Lat - when did you learn to fellate Kozinski so well? Was it during your O'Scannlain years?

Kozinski's smart. That judicial panel wouldn't punish Judge Manuel Real, even though it was crystal clear that he had engaged in serious misconduct. (Ironically, Kozinski wrote a passionate dissent in that case.) The bottom line is that he'll get a censure and/or slap on the wrist. Judges don't want to punish each other and know they're going to see the person again at judicial conferences.

More importantly, by doing this, Kozinski makes it far less likely that anyone will ask for something ELSE to be done. Like a criminal investigation or some other independent investigation. Everyone will say that the 9th Circuit Judicial Council is investigating, and that they are waiting to see the results of that investigation first. By the time that's all completed, this will have blown over and no one else will want to prosecute.

Very smart damage control by Kozinski. I'm sure he's getting a lot of advice from ex-clerks and others on this issue.

In "The Daily Recorder" paper from California and its article from Tuesday June 10 entitled "Kozinski Gives New Life To Role of Chief Judge" by John Roemer, the third paragraph states: "Since [he became Chief Judge] he has put lawyers and his own judges on notice within the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that their shortcomings will be publicly posted for all to see."

Indeed.

Lat, If you want to be a muckraker, you have to be willing to take down friends and strangers alike....

Allow myself to investigate myself.

Can he do that?

Oh for God's sake, 7:32, criminal investigation? Why is the world going apeshit over the fact that Kozinski had a few quasi-risque email attachments in a publicly accessible folder on his website? My God, you're all a bunch of hypocrites. The Supreme Court handed down a case today in which Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts voted to turn their backs on centuries of accumulated wisdom by supporting an unprecedented expansion of the president's authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and THIS is what people care about?

(This is 7:32) I'm not saying that he should be investigated. However, if I was representing Kozinski, I'd want to reduce any likelihood--however remote--that he was investigated for either 1) possession of child pornography or 2) transferring copyrighted material (the MP3 files in the earlier L.A. Times story). Plus I wouldn't want any "independent investigation" aside from the Judicial Council.

Yes, there's a good chance this would blow over regardless. But it's smart of Kozinski to make that more assured.

7:51 - Go back to Balkinization or Daily Kos. This is ATL, where we get worked up over silly s***.

AP, LAT, USA Today, Independent, UK, guardian.co.uk, Wired News, and the Wall Street Journal have all posted stories on this controversy within the last 2 hours alone.

The “Christian News Wire”—whatever that is, just called for Judge Kozinski’s resignation.

What a public relations nightmare.

lat,

shame on you for taking down my innocent wondering out loud post last night about whether Kozinski had two-girls-one-cup on his website.

Clearly, in light of the number of times that phenomenon has been mentioned on this blog in comments by your readers, it is a relevant question. Moreover, the fact that we're talking about bestiality porn, and whatnot, makes it an arbitrary decision to remove a reference to two-girls-one-cup.

Way to uphold the spirit of our great 1st amendment. Oh yeah, but you'll sure appreciate that Amendment if some pissed off attorney ever sues you for libel.

Child pornography? There have been no assertions that any of the photos/videos involved children. Talk about things blowing out of proportion.

8:01, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private persons (or blogs).

8:06 - no shit buddy. I said "the spirit" of our great 1st Amendment.

8:01

Since when are not private persons or blogs protected by the First Amendment?

hey idiot at 8:01/8:08, the "Spirit" of the 1st Amendment is about limitations on government, not about butting into people's private affairs.

8:14-- Key word there being "government." Not, you know, "blog editor."

so even though the constitution doesn't require private conduct to comply with, say, constitutional principles regarding discrimination, one should not adhere to those as a matter of conscience?

fuck you

1) A smart move by Kozinski.

2) Lat, the standards for you as a tabloid are very relaxed, but I'd really rather not have to read about how great a guy Kozinski is in every story about his porn collection. Especially after you shredded on the mentally ill guy down in florida last week. If you can't be impartial, let your other writers cover it.

8:01 = angry sounding poop lover.

Lat is a fan. So am I. So what.

And there is really nothing bad to say about the man.

He is modest, unassuming, treats his clerks great, has a terrific sense of humor, and has a distinguished reputation as an appellate judge.

Moreover, the "porn"--which is pretty tame stuff-was on a family server that one could not even access without the name of the file directory.

Apparently a disgruntled former litigant outed the material.

The site should have been password protected, but the intruder was pretty determined.

Guys at my high school used to investigate themselves all the time. Sometimes I would help, it was no big deal.

-Frat Stud

It's actually kind of interesting, because accessing that folder also probably broke state law and possibly federal computer crime statutes since it wasn't meant to be accessed by the public.

