Patterico's Pontifications

8/30/2008

Federal Judge Samuel Kent Charged

Filed under: Judiciary,Media Bias — DRJ @ 4:25 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Following up on this earlier post, Texas federal Judge Samuel Kent was charged this week with federal sex crimes:

“Kent was charged Thursday with abusive sexual contact and attempted aggravated sex abuse related to two alleged attacks on his former case manager Cathy McBroom in 2003 and 2007.”

Kent intends to remain on the bench and hearing cases, although he had earlier agreed not to hear criminal cases involving the federal government or cases involving sexual harassment. The Fifth Circuit previously reprimanded Kent for related judicial misconduct, at which time he took a 4-month leave of absence with full pay. The House Judiciary Committee may also be investigating Kent.

I think the Fifth Circuit should step in. Kent is innocent until proven guilty but this looks terrible.

— DRJ

89 Responses to “Federal Judge Samuel Kent Charged”

  1. How long will it take for the House Cmte on the Judiciary to schedule impeachment hearings?
    BTW, who appointed this alleged POS?

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  2. We’re actually very fortunate this doesn’t happen more with Federal judges, because it’s a sticky situation. I don’t think under the Constitution you can stop paying them or remove their status as judge until Congress impeaches and removes them. I believe there has been cases of people sitting in jail or prison still drawing judicial salaries. But to have someone with pending criminal charges hear criminal cases seems wrong too, despite the presumption of innocence.

    I think the only solution is to have the circuit judicial conference suspend the charged judge, until Congress impeaches or the charged judge clears his or her name in court and can then resume the bench. Downside is an innocent but politically or locally unpopular judge could be falsely accused to keep him or her from trying cases for a time at least, but I don’t know a better solution.

    Aplomb (b6fba6)

  3. AD,

    Kent was appointed by George H.W. Bush.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  4. Well, that’s just another thing I don’t like about GW’s Daddy!

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  5. There are lots of things a district court judge can do without hearing cases from the bench. Does anyone know if he is Senior Status?

    WLS (5ce147)

  6. WLS,

    I don’t think so but I don’t know for sure. However, I think he is the only federal judge in Galveston and the surrounding area. Here’s a list of the Southern District of Texas federal judges.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  7. Kent is another stark failure of the federal judicial misconduct system. These charges were investigated and he was found to have committed some unknown kind of sexual harassment based on secret facts, but the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council decided that a reprimand, four months of paid vacation and a transfer to Houston were adequate corrective measures.

    A link: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/news/news/Judicial%20Council%20Order.pdf

    What’s critical to note is that the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council found him guilty, but they would not say what precisely he done. Now of course we know what it was: attempted forcible rape.

    This was more or less similar to the outcome in the Ninth Circuit’s investigation of James Mahan, and Judge Schroeder’s 2006 misconduct investigation of Judge Kozinski, which ended with a similar “termination due to corrective action being taken”. In both cases the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome.

    Personally, I’m pretty pleased with Kent’s indictment, as it shows a Circuit other than the Ninth with severe misconduct problems that its Judicial Council can’t bring itself to correct. The Fifth Circuit has another judge from Louisiana that it has requested Congress to investigate for possible impeachment relating to bribes. It has long been the rival of the Ninth Circuit for most severely malfunctioning Circuit. With recent articles in the Wall Street Journal and ABA Journal focusing on Manuel Real, there is going to come a tipping point where Congress take judicial discipline out of the hands of the circuit and into the hands of a Congressionally-appointed commission, which is where the Constitution states it should belong.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  8. Congress is notorious for sloughing off responsiblity to others for that which it is supposed to do.
    It is the only way that they have the time for all of the BS that passes for Congressional action.
    Having to conduct actual, real oversight of the Executive (instead of Waxman’s little ego stroking hearings where he swears in tobacco execs to attempt a perjury trap) and the Judiciary would be too hard. Why, they might have to actually be in their offices on Monday and Friday.
    Oh, the Humanity!

    Another Drew (5efac7)

  9. Whoa whoa whoa! Cyrus Sanai (#7) wrote, incredibly,

    [T]he Fifth Circuit Judicial Council found him guilty, but they would not say what precisely he done. Now of course we know what it was: attempted forcible rape.

    That’s absolutely counter-factual, and indeed, defamatory.

    Judge Kent is now under a federal indictment. Its allegations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to every essential element of each crime charged. That has not yet been done. It may never be done.

    But what was pending before the Fifth Circuit Judicial Counsel was not an indictment. It was not something that had been vetted by federal prosecutors or a grand jury. And most importantly, the Fifth Circuit didn’t find him “guilty” — an important, loaded, powerful word which has a very precise legal meaning. Indeed, we do not know, and cannot know, and unless the Fifth Circuit opens confidential files will never know, what the members of the Council actually believed. They certainly weren’t operating under a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

    It is entirely possible that the Council believed, as Judge Kent’s defense lawyer now asserts publicly, that the sexual contact was invited and entirely consensual, but nevertheless that such conduct was inappropriate. That is, they could have found even consensual and invited contact to still have “violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” and deemed it “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice.”

    Were I to speculate, in fact, I would say that the nature of the punishment they prescribed suggested that the judges who heard the accuser’s sworn testimony and cross-examination were not persuaded that the contact was non-consensual. The suspension and transfer strike me as about what these judges might well have found appropriate as punishment for a consensual (but still inappropriate) workplace romance.

    The criminal trial, if there is one, will likely come down to a swearing match on the subject of consent. I don’t know either Judge Kent or his accuser, but I’ve certainly handled enough workplace sex cases to know that they can go either way, and they’re highly dependent on the respective credibility of the accuser and accused.

    Don’t go throwing around “guilty” pronouncements so lightly. I’ll bet that in other circumstances, Cyrus Sanai, you may fancy yourself a civil libertarian. Treat this as a test of your principles, if you have any.

    DRJ: I respectfully disagree that the Fifth Circuit should take sides on this “he said/she said” dispute. Doing so would inevitably be interpreted as telegraphing a belief in the accuser over the accused. I’m certain no one is happy about this among the judges of the Fifth Circuit or the Southern District of Texas, but they’re not about to start trampling Sam Kent’s rights just because he’s a federal judge.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  10. Well done, Beldar. But you waste your talents on spanking people not in your league.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. Beldar,

    You can also argue the Fifth Circuit has taken Kent’s side by doing nothing, but the test shouldn’t be whose side they are on. The issue should be the courtroom appearance of impropriety and while I agree that leaving Kent on the bench is a good lesson in the presumption of innocence, it puts the judiciary in a bad light.

    At a minimum, parties should be able to seek his recusal with greater latitude. For instance, assume I plan to discredit a witness with a past bad act such as a sex crime conviction. I would be concerned if Kent were the judge ruling on that matter, and I would want to seek his recusal without suffering for it.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  12. “In both cases the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome.”

