TRUMP, JUDGE CURIEL, AND AN AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE
Trump believes that Judge Gonzalo Curiel has misbehaved in court. If Trump thinks he has been mistreated due to his policy of building a wall on the Mexican border, he has a right to ask the Obama-appointed, Mexican-American Judge to get off the case. In fact, Curiel should never have taken the case in the first place. Updated on 6/10/2016.
As will be discussed further below, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who is Mexican-American) says that Donald Trump should not be criticized for raising questions about another Mexican-American (Gonzalo Curiel) judge’s impartiality in a lawsuit accusing the mogul of fraud in his Trump University program. This case is a political hit job that is unjustly pullng Trump down in the polls. On the matrix below the axis term is PREJUDICE. It requires a row skip of 3 to see TRUMP, but the two do not intersect which may suggest that the term does not describe him. IN JUDGEMENT is in the open text, and PRESIDENT is at skip -1. Trump should have filed an Affidavit of Prejudice/Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge as I once did with an anti-Semitic judge. This article will describe the process that I went through to win a custody battle for my son in 1984, and it also discusses what Trump needs to do to succeed.
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MATRIX. As per my standard protocol, no statistical significance is assigned to the axis term, here PREJUDICE at its 2nd lowest skip in wrapped Torah. The primary a priori word sought was TRUMP. Odds against it being on the 864-letter matrix before factoring in ELS rank 2 of the axis term were about 118 to 1. TRUMP is shown at its lowest skip in Torah, but no extra value is assigned to that. I would have accepted JUDGE, JUDGES or JUDGEMENT for the next word sought. I found IN JUDGEMENT in the open text. Odds against finding one of these terms in the open text were about 3.76 to 1. The reason why it so was so easy to find one of these terms is that the Torah is the Jewish book of Law. I found PRESIDENT at a special case skip (defined as +/- 1 or the skip of the axis term) against odds of about 4.4 to 1. Overall, after factoring in ELS rank 2 of the axis term, the matrix exists against odds of about 954 to 1. However, I didn't set out to try to prove the Torah Code correct here. Rather, I chose to write this article to make clear my beliefs about when an Affidavit of Prejudice (also known as an Affidavit in Support of his Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge) shoul be filed. My experience with one is given below. My case (which I won) was covered in the world's press, samples of which can be found at the following links:
|Spiritual Custody Case – Initial press coverage in the Miami Herald, pages 1B and 2B, Sunday, March 18, 1984.|
|Final Miami Herald Press Coverage of Friday, September 21, 1984. Pages 1 and 20A.|
EXTRACT FROM MY BOOK, A MATTER OF SPIRITUAL CUSTODY:
Note: This story is the true story of a five-year custody battle that I fought for my older son between 1979 and 1984. With respect to the names of characters below, I had altered my son's first name for his protection when he was young. He is now, however, a 39-year old Orthodox rabbi, and his name is now given correctly below. Judge Hickey was the real judge. The attorney names on my side are real. The name was altered for my ex-wife's lawyer. Her first name was also altered to Carmen in my book, but it was actually Maria. Her new name after she remarried is not correct below, and I will not reveal it.
LEAD UP TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE THAT I FILED AGAINST JUDGE HICKEY IN MIAMI IN 1984.
On August 9th, we all filed back into the courtroom again so Schmidt could argue his 35 exceptions to the general master’s report. As the court reporter set up, Hickey looked out at me and sarcastically said, “You again! I remember trying this case years ago. You’re the fellow who ran off to Israel for a year and left his wife and child without any support! What are you shaking your head about?”
“Your Honor,” I answered, “Your memory is in error. I took a six-week vacation in Israel, not a year’s leave, some five months after my ex left me, taking the child and essentially denying me almost all visitation.”
“I knew it was something like that,” Hickey angrily replied. “I want everybody present to know that I have no intention of making any decision here based on religious matters. I didn’t consider religion when I made my original ruling, and I don’t care about it now. I think this whole thing is a disgrace, especially you, young man, putting a child Bobbie’s age up on the pulpit to preach. I want both sides to understand that I will not receive any new testimony today. We are here to discuss law, and I want all sides to focus on that alone. Now, Mr. Schmidt, I believe that these exceptions are yours. You may begin.”
