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.

Sunday, May 24, 2026

The Court That Loved Squid

 




Far beyond the civilized shores of Ordinary Procedure sailed the once-peaceful litigation universe known as Neroni v. Watershed Agricultural Council, EF2026-106 in New York State Delaware County Supreme Court.  Yes that interesting piece trying to question the happenings in the WAC Castle.

For a while, everything behaved according to the sacred ancient customs:
operative pleadings defined the universe,
parties stayed inside the case,
non-parties stayed outside the case,
and motions generally required at least a faint relationship to jurisdiction.

Then came April 3, 2026.

An Amended Verified Complaint was filed.
Wayne Marshfield vanished from the operative pleading.
Under ordinary laws of civil procedure, he should have peacefully drifted away into the misty afterlife reserved for former litigants.

Instead, something absolutely extraordinary occurred.

The former party mutated into giant procedural sea food.

Soon an enormous litigation squid emerged from the dark waters outside the case universe, waving slimy appendages labeled:
“Motion #2”
“Motion #3”
“Sanctions”
“Anti-Filing Injunction”

The squid had:
no party status,
no standing,
no intervention,
no authority,
and no visible respect for maritime or procedural boundaries.

Naturally, one might expect the Court to say:
“Excuse me, sir, you are a cephalopod outside the litigation.”

But no.

Instead, the squid was welcomed warmly into the procedural ecosystem.

Soon the entire litigation universe began revolving around the highly aggressive calamari.

The actual claims started disappearing beneath its pulsing tentacles.
The operative pleading cracked apart like a doomed sailing vessel.
Facts, evidence, and due process floated helplessly through space like debris after a cosmic shipwreck.

Meanwhile, the Court stood nearby, calmly assisting the creature  while insisting that all of this was perfectly normal litigation management.

At some point, I stopped asking:
“Why is the squid attacking the case?”

and began asking the more important constitutional question:

“Why is the Court taking orders from seafood?”

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)