Editor Jekyll, Meet Editor Hyde
Less than one month ago, the L.A. Times editorialized that Judge Kozinski should say “So what?” to the allegations the newspaper splashed all over its front page:
There’s a different statement we’d like to hear from him, and no, it’s not an apology, an expression of regret or even an explanation. It’s this: “So what?”
. . . .
Scolds who argue that judges should uphold a higher standard of decorum than the common citizen and should somehow be prevented from engaging in such private activity as gathering subjectively amusing or even appalling smut should recall that the 1st Amendment is not limited to high-minded endeavors.
The editors added:
[I]t makes no difference whether the person with the porn site is left or right, smart or dull, a judge or anybody else.
It is also true that judges are charged with administering justice and instilling public confidence in the law. Under the circumstances, it makes sense for Kozinski to recuse himself from the obscenity trial he was assigned to hear — not because there is any readily apparent conflict but because the website controversy has become a distraction and will undermine public trust in the verdict.
Now, they editorialize as follows:
A few weeks ago, Judge Alex Kozinski, an admired federal appeals court jurist, was revealed to have taken full advantage of his constitutional right to indulge his taste in prurient and demeaning material, which he maintained on a publicly accessible Internet server. We defended his right to do so but urged him to recuse himself from a case testing the limits of obscenity. He did, and has properly been praised for it.
That said, it’s alarming that he would have taken on such a case given his appreciation for squalid pictures and videotapes, a predilection that raises questions not about his right to have the stuff — have at it — but about his ability to consider certain kinds of cases. He has resolved the immediate issue by bowing out of the obscenity trial, but he’s far from finished with this. Imagine, for instance, that a woman alleging workplace harassment or discrimination comes before Kozinski in the future. Would she have reason to question his ability to impartially consider her complaints, given that he apparently enjoys material that demeans women? Seems like a fair bet.
My. All of a sudden, the editors sound like “[s]colds who argue that judges should uphold a higher standard of decorum than the common citizen.” Whatever happened to telling the judge that his response to the newspaper’s front-page article should be “So what?”
Note to the editors: y’all are sounding a little schizophrenic there. How’s about a touch of consistency?
I think the explanation is simple.
The editorial page does not talk to the news side at the LA Times or most other papers. They knew no more about the contents of the site than any reader of the story initial.
Now that the content of the web site has been widely disseminated, and the ease of publicly locating the material made clear, I think the editorial writers might have realized that judges should not be leaving their private porn collections out in the open.
But I think the biggest factor in the change in attitude was the damage control efforts from Prof. Volokh and Mrs. Kozinski. The idea that all of the stuff on his website was “humorous” casts Judge Kozinski’s temperment into a much worse light than the idea that he might, like nearly every male in the universe, enjoy something hot and spicy from time to time. Either one of the judge’s best friends and his wife are lying for him, or Judge Kozinski is pretty confused about funny.
Kozinski’s initial reaction to Glover–admitting what he had done and admitting the gross nature of it–was the right response. His subsequent damage control efforts are far worse than the original sin, and raise questions about his impartiality and honesty that the mere presence of porn on his website did not.
When it comes to scandals, the coverup is always worse than the original misdeed. Judge Kozinski’s 2001 efforts to stop tracking of his pornsurfing have led him to face a facially strong accusation that he committed a felony by shutting down the firewall for three circuits. The super-weak defenses of Prof. Lessig & Volokh plus his wife’s diatribe have further worsened his position as to his more recent activities.
I can only imagine what his ultra-expensive Kirkland & Ellis criminal defense is cooking up.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 1:04 amTake it away, daleyrocks.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/6/2008 @ 1:59 am“Judge Kozinski’s 2001 efforts to stop tracking of his pornsurfing have led him to face a facially strong accusation that he committed a felony by shutting down the firewall for three circuits.”
Cyrus – You complete dunce, that is a completely separate issue from maintaining a home computer and having a vindictive lawyer such as yourself malicously vacuum its contents and distribute those contents to the press.
Your raising of the 2001 firewall issue merely shows the transparency of your strategy here. It is to embarrass and disqualify the judge from serving for your own petty personal reasons.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 6:07 amdoes this mean that a judge that doesn’t personally like pornography, or anything prurient, should recuse themselves from obscenity trials?
Joe (c0e4f8) — 7/6/2008 @ 6:55 amApparently Cyrus the Virus, MKDP, and Petranos Esp all drink from the same fountain of loonwafflery.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:09 am“I think the explanation is simple.
The editorial page does not talk to the news side at the LA Times or most other papers.”
Cyrus Sanai
This “explanation” makes no sense at all, since the competing positions were both taken in editorials.
brobin (c07c20) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:12 am[I am deleting this comment by assistant devil’s advocate, which is horribly inappropriate. — Patterico]
assistant devil's advocate (81936c) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:31 amAnd the evidence of this having taken place is what, exactly? Does it exist outside of your imagination? other than in the Petranos’ imaginations, that is.
Pablo (99243e) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:45 amThat’s the trouble with using that spit-in-the-wind approach on a breezy day!
OLDPUPPYMAX (d671ab) — 7/6/2008 @ 8:57 am“facially strong accusation that he committed a felony by shutting down the firewall for three circuits.”
OK, now we are in Petrano / MKDP fantasy land.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:28 amCyrus, AK’s collection was not porn. Stop trolling.
h2u (4a7c7f) — 7/6/2008 @ 6:21 pmA couple observations:
1) The morally repulsive Cyrus Sanai pledged to stop commenting on various blogs some time ago. He lied.
2) Sanai, in his comment above, is making allegations against Judge Kozinski which he, Sanai, personally believes to be false and defamatory. This, too, is part of what Sanai calls his “litigation strategy.”
Brian (cfed45) — 7/6/2008 @ 6:55 pmBrian – Do you have any reason to believe anything Cyrus says that hasn’t been confirmed elsewhere?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:06 pmYou mean, daleyrocks, especially after seeing his frivolous “brief” in response to the sanctions order on the earlier thread?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:08 pmSPQR – I don’t live in California and have no desire to see his frivolous briefs. I don’t care what you’ve heard to the contrary, that’s not the way I roll.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:24 pmWell, Not That There Is Anything Wrong With That…
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:31 pmYou’re right, I forgot that part.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:34 pmDon’t let it happen again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2008 @ 7:51 pmJudge Kozinski’s 2001 actions were to prevent the monitoring software from tracking his web-surfing. The reason he wanted this kept secret is now obvious. The two issues are intimately connected.
Anyway I am not pressing that issue, it is Ralph Mecham, the former head of the Administrative Office of the Courts who raised it last year with the Judicial Conference of the United States. Read it yourself; it is on the How Appealing and Callaw sites.
I never promised to stop commenting, just to reduce my appearances. The fact that this upsets the anonymous commentators is just one more sign of what drives their comments: rage at their impotence. Someone like daleyrocks makes no mark in this world, has no friends, makes no money–if his identify were made public, I am sure we’d see a string of personal and professional failures that leads to a rotting basement in a dying neighborhood. He or she is a loser, so spends his or her time attacking people who are successful anonymously.
And for those angry at the litigation strategy, I am pleased to say that a key portion of the second goal has been accomplished much more quickly than I ever expected. I’ll let you guys know when part two is fully attained, so team daleyrocks can fume and sputter some more.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 8:38 pmTo make things clear: the evidence of Judge Kozinski shutting down the firewall is the testimony of Ralph Mecham, the former head of the Administrative Office of the Courts. I have spoken to him personally, and I believe him. Again, his statement to the Judicial Conference is on the how appealing site and callaw.
In addition, I am informed that Judge Kozinski admitted doing this himself in several speeches made after the event. It has also been confirmed by at least one reporter who has been regularly covering this story.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 8:41 pmHere is a link to Mecham’s letter.
I has lot of very difficult words, so the daleyrocks contingent may need to buy a dictionary first.
http://howappealing.law.com/mechamletter.pdf
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 8:46 pmY’all come back Cyrus. We love your visits.
Have you met the Petranos yet? You would get along famously. They are also obsessed with their grievances over the courts.
How is your mom’s divorce case proceeding? How about the frivolous credit reporting case?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 8:53 pmWell, yes, we can all speculate about the fantasy you have, Sinai, about your critics.
Meanwhile, your attempt to make exaggerated and outright false claims about Kosinski don’t really help you in your little litigation obsession.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:12 pmDaleyrocks,
The credit reporting case is going very well, I just got the Court of Appeal to strike critical parts of the appellate record submitted by the other side due to the counsel’s repetitive failure to follow thee California Rules of Court; not something you would have any chance of understanding, of course.
The divorce is in the appellate briefing stages.
It’s all going very, very well.
How goes the trolling? I notice you have been kicked off a lot of sites.
Cyrus
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:21 pmSPQR,
Precisely what claims have I made that you contend are exaggerated? What do you contend is false? What personal knowledge do you have of any of this that would allow you to make that kind of accusation?
The answer to the last question, is of coure, dispositive. You have no actual knowledge of anything other than what has been distributed by me. The factual contentions of Prof. Volokh and Lessig have been disproven by Prof. Lessig’s own commentators, and as for Mrs. Kozinski’s claim, well, I look forward to her identifying the humor in “bestwomandriver”.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:26 pmCyrus does not seem like a very nice person, or a happy person either. A commenter on another blog mentioned that his wife had left him. I can sympathize with her.
