Patterico's Pontifications

8/7/2008

Sanai’s Litigation Strategy Continues

Filed under: General,Kozinski — Patterico @ 10:41 am

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says that the Ninth Circuit has failed to issue such injunctions because of a disturbing pattern of deciding cases by unpublished disposition (which, not coincidentally, happened when he requested such an injunction).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.

125 Responses to “Sanai’s Litigation Strategy Continues”

  1. I have only seen the kind of Oedipal behavior Cyrus is displaying in cases in which daddy dumped the older mom and then married a younger woman and had children with her, thus creating a threat to the first wife’s childrens’ inheritance.

    nk (e38352)

  2. I’m gonna get that asshole Scott Jacobs disbarred, and then I’m gonna kick his ass…

    :)

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  3. This guy is some piece of work.

    Tlove (953364)

  4. Tlove 😉 !!!

    JD (75f5c3)

  5. Scott: just so long as you don’t harass his children and family. That would be crossing the line. 😛

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  6. Any comments that could even arguably be read as a threat….

    This (and many other posts on your site) threatens my once-vast supply of popcorn; but hopefully that’s not what you were talking about.

    Old Coot (43e1f1)

  7. aphrael: Little worry. I doubt that loser even dates, let alone has any kids…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  8. Isn’t this what defines a vexatious litigant ? Maybe malicious use of process.

    I once threatened a lawyer with an action for malicious use of process. A patient cashed an insurance check after an operation and didn’t pay the bill. The check had been made out to both the surgeon and the patient. She forged his signature (I worked for him at the time) and cashed the check. When pressed for payment of the bill, and after the forgery was discovered, she sued for malpractice naming everyone who had been associated with the case, including me. She actually found a lawyer to take it (this was in 1972 when the gravy train hadn’t ended yet) and he harassed me with interrogatories that were 30 pages long. That went on for over a year. My attorney finally sent the guy a letter telling him that, if his case was dismissed, we planned an action for malicious use of process. The next day, I got an offer to settle in return for a promise not to sue him.

    Two years later, the entire malpractice insurance system in California collapsed.

    I think Sanai’s actions are at least that egregious.

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  9. hehe. Just stopping in for a minute. I am off to meet with one of my recruiters.

    Tlove (953364)

  10. You guys seem to be in the tank for Kozinski and the 9th. I don’t blame you, you want to be invited to the right parties, whatever. Sucking up is common behavior in other professions, I’m not singling out lawyers. So, even though the 9th is the most over-ruled circuit court in the country, and an object of ridicule, it makes sense to brown-nose in the interests of career advancement.

    It’s just… well, in addition, why not rebut this guy on the merits of his argument, with facts? Just askin’.

    Born Free (632035)

  11. Born Free,

    I am less interested in the merits of the argument than I am in journalistic criticism, and this should have been disclosed. Judge Kozinski made a rebuttal on the merits in the linked article, if you care to read it.

    I have bent over backwards to be fair to both Mr. Sanai and Judge Kozinski in this controversy. I am a state prosecutor and it doesn’t help me to “suck up” to Judge Kozinski. It does help me as a blogger to be fair, and that’s what I try to do.

    Patterico (6ea6e1)

  12. Born Free – Why don’t you take a look at the history of Sanai’s conduct and litigation and comment on that?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  13. Though the Ninth Circuit has a well deserved reputation for reversals, Judge Kozinski is not a member of that illustrious circle. I think, if you do a little research, that you will find that his opinions are upheld on appeal, or, when he is in the minority, are vindicated by the reversal.

    Another Drew (16e81f)

  14. You guys are just a bunch of brown-nosing suckups. Try arguing the merits, with facts.

    (cognitive dissonance)

    fat tony (953a98)

  15. Born Free is the predictable sort that all Sanai posts attracts.

    There is no logic behind what he’s talking about. he says this blog is int he tank for Kozinski, when this blog made so many efforts to allow Cyrus to state his case in the most Cyrus-ized dishonest way. cyrus probably wrote 100 pages of commentary here.

    And Born Free is unable to do anything more than accuse this blog of being unfair. he can’t point to any way that this post is wrong (since it’s obviously right), and no one who understands this case thinks Cyrus is being honest or unabusive (including Cyrus).

    I can’t say what I wish for Cyrus’s professional career, or I assume my comment will be deleted, but I do hope and believe that in the end there’s no way to fully fix the damage Cyrus did to Kozinski. Many will never realize that the LA Time’s disgusting description of Judge Kozinski’s server contents was ridiculous, or even be slightly aware of the nature and motives of the attack. That’s a shame.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  16. I misspoke at the end there. I certainly do not hope that Kozinski’s reputation cannot be fully repaired. I would very much like to see the truth laid out as loudly as the lies were.

    I merely believe that Kozinski will not fully recover his reputation, and I believe that is extremely unfair.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  17. LA Weekly knew very well what my issues are, and my point of view. Jill Stewart doesn’t get played by anyone. The nice thing about the alt-press is that you are allowed to write with a viewpoint.

    Moreover, EVERYONE knows about my case and positions now. If Barack Obama writes an op-ed, he does not have to point out that he is running against John McCain. Everyone knows this; even Adam Carolla is doing riffs on Kozinski.

    The point of my piece is that Justice Kennedy is advising the judges of the Ninth Circuit to spread the good word about the rule of law, when there are plenty of state jurisdictions, like Washington State, Nevada, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. which could use some education about a corruption-free judiciary. I did not mention West Virginia, but there’s a case seeking cert right now that raises similar issues.

    There is no question that state court judges can be enjoined under 42 USC 1983 if one can show that the tribunal is financially interested in a matter or otherwise corrupted. The whole point of the statute, passed in 1871, was to halt the infiltration of the KKK into the state governments. Here, the judicial referee appointed by the corrupt Judge Thibodeau was the accountant for one of the parties. Rather than exercise jurisdiction under 42 USC 1983 to stop this corruption, Judge Zilly (now recused) entered orders barring any challenge of the judicial referee IN STATE COURT. Judge Kozinski got behind this corruption 100% in his article and by posting case-related materials supporting Thibodeau. But it is not just Kozinski–on this issue, his colleagues are 100% in lock-step alignment–part of their philosophy, enunciated by Judge Bybee in the first talk, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges view each other as “spouses”.

    None of these facts are deniable–they are a matter of judicial record. Obviously, the Ninth Circuit, and those who support the Ninth Circuit’s current operations, have huge issues when this is pointed out.

    But let’s be fair. The Ninth is not the only circuit with disciplinary lockjaw–just look at the Fifth Circuit’s issues. Obviously, if you were looking to enjoin corrupt state court action, Louisiana would be a good places to start as well.

    The real question is, why doesn’t the Ninth Circuit allow me some oral argument on these questions, or better yet, refute my contentions in a published opinion? The answer is (a) they can’t refute my contentions, and (b) published opinions from the Ninth are easy game for a cert grant, while grants from unpublished opinions occur maybe once every two or three years.

