Judge of the Day: Alex Kozinski
UPDATE: Judge Kozinski has suspended the trial for 48 hours, to allow the prosecution to explore “a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a… sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here.” [Los Angeles Times; New York Sun; New York Times; AP]
Congratulations to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is currently presiding over a high-profile obscenity trial in Los Angeles. In addition, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, for some time he “has maintained his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.” Accordingly, he is our Judge of the Day.
A number of you emailed us about this Los Angeles Times article, which contains some colorful details about the materials that were available on Chief Judge Kozinski’s website until recently (it’s now under lockdown). We previously linked to and discussed the L.A. Times story here. Please note that when we refer to material “after the jump” or “below the fold,” you need to click on the little “Continue reading” link to read the rest of the post. Sometimes we save the juiciest material for after the jump.
In any event, we reached out to Chief Judge Kozinski for comment. He sent us the following email:
David: I can’t comment on the trial.As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was — I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he’s pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don’t remember putting some of that stuff there.
I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I’d have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.
Should Chief Judge Kozinski recuse himself from the Ira Isaacs trial as a result of his website coming to light? Thus far, ATL readers vote no, by a 60-40 margin. The poll is still open; you can access it by clicking here, then scrolling down.
We’ll continue to monitor the situation and bring you news of any developments as they occur.
(96) Comments
Comments
I f*in hate being first.
Second!
When Kosinski farts, he probably blames the dog. And then has sex with it.
Kozinski named his son *Yale*? Until now I had alway enjoyed his overt douchebagginess, but that's just over the top.
Everyone blames there inadequacies on "Yale"
Interesting change of tactics...
Way to throw your son under the bus, Kozinski.
I can't believe that he claims to have *accidentally* uploaded some of the videos! Yeah right! If you were in a place where women are dressed as cows while they have sex, then nothing else that follows is really an *accident*.
6:46--My friend's father named his three sons "Harvard," "Yale," and "Princeton." No kidding. He was a douchebag too.
6:15--especially those who confuse "there" with "their."
6:54 rather
I wonder if he named him for Yale Kamisar.
"As for the other matter..."
Fabulous.
He previously admitted he knew about some of the porn, calling it funny. Now he's trying to pretend he didn't know about it? Liar. He's also trying to conflate the issue of whether he knew about it and whether he was actually the one who uploaded it.
Seems inconsistent with his quoted statement in the times that he saved the images because they were "funny."
Well at least Lat caved and gave everyone what we wanted, Kozinski as Judge of the Day.
Wow--it was a FAMILY server. That makes it so much BETTER.
careful, Easy Rider, this is how Bill Clinton got in trouble -- lying to cover it up.
Are you fricking kidding me? This was a FAMILY server? I am sure that his wife, grandkids, sister-in-law, etc. really enjoy sharing the good Judge's porn. The family that shares porn together stays together. I bet his little grandchildren did seeing pics of dude's going to town on themselves and crotch shots.
Classy, really classy.
Would these excuses work for a defendant appearing in front of him?
What a joke.
Are these pics still available somewhere?
This is embarrassing for Kozinski, but things could have been A LOT worse for him. Just imagine if some of the pics had featured HIM.
Guys in my high school used to keep secret web sites with pictures of naked women dressed like cows and step by step pictorials on how to shave pubic hair and name their kids Yale and then blame it all on them all the time, it was no big deal.
I don't get the argument that he must recuse himself. It's like saying that the only people qualified to judge an obscenity trial must be puritanical. Or that the judge in the Sony VCR case could never have used a VCR or Betamax...
Maybe it's just me, but Kozinski's one of the best judges in the country. Who cares if he watches porn? In a more civilized era, this would not be newsworthy.
For the record, I pay homage to FRAT STUD. Imitation is the greatest flattery.
The puritans wringing their hands about how awful all of this is on the other thread are disgusting. The truly scary part is that that kind of PC fascism will be government policy in an Obama regime.
Uhhh.. can we call total bullsh*t on Kozinski for this change of tactics? I mean... come on.
I preferred the first excuse for its honesty and willingness to talk openly about sexuality..... and cow porn.
I have no problems with what somebody does in their private life (I have watched porn-plenty of porn), but I have a few problems with Judge K. in this instance.
