Trump: The Judge in My Fraud Case Has a Conflict of Interest Because He Is of Mexican Heritage
Trump attacks U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel more for being Hispanic.https://t.co/KKpW6icKQe pic.twitter.com/rqdkdC7bQf
— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) June 3, 2016
A serial litigant, bully, and con artist who angrily denounces judges who rule against him? Where have I seen this act before?
And the Higher Power keeps turning the dial.
Usually he keeps his idiocies to one major idiocy per day, roughly, but I sense the pace is accelerating.
Gotta make up for that total lack of funding with more earned media.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:09 pmGive it a rest, you were once held in high esteem. Now your true colors are coming to the fore. Why don’t you #NeverTrumpers take a hike Your becoming boring.
jainphx (9c89f2) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:14 pmWhy do Trumpers always have such a hard time with this? Short lesson:
“You’re” is a contraction. The apostrophe stands in place of the “a” in the word “are.” So it is short for “you are.”
“Your” is a possessive, signifying that someone belongs to someone.
When you want to say “you’re boring” or “you’re an asshole” or “you’re an idiot” you use the contraction.
When you say “your boring” or “your stupid” you mark yourself as a Trumper.
Just a little free advice for ya there. It’s probably third grade material, but a lot of you guys appear not to have received the lesson.
Your welcome!
Ha.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:21 pmToo subtle.
Rick Ballard (7727d9) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:26 pm“True colors.”
I’m curious: What do you think the #NeverTrump movement is about, since you think you know?
L.N. Smithee (b84cf6) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:41 pmwhat’s more significant is the way, curiel released unredacted info because time was of the essence, he’s now had to backtrack, but he’s doxxed a fair number of people,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:47 pmnarciso,
It is typically the litigants’ responsibility, not the court’s, to redact confidential or personal information when the documents arequired filed. If the litigants filed documents without redacting, the court will generally withdraw the documents and let the litigant(s) refile redacted documents.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2016 @ 7:59 pmTrump’s logic means anyone who disagrees with him has a conflict of interest and therefore should be discredited.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:02 pmwell it fits the last few models of lawfare, carried out by texans for public justice, in a year you’ll find that even paxton was not guilty, but it doesn’t matter the damage has been done,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:09 pmDemented Donna.
nk (dbc370) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:17 pmJust to keep the record straight, Judge Curiel has no conflict of interest. Trump is lying about that. Trump didn’t formally announce his candidacy until June 2015 and he only started talking about building a wall roughly five minutes before he announced his bid. When the Judge laughed Trump’s lawyers’ motions to dismiss out of court, not only had Trump never publicly mentioned building a border wall, Trump was still blaming Romney’s “mean-spirited,” “maniacal” plans to have illegal aliens self-deport for his 2012 loss to Obama.
At the time Trump was saying he wasn’t sure what the Democrats’ plans were, but he did know at least their hearts were in the right place.
So not only wasn’t Trump being “hard” on the border when Curiel denied his motions to dismiss and certified the class action suits against Trump, and certified Cohen v. Trump as a RICO case, Trump was criticizing Mitt Romney for being too hard on illegal immigration. Mitt Romney! And Trump was praising Democrats for at least having their hearts in the right place on the issue.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:19 pmYet here you are.
Bill H (971e5f) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:20 pmAnd I believe it was Trump’s legal team that filed the documents. Considering how Trump fights dirty, leading to nearly a $1M dollar judgement against Trump for violating Kali’s anti-SLAPP law for filing a frivolous and malicious counter suit against one of the Trump U. plaintiffs, I wouldn’t put it past Trump’s lawyers to have deliberately failed to redact the documents so they could release private information about the plaintiffs.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:23 pmThere was a time when “conservatives” turned a jaundiced eye toward any member of the judiciary proudly touting membership in such radical organizations as NBPP, FLAN, and La Raza. But I guess belonging to an organization whose motto is “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada.” and their goal of Reconquista is now part of your brand of conservatism.
The discussions here have now fallen below the standards of The View. Good luck with your little Facebook club, where you can put a “No Trump” sign on the door and pat yourselves on the back about how pure and righteous you all are.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:33 pmProwler – nobody forces you to come here and vent your spleen. Why are you so angry?
JD (507a70) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:39 pmWe had Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Walker, and Jindal.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/2/2016 @ 8:55 pmLord, oh Lord, how did we get here from there?
Love it, now the Sanders republicans luv them some Laraza backing judge.
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:04 pmCS- other than Sir Ted, I think people believed the rest were mouthpieces for the chamber of commerce, established republicans and the democratic party.
mg (f81376) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:09 pmThis issue is about as inflamed as issues get. All I want to suggest at this point is the following: IF it’s true that this judge has been unfair to Trump (and that’s a mighty big “IF”), then it seems highly likely that the reason for such unfairness is the judge’s view (as a Hispanic liberal California lawyer appointed by Obama) that Trump’s immigration policies are horrible. That is all for now on this one.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:10 pmMy my, JD. Simply pointing out the CV of the judge in question is not that of one who is simply “Hispanic heritage”, as Patterico claims is now “angry”. Tsk tsk. Projection is such an ugly thing, especially when faux conservatives do it. You can’t tell them from the MoveOn/Code Pink/GLAD crowd.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 6/2/2016 @ 9:41 pmExcept Trump’s views on immigration back when Curiel was denying his motions and allowing the lawsuits to move forward were in line with the Democrats, not the Republicans.
So guess again.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:17 pmIf that’s true, I sure would like to find out for sure. Can you provide any links that verify your theory?
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:21 pmhowever, he had already done a trial balloon presidential run, and had endorsed romney at the end of the campaign,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:23 pmAs usual, Trump could make his case better.
But the Judge, it has been reported, is a member of “La Raza.” Still feel the same if that’s true? You are aware of the motto the organization?
Old Reader (7376bc) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:23 pmOnly when you pipe up with your two cents worth do standards sink that low. Everybody is stupider when you participate.
“Being Mexican” is not a conflict of interest in a fraud/RICO case. Not even being a liberal Kali Mexican judge. Curiel has moved Trump’s testimony to November following the election precisely to avoid even the appearance of bias.
What’s Trump going to do? Try to get this judge disqualified because he’s a “Mexican?”
Yeah. That’ll fly.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:31 pmThere’s also such a thing as being biased without going so far as to be obvious about it. Maybe Judge Curiel has been doing a great job, and maybe not. Count me undecided.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:46 pmhis other case, about the windfarms also shows his true colors,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/2/2016 @ 10:49 pmHe is not. Where was that “reported”? Conservative Trumphouse? Trumpbart? Don’t repeat that crap on my blog, Trumpkin. It’s false.
Patterico (0c81af) — 6/2/2016 @ 11:25 pmPatterico,
Self reported on 2011 judicial survey and Daily Caller has a link. Why state something is categorically false when you don’t know?
Old Reader (7376bc) — 6/2/2016 @ 11:32 pm@21, Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University was filed in 2010. Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump was filed in 2013. Curiel had made all his major decisions about rejecting Trump’s arguments for dismissal and allowing both suits to move forward by October 2014.
This is the kind of thing Trump was saying publicly as Curiel was making the critical decisions about these lawsuits:
In August 2013 Trump met with Hispanic Democratic strategists and some so-called DREAMers at his office in Manhattan and at the end of the meeting Trump told them “You’ve convinced me” on the DREAM act.
To be fair he clearly didn’t mean it. He doesn’t mean a lot of things he says. He lies a lot. Apparently he thought he saw a money making opportunity in linking his beauty pageant business to the Hispanic Heritage Awards.
I can find no record of Trump publicly mentioning building a wall on the Mexican border before early 2015. Such as:
https://politicalwire.com/2015/04/28/trumps-says-hell-build-massive-wall-on-mexican-border/
So Trump didn’t decide to become “tough” on the border until he decided to run for President although he didn’t officially announce his candidacy until June 2015. So I can’t see how Curiel would have a grudge against Trump unless the judge had a crystal ball and knew the kinder gentler amnesty loving Trump would change his spots.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 12:32 amTrump actually committed a political gaffe in the above statement. He slipped up and told the truth.
