She’s got a doctorate in Law. She
could easily make a fine living on her own…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/16/2008
@ 10:14 am
44.
Brava, Ms. Tiffany! Thank you for
the beautifully written defence of your husband. He ought not be defended
merely by his brilliant jurisprudence, but upon his character as well.
Sending the
wife out to make a defense is pretty weak stuff.
No, it’s the strongest defence there
is. The woman who has been married to him for three decades is the best person
to defend Judge Kozinski’s character, especially when the charges leveled
against him are those of misogyny and having porn fetishes.
Fer
crissake, would people just unwad their panties and grow up?
ROFL.
They see
these things as “funny” and give full access to it to their children and
actually use that as a defense???
Ya know, my dad will sometimes make
jokes about “family bondage” as opposed to “family bonding.” I guess he’s a
demented jerk who doesn’t belong near children…?
Comment by bridget — 6/16/2008 @
10:14 am
45.
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).
Again, have you seen this, or are
you relying on the LAT’s description of the stuff?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/16/2008
@ 10:17 am
46.
A vindictive lawyer. An
unaccountable judge drunk on power. A journalist who intentionally lied to
juice up a story.
It’s like Saddam and the Ayatollah.
You wish they could all lose.
Comment by Roy Mustang — 6/16/2008 @
10:20 am
47.
“family values conservative judge to
posses and disseminate.”
Daniel - Does Kozinski bill himself
as a family values conservative judge?
I keep hearing him described as a strong
supporter of the First Amendment and a libertarian, which would make this
content no big deal.
Also, do you have any evidence that
he was disseminating the “porn”? The wife clearly says it was private. No one
has said they found a link to any of the porn from the internet, that was only
done by searching the site once they were on it. Read the background more
closely.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/16/2008 @
10:23 am
48.
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.
Because there’s no other possible
motivation for her to defend her husband… because she has to know that he’s an
unethical degenerate, one step removed from the people who appear in his court,
right? It’s clear you’ve made up your mind and nothing about the judge is
defensible in your eyes. I hope you’re never attacked unfairly, although you
might learn a bit more about what the MSM and dishonorable people are truly
like. For now, I’ll take your words for what they’re worth (read that as you
will).
Comment by Stashiu3 — 6/16/2008 @
10:23 am
49.
“Sending the wife out to make a
defense is pretty weak stuff.”
No, given that the Judge is under
investigation and should not make any public statements. What the fuck do
people realistically expect under the circumstances.
D’oh!
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/16/2008 @
10:25 am
50.
Judges are above the law which is
why they are appointed for life tenure.
Comment by Cogito E. Spud —
6/16/2008 @ 10:26 am
51.
Anyone who is trying to debate the
character of a judge with his family based off of no fact but the supposed AP
press (these personal abuse bullcrap stories which I guarantee were all posted
under the same IP - whoops!)
If someone really had a story like
that, they’d post it registered with a way for someone to verify and sue…since
especially you’d make money now. Too bad they don’t realize that if the judge
decides to prosecute them by identifying the IP of an anonymous comment, they
can do that. This equivalent to “your husband rubbed against my girlfriend” is
a form of slander that he could actually take the anon poster to court about.
Would it be worth it to do so though? No, unfortunately.
The person who tried to say “this
guy is like all men” is someone full of misandry….aka misogyny but a woman
doing it to a man. I hope that person learns to be a real person, but then
again its probably the same poster as the one before it about the “oh, he was a
manwhore to my girlfriend” speech. Honestly, you think someone’s going to do
something like that at a public event? A smart judge is going to be an ass in
public? Just throwing this out there, but I’d guess the chance of that is about
between 0, and being struck by lighting while indoors and underground.
I bet there are a grand total of 2
or 3 people posting these slanderous story of her husband, all from different
anonymous names. It’s not like the comments are just magically in a row from
eachother and all from anon names, now is it?
Comment by Matt — 6/16/2008 @ 10:34
am
52.
Best regards to Judge Kozinski and
his family - I’ve followed his judiciary experience from here in Reno, Nevada,
and he’s always struck me as a man who loves his country and defends the
Constitutional rights of others. It’s a breath of fresh air to see that at
least one website will reciprocate.
On a related note, how does this
slimeball Sanai keep on getting away with his smear campaigns? Are there any
litigious options available to Judge Kozinski?
Comment by Josh Fenio — 6/16/2008 @
10:39 am
53.
On my computer I have pictures of my
one-year granddaughter taking a bath…naked! I have a picture of my daughter
being licked on the nose…by her dog! I have a cache of jokes…some off-color and
of a sexual content stored in various files. If I was a teacher, judge or
minister and someone hacked into my computer I could easily be accused of being
a pervert. Fortunately i am just an old lady who likes to look at pictures of
my family and laugh at silly jokes.
