1. Name: State full name (include any former names used).
Gonzalo Paul Curiel
2. Position: State the position for which you have been nominated.
United Sttes District Judge for the Southern District of California
9. Bar Associations: List all bar associations or legal or judicial-related committees, selection panels or conferences of which you are or have been a member, and give the titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups.
American Bar Association Hispanic Advisory Committee of the Commission on Public Understanding about the Law (1993 - 1994)
Hispanic National Bar Association, Life-time Member
La Raza ["THE Race"] Lawyers of San Diego
Latino Judges Association
National Hispanic Prosecutors Association
C
learly an alleged judge who seeks not justice but racist, political vengeance and ugly partisan gain:
ollowing in the footsteps of Barack Hussein Obama, Junior, the junior one-term member of Congress has effectually vacated his seat and deprived the people of his state their equal suffrage in the United States Senate. But that's all right. He left RINO Establishmentardian John Cornyn back in D.C. to take good care of them while he's out campaigning for a more personally rewarding office.
At least Robert Dole, unlike Lawyer Barack Hussein Obama, Junior and Lawyer Rafael Edward Cruz, did the honorable thing. He resigned so he would have "nowhere to go but the White House or home." He wouldn't be able to fall back into his old position after neglecting the duties of it if he lost.
But that's a long time ago. Today, one-term junior Congress members such as Lawyer Hussein and Lawyer Rafael are far more skillful at being both a fully-serving representative and a full-time presidential campaigner than some thrice-decorated Combat Veteran, five-term Senior Senator and twice-chosen Senate Majority Leader could way back then.
In any case, Lawyer Cruz won't be able to say this time what he said about his failure to properly disclose all his financial connections and loans. His abandoning his Senate seat is not "inadvertent." But that's one vacancy our nation really can't afford.
Without him there to stand athwart recent Senate history, "yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it," ØbameinFührer is going to spend these waning months of his fascistration finishing "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" so that when the next president is sworn in, everybody will be asking, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Most especially now, we need Lawyer Cruz's feet planted firmly on the Senate floor, not running around trying to convince people they should be the next pair allowed to leave scuff marks on the Resolute desk.
Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential campaign is getting some help from the Bush family.
Neil Bush, the brother of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who dropped out of the presidential race last month, has joined Cruz's finance team.
My Neil Bu$h,
You're every breath that I take
You're every step I make
Neil Bush's decision to join Cruz's team makes him the first Bush to join a presidential campaign after Jeb Bush's departure from the race.
And I, I
I want to share
All my Bu$h with you
No one el$e will do
"We are seeing incredible momentum around our campaign," Cruz said in a statement. "I am thrilled to welcome these new members to our outstanding team. This race is winnowing down between two candidates, and this is further testament that conservatives are continuing to unite behind this campaign."
emember, in 2010, Hispanic activists in San Antonio said not letting people smoke at work is racist, too.
So what is a control-freak nanny statist to do? Any hiring or employment practice that adversely and disproportionately affects minority groups is prima facie evidence of racial discrimination. Yet being able to tell people what they can't do both at home and at work is orgasmically A Good Thing™. But if activists start claiming that testing for nicotine use amounts to racial profiling, you risk being hauled into courts of law and public opinion, defending yourself against multiple lawsuits and irreparably bad publicity. Picture "Teh Revs." Jackson, Sharpton et al. showing up at your door and saying, "Nice business you have here. Shame if someone like me happened to call it racist!" It's a conundrum.
Sure, you could present facts and data to support your reasons for engaging in this discriminatory practice. But that won't matter. Once it's beset with the "allegedly racist" label, you'll never hear the end of it until — and likely even after — you ditch it.
Best you can do is make exceptions for any "poorer individuals, including those from minority groups, who, under a ban on employees who smoke, will lose the opportunity to work for an employer that offers health insurance, long-term advancement, and retirement benefits." You still get to tell unprotected non-minority/non-lower income employees what they can't do outside the workplace. Win-win!
Since replies to the Tenth Amendment Center post by Randy Barnett are moderated, I'll include mine here.
