Ninth Circuit Orders Cyrus Sanai to Show Cause Why He Should Not Be Sanctioned for His Misconduct Complaints
Just before Thanksgiving, I reported that Judge Stephen Reinhardt had issued an order regarding Cyrus Sanai’s complaints against Alex Kozinski. That order concluded:
Although I do not believe it would be appropriate for me, in my present role, to initiate sanction proceedings against complainant, see Judicial Conduct Rule 10(a), complainant’s conduct warrants referral to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council for whatever action in this regard, including referral to the state bar, it may deem appropriate. See: In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 550 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2008).
Four days ago, the Judicial Council ordered Sanai to show cause why he should not be sanctioned:
Complainant is ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned by an order requiring him to obtain leave before filing any further misconduct complaints, or by issuance of a public reprimand, and/or by referral to the California State Bar Association. See Judicial-Conduct Rule 10(a); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 552 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. Jud. Council 2009). Complainant shall address also whether he violated 28 U.S.C. § 360 by publicly commenting on misconduct proceedings as listed in the sealed attachment to this order. Complainant has twenty-eight days from the filing of this order to file a response that shall not exceed 4,000 words in length . . . .
The Judicial Council explains:
Complainant filed three misconduct complaints naming nineteen federal judges, raising many frivolous claims. Complainant reiterated allegations previously dismissed, without providing new supporting evidence, and admitted using the misconduct process to further his litigation strategy, a clearly improper purpose. In publicly discussing the pending misconduct proceedings, complainant may have violated 28 U.S.C. § 360.
The admission referred to by the Court was made on this blog, in this post, in which Sanai told me that the investigation of Kozinski was “part of a litigation strategy.”
I’ll keep you informed as this progresses.
Oh, while we’re on the topic . . .
Back in December, the Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing a hearing officer’s order disbarring Fredric Sanai, Cyrus’s brother. A couple of people told me about it, but I was busy and didn’t have time to post about it in a timely fashion. No time like the present.
The 5-4 opinion is here. The dissent is here, and has some choice things to say about Cyrus Sanai:
While only Fredric’s conduct is before us, Fredric and Cyrus have often worked together even when instructed not to do so. As Judge Joseph A. Thibodeau of the Snohomish County Superior Court observed, “although Cyrus and Fred[]ric have never been permitted to be part of this particular case, and that ruling has been upheld in a number of appellate courts, that they’re, in essence, acting in concert with each other.” Ex. 62, at 16; FOF 70. In an unchallenged finding of fact, the hearing examiner noted that Judge Thibodeau found that Fredric and his brother Cyrus were acting in bad faith.
. . . .
On behalf of Viveca and others, Fredric and Cyrus filed multiple complaints alleging wiretap violations by Sassan in state and federal courts in Washington and California. All of these claims were dismissed as baseless. In the wiretap claims they sought over $9 million in damages and, based upon that claim for damages, attempted to get prejudgment injunctive relief to enjoin the sale of the very same property upon which they had been filing baseless lis pendens. Judge Zilly, among other things, observed that “Fredric Sanai’s failure to properly serve the subpoena was willful and in bad faith” and noted that the plaintiffs had, amongst them, already been sanctioned around $130,000 in both federal and state courts. Ex. 252 at 5, 14. Judge Zilly stated, “[h]owever, Plaintiffs persist in their misconduct. Plaintiffs’ conduct shows that they will not respond to sanctions. Clearly no other sanction the Court might impose, except dismissal itself, would be effective in remedying this misconduct.” Ex. 252, at 14. On November 4, 2005, the case was dismissed and Viveca and Fredric were sanctioned a total of $273,437.
In another unchallenged finding of fact, the discipline board found that Fredric and Cyrus (among others) sued their father in federal and state courts for allegedly wiretapping their calls. Initially, they asked for $1 million in damages; that ballooned to $16 million after the case had been dismissed or transferred multiple times. Fredric and Cyrus used that suit as a basis to file lis pendens on their father’s property, even after being told in no uncertain terms by Judge Zilly that they were not to do so. FOF 103 (“‘Each of the plaintiffs herein shall cease and desist from taking any further action whatsoever to delay or obstruct the sale of the aforesaid real property.'” (quoting Ex. 207)). Merely five days later, Fredric filed another lis pendens. In ordering contempt sanctions, Judge Zilly wrote that Fredric and Cyrus “‘have made a mockery and are making a mockery of the legal system.'” FOF 109 (quoting Ex. 218, at 16)
(All emphasis in this post is mine.)
Stay tuned.
heheheheheh…… even the Ninth Circus can find an acorn, once in awhile.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:58 pmJudge Zilly wrote that Fredric and Cyrus “‘have made a mockery and are making a mockery of the legal system.
Some contumacious persons might say that a legal system that permits this is already a mockery. If I were Cyrus my defense would be that I was only trying to show how ridiculously litigious our legal system is.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:02 pmAny idea whether any of those sanctions awards were actually paid?
Beldar (1a4d91) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:04 pmSomebody needs to get his act together, or the next train will be leaving for Disbarment, and points South.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:06 pmY’all think the sealed attachment to the order has any printouts from this blog?
Patterico (c218bd) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:09 pmThe attachments probably require an 18-wheeler for transport.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:11 pm‘contumacious’ apparently means stubbornly perverse and willfully disobedient.
Neato.
So this is where the line is drawn? What an amazing profession that you can apparently be quite a jackass before you get into much trouble.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:18 pmWhat an amazing profession that you can apparently be quite a jackass before you get into much trouble.
Heh!
No lawyer gets disbarred unless he gets incarcerated for a felony or screws his client.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:29 pmCyrus might get censured and fined but that’s about all.
Someone out there is going to hire Lionel Hutz Sanai in a few years, have a very bad experience, and google this up.
My apologies to whoever you are.
Actually, Cyrus is probably an excellent lawyer for certain applications. Like Keith Olbermann is actually perfect for the Democratic Underground TV Show. Still, I wouldn’t want to have to argue with him about his fee.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:34 pm“…No lawyer gets disbarred unless he gets incarcerated for a felony or screws his client…”
Not particularly a ringing endorsement for the profession.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:35 pmoderint dum metuant
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:37 pmAt what point does that kind of behavior become criminal contempt of court? To be punished by jail time?
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:41 pmThe most dangerous animal is one which is cornered and perceives no way out, or has nothing to lose.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:41 pmHeh! Is the restriction on word count typical or imposed because they are aware of Sanai’s typical bloviations?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:42 pm12.At what point does that kind of behavior become criminal contempt of court? To be punished by jail time?
