The Kozinski Controversy: Had Enough Yet?
We have. So, barring major new developments, we’re cutting back on our coverage of the controversy surrounding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit. As we suggested yesterday, the story is petering out anyway; but if you’re still interested in following it, check out Patterico’s Pontifications, which has been offering excellent, wall-to-wall coverage.
Before we take our leave of this tale, here are a few notable links:
1. Judges Named To Head Kozinski Inquiry [AP]
This is the only real news to emerge since our last post. Chief Justice John Roberts, responding to Chief Judge Kozinski’s request for an investigation, has named five jurists to the investigatory panel: Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, Judge Marjorie Rendell, and Judge Walter Stapleton, of the Third Circuit; Chief Judge Harvey Bartle III (E.D. Pa.); and Chief Judge Garrett Brown Jr. (D.N.J.). This is a solid group of judges; expect their investigation to be thorough and proper.
2. Cyrus Sanai: Kozinski investigation “is part of a litigation strategy” [Overlawyered]
The Kozinski archenemy who tipped off the Los Angeles Times to the judge’s website — L.A. lawyer Cyrus Sanai, who has been feuding with the judge since 2005 — is a real piece of work. At Overlawyered, Ted Frank chronicles how Sanai has been benchslapped by numerous judges, both federal and state, at the trial and appellate levels. Sanai blames the mountain of adverse on rulings on bias. Frank writes:
One has much sympathy for Cyrus Sanai, who has suffered the extraordinary misfortune of four trial judges in three different jurisdictions who are biased against him, and that does not include the appellate judges like the Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court, Gerry Alexander; Washington State Court of Appeals judges Marlin Applewick, Anne Ellington and William Baker; or Judge Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit, all of whom Sanai has accused of bias. We wish that a just result is reached in Sanai’s various appeals, and pray that a just result is reached if a California legal disciplinary body ever decides to investigate what biased judges have been saying about Sanai.
3. Who’s at Fault For the Kozinski Kerfluffle? [Simple Justice]
Scott Greenfield writes:
David Lat, who has feasted on unsubstantiated gossip at Above the Law as well as his blog dedicated to sifting the salacious from the judicious, Underneath Their Robes (where he blogged anonymously as Article III Groupie, or A3G as he came to be known), joins the chorus [of Kozinski defenders]. But does the former AUSA explain his sudden conversion? Isn’t this the guy who is first on line (and online) to publish a smear of any lawyer or judge? In fairness, Lat’s connection to Kozinski is well-known to his long-time followers, but the new reader would be left out in the cold.
As Greenfield suggests, we view our connection to Chief Judge Kozinski as very well-known, and therefore not worth belaboring. But if he wants some sort of formal disclosure, here it is.
Disclosure: We have a great deal of respect and affection for Chief Judge Kozinski, whom we consider a friend. He helped launch our blogging career with his support of our first foray into the blogosphere, Underneath Their Robes (started four years ago this month). Our coverage of him is biased. If you’d like to read harsh personal attacks upon Chief Judge Kozinski, you should look elsewhere.
Above the Law is an independent blog. Unlike MSM-sponsored blogs such as the WSJ or the BLT, ATL makes no claim to “objectivity.” Considering that we opine daily on all sorts of topics, in ways that would be unacceptable for pure news reporters to do, we don’t see how anyone could mistake ATL for an objective news source. But if you want an express disclaimer of objectivity, consider this it.
Finally, we’d like to clarify our views of the “Kozinski Kerfluffle,” as Greenfield aptly dubs it. Consistent with our general antipathy to privacy, we don’t entirely agree with observers who see what Sanai and the L.A. Times did as an egregious privacy violation. On this we agree with Ted Frank:
I don’t think I fully endorse Lessig’s view on this — accessing a directory on a public website may be slightly creepy, but it’s not the same as breaking and entering a house to peer inside the photo albums in the den; it’s not even at the level of obnoxiousness as a guest inspecting the medicine cabinets of a host’s bathroom.