Precisely. It’s Trump’s campaign stance. It was never his stance before he decided to run for the presidency. So, since that’s the case, Curiel couldn’t have known about it until Trump announced it. And by then it was all over but the crying, as far as Trump trying to get these lawsuits dismissed.
Trump has a very bad record as far as getting these various fraud lawsuits for his many shady business dealings dismissed. Because they have merit, which is why he also settles a lot of them . Which will probably be what he does in the these Trump U. class action suits.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 12:48 amHere’s a link to the Daily Caller video regarding La Raza:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/judge-presiding-over-trump-university-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/
And it looks like the Judge denied summary judgment in ANI ember 2015
https://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trump12MSJOrder.pdf
And the Judge allowed a lead plaintiff to withdraw (against Trump’s motion) in March, 2016
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/22/trump-u-class-action-losing-a-lead-plaintiff.htm
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:08 amMeant to say “Judge denied summary judgment in November 2015”
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:09 amSteve – facts don’t really matter to them.
Prowler – your anger is almost comical. Now you are redefining conservative in a manner that makes Trump, a lifelong Dem until he wanted to run for President, a conservative and actual conservatives are now faux-conservatives. It is to laugh.
JD (2e3880) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:44 amNo JD, I’m not redefining conservative. I am properly characterizing the #nevertrump crowd as what they are: indistinguishable from the most virulent leftists. And now, just like the left, our good host is outright lying by claiming that the judge was not a member of La Raza, and accusing anyone who points out that fact of being a “Trumpkin” and a liar. I wonder how long it will take him to acknowledge his error? I’m guessing he will emulate the LA Times, so never.
prowlerguy (fa36d8) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:26 amBy the same logic David Duke could demand that no black or Jewish judge could sit on a case involving him, and Fred Phelps could have demanded the recusal of any gay judge on his cases. “The judge is biased because I’ve made it publicly known that I despise him and everyone who’s like him” is not a valid argument, because that ought to make you obnoxious to all decent people.
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:40 amAnd Pete Wilson was all for amnesty till he needed it in 94, and meet was against till 2012, not that it mattered any in florida.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:40 amAndrew Hyman, from your own link: “La Raza Lawyers of San Diego is not a local chapter of the national organization”. So Curiel is not a member of La Raza. And as far as I know the group he is a member of is a perfectly respectable professional association.
Denying summary judgment was a no-brainer. No honest judge would have granted it, because Trump clearly has a case to answer. Allowing Makaeff off the case was also a no-brainer; there simply weren’t any plausible grounds not to. An anti-Trump judge would have sanctioned the defence for the harassment that made her withdraw.
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:54 amTrump lies/Trumpkins lie.
nk (dbc370) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:02 amI don’t know anything about any La Raza organization. FWIW, the website of this San Diego lawyers association says “SDLRLA is one of 18 affiliate bar associations of La Raza Lawyers of California, a non-profit association organized in 1977 to support Chicano and Latino Lawyers in California and serve as a statewide network for local affiliate La Raza Lawyers Groups. Nationally, SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association.”
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:15 amI will have you know my neckbeard is IMMACULATE
GOOD DAY, SIR
JP (bd5dd9) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:27 amAnd your problem with any of that? How does any of that justify your claim that he’s a member of La Raza? Which of those organisations have any connection with La Raza?
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:35 amMilhouse,
If a lawyer was part of a local “KKK” lawyers group that was officially “unaffiliated” with the national organization, would that put your mind at ease? The group and everybody who joins it clearly understands that they will be associated with the national organization and they have no problem with that.
For your information, “La Raza,” literally means “the race,” and the motto is “for those in the race, everything, for those outside the race, nothing.”
Of course, I do not know whether this judge actually believes any of that or whether he just felt it would give him cred among people that do.
Pretty sad what all you nevertrumpers, so-called real conservatives, are willing to defend.
Old Reader (7376bc) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:18 amDidn’t Old Christoph promise not to come back? New IP?
nk (dbc370) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:22 amChristoph, f— off. You and your views are not welcome here. There is no indication that the organization of which Curiel is a member is racist in any way. Citing the alleged motto of an unrelated organization is dishonest, which is exactly what we expect of you.
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:45 amShockingly Trumpers lie again!
Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:54 amUnrelated but yet named exactly the same. Got it. Obviously the organization wanted to associate itself with national La Raza. And obviously members of the local lawyers group had no problem associating themselves with the national organization, either.
You “conservatives” busy defending La Raza members now. Never go full retard.
Old Reader (7376bc) — 6/3/2016 @ 10:02 amAnd, of course, I’m not Christoph. And I never swore I would not come back, just that I doubt that I would. I see the level of discourse has not been elevated in my absence! But I guess it makes you feel better to label anybody who disagrees as “Christoph,” who apparently is some sorta of Nazi.
Keep on defending La Raza members, fellow conservatives!
Old Reader (7376bc) — 6/3/2016 @ 10:05 amOld Liar never changes his lying spots.
Prowler – outline the ways for me that I am a virulent leftist. Surely I track with all their policy positions.
JD (2e3880) — 6/3/2016 @ 10:23 amDid I claim that?
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 11:27 amThat is cute to claim that you weren’t suggesting that, Hymen.
JD (2e3880) — 6/3/2016 @ 11:48 amI think you’re mixing me up with “oldreader” and “prowlerguy” above. All I said about La Raza was this:
And this:
I have no idea whether any of these organizations is affiliated with (or agrees with) The National Council of La Raza.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 12:17 pmYou Trumpkins are a hoot. Can anyone point out where Judge Curiel had demonstrated bias against Trump in the Trump U. fraud/RICO instead of grasping at straws r.e. the associations he belongs to?
Can anyone show he has been less fair to Trump then Judge Anthony J. Mohr, who presided over the real estate fraud case concerning the Trump Ocean Resort Baja scam? And it was a scam. Trump’s defense is always the same in these scams; admit to the fraud. He claims he had nothing to do with fraud. But the heart of the fraud is that he lies to investors in multimillion dollar ad campaigns and tells them had everything to do with it. That’s why Trump settled this real estate fraud case. The facts and the law were all against him.
The writing was on the wall. The developers knew they’d lose if the case went to trial. So did Trump. His “I had nothing to do with this project except lying in multimillion dollar ad campaigns to people telling them that I had everything to do with it so blame the developers not me” defense failed him here. It failed him in a fraud case in Manhattan over a “Trump tower” in SoHo (and Trump was eager to settle because the investors otherwise would have continued cooperating with the Manhattan DA in his criminal fraud investigation), and it looks like it’s going to fail him in the Trump U. cases as well. In particular because Trump has been a major if not the majority investor in all these cases (that’s precisely what Trump told the San Diego, and he defrauds people who otherwise wouldn’t have put any money in these scams if he hadn’t made false claims that he was the guy running the show.
So, are you Trumptards going to claim Judge Mohr is a member of La Raza who had it in for Trump because he was “tough” on the border? Which he couldn’t have been, since Trump didn’t get “tough” on the border until after the old fraudster settled this case in November 2013. Or when are you just going to admit the truth. That when Trump’s only defense in a fraud lawsuit is to admit to the fact that his only role in these projects is to make false and misleading claims to defraud people just isn’t a very good defense in a fraud lawsuit.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:19 pmYeah, we’re not fine, moral, and upstanding citizens like you Trumptards, who eagerly defend Trump and his various frauds.
I really admire you people. Not.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 1:24 pmFWIW, the website of the LA RAZA LAWYERS OF CALIFORNIA links to the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA.
http://larazalawyers.net/id3.html
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 2:34 pmDRJ wrote (#7), in response to narciso’s comment (#6) about the judge having “doxxed a fair number of people”:
That’s absolutely right.
