MDS

The people at one of the TRU's in Albuquerque, NM didn't seem to have any idea about new preorders starting tommorrow.

"Wrongful death non auto"

Well, I guess that answers my question about the cause of action.

I have not yet seen a copy of the complaint that was filed here in the NM Second Judicial District Court this past Monday. I have noted, however, throughout the media coverage of this case, that the plaintiffs are suing Take-Two, Rockstar, and Sony under a "civil conspiracy" theory. The law of New Mexico states that, "unlike a conspiracy in the criminal context, a civil conspiracy by itself is not actionable, nor does it provide an independent basis for liability." A civil conspiracy must actually involve an independent, unlawful act that causes harm--something that would give rise to a civil action on its own.

Interestingly, the "independent unlawful act" has yet to be mentioned, at least in the coverage I've seen. I would have to assume that Thompson tried to couple the "civil conspiracy" claim to some other alleged wrong by Take2/R*/Sony; I'm curious to see just what that "wrong" was, as I'm guessing it's something similar to the torts Thompson sued for in the failed James v. Meow Media case. At any rate, the law in New Mexico is clear that these plaintiffs cannot sue under a civil conspiracy theory alone.

otakucode: I wouldn't necessarily disagree that this happens in some (if not alot) of cases. I would point out, however, that attorney's fees are conceptually different from "costs." Costs encompass things like court filing fees, payments to expert witnesses for testimony, costs of taking depositions, copies, postage, etc. Attorneys make their fees by charging either hourly rates for hours actually worked (and that can, under ethics rules, be billed), or by agreeing to roll the dice on a 1/3 contingent fee. I beleive there are ethics caps on what attorneys can charge per hour; I know here in Albuquerque, highly experienced trial attorneys who practice in federal court usually hit charge about $250 an hour; I think our courts would look with disfavor upon higher hourly rates.

As a fellow New Mexico resident, as well as a newly-licensed attorney here in Albuquerque, I wholeheartedly concur with what Wideruled posted above at #8, regarding what a terrible tragedy the Cody Posey case was for this state.

For various reasons, I'm keeping my comments on this litigation, here at Joystiq and elsewhere, reserved for the time being--I will say this, however: Gary Mitchell is an excellent defense attorney, and I place a great deal of stock in his belief the "GTA made me do it" defense was in fact unmeritorious, despite what any other attorney would say (or has said, as it were).

With regard to the attorney-percentage comments above: it's been my experience that most contingent fees are calculated at 33% of the total recovery, plus costs (court filing fees, deposition costs, etc.). That fee has to be split among all lawyers actually working on the case (i.e. it's not 33% for one lawyer, 33% for the other, and the rest for the client). Personally, I think it would be a complete surprise to see a New Mexico court--assuming the case reaches trial at all--award a $600M verdict in a case like this.

"How dare you assert that you know something about something you know absolutely nothing about!"

Translation:

"Hello, kettle? This is pot--you're black."

And what else does Jack have to say this good morning?

"As to what is being done to me by the video game industry, Insider-style..."

Oh, ever the freakin' martyr, this guy is. I'll be out on the veranda, Jack--I can see you're already on the cross.

Sounds like the same ol' song & dance from Jack: "I'm having a super-important press conference that EVERYONE's gonna attend. Seriously. TRUST ME."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--"trust me" don't feed the bulldog. I'll believe when I see it on CNN, CNBC and/or Fox News.

Oh, and as of yesterday morning at approximately 11:27 a.m., I've been licensed and sworn-in to practice law. So, who's going to protect gamers and the principles of the First Amendment from opportunist politicians and attorneys pretending to care about the children? The answer is: "I shall."

P.S. Jesus did many things to try to help humanity--only HE didn't send a press release out every time he did so, nor did he end every conversation with HOOAH! Just some food for thought.

"I would hesitate to make any such leap concerning Dr. Buhsman or anyone else. Lots of experts provide "expert testimony". Although it's often painted in a very negative way in the adversarial court process, it *is* a necessary part of that process."

I'd say that it is somewhat presumptive, if in fact Dr. Bushman isn't part of the Strickland litigation. However, of the many persons who provide "expert" testimony at trial, the vast majority of them do indeed receive remuneration from the party putting them on the stand. It's an obvious point of bias, but it's also a double-edged sword (i.e. my expert says X, theirs says Y, but each are being paid to say so). I just know that, of every case I've ever been involved with, the expert testimony didn't come free.

Put it in perspective, however--at least from the point of view of the average, reasonable person: of three expert professionals speaking on the subject, two of them--neither of which (that we know of) has been hired to give expert testimony in a lawsuit--say "no direct causal link." The remaining expert--a possible expert witness for the plaintiff trying to prove a causal link--says (allegedly, as we've only heard this from Miami Jack and not from Dr. B himself) "direct causal link." If those facts play out, one side is obviously more discredited than the other.

"Dr. Bushman is one of your expert witnesses in the Alabama law suit."

And therein lies the reason that Doc Bushman would say causation and not correlation: he's a paid plaintiff's witness--and that's the FIRST thing any good lawyer attacks a paid expert on during cross-exam. Doctors Singer and Carll say correlation to clear up a point; Dr. Bushman says causation because that's what the plaintiff's attorney tells him to say.

Way to hijack a thread that makes no mention of the APA study, scootiepuff. I think I'll pull up PACER again and read about how you left your latest lil' suit against the Florida Bar with your tail tucked between your legs.

I see that Laddy Jack the Litigation Terrorist continues to cry "wah, wah, wah" all the way from his cozy little malpractice down in Coral Gables. I guess he was too busy sending out his oh-so-great press releases to bother defending that half-assed piece of legislative garbage he put together for the folk in Louisiana. You working on getting a license to practice law in Canada now, bucko, so you can go file a lawsuit up there that'll get dismissed in six months?

I've got a funnier oxymoron than video game culture: "Jack Thompson's successful legal career." Your broken-record "fried brain" argument begs the question: if I, as a life-long gamer of 20+ years, have had my frontal lobes nuked by Nintendo, Sega and Sony, how is it that I managed to pass the Bar examination on my FIRST try, after self-studying without taking any PMBR or BarBri classes? What was your excusing for FAILING the Bar on your first shot, scooiepuff?