Comment by CKSewell — 6/16/2008 @
10:40 am
54.
This is a fantastic example of how
distorted truths can have severe repercussions on certain people. I will not
lie, when I read the original LA times article, They made this judge out to be
a dirty minded-porn addict. And they did it quite effectively. Perhaps this is a
lesson for all of us, to never trust any source of information, no matter how
credible it claims to be. Everyone has a motivation, and clearly truth and
justice were not the motivations of Cyrus Sanai or the author of the LA TIMES
article. If it is discovered, and im assuming it must be pretty evident, that
the author knowingly printed these misleading remarks, he should be fired
immediatly. Makes me think that journalists should have to undergo some ethical
training, and be licensed to report the news. If only to ensure a means of
retaliation when they commit such horrid acts. There was a time when
journalism, was seen almost in a romantic sense, as being a defender of truth.
Unfortunately, todays journalism, has devolved into a game of simply making the
most absurd eye catching headline, regardless of who it may unfairly portray.
If US news sources continue to go down this path, it will not be long before
Americans will be forced to go to outside sources for information. I.E BBC or
Reuters. However this may also lead to a greater interest in internet
reporting. With the internet we are able to view various different news sources
covering the same topic, which can give us a better idea of the truth. Any one
source can have particular biases that alter the truth, but whne all read
together, we can often see the picture more clearly. Perhaps this is the
direction the American Media is headed.
Comment by Nick — 6/16/2008 @ 10:42
am
55.
Your home is
private, yes? But how can that be, when it’s on a public street?
Jim, if I had a garage sale, put up
signs around the neighborhood with my address, then didn’t take the signs down
and left the garage door open, should I be shocked if someone walked in to the
garage?
They seem to be saying “we invited
some people in some of the time and didn’t lock the door, but I can’t believe
everybody doesn’t understand this is PRIVATE!”
Comment by MamaAJ — 6/16/2008 @
10:46 am
56.
CKSewell you may have a naked photo
of your granddaughter and of course there is nothing the matter with that.
However the judge had a photo for example of young man performing fellatio on
himself. Unless your granddaughter is involved in some sexual act or used for
sexual gratification there is NO comparison at all. One is a harmless photo of
a relative and the other is pornographic image.
Comment by Daniel — 6/16/2008 @
10:49 am
57.
marcy tiffany said it wasn’t a
website. hold it right there. if it has its own url (alexkozinski.com) and it’s
on the web, it is, indeed, a website as i understand that term to mesn.
look at this vile cyrus sanai! yeah,
but personal vendettas are frequently waged and suffered by judges and lawyers.
she’s got a backstory, so does mr. sanai. everybody has a tale of woe that
would bring tears to the eyes of a sphinx. all that matters is the moment, and
in this moment mr. sanai has clearly scored…something. i’m not sure whether to
call it a touchdown or a field goal or how many points to award it.
look at this vile journalist! he
waited until jeopardy had attached! there oughta be a law!
ok marcy tiffany, tell us about the
young man sucking his own dick. pornography or humor? in an internet full of
goatse, tubgirl and lemonparty, images must get more and more…unusual…i don’t
want to say depraved here because that would be judgmental, but there’s
obviously two schools of thought on the subject.
ms. tiffany, tell us about the naked
women painted as cows. degrading to women, or not? if you say not, please favor
us with a picture of yourself naked on all fours, painted like a cow, so we can
all go moo and have a good, harmless laugh.
blah, blah, blah. bottom line,
secure your fricking system already! until you learn how to do that, better
pull the damn plug right outta the wall.
Comment by assistant devil's
advocate — 6/16/2008 @ 10:51 am
58.
Hey, this article just made it to
FARK’s main page. That should drive up traffic a good bit. Patterico is now
officially part of americana’s quasi-mainstream.
Comment by Dr T — 6/16/2008 @ 10:52
am
59.
“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.” -Daniel
Lol, where do you people come from?
Comment by G — 6/16/2008 @ 11:00 am
60.
Came across this at Fark-I briefly
remembered the LA Times story, and thought to myself “another public figure
caught with his pants down”. Now I read this rejoinder,and have sympathy for
the people who are the victims of this smear campaign. Shame on the Times for
not corroborating this story and also not considering the source. That alone
would be a red flag for any responsible journalist. Imagine the reactions of
people who haven’t seen this-the innuendo will live on long after the story
dies!
Comment by matty — 6/16/2008 @ 11:00 am
61.
Judge Kozinski is obviously using
his wife to represent him, and the strategy she employs, like her husband, is
misdirection and dishonesty.
