The tiny percentage of the material
that was sexual in nature was all of a humorous character. For example, the
“women’s crotches” was one of the many “camel toe” series that is widely
available on the net. The insidious effect of these misleading descriptions is
that even many of those who have come to Alex’s defense have expressed the view
that judges are entitled to look at “porn” if they choose, as if that’s what
was really going on here, when it is not.
I think that there is another very important
piece of this story that has not received the attention it deserves, and that
is the role of Cyrus Sanai.
Cyrus Sanai, a disgruntled attorney/litigant,
has widely claimed credit for engineering this smear campaign. In a 2005
decision, District Judge Zilly USDC Western District Seattle, describes Sanai’s
conduct in a case before him as “an indescribable abuse of the legal process,
unlike anything this Judge has experienced in more than 17 years on the bench
and 26 years in private practice: outrageous, disrespectful, and in bad faith.”
Judge Zilly references a decision by LA Superior
Court Judge Elizabeth Grimes where she describes Sanai’s conduct in a different
lawsuit as follows: “Plaintiff has proliferated needless, baseless pleadings
that now occupy about 15 volumes of Superior Court files, not to mention the
numerous briefs submitted in the course of the forays into the Court of Appeal
and attempts to get before the Supreme Court, and not one pleading appears to
have had substantial merit. The genesis of this lawsuit, and the unwarranted
grief and expense it has spawned, are an outrage.”
Washington State Superior Court Judge Joseph A.
Thibodeau also had a run-in with Sanai, who harassed him to the point that he
had to recuse himself from Sanai’s case. I believe you have a copy of the
transcript of that hearing. (You may want to link to Overlawyered.com which has
some additional details about how Sanai’s conduct).
Sanai wrote a vicious attack against the Ninth
Circuit panel (Judges Leavy, Gould and Clifton) that ruled against his efforts
to get the federal court to take jurisdiction over his parents’ ugly divorce
case. You can read his vitriol at www.ninthcircuit.us (a website obviously
designed so that people trying to find the Ninth Circuit website would stumble
on his page instead).
Alex, who did not participate in the decision,
wrote a public defense of the panel, and thus made himself a target. Sanai
apparently made it his mission to retaliate against Alex. He managed to access
our private computer and copy these files, which he then shopped around to
reporters for months. Finally, he got the LA Times reporter to print the story
that set off this firestorm. Sanai not only admits his involvement in all this
– he brags about it.
As to how Sanai accessed our server and was able
to rummage through our personal files, frankly we are still trying figure it
out. Apparently, if a person is able to find a link to an item in the “stuff”
file, and he knows what he is doing, it is possible for him to reverse engineer
his way into other items stored in that file without our knowledge or consent.
Although we typically would only send links to friends and family – who would
be unlikely to do such a thing and who would certainly not try to injure us
with what they found if they did – it is possible that a link to something in
the “stuff” file became public, and Sanai used it to access the other material
stored there. Moreover, since there wasn’t anything that remotely resembles a
“collection of porn” stored there, we didn’t pay as much attention to the
security risks as we obviously should have.
This is a sad and dangerous lesson to anyone who
dares to stand on principle and publicly speak out against people like Cyrus
Sanai, who are willing to stop at nothing to wreak his petty vengeance on a
good and decent man like my husband. It is even more disturbing that Sanai, who
is a member of the bar and an officer of the court, can get away with attacking
judge after judge after judge, in this fashion.
It is also an indictment of Scott Glover and the
LA Times, who are willing to knowingly distort the facts and with cavalier
disregard of the injury they are causing to the reputation of a brilliant and
distinguished jurist, in order to sell a few newspapers. And then, of course,
there are the bevy of other purportedly respectable publications such as the
San Francisco Chronicle, that are willing to repeat Mr. Glover’s story, while
adding embellishments and further mischaracterizations along the way. This is
apparently what now substitutes for responsible journalism.
While I’m on the topic of responsible
journalism, it has recently come to light that the LA Times learned about this
material months ago, and sat on it until it would do the maximum damage.
Selecting the jury was a very grueling undertaking. Over 150 potential jurors
were screened for hour after painful hour on Monday and Tuesday. Scores of men
and women took the trip into the jury box, only to leave soon thereafter
because they confessed themselves unable to view the materials. A number of
others disclosed embarrassing facts about themselves and their families in
order to explain why they could not sit on this jury. It was a difficult and
painful process for just about everyone who was called into the jury box.