First, this was not truly a "private" stash of porn - he (along with his family) created a website containing the material - sort of shows a lack of judgment to have this collection and to tell friends about it, etc. Not only was this not really "private", but it shows a lot of effort to scour the internet, posting materials, etc.
Second, he shared this material with his family. Even assuming it is true (and he is not just throwing his son under the bus), I am not sure that is better-- he watched and shared porn with his son, including materials of a pretty extreme nature and arguably pretty sexist.
Finally, he definitely seems to have changed his story.
Right on 7:33.
"I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it."
Interesting. A storage device with a URL accessible from anywhere in the world... yet private.
"I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it."
Interesting. A storage device with a URL accessible by anyone from anywhere in the world... yet private.
7:50, you sure jump to a lot of conclusions. Just because the family shares a data storage URL doesn't mean they share all the files on the URL. They could (and probably do) have seperate folders and subfolders and sub-subfolders. Further, "watched and shared porn with his son..."???? Where the F do you get THAT from what's been printed on the subject??
The ignorance defense rings a bit hollow.
As Bashman notes:
"Some may recall that Judge Kozinski was in the news in 2001 for opposing the central monitoring of internet usage in federal judges' chambers. Neil A. Lewis covered the matter in articles that you can access here and here (and see box 25 of the L. Ralph Mecham papers). And Judge Kozinski is credited with advising David Lat on how Lat could avoid having the source of Lat's internet access revealed when Lat was sending emails using the "Article III Groupie" persona. "
AK knows quite a bit about how the internet works for a federal judge who didn't grow up with internet.
I think Kozinski should take a page from the Tribe/Ogletree/Dershowitz school of thought and blame the pictures on a "research assistant" whom he did not adequately supervise.
That would solve all of his problems.
you people are out of your minds. the la times story did not say any of the material was incredibly obscene or pornographic. they were goofy pictures and images. i get stupid crap like that forwarded to me all the time. some of it is funny, some of it is stupid. some of it is dumb, some of it is offensive. some i delete. some i forward to friends. if kozinski (or his son or whoever) kept a private stash of goofy files and pictures, what does that matter? there is nothing to indicate that the pictures were anything more than that.
I think the LA Times might be getting away with something when it describes the Kozinski site as "publicly accessible" given that no one managed to access it before the LA Times. How many sub-domain URL's did the LA Times try before it hit the jackpot? Did they use software to rapidly try various random character combinations?
A more honest approach to the scoop would have been: Hey, guess what! We hacked Judge Kozinski's personal server!
Some unexpectedly stupid comments.
The fact that the family shares the URL doesn't imply they share all the files on the URL.
The fact that the URL itself was publicly accessible doesn't mean that AK was unreasonable in expected the contents to remain private. To access the files you had to type in the URL for the subdirectories manually.
"Kozinski told the LAT that he didn’t think any of the material he posted on his website would qualify as obscene. “Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you,” he said. “I think it’s odd and interesting. It’s part of life.”"
What if some of the material in his pending obcenity trial is simular, now that he has expreseed the view that none of the material on his family site (which reportedly also included fetish material depictions of bestiality) is obscene?
Could a reasonable person entertain a doubt about Kozinski's ability to be impartial in judging the material?
We live in a morally decadent society that is in decline. Sadly, lawyers and judges like K are part of the reason why.
to clarify, kozinski was perfectly reasonable in expecting privacy on that server.
Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with the message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."
Only those who knew to type in the name of a subdirectory could see the content on the site, which also included some of Kozinski's essays and legal writings as well as music files and personal photos.
so
alex.kozinski.com --> "nothing to see here, pardner" or whatever
you have to manually enter something like alex.kozinski.com/files or alex.kozinski.com/files/secret/pictures or something to get access to the interior directory where all the files are stored.
what an idiotic move by the LA Times. everyone in the world sends stupid goofy pics like those described in the article to one another. there's absolutely no story here and kozinski is being shit on by the la times, no question.
For those of you who think he is changing tacks on his story, you put a lot more faith than I do in the accuracy of the LA Times' reporting.
FAMILY server? I have a family server. A Mexican gal named Juanita. She serves three meals a day. One hell of a fine cook too.
