loves it when people start babbling like that. It means that they have thoroughly misunderstood both truth and the very nature of religion.

“Well, yes, you call yourself a Christian...When did I ever do that?”

I guess I must have misinterpreted your statement, “As a Christian...”

“Then remember that to a billion -plus people, you’re on the “evil” side.”

Ever see “Reservoir Dogs?” The criminals hate that cop they have tied up. They beat him up, even torture and kill him. Does the fact that they hate him make him bad and them good, as a matter of objective truth?

It doesn’t matter how many people call evil good and good, evil. Good remains good, and evil remains evil, despite their “votes.” Your logical fallacy is in thinking that the fact that people can be mistaken has some effect on the status of good and evil. It doesn’t. Even if everyone on earth were wrong about it, good and evil would remain unchanged.

When you say, “...to a billion -plus people, you’re on the “evil” side,” all you’re doing is reporting on Satan’s successes. The statistic has no more meaning than that. It certainly doesn’t mean that the truth should be doubted.

“But the two religions should be a lot alike, since Islam is largely cribbed from the Bible.”

A lie succeeds best when she baits her hook with a little truth. Nobody knows that better than Satan, and he employed that principle when he created Islam for the purpose of attacking Judaism and Christianity, two religions which hold at least a portion of true Revelation.

“You mean Bill’s sexual indiscretions vs. Kennedy’s?”

What are you, a troll from DU? The sexual indiscretions were the plausible diversion, the magician’s visible hand that kept attention off his real crimes...the embezzlement and bailout by the Chicoms, the drug use, the murders...

“The Hildebeast’s lust for federal power over FDR’s?”

That joke is only funny if one spells it like the African animal, the wildebeest, with just the first letter changed. That makes it a pun. Spelling it as you do, it is just a puerile insult.

Again, one should discuss the financial improprieties and murders, rather than being sidetracked by the issue of her spiritual corruption.

“Most conservative Christians in this country think capital punishment is moral. A well-respected Christian (even by me), the Pope, says that capital punishment today is immoral in pretty much every case we do it. Who’s right?”

1. That was the last Pope, not this one.

2. He didn’t say it is immoral in pretty much every case. He said it should be foregone where it was possible to hold the killer in confinement, while protecting others from being harmed by him.

3. Those who support capital punishment are right, because it is not possible to hold the killer in confinement, while protecting others from being harmed by him, and because only capital punishment demonstrates that we are really serious about the proscription on murder.

“Who’s following the one God-given morality? The Pope’s opinion is mirrored by one large group in this country — the left. The same left you’d say is immoral.”

The last Pope spent much of his life surrounded by leftists, from the Nazis to the Commies, then the Modernists within the Church itself, and even the Vatican. He was wrong about several matters of prudential judgment.

What? Did you really think you had a point there?

“You’ve forgotten the 10th Amendment? You think the people directly have no powers? Wrong. The government only has those specific powers delegated to it by the people. Anything not specifically defined as a power of the government is a power of the people. At least that’s the design before it got corrupted by people wanting to do “moral” things.”

Now that is a fine example of someone just babbling nonsense. From the very inception of the United States, the people desired that it wanted the government to do moral things...in addition to the obvious one of importing the Ten Commandments into the legal code, they wanted the government to protect slaves, and ultimately to abolish slavery, to restrict child labor, to provide Bibles to the Indians...the list is endless.

All law, without exception, is the legislation of morality.

“You want to erase “evil.”

Nonsense. Humanity does not have the power to slay Satan and all the malign spirits in league with him. I merely want us to continue the good fight against him, with God’s help.

“All consensual crime laws do is mask it, or drive it underground to make it even more dangerous.”

That must be one of Satan’s favorite lies. It is certainly one of the more successful. One can practically picture him giggling with glee every time some poor deceived soul repeats it. It is odd, too, that the same people who drone on about “consensual crimes” are the same ones who insist that imbalances of power - older-younger, rich-poor, stronger-weaker, employer-employee, etc. - create coercive situations in which consent is irrelevant.

“I don’t agree with you on the school part, but otherwise we agree here at least. And if you raise a moral people, this will be a moral country. Laws do not make a moral country.”

Laws are the embodiment of the will of a moral country, just as they can embody the will of an immoral country. A moral country does not send mixed signals by legitimizing the immoral through the legal system. Further, a failure to embody the will of a moral people in a country’s legal system has a corrosive effect on the morality of future generations, as we have seen quite clearly right here in the old U. S. of A.

Satan loves it when people start babbling like that.

That's the problem here. You invent an evil character like Satan so you can assign any real or perceived wrongdoing to him. It lets you dismiss any number of things and remove the responsibility for any bad things from your god.

But the other side invented a Satan, too.

I guess I must have misinterpreted your statement, “As a Christian...”

I was referring to you being a Christian.

That was the last Pope, not this one.

This pope believes the same. He does admit this is a place where many Catholics disagree (what is moral even among Catholics?), but to him it is still wrong in practice.

He didn’t say it is immoral in pretty much every case. He said it should be foregone where it was possible to hold the killer in confinement, while protecting others from being harmed by him.

In a modern country like ours it is always possible to hold the killer in confinement, thus no justification for the death penalty in practice.