Finally, after considering 109 members of the panel, a jury was selected and
sworn at the end of the day on Tuesday. And Glover was present in court while
all this was going on, biding his time. Only on Wednesday, after the jury had
started to hear the case – and jeopardy had attached – did the LA Times choose
to “break” its story.
A newspaper – especially a major newspaper as
the Los Angeles Times purports to be – is supposed to be a responsible member
of the community, not a predator. If the presence of certain files on a judge’s
computer is a truly a newsworthy matter, it would have been so months earlier,
before Alex was assigned this trial, and certainly a few days earlier, before a
jury had been chosen and the trial had commenced. But what excuse is there for
timing the story with surgical precision so as to do maximum damage to the
judicial process? In doing so, the LA Times caused the effort of the court, the
parties and the 150 citizens who answered the call of duty by reporting for
jury service from near and far to go to waste, just to make a big splash. This
strikes me as worse than irresponsible.
On the brighter side, once again, it is the
bloggers such as you, who are willing to look behind the story to discover the
real facts. One can only hope that through these efforts, the truth will
eventually come out.
Marcy J.K. Tiffany, Esq.
Ms. Tiffany sent me an earlier version
of this e-mail Saturday morning. It was she who confirmed for me that the
“video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal” (to
quote the L.A. Times description) was really the silly YouTube video of a man
running away from an aroused donkey.
When I received her e-mail, I asked
her whether she had intended for me to publish it. (I don’t want to publish
anything that was intended as a private communication, so if there’s any doubt,
I ask. That’s how I’d like to be treated, so it’s how I treat others.) We have
since spoken about the matter twice on the phone. On Sunday night, she sent me
a more polished and up-to-date version, which she authorized me to publish.
I am pleased to give Ms. Tiffany this
forum to express her thoughts.
P.S. The partial transcript of the
hearing involving Judge Thibodeau may be viewed here. The Overlawyered.com
posts with more about Mr. Sanai, referred to in Ms. Tiffany’s e-mail, can be
accessed here and here.
126 Comments »
1.
Sanai proves to the world that
Kozinski is like everyone else and laughs at funny stuff. Nothing on the website
was out of bounds for someone to have on their personal server, even if some of
it was lame or in poor taste. Sanai also proves that Sanai is a complete
monster, and a disgrace to the bar. But then, there are always a few monsters
crawling around. This is as high in the world as he will ever get… a parasite
bitterly harassing a giant in the legal world.
What’s surprising is that the
monster got an audience. The LA Times must explain its behavior.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 2:04 am
2.
“The fact is, Alex is not into porn
- he is into funny – and sometimes funny has a sexual character.”
Spot on. Sums up the whole thing
rather nicely.
Comment by Justin Levine — 6/16/2008
@ 2:49 am
3.
“The LA Times must explain its
behavior”……. right, and i have bridge in brooklyn i’d like to sell you.
Comment by james conrad — 6/16/2008
@ 4:32 am
4.
To recap for people who come to this
page without the background discussion, simply as a point of information, the
statement “it is possible for him to reverse engineer his way into other items
stored in that file without our knowledge or consent” may be literally true and
represent her understanding, but it is not a good description of the situation.
In fact, Kozinski made a file link public, and the Yahoo search engine indexes
directories from file paths, so any connotation that there was some
extraordinary technical feat here, is not accurate.
Note I agree that the reporter distorted
the nature of the material itself.
Comment by Seth Finkelstein —
6/16/2008 @ 5:11 am
5.
Wow. The Misses is defending her
psycho husband and her demented son — I don’t think a picture of a guy dressed
as a priest with a CHILD giving him oral sex is “acceptable humor”. How is that
funny? How is it acceptable, even in the disgusting slime capital of San
Francisco? His wife thinks this is cute? There are thousands of victims of
pedophiles who will fail to see the humor, and the overwhelming majority of US
citizens will be disgusted that a JUDGE,his liberal wife and his creepy son
think this makes for family fun time. Finally,the LA Times does its job and
exposes a California nutjob, and people are mad at the LA Times? I tell the
Misses, the Judge, and junior to get some therapy, spend some time with victims
of crime. and to get a $%^&& life.
Comment by Karen — 6/16/2008 @ 5:24
am
6.