Surreal! And it just gets more so. Speechless!
The truth is that we are perhaps all in pari delicto - we just didn't know it in the old days.
Surreal! And it just gets more so. Speechless!
The truth is that we are perhaps all in pari delicto - we just didn't know it in the old days.
Look, it's more than suspect that Kozinski happened to be assigned to this trial as he evidently has a serious interest in this particular form of free speech (e.g. his moves on the 9th Cir. filters), so I think for that reason alone he should never have allowed himself to be assigned, or should have recused. Further, if the porn on his server is anywhere near the type being displayed and litigated, then he should definitely be recused; he's already indicated (although in *judicious* tones) his views of that material as a part of life and funny.
@9:29: I think the question is whether Kozinski is viewed as impartial and unbiased when presiding over this particular jury trial. There seems to be good cause for him to recuse himself, if only to maintain the appearance of impartiality....
9:40: you have a family "server"? Are you the marketing director for Hogan and Hartson?
Good thing he's a Republican. Articles of impeachment would be filed tomorrow if he were a Democratic appointee. And DOJ would probably also have its obscenity office go after him in the same way it's going after the guy being tried in front of him.
9:42- excellent point
9:49- seriously? how many democrat appointed judges have had articles of impeachment filed over the last 8 years? have I been missing all of them...or are they reported on the Daily Show or Colbert Report? Those shows are funny, but you do realize they are fake news, don't you?
The "Honorable" Alex Kozinski is a dirty old man.
I don't mean it because of this. I can care less about what fetish crap he or his son watch/look at on his computer.
I am talking about this guy's behavior at events and speeches where he has been at. Ask around Lat - but you probably already know what I am talking about - as Kozinski's conduct has long been an elephant in the room that has been tolerated because of his position and brilliant writing.
I still don't really like this new layout.
jus' sayin
It is pretty uncool to throw your son under the bus like that.
And co-sign 10:05, big time.
7:26, 7:28 & 9:29
I have the pictures. Since Judge Kozinski so kindly left the door open, I downloaded them ALL -- plus, literally gigabytes of videos of TV shows Kozinski's son Wyatt uploaded (esp. Futurama and Southpark; thanks, I've really enjoyed those!) -- awhile back, when I started thinking I might need some "ammunition" against Kozinski given his proclivity to unfairly rule against certain lawyers (like, well, me). Oh, 7:28, some of them ARE of Kozinski.
Oh, and 9:29, the key directory wasn't alex.kozinski.com/files/secretpictures. My favorite was this one:
http://www.kozinski.com/~wyatt
What I wonder is why Kozinski's thrown his son Yale under the bus when his son Wyatt was the worse offender.
Ciao!
TG the "TA"
Greath, now I have a mental image of saggy old Kozinski sitting naked in front of a computer, jerking it.
Must. Wash. Eyes.
*vomits*
Wait, you mean Kozinski's son uploaded vast quantities of copywritten TV shows to the internet, presumably to be enjoyed by his friends? Isn't that a criminal offense, or at least one that could trigger hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil liability?
I've never been a Kozinski fan ever since I heard he made his law clerks work hours that would make a big law associate beg for mercy. There's not that much legitimate work at an appellate court- that's just slave-driving.
Someone correct me if my info is incorrect.
Guys in my high school watched porn all the time, it was no big deal.
10:39: Maybe we now know what he was having those clerks do -- surf the internet for porn their boss might like! After all, why else would he insist those filters be removed?
For a guy with the technical savvy to get the filters removed (didn't he physically go into the computer room and do it), he's sure clueless about how to install a password for a website!
Looks like someone's busy setting up a mirror site, or at least a "Kozinski's greatest hits" site.
BUT A QUESTION: if someone does that, and posts Kozinski's personal photos, wouldn't that be some sort of legal violation? Or would that be "fair use," etc.?
Kozinski is such a douche. He should just own up to it and admit that he jerks off to barnyard cosplay.
Tough crowd, what's the matter with him looking at a little porn?
So if Kozinski gets beaten by the PC crowd, who will be the new chief judge?
Wouldn't Andrew Kleinfeld be chief judge if Koz steps down now but not if he serves out his term as chief?