I’m not sure why he is picking on me. It almost sounded like he was making a threat in his last comment. I just think he doesn’t like it when people tell the truth about him see through the bullshit he tries to sell by omitting essential facts. Just a thought.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:26 pmSanai, yes we’ve seen your variable standards of evidence in action, haven’t we?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:29 pmWasn’t he the guy who got busted wagging his weewee at little girls at the beach? That name sounds really familiar…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:29 pmHow goes the trolling? I notice you have been kicked off a lot of sites.
Cyrus – You would be wrong about that. I think you’re just making shit up again. What sites are you talking about?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:30 pmSalon to start with, plus various others brought up by google.
Now if that is a different daleyrocks, then you might want a new name.
As for picking on you, you are (a) the most dishonest of the commentators, (b) appear to be a multi-site troll, and (c) are anonymous.
It is (b) by the way that particularly distinguishes you from the mob. You appear to have a long record of being reviled on other blogs and sites.
As for “nice”, well, lawyers advancing a case rarely get called “nice”. Lawyers attacking embedded judicial corruption and misconduct don’t have the luxury of “nice”.
Of course, the reason you are anonymous is that when contradicted in public, you no doubt break down, cry, or do something else pitiful; hence the “why is he picking on me?” bleat, and bewailing the lack of “nice”. Like all bullies, you can dish it out but you can’t take it.
If and when you tell the world who you are, then your views might have some force. Hiding behind a curtain, you and your ilk are contemptible. Stand up and connect your words to some history of accomplishment or action, or you will be called out from time to time as a basement-dwelling loser. It ain’t “nice”, but it is the truth.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 9:50 pmCyrus – You’ve got nothing as I thought. I was never kicked off Salon. I drove Greenwald’s idiot commenters nuts as one of the few conservatives there and they wanted me gone, but Greenwald wanted to keep me. Somebody took my screen name when they began requiring registration over there, presumably to stop me from commenting, so I did. The dishonesty got to be too much anyway.
On to your b). Which other sites and blog Cyrus? I presume they are on the left if I am reviled.
Your logic is as ridiculous as your litigation strategy and you have not pointed out any dishonesty on my part. As I said before, it’s great having you here.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:06 pmDaleyrocks,
I’d appreciate the link to the alleged commentator on another blog who said my wife has left me, as that would be news to myself, her and our children.
I suspect, however, that there is no other “person” separate from daleyrocks who ever wrote that, and it is another of your many lies, daleyrocks.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:07 pmThat IS him, huh? “It ain’t “nice”, but it is the truth.”
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:07 pmDaleyrocks,
I just did point out a dishonest factual contention.
Cyrus
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:26 pmLook up the old saw about “pots” and “kettles”, Mr. “Iranian of the Month”…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:28 pmCyrus @32 – That was on one of the early Above the Law threads I believe. I did not bookmark it.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:34 pmDrum – Usually those a badges of honor for conservatives if your are reviled for pointing out the truth on a lefty blog. I don’t think Cyrus has anything except perhaps from people I crossed swords with on Greenwald’s blog.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 10:36 pmDaleyrocks,
Well, I just read through all of the ATL posts. Only personal query about me is what relationship I had with Hannah Montana, which is quite a funny joke.
There is no post regarding my marriage status. You are a liar. Even if such a post did exist, which it did not, you repeated something you had no way of knowing the truth about to attack me. It’s no wonder you don’t want your real name known, given your dishonesty.
By the way, Drumwaster—way to go with the racist comments. I’m only 1/4 Iranian (my father is half); my mother is Swedish, so if you are hating on that particular race, you should switch sides to the Swedish side. But anyway, good to see the embedded, if hilariously misguided, racism that animates you and the other trolls here.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 11:01 pmYou are a liar. – Wrong again. That’s where I said I believed it to be.
With your shitty reasoning and logic skills it’s no wonder you are reduced to trying to win cases through legal exhaustion and getting judges disqualified as opposed to prevailing on the merits of your arguments.
My anonymity is not the issue here Cyrus. I’m not responsible for your decision to seek the spotlight in the Kozinski kerfuffle, but since you’ve done it, you have to live with it. I choose to live my life in a different manner.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/6/2008 @ 11:17 pmDaleyrocks,
I would rather not have entered this public fight, but had to do it. I stood up, identified myself, and told the truth.
You on the other hand lie without guilt and live your life as an anonymous troll. There’s nothing admirable about the way you conduct yourself, and you have nothing to show for it. Real men and women in a free society stand up and put their name behind their views. In your case, putting your real name behind your views would no doubt instantly discredit you even more than your anonymity–otherwise why keep it a secret? Your mama might object and cut off your internet privileges? Your criminal record might become known? Whatever you are hiding, and I suspect it is a lot, is not negated or outweighed by your joining a mob of liars and racists. One thing I do know–you are not a practicing lawyer; you can’t hold your corner, and cry when when your opponent is not “nice”.
Anyway, I’m done with you. This exchange produced what I though it would: de facto admission of your making recklessly false statements and your fleeing the forum, tail between your legs.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/6/2008 @ 11:36 pmWell, I for one am impressed.
A real live lawyer talking like a bully.
That probably works well in the courtroom, too. Imagine, just like Perry Mason!
steve miller (724340) — 7/6/2008 @ 11:49 pmada,
Your comment #7 is asking for a banning. What is wrong with you?
Drumwaster #35:
What does Mr. Sanai’s background have to do with this?
Patterico (6a0b91) — 7/7/2008 @ 12:36 amThe full-frontal confrontation works well against liars, racists and those who talk way above their knowledge, “steve miller”. It’s not bullying; it is demonstrating, forensically, that daleyrocks is a liar afraid to make known his real name. Those who enter this debate making ad hominem attacks can’t complain when the issue is raised as to them.
What’s interesting about this debate is that none of the pro-Kozinski forces every want to address the real issue that connects my case to Kozinski’s website: Kozinski’s endorsement, back in 2005 via his website, of state court judicial corruption (namely the appointment of a private litigant’s accountant as a judicial referee).
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/7/2008 @ 12:39 amPatterico,
#7 is a KKK style demand for a lynching. If that does not get one banned, what does?
#35 is, again, racist, though aimed at the lesser-of-two-Iranians.
It’s interesting that my arguments bring out the wannabee Grand Wizards like ada and Drumwaster out in their bedsheets. But I guess since my federal suit relied on a statute passed as part of the Klu Klux Klan Act of 1871, it should not be so surprising that I’m the subject of an Internet cross-burning.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 7/7/2008 @ 12:48 amIn response, I would have to ask what Mr. Daleyrocks’ anonymity would have to do with the accuracy of his statements.
One cannot cast aspersions on another’s character then cry “Foul” when aspersions are cast in return.
Similarly, in “Mister” Sanai’s comment at # 40, he has collectively referred to anyone who disagrees with him, yet decides to not post under open identity, as “criminals”, “liars” and “racists”.
Just because they disagree with him.
(As an aside, given his blatant cyberstalking, his repeated attempts at bullying anyone who disagrees with him and his hyperlitigious tendencies, I don’t doubt that he would attempt to sue into submission anyone who poked fun at him, the instant that he found a method of sufficient identification to allow for legal service, in a “sue ’em ’til they bleed” tactic intended to stifle the free expression of political or ideological opposition to his nonsense. A favored tactic for those who use the judicial system as a club (like the Mary Kate and Ashley Petrano twins) who cannot win on the factsm cannot win on the law, and cannot win in the opinions of the public, so must resort to the “You just wait… I’m gonna sue!” tactic of all bullies who have just tasted their own blood for the first time.
I misdoubt that he would gleefully accept anyone who would support his misguided views on credibility, even if they were similarly anonymous, yet without the libelous comments he is so fond of resorting to.
I will repeat, he should look up that old saw about pots and kettles.
As for the “Iranian of the Month”, if he feels it will increase his stature to be associated with – and honored by – that nation, then more power to him and he should broadcast that “honor” to the greatest extent possible and see how that works for him. Rotsa ruck.
He deserves no honest consideration, and should be forced to live with the ignominy of his shameful acts.
I would spit on him, if I didn’t have better uses for my saliva.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/7/2008 @ 3:32 amYikes.
Now I’m “talking above my knowledge.” I don’t know when I’ve ever been so thoroughly refuted.
steve miller (724340) — 7/7/2008 @ 3:44 amIf anyone wants to know about me, he can view my profile on my site.
We are not all on a mission to satisfy our Oedipal urges through the courts, the newspapers and the internet. Some of us just come here to read about interesting things posted by our hosts and to discuss them with interesting people. Whether we want to reveal our “true identities” is a matter strictly between us, our hosts and our fellow commenters.
nk (479e05) — 7/7/2008 @ 4:11 amThe vitriol against the Kozinskis by Cyrus and the two nutcases in Florida is excessive and on occasion calls for excessive responses. All we know for sure about Judge Kozinski is that he had a bunch of crap on his computer. That’s all. What we know about Cyrus and the Petranos is that they both have unhealthy obsessions about the judge with more than a tinge of malice and a unique perspective on reality.
As for me, I really don’t much care about the judge or the issue.
I do notice a self-identified lawyer is using hiss office as a way to stifle dissent. “You are speaking above your knowledge” is a way to say “shut up, boy. I’m smarter than you.”
Am I a lawyer? No, and I don’t claim to be an expert in the law. Am I someone who has a stake in the outcome of the case? No, no more than any other citizen. I do watch Perry Mason. That Warren Burger is a great guy, isn’t he?
Can I point out flaws with the methods and arguments used by the loons and lawyers who are writing against the judge? Sure. It’s Patterico’s blog, and I (so far) have that privilege.