Latest Overlawyered post:
http://overlawyered.com/2008/06/latest-on-kozinski-and-cyrus-sanai/
Suffice it to say that Patterico
should double-check Sanai’s claims about the accuracy of the CD.
Comment by Ted — 6/16/2008 @ 5:53 am
7.
Ms. Tiffany makes an interesting
statement about the LATimes’s motives: “While I’m on the topic of responsible
journalism, it has recently come to light that the LA Times learned about this
material months ago, and sat on it until it would do the maximum damage.”
I’m wondering how she knows this as
fact. Is she just “cavorting” with some of the facts, and maybe finding
“bestility” in news judgment by professionals that really isn’t there?
Comment by Larry Reilly — 6/16/2008
@ 6:13 am
8.
The thought comes unbidden that such
men, as Glover and Sanai have been described to be, would restrain themselves
better, if they had seen from some previous, spectacular example that one
endangers ones life through such unrestraint.
Comment by Kralizec — 6/16/2008 @
6:19 am
9.
Ms. Tiffany makes an interesting
statement about the LATimes’s motives: “While I’m on the topic of responsible
journalism, it has recently come to light that the LA Times learned about this
material months ago, and sat on it until it would do the maximum damage.”
I’m wondering how she knows this as
fact. Is she just “cavorting” with some of the facts, and maybe finding
“bestility” in news judgment by professionals that really isn’t there?
She is right.
Cyrus Sanai told Howard Bashman: “I
pitched it to the Daily Journal, the Recorder, the LA Times and the WSJ through
end of January 2008.” He pitched it to Henry Weinstein, who later took a
buyout.
For what it’s worth, Sanai tells me
that Weinstein never seemed particularly interested — and that Glover said that
he hadn’t known about it from Weinstein.
Comment by Patterico — 6/16/2008 @
6:23 am
10.
Ms. Tiffany
That may be the case regarding your
family server. Hell, I don’t even think its news. But I’ll say this - I was
once a big admirer of your husband until one event where I met him. He repeatedly
rubbed up against my girlfriend while greeting her of the course of the
weekend. I had to talk her out of filing a complaint after the fact (which was
difficult as she was being egged on by several profs at my top 10 law school).
I have never been so disgusted with a person I admired in my life. Having told
this story to other people around the water cooler in recent days, it has
struck me that others have similar tales from separate events. Your husband may
have a good sense of humor, and may be a brilliant writer - but his manners
leave much to be desired.
Comment
by anon — 6/16/2008 @ 6:34 am
11.
How is that
funny?
Because it mocks a large, very
public institution that while generally known for good deeds got into “a bit”
of trouble over a minority (a vastly tiny minority, mind you) of members who
liked to use their position of authority to diddle little boys…
Comedy is pain, kid.
There are
thousands of victims of pedophiles who will fail to see the humor, and the
overwhelming majority of US citizens will be disgusted that a JUDGE,his liberal
wife and his creepy son think this makes for family fun time.
Lemme guess… You don’t find much of
anything funny do you, because you’re too busy feeling everyone’s pain.
I think you’re applying “liberal” to
the wrong group here, lady…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/16/2008
@ 6:37 am
12.
Seth has it right: While the LA
Times grossly distorted what Kozinski had on his Web site, the notion of it
being private or there being an expectation of privacy is illogical. If you
want something to be truly private, don’t put it on a network designed to be
accessible around the world. (Or at least password-protect it).
Comment by Bradley J Fikes —
6/16/2008 @ 6:45 am
13.
Wow. The Misses is defending her
psycho husband and her demented son
I couldn’t agree with Karen more.
Good grief. Who ARE these people? They see these things as “funny” and give
full access to it to their children and actually use that as a defense???
Then seeing the personal story of
harrassment that anon wrote about doesn’t surprise me at all. This is the
behavior of men like this. I feel sorry for this woman. She justifies what I
would be horrified by.
Comment by Rightwingsparkle — 6/16/2008
@ 6:46 am
14.
One can judge the veracity of the
allegation a few posts above by noting that the poster identifies him or
herself as “anon.” I’ve been posting here as “Brian,” which is just as anonymous
as “anon,” but you can bet that if I had some factual charge to make against
someone that was based upon information that wasn’t already public, I’d damn
well make my name public.
I wonder what the IP address of
“anon” is? Or did he/she post this defamation from Kinko’s?
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 7:01
am
15.
