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.


Saturday, May 16, 2026

The exciting story of the WAC Castle

 


The Watershed Kingdom

Once upon a time, in the misty green hills of the Catskills, there arose a magnificent kingdom dedicated to protecting water.

Not farmers.

Not towns.

Not people.

Water.

The Kingdom was called the Watershed Agricultural Council, although everyone in the countryside simply called it “The Castle.”

Nobody was entirely sure who owned The Castle.

The Castle itself insisted it was private.

The City insisted it was independent.

The farmers insisted somebody was definitely in charge.

And the paperwork insisted everybody needed another form.

At the center of the Kingdom stood the Sacred Lever of Filtration Avoidance.

The Lever was guarded day and night by administrators in fleece vests carrying binders thick enough to stop rifle rounds. Legend said that if the Lever was ever disturbed, New York City would be forced to build a gigantic filtration plant made of gold, concrete, and taxpayer tears.

So the Lever could never be touched.

To protect the Lever, the Kingdom developed many sacred rituals.

There were Whole Farm Plans.

There were BMPs.

There were Easement Guidelines.

There were Resource Protection Areas.

There were Allocation Tracking Worksheets.

There were Annual Status Reviews.

And, of course, there was the most holy phrase of all:

“Consistent with the Conservation Purposes.”

Nobody knew exactly what the Conservation Purposes were.

But everybody agreed they were extremely important.

Farmer Bill discovered this one spring after asking whether he could move a culvert twelve feet downhill.

The Easement Committee assembled immediately.

Five solemn officials reviewed satellite maps, topographic contour lines, stream buffer diagrams, slope calculations, nutrient management charts, and historical cow trajectories.

Three months later, Farmer Bill received a forty-page determination.

The answer was:

“Maybe.”

Meanwhile, giant trucks from the City arrived every year carrying mountains of money.

The Kingdom called these “Program Funds.”

The farmers called them “the reason the lights stay on.”

The Castle insisted the money did not create control.

This was explained carefully in many legal documents.

The explanation usually went something like this:

“Although ninety-five percent of our funding comes from the City, and although the City reviews budgets, audits expenditures, approves projects, monitors compliance, oversees implementation, reviews contracts, participates on committees, controls payment approval, and determines whether the work is satisfactory, we remain a completely private organization.”

The farming community listened respectfully.

Mostly because nobody wanted another site inspection.

At meetings, the Kingdom spoke constantly of partnership.

The farmers were told they were stakeholders.

They were collaborators.

They were stewards.

They were participants.

They were sustainable.

They were resilient.

But somehow they were never simply owners of their own damned farms anymore.

A man could inherit three hundred acres from his grandfather, survive floods, survive droughts, survive milk prices, survive Albany, survive Washington, survive taxes, survive equipment loans — and still end up needing committee review to decide whether a shed created too much impervious surface.

The Kingdom was very concerned about impervious surface.

Except parking lots for administrators.

Those were apparently sacred.

And although the Castle declared itself independent, the entire countryside understood an obvious truth:

The moment the City stopped funding the Kingdom, the Sacred Lever would begin to shake.

The reports would stop.

The consultants would vanish.

The binders would dry up.

The committees would dissolve into the forest.

And somewhere deep inside the Castle, somebody would whisper the forbidden words:

“We may need filtration, after all.”

Which was, of course, the one thing the Kingdom feared more than transparency.

The strange thing was that the farmers were not even against conservation.

Most of them had spent generations protecting streams long before anyone invented PowerPoint presentations about watershed resilience.

They knew every bend of every creek.

They knew which fields flooded.

Which springs dried up.

Which hills washed out after October rain.

Which woods held snow longest.

But none of that counted unless it appeared in a formally approved planning document reviewed under proper procedures pursuant to applicable guidelines.

The Kingdom trusted paper.

Paper was measurable.

Paper could be audited.

Paper could be monitored.

Paper could justify budgets.

A farmer’s memory was merely experience.

And experience, unfortunately, was not grant-compatible.

So life continued in the Watershed Kingdom.

The cows grazed.

The committees convened.

The reports accumulated.

The Lever remained untouched.

And every year, the Castle repeated the same sacred proclamation to the countryside:

“We are not a governmental entity.”

While standing knee-deep in government money.

Under government supervision.

Performing government functions.

To satisfy government mandates.

For the benefit of government infrastructure.

In partnership with government agencies.

Under government agreements.

With government oversight.

But absolutely, completely, unquestionably private.

Naturally.

No comments:

Post a Comment