    Cyrus – Judge Schroeder did not find misconduct on the part of Kosinski. Why do you keep perpetuating your lies? The misconduct is only undisputed in your own mind.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  13. #9

    Beldar, read the order that I linked to before spouting off. The Fifth Circuit found that Kent committed misconduct. If the Fifth Circuit had believed Kent, as you claim, that the sex was consensual, then Kent did nothing wrong, and the complaint should have been dismissed.

    Instead, the Fifth Circuit found Kent GUILTY of some unspecified “sexual harassment” without stating what this consisted off. Well, now we know–it was attempted rape.

    It should also be noted that when a motion for rehearing was submitted by the complainant, the Fifth Circuit issued another order, stating that as the grand jury had been convened, it would do nothing until the criminal trial was resolved, so this guy is still hearing cases.

    Their has now been one investigation, which found Kent GUILTY, but refused to tell the public what he had done, and now a grand jury has indicted the guy. He is not fit to sit on the bench unless and until (a) he is acquitted, and (b) the Fifth Circuit reveals, what precise misconduct he had committed.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  14. #12

    Get a law degree and name, and I will respond. Otherwise STFU.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  15. Cyrus Sanai, I not only read (and had previously read, and blogged extensively about) the order you linked, but I actually quoted from it in my comment here.

    I do have a law degree.

    I defy you to find the word “guilty” anywhere in it. Quit lying.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  16. Cyrus – The funny thing is, people don’t need law degrees to uncover your lies. They can be revealed by reviewing the public record. There’s no need to get snippy. Are you brushing up on your statistics? It seems like you could use some help there.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  17. Cyrus, since you like to tell others what to do, here is my prescription for you: grow up, quit stalking people and don’t tell others to shut up.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. #16

    You are the compulsive anonymous liar Daleyrocks. If you are so sure you are right, go ahead and quote from order. As you said, it’s on-line. It says nothing like you represent.

    And you do need a law degree to understand things like judicial misconduct; it’s a legal concept, which you don’t have the education, brain power, or honesty to comprehend or discuss. So either quote the complete text of the order to contradict me, which you can’t do, or stop exposing your tiny brain and tinier manhood.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  19. Cyrus, I find your criticism of others’ honesty just the cutest little thing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. I don’t want to get in the middle of this Cyrus dispute but there’s another reason I’m bothered by Judge Kent’s status. Kent has already been recused, either voluntarily or involuntarily, from hearing any criminal case. Thus, the Fifth Circuit has already decided he’s either incapable of exercising objectivity in criminal cases or that it appears improper for him to preside in any criminal case.

    It makes no sense to me to say Kent is barred from criminal cases but good enough for civil cases. If he can hear cases, he should be able to hear both criminal and civil cases except similar sex crime cases. But that’s not what happened here. The premise is that judges set aside their biases or they recuse themselves when they can’t. In this case, by recusing Kent from all criminal cases, it indicates Kent either has a bias against the US Attorney he can’t set aside or the Fifth Circuit believes his presence looks improper. If that’s true, I don’t see how he’s qualified to preside in any case.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  21. Cyrus Sanai (#18): Actually, I agree with daleyrocks: “Judicial misconduct” pretty much boils down to “right and wrong.” It’s wrong, for example, for a federal judge to have even consensual sexual contact with a staffer, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that neither a federal judge nor the staffer need to have been to law school to understand.

    Similarly, most junior high students have been exposed to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” which you flout. If you were to repeat during a voir dire examination the things you’ve said here, any judge would strike you from the jury for cause.

    Of course, when you’re reduced to making stuff up about other commenter’s sexual organs, you’ve lost any credibility and gone way outside the bounds of civility. Good luck in all your future commenting endeavors, wherever you may avoid being banned.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  22. DRJ: The complaining party in every criminal case is the United States, through the Department of Justice.

    The complaining party in the criminal case against him is the United States, through the Department of Justice.

    It’s not an “appearance of propriety” thing, it’s a direct conflict.

    I haven’t looked lately, but that may even give rise to a statutory disqualification, not just a ground for voluntary self-recusal or discretionary disqualification.

    That’s why he’s not hearing criminal cases. I don’t think he’s hearing civil cases involving the government either.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  23. Cyrus – You can’t even keep your story straight on Kosinski’s alleged misconduct. The last time you brought it up you said he was punished and forced to apologize. You were corrected then and dodged responding. Tonight you again have a different story. It is becoming difficult to keep your mounting lies straight, and I’m glad Beldar agrees with me, it does not take a law degree to do this, you moron.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  24. But it appears the agreement not to hear criminal cases predated his indictment. I understand why they did that while he was being investigated – it looks bad and it’s hard for him to stay neutral – but I don’t see how it was a statutory disqualification before he was ever indicted.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  25. I guess it’s possible the DOJ had already targeted him and given him notice he was a target of their investigation.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  26. daleyrocks, any time someone pulls the “I’ve a law degree and you don’t” crap, you have one of the clearest signs of a BS’er.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. #21

    Nope, you are completely wrong Beldar.

    It’s not wrong for a person to comment on a judicial case. It’s judicial misconduct for a judge to do so.

    It’s not wrong for a regular person to campaign for Obama or McCain. It’s judicial misconduct for a federal judge to do so.

    It’s not wrong for someone to criticize our president in a speech. It’s wrong for a federal judge to do so, and indeed one judge has been disciplined for it (reprimand).

    So your statement that judicial misconduct maps to high school ethics is pretty much a demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about. Judges have a much different set of obligations than the rest of us. It’s the price of the job.

    The problem in this case, Beldar, is that the Fifth Circuit found him GUILTY of some kind of sexual harassment prior to the criminal investigation, but won’t say what it was. Again, read the order I linked to.

    Here, it is he said/she said. The Fifth Circuit did not believe Kent; therefore he did SOMETHING wrong, and the thing he was accused of, we know now, is attempted rape.

    Finally, I have no knowledge about Daleyrock’s sexual organs. I was commenting on the fact that he is not a mensch; he is not a McCain, he’s not even an Obama, he’s a cowardly lying punk. He repeatedly posts on boards that I am divorced; his repetitive, compulsive dishonesty disqualifies him from civil treatment.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  28. #26

    Your comment is a sign about insecurity about your lack of a relevant education; you, Beldar and Daleyrocks get your idea of the legal system from Judge Judy. You guys can’t even read an order correctly.

    Daleyrocks keeps lying about my marital status, and pretends that published orders say something different than what they do. Doesn’t link or even quote from the relevant orders though.

    Beldar says judicial misconduct rules can be gleaned from a high school ethics course, and keeps insisting that the Fifth Circuit cleared Kent, when in fact he was found guilty of sexual harassment.

    What utter nonsense.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  29. Cyrus, actually daleyrocks pegs you correctly in both your honesty and your IQ. I have no insecurity about my education, given that I possess three college degrees – one of which happens to be a law degree.

    One example of where my, daleyrocks and Beldars honesty and IQ exceed yours can be found in this statement of yours: “Beldar says judicial misconduct rules can be gleaned from a high school ethics course, and keeps insisting that the Fifth Circuit cleared Kent, when in fact he was found guilty of sexual harassment.”

