Trump and the Federal Judge

To me, his comments regarding Gonzalo Curiel are his most egregious to date. To the legal experts here: Can't they judge hold him in contempt of court?

shoshannah said:

To me, his comments regarding Gonzalo Curiel are his most egregious to date. To the legal experts here: Can't they judge hold him in contempt of court?

He continues to refer to Judge Curiel as "Mexican." The level of narcissism and delusion is beyond troubling. I'd bet dollars to donuts (Happy National Donut Day!) that Trump is suffering from mental disorders, if not dementia.

Robert Reich suggested contempt, but that's up to the judge, I guess. And they are contemptuous comments. Since Curiel is American (with Mexican parents), Trump is saying that Curiel is incompetent because of his heritage.

Tom_Reingold said:

Robert Reich suggested contempt, but that's up to the judge, I guess. And they are contemptuous comments. Since Curiel is American (with Mexican parents), Trump is saying that Curiel is incompetent because of his heritage.

Yes, and that would mean that all Americans would be disqualified for just about anything because of their heritage. This reminds me of the incident at UCLA recently, when a Jewish student, at her confirmation hearing for a position on the student judicial board, was faced with questions about whether she could effectively serve because she is Jewish.

Shosh,

That was College undergraduates. 18 and 19 year olds, not the "presumptive nominee" for President of a major political party.

He is a racist and caters to racism.

Imagine if someone in the Democratic Party pointed out that Trump is of the "race" that started both World Wars.

Wow. A minute after I posted the above, David Korn from Mother Jones Magazine asked Chris Mathews sarcastically. " Should Jews say they won't vote for Trump because he's German"? 

Unbelievable https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-trump-if-his-judge-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/

Why was Mr. Trump appearing before Judge Curiel?

TomR

Why does that matter to this point? Serious question.

Tom_R said:

Why was Mr. Trump appearing before Judge Curiel?

TomR

gerardryan said:

Why does that matter to this point? Serious question.

Tom_R said:

Why was Mr. Trump appearing before Judge Curiel?

TomR

You've long struck me as a person worthy of respect, so I'll address the query seriously; although it does strike me as disingenuous.

I am unaware of any conditions, under which a Judge can hold a person in Contempt of Court for anything stated outside of Court; absent a prior Court Order.

TomR

Tom_R said:

Why was Mr. Trump appearing before Judge Curiel?

TomR

Civil Fraud charges relating to Trump University

Tom_R said:

Why was Mr. Trump appearing before Judge Curiel?

TomR

Class action lawsuit against Trump University in federal court in San Diego.

Tom_R said:

I am unaware of any conditions, under which a Judge can hold a person in Contempt of Court for anything stated outside of Court; absent a prior Court Order.

OK. This is what I was wondering. But I just found this article and have pasted relevant parts:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/03/contemptible-trump-contempt-court

"Donald Trump just struck out swinging, so now he’s attacking the umpire. ... Trump is contemptible is many ways. Now, however, legal experts are suggesting that, as a result of his recent crude and racist remarks about Judge Curiel, Trump should be held in contempt of court.

... “Mr. Trump’s conduct could be subject to sanction for indirect criminal contempt of court,” Charles G. Geyh, a legal ethics expert at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, told theNew York Times. According to Geyh, Trump “ has impugned the honesty of the judge in a pending case and has done so in the context of a political rally that seems calculated to intimidate by inciting anger among his supporters.”

On Tuesday, Jules Bernstein, a prominent Washington, DC-based employment lawyer, wrote a letter to Paulette Brown, president of the American Bar Association, calling on the organization to condemn Trump’s remarks. Bernstein wrote: “Under well-established canons of ethics and judicial rules relating to contumacious conduct, comments that are rude, insulting or disrespectful made by a party to litigation about a presiding judge, either in or out of court, are subject to censure as constituting contempt of court. Hopefully, Judge Curiel will see fit to hold Trump in contempt of court for his diatribe. But independently, the judges of our nation as well as the entire bar should speak out loudly against Trump’s contemptuous remarks about a member of the Federal judiciary. It is precisely because Trump has demonstrated such contempt for the judicial branch of government through his attack on Judge Curiel, that it is the obligation of the legal profession to respond promptly and in no uncertain terms, to his outrageous conduct.”