    Judge Kozinski keeps getting the rhetorical hammer for a simple reason–he was never part of any panel in my case, but he decided to violate federal judical ethics Canon 3(A) and comment on the specifics of my case, and put up an endorsement of Thibodeau on his website. Though the endorsement is down, Howard Bashman captured the image. It was his use of that website, and the subsequent cover-up of that use by Judge Schroeder, that got me interested in what he was doing with it, and my eventual googling of the pirate mp3 site pointing to his stuff directory.

    The other funny thing, which you will read in the piece, is that just before Justice Kennedy spoke there was a panel on dealing with globalization issues. I spent half my legal career abroad–I’m an English solicitor as well as California attorney–and so I know from firsthand experience that dealing with foreign judicial corruption is a huge problem. A lawyer from Intel discussed how they deal with out–they exit the legal system and make it a political issue by threatening to cut off investment.

    Here, I am harnessing the power of public scrutiny to focus attention on the federal judiciary’s tacit (or in the case of Kozinski, pretty explicit) endorsement of judicial corruption. Does that bother people? Of course it bothers the Federalist Society toadies and trolls of every stripe. But the problem is there, it is larger than my case, and the Ninth Circuit, rather than coming to groups with it by having public argument and published decisions, would rather hide and pretend the arguments have never been raised. If Judge Kozinski wants in on the fray, let him sit on an en banc panel and respond to my arguments. I have never requested his recusal, and would love to have him on an en banc panel and get his justification for Thibodeau.

    The most amusing aspect about this huffing and puffing about my disclosure issues is, of course, that they opened the door for public attention and keep it open. Every post on a blog is just another opportunity for people to learn the underlying facts of my case. The corollary is that when people say I have a grudge against Judge Kozinski, they are jumping to a conclusion that could not be farther from the truth. I wish Judge Kozinski health, long life and a platoon of US marshals to keep him safe from harm.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  18. ok, I lied… I did read. Parts at least.

    Mr. Sanai, please quote for me the “case-related materials” Judge Kozinski posted in his response to your letter?

    You see, I read his response, and all I can fid is citations for cases long decided by the time he wrote the letter. So I’m curious just wtf your talking about.

    You hack.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  19. From the article:

    “(Separately, the former head of the Administrative Office of the Courts, Ralph Mecham, has publicly accused Kozinski of committing a felony by disabling the 9th Circuit’s computer firewall during Kozinski’s battle to maintain unfettered access on federal computers to the Internet.)”

    Was it a public accusation or was a letter Meecham wrote to colleagues made public?

    “Here, the judicial referee appointed by the corrupt Judge Thibodeau was the accountant for one of the parties.”

    Cyrus, you have declined to answer repeated questions on this blog about how your side was allegedy disadvantaged by this relationship.

    “The real question is, why doesn’t the Ninth Circuit allow me some oral argument on these questions”

    No, the real question is if the issues are germane to your appeals, why do you have a problem briefing them?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  20. #20

    Don’t worry, you didn’t miss anything you would have understood. The post involves (a) facts, (b) legal argument, and lacks (c) opportunities for easy troll putdowns.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  21. “Mr. Sanai, please quote for me the “case-related materials” Judge Kozinski posted in his response to your letter?”

    Scott – I think he is referring to publicly available information about his case, nothing confidential. But it’s a dead issue. The 9th Circuit already ruled on whether Kozinski violated ethics in the matter and said no.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  22. I am impressed by Cyrus equating himself to Barack Obama in #19. He’s a celebrity, everybody knows who he is. Heh.

    For the wrong reasons.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  23. #22:

    There is no need to prove prejudice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that lack of an impartial tribunal is grounds for reversal and, independently, a violation of civil rights rederessable under 42 USC 1983.

    To put it differently, if a lawyer with many cases before a judge has that judge on the lawyer’s payroll, there is never any requirement for the side opposing that lawyer to show that the payment was a bribe FOR THAT CASE. Everyone has a right to a financially disinterested tribunal, period. Lack of same is structural error, and grounds for automatic reversal.

    Now, there was in fact prejudice in the six figure range, but the appointment of the accountant by Thibodeau was a scarlet letter of corruption that rendered everything done void, under both Washington state published decisional law and federal published decisional law.

    All these issues have been briefed ad nauseum; the problem is that the Ninth Circuit simply won’t acknowledge the existence of the relevant case law.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  24. #12

    It’s unfortunate but true that the subject of my writing about Kozinski is more interesting to the blogosphere than the underlying judicial corruption which set off this mess. Once you get to the underlying facts, there is no room for argument–the conduct the Ninth Circuit seeks to protect from scrutiny was and is corrupt, so there is no fun talking heads debate to conduct.

    Patterico, reread Kozinski’s piece in 2005. He responds to only a fraction of my contentions, then lets off on me.

    My piece is now no.2 most viewed, below a review of Pam Anderson’s new opus but above J. Gold’s restaurant review.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  25. The post involves (a) facts, (b) legal argument, and lacks (c) opportunities for easy troll putdowns.

    Actually, it contains (a) opinions stated as facts, (b) questionable legal arguments either long decided or made under dubious ethical conditions, and lacks (c) credability as you cite no aplicable case-law not already ruled upon.

    Just because you don’t AGREE does not make them corrupt.

    Unless you can actually offer some form of proof that favors or money was exchanged for decisions, I can’t help but wonder why you continue to slander so many Justices. Are you hoping that eventually you’ll be able to get them kicked from hearing an appeal you filed because you’ve been such an ass you don’t think they could be fair?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  26. #24

    Boy, you are a dishonest idiot. You can’t win your troll arguments, so know you just make stuff up.

    The exact opposite happened to what you contend. Judge Kozinski acknowledged that his article was a violation of judicial ethics, and he supposedly apologized. However, the issue of the posting of the materials was never addressed, because Judge Schroeder found it never happened.

    Your dishonesty is to be expected, but I’m getting tired of correcting it. Anyone is entitled to their opinions of me, but your false contentions of supposed fact are a different matter.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  27. Judge Kozinski acknowledged that his article was a violation of judicial ethics

    Link to your assertation.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  28. #28

    You are 100% wrong. That is not the law.

    Here is the relevant language from Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973):

    Unlike those situations where a federal court merely abstains from decision on federal questions until the resolution of underlying or related state law issues [Footnote 15] — a subject we shall consider shortly in the context of the present case — Younger v. Harris contemplates the outright dismissal of the federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, both state and federal, to the state courts. Such a course naturally presupposes the opportunity to raise and have timely decided by a competent state tribunal the federal issues involved. Here, the predicate for a Younger v. Harris dismissal was lacking, for the appellees alleged, and the District Court concluded, that the State Board of Optometry was incompetent by reason of bias to adjudicate the issues pending before it. If the District Court’s conclusion was correct in this regard, it was also correct that it need not defer to the Board. Nor, in these circumstances, would a different result be required simply because judicial review, de novo or otherwise, would be forthcoming at the conclusion of the administrative proceedings. [Footnote 16] Cf. Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 (1972).

