Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> Appellate Law and Practice
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Appellate Law
: Appellate Law and PracticeKozinski presiding over ?obscenity? prosecution
By S. COTUS
As most of you know, the DOJ?s biggest problem is too much money and not enough places to put it. Apparently, they store their budget in a large Rubbermaid tub filled with cash. This used to be a good idea, but recently, the tub has begun to strain. The only way to fix this problem is to spend that money on an obscenity (not child pornography) prosecution from the ?Obscenity Prosecution Task Force? that somehow came into existence during the current administration and rarely does anything, because nobody can really figure out what "obscene" means unless kids are involved.
The head of the task force is Brent Ward. He is obviously a political appointee. His claim to fame goes like this:
While practicing law and serving on the board of Utah Citizens for Positive Community Values, Ward fought for a state law aimed at strip clubs that would have required dancers, as well as art class models and others, to wear at least a bikini. The Legislature never
passed it.
At least? Hurumph! I think they should wear two bikinis at a minum. Or four monokinis.
He also thinks this. How about this for a positive community value? Leave your neighbors alone unless they bother you or want to talk to you.
So, what does this have to do with appellate law? What makes it interesting is that Judge Kozinski is sitting by designation. The ?art? involved involves the usual crap.
Update: I can't believe I missed this one:
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny."
And, of course, Stephen Gillers says he shoudl recuse himself. Whatever.
Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on June 11, 2008 (boomark / email).

A Glitch In Kozinskis Presiding over Obscenity Trial
L.A. judge affirms Kozinski recusal, dismisses double jeopardy claim in obscenity trial
Kozinski Declares Mistrial in L.A. Obscenity Case.