In fact, PACER, the national system through which lawyers are required to e-file documents throughout the federal courts, requires every filer to specifically and affirmatively check a box on its log-in page in which the filer acknowledges that it is his obligation — not the government’s, and not the courts’ — to make redactions necessary to protect privacy rights.
Moreover, Judge Curiel’s ruling was on a motion filed by news organizations seeking to shine the public disinfectant of disclosure on someone who’s voluntarily placed himself at the center of public attention and scrutiny by running for POTUS. The caselaw is absolutely clear — it’s First Amendment-based and driven, ultimately — that there is a legitimate public right to limit such litigants’ confidentiality and sealing orders. In Texas, for example, in reaction to a widespread pattern of using sealing orders to bury nasty skeletons (e.g., evidence that Mega Tire Corporation’s Mega 350 model was defectively designed and would regularly explode without warning), the Texas Supreme Court promulgated Rule 76a, which require that for sealing orders in particular, the applicant most jump through elaborate public notice and hearing requirements, without which such orders are invalid. Even in case-by-case confidentiality/protective orders, state and federal law universally requires trial judges to weigh the litigants’ (or other affected persons) claimed privacy interests against the public interest in open and transparent court proceedings.
Trump’s lawyers had to have seen this ruling coming, and they certainly had opportunity to oppose it. That opposition should have included a request, as a backup, that they be allowed to replace original exhibits with properly redacted ones. This is because even minimally competent trial lawyers are supposed to anticipate, and make plans for the possibility, that the judge might disagree with them; in which moment, the lawyer needs to be able to say, “Okay, then please use these redacted versions if you’re going to release them.”
So this ain’t the judge’s fault. This is another example — among countless — of Trump hiring minimally capable or simply sub-capable lawyers who get their butts handed to them in a sling because they disregard the rules and act like bullies who are entitled to win because they’re representing someone named Trump.
It is my belief that any lawyer who filed a formal complaint with the judicial commission (headed by the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit in this instance) — and I’ve had occasion earlier in my career to file and monitor exactly such a complaint against a sitting federal judge, so I’ve done this drill personally — on the grounds against Judge Curiel that are now being argued by Trump in public would, as a consequence, find his own license to practice before the Ninth Circuit suspended. This falls so ridiculously short of the showing required to force a judge’s disqualification, in other words, that Trump’s lawyers will likely be sanctioned if they are stupid enough to ask for that.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:03 pmre schneiderman’s part in this was seen three years ago,
http://spectator.org/56339_shakedown-schneiderman/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:08 pmWho says you’re entitled to have a judge of your same race?
Who says you’re entitled to have a judge appointed by a Republican if you’re a Republican?
Who says you’re entitled to have a judge who isn’t part of a race-conscious professional association?
You don’t get to disqualify judges because you think they don’t like you. You don’t get to disqualify judges even if you have a really good reason for thinking they don’t like you. In fact, you don’t get to disqualify judges even if they really do dislike you.
My day job, every day, is to represent people in front of judges about whom they could make all these complaints, and many worse than this, and guess what? That’s just tough. That’s the real world.
You Trumpkins haven’t ever bothered to look at the rules or the cases which control judicial disqualifications. This subject has come up before — duh! Under the relevant rules and interpretive cases, this is not a close question. It is a closed question — Trump’s complaints are of the sort to which the judicial ethics counsel categorically refuse to consider.
Whine, whine, whine. Such bad-tempered, ignorant children the Trumpkins are, just like their idol.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:14 pmFrom the “CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login” screen that everyone must go through in order to file documents in federal court, immediately to the right of the field in which one enters ones user name and password information:
You can’t log in without checking that box. You can’t file anything — even under a temporary sealing order — without checking that box. This isn’t a new system, it’s been this way for years now, and it’s dirt-familiar to every lawyer who practices in federal court anywhere in the country.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:19 pmwell when texas for public justice, gets in the act, or the planned parenthood for instance, that’s when one cries foul,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:20 pmHymen is certainly not trying to imply that this cultural law association is affiliated with La Raza. Nope. No way. Passive aggressive dbags are so damn tiresome.
JD (312266) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:21 pmIt will be interesting to see whether Trump’s lawyers ever ask for refusal. In the mean time, even if you don’t you don’t get to disqualify judges because they really do dislike you. Trump is perfectly entitled to say the judge dislikes him and to say that he dislikes the judge, which will get Trumo lots of continuing media attention. I think it’s a significant issue whether the judge really does dislike him, not because it might be grounds for recusal, but because it might be grounds for voting for or against Trump.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:23 pmwe saw how in alaska, the nutroots gamed the system, and abused the ethics process, the practices of the gab, the auto task force, has been dragooned to serve the administration’s objectivees,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:28 pmJD, it’s very obvious (from #54 above) that LA RAZA LAWYERS OF CALIFORNIA has links to the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA. I’m not implying it, I’m saying it fat out. The links may or may not be tenuous, but they are there.
Now, as to your misspelling of my name and your reference to dbags, I assume you write such things because you can hide behind your pseudonym. That makes you kind of cowardly, don’t you think? Coward as in you’ve got a streak of yellow running down your back. You noticed that streak, right? Well that’s what it means. Cheers!
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:29 pmand his support for becerra, which isn’t dispositive, along with the democratic predominance in the choice of law firms,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:31 pmI’d like to rewrite my comment #61 because of the typos, and will start looking at the preview more carefully….
It will be interesting to see whether Trump’s lawyers ever ask for recusal. In the mean time, even if you don’t get to disqualify judges because they really do dislike you, Trump is perfectly entitled to say that the judge dislikes him, and to say that he dislikes the judge, which will get Trump lots of continuing media attention. I think it’s a significant issue whether the judge really does dislike him, not because it might be grounds for recusal, but because it might be grounds for voting for or against Trump.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:32 pmjust one example,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/state-board-dismisses-palin-ethics-complaint.html
she was a serial filer, and loonier than a fruitbat,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:33 pmI would not be surprised if the Judge asks Trump’s attorneys if it is their and their client’s position that the judge should recuse himself for bias or an appearance of impropriety. If so, they will have to either say No — thus rejecting Trump’s public statements, or Yes — which means they will have to file a recusal motion. And if Trump or his attorneys repeat these statements in court without filing a recuse motion, the Judge might hold them in contempt.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:35 pmthis was another,
http://juneauempire.com/stories/070709/sta_460684541.shtml#.V1Ih3rgrK00
of course it was william allen, who served a function similar to john thomas, who got the ball rolling, which the huntress did take up, no good deed goes unpunished,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:36 pmSorry, that formatting was a mistake. Let me try again:
I would not be surprised if the Judge asks Trump’s attorneys if it is their and their client’s position that the judge should recuse himself for bias or an appearance of impropriety. If so, they will have to either say No — thus rejecting Trump’s public statements, or Yes — which means they will have to file a recusal motion. And if Trump or his attorneys repeat these statements in court without filing a recuse motion, the Judge might hold them in contempt
DRJ (15874d) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:37 pm@ Andrew Hyman (#61), who wrote:
Yes, Trump is within his constitutional rights to insult and deliberately try to antagonize the judge. He may even be pursuing that as a strategy.
It’s spectacularly stupid. But yeah, he’s totally within his First Amendment rights to be that spectacularly stupid, and yes, some number of spectacularly stupid people at the margins will vote for Trump who otherwise wouldn’t have, but for this particular act of stupidity.