I’m going to address only two points
now
First is the quotation from Judge
Elizabeth Grimes. She did say those things, and it was quoted, by the Court of
Appeal in an unpublished opinion reversing every ruling she made, as grounds
for tossing her off the case for misconduct. The exact quotation, which Judge
Zilly and Mrs. Kozinski refuse to reveal, is as follows:
“In making its fee award the trial
court commented, “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.”
We agree in these circumstances the
interests of justice are best served by having all further proceedings heard by
a different trial judge. (§ 170.1, subd. (c).)”
Disqualification under 170.1 is for
misconduct or bias.
So in the case before Judge Grimes,
the Court of Appeal quotes her language as grounds for tossing her. The
underlying fact is that I won the appeal and got her removed for saying this;
but in the underlying case as to which Judge Kozinski committed misconduct, and
now his defense through her wife, Judge Kozinski commits the same kind of
blatant dishonesty which has gotten him into trouble.
Second, and I will keep beating this
drum unti the cows–or women dressed as cows–come home: what about Terry
Carter’s article about the mp3s? Mrs. Kozinski knows how I found the
directory–it was the mp3s they uploaded and file shared. She nitpicks about the
LA Times article, but cannot address his more serious problem, because on that,
there is no defense.
Cyrus Sanai
Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 6/16/2008 @
11:02 am
62.
Is Joe Bingham a Kozinski sock
puppet?
I’ve seen that name on several blogs
always defending Kozinski’s porn habits.
If Joe Binham is a real person, I
hope he is getting paid by the Kozinskis because he sure is spending a lot of
time working on their behalf.
Comment by frankfromfresno —
6/16/2008 @ 11:05 am
63.
I’m taking the author at her word
for the description of events, but if even half of what she’s said is true,
this is one of the most disgusting abuses of journalism I’ve ever read.
It is absolutely abhorrent to me
that a conniving, malicious, indignant person can find such willing complicity
in character assassination in the press. Journalists are supposed to
investigate and report on matters of the breach of public trust, and issues of
importance that shape the day.
No such breach of public trust
exists, no such matter. It is a fabricated story, a vicious seed planted by a
vengeful scoundrel, and watered, fed and grown with premeditated malice by
greedy, opportunistic shams who are parading themselves as serious journalists.
I believe vehemently in our first
amendment right to freedom of the press, but in that freedom, we the people
place our trust, our faith in those who we’ve tasked the duty of reporting the
news to us. This craven act breaks that trust in one of the most egregious
manners possible, and vilifies a man who has made a career of being a prudent
and respectable jurist, for no reason other than personal spite and outright
moneylust.
As the people supposedly serviced by
these journalists, it is our charge, our duty to demand they make right this
breach of trust, this breach of decency, or else we all become implicit in this
villainy.
Comment by Shane — 6/16/2008 @ 11:05
am
64.
Is Joe Bingham a Kozinski sock
puppet?
I’ve seen that name on several blogs
always defending Kozinski’s porn habits.
If Joe Binham is a real person, I
hope he is getting paid by the Kozinskis because he sure is spending a lot of
time working on their behalf.
Comment by frankfromfresno —
6/16/2008 @ 11:07 am
65.
Is Joe Bingham a Kozinski sock
puppet?
I’ve seen that name on several blogs
always defending Kozinski’s porn habits.
If Joe Bingham is a real person, I
hope he is getting paid by the Kozinskis because he sure is spending a lot of
time working on their behalf.
Comment by frankfromfresno —
6/16/2008 @ 11:09 am
66.
Jim, if I
had a garage sale, put up signs around the neighborhood with my address, then
didn’t take the signs down and left the garage door open, should I be shocked
if someone walked in to the garage?
These analogies, mapping internet
concepts to physical concepts, just don’t work. Things like opening a garage
door and hanging a shingle are visible and physical, and are some of the oldest
ways of indicating that you want people to come by and look at what you have in
there.
An internet server is not a physical
thing, and doesn’t conform to the same rules of “visible” and “private” as
physical things. The Kozinskis posted no signs, and as far as they knew, no one
would be able to see it by doing the internet equivalent of driving by. They
were mistaken in that belief, but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t really and
honestly expect it to be private.
As smart as Kozinski is, I have no
trouble believing that he honestly thought his site was private. Either way, he
certainly wasn’t advertising for people to come by.
Comment by TI — 6/16/2008 @ 11:20 am
67.
Here’s one solution. The state bar
ethics website, at which one can file an ethics complaint against unethical
California lawyers, is here.
Cyrus Sanai’s bar profile, with bar
number, is here..
Exercise your own judgment as to
whether Cyrus Sanai behaved unethically and submit a complaint if appropriate.
Comment by The solution — 6/16/2008
@ 1:51 pm
68.
