 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
I REALLY HATE TO COMPLICATE THINGS FOR YOU, BUT WHAT ABOUT KOZINSKI'S LIE TO THESE JUDGES, ABOUT HIS COMPUTER BEING "PERSONAL," AND NOT OFFICE (PUBLIC/WORK) RELATED? "My web page is in my office, not here, at home... But it is connected to the Internet, of course." ~Alex Kozinski, February 7, 2007-Pasadena, California, bragging during oral arguments, in an open public courthouse, on a public record, months and months before he was caught and exposed. Case# 04-50189 People send me stuff like this all the time," he said.
Gee, that's ironic, Alex, because "People send me stuff like this all the time, too." Elitist Double Standards
"The Judge eventually became aware that members of the public could access the files he was trading, although he did not know about the search-engine cataloguing."~ Pg 11, Admonishment
NOTE: SOMEONE "PURGED" THESE FILES, LINKED BELOW, FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE, AN INTERNET ARCHIVE. THE TAMPERING WITH JUSTICE AND DISINFORMATION HAS BEGUN. Kozinski used a his "office" computer to "transmit" the files, and he knew to specifically "exclude" the other jurist's, that shared his office Intranet site, out of his server, for over two years, with a simple robot text file. This file was hand made for just, and only, that purpose. He admits using the computer to research a legal split in the Ninth he opposed from his server in the article he wrote called Don't Split the Ninth Circuit. The files Kozinski was using are found here.
DON'T WORRY, NOBODY CAN ERASE A FACT. According to the opinion, "Kozinski decided to connect his family's private server "to the Internet in 2002, "as a convenient means to access personal files while away from home." "Kozinski told investigators he Sometimes saved e-mail attachments in a subdirectory without looking at them. He said he did not realize they would become available to the public when "the family" later put a file server online so they could access personal files when Away from home." Kozinski said he must have "Accidentally Transmitted those images to his server" while intending to upload something else. “I would not keep those files intentionally,” he said. SEE ALSO:
Kozinski said he would "Delete some material from his site," including the photo depicting women as cows, which he said was "Degrading … and just gross."
OF NOTE: Since he admittedly "deleted" files on his Office server, after being notified By the LA TImes, I infer [Insert Prosecutor who coughs to correct Koz and shut him up from throwing the case to the defense, by actually following the law] that what he actually deleted was His Child Porn Stash
He also said he planned to get rid of a graphic step-by-step pictorial in which a woman is seen shaving her pubic hair. Which means he Obstructed Justice. Especially when he deleted his child porn.
He Must Be a God All Powerful.
What? Another Selective Non-Investigation?
What? No Selective Prosecution This TIme, Just Because He Is One Of Your Own?
Shame on you and woe unto thee
Officials in both political parties "need to be totally removed -- every single one of them," he said. "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. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. |
The panel noted that "Some Media reports in June 2008" were incorrect when they "Suggested that the judge maintained, and intended to maintain, a public website." Ummmmmm Guilty As Charged!!
The Images were "Highly Offensive," "Gross," and "Demeaning." Yup. Guilty As Charged!!
The 9th Circuit's chief judge showed 'Poor judgment,' panel finds. A FACT, BESIDES THAT, ALEX THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND NOT A MERE MORTAL. KILLERCOP THINKS SHE IS MIS-STATING A WHOLE LOT TO YOU PERVERTS. BUT I UNDERSTAND, YOU WERE LOOKING THE OTHER WAY TO GRAB POWER WHERE YOU HAD NONE.