Impeach Kozinski!! A guy who enjoys photos of women naked, on all 4s, painted as cows obviously doesn't consider women as fully human. What's Kozinski going to do, recuse himself from all cases with implications for women?

Impeach Kozinski!

I agree with 8:50.

This is a blog - just like Firedoglake and Little Green Footballs are blogs. So expect a similar amount of bias and subjectivity. If Lat wants to praise the Koz, that is his prerogative.

(Blogs affiliated with major news organizations, like the Wall Street Journal or the Blog of the Legal Times, are a different story. They hold themselves out as "objective." ATL does not.)

No 9:09, we expect better from Lat, who strives for perfection.

As far as the two cow girls are concerned: perfect PSFB. 10 out of 10.

Anyone who has seen Kozinski on the bench knows that his judicial temperment is questionable.

This pretty much seals the deal - if he wants to be immature, so be it - but don't disgrace the bench.

having finally seen what was apparently hosted on his server, this issue needs to just go away and die. if kozniski is guilty of anything, its having such little taste that he saves all the stupid shit people routinely forward. people are jumping on this as if this is the anything like the obscene material that was going to be involved in the trial, but its far from. this stuff is less obscene than cable tv skin shows, let alone hard core porn or the shocking crap the trial was about.

Agree w/9:52. I looked at the stuff from my home computer. No big deal.

Disgrace the bench? Please, there were no pictures of the bench. Also, I am familiar with the bench, and the bench likes to be disgraced a little, when it's been naughty. Where can I contribute to his defense fund?

"so even though the constitution doesn't require private conduct to comply with, say, constitutional principles regarding discrimination, one should not adhere to those as a matter of conscience? "

That's exactly right, genius, because, as the framers of the constitution realized and you apparently do not, there are huge practical differences between public and private action. The coercive power of the government needs to be formally restrained in ways that exercises of private authority do not, precisely because unchecked governmental power leads to tyranny, whereas the actions of private individuals do not pose that risk. The state action doctrine isn't just a formality, it reflects the recognition of a pretty obvious fact that public and private authority are categorically different.

"fuck you"

Idiot.

10:42- nice thrashing, he had it coming.

Anyone who has seen Lat's coverage of the Democratic Presidential race knows that he is always utterly and completely un-biased.

"He is modest, unassuming"
@8:50

Are you kidding? Modest? He begged Article III Groupie to be included in a list of judicial hotties and provided a list of his activities, including being on a game show. Is that modest? This man has cultivated the spotlight.

Kozinski = whokebe???

Anyone notice the folder entitled "Larry Craig" on that Yahoo-cached snapshot of Kozinski's site? What could possibly have been in there?

8:56 PM you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't just magically think publicly accessible files private. He was serving 'em up to call comers, including google.

@12:12:

Funny stuff like this:

http://www.freakingnews.com/Is-Senator-Craig-Gay-Pictures--1596.asp

8:01 --
I'm kind of on your side. Of course there is a public/private distinction in Constitutional matters. Of course the Constitution is a limit on governmental power. Still... you are right -- there is a "spirit" behind the notion of free speech, free expression of ideas, and open discussion. It's a bit hypocritical to censor discussions -- any discussions over which you have control -- and to still use those expressive liberties as personal protections.

But... I haven't heard of Lat doing that. So... I don't know what the point of typing all this was. Go on about your business.

10:42--This is why I still come back to ATL. Every now and then there are coherent comments like this.

12:35, unfortunately federal and state prosecutors disagree. In cases where corporations posted private information in publicly accessible locations people have been held to violate federal/state laws by accessing them without prior permission.

8:56 - who agrees with you that it should be like that, but isn't

I'm a fan of the Koz, having cited him in too many briefs to count. But he is dead right about judicial self-discipline being a farce. What's shocking about this case is that he had the good sense to ask for an investigation himself. Contrast his actions with that of Chief Judge-of-the-Day Hall-of-Famer Ed "Two Hookers" Nottingham of the District of Colorado ( http://www.knowyourcourts.com/Nottingham/Nottingham.htm ).

self-sucking pics pwn3d...maybe it was just for the teh lulz but damn....speechless

Cyrus Sanai, the attorney who drew the material on Judge Kozinski's website to the media's attention is not simply a concerned citizen. He is an abusive scorched-earth litigant who has a pattern of ignoring the law and disobeying court orders. Check out his case in the W.D. of Washington in which he was sanctioned over $250,000 for what the respected judge called the worst abuse he's seen in 17 years on the bench and 20 some years in private practice. The state court judge made similar comments on the record, as did a California judge in a different case (cited by the W.D. Wash. judge). When things didn't go his way in the state court, he sued the judges. How this guy still has a license is beyond my comprehension.
How about linking to the opinions sanctioning him and describing his abusive behavior. At least those documents are maintained on an unarguably public website.