    Beldar actually said none of those things. And that you don’t understand what Beldar actually wrote and how his comments above refuted yours – and continue to do so despite your misrepresentation of them and failure to confront them – is pretty amusing.

    Shame about that law degree someone apparently conferred upon you. Didn’t take.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. Cyrus Sanai, this is the last thing I’m going to say to you, because you have all the hallmarks of a kook.

    The language I quoted above is the exact language from the order. The Judicial Council didn’t use the word “guilty” or the word “guilt.” Those are concepts from the criminal law. This was not a criminal proceeding. What the Council used was the language from the Judicial Code, which comes from Title 28, and it didn’t find that Judge Kent did something quote-unquote “wrong.” It found that —

    his actions described in the report violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and are deemed prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice.

    That doesn’t necessarily mean rape. It doesn’t necessarily mean any other criminal act. It could indeed have referred merely to consensual sexual conduct. Judges aren’t supposed to be sexually involved with their staff members, even if the staff members are begging for it. Can you not fathom that?

    Do you claim to be a lawyer? Licensed? In any sort of adversary practice? God help your clients, if so.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  31. daleyrocks said in #12:

    Cyrus – Judge Schroeder did not find misconduct on the part of Kosinski. Why do you keep perpetuating your lies? The misconduct is only undisputed in your own mind.

    Cyrus Sanai said in #18:

    You are the compulsive anonymous liar Daleyrocks. If you are so sure you are right, go ahead and quote from order. As you said, it’s on-line. It says nothing like you represent.

    Why permit such back-and-forth when the source material is readily available, and has been published on this blog?

    As I said in this post:

    When the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council finally ruled on Sanai’s complaint, it was in this order. It found no misconduct on the unnamed judge’s part, but noted that the judge had nevertheless apologized for any appearance of impropriety.

    As for my claim that no misconduct was found, let me quote from the last page of the order:

    Because the judge’s statements could not affect any vote on this matter, the standard for a finding of misconduct has not been met.

    Clear enough?

    Kozinski apologized for any appearance of impropriety, but let’s not pretend that the Judicial Council found misconduct on Kozinski’s part.

    daleyrocks was right. Mr. Sanai was wrong to call him a liar. The proof is a click away.

    daleyrocks, you might want to save this information. This is not the first time I have had to drag it out.

    And Mr. Sanai? You had best watch the attitude with Beldar. He could clean your clock in front of a jury any day, in my opinion.

    Patterico (14f493)

  32. Sanai says daleyrocks “pretends that published orders say something different than what they do.”

    Not the case, as I have just shown.

    Patterico (14f493)

  33. #29

    Here is what Beldar wrote:

    “It is entirely possible that the Council believed, as Judge Kent’s defense lawyer now asserts publicly, that the sexual contact was invited and entirely consensual, but nevertheless that such conduct was inappropriate. That is, they could have found even consensual and invited contact to still have “violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” and deemed it “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice.”

    That is simply not possible, and if you think it make sense, I really can’t believe you have a US law degree, SPQR (which is a qualification I should have added).

    Sexual harassment, is by definition, UNWANTED sexual attention. It is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to be found to have committed “sexual harassment”–the exact words from the order–and for the fact finder to find that the sexual attention was consensual.

    So Beldar is stating that the Fifth Circuit could have (a) there was sexual contact/relationship, (b) that is was consensual, (c) that it nonetheles constituted “sexual harassment”.

    This is simply in impossibility that is the product of not understanding, at all, what the relevant legal terms mean. And I guess that ignorance is shared by you too, SPQR.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  34. Patterico, Beldar could clean a lot of our clocks any day … well, maybe not yours …

    I’ve been a huge fan of Beldar’s for years. When I find myself on the opposite side of an issue from him, I change my position … hopefully before he notices.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  35. Cyrus, you’ve obviously never learned the first rule of holes. That and not to play in leagues beyond your ability.

    Finding definitions of sexual harassment in an employment law context that include consensual contact is a really trivial exercise. But ultimately irrelevant. Beldar already cleaned your clock on the matter and you still haven’t actually bothered to directly confront his points.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. DRJ: I did a bit of checking, and I’m pretty sure the disqualification is based on 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a). This came up in United States v. Cerceda, 172 F.3d 806 (11th Cir. 1999)(en banc), in which “Judge Michael K. Moore of the Southern District of Florida was notified in November 1992 that he was the subject of a federal grand jury investigation in the Eastern District of New York.” He recused himself from all cases in which the U.S. was a party, but waited until October 1993, when the investigation became public, to do so. The defendants in all the cases he’d tried or presided over sentencing then sought relief on grounds that he ought to have been statutorily disqualified. The en banc Eleventh Circuit affirmed by an equally divided court the district court’s conclusion “that Judge Moore violated 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) by failing to recuse himself from presiding at the defendants’ trials and/or sentencing hearings.” So there’s at least a substantial risk that any criminal convictions, and civil judgments in which the U.S. is a party, would be at risk based on the grand jury investigation alone.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  37. Mr. Sanai (#33): Quoting (again) from the order, the complaint “alleg[ed] sexual harassment toward an employee of the federal judicial system.” The proceedings on the complaint were later expanded “to investigate instances of alleged inappropriate behavior toward other employees of the federal judicial system.”

    But the order does not contain a finding that Judge Kent committed “sexual harassment.” Nor does it contain a finding that everything in the complaint was true, or proved, or even credible.

    You made that up, just like you made up the assertion that the order found Judge Kent “guilty” of anything.

    Do you understand the difference between an allegation and a finding? Never mind, sorry I asked that. I think you’ve already answered my question adequately.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  38. (Can’t believe I’m indulging this kook, but:) Mr. Sanai, if you want proof of my law degree and license, it’s readily available online.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  39. Beldar, the hard part with someone like Sanai is not the punching – he’s just another speed bag – it is scraping him off your shoe successfully when you are done.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  40. #31

    Ah Patterico. Here is the thing you are concealing. Judge Schroeder found that Judge Kozinski’s order did not affect the outcome of the petition because… well, because she said so. Her statement that it was an impossibility is sheer crazy imagination; the funny thing is, when Schroeder pulled the same stunt in dismissing the Manuel Real complaint in 2005, Kozinski devoted 39 pages to demonstrate that her finding of no misconduct was due to her deliberate refusal, shared by all but one other judge on the Council, to acknowledge the plain evidence that Real had committed misconduct.

    Every cutting remark that Judge Kozinski made about the Judicial Council’s determination to dismiss the Real complaint applies with equal force to her handling of my initial complaint.

    But my point was not that Schroeder supported me. What I wrote was as follows: that my complaint “ended with a similar “termination due to corrective action being taken”. In both cases the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome.”

    As you can read, my complaint was not dismissed. It was terminated due to Judge Kozinski’s corrective action, as stated on the last line on page 4 of the order. Corrective action only occurs in respect of acts of misconduct.

