The Life of A Foreclosure Defense Attorney
This sounds much like the type of predisposition discussed in Marshall:
"The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and
criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central
concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the
promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decisionmaking process. See
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978). The neutrality requirement helps to
guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted
conception of the facts or the law. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 344 (1976). At the same
time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important
to a popular government, that justice has been done,' Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341
U. S. 123, 172 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his
interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the
arbiter is not predisposed to find against him." Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).
Keep us posted.
This sounds much like the type of predisposition discussed in Marshall:
"The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and
criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central
concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the
promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decisionmaking process. See
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978). The neutrality requirement helps to
guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted
conception of the facts or the law. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 344 (1976). At the same
time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, 'generating the feeling, so important
to a popular government, that justice has been done,' Joint Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341
U. S. 123, 172 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his
interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the
arbiter is not predisposed to find against him." Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980).
Keep us posted.