I don’t want a president who’s stupid. Your mileage may vary.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:37 pmthat earlier link came from here,
http://spectator.org/rigged-the-trial-of-trump-university/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:47 pmBeldar, okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that the judge in this case hates Trump and has demonstrated that hate, though not in such a way that would require recusal. Let’s assume that. Does it follow that Trump would be stupid to say that’s what’s happening? I don’t think it necessarily would, especially if he can be persuasive about it. Speaking one’s mind can be a valuable trait, and a jury will be deciding this case rather than the judge. And if the case goes against him then he can blame it on the judge for allowing it to go to a jury. Trump is getting lots more media attention from this kerfuffel, which is valuable in its own right, plus he’s signalling to a potential jury that the judge maybe shouldn’t have allowed the case to go this far, et cetera, et cetera. In my opinion, given this scenario that we’ve stipulated, the really stupid thing would be for a judge to show hatred toward a defendant like Trump, who would never sit quietly and take it without protest.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 5:47 pmLet’s say for argument Trump is a sniveling coward of a fraud who’s behaving like a trapped rat. Any sniveling coward of a trapped rat would hate the trap snapping closed and revealing the fraud committed. Should we focus on the trap holding the squealing or on the fraud committed which led to the trap?
Rick Ballard (7727d9) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:00 pmRick, I agree that we should focus most on the alleged fraud committed which led to the trap. And the best time to do that focusing will be when the jury gives its verdict. Until then, it will be very difficult to convince people that he’s guilty of fraud, given all of that “presumption of innocence” stuff.
If Hillary gets indicted, however, we’ll probably have a comprehensive report from a neutral organization (the FBI), so it will be different for her than for Trump.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:09 pm“University” in “Trump University” is a fraud in itself. It was not a university. It was not a school of any kind. It was a series of “How To Get Rich In Real Estate” seminars, little different from Enzyte infomercials. And it gets worse from there.
nk (dbc370) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:15 pmit can be a floor wax and a dessert topping, rick.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:16 pmI’m not one to confuse expensive with good, especially when it comes to flashy L.A. celebrity-type attorneys. But it appears to me that Trump’s lead attorney, David Petrocelli, is good and at the very least experienced.
https://www.omm.com/professionals/daniel-m-petrocelli/
So, I’m convinced this accidental release of unredacted documents didn’t happen by accident. Sort of how you can’t unring a bell, as when an attorney says something at trial and the judge sustains the opposing attorney’s objection. Then instructs the jury to ignore the statements of the first attorney, as if it’s possible to unhear something.
I’m convinced this “accidental” release happened on purpose. Trump uses the courts to intimidate people, and exposing the personal information of plaintiffs and others “similarly situated” would be one way to intimidate them.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:24 pm“And the best time to do that focusing will be when
the jury gives its verdict.clear evidence of the fraud committed is presented.If we’re not gonna give Judge Curiel a trial, why the hell should we wait to find Trumpy the Fraud guilty as sin?
Rick Ballard (7727d9) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:26 pmdaniel petrocelli is very professional, why isn’t the lawfirm that pushed this case, like patton boggs in the texaco case isn’t under scrutiny,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:30 pmHymen – you bombast is precious. And not the least bit surprising. Your variety is a dime a dozen around here. Passive aggressive trolls that pop up, bluster, and then eventually scurry away. That you are a Trump apologist/sycophant is even less surprising.
JD (7fd277) — 6/3/2016 @ 6:50 pmWhatever JD. Maybe I visit here occasionally instead of incessantly because I have a life.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:00 pmOne troubling thing about this story is that it tells us the “best people” Trump promised he would hire are not that great. After all, Trump was obviously told by his advisers that the Judge belonged to a Latino group with Raza in its name. Instead of doing their due diligence to find out more about the group, Trump — presumably based on information from his advisers — used that information to criticize the Judge as biased.
Trump is proud of his ability and willingness to make snap decisions. If he is President, it troubles me that his decisions could be self-serving. But it troubles me a lot more that his decisions could be based on incomplete information and/or knee-jerk reactions.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:42 pmAfter going on PACER myself and downloading the docket sheet and some of the relevant motions, orders, and notices, I’m now very clear about what happened, when, and who did it. Trump’s lawyers are at fault with respect to some of the supposed “doxxing,” but the plaintiff’s lawyers may be at fault for others. None of the victims, though, seem likely to me to be at any kind of serious risk as a result — certainly nothing compared to, say, the risk to which Michelle Fields was exposed. Here’s what happened:
The Washington Post filed a motion (supported by a well-supported and -argued 25-page brief) on April 1 asking Judge Curiel to unseal several specific documents that had previously been sealed by court order. The sealed documents had been referenced in other pleadings (including affidavits and sworn declarations) submitted earlier in the case, including at the crucial class certification stage, and the WaPo main focus was on the “Trump University Playbooks” used to teach its personnel how to market Trump U’s premium courses and on the “course evaluations” submitted by Trump U students.
The motion was fully briefed, with both the plaintiffs and the Trump defendants participating, and everyone appeared for an oral hearing on the motion on May 27. Trump was represented at the hearing by Jill Martin, who is the assistant general counsel — an in-house, full-time lawyer — for the Trump Organization; her business address for this case is listed at the Trump National Golf Club in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA.
Petrocelli and his firm, O’Melveny & Myers, are also on the pleadings for the Trump defendants, and they appear to have file other substantive motions on Trump’s behalf involving other issues, but they did not sign, and are not listed as counsel on, the motions and pleadings involved here.
(to be continued in a separate comment, to get around (hopefully) the “too many links” moderation trigger ….)
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 7:59 pmJudge Curiel’s order on May 27 recites early on (record citations omitted):
He went on to find that despite their claims that the playbooks revealed “arguable trade secrets,” Trump’s lawyers had “failed to articulate ‘compelling reasons’ for the material to remain sealed,” but that the WaPo had “ma[de] a strong case that the public interest is heightened in this case” — findings which, in the Ninth Circuit (as elsewhere), a sealing order must be undone.
Accordingly, Judge Curiel’s order ends by immediate unsealing all 48 of the requested sealed documents other than the playbooks. With respect to the playbooks, it then requires the plaintiffs’ counsel to file the disputed playbooks, which they had obtained from Trump during pretrial discovery (but which had previously been sealed from public consumption), “with only phone numbers and non-corporate e-mail addresses (i.e., those not ending in “trumpuniversity.com”) redacted.”
The filing notice by plaintiff’s counsel on May 31 thus specifically noted:
Thus, the parties clearly had focused on redactions-as-needed for the playbooks. Apparently no one, however, focused on the other 48 documents.
On the same day that the plaintiffs filed the playbooks, Judge Curiel also issued — apparently sua sponte (on his own, rather than in response to a formal motion for anyone) — a supplemental order, which reads in pertinent part:
From this, it appears that in the documents whose unsealing no one opposed — as originally submitted by both sides under seal earlier in the case — both sides had failed to make redactions that the law would require for other public filings, the plaintiffs in the Forge Declaration exhibits, and the defendants in the Stagg Declaration exhibits.
As redacted, the documents from both sides are quite voluminous, but my quick skim suggests that what was redacted was either home addresses for various witnesses (some on the plaintiff’s side, some former Trump employees) or, in a couple of instances, reasons why ex-Trump employees had departed that employment. If you want to dig through them, here are links to zip files with the plaintiff’s and defendants’ respective filings, to save you the PACER download charges.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:02 pmTrump already lost that particular fraud case, at least in New York.
http://therealdeal.com/2014/10/16/trump-found-liable-in-court-over-unlicensed-university/
Again, Trump had no excuse. The New York State Education Department warned Trump in 2005 that he couldn’t call his real estate upselling scam a University without a license. And the only way he could get a license was to be accredited.
Trump has no excuses in Kali either. That’s why his attorney, Petrocelli, is forced to resort to ridiculous hail mary defense attempts. He filed another motion for summary judgement earlier this year likening Trump University to McDonald’s Hamburger University and Farmer’s insurance’s University of Farmers among others. It was laughed out of court a few days after Petrocelli filed it.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2811574-CohenvTrump.html
Why was it laughed out of court, boys and girls? Because none of these examples were remotely relevant to the Trump U. scam. With two exceptions these are all internal corporate training. They don’t market themselves to outside fee-paying customers. So Petrocelli was reduced to using internal corporate training programs that are entirely irrelevant to “the world of marketing” to try to claim Trump’s use of the word University was entirely in line with other companies’ practices.
