Kopf: My Short Response To The Response

On July 19, 2018, seven young female lawyers, with impressive educational credentials but little practical experience, founded an organization called Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability (LCWA). All (but perhaps one) appear to have served a year or two as law clerks to federal judges and all apparently had wonderful experiences.

The foregoing is a screen capture from the LCWA web site.

On July 20, 2018, they submitted a response (hereinafter Response)[i] to the Report of the Federal Judiciary Workplace Conduct Working Group to the Judicial Conference[ii] of the United States (June 1, 2018) (hereinafter Report) (available here together with the executive summary).[iii]

After the issuance of the Response, the group posted a “clarification” on Twitter which reads:

One clarification regarding the recommendations in our memo: we are not trying to make these changes/reforms by ourselves. While our members do bring a wealth of relevant experience to the table, we recognize fully that we may lack some institutional knowledge.[iv]

(Italics added by Kopf.)

After learning of the LCWA from How Appealing on July 20, 2018, I wrote a tweet regarding the LCWA’s Response that quoted Howard Bashman, the author of How Appealing, and added: “New Spanish Inquisition by SJWs? Thank goodness for Article III.” It also contained a pen and ink image of a man on the rack. My tweet generated near universal condemnation.[v]

At about the same time as I was largely being condemned, I offered, via twitter, to provide a respectful substantive critique of the Response if the LCWA would publish it in full on their web site. I wanted one place where the reader might compare the two papers side by side. I envisioned writing more than a blog post. After all the Response was 15 single-spaced pages long and it raised too many issues for discussion in a short form. To date, the offer has not been accepted. So, I have moved on.

In turn, our host wrote a post entitled “Another Fine Mess, Judge Kopf.” SHG reprinted the tweet in full. He captured many of my concerns but questioned whether this was a fight worth fighting and questioned whether Twitter was the place to do so.

In this post, I will elaborate upon my tweet.[vi] But given the constraints of space imposed by the short-form nature of a blog post, I must be brief. So, I concentrate on Part III of the Response, beginning at page 9, and particularly the two recommendations that I find the most troubling.

Special Pleading

According to their website, “Representatives of Law Clerks for Workplace Accountability attended, on an ad hoc basis, three meetings of this Working Group. We also submitted written proposals and suggestions to the group.” This was not good enough.

The LCWA complained about a lack of special access: “We repeatedly asked to see the report before it was published, but were denied that opportunity.” (Italics added by Kopf.) Then, in their Response, “We ask for a permanent seat” on the Working Group. Response at pp. 10-12.

Why are these bright, young, but inexperienced,[vii] female lawyers special? More generally, why would law clerks be entitled to formally participate in the decisional process of important judiciary-wide policy formation when other “stakeholders” are not?[viii]

What about the courtroom deputy (CRD) who was assaulted by Judge Kent? Shouldn’t CRDs have a seat at the table? What about probation officers who carry guns and literally risk their lives every day? What about administrative or clerical staff from the circuit executive’s offices or the various clerks’ offices or at the Administrative Office? What about pro se and death penalty staff attorneys? What about judicial assistants? We should not forget court reporters. How about the IT staffs at the district, circuit, and national levels who are tasked with maintaining the computers and other digital equipment that make the U.S. Courts a leader in court-related technology? And the list goes on.

I suspect that the LCWA wants a very special “seat at the table” because its seven members have an agenda about which I vigorously disagree. I turn to that agenda next.

The Agenda

The LCWA is not satisfied with Judge Kozinski’s forced resignation that halted an investigation by a special committee of judges and allowed him to keep his pension but resulted in the utter devastation of his reputation and an extraordinary public shaming.

The LCWA is not shy about wanting more:

The scandal surrounding Judge Kozinski provides a unique opportunity for the Judiciary to examine these issues. How did Judge Kozinski manage to engage in sustained harassment for such a long period of time? How many people, including judges, were aware of his harassment? Why didn’t his victims report him sooner? The Working Group does not appear to have interviewed any of the individuals involved, including victims and other employees at the Ninth Circuit, such as judges. By failing to address the fallout of the numerous allegations against Judge Kozinski directly—or further investigate allegations as to any reported harasser—the Working Group lost an opportunity to learn from its past mistakes and to craft future policies to avoid these mistakes. The Judiciary also missed the opportunity to publicly acknowledge its own failings that allowed this behavior to continue for decades, to demonstrate a genuine understanding of what should have been done in the past, and to commit to specific, meaningful changes that employees and members of the public can trust. Acceptance of responsibility is difficult, as judges know better than most, given their unique role in the sentencing context. But it is critical to ensure that victims feel heard and future victims feel comfortable coming forward.