    Page 411 U. S. 578

    III

    It is appropriate, therefore, that we consider the District Court’s conclusions that the State Board of Optometry was so biased by prejudgment and pecuniary interest that it could not constitutionally conduct hearings looking toward the revocation of appellees’ licenses to practice optometry. We affirm the District Court in this respect.

    The District Court thought the Board to be impermissibly biased for two reasons. First, the Board had filed a complaint in state court alleging that appellees had aided and abetted Lee Optical Co. in the unlawful practice of optometry, and also that they had engaged in other forms of “unprofessional conduct” which, if proved, would justify revocation of their licenses. These charges were substantially similar to those pending against appellees before the Board and concerning which the Board had noticed hearings following its successful prosecution of Lee Optical in the state trial court.

    Secondly, the District Court determined that the aim of the Board was to revoke the licenses of all optometrists in the State who were employed by business corporations such as Lee Optical, and that these optometrists accounted for nearly half of all the optometrists practicing in Alabama. Because the Board of Optometry was composed solely of optometrists in private practice for their own account, the District Court concluded that success in the Board’s efforts would possibly redound to the personal benefit of members of the Board sufficiently so that, in the opinion of the District Court, the Board was constitutionally disqualified from hearing the charges filed against the appellees.

    The District Court apparently considered either source of possible bias — prejudgment of the facts or personal interest — sufficient to disqualify the members of the Board.

    Page 411 U. S. 579

    Arguably, the District Court was right on both scores, but we need reach, and we affirm, only the latter ground of possible personal interest. [Footnote 17]

    It is sufficiently clear from our cases that those with substantial pecuniary interest in legal proceedings should not adjudicate these disputes. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510 (1927). And Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57 (1972), indicates that the financial stake need not be as direct or positive as it appeared to be in Tumey. It has also come to be the prevailing view that “[m]ost of the law concerning disqualification because of interest applies with equal force to . . . administrative adjudicators.” K. Davis, Administrative Law Text § 12.04, p. 250 (1972), and cases cited. The District Court proceeded on this basis and, applying the standards taken from our cases, concluded that the pecuniary interest of the members of the Board of Optometry had sufficient substance to disqualify them, given the context in which this case arose. As remote as we are from the local realities underlying this case, and it being very likely that the District Court has a firmer grasp of the facts and of their significance to the issues presented, we have no good reason on this record to overturn its conclusion, and we affirm it.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  29. No, that is the law. While you need not prove payments for that one case, yu do need to prove that payments were made at some point for other cases, proving a pattern.

    Unless you meant to call them BIASED, not corrupt.

    Also, I tend to not believe anything an anti-semite says. Just how I am.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  30. #30

    I can cite, and if you send me your email address I will email the document.

    The acknowledgment and apology is set forth in the December 19, 2006 decision of Judge Schroeder, 05-89098. You can’t download it from pacer. Until recently, these dispositions were completely secret, but that changed when the new rules were passed at the beginning of the year. However, all of the prior ones are still kept hidden from public view.

    Alternatively, you can write to the clerk of the Ninth Circuit and request a copy, using that case number.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  31. #32

    Read excerpt from Gibson at #31. You are completely making your contentions of law out of thin air, and there is no operative case law supporting what you say (don’t quote me stuff from the 1700s).

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  32. #35

    And knock off the anti-semitism BS. Show me some case law that supports your views, or shut up.

    You are either not a lawyer, or your are a crappy one. You don’t know the basics.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  33. Cyrus Sanai wrote: My piece is now no.2 most viewed, below a review of Pam Anderson’s new opus but above J. Gold’s restaurant review.

    You must be very proud.

    L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5)

  34. “It’s unfortunate but true that the subject of my writing about Kozinski is more interesting to the blogosphere than the underlying judicial corruption which set off this mess.”

    Cyrus, that’s probably because the evidence you’ve produced of that is considerably less than the evidence you’ve produced of anything else.

    If you spent your time focusing on that instead of sifting through a judge’s personal stash of porno in order to embarrass him, you might find this to no longer be the case. If you can’t produce evidence of it, it’s possible there’s a reason for that besides everyone’s out to get you.

    Anon (f2604b)

  35. Cyrus Sanai:
    “You can’t win your troll arguments, so know you just make stuff up.”

    and
    “The post involves (a) facts, (b) legal argument, and lacks (c) opportunities for easy troll putdowns.”

    You keep using that word “troll”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    brobin (c07c20)

  36. And knock off the anti-semitism BS

    I will when you stop with the anti-semitism.

    k?

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  37. “Judge Kozinski acknowledged that his article was a violation of judicial ethics, and he supposedly apologized.”

    I would like to see this as well Cyrus. My recollection of the documents posted in June included no such acknowledgement, forgetting about the PACER bullshit.

    I haven’t called you any names here today Cyrus. Is your intention to begin that process with me and the other commenters?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  38. To be fair, Daley, I’ve been calling him names. :)

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  39. I can cite, and if you send me your email address I will email the document.

    See, this is why I think you are a lousy lawyer…

    You can’t even be bothered to click crand total of three links…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  40. #40

    Ask Patterico to post it, and I’ll send it to him if he agrees. Or send me a letter, or put up an email address. I’m happy to distribute it. Or, as I said before, order it from the Ninth Circuit clerk’s office.

    Anyone has a right to their opinion about me and my tactics. However, spreading false facts, such as that my wife has left me or other nonsense, is illegal and wrong.

    Everything I say is factually accurate. It has to be, since it is all a matter of public record.

    #41

    Yes, you have been calling me names, because you have no legal authority to back up your fantasies about the content of the law. There are a number of places in this country where paying off the judiciary is an effective tactic, and I am guessing you live in one. That does not make it right, or legal. The problem for the Ninth Circuit is that at least three of the component jurisdictions, Washington State, Nevada, and Arizona (I have my suspicions about Alaska and Hawaii, but no proof so far) have the “appoint an employee as judicial official” club in open operation. The first rule of this club, like the first rule of fight club, is that you do not talk about it. Why do you not talk about it? Because it is obviously illegal, and so discussion about it eventually will bring about its elimination.

    I’m talking about it, and how judicial decisions on this subject actually get made in this Circuit, and surprise–the judges concerned and their sock puppets want to talk about anything else.

    However, the issue is not going away. The Ninth Circuit will, sooner or later, be forced to address this, either in a court of law, or another forum.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  41. #42

    I sent you an email already if you are angry white guy, but you have not emailed back. I don’t know that’s you.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  42. #42

    So you are from Illinois. Well, I guessed right on your proximity to judicial corruption. Cook County Illinois was one of the most corrupt state courts to have ever graced this country until the 1980’s cleanup by the local US Attorney. It is still, I am informed, moderately corrupt. Illinois state politics, is, of course, wildly corrupt on both the Republican and Democratic sides.

