More on Cyrus Sanai’s Campaign Against Judge Kozinski
Following up on my previous post about the dispute between attorney Cyrus Sanai and Judge Alex Kozinski:
Sanai told me that he filed a complaint alleging misconduct by Kozinski for commenting on a pending case — Sanai’s petition for rehearing en banc of a legal issue related to his parents’ divorce. Sanai also complained that Kozinski had put materials related to the case on Kozinski’s web site. This, Kozinski clearly did. Howard Bashman has preserved Kozinski’s piece about Sanai. It purports to link a .pdf critical of Sanai. You can see the link by right-clicking the hyperlink in Kozinski’s piece that says “(read the PDF)” and checking “properties.” It goes to this link: http://alex.kozinski.com/judge.thibodeau.pdf.
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.
Sanai says he was surprised to see this language in the order:
A limited inquiry was conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 352(a), but found no posting of complainant’s case-related information on any website maintained by the judge.
Sanai researched the issue online. He claims that his research, using the Wayback Machine and search engine caches, revealed that the web site had been taken down months earlier. Weeks after the Judicial Council’s order was issued, Sanai says, the site came back up.
Sanai concluded that Kozinski had been trying to hide something from the Judicial Council by taking down the site, and decided he wanted to find out what that was. When Sanai ran a Google search plugging the name of Kozinski’s site into the search engine, hits came back to .mp3 sharing sites, saying that songs like Monty Python’s “Lumberjack” song could be downloaded at URLs located in a subdirectory of Kozinski’s site: http://alex.kozinski.com/stuff. This is the subdirectory that had the porn.
Sanai believes that Kozinski was actively sharing these files. As I wrote in my post from earlier this morning:
Judge Kozinski’s site had many .mp3 music files. If you do a Google search for http://alex.kozinski.com, page 2 of the results gives you this page. It includes a link to a site that shares .mp3 files, and which refers to the alex.kozinski.com/stuff subdirectory for a download of a Monty Python song. Mr. Sanai maintains that this, together with other evidence, is an indication that Judge Kozinski was sharing .mp3 files.
Sanai believes that Kozinski’s sharing of files indicates hypocrisy on Kozinski’s part, because of the position he took in the dissent in this case (starting at page 7864), arguing that credit card companies should be liable for copyright infringement if they facilitate the infringement.
This, as I have previously suggested, is where Kozinski may end up being vulnerable. The porn, titillating as it is, is really a secondary issue. If he was file-sharing .mp3s, after having taken a hardline position against infringers in judicial opinions, it could expose him to charges of hypocrisy.
Patterico – Why does a divorce case make nine trips to the federal appelate court, according to Kosinski?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:34 amYeah, Patterico, how about reporting about those divorce filings?
jen (5e96ad) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:38 amit could expose him to charges of hypocrisy.
and an riaa lawsuit, which we’ll probably have to wait for to learn anything more definitive about his filesharing. think they’ll go after him with the same ardor they bring to suits against college students?
no, the porn is the primary issue. not too many people care about illegal filesharing. he could always say oh, my kids and their friends have access to my system, or i have an open wireless node at home. i don’t think it’s possible to escape naked women painted as cows on your website. none of the women i know will appreciate this, and i don’t have what it takes to argue with them.
assistant devil's advocate (64a04d) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:42 amPatterico – As you point out, there are other issues here, the porn (?) and the mp3’s, but Sanai’s seeming abuse of the legal system and desire for maximum embarrassment and revenge (disciplinary hearings) on Judge Kosinski certainly give the appearance of his hands being considerably less than clean. In fairness, you should air out some of that dirty laundry now that this has become a very public dispute.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/12/2008 @ 9:14 amHypocrisy, schmypocrisy. If sharing MP3s and taking a hardline position on copyright law makes Kozinski a hypocrite, would sharing MP3s and taking a more consistent (read: more self-serving, not necessarily more legally accurate) position have been any better?
Xrlq (62cad4) — 6/12/2008 @ 9:45 am“…would (not) sharing MP3s and taking a more consistent…”
X…fixed that for you?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/12/2008 @ 9:51 amIf he was file-sharing .mp3s, after having taken a hardline position against infringers in judicial opinions, it could expose him to charges of hypocrisy.