What we do think, however, is that the whole matter has become completely overblown. All it shows is that federal judges enjoy the occasional dirty joke and have risque material on their computers — in other words, “they’re just like us.” Considering that we launched a blog devoted to this very proposition four years ago, we find it hard to get that excited about it now.
4. Defending Judge Kozinski, and Online Privacy [The Lede / NYT]
ATL gets a shout-out from Mike Nizza in the Lede, a New York Times blog, in this concise round-up of the latest developments.
Judges named to head Kozinski inquiry [AP]
Cyrus Sanai: Kozinski investigation “is part of a litigation strategy” [Overlawyered]
Who’s at Fault For the Kozinski Kerfluffle? [Simple Justice]
Defending Judge Kozinski, and Online Privacy [The Lede / New York Times]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (scroll down)
(38) Comments
Comments
first episode ever
way to man up lat. good for you.
It takes real legal talent to be sanctioned over $1 million in attorney's fees in a pro se, $2,400 rent dispute that arose when Sanai tried to take advantage of (what he admitted in deposition he knew to be) a typo in a rent increase notice, then mushroomed into Sanai's 15 court volume libel-slander suit after his credit was dinged for failure to pay the rent he knew he owed.
In fact, $1 million in judicially imposed sanctions may be a some kind of a record for judicial sanctions imposed on a pro se litigant lawyer for bad faith litigation tactics.
But, to quote the judge who imposed the sanctions:
"In the 35 years this Court has been actively engaged in litigation, 20 as an attorney and 15 as a Judge, this Court has never seen such an abuse of process as the prosecution by Plaintiff of this lawsuit."
I propose an annual ALT-Cyrus Sanai award for the most egregious attorney-pro-se lawsuit.
(Last yer, obviously, Roy Pearson whould have won--but the $60K in attorney's fees expended to defend that lawsuit cannot hold a candle to the cool million it cost the defendants to fend off Sanai's lible suit over a $2,400 unpaid rent debt.)
I think what Cyrus did was f'ing awesome.
PWNED Judge K!
Thanks, Lat. I think most of us blasting you for bias just wanted you to acknowledge it. As long as you admit you're a Kozinski puppy dog, slobber away.
Don't forget that Judge K had pictures on his web site which basically said all catholic priests were pedophiles. I'm referring the multiple pictures of priests getting blowjobs from young boys.
Doesn't that qualify him as anti-catholic?
Don't hide the truth.
The pics from Judge K's site
http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-kozinskis-porn-images-from-judge-alex-kozinskis-web-site/
In all seriousness, someone who feels that way about catholic priests is probably not unbiased.
Early on, I favored Judge K's recusal from the trial. I still think it was proper for him to step down; the furor over this controversy--and the potential for arguments that he could have been personally invested or interested in the outcome--made it impossible for him to appear unbiased.
While his wife's defense didn't change my opinion as to whether he should step down, it did significantly change my view of the situation. Having saved pornographic images (even disturbing ones) on a private harddrive simply isn't the same as creating a webpage designed to share the files with others. The first is a cautionary tale of computer ineptitude and skilled hackers; the second is creepy/pervy. Judge K is guilty of the former, and as a technology incompetent person myself, he has my sympathy. (Of course, if hackers found their way onto my harddrives, I'd be more concerned about them finding my credit card numbers or work product, but that's besides the point.)
Next time, Judge K, call the Geek Squad to make sure your remote access server is password protected -- and then don't share the password!
P.S. I don't agree with Cyrus's litigation tactics, but the message should be separated from the messenger.
1:29 / 1:35 - give it a rest already. Unless you are a mind reader you obviously have no idea what the Koz thinks about those pictures, much less what he thinks about "all" catholic priests. "Someone who feels that way" - feels what way?? Kozinski didn't take the pictures; at most, he may have saved them. Or maybe someone else in his family did. We really don't know whether he even saw them. And if he saw them, he certainly hasn't told us how he felt about those specific pictures. For all we know, he may have thought them weird and disturbing, and may have been saving them as an example of tasteless humor.