    As for the sentence concerning “the standard of misconduct”, you are correct that is what she wrote as to the narrow issue of whether Judge Kozinski’s breach of the rule was an effort to pervert the course of the appellate process, which was a separate accusation from the violation of Canon 3(A). However, the problem is that her finding of fact is nonsense–Kozinski’s article could have affected the vote, because the article came out before the voting period was concluded. Schroeder’s statement that this was impossible was, quite simply, a false assertion. That’s why I wrote that “(a) my complaint was terminated for corrective action, and not dismissed, but (b)the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome.”

    My statement is true in another respect. Judge Schroeder also wrote that there was no evidence that case-related materials were put on alex.kozinski.com. Even you, Patterico, admit that finding of fact is false. Second, her statement that the Kozinski article could not have affected the vote could only have been true if Kozinski had published the article after the voting deadline as passed–in fact he published it before the deadline.

    The problem with Schroeder and the Ninth Circuit’s Judicial Council is that they (a) make facts up, and (b) ignore indisputable evidence of misconduct. Judge Kozinski called them on it in the Manuel Real case, for which, by the way, he did a great and brave thing, even if it was for all the wrong reasons. However, Kozinski appears to be down with other forms of judicial corruption, as practiced by Mahan in Nevada and Zilly and others in Washington State.

    The macro problem, of course, is that when you add Kozinski, Zilly, Mahan, Real, Kent and Porteous (Fifth Circuit Judge that the Judicial Council has requested Congress investigate for soliciting bribes) together, you start to see a pattern of federal judges viewing themselves, and effectively operating, outside the law and the rules for which they are supposed to abide in exchange for life tenure.

    This was the point of last month’s Wall Street Journal article on federal judicial misconduct, which focused on Real but gave a shout out to Kozinski.

    In the case of Mahan, Real, Kent and Porteous, their misconduct has gone or went uncorrected for many, many years.

    So what to conclude? First, Daleyrocks is a liar in general, as I have demonstrated. I never claimed that Schroeder found misconduct in my post. What I wrote was that (a) Schroeder terminated my complaint for corrective action taken, which is true, as you see from the last line of page 4, and second, that she ignored indisputable evidence of judicial misconduct, which again, is true. Daleyrocks dishonestly mischaracterized my contentions, which is consistent with his lying liar self (to paraphrase Al Franken).

    Second, Beldar and SPQR don’t understand that the rules governing judges are not common ethics rules, but a much higher standard.

    Third, Patterico, your comment, while correct in some respects, is nonetheless sloppy and in error on its main point. You did not read what I wrote, and apparently swallowed the straw man erected by the lying liar whole. You should know better.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  41. It is good to see that the bugfuck crazy hasn’t left Cyrus…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  42. #38

    Comment retracted, apology extended.

    Now, I would really be interested in you explaining how it is possible for

    (a) the Judicial Council to find Kent GUILTY on a misconduct complaint for sexual harassment, but
    (b) find the sexual relationship consensual.

    If (b) is true, then (a) cannot be the case.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  43. Cyrus Sanai, this is the last thing I’m going to say to you, because you have all the hallmarks of a kook.

    Seriously… Are you just now figuring this out??

    I had thought you to be a far smarter man. 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  44. Second, Beldar and SPQR don’t understand that the rules governing judges are not common ethics rules, but a much higher standard.

    Between the non sequiturs and the strawmen arguments, Cyrus, I’m getting less impressed with your law degree.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  45. Anyone remember the old “killfile” function for message boards? You could “killfile” a particular person and their comments wouldn’t even show up for you anymore.

    It worked very well for pompous airbags who constantly lied, attacked others, derailed threads, and generally demonstrated their complete inability to interact with reality.

    WordPress should incorporate that function. The highly-inflated and undeserved opinion of himself that Cyrus has reaches new heights with each rising sun. He’s quick to accuse others of trolling and sockpuppeting, but notice how every single thread he enters turns into a condemnation of Judge Kozinski.

    We got your point Cyrus… and most of us don’t believe it. Get over it, and yourself. If anyone should STFU, it’s you.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  46. Stashiu3, dude, Usenet rocked.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. Ah Patterico. Here is the thing you are concealing.

    I am concealing nothing. I provided links and quotes.

    Your argument is that the order is wrong, and you are entitled to that opinion. But the fact remains that the order didn’t find misconduct. You keep trying to imply it does (“Corrective action only occurs in respect of acts of misconduct”) but it does not.

    “Daleyrocks dishonestly mischaracterized my contentions . . .”

    Actually, you claimed that daleyrocks was lying about the findings of the order itself, not about your contentions. You said: “Daleyrocks keeps lying about my marital status, and pretends that published orders say something different than what they do . . .”

    Well, actually, daleyrocks didn’t pretend anything vis a vis the order. He stated, quite accurately, that the order did not find misconduct: “Cyrus – Judge Schroeder did not find misconduct on the part of Kosinski. Why do you keep perpetuating your lies? The misconduct is only undisputed in your own mind.”

    You replied: “You are the compulsive anonymous liar Daleyrocks. If you are so sure you are right, go ahead and quote from order. As you said, it’s on-line. It says nothing like you represent.”

    I quoted from the order and it says PRECISELY what daleyrocks claimed. The order says: “Because the judge’s statements could not affect any vote on this matter, the standard for a finding of misconduct has not been met.”

    Since you claimed that daleyrocks misrepesented the order, and he didn’t . . . that means that you were wrong, and daleyrocks was right.

    See, there’s a difference between what the order says, and what you think it should have said. You can talk all day about the latter, but it doesn’t change the former.

    It’s nothing personal. I’m simply showing that daleyrocks was exactly right on the facts. You called him a liar. You were wrong and he was right. I have proved it. There is no wiggle room here.

    Patterico (14f493)

  48. Now, I would really be interested in you explaining how it is possible for

    (a) the Judicial Council to find Kent GUILTY on a misconduct complaint for sexual harassment, but
    (b) find the sexual relationship consensual.

    If (b) is true, then (a) cannot be the case.

    Well, actually, Beldar already said “a” is not true.

    In fact, he called you a liar for saying that it is true.

    Did you miss that? Well, then, I’ll remind you. It’s comment 15. Beldar said: “I defy you to find the word “guilty” anywhere in it. Quit lying.”

    So why do you assume the truth of “a” when Beldar already challenged you on whether “a” is true — and, in fact, called you a liar for claiming “a”
    is true.

    Seems to me the ball is in your court. You need to find the word “guilty” in that order, to rebut Beldar’s accusation that you lied about it.

    Patterico (14f493)

  49. SPQR:
    Beldar, the hard part with someone like Sanai is not the punching – he’s just another speed bag – it is scraping him off your shoe successfully when you are done.

    Okay, now I’m impressed!

    You not only have a law degree, you also work the speed bag with your feet! 🙂

    GaryC (cdcd10)

  50. GaryC, no metaphors were actually killed in the construction of that comment. It was all a special effect.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  51. Mr. Sanai,

    The thing is, all these comments are right here. All anyone has to do is scroll up. I really don’t know why you make me keep quoting things back to you when it’s so easy to find them.

