Facebook...Winklevoss twins lose appeal! Porn-loving 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski rebuffs litigants!

The Social Network– an Oscar-winning flick - chronicled the launch of Facebook and the tawdry rags-to-riches tale about its founder and the legal wrangling that erupted in the courts thereafter on the heels of accusations that the cocky start-up maestro - Mark Zuckerberg - stole the original idea out-from-under former business partners Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.

In my own review of the box-office hit, I underscored my sentiments.

The “idea” is the thing.

Post: 10/03/2010

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/10/social-networkfacebook-nerd-revenge.html

In the final analysis, a person who invented the “light bulb” is the genius, not the individual who imagined one in the shade of blue (to use an analogy).

In spite of that glaring reality, Zuckerberg vigorously argued to all within earshot - that without his expertise the Winklevoss pipe dream would never have gotten off-the-ground – let alone been transformed into a viable marketable enterprise on the competitive world-wide-web.

Like it or not, one glaring fact remains.

The Harvard “boys” - to the manor born with silver spoons in their mouth – were the true visionaries who hatched up the original concept (not Zuckerberg).

Undoubtedly - that’s why the anti-social (!) CEO relented - and agreed to give the two sticks-in-the-muds their due.

Consequently, an out-of-court settlement was proffered up for big bucks in favor of the dynamic duo.

End of story, right?

Not!

Shortly after Facebook took off on the Internet– and met with phenomenal success – the Winklevoss litigants did an about-face.

On the grounds that the stock was grossly overvalued when the settlement was - signed, sealed, and delivered - the poor sports elected to pursue the litigation with renewed vigor (no doubt emboldened by the “Social Network” movie script which appeared to validate their rip-off claims) with the ultimate aim of cashing-in for a bigger pay-off.

Yesterday, the grumblings of a disreputable Judge in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal handed down a verdict - that was not only a stunner – but a  less than Judicial-sounding one!

“Tough Luck,” Chief bench warmer Alex Kozinski snapped without an ounce of compassion.

“The Winklevosses are sophisticated parties who were locked in a contentious struggle over ownership rights in one of the world’s fastest-growing companies,” he quipped in the court’s 3-0 ruling.

In part, the decision rested on evidence in the lower-court record which Kozinski stressed was legally-binding.

The controversial Judge was referring to a statement in the agreement that barred inclusion of any evidence gleened during a mediation session – including, but not limited to - misrepresentations about the value of the company stock.

“At some point litigation must come to an end,” Kozinski concluded.

This, from a Judge with dubious standing in the community-at-large - in legal circles, too - a “black sheep” who has demonstrated a nasty disregard for the rules (particularly when it pertains to his own inappropriate conduct).

California voters, lawyers, and Court Officials may recall that Judge (I use the term very loosely) Kozinski has been criticized in the past for frequenting web sites that exalt (and condone) sleazy pornography and for “downloading” disturbing erotic images to his laptop.

In addition, Kozinski has thumbed his nose at critics in the past - who lamented on the heels of the scandal - that it was highly improper (disgusting?) for a sitting Judge to flaunt his sexual perversions so publicly.

Meanwhile, in the other camp, the Winklevoss attorney has cried foul over the ruling.

According to Jerome Falk, Kozinski’s opinion raises “extremely significant questions of Federal Law” that deserve further legal scrutiny.

For good reason, a full review by the 9th Circuit may be on the horizon.

Dig a little deeper, Mr. Falk.

There may be a few greased palms involved, especially where the California court system is involved!

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz



Anti-Social Social hub founder?

Proposition 8...High court denies appeal! Governor not required to litigate!

I'm staying out of this one folks!

California's highest court refused to force the Governor and the State Attorney Generals office to lodge an appeal on a same-sex marriage issue that is currently pending before the courts.

The State's Supreme Court was asked by a conservative group backing Prop 8 to issue a finding that State representatives were required to take up the cause of a ban on same-sex marriage which was voted into law by ballot initiative with a nod from the voters in California by a majority.