Isn’t file-sharing .mp3s a crime?
nk (4bb2be) — 6/12/2008 @ 10:10 am“Hypocrisy, schmypocrisy. If sharing MP3s and taking a hardline position on copyright law makes Kozinski a hypocrite, would sharing MP3s and taking a more consistent (read: more self-serving, not necessarily more legally accurate) position have been any better?”
Point taken.
Patterico (db943f) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:30 pm“Patterico – As you point out, there are other issues here, the porn (?) and the mp3s, but Sanais seeming abuse of the legal system and desire for maximum embarrassment and revenge (disciplinary hearings) on Judge Kosinski certainly give the appearance of his hands being considerably less than clean. In fairness, you should air out some of that dirty laundry now that this has become a very public dispute.”
daleyrocks,
Did you read the first link in this post? How much more detail could I give?
You want the details of the divorce? I don’t know them all, and I’m not particularly interested.
The only thing I know is this: Mr. Sanai claims that he was seeking to undo an order by a state judge, appointing his dad’s longtime accountant as an impartial special master (or some similar position). I don’t know whether the facts Mr. Sanai told me about the divorce case are true, as I haven’t independently researched them. But if they are as represented, it seems as though the appointment was improper, and I couldn’t blame him for taking whatever legal steps were available to him to try to undo such an appointment.
I think there are still unresolved questions here.
Did Judge Kozinski take the site offline during the pendency of Sanai’s complaint against him? If so, why? If not, why does the order say the Council couldn’t find the site?
Did it come back online a few weeks after the Judicial Council ruled on the matter? If so, why?
And if Judge Kozinski thought his website was not reachable by the public, what was he doing linking a document posted on that web site, in a publicly available screed against Mr. Cyrus? Did Judge Kozinski think *that document* was publicly available, but material in other subdirectories was not?
I’d love to ask Judge Kozinski these questions and give him the chance to respond. If anyone has contact information for him, please let me know.
Patterico (8be3ec) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:48 pmSince, there are a number of opinions posted on the internet where the court found misconduct against the mother, et al, it’s odd that you would so readily take what Cyrus Sanai tells you with out question.
jen (95922e) — 6/12/2008 @ 12:54 pmjen,
I thought I was pretty clear that I am relating what Mr. Sanai told me, and that there are assertions he has made whose truth I haven’t been able to verify.
If you re-read what I’ve said and find a passage that, read fairly and in context, indicates I am simply taking Mr. Sanai’s word at face value as to a disputed fact, I will try to reword what I have said to dispel that perception.
But perhaps, upon re-reading what I have said, you will conclude that you misread what I said.
Patterico (8be3ec) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:03 pmNo. You made it clear that you don’t know the facts and aren’t interested in researching them. You then go on to act as if they are true by continuing to rag on Kosinzki.
jen (95922e) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:18 pmPatterico – I read your link last night as indicated by my comments on that thread. I cannot get the schroeder-kosinski order you have linked on your site to open. I don’t know if others are having the same issue. The alex.kosinski.com site has been taken down, so referring me to the Bashman site link is worthless.
None of those points you make, however, address Sanai’s desire to publicy humiliate Judge Kosinski which you seem bound to ignore. Were there other alternatives which were exhausted first to get Sanai’s pound of flesh? Is he an impartial judicial watchdog here?
Nine trips to the federal appelate court for a divorce case may not be a record, but it certainly sounds unusual. What are Cyrus’s grievances that he gets accused of filing frivolous appeals and motions and instigating unfounded disciplinary procedings?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:38 pmdaleyrocks wrote: …Sanai’s seeming abuse of the legal system and desire for maximum embarrassment and revenge (disciplinary hearings) on Judge Kosinski certainly give the appearance of his hands being considerably less than clean.
In this layman’s opinion, the condition of Sanai’s hands — dirty or clean — are immaterial as long as what he is alleging is true. What Kozinski put on a public website is of public interest. And I say “Bravo!” to Sanai if he is willing to undergo another round of bashing (deserved or not) in order to reveal what ought to be known about such a high-ranking jurist.
