 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
His prior decision puts him in the position of a "double standard" in the Killercop case.
Judge claims defense that "others might have loaded the images."
Sung Park claimed in the criminal appeal of killercop.com the exact same theory, but was denied. I'm no expert, but just maybe because he falsely confessed! Appellate judge asks Supreme Court to clarify privacy rights The inquiry involves a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the government cannot review financial, psychiatric and medical records of employees at JPL and other aerospace contractors. By Carol J. Williams June 5, 2009 Is there a constitutional right to informational privacy? That is a question that Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is asking the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that the justices hinted at such a right 32 years ago and "never said another word about it." Kozinski urged the high court Thursday to clarify what, if any, right a citizen has to shield medical and mental health records from an employer's inspection. The issue arises from the successful challenge by workers at Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech and other federal aerospace contractors to the Bush administration's demand for probing security reviews after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. A majority of the appeals court's 27 active judges voted against convening an 11-judge panel to reconsider Nelson vs. NASA, the case brought on behalf of more than 4,000 JPL employees. Senior research scientist Robert M. Nelson and 27 other JPL specialists sued NASA in 2007 to thwart the government's demands for access to their financial, medical and psychiatric records in exchange for letting them keep their jobs. The personal information was sought as part of a badge-issuing program ordered by the Department of Homeland Security in 2004. A federal district judge initially dismissed the employees' suit, but a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit endorsed their claim to privacy in a January 2008 ruling. On Thursday, the appeals court rejected petitions for another three-judge review and for the fuller en banc rehearing. That prompted Kozinski to write a dissenting opinion, arguing that with only an "opaque fragment" of an opinion from a 1977 case before the Supreme Court and a "grab bag" of interpretations since then, a fuller version of his appeals court needed to consider the JPL case to determine the details of the supposed right to privacy. "It's a bit like building a dinosaur from a jawbone or a skull fragment, and the result looks more like a turducken," Kozinski said, alluding to a deboned turkey stuffed with duck and chicken. The chief judge was joined by two other Republican appointees to the court, Judges Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Carlos T. Bea. En banc votes among the court's active judges are secret, but Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw observed in her opinion for the majority that Thursday's balloting wasn't close. Kozinski's dissent highlighted a legal technique increasingly used by the court's Republican appointees: When outvoted, call on the reliably conservative justices in Washington to reverse the 9th Circuit decision. "It's time to clear the brush," Kozinski concluded. "An en banc court is the only practical way we have to do it. We didn't undertake that chore today, but we'll have to sooner or later, unless the Supreme Court should intervene." The Supreme Court this session has reversed all 11 cases reviewed from the 9th Circuit.
SPOKE TO SOON, MAKE THAT 15 OUT OF 16. ANYONE WANNA SHOOT FOR 16 OUT OF 17?
"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber." -U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 THIS SPACE FOR SALE |
"I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there" ~Alex Kozinski How ironic his own "circumstantial standard" decision in this case last year now should land him in prison. Alas, everyone around here but me seems to be above the law, including the judges. That's certified truth!
Since when is cavorting with farm animals part of everyday life? Wednesday, June 11, 2008 6:36 PM - By David Lat Congratulations to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is currently presiding over a high-profile obscenity trial in Los Angeles. In addition, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, for some time he "has maintained his own publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos." Accordingly, he is our Judge of the Day. A number of you emailed us about this Los Angeles Times article, which contains some colorful details about the materials that were available on Chief Judge Kozinski's website until recently (it's now under lock down). We previously linked to and discussed the L.A. Times story here. Please note that when we refer to material "after the jump" or "below the fold," you need to click on the little "Continue reading" link to read the rest of the post. Sometimes we save the juiciest material for after the jump. In any event, we reached out to Chief Judge Kozinski for comment. He sent us the following email: David: I can't comment on the trial.As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was -- I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there. I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it. "He robbed judges of both their Internet privacy and security ... solely to ensure that he and some judges and some court staff could continue to download pornography illegally in their chambers while not being detected,"
AND FOR THE RECORD, WE THINK SHE MIS-STATED A LOT!!
TWITTER (CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. SALES INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. THIS SPACE FOR SALE |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