    If you’re this bad at finding things in a comment thread on the same page, it worries me that your research skills might not be up to snuff. Researching case law is harder than scrolling up, and you’re having a hard time with scrolling up.

    Patterico (14f493)

  52. #37

    Ah, now I see where the disconnection comes from, Beldar. You are interpreting the order as if there were a sexual harassment charge by X, plus lesser charges by Y and Z, and that maybe it was the lesser charges that were credited.

    This is case where I jumped on you without getting out the full facts. So, I give you an apology on that. Let me give you the rest of the facts.

    There was a second order in response to a motion for reconsideration made by the employee who filed the complaint. This order made clear that the finding of misconduct arose from her complaint, and that this was the same woman as to whom the grand jury was investigating.

    The link is:
    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/news/news/SK.Order.pdf

    So while you are wrong, Beldar, I now understand how you interpreted the vague language of the first order to leave open the possibility that Kent was not disciplined in respect of the complainant, but rather due to some other thing. I did not read the order as leaving that possibility open, but that’s because I knew of the second order.

    So, taking the first and second order together, here is what is known:

    Complainant files a complaint for sexual harassment.

    Investigation occurs, is widened to other incidents.

    Vague misconduct order is entered, finding Kent guilty of something, either (a) sexual harassment, or (b) “inappropriate conduct”. (Here, I concede Beldar’s point about the vagueness of the order)

    Complainant files a motion saying hey, what you found him guilty of may constitute a crime, and there is other evidence of misconduct.

    The Judicial Council says in the order linked above, we can’t investigate the matter which is the subject of the order BECAUSE THERE IS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SAME MATTER. However, the Judicial Council does say it will investigate the new allegations of misconduct.

    From the second order we now know that the conduct for which Kent was admonished is the same conduct that resulted in his indictment.

    Anyway, I again apologize to Beldar for not realizing I was operating on information that, while publicly known and googlable, was not what I had linked to, and thus unfairly criticizing a position that, based on the first order alone, was in fact a fair reading.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  53. Patterico, 12:15 am, actually there are two misrepresentations in Sanai’s “(a)”. Not merely the “guilty” part but the “for sexual harassment” part as Beldar showed above and on his blog post from October linked above, the misconduct for which the Fifth Circuit reprimanded Kent were not specified as narrowly as Sanai’s construction in “(a)”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  54. #53

    Nope I am right about the guilty of sexual harassment when the second order is read together with the first.

    That being said, I should have given both links.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  55. #48

    Yeah, Patterico, Beldar is wrong about that, but only because he based his comment on the first order. The second order makes clear that the finding of misconduct is related to the same subject matter as the indictment.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  56. Cyrus, that it is the same subject matter still does not lead to the conclusion you falsely attribute to the Fifth Circuit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  57. M. Sanai,

    You sorta skipped comment 47, where I demonstrated that daleyrocks was right and you are wrong.

    Also, I don’t see how your most recent comments address Beldar’s main point: that the judicial misconduct order nowhere pronounces the judge “guilty” of anything.

    But I’ll let you argue that out with Beldar. My main point here is that daleyrocks was right and you were wrong. You accused him of mispresenting an order and I proved he didn’t.

    Patterico (14f493)

  58. #57

    Patterico,

    You are completely wrong, along with Daleyrocks. You invented contentions that I did not make.

    What Daleyrocks wrote was:

    ““In both cases the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome.”

    Cyrus – Judge Schroeder did not find misconduct on the part of Kosinski. Why do you keep perpetuating your lies? The misconduct is only undisputed in your own mind.”

    So here Daleyrocks was stating that my characterization of Judge Schroeder’s order, that she “refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome” is false. I called him a liar, because my characterization is indiputably true, and told him to quote the language.

    You stepped in, quoting the language where Judge Schroeder stated that no misconduct finding was necessary because there was no injury. She stated that the lack of injury was because it was impossible for Judge Kozinski’s article to have affected the en banc process.

    By quoting the language, you proved my point, that Daleyrocks is lying.

    Judge Schroeder’s factual finding was a situation where she “refused to deal with undisputed facts of misconduct and whitewashed the outcome.” Why do I say this? Because Judge Kozinski’s article came out weeks prior to the en banc process being completed. Her factual contention is a falsehood. You have identified one of the two portions of the complaint where Judge Schroeder simply altered the history to suit her purposes. The other part was when she found that there was no evidence of the case-related materials on alex.kozinski.com, which as you noted, is another utter falsehood.

    So when you write that you proved Daleyrocks correct and me wrong, you are either confused about what the issue is–the truth or falsity of my statement about Judge Schroeder ignoring facts and whitewashing the outcome–and instead have created a false, non-existent dispute.

    Now, since I just apologized to Beldar for making an unfair critique of an actually fair reading of the first misconduct order, I think it is fair that you do the same to me. I will address Beldar’s point below.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  59. Cyrus, your posts are legion and long. It’s pretty ahrd to follow everything you’ve accused everyone of, and demanding apologies for not being up to date on your writing strikes me as ridiculous. Of course, a lot of judges claim that you are that sort of person. I wouldn’t know, but if you don’t think Patterico has been fair to you, that certainly is ridiculous.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  60. #57 continued.

    I use the term “guilty” in the sense that there was a finding that Kent committed judicial misconduct. The finding arises from the admonishment that Judge Kent’s actions were “prejudicial to the effective administration of justice”. It is on the bottom of page 2 of the Sep. 28 order.

    The point that Beldar made, which I now concede is fair from reading only the first order, is that because the investigation was expanded to include other unspecified acts of “inappropriate behavior”, it is impossible to tell whether the complainant’s allegations were found true or false from reading the first order. However, if you are reading Beldar to state that Kent was found not to have committed misconduct, that is simply false.

    It is the second order, from December 20, 2007 that filled in missing information, which I knew, but I gather Beldar does not. In that order the complainant asked for a 28 USC 354(b) referral of the existing report, that the conduct which the Judicial Council found occurred constituted a crime. The second request was to consider new information.

    The Judicial Council stated that it would investigate the new information. However, as to the 28 USC 354(b) request, which is purely a request of referral, it stated that it would not do so, because the exact same subject matter was the subject of a criminal investigation. We know now that the subject matter of the grand jury investigation was attempted rape, which tells us what the finding of the Judicial Council was, that Ken committed the conduct alleged, and also tells us what crime the complainant contended these facts would constitute, thus meriting a referral under 28 USC 354(b).

    Beldar’s conclusion, that the Judicial Council might have found the complainant’s allegations not credible, is belied by the second order. The subject matter of the indictment is the same as the subject matter, or a portion of it, which was contained in the report, otherwise a stay would not have occurred. We know that the report found in favor of the complainant, because she was asking for a referral that only occurs where the facts found may constitute a crime or other grounds for impeachment.

    Now, Beldar may be right that there was, in addition, other stuff relating to third parties that might have been part of the facts supporting misconduct. However, it is not possible to say, when the two orders are read together, that the complainant’s story was disbelieved.