To the frustration of some, the Justices didn't back their refusal to hear the matter with any explanation.

In response to the critics, Jerry Brown's staff in the State Attorney Generals Office noted that their office has the right to choose which cases to challenge or defend.

In this instant case, Jerry Brown publicly took the position that he would not back Prop 8 because it was unconstitutional, in his estimation.

The Governor's office was in accord when fielded questions Wednesday.

"The Governor, like any litigant has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or  not to appeal an order," Andrew Stroud, counsel for Governor Schwarzenegger, wrote in response.

"Here, the Governor exercised his discretion and decided not to appeal," he concluded, with little more ado.

After the Nation's first trial court on the issue, a Federal District Court Judge in San Francisco ruled on August 4th (2010) Prop 8 discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender and violated the right of equality of marriage to same-sex couples.

At that time, Judge Vaughn Walker questioned the legal standing of a party in the action to file an appeal of his order with the higher court.

With that in mind, the Judge stayed his ruling to allow a  Prop 8 Supporter - Project Marriage - the opportunity to approach State Officials for backing on the issue in the appeals arena.

The refusal of both the Governor and the State Attorney General to step into the fray means that their chances of overturning the ruling on appeal (when it is heard by the 9th Circuit in the near future) are iffy.

In fact, legal eagles are speculating that the appeals court may throw out the Prop 8 proceedings on procedural grounds without ever deciding the constitutionality of the initiative.

In that event, the Justice may be pleased they weren't forced to handle that hot potato!

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Proposition 8...court flip-flops! 9th Circuit to hear appeal on gay marriage ban!

 

"Stays" and being misunderstood at the altar!

There they go again!

In response to a petition to "stay" gay marriages (in California) pending a review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - Justices in the higher court with appropriate jurisdiction have put an indefinite "hold" on the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker who "lifted the ban" last week.

Confused yet?

In a nutshell, no gay man or woman will be able to trot down the aisle with City Hall's blessing, until all the appeals have been exhausted, or one of the parties has tossed the towel into the ring disgusted.

The decision - issued by a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (on occasion nine- member panels may be petitioned to preside over appellate court proceedings) - effectively sets aside Walker's prior ruling which would have allowed same-sex marriages to continue at the stroke of midnight on August 18th (2010).

In a  precise two-page order granting the stay, the Justices noted their intention to expedite the proceedings, which will focus on Proposition 8 and Judge Walker's findings.

In what amounts to a break in normal scheduling, the Justices have announced through a court-house spokesperson, that the controversial case will be heard the week of Dec. 6th (2010).

To avoid any possible hint of impropriety - or scandal - a second panel (consisting of three Justices) will be installed to preside over the legal proceedings.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," beamed Ted Boutrous, who is a member of the plaintiffs' legal team.

To catch up on all the proceedings to date, follow the links below.

Post: 08/13/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8us-judge-stays-ban-on-gay.html

Post: 08/05/10

http://ijulian.blogspot.com/2010/08/proposition-8judge-overurns-ban-on-gay.html

Currently, same-sex couples can legally tie-the-knot in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

Stay posted!

9th Circuit Justice got caught with Porno on laptop!

(Alex Kozinski)

http://www.julianayrs.com/

George Bush...11th Hour rape of environment. Prez sticks it to Americans!

One news flash noted that a bid by George Bush to drill for oil in a sensitive land preserve was turned down by the Federal Court of Appeal.

In another report, the President announced his 11th hour plan - while thumbing his nose at the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore, no doubt - to speed up new rules for oil shale development across 2 million acres in the West.
In fact, an auction has already been scheduled for drilling rights alongside three National parks, according to insiders.

Sly plans have also been set into motion to finalize changes in envronmental rules and regulations geared towards protecting endangered species, to allow more mining waste to flow into rivers and streams and exempt factory farms from reporting air pollution.