Response at pp. 13-14 (Italics by Kopf).

First, let me be clear. If Kozinski did what many allege (not the least of which is the seemingly credible allegation of a claims court judge[ix]), then his behavior was intolerable and inexcusable. But that is all the Gertruding you will get from me.

Second, I see no purpose in attempting to further excavate the lurid details given that many, perhaps all, of those details are already in the public domain or are otherwise known to the Chief Justice’s working group members.[x] It is old, very sad news.

But even more importantly, the Report provides a long list of things that the Judicial Conference is likely to adopt to make sure this sordid story is less likely to repeat itself. For example, the Report proposes to create an internal Office of Judicial Integrity to provide counsel and assistance regarding workplace conduct for all employees of the federal judiciary. Id. at p. 37 & n.66.

Third, how in the hell can the LCWA’s call for further investigation be accomplished without harm being done to innocent bystanders who are likely to have been ignorant or unwilling to act upon law clerk gossip? Imagine for a moment questioning Justice Kennedy, with whom Kozinski served on the Ninth Circuit.

If I were asking the questions, here are three I would most likely ask:

Remembering you are under oath, Justice Kennedy, what did you know about Kozinski’s mistreatment of his law clerks, and when did you know it?

If you claim to have no knowledge on the subject, are you calling people liars who say it was common knowledge?

Fess up, Justice Kennedy, you knew about Judge Kozinski’s misbehavior and did nothing about it, isn’t that true?

After we get done with Justice Kennedy, then we should proceed to interrogate every judge or Justice who ever sat on the Ninth Circuit during the time Kozinski was also serving as a judge.

After we get done with judges, let’s proceed to the law clerks. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Let’s put Judge Kavanaugh, who clerked for Kozinski, under oath and grill him. After all, Elie wants to know:

What, if anything, did Kavanaugh know about Kozinski’s behavior? What, if anything, did Kavanaugh do to help the women being harassed by the judge?

This isn’t some guilt by association thing. Reports indicate that even after his time as a clerk, Kavanaugh and Kozinski remained close. He was there while harassment was allegedly occurring.

Elie Mystal, Did Brett Kavanaugh Know About Alex Kozinski, Above the Law (July 10, 2018) (Italics in original).[xi]

And, while we are at it, we should closely question Eugene Volokh, who clerked for Kozinski and who was very close to the putative monster. “The Judge officiated at my wedding. I talk to him often. I consider him a close friend, he’s taught me a huge amount, and he’s helped me tremendously in my career, and not just by giving me a valuable credential.” Eugene Volokh, June 13, 2008 at 1:36pm. Surely, he deserves the third degree.

After we are done with the law clerks, we should cut a wide swath through the Ninth Circuit Executive’s office. Those folks had to know about Kozinski’s misbehavior. After that, let’s goose-step down to every district court where Kozinski served as a trial judge. While we are at it, let’s question under oath law professors Leah Litman and Rick Hasen as to why they stayed silent until the dam was broken by others.

Fourth, why would anyone except publicly proclaimed accusers of Kozinski cooperate? The LCWA explicitly wants to find judges and Ninth Circuit employees who might have suspected something yet decided to keep their own counsel, perhaps for very good reasons such as a lack of personal knowledge. Why would a sane person cooperate with this “investigation” knowing the LCWA wants to out those who appear to the LCWA to have been complicit? And, yet, if Judge X, knowing nothing about Kozinski’s alleged wrongdoing, told the LCWA headhunters to pound sand, what would be the result of such intransigence? Shall we name and shame the uncooperative judge?

Fifth, and very importantly, if one truly needs details of the federal judges who have allegedly misbehaved more recently and what happened to them so one can make good policy, read Appendix 4 to the Report (letter from James C. Duff, Director of the Administrative Office, to Chairman Charles E. Grassley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, at pp. 9-17 (Feb. 16, 2018)). There you will find the details about the alleged misbehavior of Judge Walter Smith (alleged sexual harassment of clerk’s office employee); Judge Edward Nottingham (complaint involving allegations that he spent thousands of dollars at strip clubs and was involved in a prostitution ring); Judge Richard Cebull (accused of making racist jokes and disparaging statements about women); Judge Samuel Kent (indicted and convicted on three counts of abusive sexual contact); Judge Richard Roberts (accused of raping a 16-year-old witness while he was a prosecutor); and Judge Alex Kozinski (accused of sexual harassment and misconduct by several women).[xii]

In short, I resist with every fiber of my being the unnecessary spilling of more blood. L’affaire Kozinski has done enough harm to the federal judiciary. We don’t need to autopsy the corpse to understand the evident disease.