    So the question then comes, is it possible for Kent to be acquitted of the criminal case, but the misconduct findings still stand? This was answered by the misconduct proceedings against Alcee Hastings, who was found to have solicited a bribe, was acquitted in his criminal trial when the main witness refused to testify, but nonetheless was impeached and convicted by the Senate.

    The point Beldar wants to put forward is that Kent’s defense of consent might have been believed, but he was found to have committed some other misconduct. That is not possible given the complainant’s request, which if facially ridiculous would have been rejected. Instead, because it was not facially faulty, the Judicial Council chose to back seat it to the criminal complaint, the content of which we know now.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  61. I can’t imagine why Cyrus keeps losing in court…

    Oh, wait, it’s because he’s a legal retard… That’s ight.

    Silly me.

    Hey Cyrus… STFU, dipshit…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  62. (nearly endless) Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 8/31/2008 @ 1:34 am

    He had to use Senate impeachment proceedings as a precedent? Isn’t that comparing apples to oranges? And what’s with the weasely-wording Cyrus?

    I use the term “guilty” in the sense that there was a finding that Kent committed judicial misconduct.

    How about using the word guilty in the sense that he was guilty? Can’t? Because it doesn’t say that anywhere, does it? You’ve made an inference, but your verbosity is telling. Seems that all your legal dealings we’ve seen here are like this. Lots of BS, little content.

    However, as to the 28 USC 354(b) request, which is purely a request of referral, it stated that it would not do so, because the exact same subject matter was the subject of a criminal investigation. We know now that the subject matter of the grand jury investigation was attempted rape, which tells us what the finding of the Judicial Council was, that Ken committed the conduct alleged, and also tells us what crime the complainant contended these facts would constitute, thus meriting a referral under 28 USC 354(b).

    Where does it specify that it’s the “exact same subject matter”? For us laymen to understand please… no inferences, plain English will do. And how do you get the subject matter being “attempted forcible rape”? Also, how can a Judicial Council find anyone guilty of a crime without a trial? Isn’t that like saying because a Grand Jury sends a case forward, they are pronouncing that the person is guilty? I’m pretty sure (as a layman you understand) that it takes a trial to do that.

    The subject matter of the indictment is the same as the subject matter, or a portion of it, which was contained in the report, otherwise a stay would not have occurred.

    Which portion? Might that not be important? And again, even as a layman, I’m pretty sure that an indictment is not the same as a guilty verdict.

    We know that the report found in favor of the complainant, because she was asking for a referral that only occurs where the facts found may constitute a crime or other grounds for impeachment.

    But not necessarily the same claim that the complainant made, isn’t that correct? If the facts end up showing that the complainants claim is without merit, but there are facts that may constitute a crime or other grounds for impeachment, the referral would still be made, wouldn’t it?

    However, it is not possible to say, when the two orders are read together, that the complainant’s story was disbelieved.

    Sure it is. Just because that’s your conclusion doesn’t mean it’s the only possible one. You seem to make this error quite often.

    This was answered by the misconduct proceedings against Alcee Hastings, who was found to have solicited a bribe, was acquitted in his criminal trial when the main witness refused to testify, but nonetheless was impeached and convicted by the Senate.

    Aren’t Senate impeachment proceedings governed under their own rules? How do they apply here? You’re not able to find a precedent within the same court system we’re talking about? If so, why not use it? If not, what does that say about your argument?

    That is not possible given the complainant’s request, which if facially ridiculous would have been rejected.

    Again, it is possible. Just because your conclusion is different, doesn’t make it the only possible one.

    Instead, because it was not facially faulty, the Judicial Council chose to back seat it to the criminal complaint, the content of which we know now.

    Like I said, you do this quite often, don’t you? Also, how do we know the content again? Right… because you told us. Where does it say “attempted forcible rape” again? It’s not in any of the links in the post or comments… just your words, which if taken at face value mean… nothing.

    Now, me being a layman and all, I can see where some of these points might be in error. I trust that Patterico, DRJ, Beldar, SPQR, nk, and the other attorneys who are almost always around will help set me straight. But here’s the rub bucko. If even one of these points is valid, you just got schooled by a LAYMAN. No legal training at all. The funny thing is, I’m fairly certain you can’t effectively rebut even half of them (if any). All we’ll see is 10,000 words meant to obfuscate and evade… in other words, a Cyrus Sanai comment.

    Lessee… /Cyrus Sanai/f:j

    (It won’t work, but I thought I’d give SPQR a chuckle… heh)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  63. #61

    Actually Scott, I keep winning. So you get a law degree, and then talk.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  64. So you get a law degree, and then talk.
    Comment by Cyrus Sanai — 8/31/2008 @ 4:16 am

    Talking requires a law degree now? I don’t think so. You’re real quick to tell others to STFU unless they’re lawyers. Why not start a lawyer-only blog then Cyrus? Because nobody would frigging go? And if they did, you wouldn’t allow comments anyway because they would consistently prove you wrong.

    Now tell me I’m a troll or a sock-puppet… that’s always good for a chuckle. *snort*

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  65. Cyrus: Once a complaint of judicial misconduct is filed, the Council is free to expand it (as this one did), and free to order corrective action (as this one did) on any basis that becomes apparent to it.

    Unlike a jury in a criminal case, it is not limited to the offenses charged.

    It is entirely possible, given the wording of the order, that the panel believed Judge Kent’s position that the sexual contact was consensual. If so, it could still believe that such was “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice.”

    If you are indeed a lawyer, then you are a very, very bad one. And in any event, you are a tedious person. I regret not having terminated my conversation with you sooner, but I do so now.

    Beldar (d1cc3d)

  66. #62

    1. I use the word “guilty” in the sense that he has been found by judges to be “guilty” of acts that constitute judicial misconduct, as opposed to having been convicted of a crime. Someone complained that was not clear about what I meant. So I mean has been found to have committed judicial misconduct. Clear?

    2. The subject matter of the indictment is attempted forcible rape. Therefore that was the subject matter of facts before the grand jury. The grand jury can’t hear evidence about insider stock trading and then issue an indictment for murder. Capeesh?

    3. The only grounds for stay of a civil or administrative matter in face of a criminal matter under federal law relied upon by the Judicial Council is when the civil or administrative matters encompass the same facts as the criminal case. Therefore, we know from the second report that the facts of the indictment are some of the facts in the investigative report which was the grounds for the misconduct finding.

    4. Now, the one point that Beldar made which I disregarded, but now agree is a possibility, is that there are OTHER claims made by persons other than the complainant. These are not part of the indictment. No one knows what these other misconduct might be, or whether they even exist–they are simply a guess by Beldar. That’s why the facts giving rise to the indictment might not be the only ugly things in the Judicial Council report. But there is no evidence that this is true either.

