GOP congressional candidate Andy Martin defends Donald Trump, Judge Gonzalo Curiel and Judge Aaron Persky
New Hampshire Second District congressional candidate Andy Martin has been fighting corruption in the courts for forty-eight years. In a surprising analysis, Andy defends Donald Trump, Judge Gonzalo Curiel and Judge Aaron Persky. Andy places Trump’s attacks in perspective, defends Judge Curiel, and compares the liberal media’s differencing responses to the Curiel and Persky cases. Andy explains how a judge can be both an exemplary citizen and biased or “corrupt” at the same time. Andy observes that few people who walk out of a courthouse ever believe that justice was done. He promises that as a New Hampshire congressman he will lead judicial reform efforts in Washington. As part of his campaign Andy is also preparing to launch a web site exposing foreclosure fraud in the courts and legal profession from New Hampshire to Illinois to Florida to New York.
ANDY MARTIN /2016
Republican candidate for Congress
Second Congressional District-NH
“Make New Hampshire Great Again”
P.O. Box 742
Tel. (603) 518-7310
Cell (603) 777-2615
Fax (866) 214-3210
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Attention, New Hampshire, Washington, National and Political editors
Andy Martin explains how Donald Trump and Judge Gonzalo Curiel can both be right, at the same time
Andy says corruption and bias and retaliation are inherent evils in our state and federal court systems
Andy promises to work for court reform as a Representative in Congress
To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line
Please feel free to forward and/or post this email
Please sign up for our enhanced Twitter feed with enhanced, original coverage
(Manchester, NH) (June 12, 2016)
Dear Granite Stater:
This is my second letter to you from the primary campaign trail in the Second Congressional District. Frankly, it is a letter I have tried to avoid writing. The topics are highly controversial and any remarks are subject to distortion and misinterpretation. I invite you to join me in a dialog about the issues of judicial bias and corruption. Because of my unique experience and lifetime commitment to Due Process and judicial impartiality I have a unique potential to effect change in Congress. The following remarks are long but I hope you find them helpful.
In addition, in a few days I will be unveiling a new web site taking steps to fight corruption in the court system, as well as outright judicial corruption, involving the continuing foreclosure crisis we face in America. We have a shameful history of allowing courts and corrupt lawyers to steal the homes of millions of innocent victims of judicial and attorney foreclosure fraud. I believe I can do more to heal the wounds of the foreclosure crisis in New Hampshire, and nationally, than my future opponent Rep. Annie Kuster, who has done nothing, and more than my do-nothing Republican colleagues, that have also ignored the issue of foreclosure fraud on the campaign trail.
First, some background:
Forty-eight years ago this month, as a young law student I walked into a local courthouse in Champaign County, Illinois and explained how a judge had looted the estate of an elderly couple who had died intestate (without leaving behind wills). The judge had handed what today would be a million-dollar windfall to a local funeral director and politician. The State Attorney who appeared to defend the court was John Bresee, a friend and decent man who helped me with my first court appearance. It will come as no surprise that I lost the case, and that a crooked judge and a crooked local official managed to make a million-dollar killing.
At the same time I was also working undercover as an assistant to a group of reporters that was investigating a major bank fraud scandal at the Illinois Supreme Court. The person who had originally exposed the scheme was controversial and unstable. The journalists knew me from politics and they enlisted my legal assistance. I became a behind-the-scenes player in an investigation that would eventually create a U. S. Supreme Court justice (John Paul Stevens) and result in the dismissal of two justices from the Illinois Supreme Court.
My name somehow leaked out. The law school librarian, D. Dean Willard, was also a friend. Even before I graduated he told me “word on the street” was that the Illinois Supreme Court was going to retaliate against me for my corruption-fighting activity. Two justices (Klingbiel and Solfisburg) were removed from the court for having taken bank stock bribes to decide a case. The court did retaliate against me and put me through hell. But, amazingly, the corrupt Illinois justices ended up giving me one of the greatest gifts in life. By showing me how corrupt the judicial system was, I was freed from the desire to ever sit down in an office and practice everyday law.
