Pretty long read, in PDF; here's the gist:. . . My colleagues are too quick to dismiss complainant's suggestion of an improper relationship between the district judge and the debtor as "entirely unfounded," . . . even "scurrilous," . . . Here is what complainant says, after pointing out that he had conducted "a little district court docket research" and discovered that Deborah Canter had been placed on probation by the district judge:It would appear to a reasonable observer who knew all these facts that something inappropriate happened here, beyond what the court [of appeals] discussed. What I mean to say is that it appears that [the district judge] acted inappropriately to benefit an attractive female whom he oddly had placed on probation to himself, and, if this occurred, then it would constitute extreme judicial misconduct.. . . The majority claims that the issues raised by the dissenters "are factually and legally complex" and that it is therefore "not surprising that all members of the Council do not agree on the correct resolution of these issues." . . . Perhaps it's not surprising that we disagree, but I do find it surprising that I still don't know why we disagree, because the majority refuses to engage the issues.. . . Rather, I believe that serious misconduct has been clearly established and that discipline must be imposed consisting of nothing less than a public reprimand an an order that the district judge compensate the Trust for the damage [perhaps $50,000] it suffered as a result of the judge's unlawful injunction.
I also believe that the aggrieved creditors are entitled to an apology from the judges of our circuit fro the cost, grief, and inconvenience they suffered in one of our courts because of the district judge's unprofessional behavior. The judge who committed the misconduct refuses to offer such an apology and it is therefore up to us. Because I cannot speak for the Judicial Council, a majority of whose members see far too little wrong with what the district judge here did, I offer mine.
The dissenting Judge, Alex Kozinski, was considered a top candidate for appointment to the Supreme Court by Pres. Reagan or Bush(41). He would have made an excellent Supreme Court Justice!!
Alex Kozinski (like Miguel Estrada), is a naturalized American citizen who seems to respect our Constitution more than many liberal lawyers who believe in a "living Constitution" (i.e. - one that can be re-written, at will, for the benefit of liberals.) Alex Kozinski came from Romania; he is the one great bright spot on the Ninth Circus!
Mike