Mrs. Kozinski Responds to Allegations Against Her Husband

Marcy Tiffany, an attorney and the wife of 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, has written a long e-mail to blogger Patterico, explaining what was really on their family's computer network. (Background here.)

Combine a disgruntled litigant with a reporter focused on sensationalism and the public got a false story the rest of the media was only too happy to run with. I'm not surprised.

Count me as one firmly in Judge Kozinski's corner.

< Solis Doyle Joins Obama Campaign | Gore to Endorse Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If his wife's email is accurate (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    the LA Times and the rest of the media need to be taken to task for this one.  This sounds like another story that should never have made it past the editor.  

    What she says fits what the Internet Wayback Machi (none / 0) (#30)
    by jerry on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    ne says about their site.  In the very first post about this "website" here, I added a comment showing that the Internet Wayback Machine basically showed that there was no real site there.  That fits with her statement that you would have to know the precise URLs of the files.

    My gosh (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    The conduct of the LA Times in this case really seems indefensible.

    Jeralyn, I was a little surprised (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    you were not as firmly in the Judge's corner w/your first post on this subject.  He is definitely a Judge on the Ninth Circuit who gravely considers arguments raised on behalf of crminal defendants.

    We did take a position (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    TChris's post showed that. I'm just chiming in a little.

    Chime away. Your blog. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    I forgot TChris wrote the original post.  (BTW, he is a wonderful asset to your blog.)

    And I ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by TChris on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:58:55 AM EST
    certainly didn't intend my post as anti-Kozinski.  I was instead trying to make a point about the futility of obscenity prosecutions like the one over which Judge Kozinski was presiding.  I don't always agree with opinions that Judge Kozinski has authored (he's a conservative judge with a strong libertarian streak), although I often do.  He's intellectually honest and he has a sense of humor, two traits that are too often missing in conservative judges.

    Please keep your comments (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    free of words censor software will pick up. Use asterisks if you must include a word. I just deleted a comment because of words like b*st.. Even p!rn should be asterisked. Sorry, but filters can't tell an honest discussion from an ad.

    Responsible Journalism, another Oxymoron (none / 0) (#5)
    by Redshoes on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST
    Too bad there's not a public citizen's claim for malicious interference with justice, JQ Public v. LA Times, et.al.

    Just Guessing (none / 0) (#8)
    by creeper on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:45:04 AM EST
    Kozinski is a Democrat.

    Guess again. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    Kozinski appt by Reagan, I believe (none / 0) (#10)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM EST
    Nonetheless, I don't find Ms. Tiffany's defense of the "camel toe" photos particuarly convincing.  It's sexual humiliation of women, I don't find that funny, and I find it disturbing that someone as distinguished as Judge Kozinski does.

    It may have been his son (none / 0) (#13)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    Teenage boys love that kind of stuff. I don't think those pictures are humilating, though. Silly, but not particularly humiliating. Magazines post photos that are just as humiliating as those in their "how not to dress" section, where they show celebrities looking horrible.

    If the picture (none / 0) (#14)
    by Emma on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    is of you, I think you might find it humiliating.  

    Nonetheless, I don't see the "humor" in showing pictures of women's crotches, even if fully clothed.  It doesn't matter to me who put them on the computer, it's describing them as "humorous" that bothers me.  I don't think they are "humorous" unless it's in a "making fun of women" way.  Which isn't humorous to me.  IOW, it's not much of a defense, in my view.


    It is funny.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:35:35 PM EST
    admittedly in a juvenile way, but funny nonetheless.

    It's just as funny when a guy wears something really tight to where you can see his whole junk outline...what are these people thinking?..lol


    If you find camel toes so offensive (none / 0) (#16)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    then why don't you denounce the video of a man being chased by a hormonal donkey?
    I would think that would be infinity more embarrassing to the video's subject.

    It would be embarassing. (none / 0) (#19)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    Privacy is a thing of the past nowadays. I agree that these pictures are crude and tacky. I don't get the humor at all. But I don't get the point of those "fashion dont's" I mentioned earlier, and I don't like the way that people criticize celebrities who dress in ways that aren't to their liking. Just because somebody is a celebrity we have a right to mock them?

    It's not too cool... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:21:30 PM EST
    to mock people, but we all have the right to mock whoever we want...it's called free speech and I, for one, am grateful for it.  

    We don't wanna get so pc like parts of Europe where it's illegal to draw cartoons that mock Islam, for example.  That sh*t is scary.


    I have a simply policy on that (none / 0) (#24)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:56:40 PM EST
    People have a right to say what they want. I have a right to say that I don't approve of what they are saying. The whole Muslim cartoon thing is creepy. This is a major culture clash, in which the values of one culture are diametrically opposed to the values of another. There is, unfortunately, no compromise in this case. Personally, I would prefer to see people in one nation recognize that another's values will be different and focus on regulating their own people, not others. I am reluctant to go the way of the right wing, implying that somehow Muslims are trying to take over the world, but there are certain segments of their society who are trying to impose their will outside of their own culture.

    Sounds good to me.... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    Say what we want, and voice our disagreements as we want.  Let freedom ring, and don't try to silence anybody like they are doing in Europe to cartoonists and political commentators.

