Ethics Expert Stephen Gillers: Judge Kozinski Should Not Be Disciplined
In connection with the Kozinski controversy, the L.A. Times quoted two legal experts, Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, and Stephen Gillers of the New York University Law School.
Both are quoted often in the L.A. Times as experts on legal issues. Prof. Gillers specializes in legal ethics.
Since the time that Professors Levenson and Gillers were quoted, some new information has come to light concerning the material on Judge Kozinski’s server/website.
For example, I published a letter from Marcy Tiffany, the wife of Judge Kozinski, who argued that the facts were substantially different from what the L.A. Times had reported.
Certain aspects of her letter were corroborated by information in posts of mine, showing that the material described by the L.A. Times had a humorous component that the paper did not sufficiently describe. (See here, here, here, and here.)
I decided to send Professors Levenson and Gillers links to this material, and ask them whether the new developments have changed their mind.
For her part, Prof. Levenson decided to “defer to the Third Circuit committee investigating this matter for further comment.”
Prof. Gillers gave me a full response, asking only that I publish his remarks in their entirety. (I would have anyway.)
Prof. Gillers’s remarks are very thoughtful. The highlights are as follows:
- Prof. Gillers does not believe that Judge Kozinski needs to be disciplined in connection with this controversy.
- Although he believes Judge Kozinski could have judged the case fairly, Prof. Gillers continues to believe recusal was proper.
- Prof. Gillers says that, despite the fact that the material on Judge Kozinski’s website/server was largely intended to be humorous, many will still see that material as pornographic.
- Prof. Gillers continues to believe that Judge Kozinski was seriously negligent in allowing the public to access the material. Although Prof. Gillers does not defend Mr. Sanai, Prof. Gillers rejects the view that Mr. Sanai’s actions were analogous to the burglary of a private study.
- Prof. Gillers continues to believe that Judge Kozinski is a “treasure” on the federal bench, and that opinion has not been shaken by this controversy. He believes that this incident will pass.
I encourage every reader to read Prof. Gillers’s remarks in their entirety. Visitors to the main page should click “more” to read them.
I’ve been asked whether my views of this event have changed since the L.A. Times first interviewed me. Specifically, I was asked about the following additional developments:
a. The statement of Judge Kozinski’s wife that he’s into humor, not porn.
b. The fact that the Times article implied that some of the material on the website was more salacious or prurient than the material in fact turns out to be.
c. Some of the images are available on the web.
I told the Times that I thought the publicity about the website would be humiliating to Judge Kozinski, but that the incident would pass. I also said that I thought the judge would have to recuse himself from the obscenity trial then underway, which he later did. Finally, I insisted that as a condition of quoting me the Times add that in my opinion Judge Kozinski is a “treasure” on the federal bench, a view that this incident has not at all shaken. (Some of my quotes showed up on the paper’s website, some in print, some both places.)
Later, I told an AP reporter that while those of us who know Alex have no doubt he could try the obscenity case fairly, the public would think the justice system had lost its marbles if he remained on the case. I still believe that. Recusal issues must respond to the perception of the reasonable public, not only what the judge believes is true in fact. I can hardly imagine how it might sound to the jury to have the judge instruct them to disregard anything they may have heard or read about the judge’s own collection of allegedly pornographic images.
I continue to have these views.
The fact that certain of the images are less salacious or prurient than one might infer from the Times’ description is of little import to me. I have now seen many of the images on this website. Many focus on naked body parts, more women than men, more often below the waist than above, some closeups.
The fact that there is a humorous dimension to the images is, to my mind, largely beside the point. The fact that they are (or can be seen as) humorous doesn’t change what many will view as their pornographic character. That is, the categories of humor and porn are not mutually exclusive. I assume the explanation that Judge Kozinski’s motive was humor, not porn, is meant to exclude prurience and mitigate the conduct. I accept that explanation. But that doesn’t change my conclusions.
I disagree with Larry Lessig’s suggestions elsewhere that Mr. Sanai’s conduct is the equivalent of breaking into Judge Kozinski’s study. I do not defend Mr. Sanai one bit. Gratuitous acts of vindictive meanness should be scorned. But this was not a burglary. Judge Kozinski unwittingly facilitated the disclosure, which would not be true in a burglary. I believe, as I told the Times, that it was seriously negligent to leave these images on the web, even in a seemingly secret file. (Is anything on the web secret?) I think that, and only that, was Judge Kozinski’s mistake, not having the images in the first place, which he was free to do.
I do not believe that this mistake deserves discipline. Corrective action has been taken by closing the site. I understand the judge’s decision to refer himself for investigation but the consequence should be exoneration.
One last point, which I think is quite important. Judges have constitutional rights, too, of course, but on becoming a judge, a person necessarily accepts certain restrictions on his or her behavior entirely apart from what the law may require. We just went through a multi-year process of rewriting the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee drafting the revisions initially thought to omit the prohibition against the appearance of impropriety. State high court chief judges emphatically (and in my view correctly) rejected that proposal. The prohibition remained.
Comment [2] to Canon 1 of the new Code says “A judge should expect to be the subject to public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.” That is the situation here.
So I assume the worldwide publicity is humiliating. Recusal was unfortunate but necessary. That’s where it should all end. Anyone who has followed Judge Kozinski’s career knows how important to American law his sometime idiosyncratic perspective has been, not to mention his wonderful language skills. Against that backdrop, this incident is painful but insignificant and, as I say, will pass.
I thank Professor Gillers for his time and input.
I think the Professor has it right. The Judge shouldn’t have put that stuff anywhere that was accessible by the general public but has a right to own and chuckle at it as does any other citizen. I do hope all other members of the legal profession have taken note and locked down their own servers.
Comment by Dawnsblood — 6/30/2008 @ 7:07 am
OT, sorry, but why no comments allowed on two previous posts?
Comment by Old Coot — 6/30/2008 @ 7:21 am
Because Justine almost always locks comments when he posts…
Which I think is HIGHLY unfortunate, because a lot of his posts deserve comment and the issues deserve more attent than they usually get with a locked post…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 7:39 am
when the iranian of the day shows up to comment in 3…2…1, i want him to explain the juxtaposition of his honor with the blogpost lower on the page “yiddish judge screws america”. since http://www.iranian.com is an iranian community website, the views expressed thereon must be presumed to reflect the community which holds them. how much more attention should we bestow on this jew-hating persian slimeball, and what kind of attention should it be?
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 7:51 am
Prof. Giller’s comments are not only thoughtful but so reasonable and logical it would be hard to see how anyone could disagree.
Clearly he has great respect for Judge Kozinki and yet remains consistent in the expectation that on becoming a judge “a person necessarily accepts certain restrictions on his or her behavior entirely apart from what the law may require. “ That this part of the Judicial Code of Conduct was not omitted is somehow reassuring.
Comment by Dana — 6/30/2008 @ 7:57 am
ADA, I still think holding a sign up infront of that guy’s law-office (standing on the sidewalk, of cource) would be worth it…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:04 am
A quote worth noting:
I hope people pay attention to this. Cyrus Sanai is definitely a shady guy, but he didn’t “hack” into Kozinski’s server. It’s time for that meme to trot off into the sunset.
I wonder, though, why there is not one mention of the copyrighted music that Kozinski had sitting in that open directory on his web server. I still think that aspect of the story ought to be addressed.
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 8:38 am
One minor complaint:
It’s almost irrelevant to call this “meanness.” Sanai admitted that this was part of his “litigation strategy.” It is more than meanness, from, say, a disgruntled neighbour or a former friend: it was a deliberate attack on Judge Kozinski, as a federal judge who had ruled against him.
In light of that, the command to “avoid the appearance of impropriety” is much less tenable. It is one thing to act in a way that brings respect to the judiciary while on the bench, in chambers, during interactions with clerks, at conferences, and while otherwise in the public light. It is another entirely to live one’s life - public, private, and quasi-private - so as to be absolutely immune from reproach.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 8:46 am
I expected a better response of Laurie Levenson myself.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 9:34 am
“It’s almost irrelevant to call this “meanness”.
But Prof. Giller didn’t just call it meanness. He purposefully included the clarifying vindictive. Because of this, the meanness takes on a fuller meaning and evidences a more intentional and contrived purpose.
With or without this however, Judge Kozinski still, unfortunately, through his own I.T. neglect and/or ignorance, opened the door. And it should not mitigate or even negate a continued striving toward ‘avoiding impropriety’.
People whose chosen professions have direct effects on the masses (judges, doctors, pastors, etc), are all required to adhere to various credos and standards. It not only protects the profession itself but keeps them collectively operating at a higher standard while simultaneously establishing a respect and hopefully, trust, from those in their line of fire (for lack of a better phrase)…
Comment by Dana — 6/30/2008 @ 10:01 am
Judge Kozinski thinks it is humorous to have a man dressed as a priest with a child giving him oral sex? I will bet many Catholics will find that deeply offensive, and victims of child sexual abuse will fail to see the humor. What would have happened if there were a picture of Judge Kozinski in black face?? He would have lost his job! What comes out of this is that in San Francisco, and now in all of the country, only certain people are allowed to be offended. Judge Kozinski is allowed to use disparaging humor about Catholics, his wife thinks this is a hoot! Can you imagine if Judge Kozinski had the Danish cartoons ‘defaming’ Mohammad on his website?? Different standard — you can only insult some people.