...  His diatribe put Judge Curiel in an awkward position. As a federal judge, Curiel can’t publicly defend himself against Trump’s malicious attack. But there is certainly precedent for Curiel to hold Trump in contempt for impugning the integrity of the federal court and have federal marshals haul him to jail until he apologizes.

Judge Curiel is more likely to let Trump continue his campaign rather than toss him behind bars for contempt. In fact, he did Trump a big favor by postponing the trial until after the election."

Nice that Paul Ryan called him out for this one.

I think you are correct. I guess what I was trying to say (badly) was that the reason for his appearance in court doesn't matter. His statements are inappropriate. I expect you're correct in that his statements outside of the court can't get him cited for anything, but they are at best bad form.

Tom_R said:

gerardryan said:

Why does that matter to this point? Serious question.

Tom_R said:

Why was Mr. Trump appearing before Judge Curiel?

TomR

You've long struck me as a person worthy of respect, so I'll address the query seriously; although it does strike me as disingenuous.

I am unaware of any conditions, under which a Judge can hold a person in Contempt of Court for anything stated outside of Court; absent a prior Court Order.

TomR

Is he being personally sued or is the "college" being sued. If its the college, he can say whatever he wants.

For example, I believe Thomas and Alito are useless pieces of human debris. In settings, less dignified than M.O.L., I use street vernacular. If I had a case before them, that would be different.

I believe both the school and him, individually, are defendants.

He is a named defendant.

http://fortune.com/2016/05/06/trump-university-trial/

It appears that the state consumer protection bureau in Texas wanted to sue Trump University in 2010, but the Texas Attorney General at the time, Greg Abbott, blocked the suit. Can you guess why?

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/greg-abbotts-top-consumer-attorneys-built-a-5-4m-case-against-donald-trump-but-it-never-happened.html/

Trump has the right to say whatever he wants. The First Amendment protects his right to do so. But everyone else has the right to Judge him by what he says.

Joanne Chesimard, who subsequently fled to Cuba where she remains, was a Black radical who was scheduled to go to trial in New Jersey in connection with the killing of a Sate Trooper. Lennox Hinds a lawyer who was head of a Civil Rights organization issued a press release stating that the Judge to whom the case was assigned "Lacked the racial sensitivity" to hear the case. Hinds was immediately subject to an Ethics Committee complaint. That was wrong and I and others protested it at the time as an assault on Freedom of Speech.

I have known many people who have stated that a Judge who ruled against them was prejudiced on account of the Judge's race or ethnicity. None of them were the "presumptive nominee" for President of a major Political Party.

LOST said:

Trump has the right to say whatever he wants. The First Amendment protects his right to do so. But everyone else has the right to Judge him by what he says.

Not exactly. A lot of people get this wrong. The First Amendment protects citizens from government interference in your speech. Except in some limited, well defined instances. Such as inciting actions that would harm others.

Gerry,

We agree that Mr. Trump's comments were inappropriate.

Were he not a contender for a Party's nomination, the comments would still have been inappropriate. Grandmother taught me to never poke somebody in the eye, unless you're sure things will turn out in your favor.

A litigant speaking out against the a Judge for the particular matter is just foolish. Judges are human; and insults and criticisms are not forgotten. A good Judge will attempt to put it aside; but that doesn't mean it won't influence their reasoning.

Thanks for your past service, and I hope you will consider a return to our Township's Committee.

TomR

If his lawyers thought they could get the judge off the case they would have already filed a motion.

This is an old tactic.  Insult the Judge, have Judge issue deleterious ruling, then motion for a new Judge. This ain't Trump's first time at the rodeo.