The big question that hasn't been discussed is just how this leaked to the LA Times. I simply don't believe that the LA Times stumbled on it by guess-and-check. My guess is that it was a disgruntled or alienated "friend" who burned him (of course, that begs the question of just how many people were privy to his stash).
11:42 is right:
Attorney Roger Jon Diamond, Isaacs' attorney, told the court that a Beverly Hills attorney, Cyrus Sanai, had recently called him and indicated he had a dispute with the 9th Circuit and knew about the material on the judge's Web site.
Sanai told The Associated Press by telephone that he had told the Times about the pornographic images on Kozinski's Web site.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_re_us/obscenity_or_art
look at this letter to Lat from Kozinski 3 years ago that the NYT published:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/15/politics/16text-blogs.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
all the hyper-links (which kozinski presumably provided directly either to NYT in the original email to Lat) are to the http://alex.kozinski address ... so he's clearly aware that anyone can see these files if he sends them out as links in emails or provides them to the Paper Of Record
12:21, you dont get it: kozinski thought (wrongly) the pictures and files were not publicly available. you would not to actively scrutinize the web directory to gain access to them, which the LA Times did. really shoddy journalism on their part, IMO. basically a pointless hit piece.
After looking at 12:17 's post, I googled Cyrus Sanai. It looks like AK and Sanai don't care too much for each other...
http://pda-appellateblog.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_pda-appellateblog_archive.html#112752283616670674
Anyone think this will have an impact on his status as a feeder judge, especially with justices of the "morally superior" variety?
Lat--you got a shout out in the LA Times...you're going to cash in big time on this story.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kozinski12-2008jun12,0,6220192.story
So which was it? Did his son post the porn? Or, did he post the porn "by accident"? Or, both?
Kozinski is a dirt-bag.
So which was it? Did his son post the porn? Or, did he post the porn "by accident"? Or, both?
Kozinski is a dirt-bag.
So which was it? Did his son post the porn? Or, did he post the porn "by accident"? Or, both?
Kozinski is a dirt-bag.
Mooooo....
http://9.content.collegehumor.com/d1/ch6/4/d/collegehumor.6d46f5645237327b38889bad25d276fb.jpg
a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.
http://www.spike.com/video/2721934
FROM rahvin112 over at SlashDot.org
"I bet 100% of the material on the website is the same material that moves around the "have you seen this" emails forwarded on by every unknowing idiot new to the Internet. I recognize the description of the animal video as the one where the drunk guy is trying to get away from the donkey that is trying to mount him. I also know the woman wearing the cow body paint circulated in a similar email. The vague descriptions on the others also sound as if they are the same type of material that gets forwarded around. I wouldn't be surprised if every adult who has ever used the Internet has seen the material in question, that the judge has some online storage with the material in question isn't surprising to me, and certainly not a reason to dismiss him from the case.
At the bare minimum I would suggest the material in question makes him much more applicable to judge a case involving bestiality because he should be able to recognize the difference between protected speech and images (those emails classify as such) and obscene material."
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=581009&cid=23755875
This should hardly be surprising, as few libertarians (save Ron Paul) are not also libertines. All I can say is, if this is the kind of thing one finds on Judge Kozinski's webpage, I sure hope I never ever accidentally stumble upon Stephen Reinhardt's personal website...
And they say Judge Bork is out of touch with "Slouching Towards Gomorrah".
Fed Soc
For those who haven't seen them, a list of the “funny, odd, and interesting” files-- mainly "viral videos"-- discovered on the Kozinski family computer:
http://www.uslaw.com/pop/what-stuff-was-on-judge-kozinskis-personal-website/?p=121
How stupid is Koz to even spew this bs explanation to lat given how serious this is for him? Even drugdealers know when to shut up and get a lawyer...
How stupid is Koz to even spew this bs explanation to lat given how serious this is for him? Even drugdealers know when to say nothing and get a lawyer...
It doesn't seem this stuff is porn. It just seems like humorous clips of the sort that get emailed around and that are slightly raunchy, sometimes incidentally showing nudity
1. I agree it appears this stuff is not real porn, just humorous clips that just about everybody that is not a federal judge passes around. Some of it was likely pornographic, but not hot chick porn -- more like funny porn.