Good for Sanai. He used readily accessible material to call the judgment of a self-centered, egomaniac into question. Why is Judge Kozinski being lauded here? Why is the whistleblower being defamed?
That you use the judge’s wife as a valid or objective defender is a joke. Gee, do you think she might be bias? Maybe have an agenda?
I don’t know any of these people involved, but I did see the stuff on the website and cannot imagine how a judge could miss how many would find them offensive. The 9th Circuit has been ridiculously politically correct in its rulings, yet they found the first white man who shouldn’t lose a job over having offensive material on his computer. Go figure.
Comment by Karen — 6/30/2008 @ 10:14 am
Did Maxine Weiss come back as “Karen,” or is she gone for good?
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 10:18 am
Dean Gillers is one of nation’s top experts on legal ethics. I’m glad he has weighed in on this very public controversy. He does such a great job of clearly explaining the fine points of legal ethics, that you just have to agree with him, as I do.
Comment by Tex Lawyer — 6/30/2008 @ 10:21 am
Because he is a shady guy, Karen. He has openly explained that his vindictiveness is part of his legal strategy. This, to me, is the mark of anti-social behavior. When you must win at all costs you’ve ultimately lost.
Offensive != Illegal
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 10:23 am
How many regiments does the Ninth Circuit have? The Courts do not have power. Their mandates are enforced by the Executive and their operations are funded by the Legislative. They only have credibility. If they lose their credibility, they are lost.
They can say “See if you can get along without us”, but that’s all they can do and I think we could.
Kozinski did really screw up in a very big way.
And for sure we can get along without him.
Comment by nk — 6/30/2008 @ 10:33 am
Dana,
Well, yes, it would be “vindictive meanness,” as opposed to “random acts of unkindness,” but it was still meanness aimed at attacking Judge Kozinski as a judge, via his personal life.
No kidding.
Let me be clear: I don’t think that judges ought to run around making jerks out of themselves, and, by extension, the judiciary and legal profession. (In fact, I already said that.)
“Various credos and standards” sounds really pretty, but what exactly does it mean? The warm fuzzies don’t negate the fact that “avoiding impropriety” is a vague term without functional and practical limits.
It is impossible for a human being to live his life (public and private) so as to be totally immune from any criticism. I’ve joked about it before, but I’ll say it seriously now: there are certainly people who would object to a jurist who is an atheist, a Muslim, a Christian, or has woman-on-top sex, because all of those may indicate an inability to judge fairly and justly. Once you untether “impropriety” from the public and judicial roles of a judge, it becomes a bludgeon with little meaning and even less ability to provide guidance.
You can look at this mess and determine that, in retrospect, Judge Kozinski should have protected his server. You can expand that to say that all judges should protect their servers and be careful of what they put online. Yet those commands do little to tell us how hard judges ought to work to ensure that their private lives do not become public fodder.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 10:47 am
Those people are sick and wrong.
Those who would object, that is…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 10:49 am
I wouldn’t know.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 10:58 am
Sadly, these days, I wouldn’t either…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 10:59 am
In my opinion, Judge Kozinski knew or should have known that his reckless act of eviscerating the federal court’s computer system security firewall WebSENSE in 2001 had the effect of allowing federal court employees to:
(1) play on legal blogs all day in order to further the whims of their personal agendas and/or boost the advertising revenues of a legal blog owner who was a former clerk of Judge Kozinski (Volokh);
(2) have unfettered ability to gain access to extra-judicial material while working cases before virtually any federal court in the United States in an outcome determinative manner.
The current complaint againt Judge Kozinski should be expanded to include investigation of all computer use/misuse by Judge Kozinski, not merely one isolated instance.
Comment by David F. Petrano, Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 11:11 am
Countdown until the Petranos (David or Mary Katherine) complains about discrimination against autistics or accuses Judge Kozinski of being anti-horse:
ten… nine… eight…
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 11:12 am
bridget is pretty cool. Cyrus, not so much.
Comment by JD — 6/30/2008 @ 11:19 am
“No kidding.”
sounds really pretty
The warm fuzzies
bridget, I’m going to assume you don’t intend to be patronizing.
With that, the point is while standards are fallible and often unable to be consistently met, there is still the need to protect the office and those effected by the decision makers.
I don’t believe Prof. Giller is stating that Judge Kozinski (or any other judge) is to live an infalliable life in order to be immune from criticism, but rather expressing that if one is a judge, one should expect not just public scrutiny but even an unfair weight of criticism that the public themselves would not be subject to. The cost of being in a position to exert power over others comes at a high price.
I have not read the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, however it would seem in order to mandate that judges are to “avoid impropriety” said impropriety would be clearly defined, no? If not, is it as vague as a general rule of thumb, commonsense, existing within the parameters of acceptable societal behaviors?
Without the terms being defined it would be difficult to know exactly what actions justify certain outcomes.
Comment by Dana — 6/30/2008 @ 11:24 am
Dana, here is what I wrote:
You then wrote,
, which was, seemingly, in response to what I wrote, and, seemingly, not in agreement with me.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 11:28 am
NK,
We can much more easily do without you, than Judge Kozinski.
You’re quick to make potshots from the sidelines, but I think it’s a safe bet that you haven’t made 5% the contribution to our polity that Judge Kozinski has. To bypass the fact of Kozinski’a productivity and contribution to the law, and to focus exclusively on Kozinski’s failure to make his server invulnerable to a disturbed litigant, tells us a lot more about “NK” than it does about Judge Kozinski.
What we’re dealing with - in NK and others - is a permanent, disfiguring, malice that lies just below the surface, and rises to strike whenever one of their betters faces public scandal or pseudo-scandal.
Comment by Brian — 6/30/2008 @ 11:29 am
karen (#11), i have a joke for you:
bert the bus driver was at the last stop on his shift when a young nun got on board, the only passenger on the bus. she engaged him in conversation, asking him if he were married. he said no. then she asked him for a little favor:
“i’m about to take my final vows at the convent, and since i’m a virgin, i have never known the pleasure of sexual intercourse. if you would be a good man, i would like you to introduce me to this pleasure. since i have to still be a virgin at the time of the final vows, i would like you to do me in the ass.”
the bus driver was persuaded to this objective, but a minute after getting on the hershey highway in the back seat, he expressed remorse. “i’m sorry i wasn’t altogether candid with you, sister. i’m actually married with three children.”
“oh, that’s ok” said the nun. “i’m not really a nun. my name is fred, i’m gay, and i’m on my way to a costume party.”
you know the worst part, karen? this joke, indeed, this entire page, is now stored on your drive, where it will remain until you overwrite it with random 1’s and 0’s. your system is infected too! bwahahahahahaha!
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 11:29 am
I should add: seemingly, with the belief that I am unaware of the fact that certain professionals have an ethical obligation to comport themselves with dignity.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 11:30 am
bridget, I think we are crossing wires.
Thats fine.
Comment by Dana — 6/30/2008 @ 11:30 am
I think you’re exaggerating just a wee bit, Brian…
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 11:36 am
h2u - Hyperbole in service of Teh Narrative is quite fine.
Comment by JD — 6/30/2008 @ 11:45 am
It isn’t just “their betters”, IMNSHO. It seems to be one of those common threads of life. For instance, a lobsterman’s best tool to keep a single lobster from crawling out of a bucket is … another lobster or two. If one looks like it is going to get away, the other(s) will pull it back down.
The term ’schadenfreude’ (if I spelled it correctly) sums it up nicely - taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others. It is the basis of much of humor - the “thank God that wasn’t me” response, the slapstick, the banana cream pie, the pratfall.
If we demand better than human responses from our celebrities, it is only to use them as object examples of what not to do. Kids might not want to be the next Mother Teresa, but they DEFINITELY won’t want to be the next Pee Wee Herman.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 11:55 am
Then, Dw, why do more of them act like Pee Wee, than Mother Theresa?
Comment by Another Drew — 6/30/2008 @ 12:02 pm
*shrug*
It’s the 99% ratio you’ll find everywhere in human relations.
99% of the people are good and honest 99% of the time. But if all you hear about 24/7/365 is about the 1% (”if it bleeds, it leads”), it’s easy to think that.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 12:04 pm
NK,
We can much more easily do without you, than Judge Kozinski.
That’s good because you are. I am not on the public payroll and I am not making decisions that deprive you of life, liberty or property. Hell, I’m not even trying to share dirty pictures with you.
Comment by nk — 6/30/2008 @ 1:17 pm
Bridget, at least I am not materially concealing my real true identity and Bar# under anonymity. The weight of what you have to say carries about as much credibility as one earns by hiding like a the coward that you are under your anonymity.