Comment by Steven Den Beste — 1/29/2010 @ 8:41 pm
Never. When you petition the court for relief, you are affirming its dignity. No matter how much it might be tired of your petitions.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 8:46 pmWhen the court orders you to not do something, and you do it anyway, isn’t that contempt?
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:08 pmComment by daleyrocks — 1/29/2010 @ 8:42 pm
Pretty much every court places word count limits on submissions. That part did not strike me as unusual at all. As far as I can tell they are still letting him file under his own signature, so he’s doing way better than Jack Thompson was just before his disbarment.
As for cause, is “I can’t help it” good enough to avoid action?
Soronel Haetir (0f70fc) — 1/29/2010 @ 9:49 pmLike the old saying goes, “There are many good lawyers, but the other 99% gets all the headlines.”
Kevin R.C. O'Brien (d7caca) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:04 pmFirst, I am not sure if NK is an admirer of Cyrus Sanai, as I have seen posts by this person take absurd positions in Cyrus’ defense. That being said, in response to NK, Sanai will likely face disbarment if the matter is referred to the State Bar.
We should not forget that the Second District has upheld a $50k+ judgment against Cyrus and affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Cyrus committed perjury, committed a fraud on the court, filed multiple sham pleadings and physically altered court documents in the court’s file (which is a misdemeanor).
I find such to be poetic justice … Cyrus sues people because he tried to cheat his landlord out of $3,000 and they put a $3,000 debt on his credit report. Now that $3,000 debt has been replaced by a $50k plus affirmed judgment for attorneys’ fees – which is likely higher by now since attorney fees are recoverable as part of the judgment in the collection process. And if we all know Sanai, he is not going to allow them to collect the judgment quietly. He is going to force them to incur more attorney fees. But that is the epitome of Sanai’s short sightedness: The judgment is just going to get bigger and bigger to the point where Sanai is going to have to declare bankruptcy.
And wouldn’t that be great? Sanai freaks out about a $3k debt on his credit report and now he is probably going to have to declare Chapter 7.
And all of this is in addition to the $290,000+ in sanctions issued against Sanai in Washington. I am certain he has not paid any of that judgment either.
I, for one, will pay for a front seat at Cyrus’ disbarment hearing just so I can hear him accuse the State Bar of bias.
P. Escobar (669f98) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:13 pmI wonder whether when Cyrus visited another thread earlier today he knew that he would have an entire post dedicated to him. Internet fame Cyrus, soak it up!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:23 pmA question for the lawyers. Can briefs supporting sanctions or disbarment be submitted to this process? I’m concerned the judges may not have captured all of Cyrus’s postings around the intertubes bragging about his actions and strategy. I’m sure they were very happy with the six month delay in him accessing Kozinski’s computer and shopping the contents around until they could finally do the most damage by disrupting a trial all in the furtherance of a litigation strategy rather than filing a complaint in a timely manner.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 11:36 pmJAFAC: Just Another Freakin’ Ambulance Chaser
peedoffamerican (0a295f) — 1/30/2010 @ 8:32 amHa.
This story made the front page of the Daily Journal on the 28th.
Do you think the State Bar reads the Daily Journal?
P. Escobar (669f98) — 1/30/2010 @ 10:24 amPablo, what’s the Daily Journal? Do you have a link?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 11:16 amThe Daily Journal is a newspaper targeted at the legal industry.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 1/30/2010 @ 11:23 amThanks aphrael!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 11:36 amPatterico,
I love the fact that you don’t quote the key language of the majority opinion in the Washington State Supreme Court proceedings. It shows your true nature.
First, it should be noted that the proceedings were ex parte and in absentia. Every finding of fact was challenged on that ground. THAT’S why I won the reversal. You don’t bother to mention that the dissent is simply pretending there was a contested proceeding.
Second, the majority wrote in footnote 2 that:
“At the heart of many of Fredric’s numerous filings in Washington state courts, California state courts, and various federal courts, is his disagreement with the appointment of his father’s accountant, Philip Maxeiner, as a “special master” imbued with the power and authority of a
receiver, in his parent’s divorce proceedings. Opening Br. on Appeal at 9-10; Clerk’s Papers at 948. Maxeiner had also been a witness in the divorce proceedings. ”
There it is. That’s the ‘unspeakable…abuse’ that angered Judge Zilly, and caused Judge Kozinski to write his article and put case-related materials in support of the corrupt Judge Thibodeau, who appointed Maxeiner. Judge Zilly held my brother in contempt for seeking to frustrate Maxeiner’s actions in state court; when we continued to make the challenge, he dismissed the case for “unspeakable litigation abuse”. He also invented some supposed actions that are completely imaginary, but the core thing that he founds was ‘unspeakable litigation abuse’ was continuing to challenge Maxeiner’s appointment and frustrate his powers in STATE court.
There is a motion for reconsideration pending before the Washington State Supreme Court I have filed to address some collateral issues and errors in the opinion (such as the fact that according to the lower court opinion, Maxeiner had the powers of a judicial referee, which is different from a receiver.) But the bottom line is, the core issue has been acknowledged.
The bottom line is that everything emerged from that act of indisputable judicial corruption. Judge Kozinski got embroiled in this matter when he wrote his article defending Judges Zilly and Thibodeau. It is that plain, that easy, and something your snide and one-sided posts have always omitted.
It’s hardly a surprise that you slant your post to pick up the negative comments of the losing side, without explaining what even the Washington State Supreme Court was forced to acknowledge is the core issue: straight judicial corruption.
I have received a number of letters of support from Washington State lawyers congratulating me on my victory before that Court. The corruption issue is well known, but no one wishes to speak out about it after Douglas Shafer was suspended from legal practice for revealing the judicial corruption of a Tacoma based judge. You can read about his case at doug4justice.org.
As for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council sanctions, I point out a couple of things. First, my actions have twice forced Judge Kozinski to issue apologies to dispose of judicial misconduct complaints; once directly by my first complaint against him, and once indirectly when he filed his complaint against himself before I could get mine filed. The second resulted in an explicit finding of misconduct. No one has ever gotten this kind of result out of the Ninth Circuit, ever. There was no way that Judge Kozinski and his friends would not seek to punish me for this.
Second, the exact same complaints that the Ninth Circuit states are “frivolous” are pending with the Third Circuit pursuant to Justice Robert’s transfer order and the SCOTUS letter to me stating I should file my complaints directly with the Third Circuit. I still have no explanation as to where the Ninth Circuit believes it has jurisdiction to take these actions on complaints that the Third Circuit has jurisdiction over, and which I directly filed after the Ninth Circuit refused to transfer.