That was just frankly untrue. Petrocelli had to know that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would see through that. But when you don’t actually have a defense against fraud charges you have to make one up, I suppose, and hope the judge doesn’t have two brain cells to rub together.
The two exceptions? First, the Clinton Global Initiative University, which was entirely up front that it was simply a three day annual meeting of college students held on college and university campuses around the country. They don’t advertise that the students whose application is accepted will learn anything at all; it’s for activists. And, more to the point, they don’t charge a fee; when they accept a student’s application to attend it’s free of charge (I hate being put into a situation where I have to appear to be defending the Clintons, but Petrocelli’s attempt to say Trump U. was remotely analogous to CGI U was ridiculous).
The other exception? Florida Real Estate University. Like Trump U. it charges for it’s online courses. How is it different? Unlike Trump U., which illegally used University in its corporate title for years without a license, it’s licensed by the state of Florida. Which legally entitles it to use the word University in its corporate title. It’s not accredited by any scholastic accreditation organization but the state of Florida of has examined its curriculum and it accepts it for its mandated pre-licensing, post-licensing, and continuing professional real estate education.
In other words if you complete courses at the Florida Real Estate University you actually have training under your belt that’s worth money. Unlike Trump U., where if you pay $35k for worthless, and sometimes less than worthless training as some of the techniques are illegal in some states as fraudulent, misleading, and predatory, your completion certificate (if they even give those out) and $1.25 will get you a medium cup of coffee at a gas station convenience store.
Oh, and by the way, Mickey D’s Hamburger U. is accredited by the American Council of Education. Let’s go back to Petrocelli’s flippant remark:
No, dumb@$$, nobody thinks that. Because Hamburger U. doesn’t really teach anyone to make hamburgers. They teach management skills at a variety of different levels. And are actually worth credits toward a batchelor’s degree and are accepted by over 1,600 different colleges and universities nationwide.
As I said, Trump has a poor track record getting these fraud suits dismissed because they have merit. Not because all judges are Hispanics who are members left wing illegal immigration advocacy groups. Trump also settles a lot of these cases; he’s been sued in federal court 72 times since 2000 and he’s settled 35% of those cases.
Because he’s a fraud. Not because of La Raza which hates his border wall or something.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:08 pmThank you, Beldar.
nk (dbc370) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:11 pmBottom line: I don’t think anyone intentionally doxxed anyone. I think Trump and his lawyers used a sealing order, improperly, back when they persuaded a magistrate to seal any of this stuff back in 2014, because the techniques and materials that Trump U used to upsell their customers aren’t now, and never have been, “arguable trade secrets,” and if they had been, they could have been protected by vastly less restrictive means than a sealing order.
As for the bits and pieces of info that ought to have been redacted, though, I don’t see a strong argument that anyone intentionally “doxxed” anyone, or that the judge behaved improperly in any respect. Criticism can be leveled at both sides’ advocates for failing to anticipate and provide for the need to redact documents that were to be unsealed by agreement, but compared to the blameworthiness from the original over-reach in getting the sealing order to begin with, that’s small potatoes.
Trump tried to use the power of the courts to conceal the specifics his fraud while he’s on trial for fraud. That’s shameful, and it’s a very good thing that the WaPo fought back. As I’ve said here repeatedly: Between now & November, look for challenges like this from media organizations to every sealing order in every state and federal court case involving Trump going back to the 1970s.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:17 pm“For me personally, it’s resistance against what San Francisco has been, and what I see the country becoming, in the form of ultra-PC culture. That’s where it’s almost impossible to have polite or constructive political discussion. Disagreement gets you labeled fascist, racist, bigoted, etc. It can provoke a reaction so intense that you’re suddenly an unperson to an acquaintance or friend. … This is a war over how dialogue in America will be shaped. If Hillary wins, we’re going to see a further tightening of PC culture. But if Trump wins? If Trump wins, we will have a president that overwhelmingly rejects PC rhetoric. Even better, we will show that more than half the country rejects this insane PC regime.”
— Glenn Reynolds
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:29 pmWell, Beldar, if you’re correct that all the sealed court regards regarding Trump are now on the verge of getting unsealed, going back to the 1970s, then perhaps we can hope Trump picks Rubio as VP and then has unexpected medical issues (or some other excuse to jump ship). Trump has had a LOT of stuff sealed over the years, and I imagine most of that was done for self-protection. Oy.
Andrew Hyman (8fe4a1) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:39 pmRegards >> records
Andrew Hyman (8fe4a1) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:39 pmMy bad; Curiel didn’t laugh it out of court, he just didn’t grant the motion to dismiss. Instead he set hearing for July 18 so the plaintiffs can respond. I should know better to rely on a single source in which, as it turns out, the reporter couldn’t get the facts straight so obviously couldn’t report the facts clearly.
Still, I don’t expect Trump to win on this as Curiel has ruled repeatedly that there are serious disputes over the facts. And there are vast differences between Trump’s use of University an the other entities Petrocelli cites, as law professors the report quoted pointed out. It still is a hail mary attempt.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:49 pm@ Andrew Hyman, who asked (#72):
Okay, let’s assume exactly that, even though I see no evidence to support it. But sure, let’s pretend.
Yes, because it’s always a stupid idea to mount a public campaign designed and certain to give a judge who already doesn’t like you even more reasons not to like you. Smart people in hostile forums shut up about it. Every single competent lawyer will so advise his client, period, no exceptions. It’s not like some pro basketball player trying to “work the refs,” and even basketball players don’t try to do that through public insults off the court.
The judge gets to seat the jury. The judge gets to rule on pretrial challenges to jurors based on pretrial publicity (including publicity about the court), along with challenges to jurors based on preexisting biases. The judge makes thousands of discretionary calls at every stage of a trial. Every moment the jury is in the courtroom, it sees and hears exactly, and only, what the judge permits. The jury speaks, collectively, once, at the end of the case, through its verdict. A federal trial judge can either enter judgment on that verdict, or he can enter judgment notwithstanding (opposite from) that verdict, or he can simply order new trial after new trial, each time starting over from scratch with new jurors and new rulings on evidence, until he gets a verdict he likes better.
And yes, I’ve appeared before judges in my career who have repeatedly done exactly that, and who’ve gotten away with it for decades, notwithstanding appeals and recusal motions and all that. You want me to list their names here? Heh. That would be as stupid as what Trump’s doing, and I owe my clients better than that.
So do I think Trump can more than make up for the innate power of a federal district judge by throwing red meat in public to idiots like ropelight and prowlerguy who might somehow make their way onto the jury in this case? Anyone that biased in Trump’s favor is likely to say something truthful by accident to get himself stricken for cause. Regardless, only a total fool would count on being able to win the case with the jury through out-of-court statements designed to discredit the judge.
Yes, if the relevant audience to whom he’s complaining then are Trumpkin supporters, they’ll find this persuasive. If the relevant audience is a panel of the Ninth Circuit, not so much. In fact, they’ll find it sanctionable and frivolous. And this case could produce a judgment that could bankrupt the Trump Organization. (Remember Texaco, asset-rich, cash-flow limited, which couldn’t post its appellate bond after losing to Pennzoil?) So is risking catastrophe in court worth whatever marginal bounce Trump gets with his Trumpkins from acting and talking tough? I remain unconvinced.
Half-right. The half that’s wrong is the part about “potential juries,” which is utter nonsense. No one wins cases that way, ever, and while our election proceedings have turned into a reality TV show, the trial and appeal in the Trump U case will be under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. These are not Trump’s strong suits, to put it mildly: As a chaos agent, the Rule of Law is his kryptonite.
