The United States Supreme Court on June 9, 1997 stated that "A judge who accepts bribes ... is 'biased' in the most basic sense of that word". Bracy v. Gramley, No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).

Can any person charged with bribery in Operation Silver Shovel get a "fair trial in a fair tribunal" before judges who are involved either in taking bribes or in conniving with other judges who take bribes?

On November 8, 1996 a complaint was filed with the Chicago office of the F.B.I. relative to the acceptance of a bribe by a Federal judge.

On December 30, 1996 U.S. Attorney James B. Burns was informed, with supporting documentation, that a certain Federal Judge had accepted a bribe.

Since that time, the acceptance of a bribe by the judge has been brought to the attention of other Federal judges. By their inaction, these judges aided and assisted in the taking of the bribe, and connived with that judge who took the bribe.

We suggest that any Federal judge who connived with the judge who took the bribe, is not eligible to hear Operation Silver Shovel cases because his court is not a fair tribunal. Any of the judges involved have, and are, acting unlawfully.

Why did former U.S. Attorney James B. Burns not proceed against Federal judges involved in a scheme of bribery? Was it because it would defeat his alleged charges of bribery in Operation Silver Shovel?