Mr. Patterico,
When you say “she’s right” about the
LATimes having the info and sitting on it for months until, as she put it, “it
would do the maximum damage,” do you mean you agree with what I’m reading in her
missive: that the newspaper’s editors deliberately withheld the story until
they saw, aha, here’s where we can inflict the most damage.
I don’t doubt Sanai gave the
information to someone at the newspaper many months ago. But you and Ms.
Tiffany are making a leap of logic from that point.
Perhaps Sanai simply saw in the
newspaper recently that Kozinski was presiding over an obscenity trial and
approached someone else at the newspaper, someone who now could see there was a
story there and moved on it.
I don’t know if that’s how it played
out, but from the skimpy facts we have as far as the newspaper is concerned,
it’s as plausibile as the different inference you and Ms. Tiffany have taken as
gospel.
Me, I don’t know. That’s why I asked
how she, and now you, determined the newspaper’s motives.
I can tell you one huge criteria for
what is news: irony; e.g. a judge presiding over an obscenity trial makes
publicly available sexually explicit photos and videos that strike some reasonable
people as offensive. Of course, only a jury from the community decides what
sexually explicit materials go so far as to be obscene, which is what was about
to take place in Los Angeles last week.
Comment by Larry Reilly — 6/16/2008
@ 7:05 am
16.
Mr. Reilly,
I’m sorry. I just meant to say that
she’s right that the paper had the material for months.
As to why they waited, I suspect
that you’re correct about the irony aspect.
Comment by Patterico — 6/16/2008 @
7:09 am
17.
My brother went to law school with
Alex Kozinski. And he had a rough and controversial sense of humor then. I’m
not surprised that his sense of humor has not changed. It’s not my sense of
humor. But I have learned that many good people differ from my own perceptions
of “jokes.”
But I would venture a guess that
people tend to forgive “Person A” of bad taste if they like “Person A,” and
then attack “Person B” horrifically for the same “crime”—if they don’t like
“Person B.”
Too often, it is about partisan
politics. Or vindictiveness.
Should Judge Kozinski have
controlled access to that server? Yep. Is the material on that server a good
reason for a mistrial? Maybe. Do we really and truly want to start down this
road on the personal lives of public figures? Heck, I remember the Clarence
Thomas mess. Many people attacked Judge Thomas for his supposed video rental
history, or “dirty jokes” based on hearsay. Yet those same people waved off
Bill Clinton’s antics in the White House. The difference, as far too often
nowadays, is politics.
I think that the best rule of thumb
is this one: imagine the rule or judgement you wish to apply in the hands of
your bitterest and most venal enemy. Because that is what will happen.
I’m also disturbed by the “anon”
post above. If someone has harassed another person—FILE THE COMPLAINT. Talking
about it later, without proof, just attracts false accusers, and gives them
freedom to besmirch the reputations of others with impunity.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Comment by Eric Blair — 6/16/2008 @
7:12 am
18.
Of course, only a jury from the
community decides what sexually explicit materials go so far as to be obscene,
which is what was about to take place in Los Angeles last week.
If there was one judge who would
have looked deeply into the theory that a local jury satisfy’s Miller’s
“community standards” test in an otherwise entirely federal case, it would have
been Kozinski. Too bad.
Comment by nk — 6/16/2008 @ 7:16 am
19.
If you want
something to be truly private, don’t put it on a network designed to be
accessible around the world.
Your home is private, yes? But how
can that be, when it’s on a public street?
Comment by Jim Treacher — 6/16/2008
@ 7:16 am
20.
I sympathize with this woman UP TO A
POINT.
It’s disgusting (but not surprising)
that a ’serial plaintiff’ like Sanai and a leftist rag like the LA Times would
time this hit piece to do maximum damage.
HOWEVER - if you are in a position
of authority where ethical behavior is expected - judge, teacher, day care
supervisor, etc. - you should have more brains than to store your private
“raunchy material” in a place NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, especially if you
A) are in a position to rule on a case which deals with pornography in any way,
and B) generate enemies in your line of work.
To store these materials of
“questionable taste” on a server accessible to the public is simply stupid.
Look, I’ve got stuff on my hard
drive I wouldn’t exactly want my mom, my employer, or my local TV station to
know I have. I’m guessing anyone reading this sentence does, too. That’s why
right now at my house, my computer is off, my server is password-protected, and
my son won’t be allowed unsupervised access to the internet until he has a
drivers license.
C’mon, use some brains.
