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.


Wednesday, June 17, 2026

The Kingdom of Vanishing Trust: what did Math have to do with it?

 

Once upon a time, in a kingdom governed by Very Important People, there stood a magnificent castle called The Institution.

The Institution had everything an institution could possibly want: marble stairs, official seals, committees, subcommittees, advisory committees advising the committees, and an impressive collection of documents proving that everything was functioning perfectly.

Whenever villagers complained, a Herald would emerge from the castle gates and announce:

"Nothing is wrong."

The villagers would nod.

After all, the Herald had a very official hat.

Years passed.

One day, a peasant raised a hand.

"But Your Officialness, the bridge collapsed."

The Herald consulted a report.

"The bridge did not collapse."

The peasant pointed.

"It is in the river."

The Herald adjusted his spectacles.

"The bridge is participating in a temporary aquatic relocation initiative."

The villagers looked at one another.

That was odd.

Not enough to cause trouble.

Just odd.

A tiny crack appeared in the Kingdom's Great Reservoir of Trust.

Nobody paid much attention.

Then another bridge relocated itself into a river.

Then a tax collector accidentally taxed three cows, two chickens, and a cabbage for owning an unlicensed boat.

Then a judge declared that a hearing had occurred, despite several participants having never received notice that it existed.

The Herald explained:

"Everything is functioning exactly as intended."

The villagers again looked at one another.

The crack grew.

Now, among the villagers lived a curious old mathematician.

He spent his days drawing equations in the dirt and terrifying local children with discussions of stochastic processes.

The villagers asked him:

"What is happening?"

The mathematician stroked his beard.

"Trust is a funny thing," he said.

"It does not disappear all at once."  And he drew this chart.


Thanks: Prof. Dimitri Volchenkov.


The villagers were disappointed.  They had hoped for a dragon - and

instead they got a lecture.

The mathematician continued.

"Imagine a barrel."

The villagers understood barrels.

"Each strange event adds a drop."

"A drop of what?"

"A drop of doubt."

The villagers nodded.  This seemed reasonable.

"Sometimes a good event removes a drop."

"Excellent."

"Sometimes ten bad events add ten drops."

"Less excellent."

"And eventually the barrel overflows."

The villagers became concerned.

"What happens then?"

The mathematician pointed toward the castle.

"Nothing."

"Nothing?"

"Nothing immediately."

The villagers were confused - but the mathematician smiled.

"That is the interesting part."

He explained that people imagine institutional failure as a dramatic event: a revolution! a collapse! a dragon!

Perhaps even two dragons!!

Reality, however, was less theatrical.

The Institution continued issuing reports.

The Herald continued wearing his hat.

The committees continued meeting.

The subcommittees continued discussing the minutes of the previous committee meetings.

Everything looked normal.

Yet something had changed: the villagers no longer interpreted official statements the same way.

Whenever the Herald proclaimed:

"Everything is functioning perfectly,"

the villagers would quietly ask:

"According to whom?"

When a report declared:

"No irregularities have been found,"

the villagers wondered:

"Who looked?"

When an investigation concluded:

"We investigated ourselves and discovered we were correct,"

the villagers developed mysterious facial expressions.

The mathematician called this crossing a threshold.

The villagers called it:

"Having had enough."

Soon the Kingdom entered a strange era.

The castle still possessed authority.

The villagers still obeyed many rules.

Yet the old reservoir of trust had become difficult to refill.

Every new proclamation had to compete with years of accumulated doubt.

The Herald noticed.

The committees noticed.

Even the subcommittees noticed.

This was alarming.

Subcommittees rarely noticed anything.

So the King summoned the mathematician.

"Can trust be restored?" asked the King.

The mathematician considered the question.

"Of course."

The King sighed with relief.

"Excellent. We shall establish a Royal Commission on Trust Restoration."

The mathematician shook his head.

"That is not what I meant."

The King frowned.

"What did you mean?"

The mathematician replied:

"If people lost trust because bridges kept falling into rivers, the solution is not a report explaining that the rivers are at fault."

The King stared.

The mathematician continued.

"If people believe procedures no longer mean what they claim to mean, another proclamation saying the procedures are wonderful will not help."

The King's face became increasingly troubled.

"So what should we do?"

The mathematician pointed toward the nearest collapsed bridge.

"Perhaps begin there."



No comments:

Post a Comment