Comment by David F. Petrano, Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 2:18 pm
Her Bar #?
You’re new here aren’t you, jackass…
Do try to treat the good commenters better, lest you annoy those of us who lack the decency and manners of bridget and DRJ…
Shorter me: stfu, cock-wad…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 2:28 pm
So what? Only those operating under their own names get to have opinions? Or is it only if they are the pretentious type of twatwads that have to have the word “Esquire” after their names, as if that actually meant anything?
Go fuck yourself, counselor.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 2:33 pm
NK Wrote:
“I am not on the public payroll and I am not making decisions that deprive you of life, liberty or property. Hell, I’m not even trying to share dirty pictures with you.”
NK, you make a good point. Has anyone on SSRN or one of the other legal research services, done any type of quantitative analysis of:
1.) How much time, exactly, do Federal Judge’s law clerks spend surfing the Internet, playing on blogs, downloading and watching MP3 files and/or porn;
2.) How the #1 inefficiency of personal Internet time wastage impacts the actual amount of time law clerks are working, broken down by their pay per minutes actually worked (after subtracting out their Internet blog play time);
3.) What is the total extent of the per curiam decisions, summary judgments, 12(b)(6) etc dismissals, Sec. 1915 dismissals ratio to the amount of the above time wastage by law clerks due to personal Internet playing all day on blogs;
4.) Broken down by law clerk, and the information gathered under #s 1, 2, & 3 above, how much authority are these law clerks being given to decide what cases to accept (original petitions, Supreme Court cert pool), draft the sum total input of Bench Memos circulated among Judicial panels, and/or draft practically the entire judicial decision in a case; and
5.) To what extent the gambling odds a case will reach a certain outcome favored and predicted by bloggers or cert will be granted in certain cases favored and predicted by bloggers affects the actual case outcomes and/or cert grants.
The above mathematically calculated answers may then serve as input to determine if the rent the Federal Judiciary is paying to the GSA is too high per Courthouse square footage and computing power, when the personal law clerk Internet blog play time wastage and hanky panky is subtracted out.
Next, one may be able to make a ball park calculation whether, as Hon. Chief Justice John R. Roberts, Jr. says, more Federal Judge positions need to be created and whether Judicial salaries need to be raised — or whether a change in the hiring criteria to eliminate the time wasting clerks-hires and hire, instead, clerks who are willing to actually do the Court’s work, is all that is required for the Federal Courts to carry their workloads by reducing the per curiams and summary dismissals precluding scores of litigants from achieving their “day in court.”
In sum, how the law clerks for our Federal Judges are using their time while at work in a Federal building on Federal computers (or not using their time to do what they are there being paid for — that is work, as the case may be), can ultimately answer the public inquiry of the extent to which the 2001 Judge Kozinski Federal Courts Computer WebSENSE Security breach is:
1.) allowing non-Congressionally appointed law clerks playing on blogs all day carrying on their personal business to run amok in our Federal Courts on the taxpayer and Federal Judiciary funding dole, while writing scores of per curiams;
2.) allowing law clerks playing on blogs all day to undermine the impartiality of cases assigned to their Judges, while some are even disrespecting, embarassing, and impugn the integrity of their Judge-employers behind these Honorable Judges backs, such as “AnnTM” did when she called the Judges of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals “old” and stated they should get some “cojones” due to the nature of the judicial decisions they were writing (publicly available on ezboard);
3.) allowing law clerks and their co-conspirator members of State Bars to circumvent the confidentiality rules of our Federal Courts to obtain information to which they might not otherwise be entitled, as “AnnTM” accomplished through her California Bar friends from the very Court of which Hon. Judge Kozinski now heads and over which he has disciplinary authority to convene an investigation to call these confidentiality violators to answer for their breaches of a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals confidentiality to exploit a case in another Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bridget made some uncalled-for snarky comments, but, for her information, Judge Kozinski is one of the Federal Judges I always held up as the an example of one of the Nation’s best, a writer of good, well-reasoned decisions, and fair — for which I have more than once come under criticism in the Eleventh Circuit for graduating law school in California where I learned to cite ‘those radical California and Ninth Circuit precedent because we in the Eleventh Circuit don’t cite the Ninth’ (as I have been told).
This, however, does not excuse or justify in any way, those law clerks who have had a personal field day running amok and sabotaging the civil rights cases of disabled Americans they *don’t like* facilitated in a multijurisdiction fashion through Judge Kozinski’s WebSENSE firewall disablement in the name of the Office of the Federal Judges for whom they have been privileged and entrusted to work.
Ask yourself this: If YOU were a Federal Judge, how would YOU feel to learn that one of your law clerks who admitted on a blog to having a mentally unstable “unhealthy obsession” with a litigant she “met on the Internet” had carried out prankish vendettas on the work computers YOU provided her while at work, and in the process thereof, caused YOU in YOUR supervisory duties over this clerk to violate one or more provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct for U.S. Judges calling YOUR previously lifelong unblemished reputation into question?
As you point out, NK, the answer to these more significant questions is of far more concern than whether or not Judge Kozinski is “anti-horse.” (Which is a highly dubious accusation on your part, given that one of Judge Kozinki’s biggest fans, Article III Groupie, never reported any such ‘anti-horse-imosity’).
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 3:25 pm
corr:
My apologies NK, I meant Bridget
“As you point out, NK, the answer to these more significant questions is of far more concern than whether or not Judge Kozinski is “anti-horse.” (Which is a highly dubious accusation on your part, given that one of Judge Kozinki’s biggest fans, Article III Groupie, never reported any such ‘anti-horse-imosity’).” =
As you point out, NK, the answer to these more significant questions is of far more concern than whether or not Judge Kozinski is “anti-horse.” (Which is a highly dubious accusation on Bridget’s part, given that one of Judge Kozinki’s biggest fans, Article III Groupie, never reported any such ‘anti-horse-imosity’).
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 3:30 pm
It is more than a bit discomforting to see how many loons this thread attracts. Especially loons that purport to be attorneys.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 3:45 pm
check out david petrano’s epic whine at http://www.topix.net/forum/city/englewood-fl/TIAU7NAG8AGOJVTO5. his wife, whom he alleges to be autistic, posts under the name “ponyhunterjumper” and claims ownership of, i kid you not, an equine disability service horse! can i bet five dollars on that horse in its next race?
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 3:56 pm
ADA, there’s a scam I’ve never seen before … ( uh, not ).
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 3:59 pm
Drumwaster said: So what? Only those operating under their own names get to have opinions? Or is it only if they are the pretentious type of twatwads that have to have the word “Esquire” after their names, as if that actually meant anything?
Go fuck yourself, counselor.
In opening, I was a barber for 30 years before becoming an attorney following my having graduated from a law school having the lowest tier order on the ABA list.
As a barber, I learned to speak my mind absent fear of reprisal by bully-thugs.
Since Judge Kozinski lifted the WebSENSE firewall, it seems a person can’t bring a case in federal court w/o a pack of anonymous federal court-house bullies making extra-judicial pot-shots about the parties and/or their lawyers in an outcome determinative manner.
Oh, regarding your closing remark, I wish I could!!!!!!
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 3:59 pm
Since Judge Kozinski lifted the WebSENSE firewall, it seems a person can’t bring a case in federal court w/o a pack of anonymous federal court-house bullies making extra-judicial pot-shots about the parties and/or their lawyers in an outcome determinative manner.
David - Please explain this.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 4:01 pm
Come on, daleyrocks, there is not enough popcorn in all the Walmarts in the world ….
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 4:02 pm
do anonymous federal court-house bullies intimidate you? after only two months in the weight room with my patented procedure (as seen on tv), you can walk down the corridors as a brand new man, utterly fearless of anything you might run into. order now, operators standing by!
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 4:06 pm
MKDP - Aren’t there whistleblowing or complaint procedures for you to follow if you have something to report rather than following the bad example of AnnTM that you cite?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 4:08 pm
SPQR WROTE:
“Especially loons that purport to be attorneys.”
I have not ‘purported to be an attorney.”
I was PREVENTED FROM BECOMING ONE in the Judge Kosinki Court due to lack of meaningful disability access — failure of Chief Judge to implement an intake policy in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to ensure that disabled Americans seeking federal review over California Bar admission procedures whose doctors prescribe paperless all electronic format Dragon NaturallySpeaking speech recognition access, are provided such access in all Federal Courts of the Ninth Circuit.
That’s why Calif. Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George has been able to get away with refusing such access to people without arms, quadraplegics, people with learning disabilities/autism, brain & mobility-injured Iraqi war veterans …
while giving special preferences to GAYS.
Dontchaknow …
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 4:08 pm
Sounds like you’re trying out your resume to become a future Democratic Presidential candidate to me. Not a very impressive one, either, Mr. Esq…
If you had been my barber, with a blade at my throat, and said something so stupidly insulting to me, I would have taken that blade away from you and then given it back. Unfortunately, you would need a crack medical team to take it away from you again, but by then you probably wouldn’t want it anymore anyway.