Comment by Not Tony — 6/16/2008 @
7:19 am
21.
…the LA
Times story, authored by Scott Glover, is riddled with half-truths, gross
mischaracterizations and outright lies.
Just another day at the office on
Spring Street–no matter if the Times’ or Mrs. K’s version, or a mixture of the
two, is correct.
Comment by Patricia — 6/16/2008 @
7:41 am
22.
– A newspaper – especially a major
newspaper as the Los Angeles Times purports to be – is supposed to be a
responsible member of the community, not a predator. –
.
LOL. I’ve NEVER seen a media organ
that deserve being approached carelessly, as though it was something other than
a hungry predator.
.
The line of “responsibility” is
described in well-known cases: Pentagon papers, Falwell v. Flynt, etc.
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 7:56
am
23.
Thanks for allowing Ms. Tiffany to
fill in the facts of the story. To me this whole thing smelled of “smear
campaign” from the beginning, and now I’m convinced.
Comment by Amy Peikoff — 6/16/2008 @
7:56 am
24.
People you are talking about the LA
Times… Nobody should ever expect truth or even common sense from those people.
Comment by John — 6/16/2008 @ 8:05
am
25.
Right on, Ms. Tiffany: this
liberal’s on your, and A.K.’s side on this one.
Anon: so, why’d you persuade your
girlfriend NOT to make a complaint?
Karen: “I don’t think a picture of a
guy dressed as a priest with a CHILD giving him oral sex is “acceptable humor”.
How is that funny?”
Ask the major networks; evidently
someone else thinks the same joke is funny (30 seconds ofinternet research
yields the following compilation; I’m betting cable shows would yield WAY
raunchier stuff):
“The U.S. Cardinals said they are
going to develop a code of ethics to help them deal with the sexual scandal.
Wait a minute, I thought their already was a code of ethics, it’s called the
Bible.” —Jay Leno
“I read this in the paper this
morning: New York City has a priest shortage. So you see, there is some good
news in the world. … To give you an idea how bad it is, earlier today in
Brooklyn an alter boy had to grope himself.” —David Letterman
“As you’ve probably heard, the Pope
has asked all the Cardinals to return to Rome. You know how they got them all
to come back? They told them that there was going to be a performance by the
Vienna Boys Choir.” —Jay Leno
“The Cardinals will be staying at
the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the new hotel at the Vatican, where turn down
service means the bell boy isn’t interested.” —Daily Show host Jon Stewart
“They say (the Pledge of Allegiance)
violates the separation of church and state. How about the separation of church
and altar boy? That’s what I’m worried about.” —Jay Leno
“Cardinal Law had difficulty with
his memory under oath today. He could only remember three commandments. Under
oath, Cardinal Law said ‘I do not recall’ 43 times. I’m telling you, this guy
is presidential material.” —David Letterman
“The House Transportation Committee
is now considering a bill that would allow pilots to carry guns for protection.
I’ve got a better idea, why not give guns to altar boys, give them a fighting
chance.” —Jay Leno
“In Boston, it looks like Cardinal
Bernard Law isn’t going to be punished. It turns out he’s getting transferred
to Rome, which is kind of like a promotion. He said today he wanted to thank
all the little people.” —Jay Leno
“The Catholic Church is finally cracking
down. Here’s the deal now: if a priest is transferred to another parish, he
cannot take his live-in boyfriend.” —David Letterman
“The Catholic Church has just opened
a new $2 million cathedral in Los Angeles. They really spared no expense. Each
confessional has a panic button in it.” —David Letterman
“The Church reaffirming celibacy —
it’s kind of like Clinton reaffirming monogamy.” —Jay Leno
“The big Vatican summit wrapped up,
closing ceremonies were Harry Connick Jr. The Vatican is taking a tough stand
now, three strikes and you’re transferred.” —David Letterman
“This is the last Take Your Daughter
to Work Day. Next year, boys will be involved too. I guess the church lobbied
pretty hard on that one.” —Jay Leno
“After all these scandals in the
church, many Roman Catholics are calling for an end to celibacy. And end to
celibacy, how about starting celibacy? Let’s at least try it to see if it
works.” —Jay Leno
“Pope has called all the U.S.
cardinals back to the Vatican. He’s going to have Italy’s top soccer coach talk
to them. I believe the topic is how to do your job without using your hands.”