“I’ve cited a number of important cases in my brief, Your Honor,” Schmidt began, “and as you have undoubtedly read by now, there are a number of cases to show that the wishes of a child Bobbie’s age do not have to be considered when awarding custody. The boy is barely beyond what is normally termed tender years, and he’s certainly not close to being twelve, the age when a child has the right, within reason, to specify to a court where he wishes to reside. More, the findings of the general master are a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. This order is insane! How would Your Honor like someone to come into your house and demand that you keep a kosher home? This order will produce the further alienation of the boy from his mom by demanding that he eat food that is different from what she would eat! On top of all this, when you originally awarded primary residency to the mother, you gave the father liberal visitation; but with this order, the mother goes from having primary residency down to having the child with her only 25 hours per week. Why should the mother be so restricted now? What’s more, there’s no provision here for holidays or summer visitation beyond one day per week. What you are doing with this order is to reward the father for alienating the boy from his mother. If the father has been so successful in turning the child against his mother with his current visitation, imagine how much more he will destroy the mother-son relationship when her time with the boy is reduced to one day per week! Then there’s the issue of what religion the boy should be. The attempt to admit testimony from the mohel in the form of a deposition was denied by General Master Dixon. There’s not one shred of evidence in admission with this Court to show that the mother ever promised to raise this boy in the Jewish faith. In fact, in Jewish law it’s the mother who determines the religion of the child, not the father. Indeed, that’s what Mr. Roffman told my client when they met.
“Your Honor, we’ve just received the report of the H.R.S. social worker on this case, and it fully reveals what type of man Mr. Roffman is. I quote: “This reporter has spent some 25 years interviewing children for the Dade County courts. In all that time, I cannot ever remember meeting a child so brainwashed as this one. The father must spend every waking moment with the child indoctrinating him as to his ideas about religion, women and marriage. The father has stated to this writer that this child is the only child there at the synagogue and consequently he is thrown in with adults. The child uses the Torah for his own benefit. He says Torah tells him that he cannot eat bacon and ham, but when asked by me if Torah says anything about honoring thy father and thy mother, the conversation was instantly changed to another subject. The sadness in this case is that the child’s viewpoint has been so distorted about what is right and what is wrong, what is a child’s responsibility and what is an adult’s responsibility, that if he does not get some therapy as quickly as possible there may be some long-range damage done to him. At this point whatever the father does is perfectly all right with Bobbie, but anything the mother does is going to be wrong.
“These, Your Honor, are my strongest exceptions to the Order and Report of the General Master. The others are listed in my brief along with numerous relevant cases to show the error of the report from a legal viewpoint.” Schmidt then rested.
“Lapidus, how say you?” the judge asked.
“Well, as you have seen, Your Honor, we’ve found our own relevant cases, especially Vazquez vs. Vazquez, a 1983 Florida case that bears a great deal of similarity to this one. There the court found that the original agreement between parents that could be documented could not be overturned with the conversion of one of the parents to a new faith. Bobbie Roffman was circumcised with a brith milah, and the court file from 1981 includes a copy of the circumcision certificate.”
“I don’t see what’s the big deal about the boy being circumcised. Lots of people are circumcised and it doesn’t prove anything,” the judge asserted.
“You don’t understand, Your Honor,” Bennett replied. “It is true that many Christian baby boys are now circumcised, but a brith milah is a religious ceremony, not a mere medical procedure. Bobbie was circumcised by a member of the Jewish clergy, not by a doctor. And as for the social worker’s report, the bottom line states: The recommendation of the psychologist should be heeded! Well, the court-appointed psychologist plainly recommended that primary residency should be, on a trial basis, vested with the father!”
“I have your briefs, and I don’t think I need to hear anymore today. Mr. Schmidt, have you brought a transcript of the hearing before General Master Dixon for me to review?” Hickey asked.
“I have, Your Honor. Here it is.”
“I’m going on vacation tomorrow so I won’t get to this for some time. Mr. Roffman, I don’t want you calling my secretary and pestering her about my decision as you have in the past. I’ll give you my answer sometime in the future. Good day.”
At that, the hearing broke up and I just sat there with a very empty feeling. So much of what the judge had said seemed so unfair, downright bigoted in fact. Bennett saw it the same way, especially the judge’s opening remarks. Still, the attorney was optimistic that Schmidt wouldn’t be able to show clearly erroneous which was necessary to overturn Dixon’s recommendations.
The conversation shifted to the Archdiocese of Miami. I wanted to know if my attorney had heard anything from the Church. He hadn’t, so I asked him to prepare the suit against them. “Are you crazy?” Bennett asked, “You can’t beat the Vatican! Besides, Hickey is still on the case!”