Cyrus Sanai says: “Disqualification
under 170.1 is for misconduct or bias.”
That’s not necessarily true, and
isn’t true in this case.
Separately, I’ve seen Joe Bingham on
legal blogs for months before this pseudo-scandal broke.
Comment by Ted — 6/16/2008 @ 2:29 pm
69.
Why should Federal Jurists have any
more claims on the First Amendment than Officers of the Military ???
The Military Code of Conduct covers
both in-uniform and out.
Anyone in the military found with
pornography is subject to dishonorable discharge. I consider the Federal
Judiciary a para-Miltary organization, and certainly someone holding that kind
of position of trust, should be held accountable both on, and off, the bench.
Comment by Maxine Weiss — 6/16/2008
@ 2:38 pm
70.
Solution,
Complaintants are generally limited
to clients of the lawyer in question, or - in some cases - to fellow members of
the bar; here, the California bar. And when a complaint is made, it should be
specific to some disciplinary rule(s), and cite specific evidence. Spamming
would be counter-productive.
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 2:39
pm
71.
“I consider the Federal Judiciary a
para-Miltary organization…”
I think I just got a pretty cool
insight.
Maxine’s dumb.
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 2:42
pm
72.
“I consider the Federal Judiciary a
para-Miltary organization”
Maxine - You Madame, are a nutjob.
What is your definition of pornography by the way?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/16/2008 @
2:43 pm
73.
““family values conservative judge
to posses and disseminate.”
Daniel - Does Kozinski bill himself
as a family values conservative judge?”
I finally understood what this story
was about when I heard the judge described as “conservative” and he was
mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I think it was foolish to leave
that material open without password protection but I’m sure a lot of people do
the same.
Comment by Mike K — 6/16/2008 @ 2:47
pm
74.
“In making its fee award the trial
court commented, “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.”
We agree in these circumstances the
interests of justice are best served by having all further proceedings heard by
a different trial judge. (§ 170.1, subd. (c).)”
This was a dispute over his own
apartment rent that Cyrus litigated for four years. The man is truly a piece of
work.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/16/2008 @
2:48 pm
75.
OK Sanai, why don’t you post
somewhere the complete texts of all the orders Ms. Tiffany is citing, so we can
read them for ourselves and decide whether she’s misrepresenting them. No one
in their right mind is going to take your word as to what really happened.
Comment by CMN — 6/16/2008 @ 2:56 pm
76.
Someone beat the peanut gallery to
it in terms of complaining about Judge Zilly’s cricisisms and Judge Grimes to
the bar. The bar requested a response from me, and nothing is going on.
Obviously, if any of you fine people
want to complain, I can’t stop you, but you will be required to submit facts
and information, which none of you have. The bar does not act on complaints
made by people with no actual knowledge, for obvious reasons.
The case law concerning CCP
170.1(c), which Ted Frank should be familiar with, says that reassignment under
this statute is reserved solely for cases of bias or misconduct. If anyone can
find a published case saying differently, bring it to my attention. Until
someone does, I say that Ted Frank is just making it up.
Also, and let’s make this clear, I
have not lost the case involving Judge Grimes, and I have not lost the matters
previously before Judge Zilly. Everything is proceeding, and nothing is final.
Which is, by the way, where Mrs. Kozinski has become an advocate for judicial
misconduct.
And this leads me to an additional
point about Mrs. Kozinski. She is defending and indeed advocate further
judicial misconduct.
Judges don’t get to speak out on
matters before their courts unless it is assigned to them, and then only
through the opinion process (or in trial court judges, in open court at a noticed
proceeding). Judge Kozinski and any other federal judge should be disciplined
for attacking any attorney in the press, unless that case is before that judge
and the criticisms are made through the opinion or hearing process. Judge
Kozinski’s original article was misconduct, which he conceded, and he now
appears to be using his wife to commit additional misconduct.
So to be clear: Judge Kozinski does
not get to speak about about attorney misconduct unless the matter is assigned
to him. He has to keep his mouth shut. Judges are not advocates, and by
accepting a lifetime appointment, they lose many First Amendment rights, and
must conform their public behavior to constrained norms. If he does not like
that, he could always move to the private sector and start billing time or
publishing academic articles.
Finally, I always knew that because
the server was under Judge Kozinski’s control, any judicial misconduct
complaint concerning it would, if not preceded by a press investigation, be dismissed
after Kozinski destroyed the evidence. That’s what happened with my first
complaint, as Patterico has shown in earlier posts.
What I did not know was that Yahoo
search was indexing the site, so much of what was removed is still recorded.
But again, the porn is not the
biggest sin in the cache. The file sharing of the MP3s is, and that was
separately verified by the ABA Journal.
Cyrus Sanai
Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 6/16/2008 @
3:01 pm
77.