I
n explaining the supreme court's opinion in Windsor, Barnett says, "By adopting this federalism approach to identifying protected liberty, however, states remain free to continue deciding the marriage question. Of course, this assumes that what the Court today says about the irrationality of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) at the federal level is not used to undermine the constitutionality of refusals to recognize same-sex marriage by states — as Justice Scalia predicts will flow from the majority's reasoning." In my reply, I question that assumption:
Given the supreme court says it's unconstitutional at the federal level to define marriage in a manner that violates equal protection vis-à-vis a state's looser definition, how long before the court invokes the supremacy, full faith and credit, and perhaps privileges and immunities clauses to say it's unconstitutional at the state level to define marriage in a likewise manner? What difference, at that point, does any legal definition of marriage make when, under this lowest common denominator doctrine, the court may adjudge it "improperly motivated by animus" in light of an anything-goes one?
Had Congress, in DOMA or another law, applied the appellate jurisdiction clause so that such cases would never reach the supreme court and that the court would never be at liberty to inquire into Congress's motives, any damaging affects could be confined to no more than a few judicial circuits.
As it stands, the 39 traditional marriage states's legislatures must act themselves if they wish to preserve and protect their laws; viz., 34+ make application to Congress to call a convention for the specific and exclusive purpose of proposing a defense of marriage amendment, then 38+ ratify the proposed amendment. The amendment may be as simple as:
The power to give in one State full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of another with respect to marriages and other domestic relations contrary therein to the laws of such State, is reserved to the States respectively.
Or it may go further to include the federal government's treatment of such relations.
Whichever they decide to settle on, the time for those states to develop their response is now.
oody. So anything a federal law says you should have, you don't have to actually have it. But "our" government has unlimited power to tax you for not having it. Let's see where this goes.
The more lawful gun owners a state has, the less crime it will have. Therefore, Congress passes the Shooter Protection and Affordable Firearm Act giving all law-abiding citizens the "choice" of either being armed or being taxed. Great. Let's keep going.
The more high wage earners a state has, the less poor it will have. Therefore, Congress passes the Worker Protection and Affordable Job Act giving all working-age citizens the "choice" of either being rich or being taxed. Wonderful. We're on a roll!
The more suit wearers a state has, the less shabbiness it will have. Therefore, Congress passes the Fashionable Protection and Affordable Outfit Act giving all clothed citizens the "choice" of either being stylish or being taxed. Fabulous. But we're not done!
The more vegetable eaters a state has, the less obesity it will have. Therefore, Congress passes the Diner Protection and Affordable Food Act giving all hungry citizens the "choice" of either being thin or being taxed. Yummy. Any of this leaving a bad taste in your mouth yet?
The more holy book readers a state has, the less immorality it will have. Therefore, Congress passes the Faithful Protection and Affordable Bible Act giving all literate citizens the "choice" of either being religious or being taxed. Awesome. What else?
Yes, Congress can, according to the U.S. Supreme Court Law-Rewriters, fill in that blank with absolutely anything.
He is no longer at liberty to freelance for terrorists — his client is the United States, which is at war with terrorists pursuant to a congressional authorization approved with overwhelming bipartisan support. His client is not the foreign terrorists: [9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] already has plenty of lawyers. Holder's client is the American public (i.e., the people KSM wants to kill). Thus, while Holder may not like military commissions, he is obliged to make them work, just as any attorney general who disagrees, as a private citizen, with the policy behind a given law is duty-bound to resist undermining that law in his official capacity.
ut don't tell that to the Litigatør-in-Chief. (Not that he'd listen to you if you did.)
Having a know-nothing, do-nothing resident in the White House who wouldn't "know whose ass to kick" if he were sitting on it — which, it so happens, he's been mainly doing these past 57 states days — is dangerous to our environment as well as our economy.
So what's his "response" to all the death and destruction happening all along the Gulf Coast right before our very eyes?
He'll sue somebody!
That'll clean up the Gulf!
Møron.
As the days turned into weeks, and weeks into months, with absolutely no real action on his part to ensure that "generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oil began to slow," we began to see with painful clarity exactly what his "response" really can be to such a needless environmental crisis.
Can he immediately take the Dutch government up on its offer, made three days after the explosion, to mop up literally tons of the oil each day?
No, he can't.
Can he duly and timely exercise his statutory power to waive provisions of the Jones Act so, yes, we can fully accept competent, international-expert assistance?
