A
judge presides over a case between a major beverage manufacturing corporation
and an individual claiming that the chemicals in the beverages caused him to
have stomach ulcers. After hearing both sides, the judge decreed that the
warning on the beverages is sufficient caution to individuals susceptible to
ulcers. He exonerates the beverage company. Incidentally the judge’s son in law
is on the board of directors of the beverage company.
The
judge responds: I have been a lawyer for
twenty long years and a judge for eleven years. I have been commended for my
impartiality. Do you think I should quit my job because my son in law happens
to be connected with the beverage company? I never talk about my cases with my
son in law. I acted independently.
----
A
judge presides over a case between the Israeli government and controversial Lebanese
political outfit who critics’ terms are a terrorist organization. The Lebanese
outfit claims that the Israeli government usurped their authority as it
patrolled the Israeli border that led to violent assault on the volunteers of
the Lebanese outfit. The judge orders that the Israeli government pay the Lebanese
outfit a handsome compensation. Incidentally the Judge was an active member of
the Free Palestine movement in the 70s and wrote several articles slamming
Israel as a terrorist state.
The
judge responds: Yes, I did participate in the free Palestine movement, but that
was decades ago. Ever since I have become a judge I have never participated in
any political movement. Kindly check my record. I have acted impartially.
-----
A
judge presides over a case between former contestant and the owner of a beauty pageant.
The former contestant claims she didn’t win the pageant because of her race. After
hearing both sides the judge favors the former contestant and orders the pageant
organizers to pay the former contestant half a million dollars as compensation.
Incidentally, the judge is a feminist and also the judge is a member a radical left-wing groups known for going overboard in claiming racial
discrimination.
The
judge responds: I am a feminist, women
have been oppressed for long and we are now fighting for our rights. I am
opposed to beauty pageants that has men ogling over women in bikinis. I support
the group that you term as ‘radical left wing’ that fights against racial
discrimination. Why would that disallow me from presiding over a case over my
social work? I always am unbiased.
----
We presume
that judicial appointments are made after a thorough examination of the
background of an individual regarding their understanding of the law, vast experience,
sound judgement and track record ethical conduct at the workplace and beyond. But
above soundness of the individual’s background is the matter of independence
that must be considered before presiding over a case. Independence comprises of
integrity, professional skepticism, intellectual honesty, objectivity and freedom
from conflicts of interest. The federal code of conduct states
that judges must not only be independent, but also must project the appearance
of independence.
Now for the recent Trump University civil litigation. The case was presided
by Judge Gonzalo Curiel. Curiel appointed the law firm
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd to represent a plaintiffs. Incidentally the firm is known to be a
supporter of the Democratic Party and has a long association with the Clintons.
According to lawnews.com the firm paid Bill
and Hillary Clinton a total of $675,000 for speeches since 2009. As recently as
September, 2014, Mrs. Clinton was paid a handsome $225,000 for a speech at the
firm. Robbins Geller has been aggressive in pursuing the case and pushing for
Trump to testify. The second firm selected by
Judge Curiel is Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck LLP. Incidentally this firm has a
senior partner who is a major contributor to the Obama campaign. She also
donated to the notorious MoveOn.org
that allegedly participated in disruption of Trump rallies. Judge Curiel is a
member of La Raza Lawyers that is associated
with the Hispanic National Bar
Association who had sent out a press release urging people to boycott of all of Trump business
ventures. One of the things Judge Curiel did is granting a
request by the Washington Post for
public release of certain documents that had been filed in the case.
As stated earlier, it is not
just independence but the perception of independence that is equally vital. The
choice of law firms for the plaintiff, the decision to release of documents about
the case to the media and the Curiel’s associations with La Raza certainly merit
questioning the independence of the preceding judge. Trump has every reason to
be suspicious of the fairness of Judge Curiel. It must be remembered that it is
in the interest of the Democrats, the Clintons and some indignant establishment
Republicans (who could not prevail against Trump in the primaries) that this
case run for a prolonged period of time during the election. They would want every
aspect of the case be covered extensively with the hope that a cloud of doubt
would engulf Trump. They tried every trick in the book during the primaries and
Trump prevailed to be the nominee. They know that have very little chance at
stopping Trump from becoming the next president, these are petty ploys
emanating out of sheer desperation to curb Trump phenomenon.
The only way to resolve this
will be for Judge Curiel to do is to recuse himself from the case. There also
needs to be a complete new review the case, the choice of law firms for the
plaintiff and the decision to share documents with the media.
It is essential that every
citizen respects the laws and has complete faith in the judiciary, but that
doesn’t make the law and the proceeding in the courts beyond reproach. The
courts are run by citizens with a purpose to serve the citizens and hence every
citizen must have the right to challenge the courts if they feel even a smidgen
of unfairness. Many have also noted that Trump could have easily settled these
matters out of court by paying what would have been small amounts by his
standards to the accusers. This is quite often ways that guilty parties deal
with their crimes. For example Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 as settlement after she filed a sexual harassment
suit against him. But instead Trump chose
to face them in court which clearly suggests that he knows that he has done
nothing wrong. The next thing to do for the Trump campaign is to
clearly state the issues with the case with to clear all doubts in the minds of
fair minded voters. This will put an end to all the baseless allegations and
will enable a focus back on vital issues such as the jobs, economy and
security.
Comments
Post a Comment