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

[i] The Response is in PDF form and must be accessed through LCWA’s website.

[ii] Presided over by the Chief Justice, the Judicial Conference of the United States comprised of judges is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. For more, see here.

[iii] I do not have the space to describe the extensive Report. But from my perspective—as a former federal appellate law clerk, as a former United States Magistrate Judge, as a former Chief Judge, as a former member of the Codes of Conduct Committee, and as a judge with over 30 years of judicial service—the Report is remarkably candid, thorough, and practical. The authors are distinguished and experienced. I applaud the Report, even though in spots I am frankly concerned that it goes too far. That said, there are prudential reasons why the Report should be adopted in whole by the Judicial Conference and without significant change. The Report is worth a close and careful review, including the appendices.

[iv] This belated “clarification” is an understatement of epic proportion.

[v] See also Max Mitchell, Judge Who Stirred Controversy With Tweet Unlikely to Face Discipline, Experts Say, Law.Com (July 23, 2018), Joe Patrice, Outspoken Federal Judge Launches Amazingly Dumb Twitter TiradeAbove the Law (July 24, 2018).

[vi] I have been told by people I admire and trust that my tweet and related responses on Twitter “lacked nuance,” “were inartful,” or appeared to “punch down.” I accept those criticisms and apologize for my errors.

[vii] None of these very bright women served in the judiciary for more than two years. None of them have publicly claimed to have experienced harassment at the hands of a judge or anyone else in the judiciary. Moreover, who appointed LCWA to represent anyone?

[viii] If law clerks are to be added as permanent members of the working group, then I suggest that career law clerks would be a much better fit due to their experience, as opposed to term clerks who spend much of their first year figuratively trying to find the courthouse.

[ix] “A former U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge said Kozinski grabbed and squeezed each of her breasts as the two drove back from an event in Baltimore in the mid-1980s, after she had told him she did not want to stop at a motel and have sex.” Matt Zapotosky, Nine more women say judge subjected them to inappropriate behavior, including four who say he touched or kissed them, The Washington Post (Dec. 15, 2017).

[x] Judge M. Margaret McKeown, from the Ninth Circuit, is a member. Judge McKeown chaired the Judicial Conference Codes of Conduct Committee, is chair of the newly formed Ninth Circuit Workplace Environment Committee, and served on various committees, working groups, and panels related to workplace and gender discrimination while on the bench and in private practice. She served as President of the Federal Judges Association. Judge McKeown, who I have been privileged to know personally, is one of the nicest, toughest, best and most highly regarded appellate judges in the country. See here, for example.

[xi] He will surely also face such questioning when he appears before the Senate. Would that suffice?

[xii]  Should we do a retrospective investigation of all these judges to determine who knew what when? Maybe we ought also to investigate former Judge Mark Fuller. After all, he was allegedly a wife beater. You can find my thoughts on Fuller here, here, here, here, and  here.

47 thoughts on “Kopf: My Short Response To The Response

    1. Richard Kopf


      Since my wife, Joan, wrote this while I was swilling box wine, I will pass on your kind words.

      All the best.


      PS Joan has a monster tractor too!

  1. B. McLeod

    Why stop with the 9th Circuit? What about David Lat, who openly based a character on Kozinski in his novel, Affiliate Link? What about Judge Posner and everybody else who read and provided feedback on Lat’s drafts? What about Elie? Is he claiming he didn’t read the book? (I read the book and didn’t do anything, because I didn’t for moment fancy it my duty to hop on a unicorn and go after a 9th Circuit judge).

    It occurs to me that the Working Group saw the road these ladies wanted to go down, and knew it would be an ill-advised one, and so did not encourage this guilt-by-not-reporting folderol.

  2. Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk

    “[vi] I have been told by people I admire and trust that my tweet and related responses on Twitter “lacked nuance,” “were inartful,” or appeared to “punch down.” I accept those criticisms and apologize for my errors.”

    Well, you shouldn’t. These inexperienced lawyers can’t demand special access that no one would grant them based on their accomplishments and then complain about “punching down.”

      1. Richard Kopf

        I fear the Squawk!