No, he can't.
Can he give Gulf state governors everything they need, when they need it, so, yes, they can begin right away ensuring their waters and beaches stay safe and clean?
No, he can't.
Can he do anything other than blame and sue and ban and throw money at everything except what's causing the problem?
He's been and remains a clear and present danger to the public health, the public good, and the public welfare.
He should resign, or the Congress should impeach and remove him, so someone who obviously has thousands of times more potential to exhibit competence in office can finally stop the oil washing up on our beaches and killing our wildlife and actually work to clean up the mess.
President Joe Biden, you're now the change we need!
Telling the Congress — the entire legislative branch — that it must wait for some court conviction before it can stop redistributing our taxed dollars to a notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicate (but I repeat myself) is all the proof any reasonable person needs that there now exist no real qualifications to "serve" on the federal bench.
S
eparation of powers, sovereign immunity, and plain common sense be damned. Liberals want our money; and nothing should be allowed to stop them from stealing it so, yes, they can forever finance their ongoing criminal activities.
A federal judge [sic] today [last Friday] issued an injunction preventing the implementation of a congressional ban on funding for ACORN.
Judge [sic] Nina Gershon [a BiIsIs al-Qlinton appointee — surprise, surprise] concluded that the ban amounted to a "bill of attainder" that unfairly singled out ACORN.
"(The plaintiffs) have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process of adjudicating guilt," Gershon wrote in her decision.
Even if a notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicate (BIRM)'s employees or its top officers are convicted of attempting to open brothels for underage illegal aliens, that no doubt wouldn't be sufficient reason either to deny it its taxpayer-cash flow.
It's right there in the U.S. Constitution. Article CXII, section 123,987,324: "In no case whatsoever shall a notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicate (BIRM) be denied in any way all of the taxpayer funding it may ever want."
Your copy of the Constitution has no such article? Well, that's your problem. The one liberals have of that document obviously has been "living" a lot larger these past few yearsdecades quarter-centuries.
As for any bill-of-attainder crap scholarly constitutional argument, who cares that it applies only to persons whom a legislative body has singled out for criminal punishment — e.g., jail time, fines, property seizures, or lethal injection. Didn't you know that every single notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicate (BIRM) is entitled by law by judicial fiat to a fixed percentage of your hard-earned money? (Don't make me break out that Living-Large Edition™ of the Constitution again.)
It's simple, really. You work hard and earn a paycheck. Liberals and their accomplices friends don't do anything that could even be remotely considered "work," so they have to steal a goodly portion of the income you make by way of taxes forcing you to "pay your Fair Share™." Otherwise, liberals wouldn't be able to keep all their notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicates (BIRM) in business. Even crooked businesses have to pay their light bills, you know. Which they wouldn't be able to if heartless and, no doubt, racist folks like you voted in Representatives and Senators who, for some strange reason, feel that a notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicate (BIRM) isn't forever entitled to a goodly portion of your income. You denying it the ability to pay its light bills as well as its crooked workers is, therefore, a form of extrajudicial punishment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution (Living-Large Edition™, of course). Don't worry if you have no clue what "form of extrablah blah blah" means. It all boils down to you're a racist.
See?
So you, through your representatives in Congress, cutting off any funding that a notoriously crooked leftist organized-crime syndicate (BIRM) wants is the same as administering someone a lethal injection without ever giving him or her (or other) the benefit of a trial. How racist of you!
Now go out and find the most deranged escapees from our country's various asylums for the criminally insane.
I hear there's more than a few vacancies on the federal bench which, it now appears, they all would be eminently qualified to fill.
No doubt, due to these facts, you're just dying to read all the intimidating lettersGestapøgrams™ from al-Qongress' extremist greedy lawyer committee chair"men" to greedy lawyer law firm executives demanding to know exactly how much money those greedy lawyer law firm executives make, how many conferences they attended, and when and where each of those conferences was held. Right?
OK, here you go:
( This space left intentionally blank. )
I counted zero such letters Gestapøgrams™. How many did you?
GØDCØ®: So complicated only a greedy lawyer can digest stomach it.™
Unfortunately, many of their brethren fellow snakes are still slithering around Former Senator Øbribable's rubberstamp al-Qongress making "our" laws ... more and more overly complex for their own conflicts of interest "professional" self-interests.