Researchers who track "midnight regulations" note that the unethical practice was highly regarded - and put to use - by Clinton and Reagan before him.

Allegedly, Bush has greenlighted 53 initiatives through the federal office of Information & Regulatory Affairs in the past three weeks.

One senior fellow (Veronique de Rugy) at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University charged that outgoing presidents have an incentive to "push bills" that the next administration won't be in favor of.

"It's your last chance to exert influence in the future."

Talk about hardball!

Obama needs to post a handful of neon signs around the White House right away.

No Dumping!

As to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, well, Bush's message is crystal clear.

Take a hike!

You don't have to read between the lines of the Court's "opinion" to fathom why.

Ruling on the 1st of several major new projects for tapping oil and gas deposits from the Arctic floor, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Federal Government should have prepared a more exhaustive environmental review before concluding that the impact on whales, caribou, and other Arctic wildlife would either be insignificant or difficult to mitigate.

Consequently, the Bush appeal was rejected.

Part and parcel to their findings, the Court - which ruled 2-1 against the Bush administration on the issues - ordered the Federal Minerals Management Agency to prepare a more thorough review.

In view of the pending change of the guard at the White House in the near future, analysts have noted there obviously won't be sufficient time for Bush to take a second crack at getting his way.

So, in the alternative, the Prez is pulling the old switcheroo on unsuspecting Americans, who have been twiddling their thumbs waiting for his term to expire with a whimper.

No, sir.

Georgie-boy intends to go out with a bang!

Although the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decision was not a certain victory - one of the plaintiffs in the court action in opposition to the Bush camp - made a statement for the record.

"If polar bears and other ice-dependent species are to survive as the Arctic melts in the face of global warming, we need to protect their critical habitat, not to turn it into an industrial zone."

Somebody better cry foul soon - and take appropriate action - before this country is sold down the river by Bush and his cronies.

Again!

A quote by Shulamith Firestone seems appropriate under the circumstances.

"Power, however it has evolved, whatever its origins, will not be given up without a struggle."

9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules...laptop searches permissable!

O'Scannlain...twisted brain turns out ludicrous rulings!


Because of a recent court ruling, savvy travellers with ubiquitous laptops in tow, may want to consider storing "sensitive" data or scintillating musings of a personal nature on discs left at home or face the real threat that - what the Government may perceive as "dirty laundry" - may be exposed in public at the airport or local rail station.

The last time I passed through the border with my laptop, I was a bit startled when a stiff official-looking Customs Official briskly strode up and asked that I fork over the slim elegant pc for inspection.

What would anyone want with my innocent blog material is any person's guess, eh?

Along that line of thought - and after a moment of reflection - I am reminded of an old episode of "Dynasty". In that night's intense hire-wire segment - presented in fabulous color on a wide screen amid a gaggle of gay boys at the Backlot on La Peer - Alexis ended up in the hospital after she was a victim of a murder attempt.




When the Detective sauntered into her room and questioned her as to who might want to cause her harm - the response was delicious - to say the least.



She thought for a sec - at which point - one unsavory foe came to mind.

"Well, there's..."

But, her voice trailed off as quickly as she began. Now, another face loomed large in the inner recesses of her well-coiffed head.

"Or, it could have been..."

She nervously twisted in her bed, and her eyes went wide beneath the perfectly made-up-face, as she came to grips with the reality that there may be three, or four, or - how many potential suspects?

A few at least!

Yeah, Alexis attracted enemies like flies to sh**.

But, back to my story.

Of course, no one would be interested in my humble thoughts, or even a smidgen of the harmless gossip I'm prone to spring on an unsuspecting Internet, right?

With a bit of a flourish, he set the PC lightly on the counter. Then, with great precision - on finger tippy-toe, if you will - he gingerly slipped on a pair of pristine white gloves. Not like in the Doctor's office where the examiner thrusts them on with a "thwack" and barks out to "bend over" to facilitate a rude grope in the buttocks for a prostrate check.