Because of family circumstances I was liberated to spend a lifetime fighting judicial corruption, and hopefully in 2016 to go to Congress to help Americans defend themselves against the judicial dictatorship that exists in our society today. Congress does not have a U. S. House member committed to judicial reform. We desperately need my services in Washington.
So, based on a lifetime of commitment to fighting judicial bias and corruption, and fighting for public integrity in the courts (where I helped send corrupt judges to federal prison, see www.AndyMartin.com) I am uniquely qualified to defend both Donald Trump and Judge Gonzalo Curiel. But I have also added California Judge Aaron Persky to the list of people needing a defense. You may not recognize the name of Judge Persky but he is one of the most hated men in America today.
1. What is it about Donald Trump?
Donald Trump has succeeded in spite of himself. I will have more to write about Trump in an open letter to him. But consider for a moment. He has been bombastic his entire life. He ran what I believe was a seriously flawed primary campaign. And he triumphed in spite of himself because his message was so powerful. I first met Trump 38 years ago and our names have appeared in print together at least once. As a result, I have probably observed Trump’s conduct longer than most people. Is he flawed? Absolutely. But is he a racist? Not at all.
Trump’s linguistic delivery smacks of mid-Twentieth Century conversation. And like all of us, Trump embodies conflicting qualities. He can be good and bad at the same time. We all can. But he grasped a fundamental point of public concern, that our system was broken and not working for ordinary citizens, and he rode that insight into an unexpected victory as a presidential candidate.
Now the liberal media establishment is determined to crush Trump before he becomes president. The media conceals Hillary Clinton’s criminality and ignores her daily dosage of lies, while simultaneously highlighting every misspoken word Trump utters.
Do I believe Trump “hates” African-Americans or Mexicans-Americans or Muslims or any other ethnic groups? Not at all. Unfortunately, there is no one around Trump who can organize the candidate’s thoughts in a political dimension, so Trump pops off as though he were home babbling to friends or relatives. Can he get elected without changing his approach? Not likely. But in common with many Republicans and many new GOP primary voters I believe that the evils Trump would bring with him to the White House are far, far milder that the Clintons’ proven record of corruption and personal profiteering.
And, as a congressman, I would stand ready to stand up and shut down any excesses that Trump tried to inflict on the Congress or the American people. Ultimately, I have no hesitation believing that while Trump is as flawed as any of us, maybe worse, he is the much more preferable alternative to putting the Clintons back in the White House.
2. How about Judge Gonzalo Curiel?
I have read Judge Curiel’s resume. He seems like an extraordinary product of an outstanding family. His career in public service is outstanding. Curiel represents some of the best that we find in our legal system and in our society. I have no hesitation to praise Curiel as a decent and honorable person. But that is not the end of the inquiry, or a proper analysis of the everyday reality of our state and federal court systems.
3. And Judge Persky, what about him? How is he involved?
A few days ago Judge Aaron Persky was an unknown judge on an obscure court. Then he made what may become a career-ending mistake. The sentence he imposed on a Santa Clara County, California rape defendant was outrageous. But Persky’s mistake does not appear to be have been influenced by bribery or other form of corruption. The judge seems to have made an honest mistake, although a horrible one. Persky is proof that judges can and do make serious mistakes every day. But should they be pilloried for their errors, even extreme ones?
What the Persky case reflects, however, is that while liberals are defending Curiel in the name of judicial independence, they are at the same time excoriating and seeking to destroy Persky and his judicial independence for what was a horrible mistake but not a corrupt or biased one. Liberal hypocrisy has no bounds. If consistency applied, liberals would be defending the judicial independence of both Curiel and Persky. Instead, identity politics mandates that Curiel be defended but that Persky be thrown to the wolves.