Fri, Feb 13, 2009
Home, Law Firms, Layoffs
"Oh the humanity!"
Yesterday, Thursday, February 12th, 2009, six prominent firms fired over 700 attorneys and legal staffers, in what is becoming known as Black Thursday in the legal industry.
T
he same color now darkening practically every other day of the week, too. No doubt Present Øpromisebreaker's firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys won't have too long to wait for one similarly shady.
Dechert also confirmed that on Thursday it let go of associates and counsel. In December, the firm laid off 72 staffers in the US and 15 staffers in the UK. It also laid off 13 attorneys in March 2008.
(nuts-covered double fudge sundae ditto with a cherry on top)
Philadelphia's Cozen O'Connor laid off 61 administrative staff and paralegals.
et al., i.e., Esq., ex parte, in camera, et seq., supra....
The only thing that could make all this non-bad news better is that the same thing is happening throughout America's "news"paper industry the Dictatoratic Party's print-propaganda ministries. (Oh, wait... it is! "Oh, the humanity poetic justice!")
Now, one shouldn't consider "good" the misfortune of any fellow human being.
And I wouldn't if a preponderance of such consideration had even the remotest chance of substantially being apposite in some unfrivolous number of these particular cases.
in order to form a more perfect tyranny of, by, and for Ourselves...”
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States... by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State [e.g., Illegal aliens].
A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time.
Hazleton was incorporated as a borough by two acts of the [Pennsylvania] state legislature, the first winning approval April 31, 1851, and a supplemental act being authorized April 22, 1856.... [O]n Dec. 4, 1891, Hazleton was chartered as a city.
It is unlawful for any business entity to recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, or to permit, dispatch, or instruct any person who is an unlawful worker to perform work in whole or part within the City.... It is unlawful for any person or business entity that owns a dwelling unit in the City to harbor an illegal alien in the dwelling unit, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, unless such harboring is otherwise expressly permitted by federal law....
Application for occupancy permits shall be made upon forms furnished by the Code Enforcement Office for such purpose and shall specifically require the following minimum information: ... Proper identification showing proof of legal citizenship and/or residency.
Ordinances 2006-18, Sections 4 and 5, and 2006-13, Section 7(b)1, City of Hazleton
[W]e will issue an order enjoining the enforcement of the ordinances at issue.... The Defendant City of Hazleton is prohibited from enforcing... Ordinance[s] 2006-18 and... 2006-13.
The John or Jane Doe Plaintiffs [i.e., Illegal Aliens] in this proceeding do not have to produce, or otherwise respond to discovery requests seeking disclosure of, "Protected Material", i.e., those documents, things, information and testimony containing information about their immigration status, actual residence, or place of work that would allow someone to identify them or their immigration status.
Federal law pre-empts [the Ordinances, which] violate the procedural due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.... Illegal aliens are "persons" under [the 1870 federal law that says, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right[s]... as is enjoyed by white citizens"; so the Ordinances] impermissibly burden their right to contract.
Memorandum and Order, Protective Order, and Verdict, Judge Robed Master James M. Munley, Lozano, et al [e.g., illegal aliens] v. City of Hazleton Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, United States Estados Unidos District Court for against the Middle District of Pennsylvania
H
azleton, Pennsylvania is now the hometown of every freedom loving American patriot. His Royal Robeness James M. Munley, Demoqrat of Hillbillary Qlinton, is now forever part of the federal imperial judgdom's “history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over our States.”
The enemies of our Freedoms “have come forward to say Hazleton doesn’t have the right to protect itself.
“They’ve said that suing Hazleton will prevent other elected officials across America from enacting similar laws in their own towns.”
Some of these enemies “have also boasted they will take us to court and bankrupt the City of Hazleton, both to punish us for enacting this ordinance and to send a signal to other communities across the United States.
This battle in the ongoing Judiciary-American War is now joined.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden our Cities to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
However blasé His Pointy Headedness may feel about the current state of federal immigration "enforcement," the nature of the threat its effective nonexistence poses to each of the United States makes it every American city's inescapable duty to start enacting whatever measures it judges necessary and expedient to disrupt the outright invasion of our country caused by a grossly neglected if not wholly abandoned federal statutory scheme.