JUDGE KOZINSKI FALLS INTO SATANS FINGERTIPS! WHERE THE GOBLINS PLAY! A panel of federal judges "admonished" Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, on Thursday for being "judicially imprudent" and "exhibiting poor judgment" by transmitting and posting sexually explicit photos and videos on an Internet server that he specifically knew could be accessed by the public. Kozinski's conduct had "created a public controversy that can reasonably be seen as having resulted in embarrassment to the institution of the federal judiciary," according to the panel's opinion, written by Anthony J. Scirica, chief judge of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges ruled, however, that Kozinski's actions did not constitute judicial misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings should end with the public admonishment, they wrote, noting that in testimony in a closed-door hearing, Kozinski had stated that he had "caused embarrassment to the federal judiciary," had apologized and had "committed to changing his conduct to avoid any recurrence of the error." The opinion quoted Kozinski as acknowledging that some of the material he maintained on his server was "highly offensive," "gross," and "demeaning." According to the opinion, Kozinski testified "that some members of the public, upon learning he possessed the material, may have the misimpression that he has demeaning or disdainful attitudes toward women, creating in the minds of some people what he called 'a highly distorted picture' of him," the opinion said. The opinion said that Kozinski was "credible and thoroughly responsive" to the panel's questions and had fully cooperated with the judicial inquiry. In a statement issued after the release of the panel's decision, Kozinski said the judges' opinion had affirmed that the materials in question were intended to be private. "Our 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has much important work to do, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to accomplish our goals," he said. The proceedings stemmed from a Los Angeles Times article published in June 2008 when Kozinski was presiding over a high-profile obscenity trial in Los Angeles. The Times article reported that Kozinski had "maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos" but had intended it to be private. The Times story described several of the files, including a photo of two nude women posed on all fours and painted to look like cows. After being interviewed for the article, Kozinski immediately blocked public access to the site. Two days after the story was published, he declared a mistrial in the obscenity case and called for an investigation of his own actions. Because Kozinski is chief judge of the 9th Circuit, the case was transferred to the 3rd Circuit. Where he had supporters. Kozinski's supporters saw vindication in the outcome, noting that the panel accepted his position that he had never intended the material to become public and that the judges had not censured or reprimanded him. "The conduct involved was intended to be private. The judge took reasonable, although insufficient, steps to keep it private, and that behavior does not constitute judicial misconduct," said Steven Lubet of the Northwestern University School of Law, one of five legal scholars who wrote to the panel stating that Kozinski had committed no misconduct. Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who has written about the 9th Circuit and the federal judicial disciplinary process, said in a telephone interview Thursday that the opinion was a "very carefully, very self-consciously written decision." "It's wrong to say it cleared him," Hellman said. "The opinion very carefully does not say that." It fails to say a lot, actually. Like why was no FBI investigation done on his computer? The panel noted that "some media reports in June 2008" were incorrect when they "suggested that the judge maintained, and intended to maintain, a public website." The opinion did not say which publications had used that description. The Times stories referred to the site as "publicly accessible." The opinion affirmed that the site was "publicly accessible" and traced the history of Kozinski's actions regarding access to it. According to the opinion, Kozinski decided to connect his family's private server to the Internet in 2002, "as a convenient means to access personal files while away from home." Items in the "/stuff" directory, where the explicit files were located, were moved onto the server. Kozinski testified that he'd been collecting the items over the years, and that some had never been opened. As The Times reported in earlier stories, visitors to the server were greeted with a screen that read: "Ain't nothing here. Y'all best be moving on, Compadre." Only users who knew to add "/stuff" to the address would have found the objectionable material, which was "a small fraction of a vast aggregation of various items that the judge had received by e-mail over many years," according to the opinion. The judicial panel said its investigation showed that in 2004, the judge sent a message to a blog that included a link to a video on the server. That link included "the name of the stuff subdirectory, compromising its 'security through obscurity' " on which the judge had relied, the opinion said. After that, the directory containing the explicit files was indexed by Yahoo! and perhaps other search engines, the opinion said. In 2005, the judge became aware that some people with whom he had shared links could view files and took steps to limit access, the panel found. Late in 2007, the judge became aware that despite his steps to limit access, "it was still possible for uninvited people to access and browse" the files, the opinion said. At that point, he began deleting material from the site, but stopped after deleting three files because locating the material was "time-consuming, difficult and tedious" at a time when he was preparing to start his term as chief judge. As previously reported, The Times was first alerted to the existence of the explicit files by Cyrus Sanai, an attorney in Beverly Hills. He is identified in the panel opinion as "a critic of the judge and other 9th Circuit judges, against whom he has previously filed complaints of judicial misconduct in connection with litigation involving his family." The opinion said that "once the judge became aware in 2007 that offensive material could be accessed by members of the public, his inattention to the need for prompt corrective action amounted to a disregard of a serious risk of public embarrassment." In his testimony, Kozinski said, "I recognize I should have been aware of the danger, and I should either have taken my server off line or worked diligently to remove the files that were sexually explicit and offensive. "I was careless in that regard. And for that, I am very sorry [I got caught] and offer my sincerest bullshit apology." "Now I have to get back to the business of making cases go away, for rich people. This computer stuff is very complex and confusing. You need an expert to figure it all out!" "Offensive," "Gross,""Demeaning" and even "Inappropriate,” are not legal terms. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1976), "Pornography" consists of "Written, graphic, or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious Feelings." “Indecent,” also has no specific legal meaning in the context of the Internet. ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). Nor does The Words "True Threat." Nor has the Supremes ever "Defined" a Threat. We are still trying to figure out why these judges are still sitting on the bench, under the supremes, after these types of judgements and their behavior. And Their Record Of Ignoring The Laws Being Broken, Ignored, and Dismissed or Admonished (GASP) You Would Think, Or at Least He would, That He is God.
Gee, God And His Side Kick, Judge Matz, Must Sure Be Annoyed At Me. He Wont Even Hear My Prayers. Someone got paid to ignore the law. But who? Lets check the map! Nope, nothing there!
(CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
