Daily Journal Reports on Dismissal of Cyrus Sanai’s Complaints Against Kozinski and Others. The L.A. Times . . . Somehow Misses the Story. Fancy That.
A reader passes along an article from the Daily Journal, which reports on the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of certain ethics complaints by Cyrus Sanai against numerous judges, including Alex Kozinski. (Attentive readers will note that I first reported on this before Thanksgiving. Patterico: beating the Daily Journal by almost a week!)
The reader notes that, for all the articles that the L.A. Times has done about Kozinski, it has run absolutely zilch on this order. Indeed, a search of their archives reveals that the last mention of Kozinski was on November 14, on an unrelated matter. (Patterico: reporting the news that the L.A. Times refuses to run!)
The Daily Journal article begins:
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a lengthy misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and numerous other jurists filed by Cyrus M. Sanai, a Beverly Hills attorney.
The article notes the investigation launched over the sexually explicit material on Judge Kozinski’s web site, and continues:
While that investigation was under way, Sanai filed a complaint against Kozinski and a dozen other circuit judges and six district judges alleging assorted acts of misconduct related to their handling of Sanai’s own civil cases, appeals and earlier misconduct matters.
That complaint was the subject of a Nov. 25 order by Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, in which he found Sanai’s claims “frivolous,” “not supported by any evidence” or properly dismissed by earlier orders.
In sum, Reinhardt concluded, Sanai filed baseless allegations “and appears to have described his conduct as part of a litigation strategy.” Reinhardt cited that phrase in a 2008 posting by Sanai on a legal affairs blog called Patterico’s Pontifications, run by a deputy district attorney in Long Beach, John Patrick Frey.
Frey also quoted from a Sanai comment to another blog: “Once Kozinski inserted himself into my litigation inappropriately [by writing the op-ed column], it’s my duty and right to undo the negative consequences and turn the situation to my litigation advantage.”
Frey declined to comment on the matter Monday except to note it is unusual for his blog to be mentioned in an official circuit order.
Kozinski, through his attorney, declined to comment.
(Just so it’s clear, I didn’t so much “note” that it was unusual as “agree with the reporter” that it was unusual. He brought it up.)
I spoke to the reporter, John Roemer, just before lunch yesterday (nice guy) and indeed declined to comment on Cyrus Sanai’s argument that the Ninth Circuit had no business meddling in this set of complaints. The reader can make his own judgment.
Well, I guess this answers the question of who that mystery “complainant” was in Reinhardt’s order.
I had a feeling it was Cyrus Sanai! Don’t ask me how I knew . . . it just felt right.