The point is that you say the left follows evil, but here they agree with the most respected Christian in the world. Thus you can't say all their beliefs are guided by Satan without accusing the Pope of the same.

You mean several matters of morals. We come back to the point of if you disagree with someone on a moral issue, that doesn't automatically make his position evil, just different.

Well, this Pope is really back-to-the-basics, a doctrinal hardliner, and continues the moral belief and policy with reference to the death penalty. He does say there are degrees, such as abortion being worse than the death penalty, but to him the death penalty is still wrong.

It is odd, too, that the same people who drone on about “consensual crimes” are the same ones who insist that imbalances of power - older-younger, rich-poor, stronger-weaker, employer-employee, etc. - create coercive situations in which consent is irrelevant.

It's the reason we have statutory rape laws. Or do you really think an eight year-old can consent?

Laws are the embodiment of the will of a moral country

I think I figured out our difference. While I see we agree on many moral issues, you are an authoritarian, while I am not. To me the embodiment of the will of a moral society is seen in the voluntary actions of that society, not in law enacted by a possible minority of the population.

I hopefully do not assume wrong that your are a proselytizing Christian. Go out individually, show more people a moral way, and you are doing what I see as right -- honest morality directly of the people, not through law attempting (always unsuccessfully) to suppress immorality.

“You invent an evil character like Satan”

Invent? It is too tragic to laugh.

“This pope believes the same.”

Citation, please.

“In a modern country like ours it is always possible to hold the killer in confinement, thus no justification for the death penalty in practice.”

Not just hold in confinement, but ensure that others are protected from him. This is not possible, for several reasons. One, people are responsible for confining him, and are thus at risk of being killed by him. Two, there is always the possibility of escape. Three, there is always the possibility that some bleeding-heart will release him to the general prison population, putting them at risk. Four, there is always the possibility that some bleeding-heart will release him from prison. Five, the death penalty is the strongest deterrent, and we owe that to future victims. Six, justice demands the death penalty for murder, as it says in the Bible.

“The point is that you say the left follows evil, but here they agree with the most respected Christian in the world. Thus you can’t say all their beliefs are guided by Satan without accusing the Pope of the same.”

See how Satan clouds the vision of those who let him? One, I didn’t say that *all* the beliefs of the left (as in each and every niggling detail) are from Satan. Two, even if I had, saying that one of the Pope’s believes is from Satan would not require me to say that all the Pope’s beliefs are from Satan, obviously, and three, an earlier pope noted that the smoke of Satan has entered the sacristy, so one is not surprised to see a mistake in prudential judgment.

“You mean several matters of morals.”

No, I mean several matters of prudential judgment. In Catholicism, matters of faith and morals are in a different category from matters of prudential judgment.

“We come back to the point of if you disagree with someone on a moral issue, that doesn’t automatically make his position evil, just different.”

Actually, it does mean that at least one of you is evil. Both of you, unless one of you is right. See, the question is not whether anybody disagrees with me or not; the question is whether someone obeys God or not.

“Well, this Pope is really back-to-the-basics, a doctrinal hardliner, and continues the moral belief and policy with reference to the death penalty.”

Way to contradict yourself, boyo. A back-to-the-basics doctrinal hardliner would support the death penalty.

“It’s the reason we have statutory rape laws. Or do you really think an eight year-old can consent?”

So you accept the principle, yet deny its protection to many categories of person.

“To me the embodiment of the will of a moral society is seen in the voluntary actions of that society, not in law enacted by a possible minority of the population.”

The voluntary actions are one manifestation of the will. If that will is not also reflected in the legal code, degeneracy follows.

Invent? It is too tragic to laugh.

Yet all other such figures were supposedly invented?

Citation, please.

The Church's position hasn't changed. Last year he gave a medal to the president of the Philippines for signing a law ending the death penalty. We know he's against it although it's authorized by the Bible, but he believes in mercy as commanded by the Bible (see "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion"). He does believe there is room for a difference of opinion on this moral issue. Of course, that's just a nice way of saying people have a difference in morals.

I don't agree with the Pope on this, but I recognize we have a difference in our moral views. I don't think that difference makes him evil though.

But all this goes to say that even devout Christians have different views on what is moral according to God. Therefore, you can't say your specific view is the one moral view, all others being evil (that's not to say there aren't evil ones out there). Most any statement of evil you make in politics like this is your personal opinion, your interpretation of what God wants, and you are entitled to it. But it's just that, your opinion, not an absolute. Otherwise you claim you know God better than all others.

See, the question is not whether anybody disagrees with me or not; the question is whether someone obeys God or not.

The question is often whose interpretation of the will of God is right or not. I saw a woman in a church whose hair was uncovered. Should I have demanded she cover and shaved her head if she didn't, calling her immoral for violating the will of God?

Way to contradict yourself, boyo. A back-to-the-basics doctrinal hardliner would support the death penalty.

Not at all. I understand his position and his logic, I just don't agree.

So you accept the principle, yet deny its protection to many categories of person.

Give me some equivalent categories of person.

The voluntary actions are one manifestation of the will. If that will is not also reflected in the legal code, degeneracy follows.

If the will is there for everyone, no degeneracy will follow. You could leave and make your own country based strictly on biblical law, but then I have a feeling your country could look a lot like one of the strict Muslim countries, depending on who is doing the interpretation of God's will.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.