In your opinion, daleyrocks, under what conditions would it be acceptable to make the information public? Give me a “clean hands” scenario, if you can.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 6/12/2008 @ 1:53 pmI think Cyrus Sanai is to be applauded for taking the bull by the horns. Further, I expect better from a Brahmin of the legal profession like Kozinski. At the least, he should have realized the need to cull the publicly available material on his website. Is the man smoking loco weed?
(Patterico: Since I clearly have nothing of substance to add, I’ll cut this out if you wish. Just tell me to git along. Otherwise, I’ll just continue to play rodeo clown.)
fat tony (918977) — 6/12/2008 @ 2:47 pm“In this layman’s opinion, the condition of Sanai’s hands — dirty or clean — are immaterial as long as what he is alleging is true.”
L.N. – It is immaterial, but in this layman’s understanding, aren’t there appropriate legal channels through which to proceed in seeking to have a judge recused from a case or disciplined. Judge Rehnquist and Judge Mecham aparently had conflicts with Kosinski that were not satisfactorily resolved according to some parties. Sanai’s information seems to be new. Was it put through the same channels or did he go to the press. Sanai acknowledges he has been shopping the story to the press since January.
Sanai’s motive seems to be pure spite or revenge. I am merely suggesting that Sanai’s story should receive due exposure out of fairness in light of his deliberate actions to embarrass the judge.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/12/2008 @ 3:39 pmIt seems to me that there’s some equivocation going on here as to the “public” nature of this website. It was apparently a server on which his family stored all kinds of personal material, and its directory was not posted for public browsing. Rather, he occasionally sent people specific links to files he wanted to share. So it was ‘public’ in the sense that your house is public if you occasionally invite someone in for a drink. There is no basis for an assumption that everything in the server was intended to be shared with the public at large. It’s careless to leave your back door unlocked, but it’s not tantamount to authorizing the public at large to come in and take anything they want. What Sanai did was akin to sneaking in the unlocked backdoor to rummage through the dresser drawers, and he ought to be sued or prosecuted for it.
CMN (fa5bac) — 6/12/2008 @ 3:59 pmL.N. – As an officer of the court, I’m sure Sanai is familiar with the appropriate channels to report judicial conflicts or misconduct. I’m pretty sure those channels don’t involve shopping the story to the press as the first step.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/12/2008 @ 4:44 pm“None of those points you make, however, address Sanais desire to publicy humiliate Judge Kosinski which you seem bound to ignore.”
Bullshit.
That was the whole fucking point of the post.
If you make me waste my time proving it with quotes I am going to get really pissed.
Patterico (bba317) — 6/12/2008 @ 5:39 pmCalm down PP, you’re starting to sound like Levi.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/12/2008 @ 6:01 pmi have to agree with patterico versus daleyrocks. sanai’s motives and his available alternatives are immaterial. the merits of his parents’ divorce case are immaterial. we’re all voyeurs, and patterico is just acting as an internet tour guide, exhibiting a gruesome judicial car wreck to law-oriented voyeurs. i couldn’t help but look. i wish it had happened to bush or cheney instead of kozinski. the message here is to lock down securely your personal website, not to shoot the messenger.
assistant devil's advocate (9f4e65) — 6/12/2008 @ 6:29 pmIndeed. “He that bulls the cow must keep the calf.”
fat tony (601b8d) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:01 pmI think the judge left a directory open. That directory did not contain the “norobots” tag that would keep it from being indexed. That permitted others to find the MP3s and link them from sites that permit pointers to “found” MP3s.
Try this: In google, type the words
index apache mp3
and the name of a song. You will find directories, some like this judge’s, that you cannot find links to from any other site.
The newspaper should be ashamed at not inquiring and at least reporting the bias and motivation of its source, as it is important context.
Gonzo (aec2cd) — 6/12/2008 @ 7:47 pm“If you make me waste my time proving it with quotes I am going to get really pissed.”
Patterico – I can’t make you do anything and my intention is not to get you really pissed. Having spoken to Mr. Sanai for two hours you obviously have insight into his conduct and information that others here do not.
I would be very interested in what officers of the court are taught are normal processes to pursue removals of judges from cases or to report judicial conflicts of interest or misconduct. Did I miss that in your posts?