        By the way, in the old days, I favored the sucker punch.

        All the best.


  3. Rojas

    You Honor notes “why would law clerks be entitled to formally participate in the decisional process of important judiciary-wide policy formation when other “stakeholders” are not”. As a non lawyer who has been following this that is the key question in my mind.
    While the judge lists other federal employees with the caveat “And the list goes on” if the system for corrective action of judicial misconduct is broken… We got trouble with a capital T.

    Of those cases listed in Appendix 4 “the alleged misbehavior of Judge Walter Smith” does appear to show a failure in that system. From media accounts the deputy clerk did report the allegations to her supervisor in a timely manner. Her supervisor did inform the chief judge and it does not appear there was any corrective action with the deputy clerk ultimately resigning her position.

  4. PseudonymousKid

    Dear Judge Kopf,

    There isn’t any harm with allowing law clerks some input when you Lords and Ladies dictate edicts from on high. I know you harbor disdain for democratic processes, but you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Even term law clerks will be affected by new policy. There’s at least a chance they will understand their roles and relative lack of experience and would still be able to contribute, right?

    You don’t have to listen, but it would be the genteel, conscientious thing to do, lest you and your ilk abuse that delicious, corrupting power. You can still reject everything you hear and proceed onward anyway.


    1. Dan

      They have input, as does everyone else. They’re asking for privileged input, a permanent seat at the table, advance copies of proposals, etc. They aren’t entitled to these things, and there’s no reason they should be.

      1. PseudonymousKid

        Law clerks as a whole deserve input. “Special interest” groups of law clerks like the LCWA do not. You must know more about the law clerks’ input prior to the Report. I’m not so willing to take it for granted.

      2. LocoYokel

        Actually, from my read of the letter it appears that they are demanding (not asking) that the whole table be given them and everybody else just get out of the way and let them dictate polices and allowed conditions of all interactions to their satisfaction both on and off the job going forward. No way in hell I would allow any of these women anywhere near any policy making or discussions.

    2. Richard Kopf


      Input is one thing. Making policy proposals to the Judicial Conference is an order of magnitude different.

      All the best.

      1. WFG

        Personally, I am all in favor of anything that occupies the Judicial Conference’s valuable time and effort such as this Working Group.

        The Working Group will have no direct effect on me, but such impossible pursuits as to placate SJWs might perhaps reduce the amount of havoc the Conference can wreak upon the FRBP.

        1. Richard Kopf


          Luckily we have a BAP. And we threaten anyone who doesn’t consent by writing insane opinions that drive BK lawyers nuts. So, I could give a shit about the FRBP. Nevertheless, I get your point and sympathize, sorta.

          All the best.


  5. John Barleycorn

    WTF??!! No footnote clarifying the joys and tribulations of the three-legged race…unconscionable.

  6. Richard Kopf


    I am currently in a footnote 12-step program. My fetish for footnotes is overwhelming. It is so strong that Scott’s insistence on endnotes causes me to tremble. At roughly 7:08 AM (CDT) this morning, I had a meltdown over endnotes for this piece, but Scott’s soothing manner saved me–all true, by the way.

    My diagnosis is not yet been included in the DSM-V but I am hoping the next version will recognize we footnote fetish sufferers are people too, and doctors may prescribe the appropriate drugs for our condition. Personally, I have a liking for old-fashioned barbiturates.

    All the best.


    1. Scott Jacobs

      Scott’s soothing manner

      “Goddamnit Kopf, just shit something out, it isn’t like the people who need to see it ever will!”

      1. Richard Kopf

        Dear Brother Jacobs,

        Some time ago and in another context, I told SHG that “it isn’t like the people who need to see my shit ever will.” That’s when I went into hiding on SJ. Just when I thought I was out…they pull me back in.

        All the best.


    2. Skink

      Drug use is disallowed in this Hotel, not because the proprietor has an aversion, but because it cuts into bar sales.

    3. Guitardave

      I was getting a bit dizzy scrolling up and down…
      “Personally, I have a liking for old-fashioned barbiturates.”
      Nooo! The Scots got it right long before modern chemical pharmacology…Glenlivet 12yr old.
      Cogent response, your Honor….still, i don’t think they’ll get it.

      1. Richard Kopf


        Glenlivet 12yr old? You’re a piker!

        For example, I am reliably informed that Scott won’t touch anything less than Chivas Regal 25 Year. Chivas Regal 25 Year Old is available only as a strictly limited release in individually numbered bottles. $340 per bottle. Cowboy up!

