 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Alex Kozinski admonished for raunchy Internet files
Judge Alex Kozinski said he must have >"accidentally uploaded those images to [his server]" while intending to upload something else. >“I would not keep those files intentionally.”
The Case Of "It Appears We Never Met..." A.K.A A SIDEBAR OF XX AND XXX Files.
Chief Judge Kozinski in Obscenity Case Caught Sharing "Obscene "Porn And Copyright Files. “Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.”
Kozinski thereafter summarily denied review, or any petition for rehearing, of this important jurisdictional complex Internet case by his decree alone, refusing to follow the law; just like his buddy Judge A. Howard Matz, and to put it upon the vote of a majority of the non-recused active judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35 and Ninth Circuit General Order 5. No panel has unanimously voted to deny Killercop's petition for rehearing.
No judge voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and so no judge has yet recommended rejection of the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
Because of Kozinski, no full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Therefore no active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration under Fed. R. App. P. 35, because of his cover up of this. But hey, who's following the law these days, right? Not this judge. Such raw, naked power shows that these judges are not to be considered mere "ordinary mortals" But, again, that's just this ordinary mortal's perspective. And this is treason. Why? I can think of at least ten reasons. But let's ask the judge. or we can ask an expert. "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. |
JUDGE ALEX IGNORES THE FACT, INTER ALIA, THAT 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) "requires proof of transmission in interstate commerce across state lines. United States v. Oxendine, 531 F.2d 957 (1976)
Ninth Circuit panels "silently dustbinned" inconvenient opinions, paid "lip service" to Supreme Court case law, vaulted "somersaults" in creating three lines of authority "None of which agree with each other," and adopted a rule that has "the 'Absolute Simplicity' of Joseph Heller's 'Catch-22.'" The Wizard Of Koz Speaks.
QUOTE: "The Internet is "a seductive playground" for unscrupulous individuals bent on defrauding innocent victims. The facts before us clearly illustrate this point."
A "Seductive Playground?" You mean like the kind Perv's like you hang around??? Actually Technology is not only a cruel & blood-thirsty god, but it is also not self-sustaining. It is a net consumer, not a net producer. The Wizard Of Koz Speaks, Again. "I have caused embarrassment to the federal judiciary. I put myself in a position where my private conduct became the subject of public controversy." "While this was painful for me personally, my greatest regret is that I was identified as a federal judge, indeed, as a Chief Judge of the nation's largest federal circuit. And thus whatever shame was cast on me personally, it reflected on my colleagues and our system of justice as well. My unfortunate carelessness with certain files on my computer has embarrassed the federal courts. And for this, I am deeply sorry. And thus whatever shame was cast on me personally, it reflected on my colleagues and our system of justice as well. "
| |||||||
|
|
|||||||