Your prior post on the Sanai-Kosinski battle referring back to your prior “Ouch” post discusses the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Kosinski’s unwise decision to publicly smackdown Sanai while a matter was under consideration in his court. It also highlights Sanai’s prior history of taking his judicial disputes public.
Sanai’s evidence of Kosinski’s porn collection and potential mp3 sharing are separate matters from their dispute, I agree. So maybe it’s just me, what the fuck goes on in a divorce trial that merits nine trips to a federal appeals court and gets someone this pissed off at a judge?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/12/2008 @ 8:38 pmI think I know what gets someone this pissed off at a judge. Abuse of power. I had never heard of Sanai before yesterday, but I personally know that Kozinski will gleefully humiliate and punish undeserving victims. I used to chuckle at his over-the-top criticisms of attorneys, assuming the facts were as he stated and the attorneys thus deserved the spankings they got. That is, until it happened to someone I know and saw that Kozinski does it in cases where it is completely unwarranted. He’ll trash others’ careers with no basis except he smells an easy target or thinks he needs to be the object of some more blogs that say, “Oh Alex, I can’t believe you said that. You are so bad.” He may be brilliant, but he is cruel. As I said, I know nothing of Mr. Sanai but my experience leads me to believe him, not Kozinski. But Kozinski has the power and that is frustrating when all you have is the truth.
Abbie (e628fb) — 6/12/2008 @ 11:50 pmOn this point – If he was file-sharing .mp3s, after having taken a hardline position against infringers in judicial opinions, it could expose him to charges of hypocrisy.
With this judge’s record, pertaining to the porn trial, the judge would have most probably favored the defendant, I would be interested in investigating most of his rulings.
Give Sanai a big round of applause. If you want to bring someone down there is always a way but Kozinsky was taking a very stupid risk to begin with- A website with his own name – alex.kozinsky.com with porn in the subdirectory on top. How foolish is this?
Shyamal (890fa1) — 6/13/2008 @ 5:05 amno one shares mp3’s on their personal website. it looks more like a data dump for personal use than anything else, and a stupid one at that because one would only have to put a blank index file to hide the drives contents.
gabriel (6d7447) — 6/13/2008 @ 7:26 amShyamal
Bullcrap. If I leave my car unlocked when I run into the mall, is the fact that my CD’s are likely to get purloined mean I’m intentionally “sharing” them?
Its not as if the judge were running a peer-to-peer server.
They had a “dump” directory, most people do — I suspect a lot of people even call theirs “stuff,” and as someone else has noted, the configuration of the server to prohibit browse access is how the stuff got discovered.
Gonzo (aec2cd) — 6/13/2008 @ 8:33 amdaleyrocks:
Since you didn’t take it back, I have no choice but to spend time quoting my previous post, spending a lot of time correcting your distortions.
You said the following stunningly untrue thing: “None of those points you make, however, address Sanais desire to publicy humiliate Judge Kosinski which you seem bound to ignore.”
My previous post said: “I guess this is Sanai’s way of saying to Kozinski: don’t cross Cyrus Sanai.”
I couldn’t have made it clearer that Sanai was out to get Kozinski. I don’t see how you could have possibly missed that.
As for the divorce case, I then went on to re-quote the entire portion of Kozinski’s article, four lengthy paragraphs, containing Kozinski’s full attack on Sanai. I didn’t leave out a thing. I’l reproduce Kozinski’s quote here, AGAIN, for your convenience, since you evidently missed it the first time:
I then said: “So: Kozinski busts Sanai for failing to disclose something relevant to an article he published. Now Sanai busts Kozinski for failing to disclose something relevant to a trial over which Kozinski was presiding.”
The way you know that Sanai went to court nine times over this is because YOU READ IT ON MY SITE.
Now you and jen want to pretend that I somehow hid this stuff, when I am the first one anywhere to fully report the backstory here. I stayed up until three in the morning doing it and then went to work the next day, at which time you and jen carped that I hadn’t reported more on the details of the divorce case.
