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

Welcome to Tri-County Justice Land: Where Moot Motions Rise From the Dead and Old Grudges Never Retire - come watch the circu... oh, sorry... the slaught.... or sorry - the little "oral argument" on May 20, 2026 by Microsoft Teams

 





Once upon a time, in the glorious Tri-County Judicial Kingdom, there stood a giant pink castle known as the Tower of Judicial Infallibility.

Above its gates hung a golden sign:

“Past grudges never retire. They get promoted.”

And in that kingdom lived two mighty masters of procedural sorcery.

The first was Supreme Wizard McBride, Keeper of the ancient scroll known as
“Vendetta Playbook No. 1.”

The second was King Baker the Magnificent, Lord of Deadline Extensions and Reviver of Dead Motions.

Wizard McBride possessed a rare magical power:
anything that had already died procedurally could be resurrected with one swing of his enchanted gavel.

“Moot?” he would say.
“Nullified? Excellent! Bring it back anyway!”

King Baker possessed an even stranger gift:
he could simultaneously be:

  • a judge,

  • a defaulting defendant

  • and still preside over his opponent's cases - including his own.

Whenever peasants nervously whispered:

“But Your Majesty… they are suing you…”

King Baker smiled calmly from his throne of stacked motion papers.

“Exactly,” he replied.
“That is why I understand the matter better than anyone.”

And so life in Tri-County Justice Land continued peacefully.

Until one terrible day.

Two terrifying creatures arrived at the castle gates:

Disabled pro se litigants.

They did not ask for treasure.
They did not ask for power.
They did not ask for dragons.

They asked for something far more dangerous.

ADA accommodations.

The court clerks screamed.

The lawyers fainted dramatically onto leather briefcases.

The Emergency Siren of Procedural Doom began to howl throughout the kingdom.

“WARNING!” cried the royal herald.
“They are requesting… reasonable modifications!”

Panic spread through the Judicial Ivory Tower.

Wizard McBride immediately summoned the Council of Ancient Grievances.

“Who are these people?” asked a young clerk.

McBride narrowed his eyes darkly.

“Long ago,” he said slowly, “one of them defeated me in criminal court.”

The room gasped.

“And then,” McBride continued bitterly, “the appellate court wrote extremely unpleasant things about me.”

The torches flickered.

“What things?” whispered the terrified clerk.

McBride unrolled the ancient Third Department scroll and read aloud in horror:

“…maligned defense counsel and his arguments…”

The entire courtroom crossed itself with gavels.

Meanwhile, King Baker sat proudly upon his golden throne made entirely of extension motions.

Around him towered enormous piles labeled:

  • “VOID AB INITIO,”

  • “REVIVED SANCTIONS,”

  • “MOTION STILL ALIVE SOMEHOW,”

  • and the darkest procedural magic of all:
    “CONFERENCE SCHEDULED ANYWAY.”

Below the throne stood the legendary Ducking Stool of Judicial Efficiency.

And beneath it sat the two disabled litigants in wheelchairs.

Cold water of Procedural Fairness poured over their heads.

The man’s feet bled onto the courthouse floor.

“Perhaps,” said one nervous young page, “we should grant an accommodation?”

The courtroom exploded with laughter.

King Baker slammed his royal scepter.

“In THIS kingdom,” he declared,
“ADA stands for:

Add More Deadlines Automatically.”

Thunderous applause erupted from the VIP Lawyer Section.

Rubber ducks rained from the ceiling.

A court jester danced through the hall shouting:

“REVIVE THE VOID!
IGNORE THE LAW!
PUNISH THE DISABLED FOR DARING TO COMPLAIN!”

And all around the kingdom, the official motto glittered proudly in gold:

“Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.
But Procedural Revenge Is Forever.”


PS  After King Baker was notified of this fairy tale, he immediately added another motion to dismiss with a personal appearance to the pile

PPS  By the way, you may see the entertaining slaughter of two disabled litigants, one of them this journalist, in real time, on May 20, 2026 on this calendar of King Baker if you apply for virtual appearance (only e-mail address is needed).

You may apply to watch the circus here.  

Just fill out the application giving an e-mail to receive the link, and not your name or address.  The names and index numbers of cases can be obtained from the "King Baker calendar" link above.



I will greatly appreciate if you tell me that you applied, I need at least an approximate count of members of the public who watched the court hearing - because the court adamantly refused to put such applications, and how they are being handled by the court, into the official docket. 

My concern is not trivial.  Before, another judge did this:



That judge had the audacity to ask my son, who the judge knew served in the 82nd Airborne, why the heck he wanted to see how his elderly and disabled parents would be discriminated and abused by that judge in an online hearing.

The unlawful questioning of my son by Justice Patrick J. O'Sullivan occurred EX PARTE (the little "order" I published up above was not put into the official NYSCEF file).

Know that such little orders are patently unlawful.  Please, report to me if anything like that happens.

And, by the way, this is Judge McBride's calendar for the same day, May 20, 2026 - only Judge McBride, more efficiently, did not hold any hearings, even where he had to, see my recent blogs about Judge McBride here, here and here.

He simply co-ordinated the calendar with King Baker, A DEFENDANT in one of the cases that Judge McBride jammed on us on the same calendar date - making it that much difficult to respond to King Baker's POST-DEFAULT motion to dismiss without leave of court.  See my blogs about King Baker here, here and here.

But - in the TriCounty Judicial La-La Land time froze as a mosquito in resin - nothing changes, nobody changes, no law applies.  Business as usual.



No comments:

Post a Comment