We do, however, know that YOU have seen them, that you keep going back to look at them, and urging everyone else to do so in your multiple posts under every Kozinski-related thread. We know that YOU conclude that they are intended to reveal something about "all" priests.
So we have actually have a better case for your being anti-catholic than for Kozinski being anti-catholic.
Oh right 1:55. It's so hard to tell what's on the mind of someone with those pics.
Sure.
Great job lat, throwing your readers under the bus for a guy with a photo of a sexually aroused farm animal on his website.
Do you think your blog would be anywhere without your readers?
5:19 - Some of us support the judge. Nice to assume that everyone agrees with you.
Perhaps the most interesting back-story is Cyrus Sanai's displeasure with Kozinski's memdispos. When the judge tells you that the gruel he is serving you is unfit for human consumption, and the decision that you receive is facially incompatible with binding precedent to the contrary, can you honestly say that you received fair treatment?
I don't think what the readers expect is objectivity so much as equal treatment of all offenders. Do you really think the Bankruptcy Judge who dressed up in women's clothes was a terrible person? Why did you make fun of him repeatedly? People come here to get a laugh out of things in the legal profession, and if your coverage of something that is indisputably funny and salacious is, to the contrary, essentially "nothing to see here, compadre," your readers are not pleased.
Lat's foreswearing of objectivity is very convenient for him. I guess we will just have to keep in mind that Lat will give prominent right-wing judges a pass when they get in trouble. After all, Federalists have to take care of each other.
Lat simply is not cut out for this blogging world. Secretly, inside, he still is A3G--a frustrated girl who worships and desparately wants to be accepted as part of the legal elite, which includes all of the Justices and all of the appellate judges, and most definitely appellate stars of the bench like Kozinski. While he's perfectly happy to poke fun at icky state court judges (overweight nevadans, pantsless d.c. admin law judges and the like), making fun of one of his idols hits too close to home. It forces him to confront what he is: a legal gossip columnist, and what he is not: part of the world that he reports on. So Lat can never be a good legal gossip columnist because he cannot accept that he is a legal gossip columnist in the first place.
Lat: Watch E! or the TV Guide channel for a while and pay attention to the talking heads who they bring on to discuss Brittney's latest baby or Lindsay Lohan's latest upskirt photo, and think about the difference between them and the celebrities they discuss. You're one of the talking heads, not one of the celebrities. A gross miscalculation of what it would mean to reveal yourself as A3G led you here, but you must now accept what you are. If you want to be good at it, you have to revel in what you are. It's not a job that will ever earn you respect.
That means having a bit of integrity. Don't think you can bury a story about Kozinski, cow fetish porn, horse penis video, which is what you first tried to do. Don't think you can provide "coverage" without admitting your bias (which is what you have been doing until now). And don't declare the story over because you want it to be over. It's perfectly fine to be biased--nobody expects any different. But don't compromise your integrity in the process.
9:00 - If you don't think Lat runs a good legal gossip blog, owing to his failure to accept his role as gossip-monger, then don't read ATL.
I think you may be in the minority, judging by how many people I know read and enjoy ATL. But you are entitled to your opinion and you don't have to read ATL if you don't like it. It's a free country.
9:00, right on the mark across the board. Lat, you either one of them or you're one of us. And you're not one of them.
Lat's declaring the story essentially over doesn't even pass the straight face test. Apologists are ugly no matter what the context.
Who cares if Lat doesn't cover it? His site is just one out of several thousand legal blogs (not to mention all the non-legal blogs and mainstream news outlets on the Kozinski story).
It is not like ATL is the only thing people read.