    Scott, your ideas about what passes for due process probably are what works in Chicago or Springfield, but are not what the law requires or condones.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  43. I already posted it in a previous post. I’d search for it now but I’m on my Treo. It may well even be linked in one of the above posts.

    As I recall, the truth is in the middle of the various contentions. Kozinski was found not to have acted in an unethical way that merited discipline, but he acknowledged the danger of an appearance of impropriety and apologized (not directly to Sanai).

    Someone go find it. I have linked it; it should be easy to find.

    Patterico (158c5f)

  44. It’s linked in the FIRST LINK in the post above (click “proclaimed” and find the link in that post).

    Why do I bother to link things if nobody reads them?

    Patterico (158c5f)

  45. Cyrus lost his bid to cause huge career troubles for one of the most prominent and powerful and prestigious judges in the land. Cyrus is left to internet-tough-guy trolling on a second tier blog… for hours and hours. He’s writing more here than the proprietor.

    His arguments are so easy to see through that it’s insulting he thinks normal people would fall for them. He loses over and over again, but it’s always because the judges are so horribly corrupt and biased against his petty little cases, not because he’s wrong. Cyrus is never wrong, you see.

    If you disagree, he will claim you are 100% wrong. Such strong words for a man who can’t win in court… pretty much ever.

    Would you hire Cyrus Sanai? If your oil company’s success was at stake, would you want this paranoid and grandiose pervert defending you?

    Remember, many have concluded that Cyrus planted porn on Kozinski’s computer. Most interesting is how Cyrus repeatedly claimed that the Judge admitted putting them on the server when he didn’t. he loves to grossly inflate the honest assessments of his enemies into confessions of dire corruption.

    Now that he’s back, wearing out his keyboard desperately trying to insult a bunch of people on an internet blog instead of, you know, practicing law successfully, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before he threatens Patterico again.

    Everybody, one thing is clear: Cyrus is trying to goad someone into saying something that Cyrus can twist into a threat. He wants to do so in order to cause as much trouble for Patterico as he can. You see, even though we all remember the great pains Patterico went to to be nice to Cyrus, let him state his extremely unlikely (and not proven utterly bunk) case against Kozinski, because Cyrus lost the argument here, he is convinced that Patterico is part of the grand conspiracy… a fair game enemy.

    He’s so pathetic and wretched and weak. He can’t actually do anything about the great judges who repeatedly rule against his sickeningly stupid case against his own family. He has nothing better to do than insult anyone here who disagrees with him.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  46. #46

    Your recollection is wrong, Patterico.

    Judge Schroeder never reached the issue, because she found that Kozinski’s concession and promise to be more careful was adequate corrective action. The posting of the case related materials was never addressed, because she contended it could not be found.

    It took Schroeder 14 months to issue that order.

    My supplementary complaint, filed last year and still pending in front of her, addressed this issue. One of the weird things about the complaint system in the federal courts is that you keep filing additional complaints, as opposed to filing amended complaints, as in a lawsuit. You also get no argument on the factual contentions, so if they get something wrong or overlook facts, you file a new complaint with the additional facts, which goes through the process again. It’s a very slow and inefficient process.

    Under the new rules, the Judicial Conference is the final word on all complaints. Accordingly, everything will be reviewed by the Third Circuit (which has done nothing so far) and then by the Judicial Conference.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  47. By the way, I don’t mean anything negative by calling this blog second tier. It’s the best blog I read… just not popular enough because it doesn’t have enough pretty pictures or something.

    but Cyrus could never get away with his crap if he were writing in a less educated environment. Most people here are wonks, civil, and willing to think through even nearly preposterous arguments (such as Cyrus’s). Cyrus didn’t realize that this is what was going on when we observed his slow plodding, and way overblown stories about Kozinski, where everytime a fact comes in, it turns out Cyrus’s spin was hilarious.

    On a more popular forum, he’d just be another one of the children, screaming. And we wouldn’t be nearly as annoyed by him. But here, where there’s a smaller crowd and a lot of smart commenters and posters, Cyrus is clearly out of place.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  48. Cyrus is predictably jerk-ish, again. I would be interested to see Cyrus’ evidence of corruption, that he asserts, but never seems to get around to proving. On the flip side, Cyrus attracts twatwaffles like Petranos Esp and MdDKP.

    JD (5f0e11)

  49. Mr. Sanai,

    Many people know that Judge Kozinski had a web server with humorous pornographic material.

    But that wasn’t what I was saying you should have disclosed.

    Far fewer people know your views on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or the controversy over citation of unpublished opinions, or how those issues interrelate with your litigation.

    That, in my view, should have been disclosed.

    Patterico (2f26aa)

  50. Juan,

    I’m glad you clarified that. I was all set to have my feelings hurt when you called the blog “second-tier.”

    Patterico (540064)

  51. Yay! I love this post.

    Tlove (953364)

  52. #48

    Juan, you don’t have the money to hire me, so obviously you could not.

    Also, your contentions that I planted porn on Kozinski’s computer is only contended by you, and is hilarious. Kozinski and his wife have admitted the porn was there, but blamed HIS SON for some unspecified portion of them. Not even Kozinski’s wife has drunk so deep from the wineskin of crazy to suggest that I somehow snuck into his home and downloaded cow-porn onto his computer.

    You are a another sad, sad troll looking to spread lies because you can’t win the argument. Your contention that I can’t win in court comes again from the “I make up my facts” department–easily belied by the lawyer from a big firm who lost to me today, or those who have had to pay me six figure attorney fee awards.

    It’s true I did not win to date in the cases arising from my family issues, but nothing is over, and I am on the way to winning, because I don’t hear or read anyone making logical or legally founded arguments. When I do, the reaction is “too long did not read”.

    As for Patterico, well, he’s a lawyer, I’m a lawyer–unlike Jacobs, you, and the other trolls–so he and I know where the responsibilities and liabilities lie.

    You are right that I have written more than Patterico on this thread, for the simple reason that it is a useful forum to get out the facts. When loony-toons like you are the best defenders the Ninth Circuit has, it burnishes my contentions.

    Anyway, I’m heading off this thread. I have kept my issue live, and once I have to start contending with the lunatic fringe who think I’m Alex Mundy sneaking into peoples houses and putting porn on judge’s computers or re-arranging his sock drawers, it’s time to move on, the victory being pretty obvious.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  53. Isn’t it amazing how Tlove can light up a thread the way some women IRL light up a room?

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  54. Awwwww. So sweet!

    Tlove (953364)

  55. Cyrus – The best forum to get your “facts” out is in court, the place where you have had your ass handed to you, repeatedly. It is telling that you think a blog is the best forum for your facts, even the finest second-tier blog on these here innertubes.

    JD (5f0e11)

  56. Any of you legal types do work setting up LLC’s?

    JD (5f0e11)

  57. Cyrus, why can’t you move on? Is it that you have no other work, so you just sit around all day obsessing over the past? I’m really quite curious about this.