The third thing I point out is the new charge is that I was and am barred under the federal statute making investigation materials confidential from speaking about my complaint. That’s the interesting development in this–according to the Ninth Circuit, once a judicial misconduct complaint is made, the charges can never be repeated to anyone. Were that the rule, Judge Samuel Kent–the jurist Beldar went at pains to defend in multiple posts–would be hearing Beldar’s arguments rather than sitting in jail. That’s because after the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council whitewashed its investigation, the victim went to Congress and the FBI and revealed the details of the complaint. Obviously, advocates of corrupt judges like Beldar would like this interpretation to prevail, and it certainly appears to me that you have fallen sway to that view, Patterico.
I’ve never spoken about a Ninth Circuit investigation relating to my complaints, because there has never been one. To the extent that the Ninth Circuit is stating that the charges can never be repeated, they are simply making the misconduct proceedings a one-way ticket to concealment of judicial misconduct.
As for the state bar, they have been aware for years of the Sanai litigation. Check the bar website; my record is clean. Anyone can file a bar complaint for anything at anytime on any lawyer. I have already gone through the process before. After I got a judge who bitterly criticized me in another case for filing supposedly meritless pleadings reversed and kicked off the case, she filed a bar complaint. The result? Investigated, case closed.
What’s really interesting about the Ninth Circuits sanction order, of course, are the penalties I could be facing:
1. A reprimand. The last person reprimanded by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council was: Judge Manuel Real. It has not slowed him down.
2. Barring filing of judicial misconduct complaints with the Ninth Circuit. As if anyone is every going to go that route in the future.
3. Filing a bar complaint. In California, I get a trial before an independent State Bar Court with the right to call witnesses. How afraid am I of that? Not afraid at all, given that the Judicial Council proceedings have no res judicata effect.
What’s fascinating to me about this litigation is that it has taken FIVE years to get a court to acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is that the core dispute, the thing that animated my side’s fight, the “outrage” that called Judge Kozinski to his pornography-laden computer to write about me in 2005 and defend Judge Thibodeau by name and via alex.kozinski.com, and the essential act that inspired Judge Zilly to dismiss the case for ‘unspeakable litigation abuse’, was challenging the appointment of a private litigant’s accountant to the position of a quasi-judicial officer. The law in every circuit that has addressed the issue is that this is illegal; indeed, improper appointments of receivers, special masters and the like is one of the few grounds on which federal judges have been impeached and removed from office in the past.
There is much more to come, of course. So you keep posting, Patterico, and I’ll keep correcting you with the truth. The longer I fight, the more attention paid, the more bitter and frenzied the judicial response, the harder it becomes to ignore the truth. Obviously, I have to read insults and comments by idiots, but you aren’t a player if you don’t have any haters.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:17 pmSomebody…Somebody…Take that shovel out of that man’s hands!
AD - RtR/OS! (90486b) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:27 pmHilariously, Sanai claims that Patterico does not quote the Washington State Supreme Court majority opinion that so favors his and his brother’s claims … when it does absolutely no such thing at all.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:47 pmObviously Cyrus does not want to mention that the Supreme Court of Washington State was not exactly sympathetic to his plea to pursue his “core issue” of judicial corruption through discovery with the numerous judges named on his brother Frederic’s disbarment briefs or his kooky defense of Frederic that he needed to break the law or defy judicial orders in order to change the law.
As usual with Cyrus, you hear what he wants you to hear.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:52 pmDaleyrocks, that’s an understatement.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:54 pmI wonder if Cyrus the Virus ever says to himself,” Self, do you think we are going down the right path?”. It would be beneficial.
JD (78634e) — 1/30/2010 @ 12:56 pm#2, #11
nk, you know some nice Latin aphorisms. Since you seem to be the only commentator actually engaged on the merits, I’ll address your points briefly.
A fine is apparently off the table, as discussed in my rather long post at #27.
California has a well-constructed state discipline system, with full due-process rights. There’s no res judicata effect; I get to litigate the issues of corruption and misconduct from the beginning. More important, I’m a successful complainant, one of a handful in the country. My factual allegations are all true. So why would I be punished among the hundreds of completely unsuccessful filers when my complaints led to apologies and a finding of misconduct? That’s the question a state bar court would be evaluating. It’s a question I would love to have litigated in a neutral forum.
My defense is laid out in the Washington State Supreme Court case. The core issue is the appointment of Maxeiner. It was corrupt, and no court has ever addressed the merits.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:00 pmI also love how he may be facing disciplinary proceedings in part over what he reveals on blogs yet continues to post on them. Guess he hasn’t learned the First Rule of Holes.
Soronel Haetir (0f70fc) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:04 pmTypical JAFAC.
peedoffamerican (0a295f) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:05 pmthe Black Knight of Monty Python returns.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:15 pm“the “outrage” that called Judge Kozinski to his pornography-laden computer to write about me in 2005”
Cyrus – Do you mean when Kosinski responded to your taunting of the Circuit and attempt to poison the well in an article directly related to a case you had pending before the Circuit without disclosing that you had such a case pending before the Circuit? That’s what you mean, right?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:16 pmHey, Cyrus, “you have the right to remain silent but you don’t have the ability” to paraphrase a movie, the name of which I cannot remember. Word to the moron: Shut up, disconnect your internet, try to dig your way out of the hole into which you dug yourself.
John Hitchcock (3c3d12) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:16 pmIt’s not like the judicial system in CA and surrounding areas read PP. Oops, they do. *facepalm*
John Hitchcock (3c3d12) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:19 pmDamn, John, I heard the face/palm down here in GA. heeheeeheeeheee
peedoffamerican (0a295f) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:21 pmWow… How delusional are you Cyrus?
The issue in Washington State has nothing to do with your beef about the appointment of a referee.
You and your brother did not show up to depositions, you failed to properly serve documents intentionally to play games, and when you took depositions you were rude and discourteous. You and your brother also illegally wiretapped your own father and God only knows what other criminal acts you engaged in up there. None of these actions have anything to do with the merits of the case or the merits of a potential legitimate beef you have with the referee. That issue is isolated from everything else. There is no excuse for playing games with service or refusing to cooperate with discovery as to the rest of the case. As the Supreme Court said to you, you do not have the right to take matters into your own hands… you appeal or else there will be anarchy.
And you did not win anything in the Washington State Bar proceedings. As a transactional lawyer, you may not have realized that you do things to advance the ball in litigation, not because you can. Your brother is being disbarred because he followed your guidance on obstructing the court’s proceedings and conducting himself like an ass during the course of litigation. He will be disbarred, and all you won is a delay in the procedure.