Gosh, I keep getting sidetracked.

At this juncture, the dedicated customs agent scanned the surface of my laptop with a smart stylish wand with due care and professional diligence. Satisfied that it was not going to blow up in his face, he proceeded to flip open the lid and power it on.

After a few delightful bars of the windows theme sprang to life and sang out across the airport concourse, all the flashy icons fired up on the miniature screen before him.

'Ya know, he eyed 'em all with keen suspicion.

Yes, I do not have a number of intriguing software installations that may just pique the curiosity of the most mundane imaginations.

Satisfied that everything was A-OK, he closed the lid carefully and passed it off to me.

And, in a few seconds, he was intently observing the next passenger for tell-tale signs of evil-doings, I dare say.

The long and short of it is this. For those of you who thought that data in your laptop was safe - and beyond scrutiny - well, as some futurists would say, do a double-think.

Recently, an Appellate Court ruled that a laptop may not only be thoroughly searched - but the party who owns it, detained - if there is any hint of impropriety or illegal activity within the confines of its compact space.

In respect to the instant litigation aforementioned - pleadings in the proceeding established that when Michael Timothy Arnold (a Mathematics teacher) passed through LAX - a routine glance at the data inside revealed two photographs of naked women.

On the premise that there may be more pornographic material concealed in corresponding files - or elsewhere - Mr. Arnold was summarily detained and searched. And, in a further probe after the initial discovery, agents were shocked to uncover questionable nude photographs of children.

Consequently, he was summarily charged with possession and transportation of child pornography under applicable law.

Maximum jail sentence if convicted? Thirty years.

The man filed suit and argued that a laptop is not unlike a person's home, and as such, can not be searched without good cause, on the wings of a warrant, what have you.

Early on in the first stage of the litigation, a bench-warmer agreed.

In fact, in the lower court, U.S. District Court Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that the evidence found on the laptop was inadmissible. In his ruling, Pregerson opined that electronic storage devices are an extension of a person's memories and thoughts and cannot be legally searched without reasonable suspicion.

Well, that notion gets a guffaw from me, in spite of the fact I am fairly open-minded! Yes sir, I am all for laptops being bestowed the honor of - "sacred hallowed places" - where the nefarious high priests of State, Church, and prying Society dare not tread without due cause.

But, an appeal was lodged by the Federal Government (natch).

In their moving papers they argued that the law allows searches at the nation's borders without reasonable suspicion. Hence, their actions were within the law.

Now, how do you feel about that Homeland Security Act? Fess up!

After taking the matter under submission, the presiding 9th Circuit Justice - Diarmuid O'Scannlain (a boob by any standards) - stated in his opinion,

"Arnold has failed to distinguish how the search of his laptop and its electronic contents is logically any different from the suspicionless border searches of travelers' luggage that the Supreme Court and we have allowed."

Now, we get to why O'Scannlain is a moron.

To back his position, he snidely remarked that since a man can not "live" in a laptop (cheeky devil) and it is transportable - it is not like a home - at all.

You don't say! Brilliant deduction, Watson.

In the final analysis, his absurd notion is what negated the Appellant's arguments.

What we have here is a bona fide legal idiot, folks!

The Supreme Court finding that a laptop is like a suitcase - which is subject to legal search - makes more sense.

Albert Einstein said once,

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods."

Can you hear the laughter, Justice O'Scannlain?

A Profile of Judge Robert Beezer...Corrupt Judge of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!

On occasion, a review of court documents reveals that a Judge presiding over a case not only failed to adjudicate an issue correctly, but made grievous error(s) which resulted in a gross violation of a party's Constitutional rights.

In addition, the facts may also signal a lack of integrity on the part of the Judge, which may have resulted in a corruption of the court.

Such is the case with Robert R. Beezer, a Senior Judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - who has demonstrated in one case that I know of - that he is not fit to "warm" the bench.