Now go fuck off, a’ight?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 4:08 pm
Catherine The Great liked horses, or so I heard. Did Kozinski have any of that stuff?
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 4:09 pm
Make checks payable to Scott Jacobs…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 4:10 pm
Daley,
No, but I’m starting to wonder if Mrs Petrano might…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 4:11 pm
Mary Katherine, why don’t you and David just show a pair and reveal you are here as a pair.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 4:14 pm
daleyrocks WROTE:
“MKDP - Aren’t there whistleblowing or complaint procedures for you to follow if you have something to report rather than following the bad example of AnnTM that you cite?”
daleyrocks, the answer to your questions is, sadly, No, there are no disability accessible complaint or whistleblowing procedures. All I have access to is whatever is on the Internet and does not require paper — i.e., blogs.
Show me a paperless all electronic format Dragon NaturallySpeaking Title II Americans With Disabilities Act/Sec. 504/508 Rehab Act accessible “complaint procedure” and “complaint form” with all electronic filing ALA CM/ECF- style, and maybe I would have access to do exactly as you suggest — file a real complaint or a real lawsuit.
The difference between “AnnTM” and myself is I am a disabled American with a record of being protected under both the ADA and RA; to my knowledge — other than her admitted mental “unhealthy obsession” with me — “AnnTM” does not claim to be a disabled American.
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 4:16 pm
Drumwaster, cool it a bit. That last post seems a bit too threatening to be posted at a site you don’t operate.
David Petrano, you’re acting the fool. I suggest wandering off to some internet community before offending every regular Patterico.com commentator.
And I’d just like to, once again, point out that accusing Cyrus Sanai of hacking was inappropriate. He’s a total d-bag but he didn’t break any law by accessing Kozinski’s public web server.
Just my two cents.
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 4:17 pm
SPQR - The krayzy, it seems to be contagious.
Comment by JD — 6/30/2008 @ 4:22 pm
Sorry, h2u, elitist scumbags like that really annoy me.
I’ll start telling him to go play on the freeway, then, shall I?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 4:25 pm
DW,
Why the fuck are YOU getting the credit for being the hot head?
That’s MY job, damnit!!
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 4:26 pm
“daleyrocks, the answer to your questions is, sadly, No, there are no disability accessible complaint or whistleblowing procedures. All I have access to is whatever is on the Internet and does not require paper — i.e., blogs.”
I find it very interesting that you have not been able yo get help from the bar association or any public interest legal groups.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 4:32 pm
Slicing like a bowling ball since ‘03, baby!
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 4:34 pm
Daleyrocks said:
David - Please explain this.
I would be happy to, on the condition you reveal your true identity.
For all I know, you could be a mentally unstable law clerk for a federal judge who routinely spends 95% of your time composing internet extra-judicial gossip about litigants and/or their attorneys having cases before your court in an outcome determinative manner.
The WebSENSE firewall eviscerated by Judge Kozinski was designed to prohibit court employees from discussing material outside the four corners of the respective cases before the court. In sum, federal court employees are not supposed to spend a single moment of their day on blogs expressing personal opinions about cases, lawyers and parties before their respective judge.
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 4:58 pm
That’s patently ridiculous, Petrano.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 5:01 pm
SPQR said:
That’s patently ridiculous, Petrano.
Please be so kind to define what you mean by “that’s.” Are you referring to the fact I was a barber for 30 years before becoming a lawyer? Is “that” what you find so ridiculous?
Please also provide a foundation for your assertion beyond your anonymous self-serving statement.
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 5:17 pm
Well, yes, all of your comments have been pretty ridiculous to date.
But the most ridiculous was your implication that the Websense filter was put in place to keep Federal clerks from discussing ongoing cases. The idea that GSA’s IT people were standing around saying to themselves “Gee, how are we going to make Federal clerks not violate the confidentiality provisions of their employment? Oh, I know! A web filter!” is just ridiculous.
Internet filters were put in place to keep all the Federal employees from spending their time looking at youporn, icanhascheezburger.com and from finding more video for their judge on youtube.
If you know that a clerk is posting comments about a case you have on a blog, then prove it otherwise we’ll continue to ridicule you.
And if you don’t like anonymous commentors, then don’t come here.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 5:20 pm
Oh, and your mother smells of elderberries.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 5:21 pm
For all I know, you could be a mentally unstable law clerk for a federal judge who routinely spends 95% of your time composing internet extra-judicial gossip about litigants and/or their attorneys having cases before your court in an outcome determinative manner.
David - For all I know you may be a vindictive, litigation happy frustrated lawyer bent on identity theft or some other crime. No way.
People have reasons for using screen names. Deal with it.
Comment by daleyrocks — 6/30/2008 @ 5:30 pm
Mr. Petrano, you are an idiot. As SPQR rightly points out, Internet Filters will not stop employees from discussing court ongoing cases. They help to prevent employees from visiting URLs that, ideally, have nothing to do with their job.
If the courts wanted to prevent their employees from discussing confidential matters then they would have to go a lot further than web filters. They’d need to ban cell phones from the office to avoid text messages; they’d need to make the court paperless so private notes could not be passed; they’d need to dismantle the water fountains so gossipy discussion couldn’t occur.
It’s quite obvious that web filters are not designed for the purpose you claim. You’re just talkin’ nonsense.
Well said.
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 5:30 pm
Isn’t it the mother who was a hamster, and the father who smelt of elderberries?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 5:34 pm
I believe MKPD already posted blog material by “AnnTM,” a blogger who repeated made extra-judicial gossip about MKDP while having claimed to clerk at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals at the same time MKDP had cases pending before her court.
MKDP is with her disability service horse at the moment. I am confident she will be more than happy to re-post the “AnnTM” material when she returns.
Mr. Patterico, would you be willing to allow MKDP to re-post the “AnnTM” material?
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 5:35 pm
Drumwaster, hey you don’t like how I compose my insults, you can just use your real name.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 5:43 pm
Oh geez… I go do a few practise exams, make some lentil curry, and all hell breaks loose. Thanks to all who responded for me in my absence… and we’ll move our way through this.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 5:50 pm
It was the curry. It made me feisty.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 5:54 pm
How did you do?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:02 pm
No, it was not.
First of all, there is no requirement that federal law clerks live their lives like sequestered witnesses. Given that numerous legal opinions have cited blogs, I find it nearly impossible to believe that blogs are prohibited from consideration.
Second, Judge Kozinski’s clerks work long, hard hours. They hardly have time, amidst doing 60 drafts of every published opinion and researching every case (not just 1 in 3) that is on the Judge’s docket for oral argument, to muck about on blogs.
Third, rather than try to guess whether or not improper conduct has occurred, one may only look to the opinions rendered under Judge Kozinski’s name. They continue to be brilliant, articulate, and well-researched - all evidence that his clerks are doing their jobs, and doing them superlatively.
Fourth, it is a horrible misreading of my first post on the Petrano/Kozinski subject to state that I was insulting the Judge. I was doing a countdown, waiting to see how long it would take either Mary Katherine Day-Petrano or her husband to smear his character. Apparently, that happened sometime around my dinner time.
Finally, as to my anonymity: anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment. To the extent that you are making a private, not a public, complaint about the matter, it is largely irrelevant. Patterico and a handful of commenters here are aware of my full identity.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 6:03 pm
Well, my carnivorous dad ate the curry, too, so I guess it was edible. Did well on the exams - hitting all the issues, just need to memorise all the tests, factors, etc.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 6:04 pm
what’s the story on this disability service horse, anyway? do you write off his hay as a medical expense? how does the irs feel about this? mr. ed would have been a good disability service horse for an autistic person. he’d say “wilburrr, are you posting stupid shit on the internets again?”
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 6:05 pm
Best advice I can give about taking a test? Study your ass off for the week preceding, but take the night off the night prior to the test(s). Don’t get drunk (although a few might not hurt - the goal is to relax a bit, not get blasted and be hung over the next morning), don’t do anything stressful. Just find something you enjoy doing - take a walk, go catch a nice musical (I can heartily recommend ‘Wicked’, fwiw), get a bite to eat at a favored restaurant, whatever you want that has NOTHING to do with the exam material.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:09 pm
Drum - I’m taking it at the Anaheim Convention Center. You can bet that I’ll ruckus around Disney for a break (or post-exam celebration).
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 6:12 pm
bridget, after your 6:03 comment, I predict you will do well on your bar.
Remember: focus, focus, focus. During the exam - stay away from all other test takers, do not socialize during the exam. Others will want to revisit exam questions and they’ll throw you off.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 6:15 pm
Wicked is playing at the Hollywood Pantages, fwiw. Corner of Hollywood and Vine (or close enough for government work, anyway).
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:17 pm
And SP is right. Don’t let others start second-guessing you, or you will start second-guessing yourself and blow your concentration.
It’s a trick I’ve used once or twice.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:18 pm
I’m new to this blog, but I have noticed a few things right off the bat.
