"Congress has surely not made us the most powerful judges in the world so we can bestow thousands of dollars of bounties on our personal favorites whenever we "feel" like it, But there is an important principle at stake here: whether we who administer the law will treat ordinary mortals with the candor and respect they deserve as human beings." ~Alex Kozinski

THAT ANSWER IS NO.

After Los Angeles U.S. District Judge Manuel Real was accused of improperly interfering in a bankruptcy case to protect a probationer he was supervising, Schroeder at first dismissed the complaint without appointing a special committee to investigate. A divided 9th Circuit Judicial Council eventually confirmed her decision not to discipline Real, but Alex Kozinski issued a bitter dissent.

"Congress has surely not made us the most powerful judges in the world so we can bestow thousands of dollars of bounties on our personal favorites whenever we feel like it," Kozinski wrote at the time.

Crank up the Wayback Machine. Let's go back to 2005.

OR 2007, THAT WAS WHEN KOZINSKI WAS ANNOYED.

REALLY ANNOYED.

Judges don’t like to reverse criminal convictions. They believe the defendants are probably guilty, and reversals lead to more work: retrials of the defendants (unless charges are dismissed outright), more appeals by other convicted defendants who draw hope from the reversals, and (if they’re consistent) more reversals in future cases. As Judge Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pointed out, courts can avoid these dangers by requiring an “impossibly high” standard for materiality before a conviction will be reversed.

"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber."-U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

OUTSIDE, IT'S AMERICA

REASONABLE DOUBT

"Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless.
Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved

The Wizard Of Koz! He is no ordinary mortal! He can commit and cover up a fraud on the court with no recourse. He is, above the law!

TELL US OH MIGHTY WIZARD, WAS THE PORN ON YOUR HOME SERVER, OR WAS THE PORN ON YOUR OFFICE SERVER, IN YOUR OFFICE AT YOUR HOME?

A REPLY:

"His "personal" Web site was stored on a "home" server." ~Cathy Catterson, circuit executive for the 9th Circuit

A.K.A. A THE CASE OF ANOTHER EXECUTIVE LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THE COMPUTER IN QUESTION WAS ON HIS "OFFICE COMPUTER" IN HIS HOME "OFFICE." WHERE HE TRIED TO HIDE AND DELETE THIS DOCUMENT SHOWING THEIR FRAUDS ON THE COURT, INTER ALIA, INCLUDING KOZINSKI'S!

Such raw, naked power shows that Yang, Kozinski and Matz are not to be considered mere "ordinary mortals"

But Cathy Catterson, circuit executive for the 9th Circuit, told The Associated Press that the material on Kozinski's personal Web site was stored on a home server that was accessible to family members. Kozinski told the Times that he did not maintain the site on his work [office] computer.

"Most of it was jokes," Catterson said, adding that she had not personally seen the material.

According to the Times, the racy images could only be seen by viewers who knew to type in a subdirectory address on the Web site.

"The contents are a private matter. It was not meant to be accessible by others," Catterson said.

"He would have been more careful of the contents had he known what was on it." ~Cathy Catterson, circuit executive for the 9th Circuit

Catterson said that after the story broke, the judge's son called Kozinski to say he had been responsible for uploading some of the material onto the computer.

However, she could not say how much or what material was involved.

The Times reported that Kozinski said he must have 'accidentally uploaded' the images to his server while trying to upload something else.

He also said he would delete some material including pictures of women painted to look like cows, which he called "degrading," the Times said.

Kozinski said he began saving the sexually explicit material and other items of interest years ago, the Times said.

"People transmit stuff like this all the time," he said.

All the time???????

Sounds frivolus.

Suspicion that viewpoint discrimination is afoot is at its zenith when the speech restricted is speech critical of the government," Ridley v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 390 F.3d 65, 86 (1st Cir. 2004)

CONTACT

COLLECT A BOUNTY

COLLECT A REWARD

FILE A COMPLAINT

TO PURCHASE KILLERCOP.COM™ CLICK HERE

(c) 1995-2026

All Rights Reserved