According to the Supreme Court, the matter had gone through 2 years of delay. Your brother’s blood pressure was fine just days before his hearing when he filed for an injunction in State Court and lost. And the fact is that your brother’s blood pressure should be high because of the nature of the proceedings – because he listened to you and is about to lose his livelihood for it. The sharply divided Supreme Court applied the wrong standard. It is supposed to be an abuse of discretion standard, which hinges upon the fact that no other judge could have made the same decision under the circumstances. I assure you that most judges would have made the same decision given your previous collective delay tactics. Hell, four Supreme Court justices confirmed that they would have done the same thing – thus confirming that the Supreme Court did not apply the proper standard of review.
The Supreme Court majority knows that your brother is going to be disbarred. The majority merely decided that they do not want you or your brother to have the slightest argument as to the procedure. That is why they sent you back for a hearing…. Oh yes, and they sent you back telling you that the discovery you were demanding (taking depositions of the judges thought process) is disallowed. All you won was a slight delay in your brother’s execution on a procedural ground – not on the merits. And for this, your brother’s blood pressure will probably go higher because he will have to answer for your collective actions.
The same thing happened in the Sanai litigation in California. You have yet to win a single issue on the merits of your case. All the Appellate Court did was send you back to the trial court because they know you have no chance of winning the only two causes of action that they allowed you to proceed upon. They even told you in the opinion that the evidence before them establishes that you will not succeed on your claims. And did you take that opportunity to use that decision as settlement leverage to walk away from the case with a waiver of costs and a malicious prosecution claim? Of course not… because you are so delusional that you cannot see how badly the case is going to end for you.
Oh, and another thing. I do not know what kind of contractual lawyer you were, but you could not have been very good. The appellate court seemed to take issue with the fact that you accepted the landlord’s offer a day after it had expired, and then when you got caught on this, you attempted to lie your ass off to hide this fact in the subsequent sham pleadings you filed. This means that even if you are right as to the facts of that case, you still lose.
What is the old adage? “A lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.” You have certainly made that statement ring true. You should probably see if you can sue yourself for malpractice for convincing yourself that you have a case.
The only thing you have been successful at is delaying the inevitable and getting yourself in trouble along the way. By the way, how much of that affirmed $50k+ judgment have you paid? Or are you stupid enough to fight collection so that the amount of the judgment will be bigger? Of course you are… because you are too delusional to see the end game. Don’t you see that they will want to use this judgment and your predictable actions to make the judgment much larger so they can take everything from you? Of course not, because you are too blinded by the fact that you get to play lawyer in court to know how litigation works that you do not know what is coming.
Oh… and how did you get that judgment against you? According to the Appellate court, you committed perjury, altered court documents, committed a fraud on the court and got caught abusing the court system.
Yeah Cyrus… you are a big winner. Now why don’t you come on here and tell us all how you are going to dig your hole even deeper. Your shovel awaits.
P. Escobar (669f98) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:35 pmSee #28!
AD - RtR/OS! (90486b) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:36 pmI saw No. 28 after my post. It took me some time write mine and I missed it before I posted.
Funny.
P. Escobar (669f98) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:53 pmThe interesting thing is that I posted #42 as your 41 was posting, and hadn’t seen it, but it all fit.
AD - RtR/OS! (90486b) — 1/30/2010 @ 1:56 pmIt is just amazing how consistently Cyrus (according to him) has run into judges who are either corrupt, biased or who just plain don’t know the law. It’s either a terrible run of bad luck or he’s a shitty lawyer.
I know which option I’m choosing, but with Cyrus at least you know you’ll get your decade in court.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 2:09 pm#41 was a most excellent comment, one that Cyrus the Virus will most certainly ignore, and if he does not ignore it, he will lie about it.
JD (3b62be) — 1/30/2010 @ 2:40 pm#41
Let me get this straight. An anonymous blogger who adopts the name of one of the twentieth century’s most loathesome criminals is lecturing me? You might as well adopt the handle A. Hitler.
Judge Zilly’s findings of fact were in large part imaginary. Every document that was required to be served was served; in one case, late. Every party attended a deposition; we simply required the other side to change some dates which were inconvenient, which they did, and then complained that being made to change to mutually convenient dates was “misconduct”. Judge Zilly’s findings, like his finding that we never filed proofs of service (there’s one for every document in the record accessible by everyone) is simply imaginary. Didn’t happen. Invented out of whole cloth. I could show you the documentary facts, but I’m guessing that, like the real Escobar, you are incarcerated or on the lam.
As for the Sanai v. Saltz litigation you write:
“You have yet to win a single issue on the merits of your case”.
You’re the delusional one, Mr. Escobar. The court ruled that the first and most important cause of action stated a claim. That means, if I prove it. I win.
That’s a win on the merits. It’s why the defense filed their THIRD anti-SLAPP motion, lost (after being sanctioned the last time for frivolous litigation tactics) and the case is back up before the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal has (a) accelerated briefing, and (b) referred my motion for terminating sanctions for consideration by the panel. (You can pull the docket up as appeal number B219963). That means if the Court of Appeal finds, as I think it will find, that the repetitive fling of three meritless anti-SLAPP sanctions, the third after already having been ordered to pay monetary sanctions to me, merits terminating the case in my favor, I will win the case outright.
The case has lasted ten years because of the repetitive filing of anti-SLAPP motions by the other side to prevent discovery (that’s not my finding, but rather the finding, on the record, by the first trial court judge when he imposed sanctions). As the Court of Appeal noted, I have never had the opportunity to conduct full legal discovery in the case.
You also lie about the Court of Appeal judgment on the attorney’s fee. It is true that Judge Green found that he did not believe my own testimony about what I was thinking when the court clerk asked me to write down the names of the agents for service of process on a piece of paper. I did not challenge his factual findings or bring up all my arguments for reasons that are not public and that I am, for the moment, prohibited from speaking or writing about by an entity with jurisdiction over me.
Now someone asked about my running into judicial corruption and misconduct. Here’s the reality. Lawyers run into it all the time. The problem is, what do you do about it? In Pennsylvania,
a commission is looking into the scandal and has discovered, not surprisingly, that many lawyers and public officials saw what was going on, but did nothing about it. Here’s an article discussing this matter:
http://www.timesleader.com/news/hottopics/judges/Red_flags_seen_early__panel_told_01-22-2010.html
The reason they did nothing, of course, is because they feared the backlash, both from the judges, from lawyers like Beldar who take it upon themselves to defend judicial corruption and misconduct in their back yard to curry favor, and from the “P. Escobar”‘s of the world. So lawyers regularly let their clients get screwed but say nothing, particularly where they are being paid by the hour or on salary.