Can some lawyer threaten me to make me shut up? Sure, he can threaten. But that’s about all he can do. I’ve not made any threats against him, nor have I said anything that’s a lie or is wrong. Of course, lawyers can do all sorts of things to use their power to make non-lawyers shut up and sit down. I doubt if there’s much that can be done here, though.
It would be better, I think, for a lawyer who claims to be involved in the case to keep his arguments for the court rather than post on a blog trying to tell people to shut up.
steve miller (724340) — 7/7/2008 @ 4:33 amI started out using my screen name many years ago, when Prodigy was the latest cool thing, because I was still on active duty, and some of my personal views would have gotten me into trouble.
It became more important when I began blogging.
It became critically so when I got my first death threat from somebody who didn’t like what I said about some public candidate or other. (Threats to my wife – who had nothing to do with my blog – just sealed the deal.)
But for someone to ignore the points raised in an argument simply because the person who makes it chooses to use a pseudonym is the apex of stupidity. Has he never heard of the Federalist Papers (written by three authors under the pseudonym “Publius”)? The dozens of successful authors who write under various pen names (and the thousands of not so famous ones)? The number of celebrities who have changed their name?
Patterico has chosen to make his name publicly connected with this site, but would any of the points raised by him be somehow less valid if he had chosen to just use “Patterico”, with no connection with his public persona?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/7/2008 @ 4:33 amI wouldn’t be surprised if this lawyer is trying to get pseudonymous posters to reveal their names just so he can go after them.
Lots of arguments are made by people using pen/blogger names. How does that dilute their argument? In some narrow cases, it might. (A blogger who uses a pseudonym and posts about others’ use of pseudonyms as being bad would be such a case, I guess.)
But here, it’s being bandied about as a way to distract from the real issues.
steve miller (724340) — 7/7/2008 @ 4:41 amAs for the “Iranian of the Month”, if he feels it will increase his stature to be associated with – and honored by – that nation, then more power to him and he should broadcast that “honor” to the greatest extent possible and see how that works for him. Rotsa ruck.
Well, that’s just stupid on a number of levels. He’s not associating himself with the Iranian *government* but with the people — a people, I’ll remind you, that is generally quite pro-American. I have met citizens from Iran before and would never think to denigrate them because they are from that country.
Mr. Sanai, I have deleted ada’s comment at #7. It does not meet the standards of the site. I have given ada a warning that such comments are inappropriate.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/7/2008 @ 6:23 amThen, as I said, he should be proud to broadcast that fact, and see where it gets him. I, too, have met people whose families fled after Carter abandoned the Shah, and while they are proud of their heritage, they are MORE proud of the nation who took them in and allowed them to succeed despite the “official” disagreements between the nations.
I feel that if it were “Iranian-American of the Month”, that’s one thing, but this is not what he was given.
His choice, and given his dismissive attitudes towards anyone who is not a lawyer, it seems not the least hypocritical to suggest that he try ever more offensive advertising strategies, such as: “Cyrus Sanai: because he’s knows more than you” or perhaps “I’ll break into the private property of Federal Judge’s to try to win a case”.
Because if all he can come up with is “I’m a lawyer and you’re not”, that isn’t the best selling point…
If he wants an apology, let him demand it, and maybe I’ll take it up with my people and see what he’s worth. So far, he hasn’t even risen to the level of “I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on his ass if his piles were on fire”, so he shouldn’t hold out much hope.
I respect those working to punish the guilty and protect the innocent victims, but I don’t respect bullies and I don’t respect ambulance chasers.
In my opinion, Cyrus the Not-So-Great is both.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/7/2008 @ 6:49 amCyrus is once again transparently trying to shift the focus of discussion to irrelevant topics when it becomes uncomfortable for him. My identity means nothing at all to the Kozinski kerfuffle because I am not a party to it. As the super genuis lawyer which Cyrus portrays himself he knows this, or at least I hope he knows this.
He is just annoyed that I did not buy the public spin he tried to put on his actions from day one and continued to point out facts which were inconvenient to that spin and ask questions related to those facts. He remains too much of a coward to answer those questions. The facts I dug up are from publicly available information and material and carefully omitted from Mr. Sanai’s publicly crafted spin to cast himself in the best possible light, much as he did in 2005. He doesn’t like it when people show the negative side of his character, even though it is a matter of public record.
His contention that at the beginning of this thread that Kozinski’s actions taken in his workplace in 2001 are somehow directly related to a home computer in 2008 are facially ludicrous.
Cyrus’ comments are again an attempt to intimidate people into silence and divert attention away from where it really belongs.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/7/2008 @ 6:57 amThis is a lie, Cyrus. You initiated this whole fiasco, intentionally.
You have yet to provide a scintilla of evidence to support your accusation. Given your uncomfortable relationship with the truth, one could suspect that you are just making shite up.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/7/2008 @ 7:33 amEarlier in this thread, assistant devil’s advocate made a comment that was inappropriate for the site. It was removed. It was not a threat, but Mr. Sanai took it as one, and has requested me to give him ada’s “identifying information” to help him make a police report.
I would do so if someone on my site made a specific, credible threat. I determined that ada’s comment, while incredibly inappropriate, was not a specific and credible threat, and that it was sufficient to delete it. I declined Mr. Sanai’s request for more information on ada.
Mr. Sanai has now stated that he will take the matter “to the next level.” He did not elaborate on what that means.
I am still mulling over how to handle this — not the turning over of information, which I believe is unnecessary — but whether to ban ada. I am very, very angry at ada for placing me in this position, as I have zero sympathy for someone who makes comments like he made. I am still considering banning him — not to placate Mr. Sanai, as I don’t think banning ada will placate him — but because it may be the right thing to do. At the very least, ada owes me a big apology, and frankly, he owes Mr. Sanai one as well.
Patterico (334717) — 7/7/2008 @ 12:38 pmIf I were you, I’d ban ADA for posting the comment, and ban Sinai for making his asshole threats.
Xrlq (5a246b) — 7/7/2008 @ 5:46 pmWell, since I don’t know precisely what Mr. Sanai means, I don’t know for sure that they are “threats.” If he were to threaten me with some sort of legal action, I probably would be banning him. As it is, though, I’m working hard to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/7/2008 @ 5:56 pmI’ve no doubt he’ll remove all doubt soon, Pat.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/7/2008 @ 6:01 pmI know you do everything you can to encourage full and courteous debate, and I’m sorry you have been put in this position. I hope both ada and Cyrus Sanai will make an effort to resolve this promptly and online.
DRJ (d5bcc5) — 7/7/2008 @ 6:04 pmi apologize to patterico for my comment which offended him and transgressed the standards of his blog.
assistant devil's advocate (e30999) — 7/8/2008 @ 7:28 am“Transgressed the standards.” Wow, talk about a canned apology. Let’s hear it for fake sincerity.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 12:47 pmAnd the first tarmac lizard (Alan #61) chimes in:
nk (2336ef) — 7/8/2008 @ 1:50 pm“Transgressed the standards.” Wow, talk about a canned apology. Let’s hear it for fake sincerity.“Are you going to let him get away with that, Bubba?”“Tarmac lizard”?
Is that like a post turtle?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 1:52 pmNah, it’s a lady of negotiable virtue hanging around truck stops and beer bars. Older monicker, “pickup queen”. There’s nothing they like better than egging on the boyfriend of the evening (or the hour) into a bloody-knuckled fight.
nk (2336ef) — 7/8/2008 @ 1:58 pmAh. The kind of woman who can tell the make and model of automobile by how the upholstery looks from a ‘flat on her back’ position in the backseat. Got it.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 2:07 pmHey, ada, read Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods. Not only is it the most entertaining book about paganism you will ever read, it also tells you how you can join the pantheon.
nk (2336ef) — 7/8/2008 @ 2:08 pmnk – “lot lizard” is the current vernacular I believe.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/8/2008 @ 2:40 pmI wasn’t trying to get two people to fight each other. I wrote what I wrote because I think ada gave an incredibly forced-sounding apology, and, more generally, because I think he’s a total shithead.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:03 pm“and, more generally, because I think he’s a total shithead.”
There’s the important part, right Alan.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:10 pmSo, with your biased POV, are you sure you would have given the benefit of the doubt and accept his apology in the first place? Or would you have preferred a little groveling?
Because – either way – it’s not your place to accept or reject.
Nor is it mine.
Care to guess whose it is?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:14 pm70–Objection, relevance?
I’m well aware that it’s only Patterico’s place to accept or reject ada’s BS apology. That doesn’t mean that no one else gets to point out that ada isn’t really sorry about making a bigoted comment.
I don’t want, and I didn’t ask for, groveling or anything of the like. Frankly, I don’t care what form ada’s fake contrition takes. That doesn’t mean he’s somehow immune to criticism.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:19 pmOverruled. Answer the question.
That is ONLY YOUR PERCEPTION of the issue, and you have already explicitly stated that you have a biased point of view.
Testimony stricken from the record as hearsay.
Witness dismissed.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:21 pmFunny, your first response was “Wow, talk about a canned apology. Let’s hear it for fake sincerity.”
Sounds like you cared enough to be snotty about it.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:22 pmDo you even know what hearsay is?
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:24 pmYeah, it means that you don’t know the facts from your own experience, but only heard about them from others, yet are attempting to testify as though you had seen them with your own eyes.
As opposed to “heresy” which is a religious accusation involving lacunae with which I will not concern myself.