        All the best.


        PS. I hate Scotch even when smoking previously illegal Cuban cigars. I got drunk at 15 on some rotgut Scotch. I still can’t stand the smell.

          1. Richard Kopf


            Wow, just Wow. He is not only brilliant and nice, by he has good taste.

            All the best.


        1. Guitardave

          As a craftsman and sole ( soul?) proprietor (and 57 yr old slacker musician)…well, guilty as charged. Its, IMO, the best single malt that i can afford. I have on occasion tried better, but when you make a paltry 25k a year, spending more than 50 bucks on a bottle of medication brings on more guilt than the medicine eliminates…..of course you guys could share…I’ll bring my git-fiddle….?

          PS Everyone has their teenage-barf-sick-can’t stand-the-smell-of-it now-story…mine was brandy…cheap cherry brandy…it looked like i yaked my lungs into the can…precious memories!

          1. Richard Kopf


            Gotcha. Mine was, as I said, Scotch. First year of college, hiding from the VC in some shit hole country, it was Apricot Brandy. I am a very slow learner.

            All the best.


            1. Rojas

              Ya boys, you can’t go swearing it off over one bad experience. You got to get right back on the horse. No wonder the damn country’s gone to hell.

        2. Scott Jacobs

          Hell, I’m still trying to find a place where I can buy lagavulin 16 for under 70 bucks…

  7. Nemo

    If these young ladies were as smart as they believed themselves to be, they would be smart enough to understand why they should stay on the sidelines here. They can still send in suggestions from there, after all.

    But no, they are Star Indigo kids, or something. The past is old and dead, and they are the future.

    Who’s got the rotgut rye? This calls for a drunk of something nasty.

  8. Lex

    All that jazz about balanced hiring and publishing those numbers … this is just a prelude to another call for a modified matching program or some other such meddling in the hiring process, isn’t it? Yuck.

  9. Erika Cunliffe

    Thanks for such straight forward, powerful, and incredibly logical observations. There are so many more important things to which these wiz kids could be devoting their energies.

  10. Anon Law Prof

    Judge Kopf,

    I apologize for writing this anonymously, but I lack the desire to be attacked by that vicious and disingenuous group of young lawyers and their enabling academics who refuse to engage with you on a substantive level and instead attack you for perceived past transgressions and strawmen.

    You have provided cogent reasons for your views, which as usual reflect your values of realism and transparency. There is certainly room for disagreement, but they refuse to engage with you and prefer to attack you from afar, within their own bubble where they will receive nothing but mindless applause in return.

    The treatment you’ve received is not merely sad, but unforgivable. You deserve better, if for no other reason than your willingness to weather their storm of outrage. Their refusal to face you, and your points, reflects the very point you make, that this is just a self-righteous mob determined to use attacks to cow the judiciary and force it to bend to its will. Thank you for being braver than I am and expressing your views.

    All the best,
    Anon Law Prof

    1. Richard Kopf

      Anon. Law Prof.

      I cannot express adequately to you my appreciation for your comment.

      I understand completely the need to remain anonymous. I am in a position–due to my senior status–that I don’t need to worry. You, on the other hand, don’t have that luxury.

      All the best.


  11. Samantha Bagwell

    This is absurd. I concede I am an outside observer but to the point that, why should only these clerks get a seat at the table, what about these others? Well: why not those others too?

    You lament the apparent special treatment the LCWA wants, and yet all I can see is a continuance of patronizing decision making. One wonders how the courts got to this point — except the proof is in the pudding. Rank and file workers should absolutely have a permanent seat on any Working Group as it has indelible impact on their lives: just as the harassment had on the survivors within those same groups.

    This also rings to me as the ignorance of one who has not been part of a similar investigation before. I was an employee at a Corporation which was found to have endemic problems with harassment both sexual and otherwise. In order to deal with the problem, the investigation, invitation for feedback, and ongoing working groups were performed throughout the entirety of the business, across all levels. Which, by the way, was one of more than 40K employees. It took two years. The result was a safer, more productive organisation for all its employees.

    But the baseline is this: the issues raised above ignore the main issue. How can the courts hold onto any semblance of their duties to mete out justice, be respected by the citizenry, and maintain legitimacy without a comprehensive examination of its own internal failings, *with explicit, continued input by those effected?* If they cannot understand justice internally, I can’t imagine why the citizenry should expect justice in the community.