—Jay Leno
“Today the Catholic Church unveiled
its new policy. Don’t ask, don’t confess.” —Jay Leno
“Isn’t it crazy with all these
church scandals? I’m beginning to understand how all those Bibles ended up in
hotel rooms.” —Jay Leno
“This week hundreds of bishops
arrived in Dallas for their annual convention. You know what that means? Party.
Party. Party. A couple of bellboys are being carried over the threshold
tonight.” —Jay Leno
“There is a big conference of
Catholic Bishops in Dallas. Well this is great for the city, it brings in about
$12 million in hush money.” —David Letterman
“The Supreme Court ruled today that
virtual child pornography is legal. Finally, some good news for the church.”
—Jay Leno
“Bush said we’re going after
white-collar criminals and I’m thinking ‘Gee I wish the Catholic church would
do that.’” —David Letterman
“Kids, if you see an ad that says
Cardinals looking for a bat boy, watch out, that has nothing to do with the
baseball team.” —Jay Leno
Comment by R Gould-Saltman —
6/16/2008 @ 8:09 am
26.
Anon,
I’m sure there will be plenty like
you who claim to have evidence about Kozinski but have nothing to back it up.
All you’ve proven is that you are either tolerant of sexual harassment or a
liar. I could just as easily accuse you of crimes here, and my accusations
would be just as credible.
Karen, the idea that it’s as
horrible as you claim to have videos that so far are all turning out to be not
that bad at all (despite the apparent lies of Cyrus and the LA Times) is a stupid
idea. You’re the kind of fool that Cyrus was hoping to dupe. Oh no! Naked
people!
Fact is, you’re the offensive person
for demanding that everyone subscribe to your bizarre view of what is and isn’t
allowed in our private lived.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 8:29 am
27.
“Anon: so, why’d you persuade your
girlfriend NOT to make a complaint?”
What would the nature of the
complaint have been in any event? Was there any supervisor/subordinate
relationship or teacher/student relationship between the judge and your
girlfriend? Did your girlfriend ask the judge to stop the unwanted behavior? Discovering
a lot of women with similar stories makes it sound like you could have made
quite a splash with
a omplaint. Cyrus Sanai is going to
want to have a conversation with you, dude.
I smell a lot of bullshit.
RWS - Even for you, you are over the
top on this.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/16/2008 @
8:32 am
28.
I don’t know about anyone else but I
am freaking out about “jokes” that people send to me that I don’t have time to
look at so I foward them to my home email. I haven’t a clue what is on most of
these things. Good thing I am unimportant and will never run for anything.
Comment by Cindy — 6/16/2008 @ 8:46
am
29.
Sending the wife out to make a
defense is pretty weak stuff.
That is more shameful than the
Kozinski’s porn habits.
Comment by jwcc — 6/16/2008 @ 8:58
am
30.
That is more
shameful than the Kozinski’s porn habits.
The fact hat they aren’t really porn
doesn’t make a whole lot of difference to you, does it…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/16/2008
@ 9:01 am
31.
LA Times didn’t sit on a story.
Newspapers often hold back news till at such time it becomes relevant.
This wasn’t relevant months ago,
when first gathered. It’s relevant now, because of the nature of the trial.
Taxpayer supported Judges are often
censured and sanctioned far lesser transgressions…and that’s certainly
newsworthy.
Maintaining any materials that could
be construed as pornographic, on a workplace website, is at the very least…bad
judgment…..which calls into question his fitness for the bench. Like it or not,
society holds the Judiciary to a higher standard than regular citizens who
aren’t living off the tax-payers.
Comment by Maxine — 6/16/2008 @ 9:28
am
32.
I couldn’t
agree with Karen more. Good grief. Who ARE these people? They see these things
as “funny” and give full access to it to their children and actually use that
as a defense???
All due respect, RWS, but how old
are their children?
Maintaining
any materials that could be construed as pornographic, on a workplace website,
is at the very least…bad judgment
Yes, that would be very bad. That’s
not what happened here.
Fer crissake, would people just
unwad their panties and grow up?
Comment by Rob Crawford — 6/16/2008
@ 9:40 am
33.
Sending the wife out to make a
defense is pretty weak stuff.
That is more shameful than the
Kozinski’s porn habits.
In one fell swoop, jwcc, you prove
that you
(1) are a misogynist jerk
(2) don’t know what porn is
(3) are probably Cyrus Sinai.