Oh, it’s a very poor and stupid judge who behaves with as little self-control as Trump has exhibited here. Whether Judge Curiel does or doesn’t like Trump, I’m sure he’ll do his best, as every trial judge does, to avoid creating a record that could give Trump any hope of appealing on grounds of judicial bias or of getting Judge Curiel disqualified. That’s just another reason why it is spectacularly, monumentally, colossally stupid to deliberately wage a public war against your trial judge.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:50 pmwhen we’re finished doing david brock’s work for him,
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/06/texas-facing-huge-obamacare-premium-hikes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:54 pmhow many affected by this,
http://libertyunyielding.com/2016/05/26/doj-docs-show-fast-furious-firearms-linked-69-killings/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:55 pmBeldar, I am starting to suspect that Trump only listens to people who agree with him.
Simon Jester (07f691) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:57 pmThat’s very interesting commentary, Beldar, thanks very much. As for unsealing all stuff in all cases back to the 1970s, it’s amazing to contemplate that no one (not even opposing candidates or Trump’s lawyers) brought that prospect to his attention. I very much doubt he would want to risk it.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:58 pmreally 1/1oth of one percent of enrollees to that program it does seem like near beer,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 9:01 pm@ Andrew Hyman: My all-time favorite quote so far from Trump was his penultimate answer in his Playboy interview in 1990:
It’s all improvisational. He’s not a strategic thinker, or really much of a thinker at all. But he is a gifted con man, absolutely world-class.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 9:11 pmI’m not convinced (yet) that he’s a con man. The mere use of the word “university” doesn’t prove the point in my opinion, because any fool could see that Trump University did not have anything like the structure of accredited universities. But we’re in interesting times, and we’ll see how it goes. Cheers.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/3/2016 @ 9:22 pmThanks for the civil exchange, and cheers back to you for it.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 9:33 pmI don’t see it as a big issue, compared to some of the others, I mentioned above, the continuing resolution from the last lameduck session, continues tearing through the body politic,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/3/2016 @ 9:36 pm@ Andrew Hyman, as a bonus observation, if you’re still reading:
I once had a fellow lawyer tell me that the following, which I included as an aside at the very end of a long CLE paper I’d written on issues regarding ethics and privilege and conflicts of interest and such, fully justified the entire price he’d paid to attend the all-day CLE program:
Unless and until you have real grounds for a motion to disqualify, there is no upside to putting in writing anything negative about the judge before whom you are then appearing. And if you’re a lawyer that includes any judge before whom you might appear in the future.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 11:19 pmRe what one does have to show to win a disqualification motion in federal court, I wrote about that quite a bit here.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/3/2016 @ 11:23 pmActually I agree. Except that not just “any fool” could have seen Trump University was not actually a university. There are lots of special fools in this country who believe in and trust Donald Trump and will take his word for face value. I’ve seen interviews of some of these people who Trump ripped off either by his upselling scam at Trump U. or by his fraudulent real estate deals.
And they sound just like the Trumpkins who comment here. They’re falling for the precisely the same schtick, except now Trump is using it to scam people politically instead of financially. But Trump’s act is exactly the same and if you ask the Trumpkins who really think Trump will make a good President they’ll list all the same reasons that the people now suing had for once believing that if Trump’s name was on it everything had to be on the up and up. Trump’s new political marks who comment here are just like the special fools Trump ripped off. If Trump says it, it has to be true.
This is why I’m not rushing to get on the Trump train. I’ve seen Trump’s act before, and I know how it ends. It ends with people suing Trump for fraud, and often successfully.
I think you’re ignoring one relevant fact, though. It’s illegal in New York to call your operation a university unless it is in fact accredited and licensed as a university. Apparently Art Cohen, the lead plaintiff in Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, was aware of that fact. He pointed out in his initial filing in 2013 that despite being warned by the New York State Education Department (NYSED) that Trump was operating an illegal, unlicensed University and even being advised how to legally operate in New York, “Instead of complying, Defendant’s agents created a fictitious office in Dover, Delaware, and then Defendant continued to brazenly operate illegally out of his 40 Wall Street office in New York, New York for five years.”
Given the fact that Judge Curiel has certified Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC as class action suit in California, Florida, and New York (Makaeff has since been replaced as lead plaintiff by another named plaintiff in the original suit, Sonny Low) and has certified Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump as a nationwide class action suit, it’s relevant that Trump has already been found personally liable for illegally operating an unlicensed University in New York. Because, again, some of the plaintiffs were apparently aware that it would be illegal for Trump to call his operation a university unless it was accredited and licensed as such. The fact that Trump did so for years with no apparent repercussions may well have convinced some plaintiffs who were aware of the state requirements that it must have qualified as a legal University.
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/aipr/home.html
To repeat myself, perhaps, the Supreme Court of New York affirmed that Trump was personally liable for operating an illegal unlicensed univerity because his operation did in fact meet the requirements of the generally applicable law that you can’t call your operation a University in New York unless it’s chartered by the Regents or the state legislature as a university.
The NYSED advised Trump personally that his Trump U. wouldn’t have to meet NY state licensure requirements if it A) had no physical presence in NY state and B) conducted no live training events in NY state. But Trump refused to comply with the law. Why? Because he’s a con man. You can’t use the high pressure upselling techniques using online distance learning courses. You have to be face-to-face and personally pressure people to up their credit limits and if they can’t get a high enough limit on one card to get as many cards as is takes to buy the most expensive course you can convince the marks to buy. Those techniques simply don’t work over the internet.
Which is why, again, Trump broke the law in NY. But a lot of plaintiffs didn’t know Trump was breaking the law; they thought Trump was complying with state law. Even the NY AG thought Trump was complying with the law since Trump had been personally warned of the law in 2005. The AG only realized Trump was breaking the law in 2009 when his office received student complaints and upon further investigation discovered newspaper ads demonstrating Trump was still conducting live training and still had a physical presence in NY state.
So the issue of Trump calling his fraudulent and illegal school a university isn’t entirely irrelevant. And in any case it isn’t the only issue in any of the lawsuits. There are plenty of other fraudulent, deceptive, and misleading business practices asserted by the plaintiffs with even more substantive evidence and will be even harder for Trump to Brush off.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/3/2016 @ 11:46 pmGreat comments, Beldar.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/4/2016 @ 7:23 amI also enjoyed your links, Beldar. Your description of an academic’s “attempt to play loophole-spotting lawyer” is wonderfully descriptive, especially now when so much of our lives is governed and constrained by laws. It would make a good Holiday Inn Express commercial.
DRJ (15874d) — 6/4/2016 @ 7:38 amThanks Beldar, I don’t dispute that there’s typically “no upside” to complain about a judge in your case, but whether that’s also true in atypical cases is another matter.
Steve, New York law may treat the word “university” in a very special way, but I’m not aware that most other states do. Trump had a trademark to use the name “Trump University” for “Educational services in the nature of conducting on-line courses in the fields of business and real estate.” I have not heard about other states putting limits on the use of that trademark, provided Trump was honest about being unaccredited. Anyway, it would seem pretty weird for a federal district court in California to make pronouncements about the meaning of state law in New York.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:31 amP.S. I’m more concerned about Trump endorsing Renee Elmers than about whether he should have used the word “school” instead of “university”.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:36 amThere as a little back and forth about this by Donald Trump this morning on Face the Nation with John Dickerson. Trump was really trying to say, at one and the same time, that the judge was biased because he was of Mexican heritage, and that Mexicans would be for him because he wouls bring jobs. If we go ahead say, let’s try to make sense of what Trump had to say, then it would be that the alleged cause or proof of the bias of Judge Curiel would be taht he was a member of a Latino lawyer’s organization. Trump also acknowledged, after hesitating that he’d have to be against a Moslem judge, too.
