Thread: Trump University Case: Who Is Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel?

The important thing to remember about lawsuits and trials is that there are no facts of the case until there is a trial, only claims and accusations, no different than a criminal trial. Civil defendants like criminal defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond either a reasonable doubt or a preponderance of the evidence depending on the court and the state or federal law applicable presented at trial that is subject to sworn testimony, cross-examination, rebuttal and most importantly, the Rules of Evidence. Then a Jury takes it all in after hearing the evidence, the testimony, the cross-examination, the rebuttals and so forth and then they decide during deliberations what are facts, what are lies, what a unproven claims, unsupported premises, and so forth and arrive a a decision regarding financial liability in civil lawsuits.

There's no reason for a candidate for President or even a President to separate his personal business from the people's business. Members of Congress aren't expected to do that, they sit there every day using insider information to enrich themselves playing the stock market, many Governors and other members of our elected politic have assets and businesses. In fact throughout our history, the whole notion of public service was for people who had independent sources of income, assets and businesses to serve in Congress and run for President because they could afford to do so. These were people who understood our economy, who understood how things worked, who weren't in government office to support themselves with big salaries and benefits and become career politicians because it paid better than what they could earn on their own in the real world.

All of our founders were business people. All of our early leaders were business people. The notion that a penniless person can possibly grasp the problems of our country, let alone arrive at the solutions when they can't even support themselves outside of a government paycheck is not one that will benefit our nation, and is in fact so far proving itself to be our demise. When we started raising the salaries of Congress to levels 4 and 5 times that of the average American, and it's still not enough for them, because they don't have anything of their own to support themselves or their lifestyles, we shot ourselves in the foot. People should study that history and see the link between raising salaries of members of Congress with the number of illegal aliens entering the country and the number of factories and jobs leaving our country. It is a stunning parallel.

Originally Posted by joe s

You don't get it at all.

Trump was trying his case in public because he was losing and wanted to tie the decisions that have been made so far to the judges Mexican heritage and T's position on the wall.....blah, blah, blah.....enough. The abortion thing was the same, stupid! Not you, the subject. I don't care what your position is, when my candidate takes a "what if" and wants to send women to jail as punishment for having an abortion, he is thinking out loud and getting himself into trouble for no reason. Matthews gave him the bait and he took it. That is the parallel. The democrats just did it again with Trump U.

Trump stood to win nothing by pasting the Mexican heritage on the judge. He should be smart enough to let his lawyers do the dirty work. Why don't you pat the judge on the back for fighting the drug cartel years back. You totally miss it and when you allow the candidate to think he is right when he is wrong, he digs himself deeper into the ditch.

Your ok with me, and I like your commentary a lot, but I completely disagree with Trump on how he has handled a few things like this in particular. Wasting time, precious time not talking about what is important and disqualifying Hillary everyday.

I respect so many of your positions, but sometimes I think you don't tell the truth about Trump because you think you are turning against him or being disloyal. We are still going to vote for him even though there are times when he opens his mouth only to change feet......Trump promises not to talk about this anymore. Let's do the same.

You're dead on about the truth issue. On occasion that does seem to get ignored around here simply because it's not something we're comfortable discussing because it may not always weigh in Trump's favor. Hiding or attempting to cover the truth through acts of deflection and obfuscation isn't doing anyone any favors in the long run. If any candidates has issues it's important that we flesh them out now with honesty and integrity vice paying the price later. Yep, let's go in with our eyes wide open.

Like you said, we're still going to vote Trump. Honestly, I don't care much for Trump as a person, but he is our only alternative at this juncture. It is my view that anyone supporting Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson (Bernie Sanders is done) is on a suicide mission to complete the destruction of our great nation.

Judy, you are far to biased when it comes to Trump. It actually nauseates me sometimes. I am sure even Trump himself and his advisers disagree with you here. He should not even be involved in his business anymore, period (especially if he wants to win). His remarks were thoughtless and childish at best. He created other problems for himself and his party. That was for his lawyers to deal with, not him. His whole demeanor over the last twenty-four hours contradicts you.

Trump is always right. Trump is going to fix our country. Trump is this. Trump is that....blah, blah, blah....

Look at how you put down that federal judge when he actually did something about the Mexican drug cartel.. I don't care what he did, but he did something and that took guts. It was material because they threatened his life. I understand you very well!

State the facts of the case, the judges decisions and show where he is being unfair or prejudice.

Originally Posted by joe s

Judy, you are far to biased when it comes to Trump. It actually nauseates me sometimes. I am sure even Trump himself and his advisers disagree with you here. He should not even be involved in his business anymore, period (especially if he wants to win). His remarks were thoughtless and childish at best. He created other problems for himself and his party. That was for his lawyers to deal with, not him. His whole demeanor over the last twenty-four hours contradicts you.

Trump is always right. Trump is going to fix our country. Trump is this. Trump is that....blah, blah, blah....