(You don’t have to have a JD to sling the lingo. Try looking up “sesquipedalian autodidact”. You’ll see my picture.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:28 pmDrumwaster, consider the possibility that Alan qualifies as an expert witness regarding being a “shithead”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:34 pmBy definition, it’s only hearsay if offered to prove the truth of what the “others” have asserted. Everyone agrees that ada made a bigoted comment and that he apologized, so I’m not trying to prove the truth of those things. What exactly am I trying to prove, that others have asserted? That ada is a prick? That’s just my opinion based on what I’ve seen ada post, and my impression of him, based on his comments, don’t constitute hearsay. (I’m of course setting aside any issue of whether the person posting as ada is in fact ada. But that’s irrelevant because no one disputes it and because, since I don’t know who ada is, I’m merely offering my opinion of whoever is posting as ada.) Even if it did constitute hearsay, which it didn’t, it wouldn’t be subject to exclusion under the hearsay rule because, what I’m recalling of ada’s own assertions, I’m offering into “evidence” against him–and a statement of the party-opponent offered against the party-opponent is not subject to exclusion on hearsay grounds.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:36 pmThe LAT did not get it then, and does not get it now. Judge Kozinski did not have “porn”, nor would any of the material on the Judge’s web server bear any relationship to the material on trial in the referenced prosecution: Video’s of women with excrement smeared on their faces and the like.
Stephen Gianelli (6ce4e5) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:42 pmI for one would like the LAT to explain the logical nexus between the two. (Hint: it cannot, because there is none.)
Ah. I must ask Alan: Is this in fact the case? Are you an expert witness on being a shithead?
It doesn’t contribute to the discussion at hand, because you have no standing. You wouldn’t even qualify for an Amicus brief…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:43 pmOf course I’m an expert witness on being a shithead. I’m qualified by experience, thanks to my dealings with you and SPQR.
Okay, so now that you’ve proven that you don’t know what hearsay is, should I ask you about standing?
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:47 pmI supposed I could be an expert witness in the subject, although I’ve never been qualified by a trial court as such.
To date, at least.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:56 pmDon’t have to. You have none.
This is not your blog. You are not a party to the original dispute. You’re only contribution is an admittedly biased opinion.
Tell me how you think you have any right to have an opinion, much less a qualified one.
Hell, I’m not entitled to an opinion on this matter, either, but at least I know it. You obviously haven’t progressed that far up the food chain yet.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 3:59 pmYou’re = Your
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 4:00 pm“Don’t have to [show that you know the meaning of the concept you yourself brought up]. You have none.”
Ahhh, the sweet sound of someone who brings up a concept he doesn’t understand, twice in a row, and doesn’t want to be caught a second time.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 4:07 pmOf course, since this isn’t a real suit, I don’t know why you even brought up the standing issue, unless it was just a failed attempt at clever snarkiness. Yeah, I think that explanation fits.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 4:11 pmStanding. You didn’t dispute the standing issue. (That whole “You have none” bit you included.) You disputed the hearsay issue. (It’s still inadmissible as evidence, because you were not present when the event occurred.)
Your testimony would be hearsay, you utterly lack standing. And you claim that I don’t understand the issues?
Why would you need to redact crucial data like that, when the quote is so much shorter? Is it because you knew you were in the wrong? Exactly what was wrong with my definition? The fact that it didn’t get cut-and-pasted from the dictionary?
Uh, huh.
Two reasons.
One: you still have none. It’s not your place to decide what kind of apology would be acceptable. Not in the slightest degree.
Two: you were the smartass who used legal lingo first, with your “Objection, relevance” snarkiness (comment #71). So I would gladly agree that your attempt at failed snarkiness pretty much summed it up.
Now, since you have admitted that you have nothing to say, pretend that it’s actually true, rather than displaying your stupidity for all to see.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 4:23 pmNot offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, therefore not hearsay. You don’t understand that, so you don’t understand the issue. Even if what I said were hearsay, which it isn’t, it still wouldn’t be inadmissible hearsay because not all hearsay is inadmissible. One well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule is for a statement of a party-opponent. Anything from ada that I offer against ada would not be inadmissible on hearsay grounds. The fact that I wasn’t there to see ada type it or hear ada say it is irrelevant, since what I’m saying, I’m saying about whoever posted as ada. Obviously someone posted the stupid, the bigoted, and the dishonest things he said, and my criticism was directed at whoever that is. Your continuing failure to understand that only underscores your idiocy.
There’s a difference between using legal lingo (which I did) and using a legal concept that has no relevance outside the context of the law (which you did). If you can’t see that difference, how many angels can dance on your head? When I said “Objection, relevance,” I was using lawyers’ language to make a point that can be (and here was) made in a nonlegal context–the fact that what you said was completely irrelevant. Standing is different because standing is a purely legal concept with no analogue that could be pertinent in this context. The fact that I didn’t suffer the invasion of a legally protected interest fairly traceable to ada’s conduct and likely to be redressed by a court ruling in my favor is beside the point because (I’ll repeat, because apparently once isn’t enough for a moron like you) it doesn’t mean I have no reason to criticize ada for giving a BS apology. I’m well aware that it’s not my place to decide what kind of apology would be acceptable, which I already said and you obviously missed, but that doesn’t mean that only Patterico should criticize ada for pretending to be sorry. Anyone should criticize ada for being the ass that he is, even people who don’t run the site where ada made his comments. Even you concede the point when you write posts responding to me, beginning with your mega-asshole responses to my perfectly legitimate criticisms of John McCain. This isn’t your website, and yet you said the things I’m sure you remember. So even you, stupid as you are, aren’t dumb enough to buy your own reasoning that if it’s not your site then it’s not your place to criticize someone who’s posting on it.
I never admitted that I have nothing to say; that’s just another lie from you. In fact, I still have more: You’re a retard.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 8:10 pmOh, so he’s NOT being insincere? Perjury.
ONLY Patterico is in a position to determine the necessary level of sincerity.
Are you starting to get it? Your kibitz was for no other reason than to persuade Patterico to take harsh(er) actions against someone you called a “shithead”. And for no other reason than because you think he’s a shithead.
You are very much trying to prove the “truth” of the matter with your assertion. What if Pat had decided to take it at its face value, forgive and forget, and let it go? That would be his “truth” of the matter, and sufficient for the task. Your insert was just an attempt to impose your own version of the “truth”, and that is not based on any action you witnessed, but only on what you found out later, then flavored with your stipulated bias, and it is that which you took into “court” with you.
Hearsay evidence, total lack of standing.
Witness dismissed. Case dismissed with prejudice (as far as you are concerned).
Do NOT start with me. You will NOT win.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/8/2008 @ 8:30 pmdaleyrocks #67 is likely right that it’s “lot lizard”. “Tarmac lizard” may well be a random, local thing. And “ladies of negotiable affection” (as opposed to “ladies of negotiable virtue”) is the more proper terminology, too.
nk (2336ef) — 7/8/2008 @ 8:42 pm“Your kibitz was for no other reason than to persuade Patterico to take harsh(er) actions against someone you called a ‘shithead’.”
Hey, Kreskin? I wasn’t trying to persuade Patterico to ban ada or otherwise “take harsh(er) action”; I was doing it because ada is a dick and I like criticizing him. The same reason I respond to some of the things you say.
“Oh, so he’s NOT being insincere? Perjury.”
Have you ever slipped in your own drool? I do think he’s being insincere. Since he never asserted he was insincere, any statement of his that I use as evidence of his insincerity can’t be hearsay because it’s not offered to prove the truth of the declarant’s assertion. He’s the declarant; I’m pointing to the phrasing–not the content, the phrasing–of the declarant’s assertion as proof that the declarant’s assertion was BS; therefore, by definition, his assertion isn’t offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. How many times do you have to see that, idiot? The assertion–what ada intended to convey–was that he was sorry. If I examine the phrasing of an apology to prove that the apology is a lie, that doesn’t make it hearsay.
And even if it were hearsay… that still wouldn’t be sufficient to make it inadmissible.
“ONLY Patterico is in a position to determine the necessary level of sincerity.”
Patterico is the only person who’s in a position to decide what’s sincere enough that ada should be allowed to continue posting. But I never had any intention of persuading Patterico to ban ada. Even if I did, I wouldn’t have tried, because I know Patterico is no fonder of me than you are.
What’s completely wrong is to imply, as you repeatedly have, that only Patterico is in a position to say that ada was giving a BS apology. That makes you dumb as dirt. Anyone with a brain in his head can look at the way ada phrased his apology and see that it was about as sincere as you are smart.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 8:51 pmI suspect that arguing the details of the hearsay exception in discussing the sincerity of an apology is not a sign of high IQ, Alan. But feel free to put it on your C.V.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/8/2008 @ 8:54 pmI’d say the same about everything I’ve seen you post on this site.
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 8:59 pmAlan, yes but clearly you wouldn’t say it as wittily.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:00 pmPlease stop throwing oil on the fire, Alan. Both ada and Cyrus put Patterico in a difficult position. Just behave like a man and not some dumb fucking peroxide blonde bitch looking to trade her snatch for a few drinks, a few bucks, a meal and a fist fight, and keep your lot lizard mouth shut.
nk (2336ef) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:01 pmnk, after what an ass you’ve always been to me on this site, why the hell would I accede to any request you’ve made?
Alan (0cf397) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:02 pmOK, I bow to nk’s skill.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:02 pmnk, after what an ass you’ve always been to me on this site, why the hell would I accede to any request you’ve made?
I did say “please”. Why don’t you think about the rest I said? Does a man talk like you did? Especially in a situation like this?
nk (2336ef) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:14 pmAlan,
I would appreciate it if you would let this go. Ada’s apology may have been awkwardly phrased but I’ve been reading his comments a long time and I think he is trying to resolve the situation. Let’s give Patterico some space to try to resolve it, too.