    Tlove (953364)

  58. “36. Cyrus Sanai wrote: My piece is now no.2 most viewed, below a review of Pam Anderson’s new opus but above J. Gold’s restaurant review.

    You must be very proud.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/7/2008 @ 2:18 pm”

    Uh, Smithee, Cyrus was merely being humorous. Whether you agree or disagree with the guy, don’t put him down when he is being self-deprecatingly humorous. (FYI, I have posted comments on this blog about the LA Times’ atrocious behavior in publishing the original Kozinski story.)

    Also, I must have missed something. What has Cyrus done that anyone would refer to him as an anti-semite?

    Ira (28a423)

  59. it’s time to move on, my need to slander jews sated.

    Fixed that for ya… :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  60. I must say, there’s something deliciously amusing and ironic about conservatives being described as the best defenders the 9th circuit has.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  61. #52

    Patterico

    Alright, this really is my last given the commentator is the proprietor.

    Well, the issue is not really Rooker-Feldman–it’s actually Younger abstention for most of the issues.

    I don’t see what there is to disclose when Googling my name gets the whole long history. But if someone wants disclosure, I’ll give them disclosure. The problem is that the disclosure ends up taking over the piece. LA Weekly made its decision, and my piece is no.2 on the web today, so obviously it is getting a lot of interest.

    The real issue is not technical doctrine. Kozinski himself made that clear when he put Thibodeau’s Apologia pro Corruption on his alex.kozinski.com, then pretended it had never been there. That we called Thibodeau corrupt for appointing an employee of a party as a judicial referee was and is the core danger we presented to the status qo. Since that is clearly illegal, Judge Zilly had to go the length of enjoining us from challenging this in state court to protect the practice’s continued viability in the Ninth Circuit, and then Kozinski had to breach Canon 3(A) in further hopes of discrediting me.

    Zilly and Kozinski went far beyond the limits of what judges are permitted to do because this issue is so important to the financial well-being of so many judges, state and federal. If we successfully attack it, federal Judges like James Mahan no longer get the sweet real estate deals that make him a mint, and the otherwise incompetent lawyers and other fixers who broker these deals lose their practice.

    Of course, had I known this when the litigation in Snohomish County started, I would have had things played differently. I made the mistake of thinking I was in a jurisdiction where California rules operated, and not Baton Rouge, Chicago, or Brooklyn rules were in play, and so we got crushed. But that is not going to last.

    Anyway, it has been good practice knocking down straw men today. I’m still chuckling about the accusation that I snuck into Kozinski’s house to download porn. “Ahm in Kowzinski’s Internetz” would be the lolcats version. Funny, and pretty typical of the quality of arguments from my detractors.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  62. Any of you legal types do work setting up LLC’s

    Hell, *I* could set you up an LLC… I recommend Nevada… It’s incorperation laws read like they were writen to benifit the mob…

    Oh, wait…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  63. I must say, there’s something deliciously amusing and ironic about conservatives being described as the best defenders the 9th circuit has.

    LMFAO!!!

    You kow, that is damned funny…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  64. Also, I must have missed something. What has Cyrus done that anyone would refer to him as an anti-semite?

    Didn’t you know? He’s made a couple lovely comments disparaging the religion of yon fair Judge, back during the high-tide of the Kowzinski file-server issue…

    Basicly, part of his attack was that the judge is jewish, and yadda yadda yadda zionist blah blah blah the Master Race etc etc etc…

    Ok, he never said the t “master Race”, but it isn’t all that far off, in my opinion…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  65. You know, our shared defense of the 9th Circuit is what got me mixed up with this blog.

    Tlove (953364)

  66. Yeah… Sorry about that… 😉

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  67. TLove: politics, as the saying goes, makes strange bedfellows; i stumbled across this blog while arguing about the attempt to recall Gov. Davis.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  68. Me and Better Half are starting a business supplying staffing of lifeguards and maintenance folks for neighborhood pools, country clubs, etc … Since the use of high school and college students in this environment is fraught with potential legal ramifications, we want to work with a lawyer while organizing the company. I would rather spend my money with some of you folks ….Except Cyrus.

    JD (5f0e11)

  69. wish I could help. I could use the money.

    Tlove (953364)

  70. Scott Jacobs wrote:

    Basicly, part of his attack was that the judge is jewish, and yadda yadda yadda zionist blah blah blah the Master Race etc etc etc…

    Ok, he never said the t “master Race”, but it isn’t all that far off, in my opinion…

    WODR, Scott, that’s not fair. Spurious charges of racism are thrown all over the net on a daily basis. If you have something to link or cut-and-paste, that will be useful to the debate. Saying “basic[al]ly…yadda yadda yadda…etc” is “proof” is lame.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  71. Cyrus Sanai wrote: …once I have to start contending with the lunatic fringe who think I’m Alex Mundy sneaking into peoples houses and putting porn on judge’s computers or re-arranging his sock drawers, it’s time to move on, the victory being pretty obvious.

    Alex Mundy? Robert Wagner in It Takes a Thief! Whoa…did you ever date yourself!

    And, I guess, so did I. But I only saw it in syndication.

    L.N. Smithee (d1de1b)

  72. Hearing Sanai refer to anyone else as a lunatic really cracks me up.

    Tlove (953364)

  73. Racists

    JD (5f0e11)

  74. P.S. Any comments that could even arguably be read as a threat to anyone — whether professional, physical, or otherwise — will be cheerfully deleted.

    At least you have enabled comments on this article, in pointed distinction to others whom you allow to post to this blog.

    VG

    Voiceguy in L.A. (e5b52a)

  75. I am less interested in the merits of the argument than I am in journalistic criticism, and this should have been disclosed….

    Point well taken. I went tangential on you, see below.

    I have bent over backwards to be fair to both Mr. Sanai and Judge Kozinski in this controversy.

    Admittedly, I’ve only seen this and the post on the “stuff” file, as I’m a fairly new visitor. In the posts I’ve seen, you certainly gave Mr. Sanai freedom to respond.

    I am a state prosecutor and it doesn’t help me to “suck up” to Judge Kozinski. It does help me as a blogger to be fair, and that’s what I try to do.

    A gentleman’s word is good enough for me. So if I could ammend my earlier entry, I’d ask to read more about any facts that claim to refute Mr. Sanai’s allegations. The core issues related to Sanai’s ethics complaints were touched on previously, but not addressed directly on their merits. That’s what would interest me. His charges are serious. His remarks here seem lucid and plausible to this non-lawyer, but not so the rebuttals by other commenters I’ve read so far.

    Thanks.

    Born Free (632035)

  76. Actually, Born Free, with respect to Kosinzki, we’ve shown that Sanai’s charges are not serious but in fact grossly exaggerated. The reality is that Sanai is disturbingly obsessed with someone who has no connection to the litigation that Sanai cannot let go off, other than choosing to respond to Sanai’s original commentary about it in a public forum.