    5. The issue is not the procedural rules of the Senate, but whether as Beldar believes the Judicial Council could disbelieve the complainant but still discipline Kent. If the ONLY thing known were the indictment and the first order, I now agree that it could be argued. However, the second order states that the reference for impeachment won’t occur because the same matter was under investigation, now indictment. Accordingly, we know that the facts found the Council are the same as the facts the prosecution will be arguing. So Beldar’s theoretical possibility is no more. Kent is being prosecuted for at least some of the things the Judicial Council found were true; there may, as Beldar suggested, be other things as well. My point about impeachment is that even if Kent is acquitted by a jury, he can still be impeached and convicted for exactly the same conduct on the theory it is a crime. So now that the indictment is out there, he can’t beat it and then be out of the woods as far as judicial misconduct goes.

    Now, your suggestion of possibility that I am wrong only could be true if the statements made by the Judicial Council in its orders are materially false or misleading, or the indictment I read is likewise a fake.

    However, that does not interest me and has nothing to do with my point. If Kent is being railroaded by a lying hussy, that’s life. It’s irrelevant. What is extremely disturbing is that the Judicial Council issued on order stating that he had committed misconduct somehow related to this complaint and the indictment and refused to say what he did wrong, and gave him a wristslap and 4 months vacation; now he is being indicted based on the allegations of the same employee. If the guy did not commit “sexual harassment” as accused, why did the Fifth Circuit not say so; likewise, if he did do this, why not say so? Why keep the other accusations secret? The entire closed and cryptic character of the process is inimical to building confidence; instead of being able to debate reality, one has to make inferences from orders and indictments.

    Indeed this whole Kremlinology discussion has been very helpful to me in sharpening some spears I will be using. The fact that Beldar and I and everyone else can get into such heated discussions about what, exactly, Kent was found to have done wrong demonstrates that the system is screwy.

    So to conclude: with the implicit assumption that all the documents I read and linked to represent the truth, the Judicial Council’s report came to the same conclusions as the grand jury, and the report may have find other misconduct as well. If the documents lie, then my conclusions can’t be relied upon. In any event, the fact that my conclusions are based on a chain of inferences on two orders, and that from the first order a completely different chain could be constructed, demonstrates that the system is completely broken and leads to distrust of the judiciary, as people can debate whether Kent has been disciplined for something from being a rapist to just being rude.

    Cyrus Sanai (4df861)

  67. 1. No, you don’t get to redefine guilty. Where does it say that?

    2. The only thing I saw said sexual harassment, not attempted forcible rape. Once more, where is your source because I am not taking your word for it.

    3. Which again, you have not provided any evidence to show that this was for attempted forcible rape. Why not?

    4. So there are other possible conclusions that could be correct? Guess you’ve been schooled.

    5. I agree that the issue is not the procedural rules of the Senate, so why did you bring them up? Schooled again.

    Now, your suggestion of possibility that I am wrong only could be true if the statements made by the Judicial Council in its orders are materially false or misleading, or the indictment I read is likewise a fake.

    No, the possibility that you are wrong could be due to the possibility you are wrong. Logic is not really a strong point for you, is it?

    However, that does not interest me and has nothing to do with my point.

    *yawn* Of course it doesn’t.

    If the guy did not commit “sexual harassment” as accused

    Wait, I thought it was “attempted forcible rape”?

    Indeed this whole Kremlinology discussion has been very helpful to me in sharpening some spears I will be using.

    Yes, everything works to the advantage of the greatest legal mind our system of justice has known since the Founding Fathers developed it. /sarc

    with the implicit assumption that all the documents I read and linked to represent the truth

    I’m willing to do that… I’m just not willing to assume that you understand them or are representing them honestly. At least we established that you can be schooled by a layman. Now get me a juicebox.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  68. I’m just wondering if Cyrus’ family has grounds to appeal due to lack of counsel?

    Another Drew (f83c2e)

  69. AD – You are clearly bigoted against incompetent counsel.

    Stashiu – Well done, you non-lawyer.

    JD (5f0e11)

  70. This post is an overt dog-whistle for David Petranos Esp and MDKP. Consider yourself denounced.

    JD (5f0e11)

  71. Judge Kent’s former courtroom in Galveston is in a very old building on the East end of the island and North of Broadway. It is the only federal court in Galveston, this area is now without a sitting judge, the courtroom stands empty because Kent has been moved to Houston where, according to the Chronicle, he could be supervised. I’m not saying its an enormous burden for Galveston to be without a federal judge, Houston isn’t that far and I was surprised when I learned we even had one.

    It is in a very old rectangular building that houses a post office on the first floor. I can’t remember how many floors tall it is but I want to say 7 and that the courtroom is on the 5th floor. Your have to park around back in a remote lot and walk a good long way as a juror or witness, then pass through a security station on the ground floor before boarding the elevator.

    You emerge from the elevator and on your immediate right is the US Marshal’s office where they hold the accused, on your left is a long hallway ending in double doors that enter the courtroom. Along the hall on the right are bench seats for witnesses and restrooms and a few offices. On the left are rooms where witnesses can be separated if necessary as well as the court’s offices and the judge’s chambers.

    There is a sign before the double entrance doors that says pretty close to “No Spittin’, No Talkin’, No Chewin’, No Cussin'”. You enter the courtroom and the rail that divides the attorneys, judge and jury from the spectators is on your immediate left, the spectator area on your right. Its an old wood paneled room with light fixtures in the shape of scales of justice hanging from the ceiling, perfectly balanced, with the scale trays holding lights shining up at the ceiling, very artistic. The spectator area has hard wooden benches.

    The judge’s bench is centered on the end of the room. It is a rounded wooden desk raised above the floor and matches the paneling on the walls and it curves to the right with a small witness seat with an individual low door or gate and then straightens out too the jury box with 12 seats. Alternate jurors sit in folding chairs right in front of the jury box near the rail. Though old all the fixtures are well maintained, the gates and doors all work without catching and the woodwork is clean and un-marred.

    It is a very intimate courtroom. The seating areas for the witnesses and jurors are small enough to be a bit uncomfortable for large people. A witness could reach out and touch the shoulder of the juror next to him. The court reporter sits in front and to the right of the witness between the witness and the judge, again close enough to touch her shoulder.

    As you can probably tell I’ve been in that courtroom, as a witness a few years ago. The atmosphere evokes the majesty of the federal government, you can feel the power of the US federal courts. Just being there inspired me to proper awe and silence.

    During the trial I attended Judge Kent would walk around the courtroom talking to people during the proceedings. The attorneys would be questioning a witness and he would suddenly hop up, walk over and start talking to the bailiff or to law enforcement attending the trial standing near the door. He also berated a witness at one point while standing off to the side like that with “we don’t need to hear that crap!” when the witness got too long winded in their answer. He spoke to the attorneys exactly the same way.

    One of the other witnesses, a 50ish slightly overweight woman, told me after the trial that he had called her into his chambers while she was seated in the hallway waiting to testify and started talking about one of the principals in the case and told her that while she (the principal) might be crazy his daughter, whom he said he hadn’t spoken to since she was an adult, was “crazier than a shit-house rat”. FWIW.

    Kent’s behavior was bizarre enough that I left the experience pretty disappointed that this was what represented the federal courts in our area. It seemed clear to me then, and remains clear to me now, that I had more respect for Kent’s position than he did.