    To reiterate, this whole post is absurd. The logical aerobatics required to misunderstand the context of the problem and the wants of the LCWA within that context are impressive. And should be shameful. This goes too for all who go out of their way to contribute to systems of oppression – of which, an expansive problem with harassment is one, by the way – in order to disregard the concerns of members of their own communities.

    1. B. McLeod

      Well, and the workers should totally own and control the means of production. Good luck with that (you might want to relocate).

    2. Jay

      As another outside observer, I don’t see how your vague anecdote applies to what the author of this post wrote. Specifically, you’re claim that those directly effected or affected should have a permanent seat at the table seems incredibly naive and simple minded. While I lack the skill with words, it seems like you are ignoring the author’s ‘lived experience’ and ‘wokeness’ of the problem.

      Perhaps you can better explain the context of the problem so that this layperson can better understand why nobody has taken him up on his post or explained what he’s so ignorant about.

      1. B. McLeod

        But “the main issue” was the rhetorical question. Obviously a “comprehensive examination” is necessary. No longer can we afford to tolerate those who don’t rat out those who don’t rat out those who don’t rat out those who don’t rat out those who don’t rat out those who suspect something amiss but fail to speak up. The copy boy who shirks his duty to inform on fellow employees is just as guilty as the chief judge who fails to impose appropriate “culture” from above. Once the entire staff is in the HR detention rooms, pending confessions, the courthouse will be a golden, joyful realm, where happy unicorns can wander unmolested.

    3. Skink

      “Rank and file workers should absolutely have a permanent seat on any Working Group as it has indelible impact on their lives: just as the harassment had on the survivors within those same groups.”

      This is an effort at creating different procedures. It is not an effort at venting. That the procedures impact people doesn’t mean they deserve a “seat at the table” any more than I’m entitled to a seat in a congressional subcommittee regarding taxes. “Harassment,” when it comes to employment law has a definite American legal definition, of which you are probably unaware.* It applies in the context of the procedures to be created. Whether someone has been unlawfully treated is the thing to be found through the procedure. What happened to random individuals or the stories they want to tell is meaningless to the process.

      “This also rings to me. . .” Your personal experience is not pertinent. Personal experiences are random and singular. They tend, like your comment, to be away from the point. Again, this is an evaluation of a procedure to deal with laws that already exist.

      “But the baseline. . . . justice in the community.”

      How the hell is “justice” a result of everyone affected being given “explicit, continued input?” What is your definition of “justice?” What makes you think the process of creating procedures is equal to justice? Procedures lead to information gathering in a legitimate manner. “Justice” is no magic talisman. It has a definite meaning to those who stop by this here Hotel.

      “The logical aerobatics required to misunderstand the context of the problem and the wants of the LCWA within that context are impressive. And should be shameful. This goes too for all who go out of their way to contribute to systems of oppression – of which, an expansive problem with harassment is one, by the way – in order to disregard the concerns of members of their own communities.”

      You really have a way of using terms without definitions. What are “systems of oppression?” What exactly is “harassment?” Just what are you talking about? Remember, you’re on a blawg–it’s full of lawyers, men and women–who do this stuff everyday. You write jargon that smacks of coming from a leaflet in a sociology class.

      And while you’re ranting, why don’t you discuss what the judge’s concerns actually are: that the intention of this particular group is to smear innocent bystanders in its effort to bring forth its particular form of social justice? Is it too difficult to deal with what was actually written?

      *A guess: you’re Canadian.

      1. B. McLeod

        If this were a Tuesday Talk post, this is where I would insert the link to the Search for the Holy Grail description of the governance model for the anarcho-syndicalist commune.

  12. Rojas

    The act specifically states “any person” may file a complaint.
    You find that patronizing and contributing to systems of oppression?

    Well there is that signed declaration as to statement being true and correct under the penalty of perjury.

    1. Scott Jacobs

      Except firing is considered a retaliatory action, and among their more idiotic demands is that there be no retaliation for bad reports.

  13. Sgt. Schultz

    The cries to “investigate” Koz are utterly disingenuous.

    1. He was a star; they all adored him.
    2. Everybody always knew he was a sexual abuser.
    3. Nobody, but nobody, ever said a word about it to anyone.
    4. They loved basking in his reflected glory.

    So now that the news (that everybody knew) is out, they pretend this is about “learning” from what happened? What a load of bullshit. They want to destroy him, as he was horrible and must be sacrificed to the cause. This is a bold-faced lie, and the only reason they get away with it is that no one (except you) is willing to call them out on their flagrant bullshit.

Comments are closed.