But, Cyrus Sinai isn’t living off
the public largesse, with fat pension, unlimited authority, no impunity, and
absolutely no transparency.
With Dianne Feinstein on the
warpath, the Judicial Council investigating, and the public outcry……this Judge
is toast !
And once the public gravy-train
ends, I hope the little Wifey has a book deal, or maybe a Playboy Centerfold,
lined up.
Thank heavens the Kozinskis don’t
consider Playboy pornography !
Comment by Maxine Weiss — 6/16/2008
@ 3:05 pm
78.
what does it mean to be disgruntled?
is there a component of meaning separate from being displeased or angry at
someone or something? i ask because i see it used more and more nowadays in an
effort to marginalize a subject and shift the issue to being about the subject
instead of some underlying controversy. unless there is some separate component
of meaning i’ve missed, the use of “disgruntled” by ms. tiffany and others
strikes me as manipulative.
Comment by assistant devil's
advocate — 6/16/2008 @ 3:09 pm
79.
If Judge Kozinski’s wife is a
lawyer, she should know that it is improper to cite as authority a trial court
decision that has been overruled by an Appellate Court.
The quotation from Judge Grime’s
decision was specifically addressed by an Appellate court which reversed it:
“Finding Mr. Sanai had not brought
this action in good faith,[see footnote 36] the trial court awarded UDR
$136,034 in fees, 25 percent of the total fees sought by all defendants in
their consolidated attorney fee motion, pursuant to Civil Code section 1785.31,
subdivision (e). We reverse the award on two grounds.
Footnote36. The trial court
commented: “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.””
I know that the wife’s intention is
just to throw mud at Cyrus Sanai and that she is not bound by the normal rules
regarding citing authority when sending e-mail. But publicizing a trial court’s
order that has been specifically reversed by a higher court points to some
troubling ethical sloppiness.
The case is at Sanai v. U.D.
Registry, Inc.
Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL
361327
Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2005.
Comment by frankfromfresno —
6/16/2008 @ 3:14 pm
80.
It’s Sanai’s apparent belief that
he’s smart which may provide abundant opportunity for high comedy some time
just over the horizon.
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 3:15
pm
81.
Cyrus, you were just caught lying,
not that anyone believed you. Bias is not always misconduct. And you have lost
over and over, and just keep getting ancillary appeals that do not go to the
factual matters (which you keep losing). Not to mention that you’re suing over
tiny pointless crap.
Cyrus, did you or did you not upload
these files onto Kozinski’s server?
Have you ever been diagnosed with
Paranoid Schizophrenia?
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 3:16 pm
82.
We need a link to the matters on the
Kozinski website so that we are not just stirred up by argument with no
evidence. Also, re the LA Times, visiting Ms. Tiffany’s Website
specialedlaw.org, which is on the State Bar’s website for her, there are a
number of links to LA Times articles about her which Ms. Tiffany likes. Also,
her’s is a business for fees, not apparently a nonprofit so why the “.org”?
Thank you in advance for the information.
Comment by Bemish — 6/16/2008 @ 3:18
pm
83.
ADA, I think it’s pretty clear that
he’s disgruntled based on his conduct in this thread alone, where he’s already
tangled himself in some dishonest statements of fact and law.
frankfromfresno, you have an unusual
writing pattern that only matches one other poster here… who happens to agree
with you and also shares your strange paranoia about the intentions of everyone
being out to get Cyrus.
And it’s not improper to cite a
trial opinion if you’re not using it to justify the factual matter at trial but
rather proving that Cyrus’s behavior has drawn the scorn of other respected
jurists. She’s saying that a trail took place, for which her citation is
obviously rock-solid. She’s not concerned with Cyrus’s apartments and his poor
father.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 3:20 pm
84.
Bemish, why would you think anyone
here needs to defend the use of .org in Ms. Tiffany’s website? What a stupid
thing to bring up!
Oh, and nonprofits charge fees all
the time, Cyrus.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 3:22 pm
85.
jem, i think it’s pretty clear that
he’s angry/displeased with judge kozinski based on his conduct in this thread
alone, but i was asking about additional meaning, above and beyond anger/displeasure,
inherent in “disgruntled”. my best guess is that there’s some additional
symbolism along the lines of “he’s angry/displeased, so nobody has to take him
seriously.” if this is so, my general advice would be not to disgruntle anybody
when you have an unsecured family web server with embarrassing material on it.
Comment by assistant devil's
advocate — 6/16/2008 @ 3:32 pm
86.
Marcy Tiffany became involved in
special education law because the school district was failing to meet the needs
of her gifted, but learning disabled, child.
—www.specialedlaw.org
Gee, I guess all that pornography,
passed back and forth between Dad and Son, must have cured the Son of his
learning disability !