    Sanai displays an intemperate fascination with attempting to retaliate against people who disagree with him.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Someone’s actually buying it! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

    Tlove (953364)

  78. For those of us befuddled passers-by who (after reading seemingly lucid and convincing arguments from both sides of this controversy) now realize that there is such a fundamental disconnect between the two that one of the two sides has to be making up shyte from thin air, can anyone recommend some on-line primary source (case, article, anything) that would educate us in the factual history of this mess?

    I’ve never heard of this guy aside from knowing he’s the one who yanked a private directory (private in intention, I mean – whether someone could break in to get it isn’t my point) of a fed judge and proclaimed to the world that the judge’s internet cow jokes were deviant pron, so he already starts off deeply in the red of the “integrity”, “intelligence”, and “stability” metrics, and it does seem to me that he’s quietly leaping over two specific needed logical steps in his main argument here, but I’d be interested in reading about “his case”, or even “his arguments.”

    And I’d also like to know (maybe from him) how judges attacking his personal rep could have any affect on “his case.”

    Oh, and world peace. I’d also like to see world peace.

    bobby b (4baf73)

  79. Bobby…

    Here is a search result on this site for “Sanai”, the results should give a good run-down if you go through them all…

    But basicly…

    His mom and dad got divorced. He feels his mom got screwed. The guy appointed to “handle the cash” knew his father.

    Sanai files suit, it gets tossed. He publishes a letter attacking the judge in the case, and advocating issues that he himself was attempting to argue in the suit. The letter he wrote identified him merely as a lawyer, not a lawyer who had been involved in a case infront of the judge, using arguments her put forth in the letter.

    Judge Kozinski writes a letter defending his fellow judge, citing publicly available cases and things Sanai himself refferenced and outting the man’s undisclosed conflict of interest.

    Sanai gots bat-shits crazy over this, and starts a life of vengence against the Judge (I saw a movie like this once I think). This eventually leads to Sanai accessing the personal, not-intended-for-public file sever for the Judge’s home.

    Sanai is nuts, likes to insult those who disagree, and is basicly a jerk. I wouldn’t hire him if HE was paying ME.

    Oh, and at some point the King and Queen of bug-fuck nuts arrive (The Petrano’s) and basicly demonstrate everything the is (a) wrong with lawyers and (b) why people should be beaten after each groundless lawsuit they file.

    I mention (b) because I’m of a mind that people wouldn’t do certain things over and over if there was pain involved.

    Hope that helps…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  80. The world peace, however, is outside my powers to grant…

    And besides, it ain’t happening until after the Dem’s convention… I stocked up on popcorn, damnit, and I demand a show!

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  81. Oh, and at some point the King and Queen of bug-fuck nuts arrive (The Petrano’s) and basicly demonstrate everything the is (a) wrong with lawyers and (b) why people should be beaten after each groundless lawsuit they file.

    If you are going to try a dog-whistle, you should be kind enough to use their names, David Petranos Esq and MKDP. Where oh where have they gone?!

    JD (712926)

  82. Feeling like playing whack-a-loon, JD?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  83. I was hoping to NOT draw them out of the woodwork, thank you…

    As for where they went to, I suspect that either (a) Patrick told them to get bent when David tried to get money for the increase in traffic he and his wife were generating or (b) they have gone into hiding, fleeing in terror to escape the reach of the greatest of criminal mastermind, that Supers Class A Hacker, that pervert’s pervert, AnnTM.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  84. So you are saying that they saw the mailman delivering mail, Scott?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  85. Unfortunately, along with the Petranos we got someone else. Thanks to Xrlq and Patterico, he’s in moderation now and this site is again a much more pleasant one.

    Have you heard the definition of a shlemiel? “When he leaves it seems as though somebody very intersting came in.”

    nk (e38352)

  86. Yeah, but we got Bridget, TLove, and a bunch of others too, so I’m willing to forgive…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  87. I miss David Petranos Esq and MKDP. And I would still love to buy AnnTM a beer.

    JD (712926)

  88. “The exact opposite happened to what you contend. Judge Kozinski acknowledged that his article was a violation of judicial ethics, and he supposedly apologized”

    Cyrus – I’m not sure I should hold my breath waiting for your apology for calling me a dishonest idiot before you made this comment. As the links proved, Kozinski did not admit to a breach nor did the circuit find one. He apologized for a perceived breach. Once again you are confused on your facts.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  89. Don’t use that horse whistle! Put it down immediately!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  90. Smithee 73:

    Saying “basic[al]ly…yadda yadda yadda…etc” is “proof” is lame.

    True enough…unfortunately my google-fu is rather lame at the moment. However, I’m going to chime in and back Scott up on this: I’d never heard of Sanai before running across him hear at Pat’s, and someplace in the comments right after Pat posted about the LAT publishing salacious allegations of Judge Kozinski’s hard drive comments, Sanai clearly identified himself as an anti-Semite and believer in the “Zionists control the world” conspiracy lunacy.

    Since I’ve never been anyplace else where Sanai was discussed, or where he has commented, it had to have been here.

    EW1(SG) (02bd5b)

  91. EW1 93: …Judge K’s hard drive CONTENTS…

    I’ll go back to thumbing through the listings for “EASL” in the yellow pages now…

    EW1(SG) (02bd5b)

  92. Cyrus – From your #55:

    “Your contention that I can’t win in court comes again from the “I make up my facts” department–easily belied by the lawyer from a big firm who lost to me today, or those who have had to pay me six figure attorney fee awards.”

    Given your demonstrated estrangement from the truth and inability to lay out all the facts, good thing you are not a securities lawyer, why don’t you provide some case citations for your work so the good readers of this blog can check these assertions of yours out for themselves?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  93. After clicking the links offered, it appears to me:

    1. The original state judge knowingly appointed a person with a conspicuous conflict of interest to manage portions of the divorce settlement involving Mr. Sanai’s parents.

    2. Mr. Sanai has prevailed in a number of appeals since then.

    3. At least 2 (3?) lower court judges were removed from further participation.

    4. Several lower courts have made significant errors prejudicial to Mr. Sanai’s pursuit of redress.

    5. Lower court judges got extremely annoyed when Mr. Sanai pointed out the deficiencies in their legal findings.

    It goes without saying that Mr. Sanai is persistent, even obsessed. I see a lot of indignation and invective being expressed on that point, but why shouldn’t he be obsessed? If a judge knowingly appointed someone with a demonstrable conflict of interest to manage property divisions in a case involving me or my family, I’d become obsessed with finding justice, too.

    That he may have over-reached regarding the Kozinski matter seems to me to pale in comparison to the treatment he’s received from others. Didn’t Kozinski over-reach in discussing the Thibodeau matter publicly? Just asking.

    Born Free (632035)

  94. You know, for those who aren’t familiar with it, it seems far-fetched that someone would be able to upload all those files onto Koz’s computer. But it’s actually very easy to do if someone just sets up a windows network with sharing, and isn’t careful with it. Given how sloppy the server was, I think Kozinski was careless enough to make this error.