Agree with 8:33. Greenfield's point wasn't that you failed to measure up to the standards for msm Lat, it was that you're a hypocrite. Now that you've admitted it, he'll probably stop picking on you and you can go back into the closet.
9:15 - you really need to get out more. The "people you know" are stunting your growth.
I have no trouble with Kozinski's sexual peccadillos, as long as he keeps it under his robes, but blaming his son for the website was cheap. What a shit. Show a little character. You'll be safe. This "is a free country" after all. 9:15 assures us of that.
This is hardly a ringing defense of Kozinski. Lat seems to reject the "privacy violation" argument made by many of the judge's defenders.
Lat is just saying this thing has been blown out of proportion. That is a reasonable (if unoriginal) position to take.
8:33, Lat defended Judge Somma (the cross-dressing bankruptcy judge):
"We question whether Judge Somma should have resigned. Is this really that big a deal? When you strip away the women's clothing, colorful but irrelevant details, you're left with a DWI arrest -- which, while not exactly commendable conduct, is something other judges have survived."
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/crossdressing_judge_hangs_up_h.php
Lat's "frat stud" defense of Somma - "no big deal" - is consistent with his view of Kozinski.
"Perhaps the most interesting back-story is Cyrus Sanai's displeasure with Kozinski's memdispos."
Actually, the propriety of unpublished opinions was hotly and very publicly debated years ago between Judges Arnold (8th Circuit) and Kozinski, and I haven't seen anything from Cyrus Sanai that is remotely new or original, much less interesting.
What I do want to know is, what is Cyrus Sanai's relationship to Hannah Montana? Are they the same person?
9:41, I'd hesitate to call that a defense. A little tongue-in-cheek, don't you think?
Frat Stud is, some feel, funny because he attempts to trivialize outrageous conduct in a way that makes it clear that he is making fun of the conduct. Lat has done nothing of the sort--it appears that he is serious about this.
-8:33
No, I think Lat was serious about that part. He also posted the letter from bankruptcy practitioners urging Somma not to resign.
This was the tongue-in-cheek part:
Commenter (praising Somma for saying he would resign): "At least he had some shred of decency, to off-set his poor taste."
Lat: "Poor taste -- where's the evidence of that? When the judge was arrested, he was wearing a 'little black dress' -- which is, while unimaginative, the epitome of classic, understated good taste."
Am I nuts, or did this blog just begin a three-page post about Kozinski by declaring there is nothing more to say about Kozinski. Who runs this site, some high school yearbook club?
10:18 - Most of the post isn't about Kozinski, but about coverage of Kozinski.
cosign 915.
Bias and hypocrisy??? From a blogger??? Quick, someone call the authorities!
Bloggers are journalists without the ethics. Most are hacks or shills for one thing or another.
At least Lat is willing to own up to it.
"What we do think, however, is that the whole matter has become completely overblown. "
Right, but this remark comes from someone whose blog does a lot of "overblowing" of its own.
law.com has some really good background on this case
Lat's refusal to take this story seriously & spare a conservative idol from the mockery he so, so clearly deserves has lost him a reader.
Lat's refusal to take this story seriously & decision to spare a conservative idol from the mockery he so, so clearly deserves has lost him a reader.
"Actually, the propriety of unpublished opinions was hotly and very publicly debated years ago between Judges Arnold (8th Circuit) and Kozinski, and I haven't seen anything from Cyrus Sanai that is remotely new or original, much less interesting."
It's still a live issue. The problem is not so much with the non-publication itself as it is that judges bury their irregular opinions in that graveyard. Unless and until judges are required to follow precedent -- as opposed to fraudulently declaring that they do -- the problem still remains.
We can still have fun at Alex "Two Cows" Kozinski's expense.
"...the 'Kozinski Kerfluffle,' as Greenfield aptly dubs it..."
Compare
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kerfluffle
with
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kerfuffle
Wow. This post sure got buried quickly! I wonder why?