1) Cyrus is a terrible attorney, insane, or both.
2) Scott Jacobs, you crack me up.
3) All the crushes on bridget are cute.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 6:22 pm
bridget said:
anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.
To a certain extent, you are correct; however, unless you are willing to put your name on-the-line for ALL TO SEE, your anonymous opinions hold as much value as an A/B/C/D multi-state measures your knowledge of the law.
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 6:28 pm
My preferred exam strategy is to ignore the existence of everyone around me, drink a lot of tea, and post-mortem only with certain people. (Alan and I post-mortemed the Federal Jurisdiction exam last year. Helped me to think it all finished and put it behind me.)
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 6:29 pm
Well, if bad analogies were a contest, you’d be king Petrano.
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 6:30 pm
A lawyer arguing that First Amendment protections are only partially true?
I repeat, go fuck yourself.
Moron.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:35 pm
No, not true at all. My opinions would only be worth little if they were predicated exclusively on personal characteristics of myself, or personal life events.
The beauty of anonymous speech is that it allows the audience to analyse it according to its merits, not according to their opinion of the speaker. One can rationally prefer that her opinions be evaluated according to their soundness and thoughtfulness, rather than on someone’s opinion of her character; that hardly makes those opinions worthless.
I will not go through a painful enumeration of the great writers, philosophers, thinkers, philanthropists, and scientists who were either anonymous or used pseudonyms; suffice to say that, as those who wish to remain out of the public eye have given tremendous contributions to civilisation, it is absurd to suggest that full identification is a prerequisite to worth.
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 6:38 pm
Oooooo, bridget is kicking rear and taking names.
I know Scott is going to be impressed …
Comment by SPQR — 6/30/2008 @ 6:40 pm
It’s pretty clear the only poster on this blog who correctly thinks/reasons outside the A/B/C/D envelope is MKDP. The rest of you choose to stay anonymous as you provide a one-size-fits-all reasoning mechanism well inside the A/B/C/D box.
In sum, your comments always accuse anyone you disagree with as being:
(A) un-informed
(B) un-American
(C) un-sound
(D) un-happy
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 6:42 pm
It’s funny that you use “one-size-fits-all reasoning” to place us in the A/B/C/D box.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 6:47 pm
That damned Publius!
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:51 pm
Intelligent posts always impress me…
She’s made it clear she isn’t interested though, so I’ll not swoon further…
She is kickin’ some ass though, ain’t she…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 7:08 pm
I can be the new object of your desire Scott. =) I haven’t shot you down, yet.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 7:10 pm
Dave Esq, your opinions, with your name proudly attached to them, mean little to nothing. Funny how that works, ain’t it?
BTW, I’m Pablo. I’m ambivalent to meet you.
Comment by Pablo — 6/30/2008 @ 7:14 pm
Yet. *looks meaningfully at Scott*
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 7:17 pm
***tries to look innocent***
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 7:19 pm
[blink blink]
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 7:23 pm
Drumwaster WROTE:
“Second, Judge Kozinski’s clerks work long, hard hours. They hardly have time, amidst doing 60 drafts of every published opinion and researching every case (not just 1 in 3) that is on the Judge’s docket for oral argument, to muck about on blogs”
GREAT! I sincerly hope if Judge Kozinski is removed from the Ninth Circuit oon Sania’s complaint, they appoint him to the Eleventh Circuit because it is clear and indisputable law clerks for Eleventh Circuit Judges are NOT spending as much time on their work due to too much time ‘MUCKING about on blogs’ … and I, for one, would LOVE to have a good Judge who would actually read about my case and write a rational opinion in a fair and impartial tribunal. HERE IS THE LESSER LEVEL OF JUSTICE WE GET IN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, according to “AnnTM:”
“AnnTM
Member
Posts: 119
(5/18/04 9:15 am)
Hmm…
BITING MY TONGUE (because I work for the appellate court that could hear her case, and I have access to her pleadings below).
* * *
Spot
Posts: 71
(5/18/04 9:24 am)
OH dear Ann …
You must have some WICKED bite marks in your tongue right now!
I dont know how you can STAND it!
AnnTM
Member
Posts: 120
(5/18/04 9:33 am)
Spot, you have no idea!
(This message was left blank)
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/31/04 10:33 pm
Flashy Gray
Member
Posts: 1283
(5/18/04 10:45 am)
Re: Traffic Ticket
Certifiable Freak Show!
I am also lamenting the fact that I missed all this while doing horse-related activities last night!!!
I heart all the TTR legal eagles who are keeping us updated on this, it’s hilarious!!! Although AnnTM, you need to keep off of here!
AnnTM
Member
Posts: 124
(5/18/04 10:53 am)
Re: Traffic Ticket
(This message was left blank)
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/31/04 10:34 pm
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1101
(5/18/04 11:09 am)
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=43.topic&start=41&stop=60
Re: DK’s link
Good catch, Kahuna.
We have PACER for free.
I wonder if I can get access even though we are 6th Circuit? Ann, don’t you work for the 11th Circuit Ct of Appeals??
I have a crazy day, but hopefully will have some time to do some CP legal research.
* * *
galloper
Posts: 199
(5/18/04 11:28 am)
Re: DK’s link
Doo-be-doo-be-doo….
I have Paaacer….
(I gotta say, that is an impressive list of defendants!)
AnnTM
Member
Posts: 128
(5/18/04 11:39 am)
Re: DK’s link
GAAAHHH! Galloper, email me! I want to talk about this stuff with somebody and not feel guilty.
galloper
Posts: 200
(5/18/04 11:50 am)
Email
Done. You can delete your address now if you want.
Flashy Gray
Member
Posts: 1290
(5/18/04 1:00 pm)
Re: CP
Petit - I am with you re: Cellos Pride Onslaught Legal Defense Fund bake sale!
All you legal types need to start putting out the DIRT, the SKINNY, the POOP as it were, instead of typing/emailing amongst yourselves with your high-falutin’ access to expensive subscriber-only legal databases.
* * *
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1104
(5/18/04 1:12 pm)
Re: CP
I have this insane obsession with meeting her in person. Like, anyone up for a trip to FL??”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=43.topic&start=61&stop=80
SPQR WROTE:
“If you know that a clerk is posting comments about a case you have on a blog, then prove it ….”
Are the confessions of an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal law clerk blogging about a litigant in a case to which she was assigned while at work in a Federal Building on Federal Court computers enough “proof” for you?
bridget WROTE:
“First of all, there is no requirement that federal law clerks live their lives like sequestered witnesses. Given that numerous legal opinions have cited blogs, I find it nearly impossible to believe that blogs are prohibited from consideration”
Really … and next I expect you are going to spount off that it is A-Okay for Federal Circuit Judge’s law clerks and their co-conspirators to CROSS STATE LINES
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 7:25 pm
Yo, Petrano, stop interfering with my game.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 7:27 pm
Yeah… I saw that word too…
They always reject me…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 7:28 pm
Do you always start such a long cut and paste with such an obvious lie?
Oh, wait - you’re a lawyer who clearly doesn’t understand the law.
Asked and answered.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 7:29 pm
What do you know .. post an unpopular post, and the post gets blitzed iin the middle of drafting it! As I was saying …
bridget WROTE:
“First of all, there is no requirement that federal law clerks live their lives like sequestered witnesses. Given that numerous legal opinions have cited blogs, I find it nearly impossible to believe that blogs are prohibited from consideration”
Really … and next I expect you are going to spout off that it is A-Okay for Federal Circuit Judge’s law clerks and their co-conspirators to CROSS STATE LINES AND STALK LITIGANTS IN THE CASES ASSIGNED TO THEIR EMPLOYER-JUDGE SO THEY CAN ACQUIRE EXTRINSINC NON-RECORD EVIDENCE FOR THE CASE!
Why don’t you just admit, the Federal COurts are not perfect, and one HUGE reason why is Judge Kozinski’s 2001 WebSENSE FEderal Courts Computer firewall disabling let just about any opportunistic law clerk “MUCK ABOUT.”
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 6/30/2008 @ 7:29 pm
Do not allow your jealousy about not having the qualifications to be hired as a federal clerk colour
your opinions on issues. Tsk tsk.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 7:35 pm
like they couldn’t muck about on their home computers?
oh, and bridget is holding out for a real man, the kind of rough-hewn hunk of masculinity you rarely see these days, who will make her just a little weak in the knees and sighing with pleasurable anticipation when she sets eyes on him. i know just where she can find one!
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 7:40 pm
Seek. Therapy.
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 7:40 pm
Though if Tlove keeps up those kinda comments, you never know…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 7:46 pm
Now now Petrano…don’t get your knickers in a bunch
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 7:49 pm
No good, ADA.. She already shot me down…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 7:51 pm
Drumwaster ALLEGED:
“Drumwaster WROTE:
Do you always start such a long cut and paste with such an obvious lie?”