DRJ (d5bcc5) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:37 pmnk – I like the usage in the sentence. I wasn’t trying to critical of your terminology earlier, I had heard the descriptor several times recently from people in the long haul business.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/8/2008 @ 9:58 pmI have to admit, all the racial commentary was so silly. I’m Iranian myself, and I’ll tell you , it has nothing to do with it (I realize that Cyrus is obviously a criminal, and that Mary Petrano is not mentally healthy, and that Koz is a great public servant who knew he was taking the risk of being attacked by wierdos like Cyrus).
ADA’s apology is what it is (and seems sincere enough to me), and of course it isn’t my place to say who gets to stay, but I can’t imagine not banning someone for that kind of thing. Not because of PC ideals, but because it’s so counterproductive to discussion. ADA is a great commenter otherwise, but this site is worse with him than without him in my opinion.
That Cyrus is issuing legal threats is comically unsurprising. His sockpuppet threatened me with a libel suit because I asked him a few simple ‘yes or no’ questions. Patterico got some much deserved publicity, but I’m sure he knew the risk with even communicating with Cyrus: anyone who doesn’t cave to him in every way is ‘fair game’, L Ron Hubbard style. And after all, Cyrus is getting huge notoriety, spurring investigations of extremely lofty public servants, etc., basically for being a criminal, and Cyrus hasn’t yet faced any real punishment even though so many judges have noted his contempt for the legal system. He’s going to continue to escalate because he isn’t seeing any consequences, and I sure hope Patterico is not a target of Cyrus’s further attempts to abuse people with lawsuits.
Cyrus entered this forum and repeatedly lied, changed his story, and even though he was given a much more than fair hearing here, has decided to attack the proprietor. Sadly, I’m sure he sees even this kind of attention from me as some kind of validation.
Those behind Cyrus’s attack must be brought to justice.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/8/2008 @ 10:24 pmJuan, Cyrus has not yet faced real punishment but his tactics require that he continually “double-down” on the bet. Eventually, that tactic fails and fails catastrophically.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/8/2008 @ 10:28 pmAlan may be a jerk, but he is right about standing and hearsay, or more specifically, about Drumwaster throwing both terms around without having a f’ing clue what either of them means. He’s also right about ADA’s apology being pretty damned lame, not so much because it was forced (that was inevitable) but because he apologized solely to Patterico for offending him and failing to adhere to the blog’s standards, and not to Cyrus (a class A jerk in his own right, but that’s neither here nor there) as Patterico has indicated that he should.
DRJ, I agree it’s up to Patterico to decide but I don’t see him telling the rest of us to cease discussing the issue. He’s a big boy; if he wants to end that line of discussion he’s free to do so at any time. Until he does, all of us – even Alan – are free to weigh in.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 7/9/2008 @ 4:21 amXrlq, I agree that Patterico wouldn’t have mentioned it here if he was opposed to us discussion ADA’s future. He seems to be well aware that this is a community; though not a democracy, our thoughts are at least relevant.
I don’t think I would be able to apologize to Cyrus either… he’s just so base, and there was no threat (in other words, cyrus is actually also quite offensive to ADA to be inventing a serious charge and threatening Patterico and ADA, etc etc, so it’s not like ADA is beneath Cyrus even after ADA said very offensive stuff). It’s not really relevant. Even at the top of this pag Cyrus makes a ridiculous assertion as though it’s obvious and claims the older editorial comments were not editorial but mere reportage (it is called Tarrif, if I recall, in farci, to blatantly lie in normal conversation). I don’t know if Cyrus’s english is as poor as mine, or if he’s still got the ticks of Farci where you dramatically overstate your POV, because Cyrus is so much more malevolent about his exaggerations and he doesn’t give others the slack he expects to receive.
It’s hilarious that the LA times bounces from reasonable to insane. It only proves they knew they were wrong. “So what?” was the correct reaction to a small amount of mild porn, and outrage was the correct response to Cyrus’s course of action. We all know that the LA Times realizes this, but they are in the business of swaying minds, not informing us of reality. Their insane opinion of their place interferes with their basic purpose (similarly, racist anger ruins a comment thread’s basic purpose).
Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:58 amJuan said:
Mary Petrano is not mentally healthy
Juan, as demonstrated by the numerous references to AnnTm in the Judge K post, you can obviously appreciate the fact Mary Petrano has suffered a great deal of EMOTIONAL DISTRESS over the fact an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals law clerk working on Mary Petrano’s cases before that court openly stated on her federal court computer (thanks to Judge K eliminating the WebSense firewall) she was “psycho-obsessed” with Mary Petrano and planned to “find” her in Florida.
I think if you (or anyone else on this blog) had open appeals pending in an appellate court and read the criminal threats made by a law clerk working for the judge who heard your case, you would be upset as well.
In closing, please spare the attacks on my wife. As you can appreciate, eliminating the WebSense firewall has caused a great deal of harm to my wife, the nature of which Judge K knew or should have known would occur the moment he eliminated the Websense firewall.
Such
David F. Petrano Esq. (43c0b0) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:39 amThank you DFP for setting Juan straight. I have suffered mental anguish and emotional distress from “AnnTM’s” deliberate rigging of my Americans With Disabilities Act court access and bar admission cases in the Eleventh Circuit, but even more so on account of her carrying out a complete destruction of my ability to obtain my Calif. and Florida attorneys licenses and maintain employment anywhere.
The only real remedy I can fathom would be for the:
(1.) Ninth Circuit to recall the mandate in my Hon. Susan Illson case and enter an order for the Calif. Supreme Court to admit me to practice in Calif. (retroactively to 1990), and
(2.) Eleventh Circuit to recall the mandate in Hon. Susan Bucklew cases and enter an order for the FLa. Supreme Court to admit me to practice in Fla. (retroactive to fall 2002).
Like Virgin Hawkins, THAT is the only reparation remedy that would compensate THIS vile miscarriage of justice.
MKDPs (45d150) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:16 amIt is like a gift that keeps on giving.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:37 amIndeed I am very sympathetic to Mary Petrano. I mean that completely un-sarcastically. Much of the accusations brought up are a little hard to believe, but some of them aren’t so hard to believe.
but she herself is too aggressive, and frankly has been for the years I’ve dealt with her, to be very credible as a source on pretty much any prominent legal actor in California. I do wish her the best, but not at the expense of so many people.
It’s hard to discuss the actions of the ‘distressed’, to use her term, without seeming callous, I guess.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:49 amSomeone didn’t pass the Remedies course either evidently.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:32 amJuan – I appreciate your thoughts on Cyrus. He appears to be the sort of dirtbag to whom if you show the slightest flexibility he takes it as weakness and tries to exploit it. He is a small man with an exaggerated sense of self-importance and intelligence. His obvious dissembling here and on other blogs, which apparently only he cannot see, make the saga and his ongoing participation in it fun to watch. By taking his complaints and strategy public, rather than leaving it with proper judicial disciplinary authorities, Cyrus has made himself a target of public scorn. Contrary to his claims, there was no compulsion on Cyrus to go public. That was the avenue he chose from Day 1.
daleyrocks (24dba4) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:47 amTranslated: I really hate the Americans With Disabilities Act because it gives disabled Americans equality of opportunity and Court and bar admission access “at the expense of so many people” who cannot compete with a high functioning 100% photographic memory autistic due to those other “many people” having been born with mentally defective memories requiring A-B-C-D memory cuing features as a crutch to “pass the test.”
SPQR, it’s a given you have no concept of Virgil Hawkins civil rights bar admission jurisprudence in the State of Florida. Now take a deep breath and say to yourself, “I will think outside the A/B/C/D box today.”
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:54 pmHave I dealt with you?
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:57 pmMKDP, I’ll take a deep breath and say “I’ll try not to sprain a rib laughing today”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:58 pmI always shoot for the k?x?q?Z box myself.
Your translation bears no resemblence to what was written KMPD. If you have a photographic memory, why was your transcript wrong in the link above?
JD (75f5c3) — 7/10/2008 @ 12:59 pmOh, so those whom you see as having a disability requiring special assistance is somehow now beneath your notice, Ms “I’ll use the ADA to get what I want, and fuck the rest of them”?
With your “photographic memory” you still get things wrong – the court transcript, who said what and in which threads, etc.?
Must be one of those pinhole cameras. Goes well with the pinhead claiming it…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:10 pmnk,
your facts regarding Petranos v. Mistress are patently false. If you are going to discuss the facts of my case, do so with accuracy, otherwise please be so kind to retract your entire statement, as i consider it defamatory with reckless disregard for the truth. It is quite easy for you to PACER the case yourself.
I know it must really bug you knowing that AnnTm a/k/a Elizabeth Oyer, Esq., has not surfaced to respond to the numerous posts (as pasted above) that she made while employed at the 11th Circuit on court computers, at such time MKDP’s cases were pending before her judge.
As I have stated many times before, if Judge K had not lifted the WebSense firewall, such AnnTm mischief would have never occurred in the first place.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:42 pmPetrano, are you ever going to learn the real elements of defamation? Your continual claims of libel/defamation where none exists is not helping your credibility.
It just makes you look like an incompetent.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:45 pmPetranos – My legal opinion is that you are not a good lawyer. Goddam roast beef cutters.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:48 pmYou are being far too kind, SPQR.
