TRUMP’S CASE AGAINST THE JUDGE IS “TRUMPT UP”

…A frustrated Trump

 

Why, once again, Donald Trump is getting 4 Pinocchio’s for what he is saying about the Judge.

 

OK folks, it’s time for a little lesson in US law and an understanding as to why Donald Trump is getting another 4 Pinocchio’s for what he is saying about the Judge and his Trump University case.

 

As is usual, Donald Trump is greatly stretching the facts to the point of Four-Pinocchio inaccuracy.

 

Now, we can’t fact-check whether Judge Curiel has a bias against Trump.  That is only Trump’s personal opinion.  However, what is clear is that Judge Curiel made a straightforward legal judgment as to whether the two sides have agreed or disagreed on the facts, and whether the case should be presented to a jury.

 

Now, Trump says the case should have been ended with a “summary judgment”, but the reality is that fewer than 10% of federal court cases between 1975 and 2000 were ever resolved via a summary judgement.

 

Judges make this decision only for very narrow circumstances, and it is a way for filtering out cases that should not be taken to a jury. Trump is also conveniently overlooking that Curiel, in his November 2015 ruling, did grant Trump a “partial summary judgment”.

 

Trump can disagree with the judge’s decision all he wants, but Curiel didn’t really have a choice because: The students that brought the lawsuits provided evidence that could dispute Trump’s reason for requesting a summary judgment. So Curiel had to do his job.  He had to let the case go forward to a jury.

 

So, all the noise about the judge being unfair to Trump is all a pile of B.S. and once again Trump has properly earned his Four Pinocchio’s.

 

Here are the basics of what is going on with this case.

 

When a judge grants a “summary judgment”, it’s usually for a narrow and straightforward issue, this is according to Kevin Johnson, the dean of the University of California at Davis School of Law.

 

For example, a judge may grant a summary judgement if someone is suing a defendant who has been given immunity from that specific lawsuit. “In any kind of complex factual case, it’s very hard to get a summary judgment,” Johnson said. “The Supreme Court has made it clear that only in certain, limited cases will summary judgment be granted.… We have a Constitution that requires civil cases to be submitted to a jury if there’s enough fact and enough dispute — that’s a pretty important right to most people.”

Trump says this case “should have ended years ago on a summary judgment.” But as previously stated, less than 10% of cases would even qualify for a summary judgement..

 

Further, out of the total number of federal cases since 1975, summary judgments were granted in part or in full for less than 15% of all cases. In cases where they qualified for such a motion, summary judgments were only “fully granted” in less than 40% of the time.  That means that over 60% of those that did qualify, only received a “partial summary judgement”, such as the one the judge gave Trump.

 

“The findings offer solid evidence that a summary judgment is a weak filter designed to resolve only the most lopsided of cases where no reasonable jury could find for the other side,” said David Engstrom, Stanford University law professor and expert in civil procedure. “Unless the case is a slam dunk for one side or the other, a summary judgment is not appropriate.”

 

In fact, Trump’s own defense team has said that Judge Curiel “is doing his job” and that they had no plans for filing a motion for the judge to be recused from the case.

 

Lead Trump defense attorney, Daniel Petrocelli told reporters after a pre-trial hearing in San Diego that Judge Curiel was doing a “good job of trying to balance out competing interests” by pushing the trial date to the end of November.  This was done by the judge so that the case did not interfere with Trump’s presidential campaign.  (And that’s being “unfair to Trump”…?)  It must also be said that the false report about the claim that Judge Curiel is affiliated with a pro-immigrant group has been totally debunked.

 

Judge Curiel did actually granted a partial summary judgment for the Trump U case. The former students doing the suing, had made an array of claims in the 2010 lawsuit, including one requesting an injunction against Trump and Trump University from selling the same services so that the same thing can’t happen again in the future.

 

But Trump asked for a summary judgment, since Trump University had stopped enrolling students after July 2010.  In addition, Trump U isn’t selling the same seminars or mentorships anymore. Curiel granted Trump that partial summary judgment and dismissed that particular claim.

 

However, for other claims, Curiel dismissed Trump’s request for a summary judgment because he found a genuine factual dispute between the parties.

 

For example, the former students claimed that Trump and Trump University used deceptive practices and misrepresentation in advertisements, thereby violating consumer protection and business laws in California, Florida and New York. One of the “core” misrepresentations Trump made, they claimed, was that they would be “taught by real estate experts who were ‘hand-selected’ by Trump”.

 

Trump asked the judge to throw out that claim by granting him a summary judgment, saying he never personally misrepresented the program to those individual students.

 

But the students disagreed, showing actual advertisements featuring Trump’s statements such as, “You’ll learn inside secrets from me” and from my hand-picked instructors.” Plus, these ads were shown to have been reviewed and approved by Trump himself.

 

So Curiel had to deny Trump’s motion — since the two sides disagreed on the basic facts.  Just this one fact requires that the case must to go to a jury trial.

 

The two sides now have to argue their case before a jury.

 

So, Mr. Trump, please enjoy your Four Pinocchio’s as all your claims about Judge Curiel being unfair is a bunch of Bull.

 

Copyright G.Ater  2016