Tell U what, Drummerboy, I won’t regard that post as defamatory if you prove “AnnTM” is a lie — maybe you could start with her IP #s. “AnnTM” already made a tacit admission she made these posts and that they are true under the Eleventh Circuit tacit admission rule.
Notably, “AnnTM” posted her posts on a blog in CALIFORNIA — jurisdiction of the NINTH CIRCUIT …
Oh, and guess WHAT ELSE ???? “AnnTM’s co-conspirators admitted to procuring at “AnnTM’s” direction CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION about me from a NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS clerk … wrongdoing BY TWO CALIFORNIA LAWYERS (one of which is was an Eleventh CIrcuit Court of Apepal law clerk) within the direct and current ACTIONABLE investigatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Hon. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski AT THIS VERY MOMENT:
“squishy
Member
Posts: 1625
(5/18/04 1:47 pm)
Re: lol
I couldn’t see the replies to the Wellington link. It will only show me the ad itself?
AnnTM, what do they tell you appellate circuit guys about confidentiality of records? I was wondering because I called on a 9th Cir. case to get the name of the attorney of record, and the clerk was all freaked out to give it to me, and told me that if anyone asked, I didn’t learn it from him??! Isn’t that public record, so what is the construction that apparently prohibits court employees from revealing public records? Just wonderin’. Congrats by the way on landing an appellate court job!
AnnTM
Member
Posts: 130
(5/18/04 1:55 pm)
Re: lol
Squishy, you know what? I don’t even remember what they said about confidentiality of records. …
I just feel weird using passwords for PACER and CHASER that are given to me as a court employee for research purposes, and then looking up a case just because I’ve heard about the plaintiff and think she’s a nutjob. But I don’t see anything wrong with just providing the name or contact info for an attorney of record. …
… But they never said anything about having an unhealthy obsession with a litigant I encounter on an internet BB.”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=43.topic&start=81&stop=100
If you all Kozinski supporters believe Judge Kozinski is so sacrosanct, then why don’t we see Judge Kozinski acting on his public pronouncements his Ninth Circuit Court is so fair and impartial by OPENING AN IMMEDIATEL INVESTIGATION INTO THE HOW/WHY THIS “squishy” and “AnnTM” covertly obtained CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT ME to ex parte extrinsic it into my then-pending Eleventh Circuit cases?
Last I checked, if outsiders wish to bring non-record evidence into a person’s case on appeal, they need to file a motion to intervene and a motion for taking judicial notice for which Due Process accords a HEARING.
Isn’t Judge Kozinski the one who wrote that great dissent in the Manual Real Judicial Misconduct disciplinary case? If he is as fair and impartial and believes in the integrity of the Federal Court as you say, then I will believe it when I SEE him open an ACTUAL investigation into the above NINTH CIRCUIT misconduct that irreparably prejudice my Eleventh Circuit Americans With Disabilities Act bar admission (FL and CA) and Vessel Mistress admiralty cases.
Until then, all you have to say about how great Judge Kosinzki is, is simply Foo Foo Dust.
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 7:52 pm
Mr. Petrano,
Did you lose a case and a several-million dollar luxury yacht because you went into court unprepared? Because you failed to investigate, until weeks after the trial, that your opponent was not a qulaified ship’s captain but a roast-beef carver and a very smooth-talking conman? who subsequently ran off with the ship?
Comment by nk — 6/30/2008 @ 7:53 pm
h2u and I agree on something!
Did I shoot someone down? I only shoot down people who violate my dating rules or don’t give me lots of chocolate. (Alan was kind enough to make finals a bit nicer by giving up some of his Ferraro-Rocher.)
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 7:53 pm
Did you see the part in Legally Blonde (the original, of course) when Elle Woods slaps the nerd in the face and says she wanted him, then suddenly the hot chicks that were mean to him want a date? I feel like I just lived that moment.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 7:56 pm
Regard it however you wish. You said I wrote something that I did not write. That is a lie.
I don’t have to prove that she is a liar, because I’ve just proved that YOU are a liar.
Care to apologize, goat-fucker?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 7:57 pm
To the Petranos:
I’m confused. How do you know AnnTM was a law clerk for a federal appellate judge? People aren’t always what they say they are on the internet. In addition, if she worked for an appellate judge, isn’t it possible she was employed as a secretary, court clerk, court reporter, or other non-lawyer position?
Comment by DRJ — 6/30/2008 @ 7:59 pm
I spend most of my life as the nerd who can’t get a date… :p
Comment by bridget — 6/30/2008 @ 8:00 pm
I spend most of my time in really adorable shoes helping nerds get dates.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 8:01 pm
And quoting movies like Legally Blonde.
Comment by Tlove — 6/30/2008 @ 8:02 pm
mkdp, your autism is showing. you think your posts are brilliant, but normal people think they’re incoherent babble. foo foo dust?
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 8:03 pm
Last season Pradas, am I right?
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 8:03 pm
And where can I send the Ferraro-Rocher?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:03 pm
Drumwaster WROTE:
“You said I wrote something that I did not write. That is a lie.
if you prove “AnnTM” is a lie
I don’t have to prove that she is a liar, because I’ve just proved that YOU are a liar.”
You say you did not write and sign/post the comment below with the statement I responded to and you name as the poster?
“Drumwaster WROTE:
Do you always start such a long cut and paste with such an obvious lie?
Oh, wait - you’re a lawyer who clearly doesn’t understand the law.
Asked and answered.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 7:29 pm”
So you allege I am a “liar” by suggesting that you signed the post to which I responded? I think your signature speaks for itself.
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 8:14 pm
Yes. When your incoherent post @ #98 started with:
You are lying. I did not write those words. Any further attempt to assert to the contrary simply shreds what ephemeral wisps of credibility you might still retain.
All clear now, you stupid bint?
Anything else I can embarrass you about, just say so.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 8:19 pm
Fairly shocking, I know!
Holy smokes. Who drove the trolls out from under their bridge?
Comment by h2u — 6/30/2008 @ 8:20 pm
MKPD, David…
David, at comment #98, quoted the following:
That is, in fact, a lie. It is wrong. It is counter to fact.
What you quoted was actually writen by the dear, dear Bridget at comment #74.
You may now admit to meing the massive fucking retards that you are.
And, dear cock-wad, you may stfu…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:22 pm
Thanks, Scott.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 8:25 pm
You’re most welcome…
The first clue was that they attibuted something to you that seemed intelligent.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:28 pm
*pokes Scott in the eye*
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 8:31 pm
Hahahaha. Love the reference. I’m glad I’m not the only one who has seen it.
Comment by TLove — 6/30/2008 @ 8:31 pm
Hey! No eye gouging. UFC rules apply.
Comment by TLove — 6/30/2008 @ 8:35 pm
Drumwaster WROTE:
“When your incoherent post @ #98 started with:
Drumwaster WROTE:
‘Second, Judge Kozinski’s clerks work long, hard hours. They hardly have time, amidst doing 60 drafts of every published opinion and researching every case (not just 1 in 3) that is on the Judge’s docket for oral argument, to muck about on blogs’
You are lying. I did not write those words.”
Well, so you say Drummerboy. I will have to take your word for it, I guess. But as you can see from the way the post reads below, it visually appears that the commenter at the top of the post is the poster, which visually appears to be you, due to this blog failing to provide separation lines between posts to demark one from another. For the visually impaired, U.S. Treasury money is not the only words that a person cannot read; visually inaccessible blog posts and paper court pleadings fall into that same category. With no separation lines, the poster could be the name at the top .. or the bottom .. or WHO KNOWS given all the anonymity and complaining going on around these parts.
Nevertheless, a visual impairment =/= a “liar.” Disability status =/= an act.
My apologies if you were not the poster. I am not above apologizing for text presented in a format that the vision impaired cannot read. But, you WERE the poster of the other post to which I responded, causing you to demonstrate such an overreaction.
“Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 6:02 pm
The WebSENSE firewall eviscerated by Judge Kozinski was designed to prohibit court employees from discussing material outside the four corners of the respective cases before the court. In sum, federal court employees are not supposed to spend a single moment of their day on blogs expressing personal opinions about cases, lawyers and parties before their respective judge.
No, it was not.
First of all, there is no requirement that federal law clerks live their lives like sequestered witnesses. Given that numerous legal opinions have cited blogs, I find it nearly impossible to believe that blogs are prohibited from consideration.
Second, Judge Kozinski’s clerks work long, hard hours. They hardly have time, amidst doing 60 drafts of every published opinion and researching every case (not just 1 in 3) that is on the Judge’s docket for oral argument, to muck about on blogs ….”
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 8:37 pm
Are these Petrano pompous arrogant Esq using asshat and MKdP for real? Is there a shortage of lithium out West?
Comment by JD — 6/30/2008 @ 8:40 pm
MKPD, you’re a fucking moron…
The only way you could think this is if you lacked the pattern-recognition skills of a lobotomized chimp that’s been dead three weeks.
You see, starting from the FIRST FUCKING POST IN EACH TOPIC, the poster is listed afterthe comment.