“I told you before . . . there’s more to this case than Bobbie alone. Rome has defecated on me, my family and my people, and now they probably think they’ve gotten away with it because they haven’t heard from us in weeks. I want my pound of flesh,” I said.
“You want to sue the Church," Bennett said, “Sue them! You know how to write pleadings and lawsuits by now. If I file the thing, I’ll lose all my Catholic clients.”
“When I hired you, I told you that I wanted you to handle both the custody issue and the Church problem,” I argued.
“I’m sorry. I can’t recommend that you sue the Church at this time, and I don’t care about any contingency fee that may or may not be ten years off by the time this thing hits the Supreme Court.”
“All right,” I said, “I’ll wait a few more weeks. But come September if I don’t get any satisfaction, I’m gonna file. It’ll take me a few weeks to put the suit together anyway. Can I count on you to at least answer my questions while I write the thing?”
Bennett told me that I could, within limits. “Are you gonna use that Holocaust stuff?” the attorney wanted to know. The answer, of course, was “yes.”
“Don’t you realize,” Bennett then asked, “that the majority of any jury is likely to be Christian?”
I knew that, but figured that Christian didn’t necessarily mean Catholic. There were many Protestants who were just as opposed to the Vatican as I was. With a little luck and creative jury selection, I hoped to land that type Christian along with a few Jews on the jury. My attack would be against the papacy, not Catholics or Christianity itself.
“But why include the Nazi connection?” Bennett asked.
“To win the way I want to win I have to go for punitive damages. One priest throwing water on a kid’s head is, by itself, not worth much, let alone six million dollars. To go for a symbolic figure like that I’ve got to demonstrate that what was done was part of a continuing war that the Vatican has conducted against the Jews. From the First Crusade in 1096 through Torquemada’s Spanish Inquisition of 1492 to the 1569 order to expel Jews from Papal States to the Papal Concordat with Hitler, Jewish persecution has been a favorite Papal pastime. This pope even invited Arafat, archenemy of the Jews, to Rome. He won’t recognize Israel as a sovereign nation, but the P.L.O., with a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel . . . the P.L.O., supreme terrorist organization of the world, he will! Vatican persecution of the Jews is not ancient history. It is, on the part of Rome, an ongoing process, and it is for this reason that I think the courts will be open to giving Rome a symbolic kick in the gluteus maximus. By the way, speaking of a kick in the posterior, in the 1800’s that’s what the pope did to the chief rabbi of Rome in public every Easter because we haven’t accepted Christ.”
Bennett remained unconvinced, but Steve Busker was not. He wanted to help, but advised me to get an expert in Constitutional law to give me a hand. Both attorneys warned me again not to do anything rash.
A few weeks passed. I continued to boil over the remarks that Hickey had made. I called the B’nai Brith Anti-defamation League and the A.C.L.U. about the comments to find out if there wasn’t some way to get the judge off the bench. B’nai Brith was no help at all, but the A.C.L.U. promised to take the case if the judge ruled against me, for they too saw the remarks as bigoted. Still, I wasn’t content to just sit and wait.
Bob Finnerty, my old friend, was an expert in his own right when it came to filing legal pleadings. He flew into town on the way to a gambling paraphernalia convention at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach. After hearing my story he suggested that I file an Affidavit of Prejudice with the Court.
“Your lawyer won’t tell you this,” Bob said, “because the Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge is an insult to any judge. Attorneys don’t like to tick off men they must plead cases before over and over again, but most judges will honor the Motion and get off the case right away. Do it. Hickey’ll fold. I can almost guarantee it.
I took the idea to my attorneys. They thought it made good sense, but as Finnerty had suggested, they wanted no part in the Motion themselves. It would have to be drawn up by me, though Bennett promised to accompany me to court to deliver it.
There was a problem about witnesses to the remarks that had to be overcome before the thing might fly. Still, Bennett promised to do his best to get the judge to accept the Motion based on “the equities of the situation." He felt that Hickey would probably go along with it because, as a politician, he was uncomfortable with a case this controversial.
THE AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE THAT I FILED.
