Adding another twist to arguably what any reasonable person would consider a travesty of justice – or certainly an abuse of judicial powers in the Trump University class action lawsuit case, Horn News recently learned that the law firm dragging Trump University through the mud has deep financial ties to the Clinton’s — and has paid them a fortune in speaking fees.
Rachael Stockman of LawNewz.com. reported, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, the law firm behind the class action suit, has paid the Clinton’s $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 alone.
Hillary Clinton gave a $225,000 speech at the law firm as recently as September 4, 2014,” according to Stockman’s report. “Bill Clinton also gave a speech for the same fee back in 2013, and another one in 2009 before the firm had been renamed (they used to be called Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP).
Judge Orders Unsealing of Documents
On Monday May 31, 2016, indicating what appears to be further high-level corruption in the judicial trial process of the Trump University case, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel responding to requests from the Washington Post, abused his judicial powers, by ordering the unsealing of confidential documentary evidence in the case. (see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5.2)
It is very unusual – very unethical for a judge to release sealed documentary evidence in a civil case prior to its admittance at trial.
It is not clear what motivated Curiel’s very unethical decision to unseal the documents. Several media sources have reported that the judge has retaliated against Trump for numerous disparaging statements Trump has recently promulgated against Curiel.
However, Curiel’s decision may have resulted from pressure from the Obama administration. Obama appointed Curiel to his Federal judiciary position early in 2012.
What has not been reported is that it is highly unethical for a judge to order the unsealing of sealed documents to the public – especially a news agency when the legal purpose of sealing the documentary evidence is to prevent a perspective jury to form an opinion of guilt or innocence of a defendant in a case prior to the trial of the matter.
According to Politico, under the threat of disbarment from the American Bar Association Curiel issued a resealing order to reseal the documentary evidence on Tuesday night, conveniently and very suspiciously, far too late to prevent media outlets from obtaining the confidential information.
In a pathetic attempt to justify his unethical behavior, Curiel incorrectly asserted Trump’s lawyers had not met the bar to keep the documents sealed.
Curiel on Wednesday ordered Trump’s lawyers to file redacted copies of the documentary evidence by Thursday so the evidence can be made public again.
Curiel’s ordering the sealing of documentary evidence after the same had been released to the general public serves absolutely no purpose – the damage has already been achieved. The judge is obviously a very confused or a very stupid individual.
Curiel further implicated himself for possible disbarment by trying to justify his order to reseal the documents claiming that he “mistakenly” listed some of the documents to be released in full, when they should have been edited to delete personal information, Politico reported.
The Release of a Former Employee’s Sworn Declaration has caused Bias in the Trump University Case
The most damaging document that was released was a sworn declaration by a former employee of the Trump University alleging that Trump University was basically a sham school that defrauded its students.
The declaration has gone viral with just about every news agency, social media site, and blog in the world reporting on and publishing it.
Additionally, it has recently been discovered that the declarant – former employee of Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg knowingly swore to false information in his declaration due to the threat of prosecution in a “astroturfing’ investigation conducted by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Trump’s lawyers would be within their legal rights to demand a mistrial on grounds of the judge’s obvious bias and the highly likely probability that it will be almost impossible to find a jury who is not familiar with the declaration.
However this case turns out, Curiel rightfully should be held accountable for his deliberate abuse of his judicial powers. In addition, to allow the case to continue would be a very serious and further abuse of Curiel’s judicial powers that would leave any verdict subjected to an automatic reversal on appeal.