Comment by Joe Bingham — 6/16/2008 @
9:43 am
34.
Oh and the picture of the woman with
a man penetrating her is funny how?, maybe it is fine art?, how would Tiffany
describe that one. What about a strip show of an aroused transsexual, I am not
sure what is funny about that and putting it online is hardly the actions of an
innocent person, not very ‘family values’.
The bottom line is the judge has a
collection of inappropriate images that are available online and is unfit to
judge a trial about pornography.
Comment by Daniel — 6/16/2008 @ 9:47
am
35.
Well written letter by the wife.
I wholeheartedly agree. But does
anyone really care? The headlines went out already nobody’s going to get the
word out.
At least his family knows the truth.
Comment by Austin — 6/16/2008 @ 9:48
am
36.
Oh and the picture of the woman with
a man penetrating her is funny how?, maybe it is fine art?, how would Tiffany
describe that one. What about a strip show of an aroused transsexual, I am not
sure what is funny about that and putting it online is hardly the actions of an
innocent person, not very ‘family values’.
Have you seen the material? The
tranny stuff is a flash game. It’s tacky, yes. I don’t think it’s that funny.
But it’s definitely humor, not porn. It’s not, as described in the media, a
pornographic slideshow of a striptease.
Did she say the humor was “family
values”? Strawman.
Comment by Joe Bingham — 6/16/2008 @
9:55 am
37.
A celebrity, or public figure,
shares some off-color material with “friends”.
At that point, it’s not a private
matter anymore.
And, if the public figure holds a
position of trust, and is being supported by the taxpayers…..then it’s
absolutely newsworthy !
Comment by Maxine — 6/16/2008 @ 9:56
am
38.
This wasn’t
relevant months ago, when first gathered. It’s relevant now, because of the
nature of the trial.
Except they’ve known about the trial
and who would be presiding for quite a while. They waited until after the jury
was sworn in to publish.
Taxpayer
supported Judges are often censured and sanctioned far lesser
transgressions…and that’s certainly newsworthy.
Name one of those “Taxpayer
supported Judges” that was censured or sanctioned. I highly doubt that
unsupported statement and would really like to see you back it up.
Maintaining
any materials that could be construed as pornographic, on a workplace website,
is at the very least…bad judgment…..which calls into question his fitness for
the bench. Like it or not, society holds the Judiciary to a higher standard
than regular citizens who aren’t living off the tax-payers.
Just because things are in poor
taste (and most of what I saw wouldn’t even qualify as that, only crude humor)
doesn’t make them pornographic. Also, it wasn’t a workplace website, it was a
home server… not even an online storage service, but an extra PC set up to host
some files.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 6/16/2008 @
10:00 am
39.
To the posters who are outraged that
Kozinski would make raunchy material public: By his wife’s own statements, it
doesn’t appear as though anyone in that family knew the information was
accessible to the public. There are a lot of people out there who just aren’t
tech-savvy enough to know how to password-protect their servers. For example, I
live in the suburbs and, if I wanted to, I can access up to 15 unprotected
wireless networks that my neighbors haven’t figured out how to secure.
This story is just making a mountain
out of a molehill. There’s no impropriety here.
Comment by Brigid — 6/16/2008 @
10:02 am
40.
Wifey must be running scared. It
costs a lot to maintain an LA home in the lavish style she’s accustomed to.
She ain’t no Silda Spitzer, so she’s
gotta roll up her sleeves, take to the airwaves, write letters…before her
standard of living completely evaporates.
Comment by Maxine — 6/16/2008 @
10:05 am
41.
Wifey must be running scared, etc.
Oh, I get it. Maxine’s a troll.
/Not gonna feed.
Comment by Brigid — 6/16/2008 @
10:10 am
42.
Joe Bingham you try to spin it
anyway you want but a photo of a man penetrating a woman is pornographic,
whether it is game or not an aroused transsexual is not funny (unless you are a
pervert).
You can excuse his behaviour all you
want and maybe this kind of material is fine with you but for many many people
it is unacceptable and is hypocritical for a law and order, family values conservative
judge to posses and disseminate.
Comment by Daniel — 6/16/2008 @
10:11 am
43.
She ain’t no
Silda Spitzer, so she’s gotta roll up her sleeves, take to the airwaves, write
letters
Did you miss the “Esq” at the end of
the letter, right after her name?
Louis Sheehan
No comments:
Post a Comment