JD (75f5c3) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:49 pmJD, its one of my character flaws. I’m too nice.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:50 pmnk,
your facts regarding Petranos v. Mistress are patently false. If you are going to discuss the facts of my case, do so with accuracy, otherwise please be so kind to retract your entire statement, as i consider it defamatory with reckless disregard for the truth.
It is the best information I have from official court documents, publicly available to persons without the benefit of a disability service horse, *counsel*. You may give us your version and both can compete in the “market place of ideas” protected by the First Amendment as decided in New York Times v. Sullivan. (Not to mention Escobedo v. Illinois, Roe v. Wade and Boumediene v. Bush.)*
*This parenthetical is total bulls*** but who knows, it may work with *Esq*.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 1:54 pmWhen a plaintiff is suing just for money and he has no ground at all for obtaining a money judgment, the fact that his rights may have been violated does not save his suit from being adjudged frivolous.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:00 pmEagle Service Corp. v. H2O Industrial Services
You are right, nk, that’s fun.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:00 pmI have this mental image of Mr. Esq as the character “Darren” from “Bewitched”. Including the black-and-white. (The first one – the one who was replaced without a ripple.)
With Gladys Kravitz playing Mary Kate.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:04 pmDavid F. Petrano, Esq. knows, or has reason to know, that I am an attorney. Therefore, his baseless allegations that I am wrong in my analysis of the cases I have found regarding him and his wife are a slur on my professional reputation and defamation per se and I claim his boat and all periodic income he may have above the federally-mandated minimum wage as just recompense.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:10 pmSo you admit you have dealt with me for many years, and find my autism to really bother you because you view my autism as making me “too aggresive” meaning ‘too male brained.’ Oh just discriminate on, my good friend. I hope you are not Patricia Scotlan, Esq., or any Judge who has sat on any of my Calif. cases.
“Males obviously produce far more prenatal testosterone than females do, but levels vary considerably even across members of the same sex. In fact, it may not be your sex per se that determines what kind of brain you have, but your prenatal hormone levels. From there it’s a short leap to the intriguing idea that a male can have a typically female brain (if his testosterone levels are low), while a female can have a typically male brain (if her testosterone levels are high). That notion fits with the evidence that girls born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who for genetic reasons produce too much testosterone, are more likely to exhibit “tomboy” behavior than girls with more ordinary hormone levels.
What does all this have to do with autism? According to what I have called the “extreme male brain” theory of autism, people with autism simply match an extreme of the male profile, with a particularly intense drive to systemize and an unusually low drive to empathize. When adults with Asperger’s syndrome (a subgroup on the autistic spectrum) took the same questionnaires we gave to non-autistic adults, they exhibited extreme Type S brains. Psychological tests reveal a similar pattern.
And this analysis makes sense. It helps explain the social disability in autism, because empathy difficulties make it harder to make and maintain relationships with others. It also explains the “islets of ability” that people with autism display in subjects like math or music or drawing – all skills that benefit from systemizing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08baron-cohen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Sounds like you may be admitting you were involved in detetermining some of my Calif. case outcomes predicated on illegal discrimination against my autism, as descried above.
Please, explain yourself some more …
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:12 pmP.S. If the slur came from his boat, I claim a right to arrest the boat as well under applicable admiralty law.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:12 pmSo you admit you have dealt with me for many years, and find my autism to really bother you because you view my autism as making me “too aggresive” meaning ‘too male brained.’ Oh just discriminate on, my good friend. I hope you are not Patricia Scotlan, Esq., or any Judge who has sat on any of my Calif. cases. It would be easier to fathom if you are merely Eugene or “AnnTM.”
“Males obviously produce far more prenatal testosterone than females do, but levels vary considerably even across members of the same sex. In fact, it may not be your sex per se that determines what kind of brain you have, but your prenatal hormone levels. From there it’s a short leap to the intriguing idea that a male can have a typically female brain (if his testosterone levels are low), while a female can have a typically male brain (if her testosterone levels are high). That notion fits with the evidence that girls born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who for genetic reasons produce too much testosterone, are more likely to exhibit “tomboy” behavior than girls with more ordinary hormone levels.
What does all this have to do with autism? According to what I have called the “extreme male brain” theory of autism, people with autism simply match an extreme of the male profile, with a particularly intense drive to systemize and an unusually low drive to empathize. When adults with Asperger’s syndrome (a subgroup on the autistic spectrum) took the same questionnaires we gave to non-autistic adults, they exhibited extreme Type S brains. Psychological tests reveal a similar pattern.
And this analysis makes sense. It helps explain the social disability in autism, because empathy difficulties make it harder to make and maintain relationships with others. It also explains the “islets of ability” that people with autism display in subjects like math or music or drawing – all skills that benefit from systemizing.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08baron-cohen.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Sounds like you may be admitting you were involved in detetermining some of my Calif. case outcomes predicated on illegal discrimination against my autism, as described above.
Please, explain yourself some more …
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:13 pmMKDP #125,
Enough of the “autism” bullshit. At what age were you diagnoses autistic by a doctor? At what age were you diagnoses autistic by a doctor? At what age were you diagnoses autistic by a doctor? At what age were you diagnoses autistic by a doctor? At what age were you diagnoses autistic by a doctor?
Will you answer that question or just confess, sub silencio, that you are a liar and fraud and just quit this site?
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:17 pmSPQR, is that an ADA case? The ADA incorporates and makes part of the ADA remedy any other law not in conflict with (and thereby preempted by) the ADA. Like Molski got the hang of ADA-Unruh Act cases producing a Title III business money remedy, so too does Florida have its own counterpart to that: ADA-Fla. Stat. Sec. 415.1111 producing a money remedy.
SPQR, you are so ‘Old School,’ and not-up-to-date on ADA litigation. A superficial reader, too. What, are you way too busy to actually do your research before you speak?
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:17 pmDoesn’t have to be, in order to apply. But no one here would doubt your expertise as to what is frivolous. (As to what is NOT frivolous, I have seen no evidence that you and that condition have ever been in the same county, much less the same building, even at different times.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:20 pmProvide me your legal right under HIPAA and Calif. CMIA to have such disclosure and access to my confidential medical records, and, if you can prove one, draft a proper HIPAA-Calif. CMIA non-disclosure agreement with business associate agreement, let me review it, and then, and only then, will I provide you medical reports stating autism.
I can prove I have autism, but I don’t see where you can prove you have a legal right to this proof or are bound by signed legal docs not to disclose the proof publicly for purposes of more of your same mockery of my autism.
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:21 pmOh, please, pray tell … exactly HOW does it apply? Squarely “on all fours” because your cited case and my cases all have in common that they are printed in small print on paper I can’t see to read?
MKDPs (3518e8) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:23 pmThen you are asserting something without evidence.
I dispute your assertion. The burden of proof is on you to prove the affirmative.
If you cannot, then admit that you have been claiming to have that condition for exactly the same reason that Münchhausen’s Syndrome sufferers do what they do – for the attention.
Stupidity isn’t autism. We’ve all seen plenty of evidence that you are stupid (in just about every comment you make), but absolutely no evidence that you are autistic. Not even the court filings shown above have alleged such, just “rambling” and “frivolous”. LOTS of “frivolous”…
Now, what have you to say for yourself?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:26 pmMKDP,
You have committed a willful fraud on the proprietor and readers of this site by falsely claiming to be autistic. You have done it more than twice and you have done it in concert with *David F. Petrano, Esq* which makes both of you subject to the RICO statute.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:27 pmYou’re claiming to want to be an attorney and you can’t understand simple English?
That’s like claiming to be a race car driver, but not knowing how to steer.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:28 pmHigh five, nk… 🙂
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:28 pmMKDP, the problem is ADA jurisprudence is not required in law school or CLEs. Some law school profs still dock an entire class absence whan a law student gets up to go to the toilet, regardless of diagnosed bladder problems.
Under the mindset of this crew, if such a student brought an ADA suit against the law school and prof, such student would be labeled exactly as they do you.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:29 pmHas anyone checked the IPs of these two? Is there a gender-neutral version of “Sybil”?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:31 pmnk, Please retract retract your statement my wife is not autistic.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:33 pmDrumwaster #136,
There is a $500.00 jurisdictional minimum for RICO. I don’t know what Patterico is paying for maintaining this site but let’s see if they stay around long enough for $500.00 to accrue.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:34 pmnk, Please retract retract your statement my wife is not autistic.
Comment by David F. Petrano Esq. — 7/10/2008 @ 2:33 pm
I do not retract it in any way. I do not believe your wife is autistic. She has done nothing to show she is autistic despite having been given countless opportunities to do so.
And you know what else, *counsel*? Telling a person she does not have an incurable mental disease is a perfectly legal, nice and kind thing to do.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:40 pmMKDP, its called “satire”. I satirized your incompetence and in response, you demonstrated some more incompetence.
It is all quite hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:43 pmnk,
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:44 pmAm I correct in assuming your purpose for stating my wife is not autistic is to further your theory she has somehow committed a fraud by stating she is in fact autistic?
SPQR, thank you for your admission MKDP is the subject of satire, mockery and damage to her reputation.
Even Patterico seems to admit MKDP’s mere presence causes his blog numbers to sky rocket in the form of MKDP ridicule as she merely attempts to communicate the harm caused to her by AnnTm.
I will consult with other ADA attorneys to carefully craft COA’s against appropriate parties to redress the obvious mental anguish and emotional distress suffered by MKDP as a result of AnnTM’s criminal content communicated over federal courthouse computers.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:52 pmPetrano/MKDP remind me of the last time I had to deal with frivolous loon pro se litigants. I got to use the words, champerty and barratry in a motion — one of my professional goals.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:53 pmPetrano/MKDP, the main damage to reputation comes from your own postings. They are hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:56 pmnk,
Am I correct in assuming your purpose for stating my wife is not autistic is to further your theory she has somehow committed a fraud by stating she is in fact autistic?
