THE EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL TYRANNY IN THE UNITED STATES:

"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Saturday, March 28, 2026

Delaware County's litigation counsel Hancock Estabrook LLP got rid of harasser attorney Giancarlo Facciponte

I wrote on this blog about harassment by attorney Giancarlo Facciponte of Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai hired for that purpose by Delaware County Chairperson Tina Mole and Amy Merklen.

While reading deposition testimony in the lawsuit by The Reporter (Decker Advertisement, Inc.) against Delaware County, I have learnt that:

(1) Facciponte also investigated (the word used) Town of Hamden Supervisor (Facciponte's own client in the case) Wayne Marshfield for allegedly leaking information from an executive session - while such "leaking" was expressly permitted in that federal case by the court, and at that same deposition Facciponte openly accused Magistrate Lovric of misconduct and made open threats to Maya Boukai at a deposition stating that "she will learn"; that






(3) Facciponte harassed every single witness for The Reporter at depositions - and their counsel - and harassed The Reporter's editor especially viciously, I will dedicate some articles to documentary proof of that harassment from depositions.

Interestingly, Attorney Frank Miller notified the court in Decker case, the same Magistrate Lovric that Facciponte accused without basis of improper catering for Plaintiffs, that at least as of March 18, 2026 Facciponte was no longer employed by Hancock Estabrook and asking the court to remove him as an attorney of record - which the court did.



The "winner" of the absolute prize of Facciponte is the Syracuse, NY law firm of Scolaro, Fetter, Grizanti & McGough, P.C.   


On its website the new law firm of harasser Facciponte advertises itself as providing efficient legal advice - and with care - to entrepreneurs, families and closely held businesses.


I bet with the acquisition of the loose cannon Facciponte the law firm's advice will get a lot more "sophisticated".

As of today, Facciponte was not listed on the official team of attorneys at his new law firm as per attorney registration.



Let's hold our collective breath as to how this disaster of an attorney - as evidenced by his DOCUMENTED conduct in multiple depositions filed in December of 2025 and January of 2026 with the federal court - will be described in an advertisement to the law firm's clients.

Because - you know what - attorneys may not engage in false advertisement, it may be a disciplinary violation.

As soon as Facciponte's advertisement at his new law firm appears online, I will publish it.

Stay tuned.


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)