He wiretapped the other party in a case. The document the court was unable to find miraculously appeared (and Patterico found it). I find this very suspicious, and noting that Cyrus is apparently an expert on each item on the server, and gleeful about it, I am seriously wondering if Cyrus found a way to plant the porn and the documents from the initial conduct complaint.

If Cyrus is going to wiretap people and ignore judges, why wouldn’t he plant files on Kozinski’s server?

I’m more interested in what appears to be a pattern of Sore Loserman behavior, which Cyrus will no doubt claim is part of a grand legal strategy. That grand legal strategy eventually led to Judge Zilly dismissing his mother’s case with prejudice due to the abusive and delaying tactics employed by the plaintiffs, even requiring them to pay expenses of the defense. Judge Zilly’s order cited another Judge who had similar experience with Sanai litigation style.
His first judicial misconduct claim against Kozinski found none. He filed another. Presumably nothing has come of that one because he has informed people he intends to file another one.

For an uninformed observer such as myself, at a minimum, reading through the court filings might serve as a cautionary tale before contemplating hiring Sanai on an hourly basis to carefully consider the fee arrangements.

# Deny directory listing
{Directory “/opt/lampp/htdocs/”>
Options -Indexes
{/Directory>

And here’s 4 lines, with a comment, from the first Google result on a quick search. Add this to your httpd.conf in the appropriate place. If you don’t know where your httpd.conf is, turn your web server off while you look it up.

# Deny directory listing

Options -Indexes

So it was already part of the public record for anyone who wanted to print it out or save it and it was part of the original response to Sanai.

Thanks

I can maybe post it later. I’m out and about now.

I think the complaint against Kozinski was that, while a petition for en banc review was pending, he commented on (and disparaged) the merits of the petition. Part of how he did that was linking a document on his site.

I express no opinion as to whether that was improper, given that he had recused himself. But that was the complaint. Apparently he apologized (to someone) for creating an appearance of impropriety, although they found no actual misconduct. (However, they also found no evidence of any documents on his site. Yet it had been. I have the document.)