An editorial in the New York Times on June 9, 2009 praised the Supreme Court for finding that a $3 million campaign contribution to a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice by a litigant with a case in front of the court amounted to a “constitutional violation.”
“The right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge, untainted by money or special interests, is at the heart of the nation’s justice system and the rule of law. That right is more secure following a 5-to-4 ruling on Monday by the United States Supreme Court,” said the Times.
Read the full editorial here.
I am involved in a case that you may be interested in….
On Monday, we filed a federal Sec. 1983 case alleging that Administrative Hearings used by the City of Minneapolis to enforce Ordinances violates the defendants right to an impartial tribunal because the Administrative Judge is appointed by the City attorney and paid $250.00 a day by the City of Minneapolis.
Our lawyer, Randall Tigue said that its difficult to be unbiased when the Plaintiff is your boss.
I’m wondering if there is any empirical evidence that supports a conclusion of bias by Administrative Judges like a win loss rate by the City of Minneapolis in the Hearings.
My employer, a property developer, feels that it is impossible for him to get a fair trial in Hennepin County. I share that opinion.
I have my own experiences with biased judges having practiced as a criminal defense lawyer in Hennepin County for over 20 years. I can give you examples if you are interested.
If you would like more information about our case please E-Mail your request to davidsynllc@gmail.com.