Son seems quite adept at helping Dad
collect porn.
Comment by Maxine Weiss — 6/16/2008
@ 3:35 pm
87.
– but i was asking about additional
meaning, above and beyond anger/displeasure, inherent in “disgruntled” –
.
Unreasonably angry - or anger out of
normal proportion to events. Getting angry at things that most people would
shrug off as part of the normal friction of life. Holding a GRUDGE comes to
mind. Chip on the shoulder.
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 3:38
pm
88.
Cyrus, did
you or did you not upload these files onto Kozinski’s server?
I see this line becoming more and
more popular by the judge’s defenders: that somehow Mr. Sanai uploaded the
kid-fellating-himseld picture, the illegally-shared MP3 files, the aroused-donkey
videos, etc. to the publically-accessible and popular-search-engine-indexed
Kozinski web site.
But this accusation that Sanai (or
anyone else) planted evidence doesn’t mesh well with Kozinksi’s original
admissions that this was his material, and (now) his wife’s email defending the
material.
It looks like the judge’s defenders
are resorting to outlandishly dishonest scenarios — which started with the
breathtakingly inaccurate “visiting his web site is like breaking into his
house” excuse — in an effort to shift the spotlight away from the judge’s
behavior.
(These misdirections and
blame-the-messenger tactics echo those used originally by the the Obama-Wright
and Clinton-Lewinski defenders, which makes me immediately suspicious of them.)
Jem: do you have any evidence to
support this allegation that these files were planted on the judge’s web site,
or are you just throwing around baseless slander?
Comment by Shad — 6/16/2008 @ 3:39
pm
89.
She’s saying
that a trail took place, for which her citation is obviously rock-solid.
If you are a lawyer, you would know
that a citation to a trial court decision that was explicitly overruled is the
exact opposite of “rock-solid.”
Comment by frankfromfresno —
6/16/2008 @ 3:41 pm
90.
I’m running on the assumption that
MiniMaxine, frankfromfreon, and CyrusSinia are one in the same. Perpetually
pissed.
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 3:43
pm
91.
Add Shad to the list of sock
puppets.
Comment by cboldt — 6/16/2008 @ 3:43
pm
92.
ADA, your reasoning about teh
intelligence Kozinski displayed in having that server is, of course, absolutely
correct. There was nothing illegal about prying into it, and Koz should have
known he’d have deranged enemies looking for anything they could find.
Shad, slander is spoken, Libel is
typed, and I merely asked a very obvious question. This server, if you can
break into his wifi router, would be easy to tamper with, and the state of california
was unable to find documents that apparently are there now. Why would Koz
delete them (Cyrus claims he destroyed evidence by deleting a file) and then
put them back? Given Cyrus’s bizarre behavior, the most likely explanation is
that Cyrus planted this stuff.
Shad, you’re either confused or
deliberately blurring the issue. Cyrus has no legal claim about the sexual
humor/porn/whatever. It’s utterly irrelevant. Kozinski and his wife are
explaining that these files are pretty silly to get angry about, but I don’t
know of any admission that the put them there. They all agree it’s possible.
Why are you getting the facts mixed up?
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 3:45 pm
93.
Ah, baseless slander it is, then,
Jem. Thanks for the quick response to the question.
Comment by Shad — 6/16/2008 @ 3:48
pm
94.
frank, you clearly understand the
point I’m making and are deliberately distorting it. Am I, too, another of the
millions of lawyers out to ‘get’ you? Are you going to try to locate my server
and find out what’s on them?
A trial took place and though an
appeal was made, the fact that a judge was very angry with Cyrus (you), is
absolutely obvious. It’s another of a litany of people who note that Cyrus is a
deranged person.
Cyrus, you do realize that your case
is not any closer to coming out your way, just because Kozinski may have porn?
We’re interested int he topic, but it has nothing to do with your case. Your
deranged behavior, as noted in decisions that have been overturned and others
that have not, is just more evidence that your use as a source was
irresponsible and you aren’t to be trusted. I don’t give a flip about your rent
or the factual dispute at your trial that you lost… I only care that the judge
was tired of your BS. Do you dispute that the judge was very aggravated or that
the trial took place (the only facts asserted by Tiffany)?
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 3:50 pm
95.
An internet
server is not a physical thing, and doesn’t conform to the same rules of
“visible” and “private” as physical things. The Kozinskis posted no signs, and
as far as they knew, no one would be able to see it by doing the internet
equivalent of driving by. They were mistaken in that belief, but that doesn’t
mean that they didn’t really and honestly expect it to be private.
I don’t see how you can say that.
