BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
- Like Jay-Z + the Beatles, But Worse
- Update: Help for Homeless Children
- Bush Era, Revised -- and with More Barbeque
- The Tax Woman Cometh
- Paging Mr. Stanford: Antigua Called
- Who Are You Calling Partisan?
- Update: IRS Won't Use Private Debt Collectors
- But Is It Art?
- PMA Scandal a Sore Point for Dems in 2010?
- Down in Flames
- A New Mystery for RNC Chief
- PMA Clients Were Big Givers
- Raided Lobby Firm Still a Force on Capitol Hill
- Stanford Update: Another $143 Mil Found
- Cheney, Hooked on Controversy
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- Cheney
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- IRS
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- PMA
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Stanford
- Steele
- Terror
- Troopergate
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
« Previous | Main | Next »
Legal Powerhouse Olson Will Take W.Va. Court Case to SCOTUS
Email
Print
ShareMay 15, 2008 3:56 PM
Legal powerhouse Theodore Olson said today he will represent a small West Virginia mining company that is seeking to file an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States in a case that has shined a spotlight on the issue of money and influence with elected state supreme court justices.
Harman Mining says it was denied its constitutional rights because a West Virginia State Supreme Court justice refused to recuse himself from their case, despite the fact that the CEO of the company being sued by Harman helped to wage a $3.5 million advertising campaign that helped that justice win an election.
Despite numerous requests for his recusal, Justice Brent Benjamin stayed on the Harman case and twice voted in favor of the defendant, Massey Energy. Benjamin wrote in court documents that there is no evidence to suggest that he cannot be fair and impartial, but critics say the appearance of impropriety should have been enough for him to recuse himself.
"A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge," said Olson today. "The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today."
Harman won a $50 million verdict in trial court, but the case was appealed to the West Virginia State Supreme Court where Benjamin twice voted to overturn the jury's verdict. Harman is now planning to file an appeal at the SCOTUS.
Olson has argued 49 cases before the court, including Bush v. Gore during the 2000 presidential election recount fiasco. He has also served as private counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Harman attorney David Fawcett said today he is thrilled to welcome Olson to their legal team. "This problem affects the credibility of courts and justices everywhere," said Fawcett. "To have the man whom many see as the finest Supreme Court advocate on our side, we feel it is very important."
May 15, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (3)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why did Olson lie about his wife's calls from AA77? The FBI says he did.
Posted by: neo | May 15, 2008 5:04:53 PM
neo-NAZI: What do telephone calls have do do with a judge who obviously should have recused himself from a court case?
Posted by: Alphonso | May 16, 2008 1:35:53 AM
I always love it when corporations 'assert' their Constitutional rights, since I have never found any language in it giving them any at all - there are only three 'legal' entities - the feds, states and people (actual citizens), not corporations.
Be that as it may, whether elected or appointed, the courts have become just as politically corrupt as all other branches, and even more so since they actually 'make their own rules,' to begin with, and are not there for the people at all, but for the 'industries', lawyers and their 'corporate' clients.
This nation is in sorry shape, and really the courts are a major contributory factor, in my opinion, since 'politics' and not 'the law of the land,' is the 'rule' at every level, all the way to the 'appointed' Supreme Court.
Posted by: Betsy | May 18, 2008 2:00:32 AM
Post a comment