For example, in a case Beezer presided over a few years ago, a litigant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several issues - one of which - was pertaining to a lower court ruling denying a right to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS (waiver of filing fees).

In respect to the fee waiver issue, Beezer incorrectly ruled that because the "Petition for Relief" was denied in the lower court, and the appellant subsequently paid the filing fees thereafter, that the issue was "moot" in the Appellate court.

On the contrary.

Judge Beezer not only established his ignorance of applicable statutes, but a shocking willingness to deceitfully ignore his duty to uphold Justice in a "Court of Law" and openly discriminate against an IN PRO PER litigant.

Notwithstanding, his grievous legal error caused considerable hardship to the litigant involved, for which he should be ashamed.

For example, in the lower court the litigant was entitled to a "waiver of fees", based on his low income. That right was protected by Statute.

When the court failed to issue a ruling, and serve him with notice, the litigant was forced to pay the fees out of his meager earnings to salvage his "case".

Just because the appellant paid the filing fee, did not make the issue "moot". In fact, it made it more grievous and ripe for legal issue.

In sum, the litigant was denied his right to a waiver of fees. Because of this, he was forced to use funds - that would normally be used to pay for food, rent, and the necessities of life - to pay court costs to which he was legally entitled a waiver.

Was Judge Beezer too stupid to figure this out, or was he demonstrating his distaste for disadvantaged litigants without the benefit of funds to secure legal counsel?

The fact the appellant paid the fees under great hardship - and "did without the necessities of life" to do so - does not negate the fact he was denied his legal right to a waiver of fees, nor does it make the issue "moot".

In sum, Judge Robert R. Beezer's ruling is a bunch of hokus-pokus bullsh**.

In fact, the erroneous ruling - in the public record and available for close scrutiny by the wise, the mighty, and the compassionate - calls attention to a man who has not only fallen from Grace, but - ultimately - "is a disgrace" to the Judiciary and in the eyes of the Lord.

As Martin Erdmann aptly put it,

Appellate Division judges [are] the whores who became madams.”

Judge Robert R. Beezer...photos vanish off Internet after allegations of corruption!

Last night I posted an item on Judge Robert R. Beezer who presides over cases in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In that post, I noted that Judge Beezer was a dishonest corrupt Judge.

Lo and behold, within a couple of hours after the post was published, photographs of Judge Beezer began to vanish off the Internet.

Is the Judge pulling strings behind the scenes, abusing his power once again?

Is the man ashamed to show his face in public, after his shocking and disturbing misdeeds were exposed on the great World-Wide-Web, for all to read?

As Lincoln Steffen once opined,

"Power is what men seek and any group that gets it will abuse it.”

This obviously applies to Justices at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Profile of Judge Robert R. Beezer...Ninth Circuit Appeals Judge, couldn't adjudicate way out of paper bag!

On occasion, a review of court documents reveals that a Judge presiding over a case not only failed to adjudicate an issue correctly, but made grievous error(s) which resulted in a gross violation of a party's Constitutional rights.

In addition, the facts may also signal a lack of integrity on the part of the Judge, which may have resulted in a corruption of the court.

Such is the case with Robert R. Beezer, a Senior Judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - who has demonstrated in one case that I know of - that he is not fit to "warm" the bench.

For example, in a case Beezer presided over a few years ago, a litigant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several issues - one of which - was pertaining to a lower court ruling denying a right to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS (waiver of filing fees).

In respect to the fee waiver issue, Beezer incorrectly ruled that because the "Petition for Relief" was denied in the lower court, and the appellant subsequently paid the filing fees thereafter, that the issue was "moot" in the Appellate court.

On the contrary.

Judge Beezer not only established his ignorance of applicable statutes, but a shocking willingness to deceitfully ignore his duty to uphold Justice in a "Court of Law" and openly discriminate against an IN PRO PER litigant.

Notwithstanding, his grievous legal error caused considerable hardship to the litigant involved, for which he should be ashamed.