I don’t care to report more about that. The reader clearly knows that Sanai has been a serial litigant on that case, and that a federal judge other than Kozinski has criticized him harshly for it. I REPORTED THAT. As to the nitty-gritty details of why, it’s minutae that I don’t care to get into. If you or jen want to, get your own blog and go nuts. Nobody will read it or care, because it’s besides the point.
The point is that Sanai and Kozinski had a backstory. I reported that, FULLY. I did NOT take sides on it. If anything, when I reported it in 2005, I took Kozinski’s side reflexively because he had a good reputation. Now I am determined to be neutral and just report the facts. Which I have done, so stop pretending I haven’t.
Patterico (a7a78e) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:23 amGame set match, for Patterico.
I had to come here, to the blogosphere, to get the whole story. The LAT took a vendetta smear and turned it into a good faith tipsters situation.
Gonzo (aec2cd) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:35 amWhat the posters here are missing is an understanding of how websites and their configureations work.
First – the site was NOT, in fact, a public website.
Think of the robots.txt file as a door to keep people out. The copyright case(s) against google by the belgian newspapers absolutly established that that is a locked door. I’m a techie, not a lawyer, so I won’t try to parse it.
Think of password protection as a lock on the door.
Sanai did NOT get those materials from a public site. He got them by doing the equivalent of opening a closed, but unlocked door and enterting a private residence.
As regards to criticisms about the porn. I’d be very interested to know why people are so cranked that a judge (a leader in the legal community) has materials that are – dare I say it – LEGAL to ossess?
If you dont like his stuff, fine – don’t look at it. But he has just as much a right to have it as the guy you call a pervert living in his mother’s basement. His position in society is immaterial.
Gorshkov (ec95fd) — 6/13/2008 @ 11:47 amPatterico – I’m having trouble understanding how you read my comments and react the way do. It’s clear I have read and understood your posts. It’s not clear that you have read and understood my comments.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 11:55 amWhy did Gorshkov bring Levi into an otherwise cogent, and informative comment?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 6/13/2008 @ 12:05 pm“None of those points you make, however, address Sanais desire to publicy humiliate Judge Kosinski which you seem bound to ignore.”
You accuse me of being “bound to ignore” the central point of my post.
Patterico (0c81f6) — 6/13/2008 @ 12:15 pm“On July 1, 2005, the Court entered an Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ Third Amended
Complaint. Docket no. 695. In the Order, the Court found Cyrus Sanai, Fredric Sanai, and
Viveca Sanai (“Plaintiffs”) liable for excessive costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Id. at 17.
The Court deemed Plaintiffs personally liable for the excessive costs, expenses, and
attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred as the result of their unreasonable and vexatious
multiplication of the proceedings and instructed Defendants to submit declarations
quantifying such costs, expenses and fees within 20 days.”….
“The Court imposed § 1927 sanctions based on numerous findings in the Order of July
1, 2005, including but not limited to bad faith, abusive and obstructive litigation tactics,
filing scores of frivolous pleadings, failure to comply with discovery as specified in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and refusing to obey this Court’s Orders. See docket no.
695 at 2-3. The Court cited a non-exhaustive list of examples, including Plaintiffs’ refusal to
attend depositions, failure to serve subpoenas, interference with discovery, failure to answer
interrogatories, failure to respond to requests for production, failure to produce documents,
as well as Plaintiffs’ direct disobedience of this Court’s orders regarding lis pendens filings,
service of process, address changes, and responses to motions. Id. at 3-9. The Court also
found that Plaintiffs had engaged in forum shopping and other misconduct, such as illegal
wiretapping.”
Patterico – I think we are talking past each other. You have chosen to remain agnostic on Sanai, which is fine. I am interested in the details behind his Rooker-Feldman beef. The above from the Third District in Seattle shows and confirms Kozinski’s opinion of him that you linked earlier. He holds grudges and is not happy about his mom’s divorce settlement. Does that matter if Kozinski did something untoward, no.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 12:55 pmNone of those points you make, however, address Sanais desire to publicy humiliate Judge Kosinski which you seem bound to ignore.
daleyrocks, re-read my comment 29 and tell me whether you are going to continue to stand behind this assertion.
Patterico (12a412) — 6/13/2008 @ 1:07 pm“The point is that Sanai and Kozinski had a backstory. I reported that, FULLY. I did NOT take sides on it.”