4. Can a judge be a good person, a great person, and still be corrupt?
Here is the crux of our challenge as a society: can a judge be both honest, on one hand, and biased and corrupt on the other? They usually are. Judge Curiel seems to me to be an utterly and completely honest man. But does that mean he is not capable of bias, or “corruption” in his actions as a judge? Liberals have sought to defend Curiel because of his exemplary legal career. There is no doubt that Curiel’s career is exemplary, but also irrelevant. I know from experience that judges can be both honest and biased or corrupt at the same time.
Subtle or unconscious bias is a part of human nature. Some judges may be sympathetic to criminal defendants while tough on corporate defendants. Others maybe the opposite. The Trump litigation is controversial. I have no idea who is legally right and who is wrong. But I accept that Curiel can be an outstanding judge in general and still be biased against Trump in a particular case.
If Trump had even a soup spoon of subtlety he could have made his point about Curiel without using the term “Mexican.” I get that “La Raza Lawyers” is not legally part of the “big” La Raza (NCLR). But when you choose a name for your organization that is suspiciously similar to a controversial organization, aren’t you trying to proffer a point of view?
Liberal columnists have tried to absolve “La Raza Lawyers” of any relationship with the more controversial La Raza group. But why choose a name for your organization that is inevitably going to draw suspicion?
Judge Curiel could be the most straight-laced person you can encounter, and he could also be unconsciously biased in favor of Mexican-American viewpoints. Almost all of us manifest some form of cognitive dissonance. We can have and exhibit conflicting points of view at the same time.
Ironically, Trump may have been “played” by his lawyers. In order to explain their losses in court, they may have privately told Trump that the judge was biased, not expecting Trump would make a national spectacle of the matter. Trump’s outburst may have been the product not of racism but rather of his frustration at being told the judge was biased but that the attorneys could do nothing about the fact.
These kinds of conflicts happen every day in almost every system involving almost every judge. I have advised difficult clients like Trump, and I know how they can take something told to them in private and publish it in public.
In addition, the ultimate core and cause of “judicial bias” is that normal, balanced, reasonable people can become dictators when they put on a black robe and sit up on an elevated bench. I have tangled with many judges who were normal people at home, and tyrants in court. Most people, not just a few but most people, have a difficult time dealing with the massive power conferred upon them by society. They are not corrupt in the sense of being bribed with cash, but most judges corrupt themselves by how they rule in cases involving particular classes of litigants or litigation.
Judge Curiel may be the most moral, upstanding, decent person you can imagine, and he may still have denied Trump a fair proceeding. I don’t know. But I suspect there is more to Trump’s outburst that has appeared in the public record.
5. Why can’t Trump file a motion to rid himself of Judge Curiel?
Many have questioned why Trump can’t simply file a “motion to recuse” Judge Curiel. A “motion to recuse” is a motion to remove a judge for bias. Congress, ironically, has passed a recusal/removal statue with very generous language in favor of removing a judge, 28 U. S. Code § 455 (a). But judges have interpreted the plain language of the law to make removing any federal judge all but impossible in practice.
Trump is represented by a large “corporate” law firm. Large law firms owe their loyalty to the “system, not to their clients. Lawyers from Trump’s law firm would probably not file a recusal motion, and antagonize Curiel, and invite retaliation, when they may be appearing before him for decades into the future.
So although Congress has adopted a generous statute for removal, judges have interpreted the language in a way that makes it all but impossible to remove a federal judge. Judges protect each other and their closed system as no other occupation does. I would not be surprised if Trump’s outburst at the judge was prompted by a refusal of his lawyers to file a recusal motion; clients are often frustrated when their attorneys manifest more loyalty to judges than they do to clients.
So whether Curiel is biased or impartial is irrelevant. He may be biased and impartial at the same time. Lawyers are afraid to file recusal/removal motions because of a fear of judicial retaliation. And almost all judges will retaliate if their impartiality is questioned. So at least in his case, Trump was probably frustrated by his attorneys’ refusal to challenge Curiel.