Trump came up with a new illustration of the judge’s alleged bias, and he was anxious to get this out. The original plaintiff, he said, had withdrawn and the lawyers had been allowed to substitute another one. She was destroyed in a deposition, he said or implied. If she was withdrawn, that should have been the end of the case, and the lawyers should have had to start all over. Any other judge, he claimed, would have dismissed the class action lawsuit if the original plaintiff withdrew.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:53 am95. Simon Jester (07f691) — 6/3/2016 @ 8:57 pm
Newt Gingrich claimed on Fox News Sunday today that he will criticize Trump and Trump sometimes listens to him.
Sammy Finkelman (eb1481) — 6/5/2016 @ 10:02 amAndrew Hyman @107, I’ll put it another way. Art Cohen is a California businessman who was aware that it’s illegal to operate an entity in NY state called a university unless it is in fact licensed by the state as a university. To operate anything called a university in NY state, state regulators must inspect it and confirm it is in fact a university.
This led Mr. Cohen to believe, when he received mailings from Donald Trump with a NY addrsess, that Trump U. must have been chartered by the state as a University. Mr. Cohen did not know Donald Trump’s operation was in fact entirely illegal.
http://www.trumpuniversitylitigation.com/Content/Documents/Cohen%20Complaint.pdf
I don’t understand what difficulty you’re having here. A lot of commenters here have this inexplicabel attitude that Donald Trump can do no wrong. Even if he is blatantly breaking the law, as is true in this case.
I’m not going to assume you share the attitude of the other commenters, so I’m just going to act. Just how many laws does Donald Trump have to break before you think he should be held accountable?
Art Cohen had two options. Apparently he chose the first option. Knowing that Donald Trump couldn’t legally operate anything called a university from that Wall Street address unless it was certified and licensed by the state as an actual university, Art Cohen thought it must be an actual university since he didn’t think a high-profile individual like Donald Trump would break the law so ostentatiously and lie about it so brazenly.
It seems you think he should have chosen the second option. His first reaction should have been Donald Trump was breaking the law. And if you scroll up you’ll see I linked to articles confirming the fact that Donald Trump has been found personally liable for doing so and operating this illegal entity. Trump has exhausted all his appeals; the state supreme court has confirmed the ruling.
And it seems you think Art Cohen should have assumed Donald Trump was lying.
But if that’s the case, please explain this comment:
Because it seems to me you’re saying Art Cohen should have known or suspected Donald Trump was a con man. You went on to say.
How was Art Cohen supposed to know? He wasn’t seeing the entire NY operation. What Cohen did know was, it would have been illegal for Trump to operate anything called a university in NY unless it was in fact evaluated and chartered by the state as an accredited university.
Again, I don’t understand your objections. You seem to be contradicting the NY courts. You seem to be saying Donald Trump can’t be held liable for the “mere use of the word ‘university'” when the NY courts have held that he can be held liable for exactly that. It’s a bit more then “merely” using the word. He wasn’t “merely” using a word; he was “merely” breaking the law.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 1:29 pm@ Andrew Hyman, who wrote (#107) that “it would seem pretty weird for a federal district court in California to make pronouncements about the meaning of state law in New York.”
Actually, that’s neither weird nor uncommon. Particularly when it comes to questions about how institutions and entities are chartered or organized, courts elsewhere will very often — when following “choice of law” principles crafted for just this purpose — apply the law of the state of chartering or incorporation. That’s one reason why so many corporations and other business entities charter themselves in Delaware, but New York State is also an extremely popular locale, and it was apparently the source of Trump University’s organizing legal authority for at least some of the relevant time period. So yes, New York law is likely to be relevant in the federal class action pending in California before Judge Curiel.
New York law may also be relevant in another way — in particular, if the prior proceedings in New York were final decisions with particular factual findings about Trump and his personal liability for Trump University’s acts and omissions. Those decisions may have “collateral estoppel” or “issue preclusion” effect, meaning that in all subsequent legal proceedings elsewhere (including the California class action), Trump is legally prevented from re-litigating or re-arguing those issues. I don’t know enough about the prior proceedings from New York to know whether they do or don’t include that sort of finding, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.
Beldar (fa637a) — 6/5/2016 @ 3:10 pmSteve, I think I get where you’re coming from. But as you know, you haven’t quoted anything from the Trump briefs or explained why they’re wrong, so I feel entitled (as someone who hasn’t looked at any of the briefs) to take what you say with a grain of salt. I already mentioned that it seems kind of silly as a matter of common sense (not as a legal matter) to get all worked up about whether Trump used the word “university” instead of “school”. And if that’s a legal technicality, maybe moving the official address to Delaware is a technicality that might cancel out both technicalities. Also, it seems to me that the Internet was pretty new when Trump offered this internet course, and so issues about “where” services were being offered was unsettled (where the servers are located? where the official corporate address is? where the customer is located?). All I’m saying is that I’m not ready to pin the label of “con man” on Trump quite yet.
Beldar, I meant that it’s kind of weird for a California federal judge to make pronouncements about the state law of New York, as opposed to applying “collateral estoppel” or “issue preclusion” to pronouncements already made in New York, with regard to activities after the 2005 move to Delaware. But I’m no expert on this case, so will try to be silent about it now.🖐🏿
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 3:46 pmthere are certain notions that seem to suggest themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/
narciso (732bc0) — 6/5/2016 @ 4:33 pmActually I have done all of the above. Several times. So at this point when you tell me I haven’t done what I have clearly done, I suspect you’re just yanking my chain. Perhaps being deliberately obtuse. I haven’t quoted from every single brief that’s been filed on both sides in the two Kali-based multiple state/nationwide class action fraud/RICO cases since the cases have been ongoing for the past six (Makaeff/Low) and three years (Cohen). Every time I quoted extensively from those briefs you say I haven’t quoted from, however, I’ve also provided links. If there is a particular brief you want to look at I’m not going to spend my time guessing which one it may be. Feel free to follow those links and find it yourself. If I can find what I’m looking for I’m sure you can as well.
Art Cohen also wasn’t ready to pin the label of con man on Trump. Which is why when Mr. Cohen relied on Trump’s (later-to-be-proven-false) assertions that he was operating a university from 40 Wall Street, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10005, Mr. Cohen understood it to be an actual accredited university. Because that’s what the law requires in New York in order call an entity that offers training a college or a university. State law requires the training entity to evaluated, accredited, and chartered as such before Donald Trump or anyone else could legally apply those words to a business. Since Mr. Cohen wasn’t ready to apply the label con man to Mr. Trump the furthest thing from his mind was that Trump was breaking the law.
If you’re still confused about why that is, I’ve also provided links in several of my comments to the New York State Education Department.
Here’s a useful summary. I’m sure it won’t explain everything in sufficient detail for you, Andrew Hyman. But others may find it useful as is. Have a nice evening.
http://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/2014/11/donald-trump/
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 6:33 pmSteve, at 6/5/2016 @ 1:29 pm you quoted from the anti-Trump briefs, but not the Trump briefs, right?
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 6:37 pmnarciso @114, Trump certainly has that right. But then he could have asked years ago if that was his intent.
It appears he’s just making a stink about it now because he’s losing all those cases (2xKali and 1 in NY) and losing big.
Apparently he’s also attempting a novel legal strategy. Preemptively insult entire groups of judges publicly so he can then later disqualify them, claiming the can’t possibly be fair to him.
http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/06/05/donald-trump-adds-muslim-judges-to-his-list-video/
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 6:54 pmAndrew @116, at least one of the briefs filed on Trumps behalf by his legal team, yes.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 6:57 pmSteve, at 6/5/2016 @ 1:29 pm you presented two huge blockquotes. Can you please tell me which of them was filed on Trump’s behalf by his legal team, the first or the second? I honestly thought that they were both from the anti-Trump briefs. Thanks.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 7:03 pmWell, it won’t be long before Trump declares Americans of Scottish descent are on the list of judges who are prohibited from judging him.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-alex-salmond-trade-insults-scottish-wind-farm-appeal-rejected-1533670
OK, they’re out. But wait. I’m sure I remember Trump insulting the justices of the UK Supreme Court after going 0 for 3. So anybody of English, Welsh, and, what the hell, Irish descent can’t give The Donald a fair hearing.
