Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: November 2026

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.

Monday, November 2, 2026

The grandstanding "Justice" Christopher P. Baker continues on his ADA-demolition course

I already wrote - and not once - about treatment of our disabilities, especially my husband's, by "Justice" Baker who ran for elections as a judge telling people how he grew in a household of a mother who was a nurse and how he sat on boards of hospitals and is all touchy-feely to disabled people.

BULL!

His real face - I showed his real face here:

And his real face keeps showing:

Consider also that where he is trying to dismiss our cases because we did not appear - exactly because he denied us ADA accommodations that would allow us to appear - he HIMSELF has no right to appear or sit there on that bench. Because the underlying cases upon which lawsuits in front of him are based are two cases where he himself is a NAMED DEFENDANT.

An ABSOLUTE disqualification.

TAXPAYERS AND VOTERS, KNOW THIS: I AM RIGHT ON THE MONEY! Who authorized dipping into taxpayers’ pockets to pay for Wayne Marshfield’s private legal defense?

Nobody answered my question as to who allowed paying over $8,000 for Wayne Marshfield's private legal defense in my lawsuit # 1 against him.

Both the Town of Hamden and the County of Delaware stalled my FOIL requests.

So I sued Marshfield again. Lawsuit # 2. For taxpayer waste - General Municipal Law 51.

He confirmed that what he said to the court in lawsuit # 1 about not being able to obtain insurance coverage was untrue. But he refused to answer the question - WHO authorized that expenditure of public funds for him and in which municipality - Town of Hamden or County of Delaware? And, he moved to dismiss my lawsuit without compliance with discovery, without answering those questions and without providing the authorizing documentation.

So I sued again - now the insurer NYMIR, in the proper court, Nassau County, where NYMIR has its headquarters.

And here is when the real frenzy began. Because the Nassau County Supreme Court may just as well force NYMIR into an answer - it is far away from the local neck of woods and maybe, just maybe, some of its judges are impartial. Which the local public officials would not like so very much.

Lawyers and government parties in several different lawsuits, where I am and am not a party, came together, complained in Delaware for Nassau lawsuit that was just-filed - and asked to do SOMETHING to me AND my husband to bar us from advnacing issues of public concern (and local corruption) in the courtroom.

This is DelCo's veteran litigation attorney Frank Miller speaking to Justice Christopher P. Baker (a named DEFENDANT in an action that Justice Baker is trying to enforce here - while refusing to step down ... because he is a party in the case he is adjudging - nothing interesting here):

Follow the tricky hands of Frank Miller - he repeatedly claims that my husband ALSO filed the Nassau action - he uses the word "THEY" all the time.

By the way, the case, contrary to Miller's insinuations, was filed legitimately and without violation of any laws or orders. Which Miller also knew. He simply did not like to be sued - who does like that?

But look at the actual caption that Miller was referring to as "THEY" asking for sanctions against both me and my husband - from outside of that case, as is his usual fraudulent trick: do you see two plaintiffs there? Maybe Miller drank too much before talking to the court about this one - but I only see one Plaintiff on the caption - myself:

And, government lawyers Frank Miller, Adam Rodd, Lisa Shrewsberry, Courtney Heinel, Earl Redding - as one single unit - asked the court to punish my husband for my journlism and for my lawsuit against the County and the Town of Hamden insurer because the stubborn me wants an answer to a simple question - WHO AUTHORIZED THE EXPENDITURE.

And, my journalistic nose tells me - because of this frenzy - that I am RIGHT on the money in this investigation.

Actually, the question goes deeper than just one case - how deep Marshfield was in taxpayers' pockets all the years of his "public service", and all other "public servants", too, that the very first thing that he thought about doing when he was sued in his PRIVATE capacity is to go and consult Town attorney to get taxpayer-funded representation - as he said in his false "hardship story" affidavit - in full knowledge that at the time Frank Miller fraudulently filed that false hardship story with the court, Miller and Marshfield knew that the story was not true because at that time Marshfield was ALREADY represented by a municipal insurer at public expense? Unlawfully.

Once again - nothing interesting here.

But to me - whenever the government is agitated and is trying to attack you as a journalist or civil rights litigant, and fraudulently so - know that you've hit gold.