For example, in the lower court the litigant was entitled to a "waiver of fees", based on his low income. That right was protected by Statute.

When the court failed to issue a ruling, and serve him with notice, the litigant was forced to pay the fees out of his meager earnings to salvage his "case".

Just because the appellant paid the filing fee, did not make the issue "moot". In fact, it made it more grievous and ripe for legal issue.

In sum, the litigant was denied his right to a waiver of fees. Because of this, he was forced to use funds - that would normally be used to pay for food, rent, and the necessities of life - to pay court costs to which he was legally entitled a waiver.

Was Judge Beezer too stupid to figure this out, or was he demonstrating his distaste for disadvantaged litigants without the benefit of funds to secure legal counsel?

The fact the appellant paid the fees under great hardship - and "did without the necessities of life" to do so - does not negate the fact he was denied his legal right to a waiver of fees, nor does it make the issue "moot".

In sum, Judge Robert R. Beezer's ruling is a bunch of hokus-pokus bullsh**.

In fact, the erroneous ruling - in the public record and available for close scrutiny by the wise, the mighty, and the compassionate - calls attention to a man who has not only fallen from Grace, but - ultimately - "is a disgrace" to the Judiciary and in the eyes of the Lord.

As Martin Erdmann aptly put it,

Appellate Division judges [are] the whores who became madams.”

Profile of Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain...discriminates against IN PRO PER litigants; Violates rights!

Face of dishonest, corrupt Judge...


On occasion, a review of court documents reveals that a Judge presiding over a case not only failed to adjudicate an issue correctly, but made grievous error(s) which resulted in a gross violation of a party's Constitutional rights.

In addition, the facts may also signal a lack of integrity on the part of the Judge, which may have resulted in a corruption of the court.

Such is the case with Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a Judge sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - who has demonstrated in one case that I know of - that he is not fit to "warm" the bench.

For example, in a case Judge O’Scannlain presided over a few years ago, a litigant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several issues - one of which - was pertaining to a lower court ruling denying a right to proceed IN FORMA PAUPERIS (waiver of filing fees).

In respect to the fee waiver issue, O'Scannlain incorrectly ruled that because the "Petition for Relief" was denied in the lower court, and the appellant subsequently paid the filing fees thereafter, that the issue was "moot" in the Appellate court.

On the contrary.

Judge O'Scannlain not only established his ignorance of applicable statutes, but a shocking willingness to deceitfully ignore his duty to uphold Justice in a "Court of Law" and openly discriminate against an IN PRO PER litigant.

Notwithstanding, his grievous legal error caused considerable hardship to the litigant involved, for which he should be ashamed.

For example, in the lower court the litigant was entitled to a "waiver of fees” based on his low income. That right was protected by Statute.

When the court failed to issue a ruling, and serve him with notice, the litigant was forced to pay the fees out of his meager earnings to salvage his "case".

Just because the appellant paid the filing fee, did not make the issue "moot". In fact, it made it more grievous and ripe for legal issue.

In sum, the litigant was denied his right to a waiver of fees. Because of this, he was forced to use funds - that would normally be used to pay for food, rent, and the necessities of life - to pay court costs to which he was legally entitled a waiver.

Was Judge O'Scannlain too stupid to figure this out, or was he demonstrating his distaste for disadvantaged litigants without the benefit of funds to secure legal counsel?

The fact the appellant paid the fees under great hardship - and "did without the necessities of life" to do so - does not negate the fact he was denied his legal right to a waiver of fees, nor does it make the issue "moot".

In sum, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s ruling is a bunch of hocus-pocus bullsh**.

In fact, the erroneous ruling - in the public record and available for close scrutiny by the wise, the mighty, and the compassionate - calls attention to a man who has not only fallen from Grace, but - ultimately - "is a disgrace" to the Judiciary and in the eyes of the Lord.

As Martin Erdmann aptly put it,

Appellate Division judges [are] the whores who became madams.”