So, really, since you lack such basic skills, why should we believe any single bit of analysis you bring foward?
You or David…
Who, btw, is the person yo should be pretending to be, since he was the one who posted #98, and is thus the person we’re actually talking to…
Also, I find the following (from comment #89) God Damned priceless…
That’s from ol’ Davey…
Isn’t MKDP his wife’s initials? I would love to know just how similar you two’s IPs are…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:43 pm
I’m just skimming over this thread, but I’ve seen several comments by Drumwaster that I don’t really appreciate. This is not a blog where commenters routinely tell each other to fuck off, and I don’t want it to become one. ‘Nuff said, I hope.
Comment by Patterico — 6/30/2008 @ 8:44 pm
Guess it pays to stay anonymous a un-American.
Comment by TLove — 6/30/2008 @ 8:44 pm
and
Comment by TLove — 6/30/2008 @ 8:45 pm
I freely admit to having done basily the same, Patterico… People attcking fellow commenters for daring to be anon and demanding they post their Bar #’s (Which is funny, since she hasn’t taken the bar yet) annoys me…
I’ll try and tone it down, but tell me… the IP for MKDP and David Petrano… They aren’t the same, are they?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:46 pm
nevertheless, a visual impairment =/= a “liar”.
no, but making false, baseless assertions, visually impaired or not, === a “liar”. also, the inability to distinguish between drumwaster and bridget === “retarded”. bridget’s the one we’re all hitting on (bridget, i get my valrhona chocolate in bulk from chocosphere.com), i’d be surprised if someone hit on drumwaster.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/30/2008 @ 8:47 pm
“basicly”, not “basily”…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:47 pm
Damnit old man… Back off!
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 8:48 pm
I mean, come on. They are freakin’ whack jobs.
Comment by JD — 6/30/2008 @ 8:52 pm
The facts say so, you stupid bint. Trying to argue otherwise beclowns you. Not that I would have expected anything less from an “Esquire”-type assclown like you and your alleged spouse, but still…
Not at all. Pay attention and learn to read simple English. That will help you avoid looking like such a moron. (Your alleged clients will have to work harder to discover this, but the truth will out.)
Only to someone who can’t be bothered to actually read the comments. Which, by your own definition, includes you.
True, and completely irrelevant. “Asserting something as true that is not in accordance with reality” DOES equal “liar”. (Not to mention the “wounded duck” ploy…)
You were positively asserting something that was not true. How else would YOU define it?
Like I said before, any time you want to be roundly embarrassed by reality, you just let me know.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 8:53 pm
My sincerest apologies for offending you, mein host. My asperity was addressed at others, not you, and was done without your knowledge or permission. I accept full responsibility for those comments.
I apologize for any hassles I may cause you.
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 8:56 pm
My wife thinks I’m pretty hot…
Comment by Drumwaster — 6/30/2008 @ 9:00 pm
I’m going back to lurking.
Can’t get any love around here unless your name is Bridget Bridget Bridget.
=P
Comment by TLove — 6/30/2008 @ 9:02 pm
SJ WROTE:
“David, at comment #98, quoted the following:
Drumwaster WROTE:
‘Second, Judge Kozinski’s clerks work long, hard hours. They hardly have time, amidst doing 60 drafts of every published opinion and researching every case (not just 1 in 3) that is on the Judge’s docket for oral argument, to muck about on blogs’
That is, in fact, a lie. It is wrong. It is counter to fact.
What you quoted was actually writen by the dear, dear Bridget at comment #74.”
Thank you SJ for tipping me off that Drummerboy accused ME of being a “liar” because DFP has a vision impairment and can’t see two feet in front of himself w/o his glasses. Which I always have to find (law clerk duties) because he can’t find where he left them when not wearing them, either.
But at least we are getting somewhere … the blog format, rather than the criticized disabled Americans is what is “retarded” …
tell me, is that a disability slur some of you Federal Court law clerks in the loop use amongst yourselves about disabled Americans? For shame.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal law clerk and her California and Tennessee Bar member co-conspirators really have you 1Ls beat when it comes to mockery /irrational discrimination against the disabled being used ex parte extrinsically by playing on blogs all day on Federal Court computers to decide actual Federal cases pending in our Federal Courts:
“fouronthefloor
Member
Posts: 1357
(5/12/04 5:17 pm)
Re: I am the proud owner . . .
________________________________________
Does she explain how having non verbal expression problems gives her the right to lunge at Devon?
* * *
blaaacksheep
Member
Posts: 2948
(5/12/04 5:22 pm)
Re:
________________________________________
I have two complaints:
My mother stained my nursery furniture with me in utero during the final two months of her pregnancy. I can’t do math.
Three Mile Island robbed me of having knee-shooter boobs.
I would like to:
a.) get out of having to do any math in my professional and personal lives, because of my disability.
b.) be considered Baywatch-endowed by the masses, though I sport only B-cups, becuse of my disability.
Any lawyers willing to take on my case?
I f*cking love CP, man. As the day is long.
QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 46
(5/12/04 5:25 pm)
Re: I am the proud owner . . .
________________________________________
As rileyt said on TOB, it is becoming increasingly clear why CP is not a licensed attorney. She cannot think logically and cannot reason. And let’s face it, every client who walked through her door would hear: “let’s sue ‘em under the ADA. Disability is a term of art, you know. I’m sure we can come up with something. Are you ever bored at work? You are? Well hot damn, there you go: you’ve got ADD and it wasn’t accommodated! Surely this will get us custody of your mutant children!”
- Formerly Frankiedaman -”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=38.topic&start=1&stop=20
“QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 47
(5/12/04 5:34 pm)
Re: All right, you twisted my arm
________________________________________
Holy shit. Just. Holy. Shit. Awesome!
- Formerly Frankiedaman -
* * *
indepthly
Member
Posts: 32
(5/12/04 5:36 pm)
Re: All right, you twisted my arm
________________________________________
CrAzY as a LOON!
Thank you for making my day extra special, Towanda!
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1044
(5/12/04 5:37 pm)
Re: All right, you twisted my arm
________________________________________
Indepthly, quit having such an attitudinal barrier.
* * *
MyPatey
Member
Posts: 98
(5/12/04 5:43 pm)
Re: All right, you twisted my arm
________________________________________
Thank you Towanda, I needed a good laugh today. What the hell is she saying?! She doesn’t know her ass from her elbow.
Since I’m short and fat does that mean I get to have a bye to the Olympics based on my body type disability!!
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1046
(5/12/04 5:44 pm)
Re: All right, you twisted my arm
________________________________________
Yes, and blacky gets one for her boob disability!
We’re going to have one hell of a team this year!!
* * *
steadyPace
Member
Posts: 920
(5/12/04 5:50 pm)
Re: Oh God! Contentious topic #3….the ADA is back!
________________________________________
I definitely should get a bye because I’m somewhat plumb and untalented.
Towanda - that email was fucking awesome! LOVE IT! Heeee!
I do believe this proves, without a doubt, that CP is batshit crazy.
hrmmmm…..I wonder if I’ll get a lawsuit slapped on me too?
—————–
“What kind of scary ass clowns came to your birthday party?” Chandler Bing
* * *
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1048
(5/12/04 5:55 pm)
Re: Re:
________________________________________
Batshit crazy is my new favorite word.
QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 48
(5/12/04 5:56 pm)
Re: Re:
________________________________________
Blaackie, if you have a boob disability, what the hell do I have? Maybe a nonboobular disorder?
And I concur with your new rule on posting private e-mails.
- Formerly Frankiedaman -”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=38.topic&start=21&stop=40
“AnnTM
Member
Posts: 106
(5/12/04 9:32 pm)
Tow, me too!
________________________________________
Tow, can you send that email along to me? Let me know if you need me to remind you of my email address.
I have a bizarre fascination for CP. On the one hand, she’s certainly a hoot , but on the other hand, I feel bad because she’s clearly crazy. Maybe it’s the psych major in me, but I find myself analyzing her posts, reading and re-reading them, trying to figure out what her deal is. She’s definitely not just an opinionated gal. She’s off her rocker, no doubt.
elizabeth2
Member
Posts: 518
(5/12/04 10:04 pm)
Title III?
________________________________________
I give. Title VII, I know. Title IX, I know.
But Title III? I give.
I guess I’ll go look it up, unless someone here can post a summary. . . .
Edited to add: I looked it up, and “title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181). . .prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by this part.”
I learn something new every day. Go figure.
Edited by: elizabeth2 at: 5/12/04 10:06 pm
Everythingbutwings
Member
Posts: 2316
(5/12/04 10:19 pm)
Re: Title III?
________________________________________
I still don’t understand why she can’t freaking lunge her horse at 3:00 am with the rest of the qualifiers!
Can you imagine the stink raised if she decides to market sabino pony warmbloods?
chezjerome
Member
Posts: 528
(5/12/04 11:27 pm)
OMFG!
________________________________________
Wingsie, the thought is too insane to comprehend.