To take the local example, for decades everyone in the legal profession knew about Manuel Real. I worked at firms that had to gingerly deal with his behavior, and making Manny Real contingency plans is a feature of every case that might end up in the federal court here. Before Real, Andrew Hauck blazed a similar trail. No one did anything about either until, ironically enough, Judge Kozinski got sick of Real’s constant flouting of precedent and his orders and called him out; now every other month or so Real is tossed off of a case in a published or unpublished decision, usually with Kozinski on the panel.
I do lots of work in front of lots of judges (though most of my work is transactional). I don’t win every issue or motion, but at the end of the day, I’ve won or appropriately settled every case that’s started and finished with me on the case, including one case where I worked side-by-side with the LA District Attorney’s office and appeared right next to one of Patterico’s colleagues.
The two Sanai cases have gotten hugely negative reactions from judges because the interests at stake are so important to the judges involved. In Sanai v. Saltz, the California Landlord’s Association, California Banker’s Association, and trade groups representing the credit-reporting industry filed amicus briefs stating that the case meant disaster for their industries. It just so happened that the husband of one of the judges I removed for misconduct, Elizabeth Grimes, is a landlord. DId that play are part in her thinking? Of course it did.
In my family litigation, when I prevail, state and federal court judges will have a much tougher time effectuating judicial bribery by proxy through appointing a party’s accountant or servant as a judicial referee, let alone the cases where judges have appointed their own business partners to such positions. Keeping the power of appointment free of any scrutiny is a major institutional principle of the Ninth Circuit in general and Judge Kozinski in particular. The best known example of Kozinski using this power was when he got his wife to be appointed as the U.S. Trustee, a very important job that normally goes to people with years of bankruptcy court experience.
It’s also important to note that when it comes to Washington State, Sanai is not the leading case. The leading case is Doug Shafer. One of his clients came to him wanting to do a corrupt deal with a Judge Anderson. Shafer said no, and further told his client he wanted to report Anderson to the authorities. His client told him not to say anything. Shafer waited till the statute of limitations was exhausted as his client, then relying on the crime/fraud exception to attorney privilege and confidentiality, reported the Judge.
The result? The judge was removed, and Shafer was suspended by the Washington State Supreme Court from the practice of law. The Court held, contrary to every other court in the US to have considered the matter, that when your client comes to you saying he wants your help to commit or future crime, or otherwise tells you he is going to commit a future crime, you have to say nothing. That’s not the law anywhere else to my knowledge (there’s a much tougher issue where the fraud is both past and future going, but that was not the case with Shafer. In Washington State, if your client tells you he has just set in motion a plot to bomb the Empire State Building, you have to say nothing. This interpretation of the rule, so obviously contrary to logic and the public interest, was crafted solely to punish Shafer and ensure that where Washington State attorneys do learn about judicial corruption in which their client is participating on a forward going basis, you have to keep quiet. As the overlawyered.com website wrote of Shafer in January of 2000,
“Moreover, the reputation he’s picked up as a single-minded scourge of the corruption he perceives in the system has helped devastate his legal career, while Judge Anderson, though forced off the bench, has as yet faced no other consequences from bar enforcers, though an investigation is ongoing. (Bob Van Voris, “The High Cost of Disclosure”, National Law Journal, Jan. 4; Mary Lou Cooper, “The Cadillac Judge”, Washington Law & Politics, Sept. 1998; Tacoma News-Tribune coverage, 1998, 1999; Schafer’s website).”
Shafer’s case shows why no one challenges judicial corruption in Washington; once you have gotten the reputation as someone who does not “play well” in the system, you get crushed.
I have not had the same misfortune as Shafer, but I don’t live in Tacoma, I live in Los Angeles County. While there are individual bad apples like Judge Grimes and Judge Green in the state system, they are mostly on the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal in California is on the whole of higher quality than the Ninth Circuit, and one of the long-term projects of Chief Justice George of the California Supreme Court has been to raise the reputation and ethics of the judiciary. The California Judicial Performance Commission is the model of how judicial discipline should be handled. Again, one can disagree with specific actions, but the commitment to ethics is written into the system. This means that unlike Mr. Shafer, my fights with misconduct committing and corrupt judges do not meet with reflexive hostility.
Also, as some people keep pointing out, my living is primarily made doing deals; I only do litigation if I think my special expertise can add value, or the matter is one, like the case where I teamed up with the LA DA’s office, that presents a novel matter or issue.
One more point: here is another section from the overlawyered.com January 2000 web page:
“January 24 – “Ambulance chaser” label ruled defamatory. The Second Circuit federal court of appeals has ruled that a New York attorney can sue over a printed description of him as an “ambulance chaser” given to taking only “slam dunk cases”. The American Association of University Women and its related AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund had put out a directory in 1997 which listed 275 attorneys practicing in its fields of interest. Appended to the contact information for attorney Leonard Flamm was the following description: “Mr. Flamm handles sex discrimination cases in the area of pay equity, harassment and promotion. Note: At least one plaintiff has described Flamm as an ‘ambulance chaser’ with an interest only in ’slam dunk cases.’” U.S. District Judge Denny Chin had dismissed Mr. Flamm’s resulting lawsuit against AAUW, ruling that the comments, although “beyond the pale” and “seriously derogatory”, were protected as expressions of opinion under the First Amendment. On appeal, however, a panel led by Judge Thomas Meskill reinstated the action, noting that the objectionable passage might be read as implying specific factual assertions relating to unethical solicitation of business, that it appeared in italics, and that the other entries in the directory were generally of a factual rather than opinion-based nature. (Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, Jan. 6).”
I’d suggest those accusing me of that either (a) cite some facts justifying the charge, or (b) issue a retraction on this comment section. See Flamm v. American Association of University Women and the Aauw Legal Advocacy Fund, 201 F.3d 144 (2nd Cir. 2000). Don’t feel about; you’ll join Judge Kozinski, among others, who have had to issue apologies or retractions in my direction.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 1/30/2010 @ 5:27 pmAnother tedious and bloviating meme from Garry Spence.
Dmac (539341) — 1/30/2010 @ 5:46 pmComedy gold.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/30/2010 @ 5:51 pmJAFAC–so sue me you public figure.
peedoffamerican (0a295f) — 1/30/2010 @ 6:12 pmAnd here we have positive examples of why the court put a word count limit on his response.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 1/30/2010 @ 6:13 pmWell since its worth less than 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of 1 cent, he has to be wordy.
peedoffamerican (0a295f) — 1/30/2010 @ 6:19 pmHo Hum.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 6:58 pm#47 contin.