“Now you and jen want to pretend that I somehow hid this stuff,”
Patterico – I did not say anywhere that you hid anything. As I have said above, your prior posts talk about the Rooker-Feldman dispute and Kozinski’s unwise smackdown of Sanai. Kozinski’s smackdown summarizes Sanai’s conduct as a serial litigant. When you dig into one of the actual legal orders relating to the divorce proceedings it becomes more clear that Sanai is happy to act as someone to whom rules do not apply as part of his legal behavior, which I think helps to explain his behavior in the current matter.
That is the stuff that I “accused” you of ignoring. It’s merely a question of depth. I apologize for setting you off. You have made it clear you don’t want to peel back that onion. I am interested in Sanai’s prior questionable behavior under the canons but am happy to take it elsewhere.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 1:26 pmBTW, Sanai did appeal the case to the Supreme Court and was denied cert.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 1:26 pmNone of those points you make, however, address Sanais desire to publicy humiliate Judge Kosinski which you seem bound to ignore.”
Are you standing by that statement or not?
You seem “bound to ignore” the fact that you said it and that it’s not true.
Could you please retract it or tell me how you think it’s true?
Patterico (77968a) — 6/13/2008 @ 2:02 pm“Could you please retract it or tell me how you think it’s true?”
I thought I just explained why I thought it was true, not going below the surface of the Rooker-Feldman dispute.
I retact my statement that you seem bound to ignore Sanai’s desire to humiliate Judge Kosinski. You have made a conscious decision not to report on it in further detail than you already have, which I have acknowledged.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 2:41 pmI think daleyrocks, whomever he/she is, has some other agenda here. But I’ll briefly address the divorce.
The underlying litigation involved a district court judge, Thomas Zilly, who is Seattle’s version of Manuel Real. Virtually every single finding by Judge Zilly was demonstrably false, or constituted legitimate legal tactics (such as filing motions for disqualification). Some of Judge Zilly’s rulings were a fantasy; for example, he held that myself and my co-plaintiffs never filed proofs of service, when of the course the record demonstrated that we did. To identify another example, after the other side unilaterally set depositions, we objected and demanded that they be rescheduled; Judge Zilly held that was “misconduct”. To take a third example, Judge Zilly refused to allow my mother to use her home mailing address, and required that another be submitted, without specifying a time limit. This was done, but Zilly held this was misconduct because she did not do it within 10 days, but there was no date set for compliance.
Essentially, the court found everything I and my co-plaintiffs did misconduct, and then added in things that occured in state court (such as the filing of peremptory challenges to Snohomish County Superior Court Judges) as violations of federal rules.
A key point about Judge Kozinski’s writing about this stuff was, of course, that none of it was before the Ninth Circuit at the time (September of 2005); Judge Zilly decided to impose these measures after the various interlocutory appeals were filed, so Kozinski sought to poison the well be putting information in his article and on his website that were not before the Ninth Circuit at that time, while petitions for rehearing were pending. Even Kozinski conceded this was misconduct, and he issued as grudging an apology as you will ever read, apparently, as Howard Bashman pointed out, to Judge Schroeder, not to me.
I’d be happy to go on at length over what happened, but as I said I suspect daleyrocks, whomever he or she is, has some other agenda to forward or is a sock puppet. If there is some demand for it, I’d be happy to address the issue, or even forward copies of the filed appellate briefs in this matter. And if daleyrocks would like to speak to me about it, my contact details are on the calbar.org site. I am perfectly happy to answer all questions about it, by anyone who is interested.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:38 pmI don’t think daleyrocks is a sock puppet.
Since someone suggest Mr. Sanai might be sock puppeting, I will confirm that the only person who ha commented from Mr. Sanai’s IP address is Mr. Sanai.
Patterico (a7a78e) — 6/13/2008 @ 9:51 pmPatterico – It’s nice to know that Cyrus no longer considers you a hostile blogger from his comment over at Lessig’s blog:
“June 13, 2008 10:42 PM Cyrus Sanai:
I’m the “disgruntled litigant” mentioned in this post. I’m trying, in the course of interviews, to give a true picture of what happened. I’m going to provide a discussion from a once-hostile blogger who, after looking at the evidence, changed his mind.