A hearing on the Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge was set for September 18th. I hadn’t been idle as that date approached. I had not only prepared the Motion, but a hundred-page lawsuit to be filed against the Church, naming everyone from the priest who had carried out the baptism right up to the Pope himself. The suit was ready by September 14th. I wasted no time in phoning the Herald and the attorneys for the Archdiocese to tell them that it was going to be filed on September 24th unless the baptism was annulled by that day at 9:00 a.m. I made certain that Fitzpatrick understood the thrust of my attack would be to link the Vatican to the Holocaust and promised to rip the Church wide open with new evidence. In reality, all I had was what had already been filed in my custody proceedings, but I thought that was more than enough to do the job, and it was best to keep my opponent off guard. Anyway, if a cursory search of the 1933 New York Times microfilm copies could reveal so much, it was almost certain that the Church itself was sitting on far more incriminating evidence that it had to fear might leak out one day.
On Monday, September 17th, I called Fitzpatrick back to remind him that his Church had seven days to comply. On Tuesday, the 18th, I called again to tell him it was now down to six days.
Tuesday was also “D Day” (or Dump Hickey Day) for me. Only four people showed up to see the judge: Karl Schmidt, Maria, Bennett Lapidus, and I.
Bennett was first to speak. “Your Honor,” he began, “My client’s here today with an Affidavit in Support of his Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge. Before he speaks, and I want to make clear that this is his doing, I would like to address some problems that I’m sure Mr. Schmidt will bring up. As Your Honor is aware, in Florida Civil law there are two witnesses required to support accusations of prejudicial remarks made by a judge if the strict letter of the law is to be followed. The equity of the situation, however, demands that civil procedure be set aside. On the day that the alleged remarks were made by you, there were no witnesses save myself, my associates, and Mr. Schmidt, all attorneys, prohibited by the statute from serving as witnesses. Mrs. Estavan was present, but she can hardly be called as a witness by our side. There was a court reporter, but we ask you to spare Mr. Roffman the expense of requiring a transcript. Instead, we ask that you do justice to the Motion by searching your own memory as to what transpired that day. Mr. Roffman, tell the judge why you want to disqualify him.”
I took a deep breath to get up the courage and then began. “Your Honor, as I stated in my Affidavit, I fear that I may not receive a fair decision in this proceeding due to apparent prejudice or bias on your part.”
“How so?” the judge asked.
“There are six points I would like to address.”
“Proceed,” Hickey said.
“You stated at the onset of the last hearing that you remembered trying the case originally. You then falsely accused me of abandoning my wife and child to run off to Israel for a year. When I corrected you and told you that some five months after my wife left me, I took a six-week vacation in Israel to calm my nerves, you said, Oh well, I knew it was something like that. Needless to say, there is a vast difference between a man abandoning his family for a year, and a man taking a six-week vacation five months after his wife has left him. I would add that I sent child support payments for my boy while I was in Israel. You acted like there were no differences between the two situations and you unfairly implied that I was negligent in my family responsibilities. That was my first concern. Second, you said at the onset of the hearing that you wouldn’t consider religion in this case. Yet, as the press and the court-appointed psychologist have pointed out, religion is at the very core of this case. Dr. Goldberg has testified that the child in question has been beaten and deprived of food by his mother. The boy wishes to practice the religion that his mother swore before God Almighty to raise him in at his ritual circumcision or brith milah. His mother and stepfather have conducted nothing short of a religious war against him. You can no more overlook religion in this case than you can in any other religious war. It is the sole problem that brought us here. Third, you stated in reference to ritual circumcision that, lots of people are circumcised.”
“Well, they are,” Hickey retorted.
“That’s true, but not by a member of the Jewish clergy for religious reasons. Circumcision is one of the cardinal precepts of the Jewish faith. It’s been central to our religion ever since God instructed our forefather Abraham to make it a sign of the covenant between Him, God that is, and the Jewish people. You seemed to downgrade the entire practice to a simple medical procedure. We don’t circumcise for medical reasons in Judaism. We do it as an act of our faith and love for God. If a Jew has the sign of God inscribed there, and understands what it means, he is reminded of God before he uses it to draw a soul into the world. This makes him less likely to commit an act of adultery, homosexuality, or incest. It tells him the purpose for all sexual pleasure.
“Fourth, you stated that you thought it was a disgrace that I would have Bobbie preach from the pulpit. You thus implied that my son has no right to freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”
“That’s your interpretation,” Hickey complained.
“Yes, it is,” I said, “and it’s my son’s interpretation, too. Anyway, he doesn’t preach. He sings Hebrew prayers to our God, and I believe that the Constitution guarantees him that right.
