I " liked" the comment. And I agree the claims of "racism" in the matter of Tahj's experience are unfounded, at best.
And perhaps the YPD overreacted in your own old case.
But there is no evidence of "classism" in anything you provide. Those conclusions seem to be entirely a gloss of your own divising, although screaming in a dining hall is definitely low or no class behavior. Merely acting as a low-class bum and getting swatted for it doesn't prove that social class was the motivation behind the swat. It is also likely that those running the dining hall couldn't stand screamers no matter what their social position. I can't. And anyone who starts screaming in a dining hall over something like this deserves little sympathy, although perhaps not criminal charges.
That you were the beneficiary of the judge acting in your case despite having an obvious conflict of interest stemming from his personal involvement as a "witness" is not something of which you should be proud. What he did is inconsistent with accepted standards of judicial temperament and ethics, and at a minimum should have been vetted as a substantial impediment to any effort to elevate that judge to a higher position (an appeals court, for example). No doubt the fact that you settled and the case couldn't go to trial caused him to consider his breach de minimis.
Can you imagine what you would have thought if the case had gone to trial as you wanted before that judge and, during the trial, he had leaned forward from the bench and said:
"Well, I happened to witness the whole thing, and so I know the defendant is obviously guilty of at least as much as the prosecutor says he is. I saw it myself with my own eyes. The only real question here is how much time he should spend in prison. So let's cut to the chase."
That's why we try to keep the judiciary disinterested.