Our right of self-defense, self-preservation, and self-determination pre-empts his see-nothing, hear-nothing, do-nothing order command so ill-conceived by him from afar, way up there on his bench throne, as he looks down on us with blind disregard for our needs. It is an unwise, unjust, and unfair command that leaves our states “remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within,” while forcing us to first "consult" with foreign powers — and in the process risk running afoul Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of our constitution — before any of our states or cities may adopt laws for protecting ourselves.
In sum, our independence as a free and self-governing people is, and of right ought to be supreme to his as an inferior judicial officer in merely one branch of a government that was ordained and established by us and that will remain always dependent on our consent.
He has affected to render the Judiciary independent of and superior to the Originators of all Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Suits of pretended Litigation: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Mayhems which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
His capricious and arbitrary "protective order" intended to obfuscate the fact that foreigners are suing, contrary to original law, one of our sovereign states' inextricable portions, proves another abomination of justice by that overreaching branch of his whose cumulative obstruction of our liberties has become the significant and persistent cause of too many insufferable evils.
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.
His absolute bestowal of rights on covetous foreign intruders who have shown, neither before nor after their coming uninvited and unwelcome across our borders, no authentic loyalty to or respect for our country and her sovereignty, makes alienable the rights exclusively earned and entitled to be enjoyed by lawful residents. In so doing, he himself has violated the due process protections of our laws by unconstitutionally extending them to lawbreakers who have absolutely no right to be here at all and who thus are not lawfully in or subject to his jurisdiction.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Any Judge whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the servant of a free people.
As these robed grenadiers descend on our cities and states and try to confiscate from us every common means of our mutual safety and defense — including the very laws we make by and for ourselves which we judge most valuable — it is smalltown defenders, like Minutemen of old and not so old, who are standing up to them and preparing to beat them back.
Let the cry go forth. "The black robes are coming! The black robes are coming!" Let the singular light of Liberty shine from atop our highest towers as a strong warning and promise that spreads out across every part of this land we love. Let both be heard and seen by all its inhabitants.
Today Hazleton is our Lexington. Tomorrow your hometown will be our Concord unless we stand united against the advancing enemies of our freedom. Even before they can approach our northernmost bridges we will already be disrupting their aims to divide and conquer us.
It is appropriate that in Philadelphia, the birthplace of our states' independence, we will be gathering our forces for the next fight. There within another tower, into whose base's limestone band is inscribed the private-law message "Justice The Guardian of Liberty," judges composing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will receive our hometown's petition for redress of this latest grievance. Will they remember that inscription as they examine their colleague's mammoth 206-page decision which extends federal judicial power "to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States... by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State" whom he harbored in a cloak of anonymity in his own court with clear intent to obstruct, in breach of his public trust and oath, enforcement of our nation's laws by directly abetting multiple foreign-state citizens' evasions of those laws? Will they vacate his decision to divide out our own hometown — a "general purpose unit of government" having no recognizable autonomy under Article IX, section 14 of Pennsylvania's constitution — from the state who alone is responsible for its entire creation and existence, and void his injudicious order to conquer the effective defenses of them both? Will they bar all further claims of federal jurisdiction in this and every other suit commenced against Pennsylvania's government or one or more of its dependent units by a foreign state's citizens or subjects, and instruct all foreign plaintiffs that the only proper opportunity they have to commence any such suit is in the commonwealth's courts as Article 1, Section 11 of Pennsylvania's constitution amply provides them?
Whether we who openly are loyal to this land and are fighting to keep it free and independent prevail in Philadelphia, or those court-hidden foreign trespassers whose swarm of fee-shifty Atheist Communist Liberal Ungodlybirm atturncoatneys are endeavoring to destroy our freedoms and independence do, that fight will move to our nation's capital. Whether we have cause to escalate it from there — whether we must, of necessity, continue beyond the stilted confines of sterile proceedings this struggle to reclaim our just rights and powers — is the ultimate issue for our supreme court to decide.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Either we hang together in our ongoing struggle or we and our hometowns will surely hang separately.
Packages and school supplies raised through these organizations are transported to Iraq, free of charge, by FedEx, then distributed to Iraqi children by our brave freedom fighters.
A Line of Sight