Imagine the implications of someone who is colour blind wanting to purchase a “coloured sport horse”. Does that make one chromatically challenged under the ADA and does it grant you a bye for dual registration for your sabino TB’S?
Add me to the list of those who want to read the dirt in full… creseida at yahoo dot com
* * *
rocky72
Member
Posts: 52
(5/13/04 12:50 am)
Re: Loco…
________________________________________
Clearly batshit crazy…
By the way does anyone think I can get away with naming a new jumper “Batshit Crazy”?
Maybe I’ll post on TOB and ask for opinions?”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=38.topic&start=41&stop=60
“Bells
Member
Posts: 146
(5/13/04 11:00 am)
Re: CA v. FL
________________________________________
yep, she is batshit crazy. I strongly suspect she fell off her wonderful horse that no one else can ride and damaged her head
chezjerome
Member
Posts: 530
(5/13/04 11:46 am)
Ok….
________________________________________
Something seriously doesn’t add up here.
She is broke. Her husband doesn’t make much money as a lawyer (for whatever reason). Therefore she lives on a leaky sailboat in Florida. I can only assume that since she lives on a boat, she is paying for wireless (satellite) internet so that she can make these posts. Not cheap.
She also needs someone to type/scribe for her? She can ride a “too hot for mere mortals to handle” horse, but she can’t type? The few autisics I know can communicate BETTER by typing than by speaking. So she can talk her talk just fine, but she is incapable of typing or writing? How does she spout out these posts/emails if she can’t type?
wridter
Member
Posts: 102
(5/13/04 11:50 am)
Re: Ok….
________________________________________
Se said something at one point about having a voice-translation do-dad that she speaks to and it types out the words as she speaks.
* * *
petitcheval
Member
Posts: 217
(5/13/04 1:08 pm)
Re: Re:
________________________________________
I can’t get past QI”S “nonboobular disorder”. I have that too…as well as the inability to do math. Does that qualify me for ADA?
I really must go to the HJ bb more often–I love it when Static lets me know that there is a crisis over there, so I go to witness the impending trainwreck.
I don’t think I even want to read Tow’s email from her—too complicated and it will just piss me off.
You know? I am 42, I’m stiff and sore from having fucked up my back twice. I was never very athletic in some ways…that’s life. Just because I don’t have the stamina to climb Mt Everest, should they make special escalators to get me to the top? What if I were just obese like the 545 lb behomoth that was on ET the other night? She couldn’t get out of her wheel chair she was so fat, but she is considered “disabled”…do we make special exceptions for HER to be able to walk to the base of El Capitan in a national park because she wants to see it?
I am not knocking ADa rules, but where does one draw the line? CP seems to think everything comes down to ADA rules. I always wanted to event in the Olympics–I sucked, and didn’t have enough money. It wasnt’ rocket science that after about age 14 I realized that I peaked at Prelim, nothing higher was gonna happen for me, because I didn’t have the talent, whatever.
MGE broke her leg—we are an equestrian sport, we have horses as teammates. So, at what point does the horse get dispensation for injuries? Gee , my horse can’t canter because of some hindend issue…can I get some special thing to let me show first level dressage and skip the part we can’t do because of my horse’s disability?
Sorry to ramble–I jsut had all these random, bizarre thoughts running thru my head. You know? I smoked a lot of dope too, maybe the loss of braincells I have now (in addition to the nonboobular disorder) will help me qualify for something other than just being stupid now.
Bush/Cheney 2004-”Less CIA….more CYA”
* * *
SwedishOxer
Member
Posts: 291
(5/13/04 4:04 pm)
Re: nonboobular
________________________________________
I must say, though, Flashy raised a good point….maybe I need to check into this ADA stuff…..maybe a good way to get that 6 figure amateur horse by the end of the year.
* * *
This Is MAD
Member
Posts: 160
(5/13/04 5:43 pm)
Re: re:
________________________________________
Quote:
________________________________________
Red rover, red rover, Let the ADA come over!
________________________________________
NO! Because then she will have a legit claim for being mentally disabled after this BB is done with her!
OneonOne
Member
Posts: 1551
(5/13/04 7:50 pm)
Re: re:
________________________________________
My boyfriend has an internship for the summer with the planning department in a neighboring city. When I got home today, he was working on a map that he’s making. He’s coding the sidewalks and intersections for ADA compliance. How timely!”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=38.topic&start=81&stop=100
“Barry
Member
Posts: 34
(5/13/04 8:12 pm)
Abberational barriors and the socratic method
________________________________________
This discust me. Ononeon I dont know what municipal jurstiction you live in but using internes rather then disabled sailors to ensure ADA compliance is actionable under section 3.4.IXVI.(a) of the ADA section 4. Thus the Socartiac method is in effect. Precendets have been set in California, Cleveland and Ohio.The supreme court of Minnesota ruled in Andy v Capp 3-1 in favor of interns but the ruling was overturned in appelate jury by a justice of the piece. Nenertheless, the hostility persists and the ADA allows me to post this here under the 5th ammendemnt. This is what we call an arbitrational barrier. ”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=38.topic&start=101&stop=104
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 9:02 pm
I could love you, TLove (within the context of this forum, of course).
Now for a breath I tarry,
And once more fall apart.
Come, take my hand and tell me,
What is in thine heart?
Comment by nk — 6/30/2008 @ 9:08 pm
LOL… Brady bunch ftw…
What’s your opinion on RPGs, video games, and ovies from comicbooks?
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 9:11 pm
I’m so ratting you out to your wife…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 6/30/2008 @ 9:11 pm
DRJ WROTE:
“To the Petranos:
I’m confused. How do you know AnnTM was a law clerk for a federal appellate judge? People aren’t always what they say they are on the internet. In addition, if she worked for an appellate judge, isn’t it possible she was employed as a secretary, court clerk, court reporter, or other non-lawyer position?”
DRJ, “AnnTM” identified herself as a law clerk for Hon. Stanley Marcus, Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal Judge, and subsequently made a tacit admission under the Eleventh Circuit’s tacit admission rule to DFP it was her:
“Towanda
Member
Posts: 1052
(5/13/04 9:13 am)
heehee
________________________________________
It looks as though now she is crying sex discrimination, too (see the Chris v. Margie comment at the end ).
Is it even POSSIBLE to read 5000 cases w/o making your eyes bleed? Do you legal eagles even think there *are* 500 ADA cases out there??
Edited by: Towanda at: 5/13/04 9:23 am
* * *
QuietlyIrish
Member
Posts: 51
(5/13/04 9:21 am)
Re: heehee
________________________________________
No, no. She said 5,000, not 500. There could be that many given the number of years the act has been around, I guess. Lord knows I wouldn’t want to have to read all of them. All she’s proving is that she’s completely insane and has far too much time on her hands. Get a job, freak! If she really had all those financial problems and you couple that with the fact that she is batshit crazy, she’ll never be admitted to the bar. Give it up nutbag!
- Formerly Frankiedaman -
Towanda
Member
Posts: 1055
(5/13/04 9:24 am)
Re: heehee
________________________________________
Oh, I meant 5000, sorry. You know I can’t type (especially what with all the CP hoopla . . .you think YOU aren’t getting any work done?? try fielding all the rabid e-mail requesters )
* * *
AnnTM
Member
Posts: 108
(5/13/04 9:32 am)
Re:
________________________________________
I have free Westlaw, so I will check…
*running off to log on to Westlaw*
OK, there are about 10,600 if you search in all federal databases. If you search in just federal appellate courts and above, there are about 3350. So yes, I suppose she could have read 5000 ADA cases. Sad, but true.
So, the write-on competition for the law journals when I was a first year law student involved Title III of the ADA, the Casey Martin v. PGA case that has been referenced on TOB. We had to research and write our memos prior to the Supreme Court decision, and we had to predict how the case would come out. I did not agree with the majority of the Court. I thought Martin should walk the golf course, or not play in PGA tournaments. Guess that means me and CP don’t see eye to eye, huh?
Edited by: AnnTM at: 5/13/04 9:34 am
* * *
Milk Warts
Member
Posts: 87
(5/13/04 10:35 am)
yeesh!
________________________________________
she’s read 5000 cases on this subject alone? Please add to her list of disabilities “OCD.”
Interestingly enough, there are many aspects of practicing law where one does not need to go to court regularly, if ever. Why she doesn’t pursue a career in those fields is quite beyond me.
I’m starting to agree with the theory that the cervical injury also included a head injury.”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=38.topic&start=61&stop=80
““AnnTM
Member
Posts: 119
(5/18/04 9:15 am)
Hmm…
BITING MY TONGUE (because I work for the appellate court that could hear her case, and I have access to her pleadings below”
http://p218.ezboard.com/fthetackroom17816frm14.showMessageRange?topicID=43.topic&start=41&stop=60
Comment by MKDP — 6/30/2008 @ 9:13 pm
I had to look up RPG - so clearly not my thing.
But I love video games (I’ve even been trying to resurrect my Atari)
Depends on the movie…
Comment by TLove — 6/30/2008 @