Not quite. You two further my theory that you are a couple of assholes gaming ADA, Social Security, federal and local welfare, and whatever private insurance benefits due to disability you may have.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:57 pmYou guys rock !!!!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 2:57 pmP.S. Please be sure to include all my comments in your complaint. It will save me the trouble of drafting an answer.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:01 pmObjection; assumes facts not in evidence.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:03 pmnk,
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:08 pmmy theory is you know nothing about autism, Mary’s autism, or her various related disabilities and that you spout-off terrible things about autistic Americans with reckless disregard for the harm you cause.
Petrano, odd. Having no knowledge about a subject seems not to slow you Petranos/MKDP down at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:10 pmObjection; lacks proper foundation.
(Jeez, Ashley, I’m not even a lawyer, and I’m beating you like a rented mule.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:10 pmnk,
my theory is you know nothing about autism, Mary’s autism, or her various related disabilities and that you spout-off terrible things about autistic Americans with reckless disregard for the harm you cause.
I will need to consult with my disability service horse before I can respond to that.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:15 pmdrumwaster,
Mary possesses thousands of pages of ongoing medical documentation to prove her autism. We are not at trial, so spare us all your apparent suggestion that such material be pasted here.
You are transparent and obviously freaked-out over the AmmTM issue.
I’m not going to stop communicating the fact my wife was the victim of criminal stalking by AnnTm in a real-world setting, not a mere blog satire side-show.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:17 pmNo one is “freaked out”. We are instead greatly amused at the ludicrous, irrational and nutty conspiracy theories you traffic in.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:18 pmI love them !!!!
Isn’t it a little ironic that the Demented Duo are the only ones that bring up autism?
Hint – we mock you ‘cuz you are teh krazy. We sympathize with truly autistic folks, roast beef cutters, judges who encounter you, frogmen, snipers, horses, and FL drivers.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:19 pmnk, I am sure in making this reckless false defamatory statement you have addressed the fact over 600 pgs of medical docs addressed my extensive disabilities such that Social Security Administration uncer extensive review of such documetnation and determined that I was “totally and permanently disabled” in Aug. 1996 retroactive to May 1996?
And YOU, nk, one single person who has an obsessive dislike of MKDP’s autism, who offers no proof whatsoever but your buck-naked *hope-so*, are saying hundreds of other medical doctors, lawyers, agencies, and individuals who have determined I am severely disabled and protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act *got it wrong?*
nk, are your Nick M of Volokh, and perhaps also the federal USA who issued a DOJ target letter based on your sheer anti-ADA anti-autism disalike of all those qualified people and entities who already determined I am in fact severely disabled?
You sound like you are really on the defensive. It makes no sense, unless you have something at stake for having made a reckelss wrong call about my disabilities.
MKDPs (b71c89) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:22 pmSPQR, the only wacked-out, area-51 nut-case conspiracy theory is the one you and others on thois blog embrace to wit:
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:22 pm19 men from the Middle East, all of whom had open INS files, somehow conspired for many months to pull off 9/11.
Petrano, thanks for the punchline.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:23 pmThank you for your comments, SPQR. Now HERE’s one for you: Your own Ninth Circuit Court by a panel sitting in San Francisco ruled after oral argument that I am “mentally competent.”
MKDPs (b71c89) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:25 pmMKDP #158,
If you will look at your documents you will see that someone broke into them and replaced them with forgeries that will never be admitted into evidence in court. I think it was the same frogman who placed barnacles on your boat, made fun of your girth at five different places, gave your disability service horse dropsy, and is waiting to just around the corner to take your picture and put it on the internet.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:30 pmI say they are as fanciful as the rest of your alleged claims.
Prove me wrong. All it takes is the proof you have so far refused to provide.
Oh, GOD, No. Post it on your own blog, and post a link to it here. That is the easiest method of proving me wrong. And, let’s face it, until you do, you haven’t.
Not so much “got it wrong” as “never existed”.
So much for your claim that you are autistic. What’s next, a filing with the Supreme Court to prove the Ninth Circus wrong?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:30 pmWhy was your mental competency even an issue, MKDPs?
DRJ (8b9d41) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:31 pmDo you really need to ask?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:31 pmMKDP wrote: “Your own Ninth Circuit Court by a panel sitting in San Francisco ruled after oral argument that I am “mentally competent.”
It is not my Ninth Circuit. And it is obviously a low bar.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:34 pmDrumwaster, given that fact you resort to referring to people as you did in post 113, I believe your issues are very deep-seated.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:37 pmWho cares what you believe? Your other beliefs also have nothing to do with any relation to reality.
But you are entitled to your own whacked out opinions, just like the guy down at the park who barks at the telephone poles.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:40 pmDRJ,
I emailed you.
nk (a3a945) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:42 pmLeave it to the 9th Circuit.
IF a judge found you to be mentally competent, they should impeach themselves, immediately.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:43 pmThis is the most amazing recklessly false defamatory statement I have heard yet. You win the prize. Hannibal Lektor. You probably crafted your own “psycho analysis” by interpreting Dr. Feinberg’s diagnosis predicted on a composite of what four people stated attributed to one person by ignoring autism pronoun deficits.
Good thing you’re not a surgeon.
I see, so your posture, Dr. Lektor, is all persons with autism are incompetent. Why don’t you out on a big red shirt with the words emblazzened thereon, “Autism = incompetence” and go wear it and parade around an “Autism Now” conference!
Because a Ninth Circuit BK Judge interpreted a reasonable accommodations request for paperless all electronic Internet format Dragon NaturallySpeaking court access to craft written pleadings due to autism and physical mobility impairments in the BK court as “mental incompetence.”
Subsequently, Hon. Susan Illston interpreted the above reasonable accommodation request for the same access in the N.D. Cal. Federal District Court to relegate me to drafting my pleadings in handwriting, which “AnnTM” mocked in her blog posts as Judge Illston missing the “wicked irony” that forcing me to handwrite made me appear like I had “ADD.” With meaningful access to Judge Illston’s Court denied, I appeal to the ninth Circuit.
Where I raised the inconsistency between the BK Judge’s and Judge Illston’s determinations on the effect of denial of my need for paperless all epectronic Internet Dragon NaturallySpeaking speech recognition access to effectively communiate in my written court pleadings. The Ninth Circuit panel requested oral argument, where I was evaluated on my oral-spoken appellate argument skills, from which oral-spoken basis, the Ninth Circuit panel determined I did not need any such requested reasonable accommodations to effectively communicate my written pleadings because I was “mentally competent” with oral-spoken speech.
An obvious misunderstand of the nature of autism with physical mobility disabilities.
MKDP (b71c89) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:56 pmcorr:
MKDP (b71c89) — 7/10/2008 @ 3:59 pm“out on” = put on
corr:
MKDP (b71c89) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:02 pm“paperless all epectronic” = paperless all electronic
I keep hearing these words, yet I don’t see any evidence being offered to back it up.
Why is this?
Not true. Just those who feel they need special accomodations made to relieve their inability to display standardized competence in a given field.
You needed Affirmative Action For Stupid, I get that. But don’t claim that the 9th Circus declared you mentally competent, and then deny that they got it right without the rest of us laughing at you.
So which is it? Are you mentally competent or mentally INcompetent? And what evidence do you ACTUALLY HAVE (not the ones in your cedar-lined wish box) to support it?
Further, mental competence is a medical decision not a legal one.
But even laypeople can recognize stupid.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:04 pmDrumwaster, is it possible for you and the others to get back on track?
MKDP is not going to download her 1000s of pages of medical documentation for your benefit. Besides, you are neither a MD, atty., or judge.
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:15 pmTo the contrary, you are a person who refers to other humans as something I cannot even re-type as it is so vile. see post 113. Other persons on this blog, including Patterico, (some of which claim to be (attys) seem to relish in your vile comments as well.
Good, I suggest you break out a bottle of champagne, go have a party, and tell your above thoughts to the Ninth Circuit panel that made the legal decision I am “mentally competent.”
MKDP (b71c89) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:15 pmcorr: blog no. 113 on “should judge K be disciplined”
David F. Petrano Esq. (d9a731) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:22 pmLook who’s talking about “back on track”. It is, as Bugs would have said, to laugh.
No, I’m just the man who is bitch-slapping you like the red-headed step-child you are. You make claims without evidence, such as your “autism” claims. I have asserted an alternative theory – that the both of you aren’t smart enough to pour piss out of a boot, if the instructions were written on the bottom of the heel.
My evidence is supplied every time you make a comment. You have yet to supply any.
I’m sure they were offering a lay opinion, too, in the sense of “we can’t make a case for having her formally committed, even on the court’s own motion”, rather than the “completely sane compared to the standards in existing society” you seem to think it is…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:26 pmWhat, goat fucker? I’ve already explained about the “goat = alive”. You were right. Let it go, dude…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:27 pmDrummer, now are you purporting to engage in judicial deliberations unique to the Ninth Circuit panel that adjudicated my case? You sound like law eoforcement ALA perhaps FBI.
