Trump!!!

[Seattle Husker]

I heard today that the original plaintiff is not even part of the case anymore. Is this true? Does it matter from a legal standpoint? I know summary judgments are rarely granted, but something does seem wrong about a case proceeding without the plaintiff.

Aren't they certified as class action now? Not sure the plaintiff is as important for a class action.

Side story, I managed a reporting team for a very large retail provider early in my career. We were consistently getting slapped with class action and copy cat cases by other lawyers. My legal team asked us to gather information on the lead plaintiffs of each case. One case filed in Massachusetts had a plaintiff that was a "no show" as the lead plaintiff. Essentially, that person was hired and never showed for their first day. Not so coincidentally, that plaintiff had the same last name as the lead attorney the filed the case. The case was arguing that a barista had to share their tips with a "shift supervisor" that really was misnamed because they had no direct management over the barista. They were more a "lead" but the name "supervisor" implied management. It was during this job I realized how many ambulance chasers there were in search of deep pocket defendants.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Trump was basically saying, 'pay for your defense or do it yourself.' If you choose the latter, your choice as to how since you are on your own.

That's the point. The do it on your own promotes a nuclear armed world. Nobody is arguing with pushing these countries to pay more. That's not revolutionary. Saying it's OK for them to have nuclear arms reverses decades of foreign policy and military strategy. That's not something to take lightly and what Hillary was pointing out in context.

 

[theiioftx]

So even though a plaintiff drops the case, the case continues as class action? I had no idea. That does not make sense to me and I can see Trump's accusation of bias. However, as usual, dumb on his part on how he communicated his objection.

 

[theiioftx]

Wasn't Hillary for the Iran deal? I much prefer a nuclear Japan or South Korea versus the Ayatollah, but I am a common sense conservative.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Wasn't Hillary for the Iran deal? I much prefer a nuclear Japan or South Korea versus the Ayatollah, but I am a common sense conservative.

The US position has been to stop nuclear proliferation wherever possible. We offer our defense of those countries specifically to limit their armaments and potentially leading us back to where we started, but this time with nuclear consequences. There is also some not so insignificant economic benefits gained through our military defense. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more but we gain a lot through these relationships.

 

[Seattle Husker]

According to Bloomberg, Trump instructed his surrogates to intensify their criticism of Judge Curiel today, reversing an earlier memo sent out instructing them to avoid the topic. Now he's asked them to pivot his criticism to "judicial activism". Apparently, he intends to steal every Republican slogan from the last 30 years for his own personal gain.

 

[Joe Fan]

Thanks for the viewpoint, Joe. Is there a reason that Trump's lawyers haven't requested his recusal? ......

The lawyers wont do it, or dont want to. It's a loser motion, judges dont recuse themselves when the the defendant asks for it. And then you are stuck with that judge for trial. Have fun.

In this case, the judge needs to do it sua sponte (like the judges did I mention above). If they follow through on their own, you might not even know when they did it or why. As an example, I remember reading Sotomayor recused herself 141 times when she was in the lower courts. This is the way it works.

Kagan, however, should have recused herself in the Obamacare cases, but did not. As SG, she was involved in its passage and enaction and her office wrote the legal defense for it. Roberts has a strict rule that they decide for themselves. Kagan abused that leniency.

In any event, think Trump has all this figured out and is using what he has available to him to try and make it happen anyway.

 

[Joe Fan]

Joe Fan, your willingness to make up facts is downright Trumpian.
At the top of the page that you link to, the La Raza Lawyers Association website provides "links and affiliates" to other Hispanic bar associations in California. .....

This is silliness. Would you allow the Nazi Law Association to get away with claiming it is not affiliated with any Nazis? Or the KKK Legal Defense Fund to get away with saying they have no affiliation with the KKK?

 

[theiioftx]

The US position has been to stop nuclear proliferation wherever possible. We offer our defense of those countries specifically to limit their armaments and potentially leading us back to where we started, but this time with nuclear consequences. There is also some not so insignificant economic benefits gained through our military defense. I'm not saying they shouldn't pay more but we gain a lot through these relationships.

You skipped the parts about democratic support for Iran getting nukes. I get the objective of stopping proliferation and agree. However, Trump is right on how to get countries to pay for their own defense. HRC is wrong on this issue even if CNN and MSNBC will exploit the issue to liberal advantage.

 

[Joe Fan]

Aren't they certified as class action now? Not sure the plaintiff is as important for a class action.....