“Fifth, you said at the onset of the last hearing that you wouldn’t receive testimony. That wasn’t only fair. It was mandated by the agreement reached between all parties before General Master Dixon when both sides stipulated to a decision based solely on the testimony of psychologists Goldberg and Gray. I waived a very large list of witnesses in agreeing to that. Mr. Schmidt knew full well what he was doing, too, and so did Mrs. Estavan. But you violated both your own instructions and our stipulation agreement by allowing Mr. Schmidt to read to the Court from the social worker’s report. That report was never admitted as evidence, nor did we get the chance to cross-examine the man that wrote it. I’d like you to know that the writer of the report had told me that he had seen my indictment of the Vatican before he came to my house on the day he interviewed my family. Further he told me he was Catholic and he implied he was upset that I would link the Vatican with the Holocaust. He then proceeded to argue theology with my seven-year-old son as is evident by the Torah remarks that are included in his report. Finally, Your Honor, you said at the conclusion of the August 9th hearing that you’d give us your answer sometime in the future. From the tone of your voice, you seemed to suggest that you might table the decision for a long, long time.”
“Don’t you think I’m entitled to a vacation?” Hickey asked sarcastically.
“Yes, you’re entitled. But it’s now been forty days since the hearing and, unfortunately, my son can’t take a vacation from the persecution he’s suffering in his mother’s home. You’ve had almost seven weeks to review the transcripts. Have you done so?”
“No,” the judge admitted, “I seem to have lost them right after the hearing. I asked my secretary to look for them, but she hasn’t come up with them yet. Mr. Schmidt, can you get me another copy?”
“Certainly, Your Honor,” the attorney answered.
“The general master,” I said, “after having heard the facts, ruled that it was neither desirable nor safe to leave Bobbie in the care of his mother for more than one day per week. He reached that decision on June 29th, some twelve weeks ago, and yet this matter drags on and on and you don’t know where you’ve placed the transcripts seven weeks ago. My kid’s going nuts while this Court drags its feet. For all these reasons, I respectfully request that you step down from the case and let the chief judge assign it to another judge. Thank you for hearing me out.”
“Mr. Schmidt, have you got something to say about this matter?” the judge asked.
“I think it’s absolutely outrageous that that man can come in here and make such obscene accusations against a man who is as respected on the bench as Your Honor is. I sat here on that day and I remember nothing of what he says. I think he must have a very active imagination and persecution complex, both of which are indicative of why he shouldn’t have custody of the child in question. And as for his having the right to come in here in the first place, as Mr. Lapidus has pointed out, two witnesses are required. Where are they? Mr. Roffman hasn’t even supplied the transcripts from the hearing in question. Why hasn’t he supplied them? Because he knows damn well that they’ll show nothing of what’s been alleged here today. And then there’s the issue of my client’s interests. My fee is $150 per hour. Who’s going to pay my client’s added expense to go all through a repeat of the last hearing with another judge? Mr. Roffman? I doubt it! It’s unfair to ask my client to pay for another hearing. I would add, that after having read Mr. Roffman’s Affidavit, that it doesn’t comply with the Florida Statutes which state that the petitioner must state that, and I quote, the filer fears that he WILL not receive a fair decision. Mr. Roffman states only that he fears he MAY not receive a proper decision. MAY is not the same as WILL. Thus the affidavit is improper.”
The judge took off his glasses and gave me a hard look. “Mr. Roffman,” he said, “Although I’m not prejudiced against your case or your religion, I’m going to grant your Motion.” With these words I felt a surge of relief rush through my whole body. The judge continued: “Both of you are fighting for your child, and whoever loses will probably think I was wrong, but if you already think so, then I’ll step down so you’ll believe that you can get a fair decision. I’ll have you know that my daughter is married to a Jewish attorney. I have nothing against Jews. For all you or I know, I might’ve well ruled in your favor. Mr. Lapidus, draw up the necessary papers, and I’ll see to it that the case is reassigned.”
With tears of joy in my eyes, I said, “Thank you, Your Honor,” and the hearing was over.
Schmidt was furious as we left the room. “Put a muzzle on your client,” he urged Bennett.
He’s listed as a co-counselor, and he’s a damn good one at that,” Bennett beamed.
“I never know who I’m fighting with in this case!” Schmidt barked.
“You’re fighting with us both. We’re a team,” Bennett said. With that we parted while Schmidt continued to mumble to himself. After almost five long years, I was free of Hickey and the case was reassigned to Judge Gerstein.