Look at how you put down that federal judge when he actually did something about the Mexican drug cartel.. I don't care what he did, but he did something and that took guts. It was material because they threatened his life. I understand you very well!

State the facts of the case, the judges decisions and show where he is being unfair or prejudice.

Thank you, Joe.

Originally Posted by joe s

Judy, you are far to biased when it comes to Trump. It actually nauseates me sometimes. I am sure even Trump himself and his advisers disagree with you here. He should not even be involved in his business anymore, period (especially if he wants to win). His remarks were thoughtless and childish at best. He created other problems for himself and his party. That was for his lawyers to deal with, not him. His whole demeanor over the last twenty-four hours contradicts you.

Trump is always right. Trump is going to fix our country. Trump is this. Trump is that....blah, blah, blah....

Look at how you put down that federal judge when he actually did something about the Mexican drug cartel.. I don't care what he did, but he did something and that took guts. It was material because they threatened his life. I understand you very well!

State the facts of the case, the judges decisions and show where he is being unfair or prejudice.

Oh brother.

Justice Sotomayor’s Comments Resurface…Could Prove Trump Was Right To Call Out Judge

Joe Saunders June 8, 2016 at 3:10pm

Consistent logic has never been a liberal strongpoint, and the current controversy over the judge in the Trump University lawsuits is making that clearer than ever.

Democrats and left-loving media pundits in an uproar over Donald Trump’s criticism of the Hispanic judge overseeing legal action against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee are conveniently forgetting their own history when it comes to judicial appointments — and Hispanic judges.

As Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley pointed out in an interview Wednesday, one of the Supreme Court justices appointed by progressive hero Barack Obama has said pretty much the same thing Trump is saying now — but liberals lapped it up.

Speaking with his home state paper, the Des Moines Register, the veteran Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee noted that Trump’s criticism of District Judge Gonzalo Curiel for allegedly allowing his Mexican heritage to color his rulings in the Trump University lawsuits was really not much different from an argument then-U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonya Sotomayor made for years about the approach a Hispanic woman takes to the judicial job.

In numerous formal speeches prior to her appointment to the high court in 2009, Sotomayor spoke about the superior wisdom her ethnic heritage had bestowed upon her when it comes to matters of law and making sure justice is served.

That, Grassley said, was not logically different from Trump’s claim that Judge Curiel was allowing his Mexican heritage to influence his legal judgments.

As Grassley told the Register:

“I think that you don’t have any more trouble with what Trump said than when Sotomayor said that — when she was found saying in speeches that, quote, ‘A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.’ I don’t hear any criticism of that sort of comment by a justice of the Supreme Court.”

Actually, there was a fair amount of criticism at the time, it just wasn’t from the same liberal politicians who are leading the criticism of Trump today. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, for instance, put it plainly when he called Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” observation naked racism, according to Politico.

Unfortunately, Grassley backed away from his comments later Wednesday — possibly under pressure for using pure logic in a political discussion — but that doesn’t change the validity of the point.

In fact, it had already been brought up by, among others, Eric Bolling on Fox News’ “The Five,” and National Review’s Victor Davis Hanson.

Liberals loved it when a “wise Latina” like Sotomayor bragged about how her heritage could allow her to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male on a point of law — stating it as a matter of common sense.

When Trump makes virtually the same argument, he’s not hailed as a “wise Anglo,” he’s branded as a racist.

Gingrich, to his credit, slammed both Sotomayor in 2009 and Trump’s statements about Curiel this week.

Liberals should try the same consistency some time.

Conservatives on social media had a field day with the comparison, while liberals said there was absolutely no equivalence between the two. That’s what they always say when they’re contradicting themselves.

Justice Sotomayor: Ethnicity ‘May And Will Make A Difference In Judging’ https://t.co/iCJIyL1XC4 via @dailycaller
— Katie Frates (@TheWorldsFrates) June 8, 2016

.@TheWorldsFrates@DailyCaller Oh surprise! Could this be what Trump was referring to. We think so. You be the judge.
— Bit Veracity (@bitveracity) June 8, 2016

Either BOTH are right or both are wrong. You can’t judge Trump’s comments as racist and then deem Sotomayor’s fair. https://t.co/YaMUOE4KaU
— Eric Bolling (@ericbolling) June 8, 2016

@ericbolling@Mediaite Libs can always have it both ways, Eric. They double talk better than just about anything else, except lie ��
— 1.20.2017 #MAGA (@Speshlk0510) June 8, 2016

Libs don’t think it’s lying. They just call it interpreting the same facts differently.

http://www.tpnn.com/2016/06/08/bombs...all-out-judge/

This judge should NOT be handling this case either as he is a clinton supporter........obvious!
Law Firm Behind Trump University Lawsuit Gave Big Money to the Clintons

by Rachel Stockman | 3:56 pm, May 31st, 2016



Donald Trump has undoubtedly made the class action lawsuit against Trump University a campaign issue. For the last several days,he has been on a tear against federal Judge Gonzolo Curiel who is overseeing one of the class action lawsuits against Trump University. In the lawsuit, former students claim that the University and Trump violated federal law by luring them to sign up with false promises and then defrauded them once they handed over their checks.

