While nothing can keep Donald Trump from making repulsive, ridiculous and indefensible claims in public, particularly when speaking about public characters, it is often interesting how he never follows up on his claims about what he will do. This is particularly true of his criticisms of District Court Judge Curiel over two years, where he has never filed a motion for recusal on various grounds. www.theatlantic.com/... Interested minds want to know: If Judge Curiel has so clearly acted irresponsibly why not seek his recusal with a motion?
Two reasons suggest themselves: (i) Mr. Trump knows that motion would be meritless, and could not benefit from its adjudication; or, (ii) significantly, his lawyers refuse to file it. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 (www.law.cornell.edu/...) requires at least one attorney of record to sign every pleading, and that signature makes certain affirmative representations to the Court, in particular:
- (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
- (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
- (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
- (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
A violation of these representations can result in sanctions, not only against the party on whose behalf the motion is filed, but also the attorney or law firm associated with the attorney who signed the pleadings.
While the Donald has been railing against the allegedly unfair treatment he has received from the alleged Mexican-ness of the Judge responsible for these cases, we can imagine how a firm might respond to his demand for recusal on racial or other frivolous grounds. It is probably more likely than not that his firm has refused, and will continue to refuse to do that, at least on the Donald’s grounds — because a sanctions for this might well cost a lawyer who signed the motion — and their large general practice law firm — or a ticket to practice law, something more valuable to them than the approval of the Donald.
Two years of whining, and no motion for recusal. We don’t know for sure, but we can guess that Rule 11 may have something to do with it.