One point I forgot to mention. When I stood up a year ago before Justice Perluss to argue Sanai v. Saltz, every court to consider the pre-emption issue had ruled the other way, including a different Court of Appeal panel in Liceaga. Six appellate judges (three in Liceaga and three First Circuit judges) and a larger number of federal district court judges had disagreed with me. I convinced Justice Perluss and his colleagues they were wrong. Both Liceaga and Sanai went up to the California Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed with me and depublished Liceaga.
In 2005, Justice Perluss issued an opinion going against me in Sanai v Saltz on whether an anti-SLAPP appeal stays the underlying case, then the California Supreme Court issued Varian, there was another hearing, and I won again.
So it is true that I have repeatedly encountered judges who were wrong; each of the first three judges on the case were overruled on the merits and removed by the Court of Appeal or down below.
As for In re Sanai, the intermediate review board ruled unanimously against my brother (I was removed from the case at that point). When the Washington Supreme Court allowed me back on, I won 5-4.
Getting an appellate court to reverse a trial court is very hard. Getting it to reverse repeatedly in the same case is exceptional. Getting an appellate court to reject the opinions of a dozen other judges is something most lawyers will never even try. Getting five justices to reverse unanimous trial and intermediate review tribunals is harder than all of the prior tasks combined. Patterico has never done it; I’m not aware of any of the other regular commentators (e.g. Beldar) who are lawyers doing it. I’ve done it repeatedly, and this is not even my specialty.
Those are just the facts; I know it is painful for many on this blog to read and accept. Long sentences, legal concepts, case law…it is easier to just be an insult-spewing jackass.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:06 pmits even easier to just be a plain, old fashioned, jackass, as you keep demonstrating.
btw: isn’t there an old saying about arguing the facts when the law wasn’t on your side?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:18 pmOne question, Cyrus: Have you struck magma yet?
John Hitchcock (3c3d12) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:25 pmComment by Dmac — 1/30/2010 @ 5:46 pm
You shouldn’t mention Cyrus the Virus, and Garry Spence in the same breath:
AD - RtR/OS! (90486b) — 1/30/2010 @ 7:30 pmThe Hon.Mr.Spence actually practices law (or did, is he still around?), and is/was one of the pre-eminent criminal defense attorneys West of the Mississippi.
Cyrus, you never fail to disappoint. (I can hear the shovel still digging). And by the way… the “P” in “P. Escobar” stands for “Pumpkin.” (I got the name from a funny Kevin Smith movie).
I know Cyrus is lying about the issues in Sanai v. Saltz (or he is so delusional that he has convinced himself of these facts). However, unlike Cyrus, I have a life. It is Saturday night and I am going out. Unlike Cyrus, I do not have a full time job defending myself.
I will, after I sober up, and if you all want me to, re-read the various unpublished opinions and the appellate court docket and cite to you examples of how Cyrus just espoused complete fiction to try to make himself feel better.
But just as a teaser for you fine folks on this blog, I will point out just two examples of Cyrus’ intentional perversions of the truth:
1. Cyrus says:
Cyrus is wrong: The motion that was at issue was a Judgment on the Pleadings that did not challenge whether Cyrus properly stated a cause of action. According to the Court of Appeals, the Judgment on the Pleadings knocked out all of Cyrus’ state causes of action because they were federally preempted. The appellate court found that only his first cause of action survived preemption, not because he did anything, but because someone else did in the Gorman case that came down after oral argument but before the appellate court made its decision. Thus, Cyrus did not win anything – he was the lucky recipient of someone else’s win. However, the Court never did say that Cyrus properly pled his first cause of action – only that it was not preempted.
And that is not “a win on the merits.” The court made no determination as to the merits of his allegations, other than claiming that they did not think he would be able to prevail based upon the evidence that they saw. (The court even opined that Cyrus’ case could be easily disposed of by way of a quick summary judgment motion).
This sentiment was echoed by the first trial judge Cyrus is so fond of when he denied the anti-slapp motion and Cyrus’ motion for an injunction. The judge stated that Cyrus had no likelihood of success on any of his claims on the merits – including the first cause of action.
After I read what it was that Cyrus was suing for, I am positive that they were right and that he will not prevail. More on that tomorrow.
I will also have the quotes from the unpublished decisions that are on lexis on this issue tomorrow.
2. Cyrus says:
Cyrus is lying. The Court of Appeal did no such thing. Here is the Order from the Court’s own docket:
See http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1924421&doc_no=B219963
As you can see, Cyrus’ motion to shorten time for briefing and for calendar preference was DENIED!! The only thing that the court did was state that it would not easily grant any requests for extensions of time. Thus, the appeal appears to be proceeding on a regular schedule.
I will have more tomorrow if you are all interested. I promise you that it will be a well researched “bitch slapp” (pardon the pun). Just know that I can see several other statements that do not coincide with what I have read so far. It will take some time, but if you want it, it is well worth it just to show the world what an ass Cyrus really is.
P. Escobar (aka A. Hitler) (669f98) — 1/30/2010 @ 8:11 pmAny bitch slapp (btw, very nice) of Cyrus is an entertaining read and would be greatly appreciated.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/30/2010 @ 8:37 pmPumpkin – Please proceed with the slapping. I have done it numerous times in the past. Cyrus usually flees the blog rather than respond since he has a major problem acknowledging he is wrong. I don’t have the time tonight or tomorrow to dig in, but as you say, there is plenty there that I can already see that is purely a figment of his vivid imagination.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/30/2010 @ 9:24 pmI think you’re a shitty lawyer, and I definitely would apply the “Ambulance chaser” lable to you.
Trust me… I will never, ever apologize to you, nor will I ever retract my statement.
Your brother is going to get disbarred, and you are certainly not long to follow.
I would pay money to be there when those decisions are handed down.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/30/2010 @ 9:29 pmIn reading just half of what Cyrus has posted here, I can say with certainty that he has not been telling the truth. (I apologise in advance for the length of this post)
1.Cyrus Says:
This statement about Sanai’s behavior of serving documents and attending depositions and then being blamed for not serving documents or not attending depositions appears to be fishy.
Although I have no evidence of what did or did not happen in the Washington case, I can say that I find the accusations of wrongdoing more credible than not based upon the exact same accusations being hurled at Cyrus in the California litigation. I find the eerie comparison of the exact same behavior being described in both case about the same person (Cyrus) most intriguing.