Yes, and this brings up an entire separate line of questions from what we were discussing above. Class actions are their on animals, and not always a pretty story. In the Trump U. case, the law firm partners are major Clinton donors.

This is the way it goes now for Rs. The left uses the courts as political tools. And their ability to forum shop (pick the judge) has been pretty astounding.

Tom DeLay
Rick Perry
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Bill Frist
Scooter Libby
Ted Stevens
Kenneth Tomlinson
Scott Walker (and related Rs in Wisconsin who challenged Unions)
There was the IRS crawling up the butts of Tea Party Groups
They are making attempts to criminalize criticism of Islam
Now they are trying to criminalize debate over climate change (It's the argument of a 6-year-old isn't it? If you disagree with me, you should be put in jail).

 

[Joe Fan]

According to Bloomberg, Trump instructed his surrogates to intensify their criticism of Judge Curiel today, ,,,,,,

 

[Joe Fan]

In addition, his ethnic-based bar association called for a boycott of all of Trump’s business ventures

 

[Mr. Deez]

I understand that lawyers are trying to get the jury most conducive to the success of their client. Not knowing the facts of this case, it seems the Supreme Court felt the prosecutor crossed an ethical line in optimizing the jury for his success.

They obviously did, and practicing racial discrimination in using your jury strikes is always inappropriate. It's not fair to the litigant who would benefit from the stricken juror, and it isn't fair to the potential juror who may want to perform his or her civic duty. (A few jurors actually do want to be there.) However, every single one of us does it, and any lawyer who tells you he doesn't is a liar. That doesn't mean we'll have a per se rule, and we'll try to disqualify jurors on more sensible grounds, but if after receiving the juror list and conducting voir dire all we have that's conclusive is the juror's race, will we use that as a factor in deciding whom to strike? You bet your ***.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I know summary judgments are rarely granted,

Not sure who told you this, but summary judgments are frequently granted.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So even though a plaintiff drops the case, the case continues as class action? I had no idea. That does not make sense to me

Eye,

That can happen, because the plaintiff is acting as a representative of a class of individuals. Just because he has dropped out of the case doesn't mean the case is resolved for everybody in the class. If it was that simple, then the defense would just pay off the class representative and fleece everybody else.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The lawyers wont do it, or dont want to. It's a loser motion, judges dont recuse themselves when the the defendant asks for it. And then you are stuck with that judge for trial. Have fun.

Joe, why are you bullshittin' on this? It's not a loser motion, and defense lawyers and plaintiff's lawyers do file them when appropriate. True, it can piss the judge off. However, a responsible lawyer will still do it if he really thinks there's a true basis for recusal. Why?

First, they sometimes get granted. Trial judges don't like being overturned on appeal, especially on questions of impartiality, which would reflect poorly on the judge's integrity and character. If you ask the judge to recuse, because he's a Mexican and a hater, yeah, that probably won't end well for you. However, it's possible to do it respectfully and without attacking his character. You don't have to be ******* about it.

Second, appellate courts aren't likely to let you raise a judge's failure to recuse for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, if you don't file the motion, you'll waive your right to complain about it later. If Trump's lawyers actually believed they had a real basis to get Judge Curiel to step aside, they would file the motion. It would arguably be malpractice for them not to.

And I damn near fell out of my laughing when you suggested that Trump's lawyers might not file the motion because it would cause them to lose favor with the judge. Let's assume that's true for the sake of discussion. Don't you think the cat got out of the bag on that when Trump called him a hater and a "Mexican?" Do you think Judge Curiel doesn't know about all this? I'm sure he does, and even if a judge doesn't like dealing with a motion to disqualify, I think he's going to take such a motion that's discreetly filed and professionally and impersonally argued better than having one of the litigants calling him names and ridiculing him in public.

 

[Joe Fan]

No, not kidding.
No (sensible) lawyer wants to make that motion, for obvious reasons. The client might want to though.
It happens but, as mentioned above, best if its sua sponte by the judge. Good judges do, every single day (hint).

 

[Mr. Deez]

No, not kidding.
No (sensible) lawyer wants to make that motion, for obvious reasons. The client might want to though.
It happens but, as mentioned above, best if its sua sponte by the judge. Good judges do, every single day (hint).

