Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
if it was a random latino judge who does not have the affiliations that this judge has then there would be no problem.
So you say.
if it was a random latino judge who does not have the affiliations that this judge has then there would be no problem.
I feel so badly for Mr. Trump. Poor fellow should have a white racist judge hearing his case...
A卐卐HatZombie;1629498 said:Nobody can escape the inherent biases of racial identity, especially beaners.
Judge Curiel belongs to the La Raza Lawyers Association, which has pushed many pro illegal immigration policies. The main website even links to the National Council of La Raza. Judge Curiel has even sat on scholarship committees which flaunted the fact that it gave scholarships to illegal immigrants. Judge Curiel has allowed the case to continue for far longer than it should, given the fact that the original plaintiff backed out after evidence came to light that she had given positive reviews, in both written and video form, of Trump University. He allowed the law firm to find a new plaintiff instead of closing the case. Judge Curiel, in an attempt to release documents to the Washington Post, ended up "doxxing" the personal information of many innocent Trump University students, probably thanks to his carelessness and haste. The law firm representing the plaintiff has donated over $600,000 to Hillary Clinton since 2009. This lawfirm was appointed by the judge. Notice also that this is a civil case. Normally only criminal cases survive the plaintiff dropping out. Civil cases usually have to start over with a different plaintiff.
Many West Virginians (over 90% of them are white) are dependent on the very government programs that their racist idol thinks should be cut.
A significant proportion of West Virginians are embroiled in the manufacture, distribution and consumption of a stupefying mix of illicit moonshine liquor and homemade drugs.
West Virginians are some of the least-educated people on the planet.
Just look at Hack Hussein's posts for confirmation, lol.
And get this: they say their impoverished, ignorant asshole of a state is "almost heaven".
Think so?
Please provide proof of your claims.![]()
You won't get anything.
Though not sourced this piece was copied from a Vote Trump website. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...p_should_walk_back_his_claims_against_curiel/
I think there is more than enough prima facie evidence that the judge is biased that the discussion can be had.
Judge Curiel belongs to the La Raza Lawyers Association, which has pushed many pro illegal immigration policies. The main website even links to the National Council of La Raza.
Judge Curiel has even sat on scholarship committees which flaunted the fact that it gave scholarships to illegal immigrants.
Judge Curiel has allowed the case to continue for far longer than it should, given the fact that the original plaintiff backed out after evidence came to light that she had given positive reviews, in both written and video form, of Trump University. He allowed the law firm to find a new plaintiff instead of closing the case.
Judge Curiel, in an attempt to release documents to the Washington Post, ended up "doxxing" the personal information of many innocent Trump University students, probably thanks to his carelessness and haste.
The law firm representing the plaintiff has donated over $600,000 to Hillary Clinton since 2009. This lawfirm was appointed by the judge.
Notice also that this is a civil case. Normally only criminal cases survive the plaintiff dropping out. Civil cases usually have to start over with a different plaintiff.
A卐卐HatZombie;1629506 said:College said so
Class action cases almost always survive the main plaintiff dropping out... do your homework!
You won't get anything.
Class action cases almost always survive the main plaintiff dropping out... do your homework!
lol if thats all you have then yes there is a good enough reason to start the discussion that the judge may be biased.
lol if thats all you have then yes there is a good enough reason to start the discussion that the judge may be biased.