LawNewz.com discovered that when it comes to politics, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the law firm behind the class action lawsuit, is not exactly neutral either. Our analysis, using data first compiled by The Washington Post, found that Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid the Clintons a total of $675,000 in fees for speeches since 2009. Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech at the law firm as recently as September 4, 2014. Bill Clinton also gave a speech for the same fee back in 2013, and another one in 2009 before the firm had been renamed (they used to be called Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP). In fact, of the five law firms that paid for the Clintons to speak over the last few years, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd paid out the most money.

Court records indicate 9 attorneys from Robbins Geller are listed as representing Art Cohen and the other former Trump University students in the class action lawsuit (there are three attorneys from another law firm as well). A review of the case’s docket reveals that the Robbins Geller attorneys have aggressively pursued the lawsuit, pushed for Trump to testify and for the trial to begin before the November 2016 election. However, it is also worth noting that the lawsuit was filed in 2013, well before Trump declared he was running for President.

“These are real people who spent a significant amount of money. This has impacted their lives. That does not turn on the election or the election outcome,” Robbins Geller lawyer Jason Forge said about the case. A judge ultimately decided that the trial should begin sometime after the election.

In addition, in the midst of the litigation, one of the Robbins Geller attorneys, Patrick Coughlin, who is also ‘of counsel’ at the law firm, maxed out his donations to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Records maintained by the Federal Election Commission indicate that Coughlin has been a longtime financial supporter of both the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton. In February, he donated $5,400 to her campaign.

“No rule prevents a lawyer from donating to a candidate or paying a prospective candidate for speeches and also representing a client against her opponent. The story is interesting because everything about Trump appears now to be interesting, but there is no problem under the lawyer ethics rules,” NYU law professor Stephen Gillers told LawNewz.com. Gillers is an expert on legal ethics.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd is a high profile law firm, based out of San Diego, with considerable resources. The lawsuit against Trump was filed in the Southern District of California (San Diego) back in 2013. The firm is frequently involved in multi-million dollar complex litigation. In 2008, they obtained a $7.2 billion settlement for Enron shareholders as part of a massive federal class action lawsuit.

LawNewz.com reached out by phone and email to attorneys at Robbins Geller for comment, but have not heard back.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/excl...-the-clintons/

Judge Unseals Trump University Docs, Accidentally Reveals THIS About Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton may want to reconsider attacking Donald Trump about the legitimacy and success of Trump University – or risk exposing a possible backdoor deal to manipulate the lawsuit.

When the federal judged ruled against The GOP unofficial nominee in the Trump University case, he did something else extremely noteworthy… Some of the Trump University documents released revealed some very close Clinton friends, and possibly donors, are connected to Donald Trump lawsuit, according to the Allen B. West website.

One of the law firms representing the plaintiffs in the Trump University lawsuit, who were appointed by the judge hearing the case, have massive financial ties to Hillary Clinton and the former president.

Liberal pundits and media talking heads mocked Trump when he accused the attorneys as being “very hostile” and biased “haters” but it now appears there is ample evidence to support his claims of unfairness in the case.

The law firm Robbins Geller was appointed to represent the Donald Trump plaintiff by federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel.

Darren Robbins, Robbins Geller chairman, donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign but the firm itself has been tied into more than $500,000 in donations to Clinton.

Judge Gonzalo Curiel has been heralded by La Raza, a pro-illegal immigrant group that continues to vehemently go after Donald Trump, claiming he is a racist for insisting the federal government follow existing immigration laws.

http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/...ump-univ-docs/

Well done video.

The Truth About Trump University and Judge Gonzalo Curiel


Published on Jun 8, 2016
MP3: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3313/the...
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneu...

In recent interviews, Donald Trump has expressed on his belief that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has treated him unfairly in the Trump University civil lawsuit.

The Judge was born in the United States, had parents who immigrated from Mexico and has positively spoken of his Mexican heritage in the past.

Trump commented that the Judge’s Mexican heritage may be a factor in some of the recent court decisions - given his own strong stance on illegal immigration and trade with Mexico.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9XMioUUa3E

Code of Conduct for United States Judges
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired. Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive....
an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge...tates-judges#c

Obviously, La Raza Lawyers (i.e. "the race lawyers") is engaging in invidious discrimination.

Trump is right. Curiel, Sotomayor, Cruz, McConnell, Gingrich, Ryan, Kirk, Collins, Flake, et al are wrong.

Here are our terms. Lower you flags and march straight back to D.C., stopping at every home you pass by to beg forgiveness for decades of lying, identity politics, and general unamerican activities.

I'm not finished! Before we let you leave, you establishment GOP RINOs must cross that field, present yourselves before this army, put your head between your legs, and kiss your own arses.

(props to @Thomas1774Paine for the uscourts.gov link)