I think Kozinski is handling this well. His ability to be frank and open about the possibility of inappropriate behavior is refreshing. I expected him to deny, to fight, or to slink away into shame and obscurity. I prefer this response--I'm human, and I may have made a grave mistake. I would like you to know that it was unintentional, and if, in the end, my candor and contriteness is not enough, I will face the consequences. That *is* integrity. Integrity is not being perfect (ideally, I wouldn't like to believe that the eminent Judge Kozinski is into porn of that sort), but integrity is facing adversity like this with honesty, humility, and dignity.

10:41 - hilarious.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-me-kozinski13-2008jun13,0,603840.story

My first take was that if the Kozinski material was similar to the “porn” in the trial he is presiding over (it reportedly included “fetish” and “bestiality” themes), given that Kozinski had publicly stated that he did not think the material was “obscene”, a reasonable person might doubt his impartiality to sit on such a case.

But I have since looked at the material myself, and in doing so have concluded there is no legal or moral issue involved.

There is nothing there that is obscene.

For example, the so called “bestiality” themed material is simply a humorous (in a juvenile way) You Tube style video of a visibly aroused donkey chasing a laughing fat guy around a field. It is not intended to arouse.

The other talked about item in reality consisted of two gorgeous fashion models whose naked bodies are painted to look like cow hide. They are not doing anything sexual, and are smiling. Hardly controversial stuff. There is racier stuff in Vogue, W, and Vanity Fair.

The so called “striptease” “slideshow” is simply one of those PowerPoint joke email attachments that invite the reader to “spot the real woman” as opposed to the sprinkled in transsexuals.

Except for the naked “reveals” I saw the same thing on a Maury Povich TV episode 8 years ago.

Second, the material was maintained on a family server that stored family photos, videos, and the like. It was not intended for public consumption.

While the site was not password protected, one would have to know the web directory extension name assigned to the file to access it, since none of the material was indexed or registered with any search engine.

This was a private web archived file that a persistent former disgruntled litigant prowled around in and essentially hacked to find and then download without permission in order to hurt Kozinski.

Unfortunately, the story line “judge presiding over porn trial gets caught with porn” is just too “man bites dog” for the media to look beneath the surface of the that rather appealing sound bite—so the story has rocketed around the world—just at the malicious hacker intended.

Judge Kozinski treats his clerks well, has a brilliant legal mind, does not take himself too seriously, is an all around nice guy, and he has been badly embarrassed by this tempest in a teapot.

9:18, anything's okay, as long as you admit to it!

Wonkette has linked to a site that downloaded some of the images (safe for work) http://patterico.com/2008/06/12/exclusive-kozinskis-porn-images-from-judge-alex-kozinskis-web-site/.

This whole thing is ridiculous. It's not actually porn, it's a collection of funny, sexually-explicit images. It shouldn't be allowed to impugn Koz's remarkable career as a jurist. It's a shame that this is going to be the only thing a majority of the American public know about him.

11:15--nice summary. The LATimes report was irresponsible.

The malicious hacker who riffled through Kozinski’s family web archive looking for dirt to harm Kozinski is a Los Angeles attorney with the improbable name CYRUS SANAI, who has a long standing feud with Kozinski stemming from the jurists refusal to intervene in Sanai’s parents divorce case. Sanai contacted the defense attorney in the pending pornography trial, told him what he was up to, and was told ‘it’s wrong, don’t do it”.

Read about it here:

http://patterico.com/2008/06/11/the-la-timess-tipster-on-kozinskis-porn-cyrus-sanai/

LOL at "He is modest."

At least he's not sitting in some shack in Montana any more writing manifestos and sending bombs in the mail.

Wrong Kozinski.

The Kos just called a mistrial

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/13/ap-kozinski-declares-mistrial-in-la-obscenity-case/

I followed the link and read through the lay-people comments. I mean -- we obviously have a split of opinion on this site as to whether the Judge's personal porn is relevant to his credibitility as a judge, but the folks on the lay-site want to send him to jail or a mental institution or death. It's hilarious in that SCARY WAY of Jesus Camp. But here's my favorite comment from the other board:

"We have enough problems in this country without this sick bastard using judicial activism (which the 9th Circuit is infamous for) to set up his own personal pervert universe."

4:45 - Yeah I have no idea how ATL manages to avoid those commenters who view judicial activism as some black art.

4:45. Care to be less cryptic? There are multiple links. Which one is the "lay-site"?