    Note that Cyrus has never denied doing it. He is reacting here as though the mere accusation (a reasonable question given his racism and bizarre need to hurt Judge Kozinski and his wife and son) is proof that he has won. A very odd, and apparently obnoxious reaction to a very serious thought. All I’ve said is that it seems clear it’s a possibility. Cyrus could have gone war-driving at Kozinski’s house. You’ll note that a very unusual file also appeared on Kozinski’s server: the article that Kozinski deleted from it months before about Cyrus, that Cyrus wanted to prove was being distributed over the internet. Kozinski’s written thousands of articles and decisions that don’t appear on this server, by the way. It’s a silly issue to all by Cyrus, so it’s odd that a poorly secured system surprises everyone including the judge and includes a point Cyrus needed to make an accusation.

    So I merely ask: how do we know Cyrus didn’t put the files there. The first time I did, I was threatened with a defamation lawsuit. Now, Cyrus just laughs and claims it’s ridiculous. But he’s never said ‘no I didn’t do that’, and I think that’s because he realizes that there is a slight chance he’ll be caught. I’ve always thought his overreaction to this point is very suspicious, as is his refusal to deny it. It’s a farfetched thought that he did it, but this guy is exactly the sort to do it. We will probably never find out.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  95. I seriously doubt Cyrus uploaded any material onto Judge Kozinksi’s family server. He just found it, and well, lied about it.

    G (722480)

  96. The original state judge knowingly appointed a person with a conspicuous conflict of interest to manage portions of the divorce settlement involving Mr. Sanai’s parents.

    While maybe not the BEST choice, is tehre even a shred of evidence besides Mr Sanai’s accusations that the man did anything impropper?

    Several lower courts have made significant errors prejudicial to Mr. Sanai’s pursuit of redress

    This is an opinion, not fact, unless higher courts have overturned the decisions.

    Didn’t Kozinski over-reach in discussing the Thibodeau matter publicly

    In my mind, no – not if Mr. Sanai brought it up first. “Opening the door”, as it were…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  97. Is anyone else getting the feeling that Born Free is Cyrus Sanai?

    Tlove (953364)

  98. 100, No, I don’t think Born Free is Cyrus.

    G (722480)

  99. Maybe it’s Petrano!

    Tlove (953364)

  100. Is anyone else getting the feeling that Born Free is Cyrus Sanai?

    The blog’s proprietor is welcome to compare IP addresses and offer his opinion on your question.

    Given Mr. Sanai’s apparent intelligence and command of detail, you flatter me. Not being a lawyer, nor having access to legal reference books, I can’t speak to the validity of the legal citations he’s used. I speak only to the layman’s conclusions I drew from reading the links. I’ve still not seen any factual refutation in comments here, just opinion. Also, more of the same kind of snotty remarks leveled throughout at Mr. Sanai.

    Born Free (632035)

  101. Given Mr. Sanai’s apparent intelligence and command of detail,

    Maybe not Cyrus, but I’m at least starting to suspect BF is related…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  102. Is anyone else getting the feeling that Born Free is Cyrus Sanai?

    Born Free is to Cyrus the Virus as David Petranos Esp is to MDKP.

    Hey, that is fun. Kind of like an SAT question.

    JD (75f5c3)

  103. Given Mr. Sanai’s apparent intelligence and command of detail, you flatter me

    OK, really?

    Tlove (953364)

  104. “The original state judge knowingly appointed a person with a conspicuous conflict of interest to manage portions of the divorce settlement involving Mr. Sanai’s parents.”

    Born Free – The local judege specified the division of the marital estate, which Cyrus and his side have conspicuosly impeded and been sanctioned for in court. His father’s medical practice apparently also handled most household bills. In my view, appointing someone who is familiar with the medical practice as special master avoids dissipating the marital estate with needless additional bills. Objecting to the judge’s rulings on the division of marital assets is one matter. Proving prejudice on the part of the special master is another. If the special master is required to submit an accounting of his activities to the court, that is where such alleged improprieties would surface. Land sales mandated by the court are not de facto evidence of improprieties. Although Cyrus makes the legal case for potential improprieties invalidating the process, he certainly has not described any actual improprieties to this audience.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  105. “Is anyone else getting the feeling that Born Free is Cyrus Sanai?”

    Cyrus’s brother was kicked off the litigation team by the judge. That’s a possibility.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  106. hahahahahaha. runs in the family.

    Tlove (953364)

  107. In my view, appointing someone who is familiar with the medical practice as special master avoids dissipating the marital estate with needless additional bills. Objecting to the judge’s rulings on the division of marital assets is one matter. Proving prejudice on the part of the special master is another.

    I don’t hear anyone denying that the so-called special master had a previous business and financial relationship with one of the opposing parties. On the contrary, it appears to be accepted fact all around.

    Another view, one often referred to in the common tongue as “Common Sense”, strongly suggests that the previous relationship constituted a blatant conflict of interest. There were other choices the judge could have made to avoid that appearance. He ignored arguments to that effect.

    The disadvantaged party has every reason to appeal. From what I’ve read, the judge eventually recused himself, whatever that implies. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    Anything else?

    Born Free (632035)

  108. My my, Born Free, you sure do have a lot of interesting insight into this matter as a nonlawyer and completely neutral bystander.

    Tlove (953364)

  109. Gosh TLove, you make such great well thought out points. You are also so beautiful and witty! Everyone should listen to you.

    Smartypants (953364)

  110. “The disadvantaged party has every reason to appeal. From what I’ve read, the judge eventually recused himself, whatever that implies. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”

    Born Free – Read the links to see why. The truth, not Cyrus, will set you free.

    Why were Cyrus, his mother and brother trying to stop the sale of two parcels of land that his mother was not awarded in the divorce settlement?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  111. Why were Cyrus, his mother and brother trying to stop the sale of two parcels of land that his mother was not awarded in the divorce settlement?

    I give up, why? Did it have something to do with the judge who recused himself? Seriously, given the conflict of interest already noted, why is that question even relevant?

    Born Free (632035)

  112. Born Free – Cyrus is lurking around maybe he’ll answer.

    Your inability to discuss it though, shows you really haven’t looked into the record of the litigation.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  113. LOL, you posed the question, so if my answer wasn’t “correct”, then by all means point out the error.

    What, too busy to explain to the little people, or did you just make it up? The latter is more of a kind with your other comments.

    Born Free (632035)

  114. Born Free – You didn’t have an answer, you had a guess. Read the material.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  115. Born Free – Here’s a little sample from a 7/01/05 order from Judge Zilly.

    From the intro:

    I. INTRODUCTION
    On January 3, 2005, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why their Complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice because of their continued misconduct, disregard for Orders of this Court, and bad faith litigation tactics. See Minute Order, docket no. 641, at ¶ 10. Plaintiffs’ conduct in this litigation has been an indescribable abuse of the legal process, unlike anything this Judge has experienced in more than 17 years on the bench and 26 years in private practice: outrageous, disrespectful, and in bad faith.1 Plaintiffs have employed the most abusive and obstructive litigation tactics this Court has ever encountered, all of which are directed at events and persons surrounding the divorce of Sassan and Viveca Sanai, including parties, lawyers, and even judges.2 Plaintiffs have filed scores of frivolous pleadings, forcing baseless and expensive litigation. The docket in this case approaches 700 filings, a testament to Plaintiffs’ dogged pursuit of a divorce long past.

