Comments on: Are legal blogs now an essential check on inaccurate Big Media reporting?

By: Cyrus Syaid

Cyrus Syaid — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:47:39 +0000

Since the thing that seemed to have driven Mr Sanai over the edge was a divorce proceeding in the State of Washington, where he alleges some Federal judge assigned the husband’s(A Sanai) accountant, in some judicial help capacity, to work up the financials( flashing conflict alarms, big RED lights flashing conflicts), could some look into the matter, and does a lexis(search) have a long trail on that ? I could of course look, into that , but I rather not spend valuable billable hour time,(our time is so precious ins’t it down to the every 10 minute sections) when I could be looking at photo’s of a donkey chasing a plaintiff to mount him.
But, is it funny, apparently so, so many of the 9th Circuit Clerk’s on the coast have come to the defense of Kozinski so much so that the band width charges shot up in an off the chart billable fees/ costs on over 90,000 hits on porno sites from the federal courts.
It is amazing the pack of wolves attacking Cyrus, like some pool of sharks, all swimming, crusing, in some frothy waters.
Yes, the federal government bars reimbursment for birth control to some, but is most liberal in underwriting the tab on porno excursons in federal court buildings–as administered by some Court Administrators. More, let the suckers –taxpayers pick up th tab(on the cyber sex trips).
So, to protect all the porno vouyers, Alex tampers with evidence, some calling that the destruction of federal property, like the Court Administrators. But they are just regarded as b-crats, nags, by Lord Alex, the libertine of L A.
Why did Kozinski weight in on the divorce of a couple in Washington, in out of court matters, statements, that seems odd.
How much money was at issue in the Washington divorce, etc…..?
I know that question may not grab some’s interest since it only about money and not sex, but what is it about the sex life of so many Chamber Clerk’s on the volume of net traffic to sex sites… ?
My my, the Federal court clerks and the
culture it speaks of, lately. Most telling, in more ways, than one.

By: San Diego Securities Attorneys

San Diego Securities Attorneys — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 08:06:31 +0000

It’s amazing sometimes what people will do

By: 020033

020033 — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:47:14 +0000

Stephen,

I agree completely with your comment. I would only add that, while the PR nightmare for Chief Kozinski will undoubtedly live on in some form or fashion for perpetuity, the actual effects of it upon him, the Ninth Circuit, or the litigants who will be adjudged by him will likely be minimal.

First, the record is now clear and will hopefully be formally noted by the circuit judges reviewing this matter. Second, any half-serious legal practitioner knows of Chief Kozinski’s documented and unassailable legal brilliance (so no great harm if a Perez Hilton aficionado thinks he digs fetishistic porn). Third, forthcoming motions to recuse Chief Kozinski will not be taken seriously because of the limited subject-matter applicability of this circumstance and the Chief’s own highly praiseworthy reaction to it (recusing, declaring a mistrial, and publically calling for an investigation). Last, he’s got a lifetime appointment, and based on these meager facts, it would be hard to fathom even a superficially political body like Congress successfully impeaching him on these grounds.

All this said, you’re absolutely correct the L.A. Times’s misleading and potentially libelous reporting very well may be shown to have damaged Chief Kozinski or his family in a subsequent civil suit (depending of course on to what degree he is determined to be a “public figure”). I know one thing, if Chief Kozinski was coming after me civilly, I’d settle long before his legal arguments were considered by a court of law or a sober appellate panel. You’re just not going to win in a battle of legal acumen with him, and shouldn’t even make the futile attempt to do so.

-020033

By: Stephen Gianelli

Stephen Gianelli — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:19:46 +0000

The temptation for the LA Times reporter who initially reported the Kozinski story (and his editor) was the irresistible man bites dog quality to “Judge presiding over porn trial caught with porn”, and the related temptation to fudge the description of the porn on trial (characterized as vaguely fetish) and enhance the description of the Kozinski material (bestiality) in aid of drawing a parallel between the judge and the judged.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight and some helpful links, we are all (at least those of us who take the time to look beyond sound bites) able to judge for ourselves.

The portrait of The Times that emerges is less than that of careful journalism.

The man “cavorting with” (a deliberately vague word choice that can connote some form of sexual play) an aroused donkey turns out to be a humorous video downloaded from You Tube (which is where I watched it) of a laughing fat guy being chased around a pasture by a donkey with a hard-on. This is neither “porn”—since it is intended to make us laugh and not to arouse—nor is it “bestiality”.

The porn on trial? Commercial videos of women having human excrement smeared on their faces.

When the suggested link between the judge and the judged disintegrates, the story is hardly newsworthy at all.

Judge found with joke emailed pictures of naked ladies with body paint and other bawdy themes on his home computer? Yawn.

There are temptations in every profession to cut corners and, unfortunately, The Times reporter (and his editor) fell victim to that temptation in this instance.

Fortunately, the Blogosphere—one of the few places he was known, came to the rescue and set the record straight. However, not before the story of the ‘porn judge” with images of “bestiality” on his computer was picked up by almost every media outlet around the world.

The real shame is, for those who had not heard of Judge Kozinski, the “porn judge” story will be their first and lasting impression. And that harm, caused by a momentary journalistic lapse, cannot be undone.