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, September 2, 2026

Amy Merklen to First Amendment in the Sidney graffiti case: eh?

 On July 23, 2026, I published an article about Sidney graffiti indictment by Delaware County DA's office, raising 1st Amendment questions - that the indictment is political and one-sided.

I also FOILed DA Smith - which caused him to spat against me attempting to own his government-given email and to claim that I do not contact him at that e-mail - while at the same time including me into the journalistic media release list.  Because I sued the County, of course, for denying me, as a journalist, that right.

On August 26, 2026 County Attoney Amy Merklen who self-designated herself as County's Record's Access Officer produced this 9-day wonder response to my FOIL/1st Amendment journalistic inquiry:






The defense of the girls indicted by DA Smith might be interested to know what the County claims in response to my FOIL/1st Amendment request.

First, Merklen claimed that the criminal investigation in Sidney graffiti case - despite the indictment already revealed to the public, with humiliating and embarrassing and scary legal consequences to the girls indicted - IS STILL ONGOING (that is the only basis how FOIL requests of this nature may be denied).

She claimed that BECAUSE the information I sought was “gathered for law enforcement purposes” and because the investigation is allegedly ongoing, despite the indictment, she may deny a journalist access to the actual photographic evidence of MESSAGES for which the girls were criminally indicted for felonies.

That is a direct violation of FOIL, and a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, my rights as a representative of the press for access to these records, as I sought records on issues of public concern, potentially political prosecution of individuals in Delaware County, and specifically belonging to the camp of political opponents of the predominantly Republican County management.

Mind that the County management, with a straight face, claimed to federal court in Decker Advertisement, Inc. v. Delaware County, NY, an ongoing case, that they had a right to de-designate Walton Reporter from publishing County's governmental notice because The Reporter is not Republican-leaning, and because the County, with a Republican-leaning management, has a right to match the choice of newspaper to simply publish legal notices of the County, with the County management's personal political leanings.

Also mind that once the indictment is filed, the investigation is presumed to be officially over - thus making certain criminal records, with the exception of testimony in the grand jury - open to the public.

And all that I asked was SPECIFICS:  the actual PHOTOGRAPHS of what the girls WROTE on those sidewalks or buildings, what kind of POLITICAL MESSAGES they are CRIMINALLY charged with creating on public property.

I, of course, will appeal that FOIL decision - but Merklen has put herself now, unlawfully, in the position of BOTH the FOIL Records' Access Officer - and advisor to FOIL Appeals Officer (Tina Mole), which is adamantly unlawful - but when did it stop either Merklen or Mole?  

So, the response to FOIL Appeal will be predictable.  

The case is litigation-prone for non-disclosure of records on issues of public concern.

Second, Merklen claimed that no records exist as to First Amendment training of any officers or employees of the County who participated in investigation or prosecution of the girls.

That response was predictable - given that Merklen, in a recent deposition in Decker, made sworn statements that she has no clue about the 1st Amendment, could not identify a seminal 1st Amendment case, and that she delegates all federal litigation on 1st Amendment issues to outside counsel, and then does not watch what that counsel files on her behalf in that litigation.

But, I wanted to see it in writing that, even after THREE YEARS IN LITIGATION on 1st Amendment retaliation issues with Walton Reporter (since 2023) and 2 years in litigation with me and my husband also on 1st Amendment retaliation issues in multiple cases, state and federal - Merklen STILL did not come around to put together a 1st Amendment training policy, or to actually train Delaware County officers and employees in how 1st Amendment works.

Delaware County taxpayers should vote Mole out of office finally.  Not only Mole uses her public office to enrich herself and her buddies, but she also keeps appointing the incompetent Merklen as County Attorney and condones Merklen's inviting litigation to the County by her incompetence - and taps into taxpayer coffers to finance litigation against herself and Merklen in individual capacity for intentional misconduct, which should be covered by taxpayer-funded insurance.

I will continue to comment on this case.

Stay tuned.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)