Robert_Casotto said:

This is an old tactic.  Insult the Judge, have Judge issue deleterious ruling, then motion for a new Judge. This ain't Trump's first time at the rodeo.

No, it's not.  And it's not going to work.  If it were so easy, people would be doing this all the time and they are not. 

Judges can't be disqualified from a case because of their ethnicity, or because of their ideology, or because you say things that are offensive to them or their ethnic group.

mjh said:

Robert_Casotto said:

This is an old tactic.  Insult the Judge, have Judge issue deleterious ruling, then motion for a new Judge. This ain't Trump's first time at the rodeo.

No, it's not.  And it's not going to work.  If it were so easy, people would be doing this all the time and they are not. 

Judges can't be disqualified from a case because of their ethnicity, or because of their ideology, or because you say things that are offensive to them or their ethnic group.

"Ethnicity" may seem to look like an old tactic to some.  For anyone who pays attention, it's not. 

If the judge is not on record with ANY anti-Trump comment, the tactic is bullsh*t.  That's a technical legal term, FYI.    

Journalists are not asking him the right questions to back him into a corner! This is what I would ask:

1. The fact that he has ruled against you several times is not on its face reason to believe that he is biased. Judges rule based on the law. Can you allow for the idea that the law was not on your side in each of the motions on which he ruled against you?

2. Can you specify : On which motions did the judge rule incorrectly in your view? What is the legal basis for your argument? If you maintain that the judge is biased, what legal principles is he violating? 

3. When litigants believe a judge has ruled incorrectly due to bias, they file a motion for recusal. Did your lawyers file a motion for recusal? If not, why not?

4. You have said that "everyone" tells you that the judge has ruled incorrectly. Can you name these people? Who has told you that the judge is incorrect on the law?

5. As a non-lawyer, do you believe you know more about the law than a federal judge?

ETA:

6. What you are talking about is not an issue facing the electorate. Why are you making a personal business issue as part of your campaign for president of the U.S.?

You wouldn't get your fourth word out before he cut you off and started talking about his wall.

Someone has to go straight at him with their own lies.  How they have $13B to his $10B.  How they invented the game of golf.  That they actually built the Great wall of China and thus have more expertise than him.  Fantastic lies that noone believes but make him feel both small and mocked.  

nohero said:

mjh said:

Robert_Casotto said:

This is an old tactic.  Insult the Judge, have Judge issue deleterious ruling, then motion for a new Judge. This ain't Trump's first time at the rodeo.

No, it's not.  And it's not going to work.  If it were so easy, people would be doing this all the time and they are not. 

Judges can't be disqualified from a case because of their ethnicity, or because of their ideology, or because you say things that are offensive to them or their ethnic group.

"Ethnicity" may seem to look like an old tactic to some.  For anyone who pays attention, it's not. 

If the judge is not on record with ANY anti-Trump comment, the tactic is bullsh*t.  That's a technical legal term, FYI.   "> 

There actually is precedent here, and it's very unfavorable to Trump.

A 1998 case, Macdraw Inc. v. CIT Equipment Financing, featuring this from the lawyers:

Mr. Klayman [of Judicial Watch fame] and Mr. Orfanedes became concerned that because the Court was a recent appointee of President Clinton … and Mr. Klayman had been prominently mentioned in the media for his role in the Commerce Department case, which focused in part on the White House, the Democratic National Committee, John Huang, Melinda Yee, and other persons in the Asian and Asian–American communities, and because the lawsuit had elicited such angry responses from the White House, Democrats and the Asian–American community, that the Court might be angry at them and unable to be fair and impartial ...

In response, the judge barred these lawyers from ever appearing in his courtroom again, required that they show this sanction to any judge in his district they appeared before, and reported the sanction to every court they held bar membership. On appeal to the Second Circuit, this sanction was upheld.

Via The Problem With Calling Out Judges for Their Race