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 12, 2026

The Fairy Tale of the Village That Died


Once upon a time, in a land called Civil Rights Litigation 101, there stood a cheerful little municipality known as the Village of Delhi.

It had streets and sidewalks, a water system and a clerk, a police department and a seal. It attended lawsuits from time to time, as municipalities often do.

One day, the Village was sued through its Mayor.

"Do not worry," said Professor Hornbook to the law students. "A suit against a public official in his official capacity is simply another way of suing the governmental entity."

The students nodded.

"That is easy."

And everyone lived according to that rule for many years.

Then, one spring morning, the Former Mayor was rumored to have departed this world.

The Village sighed.

"Poor fellow," it said. "Somebody needs to step into his shoes in this lawsuit - as Professor Hornbook said - in his individual capacity".

But before the Village could do anything like that, a Learned Attorney Heinel arrived carrying a Motion to Substitute.

She proclaimed,

"The Former Mayor, in his official capacity, shall be replaced by two Trustees from Florida."

The Village blinked.

"Excuse me," it asked politely. "Official capacity? Isn't that... me?"

"Details," replied the Learned Attorney.

The motion reached the Great Castle of Justice Baker.

It arrived from Learned Attorney Heinel.  It conveniently arrived with a Proposed Order and an attached Schedule A with a new caption.  Such respect! - happily thought The Wise Judge Baker.  

So The Wise Judge Baker spoke the ancient judicial words:

"Motion granted" - and signed the Proposed Order without looking.

Lightning flashed.

Thunder rolled.

A pigeon fainted.

At that very instant, something extraordinary happened.

The Village of Delhi looked down at its own feet.

They were disappearing.

"My streets!"

Poof.

"My sidewalks!"

Poof.

"My municipal corporation!"

Poof.

"My taxpayers!"

"Still here," replied the taxpayers.

"But... who am I?"

No one answered.

Meanwhile, two bewildered young women in Florida received a parchment.

It read:

Congratulations.

You are now the Village of Delhi.

One looked at the other.

"I thought we were trustees."

"So did I."

"Do villages usually live in Florida?"

"I don't think so."

Back in the Kingdom of Civil Rights Litigation 101, the law students opened their hornbooks.

The first sentence still read:

"A suit against a public official in his official capacity is a suit against the governmental entity."

The second sentence now read:

"See also: The Curious Death of the Village of Delhi."

The students scratched their heads.

One timidly raised a hand.

"Professor... if the Village did not die..."

"Yes?"

"...who exactly was substituted?"

The Professor quietly closed the book.

"I believe," he said, "that is a question for the appellate courts."

And somewhere, in a quiet cemetery reserved exclusively for municipal corporations, a small granite monument appeared.

It read:

HERE LIES

THE VILLAGE OF DELHI

Municipal Corporation

Cause of Death:
Official-Capacity Substitution

Survived by:
Two Florida Trustees

And the taxpayers lived perplexedly ever after.




I haven't, in a long time, read something so hilariously stupid as (1) the notice of motion filed by the taxpayer (including myself) paid attorney Courtney Heinel, fully rubber-stamped by a long-time judge Christopher Baker.

The attorney sought substitution of the allegedly dead (no admissible evidence on record) former Village of Delhi Mayor Sridhar Samudrala in a lawsuit where I am a plaintiff.

In individual AND OFFICIAL capacity.

Here is how a federal court recently ruled about official capacity claims against individual Delaware County Defendants and the County:



Now, the attorney in question is also municipal counsel for the Village of Delhi guiding the village with her wisdom - at taxpayer expense.

Here is how Attorney Heinel who is practicing law for 10 years,




 advertises herself on the website of her law firm:



And here is the Chemung County Supreme Court Justice Christopher P. Baker 




who endorsed Heinel's crazy nonsense wholesale - a judge who has been admitted to practice law 30 years ago


and who has been a law clerk for a judge or a judge in his own right for 26 years, according to the judge's official biography



Follow me - you won't see this kind of craziness often.

This is the Notice of Motion to substitute a supposedly dead party filed by attorney Courtney Heinel (remember, 10 years of experience practicing law, Village of Delhi's municipal advisor and litigation counsel), the document number on the public NYSCEF docket is 306.  By clicking the link you will open the document from its official court website.

I will duplicate by publishing a scan before they removed this piece of work:



Here is the proposed order that attorney Heinel helpfully drafted for Judge Baker, NYSCEF Document Number 348, and here is a scan of paragraph 3 in that proposed order:




And here is the link to NYSCEF Document Number 352 - showing that Judge Baker simply rubber-stamped whatever attorney Heinel put in front of him - complete with the crazy substitution clause in paragraph 3.

And this is the Schedule A of the order of substitution - the brand spanking new caption of the case:





Now why do I call this portion of the order of substitution absolutely, batshit crazy.

Even law students know that suing a public official in his official capacity is the equivalent of suing the entity he serves.

In other word, suing Samudrala, as former mayor of the Village of Delhi, in his official capacity is the equivalent of suing the Village of Delhi.  Meaning, if (no competent evidence on record) he died - anybody who could be, theoretically, substituted in his place, could be substituted only in his individual capacity.

So, what the above mental exercise of the 10-year-practicing attorney and a 30-year-practicing judge shows is that Justice Baker, at the request of Attorney Heinel, has made a ruling - an official court ruling - that the Village of Delhi, literally, died - and is substituted in a lawsuit by two young women out of Florida, the former mayor's daughters.

And - how many more rulings like this this judge has generated?  Or will generate over his "career" on the bench?

Why am I writing about this?

It is important for those who are - loosely - spending public money TO PAY ATTENTION WHAT they are putting in front of the court (for Heinel) and WHAT they are signing (for Judge Baker).

And WHO they are contracting with for legal services - this is to Village of Delhi government and taxpayers.

And WHO they are electing to the bench (this is - to Chemung voters of Judge Baker).

JUST IMAGINE an appeal like that hitting the 3rd Department - as it will soon:

I appeal the order of The Hon. Christopher P. Baker who ruled that the Village of Delhi has died...  Well...





Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)