6. Is the lynch mob seeking to attack Judge Persky justified?
Judge Aaron Persky in Santa Clara Superior Court in California made a horrible mistake. But does he deserve to be lynched for his error in judgment (please see link # 1 below)? Probably not.
First, let me condemn in the strongest terms rape and any form of sexual or societal violence. A New Hampshire university, Dartmouth College, which is in my congressional district, was recently identified as a leading center of sexual impropriety (please see link # 2 below). As a congressman I would work to strengthen federal and state rape statutes. No person, at any age, should live in fear of sexual assault.
I don’t know why Judge Persky sentenced a young rapist to a lenient term. No one has alleged that the judge is corrupt, or favors rapists, or was bribed. But the entire weight of the liberal Democratic Party establishment has decided to crucify Judge Persky by removing him from office. Should the judge be disciplined? Perhaps. But I don’t know enough about California disciplinary standards and that inquiry is beyond the scope of these comments. Ironically, liberals who have assailed Trump for merely accusing a judge of bias have no hesitation at all themselves accusing Persky of bias and launching a recall election to remove him because of his controversial ruling.
The differencing responses to the Trump accusations (attack Trump) versus the massive assault on Judge Persky for his serious error in judgment show how liberals can defend judicial independence in one matter and at the same time undermine judicial independence in another case.
Should liberals, or conservatives for that matter, be allowed to gin up a lynch mob every time a judge makes a mistaken decision or ignores the seriousness of a crime? I don’t think so. There may be some way to discipline Judge Persky, but lynching him is an extreme act that is even more corrosive of judicial independence than Trump’s injudicious comments about Curiel. Government-by-hysteria will only lead to anarchy.
7. Is there racism and retaliation in the federal and state courts?
Every day there is extreme racism and retaliation in local and federal courts. Judges began retaliating against me decades ago once my work as a judicial reformer and corruption-fighter became widely known. The “system” survives because no one is supposed to challenge the system. Lawyers who fight corruption are a threat to the system. Judges work to penalize recalcitrant lawyers who stand up for their clients instead of manifesting loyalty to the judiciary. Usually, African-Americans are the victims/targets of discrimination and retaliation.
But when it comes to retaliation against corruption-fighters, the color of a reformer’s skin is irrelevant. Corruption-fighters and attorneys who stand up for their clients are universally despised by the state and federal judiciary. Indeed, a federal appeals court once admitted that I was the victim of judicial retaliation. And, over the decades, the more I exposed corruption, the more that biased judges were willing to attack me. Thankfully, I have stood my ground and I am as honest today as I was the day I first walked into a courthouse. But the court system? Honest? Pshaw!
8. Can we really obtain court reform?
A U. S. House member has a dual role. First, a Representative is sent to Washington to represent the needs and interests of the Second Congressional District in New Hampshire. That is my first and paramount duty. Within the limits of the law, U.S. Representatives are expected to “bring home the bacon,” so that local needs are met.
Second, a congressman is part of a national legislature that enacts laws applicable to the entire nation. One of my reasons for serving in congress would be to work for judicial reform, to see that ordinary citizens are protected in both state and federal court systems. Today that is not the case.
An ordinary citizen who is haled into court by a bank, or by the government itself, is at the mercy of a powerful apparatus of the state that often ignores basic human and constitutional rights. Draped in self-righteousness, participants in the state and federal court system, from judges to prosecutors to law firms, tolerate and often encourage corruption and outrageous behavior as “part of the system.” That is simply unacceptable.
For forty-eight years I have been a corruption-fighter committed to public integrity and protecting people from an all-powerful legal system. I’m too old to change, and still young enough to have a major impact and make a huge difference in Congress.
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):
Link # 1
Link # 2
New citations after emailing:
ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:
Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With forty-eight years of background in radio and television and with five decades of investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, intelligence and military matters. For a full bio, go to: ; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm
Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also ; .
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at and .
Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.
Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2016 – All Rights Reserved Kurt mendelssohn as sentence openers and and but are very http://www.writemyessay4me.org useful