Cyrus Sanai’s litigation strategy continues apace. He has written yet another article for a media outlet (this time the L.A. Weekly) that touts his litigation claims without disclosing his ongoing litigation.
As regular readers will recall, Sanai is embarked upon a grand legal strategy to reverse rulings in his parents’ divorce in Washington state. He has proclaimed that his litigation strategy includes seeking discipline for Alex Kozinski. On this site and others, Sanai said that revealing the contents of Judge Kozinski’s website/server was merely one element in a three-step litigation strategy related to his parents’ divorce.
One wonders if we’re now seeing Step Two.
It appears that part of Sanai’s strategy includes writing articles that advance pet arguments identical to those being made in his litigation:
- Sanai claims that there is corruption in Western state courts (including, not coincidentally, the court that decided his parents’ divorce);
- Sanai says that the Ninth Circuit has the power to issue injunctions to put a stop to that corruption (and, not coincidentally, he has asked for the federal courts to issue just such an injunction); and
- Sanai says that the Ninth Circuit has failed to issue such injunctions because of a disturbing pattern of deciding cases by unpublished disposition (which, not coincidentally, happened when he requested such an injunction).
Sanai’s dispute with Judge Kozinski began when Sanai wrote a newspaper article advancing these positions, without disclosing that the subject of his article related to Sanai’s ongoing litigation. Judge Kozinski wrote an article noting Sanai’s lack of disclosure. Kozinski also argued that Sanai had misstated the holdings of several court decisions.
Now, Sanai has written an article for the L.A. Weekly that advances these same positions. Sanai was purportedly assigned by the Weekly to cover the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. But as the article goes on, Sanai’s coverage of the conference becomes little more than window dressing for his discussion of his legal arguments — arguments which are not disclosed as central to Sanai’s litigation (which is not even mentioned).
What relevance do these arguments have to the conference? Why, Sanai says, the relevance is that they weren’t even discussed!
Nevada’s “pay for play” judiciary was well documented in the Los Angeles Times’ “Juice for Justice” series two years ago. In Arizona, the state’s own watchdog has documented instances in which elected judges use their judicial powers to favor friends or settle scores. In Washington state, the courts have been accused of appointing the employees of private litigants as special masters or judicial referees to decide cases involving those very litigants.
This is precisely what Sanai claims happened in his parents’ divorce case — which took place, not coincidentally, in Washington state.
Federal courts have the power to enjoin or enter declaratory judgments against such lower-court misbehavior. But the 9th Circuit typically disposes of these cases through unpublished decisions with no oral argument — another example of its isolation and lack of engagement. Yet this potentially hot topic somehow failed to come up in Sun Valley last week.
The topic is “hot” primarily to Sanai. With unerring precision, these two paragraphs track the legal argument Sanai has been trying to advance in court for the last several years.
And, like before, he has failed to disclose that fact.
I generally like the L.A. Weekly, but the paper got played here. This article is an advertisement for Sanai’s legal claims, and the fact that he was pursuing those claims should have been disclosed.
If Judge Kozinski weren’t effectively muzzled by the ongoing investigation, he might have pointed this out — likely in a far more entertaining and readable fashion than I have done here.
P.S. Any comments that could even arguably be read as a threat to anyone — whether professional, physical, or otherwise — will be cheerfully deleted. Offenders may be banned.