    Since then I followed Kent’s travails as they have played out on the front page of the local newspaper. I read the posts on Volokh and also at Beldar (and most of the debate between them), I thought Beldar made a good point about the paper being misleading in not reporting some of the details of the judicial review. The local columnist (Casey) *is* a hack and has been misleading about this.

    However there are pretty clear signs that something is wrong. Kent showed such overt favoritism to an attorney that all the attorney’s cases had to be reassigned to another judge – I read somewhere this was 85 cases. There are rumors that he comes to work drunk or smelling of alcohol, I don’t remember if I read that at Volokh or in the paper. The paper reports he is under investigation for improperly accepting gifts. He was put on a leave of absence for sexual harassment. He is now indicted for same. Then there is my own personal experience related above.

    Should that lead to his impeachment? Well, I don’t know. I do know he doesn’t represent the criminal justice system or the federal courts well.

    Fortunately there is someone here that can rightfully be thought of as a hero or leading the charge to address Kent’s victim’s charges and right the ship. Matthew Friedrich is the US atty that had the guts to bring an indictment against Kent. I googled that up because it was clear to me all the attorneys were scared to death of the guy and I wanted to know who had brought the indictment, because I seriously doubted anyone would. Good on Mr. Friedrich.

    Mainbeen (228dd9)

  72. Last night I wrote, referring to the alleged judicial misconduct of Cyrus Sanai’s Moby Dick, Judge Alex Kosinski:

    “The misconduct is only undisputed in your own mind.”

    Mr. Sanai’s continued bleatings and evasions above on that subject have only served to reinforce that opinion. He disputes Judge Schroeders findings because she did not find misconduct.

    “He repeatedly posts on boards that I am divorced; his repetitive, compulsive dishonesty disqualifies him from civil treatment.”

    Cyrus – That one hurt. You know I cited a comment from another blog here on Patterico regarding your marital status that was made when your slimy role in hoovering Judge Kosinski’s home computer was revealed back in June. This is the only place I’ve mentioned that comment. I challenge you to back up that lie.

    You just don’t like me because I expose too much off your underhanded legal tactics that you would prefer to keep hidden as well as the half truths you try to pass off on this blog.

    I’ve met a lot of blow hard lawyers like you over the years Cyrus. It does not take a law degree to recognize that you are full of shit more often than not.

    If being the 40th lawyer to review a set of documents on an international transation in which your client has a 2.5% interest flips your minnow, you’ve made it baby. I’ll bet you even found a typo or two to justify your fees. Even better, with your ego, I can see you trying to renegotiate transactions such as that without permission because you thought it screwed your client.

    I’m assuming an apology is not going to be forthcoming from you for being wrong again this time.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  73. There we have it:

    In the Fifth Circuit, Federal Judge sexual groping is a chargeable offense.

    In the Eleventh Circuit, Federal Judge autism slurs “Are you blind?” while locking a disabled American out of Courthouse access does not even merit censure.

    Oh, WAIT, I forgot — all those Federal law clerks a-blogging and a-hacking thru the 2001 Kozinski WebSENSE Computer system breach *can’t give up* the Epic LULZ of all time — the “blind driver.” How can anyone discipline THAT? AnnTM is a Hero!

    And Judge Kent is the sacrificial lamb.

    I say it is selective enforcement.

    MKDP (997171)

  74. What it wrong with Cyrus Sanai? He is the great anti-LULZ outter of all time.

    MKDP (997171)

  75. This post is an overt dog-whistle for David Petranos Esp and MDKP. Consider yourself denounced.

    How so? We haven’t even gotten started yet. We want to put up our own LULZ-Lair.

    MKDP (997171)

  76. Guess the dog whistle worked. Now we have two loonwaffle stalkers to play with. I’m just overjoyed.

    The Universe is too kind to me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  77. The dog whistle worked !!!! Oh, this is a good day. Now, if Kyle Busch would run into the wall, and Jr win one, this day would be perfect.

    JD (5f0e11)

  78. JD @77:

    The dog whistle worked !!!!

    Geepers, JD!! What did I miss while I was out…because it looks like you conjured up some live ones!

    EW1(SG) (625c58)

  79. Beldar 8/30/2008 @ 11:20 pm,

    Thank you for your response and for going to the trouble of researching that point. I certainly understand and applaud why the Fifth Circuit decided to limit the cases Kent can hear. I just wish it went a bit further than cases involving the US.

    However, I’m especially sorry I brought this up given the tangent these comments have taken. I should have expected it but I didn’t.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  80. DRJ @79:

    However, I’m especially sorry I brought this up given the tangent these comments have taken.

    DRJ, I certainly understand your regret at the direction the thread went; but as always, Beldar’s comments have been extremely illuminating and worth wading through the guck for.

    Although I’m beginning to think that Stashiu3 is enjoying the wading in the guck a little much…

    EW1(SG) (625c58)

  81. EW – Had Judge Kozinski not disabled a firewall and was he not prejudiced against mentally challenged people, Judge Kent would have never acted inappropriately.

    It this Judge Kent the one that wrote the infamous maritime opinion where he savaged the attorneys for using crayons while writing on grease stained napkins?

    JD (5f0e11)

  82. #81 JD: Yowza! Like I said, some LIVE ones!

    EW1(SG) (625c58)

  83. EW – Talking about firewalls, frogmen, autistic snipers, bad drivers, evil boat people, AnnTM, and demonic roast beef slicers is like chumming the water during Shark Week.

    JD (5f0e11)

  84. . Now we have two loonwaffle stalkers to play with. I’m just overjoyed.

    The Universe is too kind to me.

    You have conflicting multiple personalities, SPQR? In what Universe did you park your silver spaceship? Please, tell us all about it. I’ll bet YOUR stories are better than the LULZie pictures on Judge K’s server!

    MKDP (b8303c)

  85. and was he not prejudiced against mentally challenged

    Judge K is prejudiced against mentally challenged people? I never heard that one before. I only heard don’t ever complain he is “anti-horse.” It’s against the Ninth Circuit rules. Not allowed. Wouldn’t want to get sanctioned with a losing horserace. Big Brown would not approve.

    MKDP (b8303c)

  86. Why don’t you all like Cyrus?

    MKDP (b8303c)

  87. Why don’t you all like Cyrus?

    Because he is equally sane as you and your husband…

    Which is to say, he’s bugfuck nuts…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  88. I forgot about MDKP wanting to be able to ride Big Brown into the courthouse.

    JD (5f0e11)

  89. Your post was just fine, DRJ.

    You raised an excellent point to which I would respond as follows: If judges do not self-police adequately it is because they would be goring their own ox. Any time they diminish another judge’s Article III power, they are setting a precedent for diminution of theirs.

    We had this issue with an older judge in N.D. Ill. The poor guy did nothing wrong, he just got too old for the job but did not want to retire. Was it a violation of Article III to keep him on salary but not assign him any cases?

    As for Cyrus, Beldar more than made up for him. In any case, it’s the policy of this site to allow all sorts of idiotic comments but for which I would have long ago been banned.

    nk (ad4a4c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1151 secs.