Judge Curiel may not be recusing sua sponte, because he doesn't think it's warranted. After all, if a judge's political beliefs by themselves made a judge biased, judges would have to recuse themselves from an enormous number of cases. Nevertheless, if he doesn't recuse when he should, it's the litigant's responsibility to make a motion to disqualify, even if there lawyer doesn't want to do it. (Since when does the law care what a lawyer wants do anyway?) The last thing the litigant should do is publicly attack the judge. That gives you all the disadvantages of filling the motion (pissing off the judge) with none of the advantages (chance of getting the judges removed).

 

[Joe Fan]

It's not beliefs we are talking about.
Or even memberships. It is not illegal or unconstitutional to join a group.
It is the desire to be a member of this or that group, I think, should be in question in this type of inquiry.
While we cannot prevent judges from being members of groups, we can (and should in my opinion) demand that all their memberships be disclosed.

 

[Joe Fan]

.....Nevertheless, if he doesn't recuse when he should, it's the litigant's responsibility to make a motion to disqualify, even if there lawyer doesn't want to do it. (Since when does the law care what a lawyer wants do anyway?) The last thing the litigant should do is publicly attack the judge.

Heh. There are some competing interests here.

That gives you all the disadvantages of filling the motion (pissing off the judge) with none of the advantages (chance of getting the judges removed).

Let us see what happens

 

[Joe Fan]

So, Trump continues to use his bully pulpit to attack Gonzalo Curiel, ....

Attacks on judges by politicians are not new

Jefferson attacked the judiciary quite often
Jackson really went to town on them too
Abe Lincoln threatened to arrest the Chief Justice
FDR got so mad at the SCOTUS he tried to add 6 extra justices so he could "pack" the Court.
There was a fairly serious movement to impeach Earl Warren over his control of the Court
And, more recently, Obama attacked Citizens United during a SOTU with justices sitting directly in front of him. I dont recall that any Pres had ever done that before

 

[Mr. Deez]

Heh. There are some competing interests here.

Once Trump shot off his mouth, he ended any competing interests on the matter.

 

[Crockett]

Shooting off your mouth is a winning campaign strategy.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Shooting off your mouth is a winning campaign strategy.

In a Republican primary, yes. In a general election, no. At least, I hope not.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Attacks on judges by politicians are not new

Jefferson attacked the judiciary quite often
Jackson really went to town on them too
Abe Lincoln threatened to arrest the Chief Justice
FDR got so mad at the SCOTUS he tried to add 6 extra justices so he could "pack" the Court.
There was a fairly serious movement to impeach Earl Warren over his control of the Court
And, more recently, Obama attacked Citizens United during a SOTU with justices sitting directly in front of him. I dont recall that any Pres had ever done that before

And Obama was roundly criticized from all sides for that SOTU speech. Just because politicians are allowed to use their bully pulpit (and judges are restrained from defending themselves due to ethics codes) doesn't make it right.

 

[Joe Fan]

Once Trump shot off his mouth, he ended any competing interests on the matter.

I think what happened was that he was taking some flack over the Trump U. lawsuit from the natl media and pundits. So he parried that attack.
Now its on to the rotting economy.
And more Crooked Hillary

 

[Joe Fan]

And Obama was roundly criticized from all sides for that SOTU speech. ...

I dont believe MSNBC has ever criticized him, for anything, have they?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I dont believe MSNBC has ever criticized him, for anything, have they?

Not sure. I haven't given MSNBC a second of my viewership in years.

 

[Joe Fan]

In addition, his ethnic-based bar association called for a boycott of all of Trump’s business ventures

Here is their statement from 2015

full release here http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=df9a27c10b6d6ba38ba001440&id=f8a4a02241&e=cd8fc1ccd9

 

[Joe Fan]

Good time for a review?

-- The law firm leading the lawsuit against Trump U. are heavily involved in Democrat politics, including paying the Clintons $675,000 for “speeches."

-- The Judge in the lawsuit is an open borders immigration activist with direct ties to San Diego La Raza, and has openly engaged with them on their political endeavors, including scholarships for illegal aliens.

-- The Trump U. lawsuit relies (in part) on testimony from a former disgruntled employee of the Trump Organization who went to work for #NeverTrump whacko Glenn Beck.

--The Judge “accidentally” released court records which provided the media with the names, locations, and contact information of the plaintiffs and witnesses in the case, which fueled the media narrative.

--After the “mistaken” release, Judge Curiel resealed the court records.

--The Judge is a member of an ethnic legal group, HNBA, whose specific and publicly expressed intentions are to target Donald Trump’s business interests.

Do you still think there is no need for him to recuse himself?