Independence of Representation in Court and Judicial Accountability in the United States: Tennessee v Lane revisited

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, May 18, 2026

Tennessee v Lane revisited - I WILL NOT CRAWL UP THOSE STAIRS

On May 18, 2026, I filed 48 documents across six Delaware County Supreme Court cases, across 6 court cases, in sets of three

(Affirmation shown here - Calendar for May 20, 2026 of Justice McBride - Calendar for May 20, 2026 of Justice Baker) - simply to notify the court that I - SIMPLY - CANNOT - DO IT.

And for your reference - if you think that there are too many "Neroni v. XYZ" lawsuits in here - the XYZ people themselves deliberately engaged in a variety of procedural shenanigans, such as removal one of 3 cases meant for consolidation to federal court, then unreasonably keeping them there after jurisdiction of the court ended -

while doing some nasty things that required to file a separate lawsuit, and then coming as a ton of bricks against us begging a judge (appointed by an administrative judge who a brother of the main law firm's managing partner, convenient, right?) claiming that they are innocent victims attacked by the vicious Neronis. That is predatory behavior, completely dishonest.

Took a lot out of me - as I said in the affirmation, I slept 5 hours a day for the last month trying - quite unnecessarily, I must say, there is no national emergency requiring the court to drive invalids into the ground to prepare for court - to comply with impossible demands of two judges-with-grudges: Baker and McBride.

They really, really overdid it with their motion pileup.

It does not even remotely look like justice or fairness.

Out of my prior experience as a trial lawyer, I can tell you - a mere request, no ADA disability accommodation or anything - by any lawyer if they have just two overlapping motions is usually instantly granted for the asking.

I have 18 motions pending at the same time.

I started to ask the court to stop this nonsense when there were 8 or 9 on the calendar - since then the court instead doubled it.

So - I openly refused to meet any impossible calendar, for the simple reason: it is physically impossible.

There is no point pointing fingers at my skill as a lawyer (funny, isn't it - I am not a skilled lawyer to represent clients and earn a living, but I am so that a bunch of dishonorable nepos would seek sanctions against an invalid) where I am very simply not given enough time to prepare.

I did not try to polish the affirmation.

This is not my usual work - and those who know how diligent I am to everything I file, from contents to form to fonts to everything - would know that at a glance from this affirmation.

There is simply an end coming sometimes to useless, futile efforts that not so slowly, physically, are killing you - for no reason.

I just wanted, as a journalist, as a taxpayer, as a property owner - access to court to vindicate my claims against the local government.

That is not a crime.

That is what Congress provided for by enacting The Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 1983.

I attached to my Affirmation the actual May 20, 2026 calendars of Justices Baker and McBride because at some point abstractions stop working.

People need to see what “manageable litigation” supposedly looks like for a disabled pro se litigant in Delaware County.

The calendars show approximately eighteen motions clustered onto a single date across overlapping cases.

Some seek dismissal.

Some seek sanctions.

Some seek restrictions on access to court itself - which is interesting, given that I am an active filer of FOIL/1st Amendment requests as a journalist, so Delaware County is dishonorably seeking to cut me off from sources of newsgathering and is trying to get a license to deny me FOIL/1st requests, handicapping my reporting - with complete impunity.

All motions put on the calendar by Justice Baker require oral argument. Do not believe the actual calendar saying no appearances. All of them require appearances - I have notifications from the court for it.

That I am at the same time suing "Justice" Baker and that he has claimed impartiality and sticks to my cases, denying me ADA accommodation, says a lot about his character. To me - he is not only less than a lawyer and less than a judge. He is less than a man. The same as what I can say about "Justice" McBride. I do not think, given the circumstances, anybody can blame me.

McBride and Baker (one a defendant in front of the other, but who cares, right?) pressed these 18 motions simultaneously against the same disabled litigant while the same court system refuses to provide a confidential ADA accommodation process required by federal law and 22 NYCRR Part 52.

Then comes the truly remarkable part.

The Court insists that my disability disclosures are too “conclusory,” while simultaneously refusing to provide any confidential mechanism through which more detailed medical information could safely be submitted. So the system creates a Catch-22:

Disclose disability information publicly on NYSCEF, or receive no accommodation.

But once disability information is disclosed publicly, opposing counsel suddenly begin behaving as though ADA accommodations are something they are entitled to “oppose” like ordinary adversarial motion practice. Several fully staffed law firms openly filed letters urging denial of accommodations.

Here's one of them - by a litigation counsel of Delaware County's litigation counsel Frank Miller who I happen to be suing, among other things, for fraud upon the court.

Apparently, disabled litigants in Delaware County now have the privilege to be submitted to judicial whim and veto power of politically connected law firms instead of getting disability benefits mandated by federal law.

So I stopped trying to make the situation look polished, or about orderly administration of justice and not middle-school-style backyard gang-bullying, which is what it truly is.

I stopped trying to selectively sanitize the record to make it aesthetically pleasing for people who are deliberately torturing two invalids - simply because they think they have the power to do that.

Instead, I filed the record as it actually exists: