Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

How is he "clearly" biased when his rulings have been in accord with the law and are pretty much exactly what any other judge would have done?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

I thought he was biased because he was Mexican? I definitely remember hearing that many times.

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

This. Class action litigation is a complicated game in which lawyers select "representative plaintiffs," ie those whose individual facts make a good case, and then try to demonstrate that everyone else in the class has the same issues and similar enough facts that they can all be lumped together. If the class's contention is that Trump defrauded them and your representative plaintiff is going to testify to the opposite, you are committing malpractice if you don't seek to have her removed as plaintiff. When you represent the class, the suit isn't about you. It's about the class. The representative plaintiff is just an example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

You are repeating a lot of false statements.

Really?

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/392360308/california-judges-must-cut-ties-with-the-boy-scouts

As for the others:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/07/la-raza-judge-gonzalo-curiel-and-the-hispanic-national-bar-association/

Yes, really. Read the facts and law from objective legal experts:
Column Donald Trump actually has gotten a very fair shake from his 'Mexican' judge
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-judge-20160608-snap-story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Fair enough.

He is still biased, however. Clearly so. Especially given his financial ties to the Clintons

Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.

You misunderstand class-action litigation, just like Trump thinks you will, because it is complicated. Lead plaintiffs and class representatives can definitely be substituted, it happens all the time. You don't dismiss a class-action suit when the class has 1000 potentially defrauded plaintiffs because one wasn't the best choice to represent the class. If she had pursued an INDIVIDUAL lawsuit for fraud against Trump, then it may have been appropriate to dismiss. I say "may" because documents reveal that "students" had to complete said surveys in clear view of and under pressure from the "teachers." But that is not at all the same as a class action.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

You are repeating a lot of false statements.

Really?

http://www.npr.org/2015/03/16/392360308/california-judges-must-cut-ties-with-the-boy-scouts

As for the others:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/07/la-raza-judge-gonzalo-curiel-and-the-hispanic-national-bar-association/

Sotomayor is talking about the benefit of having some judges who have different experiences and insights, but she absolutely is not advocating prejudicial treatment or suggesting that judges interpret the law through their race or ethnicity or religion. Only Trump and the 10 Commandments judge in Alabama put race/religion/ethnicity above the law.

Anonymous wrote:Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

Those are not the facts and that is not the law. The judge has shown no bias. Only the defendant has acted dishonorably.

Anonymous wrote:Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

You are repeating a lot of false statements.

Anonymous wrote:

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

I believe being a Latina woman may be the single most deciding factor that President Obama picked her to be on the Supreme Court. President Bush attempted the same thing by nominating Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court. But he faced serious opposition from the democrats. Estrada withdrew his name from further consideration after twenty-eight months of waiting. "In July, 2010, in follow-up to her promise to Senator Graham, judge Kagan wrote a letter expressing her belief in Estrada's "superlative" qualifications for appointment to "any federal court," whether to the federal appellate or to the U.S. Supreme Court." So why he was opposed so fiercely? It's racial politics.

There is a difference between acknowledging that one's life experiences, influenced by one's heritage, can inform decisions and accusing someone of intentional bias because of one's heritage. But I suspect you already knew that.

Judges in CA are not allowed to be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America because of their stance towards gay people. This judge belongs to a group affiliated with the larger La Raza (which wants to take CA back for Mexico), belongs to a Hispanic lawyers group, and recused the original plaintiff for the case because she actually reviewed Trump U. well. Biased is EXACTLY what this judge is.

"Former student Tarla Makaeff, the original plaintiff in the litigation, not only completed multiple surveys rating Trump University’s three-day seminar “excellent” in every category, but also praised Trump University’s mentorship program in a glowing 5 plus minute video testimonial. When asked “how could Trump University help to meet [her] goals”, she simply stated “[c]ontinue to offer great classes.” Once the plaintiffs’ lawyers realized how disastrous a witness she was, they asked to have her removed from the case. Over my lawyers’ objections, the judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion, but allowed the case to continue.
"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two weeks ago liberals attack Trump because all his picks are white males question their ability to unbiased based on ethnicity

This week, they attack Trump because he questions a judges ability to be unbiased because of ethnicity

So you would have no problem if Hilary nominated nobody but white women for the supreme court? Most of us like to see ethnic, gender and religious diversity that reflects our nation's heterogeneous makeup.

Not the PP but your statement is incredibly racist. I want to see the best people for the job. To reject a White, Asian or Black person because "we need someone Hispanic now because of diversity" is mind-bogglingly racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our life experiences, the experiences of those close to us, no matter what race, have an effect on our points of view. This is no different for a judge, congressman, president or mom down the street, we are all human. The assumption is that people like judges can put their perceptions aside, but it gets blurry when those life experiences are part of the reason they are in their seat of power. I don't have the answer. I don't think DT is completely wrong in his opinion but I don't think he's completely right.

Right. Trump was merely reacting to unfair rulings by this particular judge. It's reasonable to question this judge's background could produce bias against him.

Guess Trump is unaware that in America, judges, like other people, have rights not to be disqualified from anything on account of traits including race, ethnicity, sex, or religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our life experiences, the experiences of those close to us, no matter what race, have an effect on our points of view. This is no different for a judge, congressman, president or mom down the street, we are all human. The assumption is that people like judges can put their perceptions aside, but it gets blurry when those life experiences are part of the reason they are in their seat of power. I don't have the answer. I don't think DT is completely wrong in his opinion but I don't think he's completely right.

Right. Trump was merely reacting to unfair rulings by this particular judge. It's reasonable to question this judge's background could produce bias against him.

First of all, there's no evidence the rulings were unfair. Second, there's no evidence that if they were, they had anything at all to do with racial bias. And third, the rulings he's talking about are barely even substantive. Deciding that a case should go to trial rather than be dismissed on summary judgment is actually more conservative ruling, in a legal (not political) sense. It's the default; it's what should happen if there is any doubt at all in the judge's mind. It's not like the judge is deciding issues against Trump. He is saying he is NOT going to decide the factual issue and is going to let a jury do so.

I work in an administrative court. Every appellant who loses his case claims his judge was biased against him. The reasons for the bias range from gender, race, religion (Trump's standard playbook) to creative stuff like "hates veterans" or "hates federal employees" (an interesting one since the judges are also federal employees).

If the judge was biased and it affected his rulings, the case will be reversed on appeal. That is what the appellate process is for. Trump, like every other litigant, should let it play out the way it's supposed to. Real bias that prejudices the proceedings is extremely rare, particularly in civil cases.