Kozinski Asks for Investigation of Himself
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:11 am”
Lessig believes what Cyrus did here was an invasion of privacy and a smear againsy Kozinski, for what it’s worth.
Cyrus is certainly making the rounds of the blogs and press promoting and defending himself. He is a busy man.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:30 pmCyrus – Why would you think I am a sockpuppet and who do you think I would be commenting on behalf off?
Was Zilly the Judge in the Order I excerpted above finding yourself and the other appellee liable for expenses? I don’t recall, but the conduct described in that order sounds absolutely nothing like what you just described. Was your brother disqualified from representing your mother in the case? Were you sanctioned for your conduct and if so for how much?
Based on your conduct which is on the public record, I have absolutely no interest in talking to you directly.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:41 pmLessig’s post compares Sanai to a criminal who has committed residential burglary. Since when is typing an “http” command into an address bar anything like residential burglary? Lessig treats Sanai like a hacker, which is just ridiculous. His post deserves a rebuttal, and it will get one.
I think this is a bit of an overstatement: “I’m going to provide a discussion from a once-hostile blogger who, after looking at the evidence, changed his mind.”
But only a bit. In 2005 I reflexively dismissed Sanai because Kozinski had articulately attacked him. Now I’m just sticking with the facts and not judging things based on reputation. Lessig, I submit, is doing the opposite.
Patterico (a7a78e) — 6/13/2008 @ 10:52 pmPatterico,
I mean I changed your mind on being out-of-the-box hostile to me. You have not signed up to my fan club (or more pertinently as one of my paying clients), but you are, if I may say so, acting judiciously, and looking at the evidence.
Lessig has not. His rendition of the facts is delusional. It is just not what happened; moreover, no one has reported, to my knowledge, the facts as Lessig represents, so I don’t know where he got the idea that I hacked into this site. Moreover, as Glover of the Times and Seth F have discovered, Kozinski himself handed out links to the /stuff/ directory (I followed the neon sign blinking “FREE MP3s”).
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 6/13/2008 @ 11:03 pmDaleyrocks,
Well, if you aren’t a sock puppet, then you’re a troll. It’s obvious you are not interested in facts or evidence.
Cyrus Sanai
Cyrus Sanai (4df861) — 6/13/2008 @ 11:05 pmCyrus – What’s your end game for Kozinski? Whay is your desired result?
How about Zilly? You have complained about him above? How did you address your issues with Zilly?
Who else is on your list? Surely more than just two judges have disappointed you in this process.
Did you have any significant matrimonial law experience before deciding to represent your mother? If not, do you think that played a part in the outcome as opposed to what you view as incompetent or biased judges? People love to point the finger of blame at everyone but themselves.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/14/2008 @ 5:10 amNo, daleyrocks, is not a troll. He is a long time commenter here and he is prividing necessary prospective and asking relevant questions.
nk (4bb2be) — 6/14/2008 @ 6:28 am*perspective*
nk (4bb2be) — 6/14/2008 @ 6:28 amBottom line, smut and porn is a mutli-million buck biz. L A is the capital of the smut industry.
Mitch (56a0a8) — 6/22/2008 @ 7:24 pmSome one asked Sir Cyrus Sanai what is his L A end game ? Ya, the end game..?
It seems, if anything Cyrus is promoting the L A smut culture, as if it is the new wave thing, and
Sanai knows that L A culture, as he defends other lawyers in legal malpractice suits. Over lawyered DOT dom is the biggest supporter of the smut promting Alex. Some GOP family values, just like when Neil Bush has prostitutes all over the world coming to his hotel rooms, and giving him quickies–the BUSH Family value ways.
(and it was all in depositions too, a real domestic dispute)
It’s the Bush family’s fault!
DRJ (81c148) — 6/22/2008 @ 8:01 pmI thought it was the Jooooos!!!!!
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/22/2008 @ 8:45 pmdaleyrocks, you do know what a palpable hit that was, don’t you? ROFL.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/22/2008 @ 8:58 pmAbsolutely.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 6/22/2008 @ 9:21 pm