2. His words appear carefully guarded and if you read between the lines, it's clear that he put at least some of this porn stuff on there.
3. That said, he did nothing illegal nor immoral, so what's the issue? Although I suspect his statement about how all of this was done from non fed-judiciary computers is BS. Doesn't he spend like 15 hours a day in chambers?
Update added to the top of this post (with links to NYT, AP, LAT, NYS):
UPDATE: Judge Kozinski has suspended the trial for 48 hours, to allow the prosecution to explore "a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having a... sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here." [Los Angeles Times; New York Sun; New York Times; AP]
Patterico has some of the "pornographic" and "vulgar" material: http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-kozinskis-porn-images-from-judge-alex-kozinskis-web-site/
The website wasn't open to the public because, at the very least, you had to type in the hyperlink - there was no way to surf around it.
A family that watches obscenity together stays together.
i love the asstards who are writing "it's just silly little normal pictures that everyone gets emailed to them all the time." are you kidding? I've never been emailed a series of pics on how to shave public hair. i've never been emailed masturbation pics. I've never been emailed picks of women dressed up like cows. There not illegal, but by god theyre not some silly little pick that everyone in the world has seen. Give me a break. AK is full of it, revelaed further by his absurd change of story and throwing his son under the bus. One day the pics are funny, off, and interested to AK, the next day they are something his son put on AK's personal subdirectory without his knowledge. I call BS on the apologist posters and on AK.
1. AK is totally lying about this being the work of his son.
2. The issue isn't that the guy is into shaving porn, the issue is he was unthinking enough to put the stuff on a website.
This is quickly becoming a non-issue for me and should be a non-story.
"I've never been emailed a series of pics on how to shave public hair. i've never been emailed masturbation pics. I've never been emailed picks of women dressed up like cows."
But if you were, I bet you'd save them.
Lat, you got the scoop:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7450359.stm
8:21, it's not immoral for a 9th circuit judge to degrade women (if the material was his)?
And before you say it isn't illegal, have you actually bothered looking into the law?
A lot of internet porn is illegal, but prosecutors have decided not to prosecute.
A George article from the site cache:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060111095613/alex.kozinski.com/underneathmyrobe/george.pdf
I guess he need not apply for the Supreme Court opening ...
@9:35 pm June 11: "For those of you who think he is changing tacks on his story, you put a lot more faith than I do in the accuracy of the LA Times' reporting." You're right, I have no faith in the LA Times' reporting, generally speaking. But nowhere in AK's second explanation or the court spokesperson's written statement is any assertion, express or implied, that the LAT reporter in any way misquoted him, quoted him out of context, omitted relevant details or fabricated any part of the story. Instead, he and the "court spokesperson" merely offered another version of events that, depending on how you read it, either contradicts his earlier statements or is intended to give the appearance of doing so. He is full of crap.
I don't care if the photos were obscene or pornographic or how the LA Time got access. The problem is the clumsy attempt at cover up. Judge Kozinski is, at best, shading the truth and under the circumstances that is a lot slimier than looking at porn on a personal computer.
Should a woman who has had an abortion be precluded from judging an abortion case? To say that Kozinski has a special interest in Free Speech is like saying a judge should not be able to rule on EPA air quality because he/she has a special interest in breathing.
Anyone who thinks he didn't have an expectation of privacy doesn't understand technology. A significant portion of the people posting here could have the contents of their hard drives seen by anyone who took the time.
It's not changing tacks to have multiple explanations for an occurrence like this. Perhaps there was more innocuous stuff that he posted that he thought was funny. When the "LA TImes" (not the "the Times" that is the grey lady) asked for comment he may have assumed it was the more innocuous forwardable material and not known of the other stuff. Once the other stuff was discovered, it's not beyond plausability that he would disclaim material that was not his.
That defense lawyer needs to immediately drop the jury demand and try it to the court. Closing should be along the lines of "Your Honor, as you can plainly see, all of this is well within the bounds of community standards...
As long as he is not a hypocrite(Spitzocrite) then he is ok in my book.
I find Bush for President and the two cow girls quite appealing and tasteful.