Is there anybody left that Donald Trump hasn’t insulted and therefore preemptively disqualified? How about the Joooooz? Trump must have said something nasty about the Jooooz.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 7:13 pm6/3/2016 @ 8:08 pm, Andrew
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 7:17 pmHillary never offered a weird university, but she did take America to school.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/5/2016 @ 7:33 pmAnd when she becomes elected President, we’re going to get a four year education about left wing politics.
120. That’s the moment the party is over. I think he is savvy enough not to cross that line. I’m kind of waiting for the Mitt and Beck distaste to mestasize into general anti Mormon distaste. That cancels out things in the West.
urbanleftbehind (f3c999) — 6/5/2016 @ 8:13 pmand inference on salmond’s part, trump is half scot, a mcleod,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/5/2016 @ 8:21 pmHere are some uninformed musings on my part as I learn about this area of law. Let’s start with a more user-friendly link to the Trump brief discussed on 6/3/2016 @ 8:08 pm:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2811574/CohenvTrump.pdf
(April 22, 2016 motion by Trump for summary judgment in the RICO case Cohen v. Trump filed in 2013)
The page quoted by Steve above on 6/3/2016 @ 8:08 pm is from part of a section of this Trump brief titled “Plaintiffs Failed to Establish Racketeering Activity: The Representations are not Actionable.” Following is the original complaint in this same RICO case:
http://www.trumpuniversitylitigation.com/Content/Documents/Cohen%20Complaint.pdf
As I understand, the particular predicate offense here for the alleged Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violation is alleged mail fraud (under 18 USC 1341) and wire fraud (under 18 USC 1343) by Trump in advertising “Trump University”. Since this is a civil case, federal courts apparently require proof of common law fraud, having these five elements:
(1) A false representation of material fact or material omission;
(2) That the defendant knew or believed to be false;
(3) That the defendant made the material misrepresentation or omission with the intent to induce the plaintiff to rely;
(4) Action by the plaintiff in reliance on the misrepresentation or omission;
(5) Injury to the plaintiff as a result of such reliance
According to the complaint, the name “Trump University” would have been fraudulent even if changed to Trump “school/academy”, and the complaint cites a decision by the Better Business Bureau (“BBB”). I’d be curious to see that BBB report if anyone has a link handy.
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:16 pmAndrew, the relevant parts of the BBB report are excerpted in the original Cohen v. Trump complaint I quoted and linked to in my comment @ 6/5/2016 @ 1:29 pm. It’s several pages in. There may be a link in the brief; I don’t know. I do know the fraudulent use of the word university is one of the reasons the BBB gave Trump U. a failing grade of D-. Trump being Trump he threatened to sue them so, and since Trump U. had stopped operating anyway, the BBB backed down and changed the rating to N/R, or not rated.
That’s what Trump does; use courts like a baseball bat.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:27 pmTrump must have said something nasty about the Jooooz.
Maybe not. His daughter is an (Orthodox) convert, so he has Jewish grandkids.
kishnevi (98ea1b) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:38 pmI’d still really like to see the full BBB report. I wish it were online somewhere. If the BBB gave Trump University a D- then it would be interesting to see how they explained the rating. Wouldn’t they have given Trump University an F if they thought there was a hint of racketeering and fraud going on?
The BBB entry for Trump University only goes back to 2011 at archive.org and so I cannot find the BBB report
https://web.archive.org/web/20110801000000*/http://www.bbb.org/new-york-city/business-reviews/training-programs/the-trump-entrepreneur-initiative-in-new-york-ny-97075
I wonder how many of the U.S. trademarks containing the word “university” or “academy” or “school” or “college” are being used fraudulently and in violation of RICO under the standard proposed by Mr. Cohen.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4801:5wtny9.1.1
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:46 pmGood friends with Roy Cohn, too. Or maybe good buddies.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:50 pmnk:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/law-order-court-courtroom-verdict-jury-juror-mba0764_low.jpg
Andrew Hyman (b12b60) — 6/5/2016 @ 9:59 pmRoy Cohn and Trump were more than “associated”, but the discussion I was addressing was whether Trump is anti-Semitic.
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2016 @ 10:15 pmmeanwhile the dead from the fast and the furious operation that red queen cooperated with, cry out for justice, but judge curiel doesn’t care about that,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/5/2016 @ 10:21 pmHow is Curiel involved in Fast and Furious?
nk (dbc370) — 6/5/2016 @ 10:25 pmthere must be some casualties tied to san diego,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/5/2016 @ 10:28 pmnk’s thinking about Roy Cohn, while the rest of us are fearing Alinsky and Marx.
Attaboy, nk, keep your eye on the ball.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/5/2016 @ 11:16 pmOne time I defend Shortfinger, against an implication of anti-Semitism, by pointing out that he was real friends with a Jew, even if it was a really nasty swish of a Jew … and I strike a nerve with Trumpazoa and party drones.
I’m not worried about Roy Cohn, or Alinsky, or Marx. Because they’re d-e-a-d.
Death solves all problems. When a man is dead, he is not a problem. — Joseph Stalin
And Stalin is dead, too, they say.
nk (dbc370) — 6/6/2016 @ 4:08 amWhy the raw nerve, Trumpkins? Do you know something you’re not telling? Did Roy Cohn take Donnie for a walk on the wild side?
nk (dbc370) — 6/6/2016 @ 4:29 amCuriel in his only other case, says turbines can kill as many birds as necessary.
narciso (732bc0) — 6/6/2016 @ 5:44 amWhat internet course? Who mentioned any internet course? You are introducing yet another red herring, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you are doing so deliberately.
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/6/2016 @ 2:33 pmLet’s suppose there are; how does that get Curiel involved?
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/6/2016 @ 2:49 pmthe levick group is probably involved.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/5/pentagon-brags-of-killing-terrorists-even-as-trans/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
narciso (732bc0) — 6/6/2016 @ 3:22 pmwhat civility,
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/739926118837407745
narciso (732bc0) — 6/6/2016 @ 3:39 pmCuriel was appointed to state bench by Schwarzenegger in 2007 so he had nothing to do with F&F, but Curiel had a record in the 1990s as a federal prosecutor working against the Arellano Felix that ought to make Trump like this guy. He was so effective gaining prosecutions in this country and extraditions to Mexico that for a time the cartel had a contract on him. He had to live on one of the several Navy bases and he always had at least two bodyguards when he left base. And, Trump should really like this, he defended testimony gained through torture. Mexico was too corrupt to necessarily trust with the big fish, but Curiel was trying to extradite two Arellano Felix gunmen to Mexico. The attorneys for the gunmen argued that the testimony against their clients was gained through Mexican police torture. Conceding that possibility, Curiel still successfully got the men extradited by arguing the proper venue to sort that allegation out was a Mexican courtroom.
Since it’s still the drug cartels that are probably the most dangerous border threat, Curiel has done more to secure the border than Trump, who has so far just shot his mouth off about building a wall.
Steve57 (e33d44) — 6/6/2016 @ 3:58 pmFast and Furious, restocked the Sinaloa and Zeta arsenals, the former’s reach stretched as far as New York,
narciso (732bc0) — 6/6/2016 @ 4:04 pmDoubling Down On Stupid – Trump Style
Rick Ballard (45aac8) — 6/6/2016 @ 4:15 pm¡peor juez de todos los tiempos!
happyfeet (831175) — 6/6/2016 @ 4:25 pmAnd again, what has that got to do with Curiel? How did you reach the conclusion that he doesn’t care about the F&F victims? What exactly would you expect him to do about them if he did care?
Milhouse (87c499) — 6/6/2016 @ 7:00 pm