Luck, after years behind a cloud, had finally emerged to shine on me with a warm and loving smile. For at the very moment I was being freed from the bondage of Hickey’s decrees, John Fitzpatrick was meeting with Archbishop McCarthy to warn him of my upcoming suit.
On June 6, 2016 Fox New Latino published the following:
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that Donald Trump should not be criticized for raising questions about a Latino judge’s impartiality in a lawsuit accusing the mogul of fraud in his Trump University program.
Gonzales, who served as White House counsel and U.S. attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, said that while a judge should not be questioned about his ability or integrity based on race or ethnicity alone, Trump does have basis for concern about Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s ability to treat him fairly.
Unlike many other prominent Republicans who have denounced Trump's comments about Curiel, in a recent Washington Post op-ed, Gonzales said the California-based federal judge has had ties to organizations that appear to have taken clear positions on immigration and even on Trump himself.
Trump has argued that Curiel is Mexican and that, because of his ethnicity, he would not be fair in the court case against the real estate tycoon, whose presidential campaign has revolved on cracking down on illegal immigration and building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Curiel was born in Indiana to Mexican parents. His defenders have said he has a distinguished record in the judicial system and never has exhibited any bias against Trump. They also say that Trump’s focus on the judge’s ethnic heritage is nothing short of bigotry.
Gonzales on Monday tried to explain his defense of Trump’s raising questions about the judge, saying he did not condone the focus on the judge’s Latino origin.
“I’m not supporting Donald Trump’s comments,” he said Monday on CNN. "I didn’t write what I wrote in support of his comments. I didn’t write what I wrote in support of the notion that the judge should be recused solely on his race.”
Gonzales added, “I wrote to say Donald Trump, like every litigant in the United States, has the right to a fair trial before an impartial judge.”
In his op-ed, Gonzales wrote about Trump’s critics, “These voices have, quite rightly, emphasized the importance of upholding our independent judiciary from baseless attacks by high-level persons from other branches of government.”
By the same token, Gonzales said, Trump has the right as any other American to raise concerns about the appearance of unfairness or bias.
“Equally important, if not more important from my perspective as a former judge and U.S. attorney general, is a litigant’s right to a fair trial,” Gonzales wrote. “If judges and the trials over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will quickly lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based.”
Trump has said that Curiel belongs to various Latino organizations, including La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, that are affiliated with other groups that oppose Trump as well as strict immigration policies.
“These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered,” wrote Gonzales, who had endorsed John Kasich in the GOP primary before the Ohio governor dropped out of the race.
THE BOTTOM LINE ON WHEN TO USE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE. The Washington Post, in an attempt to refute Alberto Gonzales, states, “There is no indication that Trump’s lawyers have sought Curiel’s recusal for alleged partiality.” However, as my Catholic friend Bob Finnerty told me when he suggested that I file the Affidavit against a Catholic judge while I was also moving to sue the Archdiocese of Miami for six million dollars; the Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge is an insult to any judge. Attorneys don’t like to tick off men they must plead cases before over and over again, but most judges will honor the Motion and get off the case right away.”
I was suing the Church because they baptized my then 7-year old son against his wishes and mine. The judge was aware of my fight with the Church (his Church). By his words and actions he had made it abundantly clear to me that I was not getting a fair hearing. His daughter may have been married to a Jew, but he never indicated that he was happy about it.
It is proper for a judge to recuse himself or herself whenever a litigant appears before him or her that is actively involved in fighting his or her religion, or ethnic group. So, had if a judge is a Jew who asked to preside over a trial where a Nazi is suing a Jewish business, that judge should also recuse himself or herself and pass the case over to a non-Jew. In the case of Judge Hickey, I’m not sure if he was aware of how obnoxious he was toward me until I spelled it out for him.
Now, with respect to Donald Trump and Judge Curiel, I’m not sure about exactly what words were spoken or done by the judge to so enrage Trump, but whatever they were they were likely bad enough to put enough doubt into Trump’s mind as to risk giving the Democrats a new issue. There are reports that when it comes to politics, Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd, the law firm behind the class action lawsuit against Trump, is not exactly neutral either. Supposedly Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd paid the Clintons a total of $675,000 in fees for speeches since 2009. Hillary Clinton gave a speech for the law firm as recently as September 4, 2014 ). If Judge Curiel was in any way associated with La Raza, as the last page of the PDF at this link indicate then clearly this suit is about the politics of destroying Trump.