In one instance, the appellate court spoke about an issue involving Cyrus’ shenanigans as follows:
[170 Cal.App.4th 758]
Also see:
[170 Cal.App.4th 782]
2.As for the Sanai v. Saltz litigation, Cyrus says:
Cyrus is wrong: The motion that was at issue was a Judgment on the Pleadings that did not challenge whether Cyrus properly stated a cause of action. According to the Court of Appeals, the Judgment on the Pleadings knocked out all of Cyrus’ state causes of action because they were federally preempted.
[170 Cal.App.4th 760]
The appellate court found that only his first cause of action survived preemption, not because he did anything, but because someone else did in the Gorman case that came down after oral argument but before the appellate court made its decision.
[170 Cal.App.4th 776]
Thus, Cyrus did not win anything – he was the lucky recipient of someone else’s win. However, the Court never did say that Cyrus properly pled his first cause of action – only that it was not preempted.
And that is not “a win on the merits.” The court made no determination as to the merits of his allegations, other than claiming that they did not think he would be able to prevail on his two remaining claims based upon the evidence that they saw.
[170 Cal.App.4th 769]
The court even opined that Cyrus’ case could be easily disposed of by way of a quick summary judgment motion.
Although the court was speaking to Cyrus’ federal cause of action (the only other cause of action to survive), the same issues apply to Cyrus’ first cause of action. We know this because this exact sentiment was echoed by the first trial judge Cyrus is so fond of when he denied the anti-slapp motion and Cyrus’ motion for an injunction. The judge stated that Cyrus had no likelihood of success on any of his claims on the merits – including the first cause of action. The appellate court memorialized:
Pg. 6
Fn. 6 pg 6
Cyrus is going to lose his first cause of action because he has a burden of proving that a credit bureau, who does not know Cyrus from a hole in the wall, knowingly reported false information. Thus, assuming that any of the information it reported was false, Cyrus has to prove that the credit bureau knew about it at the time it passed on the information to the other credit bureaus.
The appellate court stated:
[170 Cal.App.4th 752]
This means that if the credit bureau reported verbatim what it was told by the apartment owner about Cyrus, regardless of whether the information was false, Cyrus loses because the credit bureau reported exactly what it was told without having any knowledge that anything was false. This assumes, of course, that the information it reported was false, which is a big assumption. And remember, Cyrus is not suing his landlord, but only the credit bureau and its president.
3.Cyrus says:
Cyrus is misrepresenting the facts here and has totally made some stuff up.
First, all motions for sanctions are deferred to the hearing of the case in the appellate court. And second, the appellate court has yet to consider whether it will entertain Cyrus’ motion for sanctions as evidence by the fact that the appellate court has not yet invited the defendants to respond to Cyrus’ motion. To be certain, the appellate court docket indicates that the defendants tried to file an opposition to Cyrus’ request for sanctions and the appellate struck it because they had not yet been asked for it. The Court said:
“Respondent’s motion for sanctions is referred for decision with the merits of the appeal to the full panel assigned to the matter. Appellants’ opposition to the motion for sanctions is struck as a violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.276(d) (no opposition may be filed unless the court gives notice it is considering imposing sanctions). See here.
As far as I can tell, the docket indicates that there has been no notice sent to the defendants that they are considering imposing sanctions against the defendants. Rather, the appellate court is reserving the right to send out such a notice after they hear the matter to see what the merits are of the appeal. Thus Cyrus has misrepresented this fact.
Additionally, as I said before, there is no acceleration of the briefing schedule or calendar preference. This is an outright lie.
Here is the Order from the Court’s own docket:
See here.
As you can see, Cyrus’ motion to shorten time for briefing and for calendar preference was DENIED!! The only thing that the court did was state that it would not easily grant any requests for extensions of time. Thus, the appeal appears to be proceeding on a regular schedule.
4.Cyrus says:
This too is an outright lie. The facts as indicated by the appellate court are that Cyrus had, with very few exceptions, the first few years to perform discovery, and in doing so, had been sanctioned for his abusive discovery tactics and was facing terminating sanctions for not complying with the trial court’s discovery orders. The appellate court memorialized:
[170 Cal.App.4th 754]
[170 Cal.App.4th 756]
For Cyrus to have been sanctioned for discovery abuses and to have been facing terminating sanctions for violating discovery orders, Cyrus must have had plenty of time to perform discovery. He just apparently did not tailor his discovery properly and tried to use discovery as a method of harassment.
Whatever the case may be, there is little doubt that Cyrus had the opportunity to perform discovery.
What the appellate court dealt with was a discovery stay that was put in place pending the outcome of the dispositive motion for judgment on the pleadings. This occurred nearly a year after the court remanded the case back. The appellate court claimed that the trial court erred in making Cyrus present admissible evidence in order to amend his complaint when the court stayed discovery. But this does not change the fact that Cyrus had plenty of time to perform discovery.
5.Cyrus Says:
Cyrus appears to now be making things up. Cyrus has not stated that there is anything pending in front of any entity with jurisdiction over Cyrus preventing him from saying anything about the California case or the finding that Cyrus committed perjury and altered court documents, or about the award of attorney fees. This matter has nothing to do with the complaints he filed with the Ninth Circuit as to those 19 federal judges.
The appellate court did, however, memorialize the trial court’s awarding of attorney fees as follows:
[170 Cal.App.4th 762]
I think that this is enough of a sample of Cyrus’ tendency to lie about the facts of his particular predicament. Whether he does it because he is delusional and sees only what he wants to see, or it is intentional to impress you all, it matters not. The fact remains that Cyrus has a problem with the truth. The appellate court memorialized the following example demonstrating just what kind of a liar Cyrus really is:
[170 Cal.App.4th 759-760]
Cyrus is apparently incapable of telling the truth. He got caught when he filed his original complaint stating that he accepted the rent offer on October 1, 1998 by a letter dated October 1, 1998. The problem is that the offer Cyrus was accepting expired on September 30, 1998. Cyrus was therefore 1 day late, which blows up his entire case. Thus, in order to avoid this problem in the future, Cyrus made up facts to try and dig himself out of his own hole and failed to explain to anyone why the facts had changed.
His game playing, dishonesty, short-sightedness, and arrogance are among the many traits that he possesses that will ultimately lead to his doom.