From an earlier post:
One more
point: Seth Finkelstein has shown that Kozinski knew that any member of the
public could access his site — including his “stuff” subdirectory — as long as
they knew the URL. In 2004, Kozinski nominated himself as part of a “Judicial
Hottie Contest” on the Internet, and included a file of himself bungee jumping
at http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff/jump.avi.
Yes, it was one file, not the
directory. But did he do anything special to the file to make it open to the
public? No, all the files were already available to anyone who tried to get to
them.
That doesn’t seem very private to
me. More like leaving a door unlocked and hoping no one tries to turn the door
knob.
Then there’s the whole MP3 file
sharing. If he was doing that, then there’s just no way to claim it was
supposed to be private. I don’t know if anyone has–or can–determine if he was
sharing them on purpose or not.
Comment by MamaAJ — 6/16/2008 @ 3:51
pm
96.
Kozinski and
his wife are explaining that these files are pretty silly to get angry about,
but I don’t know of any admission that the put them there. They all agree it’s
possible. Why are you getting the facts mixed up?
I guess I got the facts mixed up
because I read this post here on Patterico’s site, where he quoted the Times as
saying:
Alex
Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in
an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a
photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a
half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material
was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit
content as “funny.”
Comment by Shad — 6/16/2008 @ 3:51
pm
97.
Grudges aren’t illegal, and I’m my
own person, with no special rants, or litigation.
I have a website where I talk about
nothing other than Mozart and other innocuous subjects.
However, I do take special pleasure
in watching the mighty, (and their feet of clay), fall.
….especially Hypocrites who live in
Palos Verdes. And, you can bet tongues are wagging all over the Penninsula.
Neighbors who’ve long hated the Kozinskis, but havent had the nerve to say it
to them up front….salivating over this delicious-ness!!!!
Comment by Maxine Weiss — 6/16/2008
@ 3:53 pm
98.
Shad, you don’t think it’s a
reasonable question to ask a lunatic if he did something crazy?
Why? How is that slander (or libel)?
I asked a very obvious and relevant question, and your laser focus on this
seems to suggest you indeed may have tampered with Koz’s computer, since you’re
unusually upset by it (I assume you’re Cyrus, though you of course may not be).
I will give you $1000 if you can
note the specific statement I typed and prove it’s untrue. Obviously you can’t
and you know that, because all you want to do is attack everyone defending
Kozinski… because after all, we’re all out to get you, right?
by the way, you’re the one accusing
me of a crime. If you can’t back it up, you’re not only a dullard, but you’re a
hypocrite with absolutely no credibility here. so it’s time to pick a new
sockpuppet.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 3:55 pm
99.
I’m going to be gradually drawing my
involvement in responding to comments to a close for a while, as an
investigatory committee has been appointed by the Third Circuit on the
instructions of Chief Justice Roberts.
The Committee will be the proper
forum to air the facts and defenses. I will be requesting that the committee’s
proceeding be treated as an open tribunal. I hope that everyone on this blog
makes the same request.
I have nothing to fear about telling
my story in public. It is a complicated one, involving several levels of
judicial misconduct, the primary one being very different than what is under
discussion here. However it is real, and it is provable.
Google will be putting up a statement about the underlying
case that I have submitted at their requested. I’ll post the link once it is
up.
Again, I hope that everyone who has
commented will demand open transparent proceedings in front of the committee.
Cyrus Sanai
Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 6/16/2008 @
3:59 pm
100.
“I guess I got the facts mixed up
because I read this post here on Patterico’s site, where he quoted the Times as
saying:”
Shad, I dispute the accuracy of the quote
that Kozinksi admitted posting all the material that is being discussed.
Perhaps some of it, perhaps none of it, but unless you can provide a better
link, I just don’t think you’re right. After all,t he Time shas also been
caught lying.
Weiss, your glee is disgusting. And
from what I’ve seen today, the cast majority of people paying attention are
agreeing that Kozinski did nothing wrong. That’s hardly a fall at all.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 4:00 pm
101.
Cyrus, I demand an open hearing on
your conduct too. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s warranted?
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 4:01 pm
102.
Jem, my “laser focus” on this was to
ask you if you had any evidence to support your accusation that someone else
had planted these files on Kozinski’s web site, especially given his admission
that he had put them there himself. You answered that you did not have any
evidence, and I thanked you for your quick response.
You also asked where I got the idea
that Kozinski had admitted he put the files on his web site, and I helpfully
provided you a link to another post on this very site demonstrating that it was
public knowledge that he had done so.
Finally, I have not accused you of
any crime; dial down your paranoia.
Comment by Shad — 6/16/2008 @ 4:06
pm
103.
frank, you
clearly understand the point I’m making and are deliberately distorting it.
The only point I have been
addressing is your absurd suggestion that a trial court opinion that has been
reversed by an appellate court is “rock solid.” If you mean to say something
else, you should choose your words more carefully.