    Disgusting (none / 0) (#11)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    I was suspicious when the stories reported "cavorting", which can mean anything, but sounds playful, as opposed to saying something more specific.  This isn't the first nor will it be the last time that a writer decides to write a story that is sensational. It's a shame that the major newspapers are doing this now instead of just tabloids. Is there a difference?

    What a savaging of this judge (none / 0) (#12)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    I am amazed that the LATimes published this story and in such a salacious manner.  As I originally posted, there was too little actual info to come to any conclusion about the contents of the files or anything.  Now Mrs. Kozinski explains the disclosure and contents of the files in a very reasonable manner.  

    This is a travesty!!!!   I am a criminal defense attorney so I am used to the prosecution's recitation of facts, which usually bears very little resemblance to the actual evidence.  


    Why was he trying the case in the first place? (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    It is probably of no account, but he is well known appellate judge.....So, he was actually trying the case.....There is probably an explanation ....

    Sitting by designation (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by JDB on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    It's not that uncommon for federal judges at all levels to sit "by designation" on a court that's not their own.  Usually you see it with trial judges sitting by designation on a court of appeals, but it can work the other way.  As to why Kozinski particularly was presiding over that particular trial, I have no idea.

    Interesting designation note - today's published Fourth Circuit criminal opinion was written by Sandra Day O'Connor, sitting by designation.


    Must have been bored reading briefs (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    Prior to Marcy Tiffinay's email, (none / 0) (#20)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:05:33 PM EST
    Patterico provided Images from Judge Alex Kozinski's Web Site (its ok, Patterico makes you click a link for each instance of what Marcy Tiffinay describes as "r*unchy humor")

    The LA Times story might be sensationalism, but some of the files are obsc*ne, l*wd, or vulg*r so is it false?

    What we need is a good honest discussion (none / 0) (#21)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    of the damage caused by porn and so called "obscenity."  Not we as in TL, but we as a country, we as parents, educators, politicians and consumers.

    From the feminists in the 60s and 70s trying to deal with their liberal boyfriends' use of porn to today's post feminist acceptance of misogyny and stereotyping of women in commercials, movies and online, what's missing is the larger perspective of the impact of porn and obscenity.  By that I mean many people still don't understand the negative consequences such as women learning to hate their bodies and men having dysfunctional s*x lives.  

    We've left it to the "moral right" to define obsc*nity itself as the problem instead of looking at the more complex issues of the degradation of women and men.  For instance, a woman's chest can be shown when propped up by clothing putting her on display, but a nursing mother is considered obsc@ne.  More consideration has been paid to nak*dness than to subjection of women.  

    Commercials with "perfect" women in bras are shown on TV reinforcing the way girls and young women "should" look, but as good liberals we can't question that without seeming prudish.  MTV and popular music is replete with degrading images of women.  But liberals don't speak out, so it's left to the more conservative part of our country to communicate what they think is wrong.  Hence, the major concerns are about nud!ty instead of a more enlightened discussion of the message that comes along with it.

    I'd like to see the impact of porn discussed and taught in schools so kids and young adults understand how s*xual training can negatively impact their psychological development.  How many boys raised on movies that stir s*xual feelings just before an attack or murder of a woman are now dysfunctional adults?  If young men knew that sexual training alters their brains and psyche and they'll end up less satisfied in life, would they reject violent p@rn?  Would reaching young adults before they're exposed to this cr@p help them to make better choices, or at least keep it in context?  

    I'm more worried about teen models (none / 0) (#25)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    The girls dressed like women who have impossibly thin bodies do far more damage to young girls than any number of pornographic images. Our entire society worships thin people, to the point that anorexics are admired while the obese are degraded and discriminated against. I think that pornography can be degrading - just like any other portrayal of women. But it doesn't have to be.

    the L.A. Times stated (none / 0) (#23)
    by cpinva on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    that the judge himself admitted to posting the materials on his website, not his son, or a nephew or some stranger that broke into his house in the middle of the night and did it, just to make him look bad.

    either the Times is flat out lying, and the judge said no such thing, or his wife is deluding herself, in defense of her husband. if the former, i would expect a suit to be filed against the Times by the judge. if the latter, loyal spousal support, but it really changes nothing.

    myself, as long as any and all activity involves only consenting adults, i don't really care, just don't be a hypocrite about it. that was the point of TC's initial post on the subject.

    a "disgruntled litigant" isn't, by definition, wrong.

    Several points (none / 0) (#28)
    by jccamp on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
    First, I don't think there is any reasonable equivalency between the material maintained by the judge and his son, and that which is the subject of the prosecution.

    Next, if I were the defendant, I might like the idea that the presiding judge showed that he might view and transfer files of a s*xual nature, and might in fact be sympathetic to views (often ascribed to here) that such were not legitimately the subject of criminal law violations. Certainly, I don't think the defense wanted the judge to recuse himself, and the existence of the judge's files did not handicap or prejudice the defendant.

    I think that it is fairly obvious the judge did not intend his material to be available or viewable by any but those he specifically allowed.

    I do no think that anything the judge has done is "hypocritical". if the prosecutor had similar material, then the pejorative might apply.