It normally is not fun to watch someone so promising fall so far. I take no pleasure in the pain of others. But Cyrus does. Cyrus intentionally abuses the court system to inflict pain on others for no other purpose than to prove that he can (I guess that is what he means by his particular expertise) – and the Judiciary with all of its power is too cowardly to put a stop to him. Maybe the Ninth Circuit will finally do something now, and I pray for its own sake that it does. I can find no one more deserving of society’s contempt.
Now I know that Cyrus will be on here in a matter of minutes saying that none of what I said is true and/or that every judge is corrupt and/or that no one can understand the complexities of his legal mind. To that, I say in advance… 1) whatever you say is automatically suspect, as you have been caught in too many lies; and 2) get some perspective on what your pettiness has cost you.
Cyrus, I hope that you get everything that is coming to you and more. You have earned it.
P. Escobar (aka A. Hitler) (669f98) — 1/31/2010 @ 5:35 pmComment by P. Escobar (aka A. Hitler) — 1/31/2010 @ 5:35 pm
I don’t know whether you should be awarded a medal, or prosecuted for assault against an un-armed individual; but,
BRAVO!!!!!!
AD - RtR/OS! (951da8) — 1/31/2010 @ 5:44 pmPumpkin – Thank you for your effort. I’ve read the court documents you did and they are not light or pleasant reading.
I look forward to Cyrus’s blustering, bloviating repy.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/31/2010 @ 7:34 pmThanks guys. I tried to link all of the cites to the internet URLs from which I obtained the douments, but I do not understand why they are not included in the post.
So for all of those who are interested, all of the cites to the Sanai v. Saltz case can be found here at http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/86413#B0008
and the one citation to page 6 came from here at
https://patterico.com/wp/wp-content/images/b170618v2.pdf
The appellate court docket is at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1924421&doc_no=B219963
Again, sorry for the long post, but I was just so bothered by Cyrus misrepresenting his own published opinion. I guess he thought that we did not know how to read.
P. Escobar (669f98) — 2/1/2010 @ 3:21 pmYour hopes of Sanai getting any perspective are futile of course. The delusion and paranoia are too strong.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/1/2010 @ 3:44 pmMy opinions are definitely biased by my own experiences (as a death penalty defense attorney I deliberately, wilfully, and with knowledge aforethought wrote barely colorable pleadings and brought fruitless appeals solely for the purposes of vexation and delay) but:
Advocacy is not contempt. It really is the court’s job to hear everything that could be heard about a case.
If the attorney goes “too far”, it is not a matter for the licensing body. The court has rules and mechanisms to punish an attorney for frivolous and vexatious litigation on its own authority. For example, fines and costs, and in extreme cases an order to its clerk not to accept any more pleadings from him.
Advocacy is certainly not unethical. Not unless there’s fraud and crime involved. The lawyer’s duty is to his client, according to the lawyer’s independent judgment.
Finally, disciplinary proceedings by the licensing body, and this is important, are not intended to punish the lawyer but to protect the public. If Cyrus were indeed “churning” the case, to generate billable hours, then he should be disciplined. But I don’t think that this is the case. I think that he is overworking his cases to get the best possible result for his client and likely not getting paid minimum wage for it. That is not a threat to the public.
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 4:18 pmnk – Out of curiousity, have you read through any of the pleadings and opinions in the matters cited above?
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/1/2010 @ 4:25 pmYes, daleyrocks, I have. That was the point of my comment, I thought. The courts have the authority to “punish” Cyrus if they think he overstepped. With fines, costs, and other remedies. I don’t see it as an ethical issue for the licensing body. He’s not defrauding his client — he’s working very hard on her behalf.
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 4:40 pmnk – If you have read them you would be aware that the courts have punished him with sanctions, costs and other remedies. He was removed from the divorce case in Washington by the court and not allowed to represent his brother in his disbarment hearing by the state bar society.
I take the words of the numerous judges seriously when they say his pleadings are without merit, purely for delay and harrassment and among the worst abuses of legal process they have seen in their years on the bench. For some reason you put your faith in the demonstrated liar Cyrus.
To each his own.
daleyrocks (718861) — 2/1/2010 @ 4:58 pmNk – I can appreciate your zeal, but Cyrus represents himself in the California litigation.
Cyrus is abusing the legal process to hurt people, not to obtain a favorable result. You do things to keep someone alive. Cyrus does them for his own sick war to hurt people that stand up to him.
Cyrus committed a fraud on the court, committed perjury, and altered a court file. These acts are not just the responsibility of the court to punish, but since Cyrus is an officer of the court, he has violated his duties owed to the court and the code of professional conduct that governs his license.
And yes, the public is hurt. The courts in California are clogged and the system has no money. As such, court resources are scarce. Cyrus wishes to monopolize these limited resources for his own twisted agenda. This in turn takes these resources away from the public to use on legitimate disputes. The taxpayer expense that has gone into a decade of litigation over Cyrus’ lies is, as Judge Grimes said, “an outrage.”
I would fully expect that you would support a State Bar complaint against a D.A. that withheld evidence or engaged in improper behavior in an overzealous prosecution of one of your clients. I see no difference here.
P. Escobar (669f98) — 2/1/2010 @ 5:47 pmI don’t know that I’m defending Cyrus so much as trying to explain that there are two parallel mechanisms — one for overzealous lawyers in the courts and one for unethical lawyers in the licensing body. There is a difference between the two.
I’m sorry if I’m not doing a good job. I have admitted before that I am not a teacher.
nk (db4a41) — 2/1/2010 @ 6:06 pmNo problem NK. Your efforts are appreciated.
P. Escobar (669f98) — 2/1/2010 @ 6:31 pmHmmm. I wonder where Cyrus went?
P. Escobar (669f98) — 2/3/2010 @ 11:58 amComment by P. Escobar — 2/3/2010 @ 11:58 am
Probably drafting a complaint to “put you in your place”.
AD - RtR/OS! (b1d1f9) — 2/3/2010 @ 12:11 pmEscobar is right. Cyrus’s legal tactics make no sense if you think like a lawyer. He makes his position look worse and his opponent look great.
His legal tactics make more sense if you think like a hissy fitting scorned woman. Not to insult women or the scorned.
That dude wiretapped his own blood. OF course, Cyrus is an easy target. No glory in pointing out that he’s not a good lawyer. I bet if he had some strong leadership he could be extremely helpful. He’s dogged. Of course, he’s probably not strong enough to follow the leadership that would keep him in line.
I do think it’s interesting that Cyrus’s problems do not stem from his work for clients. Just him representing himself and his mommy. Perhaps he is totally aware of how poor his tactics are, and has the honor not to employ them for someone else. Or maybe he has a hard time getting clients these days.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2010 @ 12:18 pm