A trial took
place and though an appeal was made, the fact that a judge was very angry with
Cyrus (you), is absolutely obvious.
Oh, so your point is that some trial
judge was very angry with Mr. Sanai? Okay, so what? Has anyone ever been angry
with you?
And, by the way, I ain’t Mr. Sanai
and have never met him. You might want to pour yourself a soothing cup of tea
and sit down and consider the fact that there may be more than one person on
planet Earth with an internet connection who does not think exactly like you
do.
Comment by dht — 6/16/2008 @ 4:14 pm
104.
Shad (Cyrus), you need ot pick a new
sock-puppet. I asked Cyrus a yes or no question, and you replied that because
you are certain the answer is no, that I’m a criminal slanderer for asking the
question. Slander laws are, in fact, a limitation on free speech, especially
the insanely broad definition you have, which apparently is that no one can
dare challenge Cyrus.
You are a very foolish person if you
think any intelligent person doesn’t see through your silly game. It’s not
funny and you probably are going to have to find a new profession.
To put it plainly: accusing me of
being a criminal for asking a question is akin to forfeiting your place at the
discussion. So pick a new sockpuppet.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 4:16 pm
105.
I think there are a couple of
sock-puppets here, but I’m not sure if I’d posit a unified sock-puppet theory
just yet, for starters because Maxine is just so stupid (not that the others
are particularly brilliant.) So we have different personalities in any case,
whether employed by the same puppeteer or not I’m not sure.
But there’s also another phenomenon
going on here with these Kozinski-bashers (and I’m excluding those who merely
say that Kozinski should have been more prudent in protecting his privacy):
They’re the sort of malcontents who feel a kind of diffuse resentment of even
hatred toward anyone in a position of esteem in the community, even when that
position is earned. That hatred emerges full-force when an esteemed figure gets
caught up in scandal, and the haters just don’t care about the quality of the evidence
or the honesty of the accuser. The object of hate must simply be brought down,
destroyed, to assuage the haters’ feelings of personal worthlessness.
So I see that kind of disgusting
hatred here - hatred of one’s betters - and because there’s a real sub-culture
of these kinds of freaks, I’m not sure each one of them is a sock-puppet.
Comment by Brian — 6/16/2008 @ 4:17
pm
106.
dht, you need to read the thread
instead of spouting off like that. Ok?
Tiffany asserted some basic and
truthful facts about Cyrus and the opinion another judge had of him and the
existence of a trial. Cyrus or his sockpuppet said that it was wrong to point
out the trial that proves this, as the trial was overturned. This is
ridiculous. All I was doing was pointing out it was ridiculous. I don’t need to
prove that Cyrus is disrespectful of the legal process, a serial litigant, an
obsessed loon, and someone who makes judges very irritated by his horrible
conduct. That’s just obvious stuff, as far as I’m concerned, and anyone who
doesn’t immediately grant that I am correct is probably a sock-puppet.
Cyrus’s case, of course, is
irrelevant to the discussion beyond the fact that Cyrus would do anything to
harm someone he thinks is in the way of his results. It’s not really important
to look into his actual case.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 4:20 pm
107.
Brian, you’re right. I doubt all the
Kozinski opponents here are Cyrus. By reputation he works his clerks to the
bone and many of my professors think he’s totally wrong, so I expect lots of
people to laugh at his stupid behaivior.
But come on, dude… “shad” thinks I’m
a criminal if I ask Cyrus a yes or no question, and the fresno guy types
exactly like Cyrus. their posts are timed apart in such a way that it’s even
more suspicious.
Comment by Jem — 6/16/2008 @ 4:22 pm
108.
I don’t know who Shad is. It is not
me. I don’t need to use sock puppets, since I am not looking for the roar of
the masses in approval.
I will say that no one who posts
anonymously has the right to accuse anyone of being a sock puppet. Anyone who
wants to ask me a question, feel free to call me or email me directly. I will
respond to anyone who identifies themselves with their real name and personal
details (i.e. educational background, location and job). I note that trolls
like daleyrocks and jem don’t have the guts to do this.
For clarification, I understand that
Kozinski admitted putting up the specific items mentioned in the Times article,
but I did not hear it from him, so I could be wrong. As for the mp3s, he and
Mrs. Kozinski refuse to address them, since their existence was independently
verfied by both the Times and the ABA Journal, and on that, he has no defense.
Cyrus Sanai
Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 6/16/2008 @
4:25 pm
109.
Rob Crawford,
It doesn’t matter to me how old the
children are. I have a 21 yr old son. I can’t imagine sharing a sexually
explicit “joke” with him.
Good grief.
No comments:
Post a Comment