Here is a really significant question of substantial public importance this entire Kozinski WebSENSE Federal Courts Computer Security firewall breach, together with the written admissions by “AnnTM” aka Elizabeth Oyer and her co-conspirators contained in their incredible blog posts, particularly “AnnTM”s aka Oyer’s own posts made from her Federal Court computers while at work:
Is the post 9-11 law enforcement regime “AnnTM’s”-co-conspirators blog posts suggest part of the adjudicatory process currently going on in oour Federal Courts? If so, it would appear that what we have now are Federal judges and their law clerks carry out law enforcement investigations of civil rights litigants before them in the cases they are also adjudicating — THAT would amount to a MAJOR Due Process violation and violation of the Separation of Powers.
MKDP (e489b8) — 7/10/2008 @ 4:57 pmI will neither confirm nor deny. However, with you being a law school graduate, you are already informed of what your rights are.
Keep digging.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:03 pmI am investgating you.
frogman (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:12 pmIf I told you once, I told you a thousand times, get your autistic fingers out of my cornhole !
Big Brown (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:14 pmWe are watching you.
Snipers (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:17 pmKindly cease and desist in using our name when describing these individuals. You are causing irreparable harm to us.
National Association of People Named Bugfuknuts (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:20 pmAgent Drummer, I will take that as an admission you are FBI. Along with your other posts, that you have investigated with to the point of obstructing Americans With Disabilities Act access to my State Court ADA cases and bar admission in two state soley predicated on post 9-11 profiling of autistic Americans as potential future “domestic terrorists” based on their disability status in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws, Federal Torts Claims Act per se negligence, and/or Bivens claim.
It is clear your only defense to all the crimes and torts committed on me is to prove I have no disability documents that exist.
Good luck. Many were leaked into public record without my authorization, but in the public record many do in fact exist and are ongoing by some of the most prestigious docots in the United States.
Perhaps the most significant is the medical doctor report Barry Sabin, Esq., Chief Criminal Div. personally received informing the DOJ my equine disability service horse who was attacked with intent to kill him is prescribed as my medicine.
MKDP (e489b8) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:24 pmcorr:
MKDP (e489b8) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:26 pm” docots ” = doctors
MDKP – If you would quit acting bugfuknuts, we would not be getting a bad reputation when they compare you to us.
National Association of People Named Bugfuknuts (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:30 pmAgent Drummer, I will take that as an admission you are FBI.
No, MKDP, Drumwaster is not FBI. He is a superbly-trained agent of the Illuminati who, from their secret headquarters in the Himalayas, send out autism rays to mess up the minds of people living in boats and to instill in them an unnatural love of horses.
nk (6a0113) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:33 pmI believe that they may be pagans who worship Poseidon. He was the god of the sea and horses too. Look out for him, he also causes earthquakes and hurricanes.
nk (6a0113) — 7/10/2008 @ 5:36 pmSeveral years ago, there was a site called spinsanity, and there was this dude that called himself Don Williams, who could find a Zionist conspiracy in a bowl of pudding. The Dynamic Duo makes him seem sane.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:13 pmJD, rest assured I do not subscribe to Zionist conspiracies. In fact, I am a Jew.
Given your repeated ramblings my wife and I lack sanity, I suggest you review the AnnTm material posted by MKDP and ask yourself whether you would not likely suffer mental anguish and emotional distress upon being the target of an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals law clerk with an admitted “Psycho-obsession” to criminally stalk you in real world, real-time terms while you have a case pending before her judge.
Perhaps you think judge k’s decision to eliminate the WebSense firewall is harmless, but it is my posture AnnTm would have never been able to create such mischie if from federal courthouse computers if the WebSense firewall was in place.
David Petrano (d667e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:44 pmcorr: mischief from federal courthouse computers
David Petrano (d667e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:46 pmyes, and your “posture” is just stupid, Petrano. Common sense is not among your skills.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:47 pmGiven her clear lack of ability to accurately report events, why should we believe anything she posts?
Or you, for that matter.
Watch out that you don’t forget to fill that space inside the computer tower with shredded aluminum foil. It prevents the Federal Government from accessing your computer over wireless networks, much like chaff blocks radar.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:50 pmYou really have to shred the aluminum foil into tiny strips and cram the tower full to the brim for maximum effect.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 7:51 pmPetranos Esp – Zionist conspiracy theory would be a step up in the world of teh krazy, for you two.
JD (5f0e11) — 7/10/2008 @ 8:04 pmDrumwaster,
MKDP thinks you are law enforcement.
I think you are wearing looney-bin issue clothing as a matter of rule, not choice.
Perhaps you care to expand on how you have derived upon your aluminum foil theory? Maybe you can do so after a good night’s rest and a morning shower.
Now take your meds and go to your designated room.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:12 pmNighty-night. . . .
You are utterly wrong. I’m saner than an emu on acid (brought to you by the number 42).
Your wife’s assertions as to my employment I will neither confirm nor deny.
Standardized electronic warfare. Try Googling “chaff” as regards military usage, and see if I am right that finely shredded aluminum foil will block electromagnetic radiation, such as that being used by search and tracking radars. (US Navy ships have launchers designed to throw such shredded aluminum foil into the air to block the radar of enemy vessels, aircraft or missiles.)
The effectiveness depends on the ratio of the length of the strip of foil to the wavelength of the radar being jammed, but if you shred them to different lengths, you can block the whole spectrum.
(I was a radar operator in the Navy, and graduated first in my class, not to mention my specialized training and experience at supplemental schools along the way.)
It will also work quite well on radio waves, such as those used in wireless networks.
So be sure to fill the tower to the brim. Ignore any sparks – that’s just the wireless radiation trying to burn its way through the jamming.
This will keep the frogmen away from your internet access.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:24 pmMary Kate – Why did you lose the custody rights to your daughter that you brought up on the other thread?
Was that due to the youthful indiscretions you refuse to admit or discuss?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:26 pmDrumwaster,
go to bed Kevin- You need your rest and a morning shower.
daleyrocks, you are likely in serious need of neuropsychological testing to deal with your own “youthful indiscretions” which you truly need to flush-out in all respects.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:49 pmSure thing, Pete.
(The blue pills are only for those “special occasions”, dumbass. And playing “Blindfolded Mix-And-Match” from the medicine cabinet is never a good idea.)
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 9:58 pmDrummaster.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:49 pmPete?
You would prefer ‘Nancy’?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:51 pmdrumwaster.com refers to a Kevin. I assume it is you. Either way, you can’t be all that bad if you were in the USN.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 10:56 pmRemember what happens when you ass-u-me…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:02 pmDrumwaster, if you were in the USN, you would be pretty pissed if a guy with a 53′ boat docked upwind from your dad’s boat was tied with 4 short 1/4′ lines to fare a hurricane, and then came into court in a subsequent salvage claim you brought (after risking life and limb to secure with 9 sections of 3/4″) with a clown (Hutto) dressed in a phoney carnival cruise ship 4-bat Captain gettup claiming he was an expert and the 1/4 lines were sufficient.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:04 pmcorr: 4 bar captain gettup
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:05 pmcorrection: 4 short 1/4″ lines
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:14 pmI believe that they may be pagans who worship Poseidon. He was the god of the sea and horses too. Look out for him, he also causes earthquakes and hurricanes.
nk,
Your comment violates Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(h), and is defamatory and racist. I demand a retraction.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:18 pmpatterico, me thinks you are getting a little too excited over the ratings boost I have handed you.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:24 pmDavid, you are taking credit where credit is not due. Idiot!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:32 pmOn a serious note:
What, goat fucker?
Drumwaster, I warned you before. Really. I don’t want to have to ban you, but don’t force my hand.
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:33 pmpatterico, me thinks you are getting a little too excited over the ratings boost I have handed you.
?
Patterico (cb443b) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:33 pmpatterico, I promise you, if this degenerate is not immediately banned, I am never coming back. I was hoping this blog was on-even keel with volokh. Eugene would have banned for this language in a N.Y. second.
David F. Petrano Esq. (ff05e9) — 7/10/2008 @ 11:37 pmOh no! A guy who calls himself “Esquire” threatens to leave this blog and never come back! Say it ain’t so!
Xrlq (62cad4) — 7/11/2008 @ 3:55 amnk,
Your comment violates Title 18, U.S.C., Section 844(h), and is defamatory and racist. I demand a retraction.
I hereby retract any and all defamatory or racist comments I have made whether in violation of federal, state or local laws or otherwise or, without limitation, which might offend the Illuminati or any deity of any pantheon.
nk (6a0113) — 7/11/2008 @ 4:34 amDrumwaster, if you were in the USN, you would be pretty pissed if a guy with a 53′ boat docked upwind from your dad’s boat was tied with 4 short 1/4′ lines to fare a hurricane, and then came into court in a subsequent salvage claim you brought (after risking life and limb to secure with 9 sections of 3/4″) with a clown (Hutto) dressed in a phoney carnival cruise ship 4-bat Captain gettup claiming he was an expert and the 1/4 lines were sufficient.
So you didn’t think your neighbor’s boat was moored securely enough on the dock so you went over and added extra mooring lines and you made a salvage claim for that?
I would not only have held you in contempt and referred you to an ethics panel, I would have ordered by bailiffs to arrest you on the spot.
nk (6a0113) — 7/11/2008 @ 5:01 amSorry, but we never dealt with mooring lines less than 3″ in diameter. Using a 1/4″ mooring line during a hurricane? You might have just as effectively used toilet paper.
My sincere apologies to you, mein host. I did try to explain about the mix-up…
As for Mr. Esq., I would refer him to this case, and let him draw his own conclusions.
I will henceforth limit any such references to the alleged Esq-hole to websites under my control, so as to eliminate any hazard to you.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/11/2008 @ 7:03 am