Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: March 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.

Friday, March 6, 2026

Delaware County harasses its own supervisors for lawful release of protected documents - and Hancock Eastabrook's attorney Giancarlo Facciponte is the tool of harassment of supervisors AND journalists (deposition of Walton Reporter's Lillian Browne)

Recently, Walton reporter reported that Town of Delhi Supervisor Maya Boukai publicly stated that she was harassed by Delaware County, through its hired attorneys Hancock Eastabrook LLP/Giancarlo Facciponte, also an attorney in the ongoing federal case against the county Decker Advertisement, Inc. v. Delaware County, 3:23-cv-01531 where the County lost a motion to dismiss in February of 2025 and where duelling motions for summary judgment, each supported with about 900 pages or more of depositions and affidavits of county officials and other witnesses, are now pending.

I happened to file a journalistic FOIL/First Amendment request seeking information regarding authority of Hancock Eastabrook LLP, Frank Miller,

Ashley Hayes

and Giancarlo Facciponte whose name and visage interestingly disappeared from the website of Hancock Eastabrook LLP after the controversy with Town of Delhi supervisor was publicly reported, but he is still listed as attorney employed by Hancock Eastabrook, LLP on New York State official website:

All I asked for is - please, cough up documents showing authority of these individuals and a law firm to represent DelCo in ongoing litigations - Decker + several lawsuits where I am a party (several - because DelCo deliberately fragmented litigation by selectively removing a case meant for litigation to federal court and artificially kept it there, using Hancock's connections to the local judges, for 7 months post divestment of federal jurisdiction - while at the same time cooking up events of further retaliation against me as a journalist, including through my close family members).

And, please, cough up legal bills of these happy individuals and a law firm in these litigations, I want to see them.

The response of the County: they do not have a shred of documentation I asked for because (supposedly) these happy individuals and a law firm were hired by an insurance carrier - and because of that, supposedly, the County has, again, not a shred of documentation showing why the holy cow these individuals claim to be attorneys for the county to different courts in different cases.

Additionally, the County introduced a trick - a "portal" for FOIL requests (I asked not only under FOIL, but also directly under the 1st Amendment) now attempting to MANDATE journalists like me and other records requesters to (1) register and account with a third party vendor; (2) authenticate themselves, providing personal information to the third party vendor - and only then be able to SEE what County's responses are to the records requests.

I am suing the County for that inelegant violation of my 1st Amendment - and FOIL - rights, including my rights as a journalist engaged in newsgathering of newsworthy information about the local government. See my lawsuit here.

Additionally, I filed a separate FOIL request asking what is the basis of authority of Miller/Hancock Eastabrook to represent the County in that lawsuit, too.

But: never underestimate capability of DelCo and its ruling czarine Amy Merklen (aka County Attorney) to breed and fuel litigation:

while ALREADY BEING SUED for this same conduct, they sent me two emails indicating that I must - once again - create an account and authenticate myself by providing personal information to a 3rd party provider - to even SEE what the heck their answer to me is.

Now, quite coincidentally, yesterday I was provided extremely interesting responses to my FOIL/1st Amendment request to the Town of Delhi seeking information as to what exactly were those masonic files that Maya Boukai released that caused Facciponte/Delco to harass her FOR DOING HER STATUTORY DUTY AS AN ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL - after consulting (1) the Town Attorney, and (2) a private attorney, at her own expense (consider the rule of fear emanating from the County that even makes an elected Town Supervisor to THINK this kind of expense is necessary).

Here is what I so far got - now, the Town of Delhi did not release the masonic files themselves for which Boukai was harassed by DelCo/Facciponte, I filed an administrative FOIL appeal while also notifying Boukai that I may sue her under 1st Amendment, or FOIL, or both, if these files - already released to someone else - are not released to me.

But, I've got a beautiful exchange between Facciponte and Boukai in letters where Boukai in no uncertain terms tells Facciponte that he is lying and harassing her and to f**k off in the future unless he subpoenas Boukai. Boukai is a member of County Legislature - remember?

Here is the response of the Town of Delhi to my FOIL/1st Amendment request, of yesterday:

And here is the documentation that was attached:

This is the Facciponte summary of his harassment of Boukai:

And this is Boukai's "f**k off" letter:

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a Facciponte's so-called deposition - that he turned into an harassment session - of Walton Reporter's editor Lillian Browne, the requester of information that Facciponte harassed Boukai about, and the reason why DelCo is in litigation for 3 years, costing the County an untold amount of money - because the County took a position that the cost of continued designation of Reporter as the County's legal notices paper (which it was for decades before) is the firing of the Reporter's editor Lillian Browne and sanitizing its coverage of Delco business (including political alignment with Republican majority of DelCo government).

I purchased this deposition from Pacer and interlinked all the glorious 510 word-searchable pages for you.

In a separate blog, I will analyze it and point out the most pertinent and interesting pieces.

Now - enjoy! If you can.

Oh - and a valuable post-scriptum for the idiots from Hancock Eastabrook and DelCo reading this blog and retaliating against me and my family while claiming in court (along with pursuing sanctions against me right after my publications here) that my blogs are irrelevant:

if you think you will intimidate me into stopping what I am doing to expose your misconduct in this blog - like you are intimidating Lillian Browne - like you are intimidating Maya Boukai - like you are intimidating anybody else who dares to criticize you - think again, if you have anything to think with (which I highly doubt given your conduct I am familiar with for decades).