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.

Sunday, July 26, 2026

The FOIL standoff with Delaware County (NY) DA Shawn Smith on the graffiti case

On July 21, 2026 Delaware County, NY was denied by federal court a motion for a summary judgment on the issue whether it has retaliative policies and act in retaliation against journalists (the Decker case).  The case must now proceed to a jury trial.

In the process of discovery and depositions in that case (I published depositions here), multiple public officials confirmed that the County has an unwritten policy not to "reward" (translate as: they retaliate against) those who (1) criticize the county, and who (2) sue the county.  And anybody who supports them.

It is interesting to apply that policy to County DA Shawn Smith and his recent FOIL standoff with me.

First of all, in the Decker case another journalist, The Reporter's editor Lillian Browne, testified that Shawn Smith took her off a media distribution list because he did not like her reporting.

The reporting in question was that DA Smith eavesdrops on interaction of inmates with their attorneys at Delaware County jail - of which the reporter claimed to have a video where DA Smith confirms the practice in person.

As to me - DA Smith did not recognize my existence as a journalist until I sued the County for (among other things) not including me into media distribution lists.

Now he does and sends me press-releases - but refuses to comply with FOIL requests as a follow up on these press releases.

See my FOIL request immediately sent to DA Smith as soon as I received a press-release about the graffiti indictment, and the exchange that followed.

You can read my first article of the series about the graffiti indictment here.

That DA Smith is untrained in FOIL - and 1st Amendment, apparently - is a given.

He teaches me that:

(1) I may not contact him at his official email address as a DA when he does not want it;

(2) he does not want it because I am sending, as a journalist, a FOIL request he does not like; and

(3) he considers that I must jump through hoops established by Delaware County - contrary to the FOIL statute - as to how exactly FOIL should work.

Specifically, DA Smith told me that I must follow the portal established by Delaware County to file FOIL request and may not file FOILs - or 1st Amendment requests - directly with him as a department head, even though FOIL (and FOIL Advisory opinions) authorizes me to do just that.

Well, DA Smith may learn within 5 business days of the FOIL request, through an administrative appeal for constructive denial of such a request, that the request was, indeed, made - and that he cannot claim ownership of the public office, or the public email that I used, as a journalist, to make that request.

But, it is interesting that at the outset of the case - while DA Smith has the young faces of defendants in the graffiti case plastered all over the place in all news outlets, he resists any journalistic inquiries into specifics.

In other words, he is using publicity - improperly so - to contaminate the jury pool, and to deprive the three kids of their right to a fair trial, but he refuses to allow public inquiries, allowed by law, into specifics of the case, to DEcontaminate the jury pool.

And that is a problem.



Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)