    Plaintiffs have flatly refused to obey Orders of this Court, to cooperate with discovery, and to comply with their obligations under the Federal Rules. They have refused to appear for depositions and respond to discovery. When deposing opposing parties, their conduct has been abusive and disrespectful. They have intercepted and wiretapped the phone calls of other represented parties in this litigation. They have actively and improperly interfered with discovery, and required this Court to intervene all too frequently.elating to property owned by Sassan and Viveca during their marriage, including a vacant lot and the family home. In disregard of a direct Order from this Court, Plaintiff Fredric Sanai and Viveca Sanai effected lis pendens filings with the Snohomish County Auditor that were contrary to the Orders of this Court. See Transcript of Proceedings, docket no. 272; see also Order on Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, and Attorneys’ Fees, docket no. 262. The sanctions imposed by the Court for those actions are currently on appeal, but Plaintiffs’ disregard for the Orders of the Court is relevant to the Court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ continued course of misconduct. The Court also ordered the parties to address whether monetary sanctions should be imposed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, or the Court’s inherent contempt power. See Moore v. Keegan Mgmt. Co. (In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig.), 78 F.3d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1996); Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-1236 (9th Cir. 1990) (Section 1927 sanctions may be imposed on a pro se plaintiff). In addition, Defendant Sassan Sanai has recently moved this Court for an Order of Contempt and Sanctions, associated with the filing of a new lis pendens by Plaintiff Cyrus Sanai, which was contrary to the Order of this Court that no further lis pendens were to be filed against the family home. See Emergency Motion for Contempt and Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence in Support of Dismissal for Misconduct, docket no. 683.

    The conclusion:

    IV. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court hereby enters the following Order:
    1. Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, docket no. 145, is DISMISSED with prejudice for the reasons set forth in this Order. The Counterclaims of Defendants Sullivan, McCullough, and Sanai shall remain.
    2. The lis pendens filed by Cyrus Sanai, dated May 24, 2005, shall be cancelled and released by the Snohomish County Auditor, and this Order may be recorded against the subject property at 8711 Talbot Road, Edmonds, WA 98026: Tract 25, Talbot Park, Vol. 12 of Plats, page 107, records of Snohomish County, Washington, tax parcel no. 00594400.
    3. Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Contempt and Motion for Leave to Submit Additional Evidence in Support of Dismissal for Misconduct, docket no. 683, is GRANTED.
    Plaintiff Cyrus Sanai shall pay all attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Sassan Sanai’s attorneys Martin Ziontz and William Sullivan as a result of his filing the lis pendens.
    Dr. Sanai shall submit a declaration setting forth his attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, within 15 days of this Order, for approval by the Court.
    4. Plaintiffs Cyrus Sanai and Fredric Sanai shall pay the sanctions ordered by this Court on March 10, 2005, see Minute Order, docket no. 675, within 10 days of this Order.
    5. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, docket no. 690.
    6. The Court finds that Plaintiffs Cyrus Sanai, Fredric Sanai, and Viveca Sanai are liable for excessive costs in this litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 resulting from Plaintiffs’ unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of these proceedings. Plaintiffs Cyrus Sanai, Fredric Sanai, and Viveca Sanai shall be required to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of their conduct, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Within 20 days of this Order, Defendants shall submit a motion to quantify their § 1927 attorneys’ fees and costs; said motions shall be noted for consideration on the third Friday thereafter.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    DATED this 1st of July, 2005.

    It’s all part of a masterful legal stragegy Born Free. It is unfolding before our very eyes.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  116. Born Free, yoo hoo, where are you?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  117. Thanks for the detail. But hasn’t that judge also removed himself from adjudicating Mr. Sanai’s claims? Further, one or more of the points Zilly makes have been rebutted, including the “wiretapping”, which appears to have been legal in the state where it occurred. Why was this judge protesting Sanai’s legal methods, and apparently sanctioning him for same? Then he recused himself?

    As stated previously, and yet to be contradicted: the original state judge chose to knowingly appoint someone with an obvious conflict of interest to manage the property settlement.

    Compared to the average person, represented by one of Thibodeau’s local supplicants, who would have had to bend over and make the best of Thibodeau’s decisions, Mr. Sanai’s legal training provided the means to take the fight to the next level.

    Everything else that Mr. Sanai is critisized for seems to flow from his attempts to rectify that original injustice. Multiple recusals, Kozinski’s public discussion of the case, and Mr. Sanai’s reaction, spring from that original case, as well.

    Seems to me that it would have occured to someone by now that the problem isn’t Mr. Sanai, but the original corrupt decisions by the Washington judge, and attempts by subsequent judges to punish Mr. Sanai for his having alleged the original judge’s corruption.

    Looks like they picked the wrong guy to screw. Too bad for them.

    Born Free (632035)

  118. Kozinski’s discussion of the case has nothing to do with “rectifying” “injustice”, Born Free. That’s just you repeating Sanai’s incoherent propaganda. And at no time do Washington judges’ actions justify Sanai’s conduct.

    Now that you’ve applauded Sanai’s extra-legal attempts to undermine the judicial process, we know just how interested you are in justice, don’t we?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  119. Born Free – Are you Frederick Sanai by any chance?

    The judge above is Zilly, not Thibodeau. Thibodeau is the one who recused himself.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  120. Whew, I was beginning to think I’d imagined it, but after googling an hour, I found it on this page, lol, Comment #19, by Cyrus Sanai, “…Zilly (now recused)…”.

    http://patterico.com/2008/08/07/sanais-litigation-strategy-continues/#comment-369187

    Sorry, I’m not a Sanai. The first I heard of them was on this blog. The closest I’ve come to the legal bar was when a Washington, D.C. police sargeant who rear-ended me, and in the ensuing discussion of events, thought I was a law student (I wasn’t then, or ever).

    Earlier in this thread I suggested the blog owner might compare IP addresses (I’m in New Mexico). If it’s a serious concern, I’ll even provide explicit proof of identity to the blog owner, if requested.

    I’ve pretty much said what I can say based on what I’ve read so far. My conclusions still stand. Probably best to let this thread die.

    Just for what it’s worth, I’m not really focused on Kozinski, like everyone else seems to be. He didn’t ajudicate the property division appeals, best I can tell. I think Mr. Sanai over-reached on that one. However, one should never place oneself between a Klingon and his prey. Kozinski did just that, outside of the courtroom. He was fair game at that point, and he got mauled for it. Too bad.

    Until the next related thread, then?

    Born Free (6d00ac)

  121. Please don’t let this thread die.

    TLove (953364)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6647 secs.