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.


Wednesday, August 5, 2026

The Fairy Tale of the Dragon Act

If you thought the tale of the dead Village of Delhi/Samudrala tale was the end of the lunatic courtroom reality - no, the sleep of reason never failed to produce monsters as readily as through the kind-of-minds of the very, very, very privileged court inhabitants.  These are their stories.



Long ago, in a prosperous kingdom where lawyers still believed that statutes meant what they said, there existed a venerable law known simply as the Dragon Act. It was not a complicated statute. In fact, dragon scholars often remarked that it was one of the few laws in the kingdom that even judges could understand. It contained only one proposition of consequence. Whenever Fact A (such as death of an attorney's client) occurred, a Pearl Dragon was born. No committee voted upon its birth. No court approved it. No lawyer drafted it. The dragon appeared by operation of the Dragon Act itself.

The Pearl Dragon was admired throughout the kingdom. It was magnificent, with shimmering mother-of-pearl scales that reflected every color of the rainbow. It always possessed three heads, neither more nor fewer, and every apprentice lawyer could recite their names before being admitted to the Guild. The first head was called Jurisdiction Abates. The second was Attorney's Authority to Represent Ends. The third was Post-Death Filings Are Nullities. No dragon naturalist had ever observed one head arriving before the others or departing without them. They were born together because the Dragon Act had so ordained.




For generations this arrangement caused no controversy. Whenever Fact A occurred, the Pearl Dragon quietly appeared, everyone acknowledged its existence, and the legal world adjusted itself accordingly. Lawyers might quarrel about fees, procedure, or footnotes, but no respectable advocate ever argued with the Dragon Act itself. It was considered unhealthy to quarrel with dragons that had been born directly from statute.

Then one autumn morning, Fact A occurred again.

The kingdom naturally expected the familiar Pearl Dragon. Instead, before anyone had time to consult the Dragon Act, the Royal Dragon Keeper hurried into the Great Hall with a broad smile upon her face.

"There is no need to concern yourselves with that old dragon," she announced. "We have our own."

Behind her shuffled the strangest creature anyone had ever seen. It vaguely resembled a dragon, but only in the charitable way that a scarecrow resembles a knight. Its scales were stitched together from mismatched scraps. Entire sections appeared to have been repaired overnight. One wing seemed borrowed from another species entirely. It looked less like a creature born of nature than one assembled from spare parts in a government workshop.


The villagers stared in respectful silence until one elderly dragon scholar finally cleared his throat.

"Forgive me," he said politely, "but that is not the dragon described in the Dragon Act."

The Dragon Keeper looked almost amused.

"Precisely," she replied. "This is our dragon."

The patched creature raised its first head and proclaimed with great dignity, "Jurisdiction abates."

The scholar nodded.

"Very good."

The dragon continued.

"...except where jurisdiction continues to be useful."

Its second head then spoke.

"Attorney's authority to represent ends."

Again the scholar nodded approvingly.

"...except where representation ought to continue."

Finally the third head lifted itself proudly.

"Post-death filings are nullities."

The scholar smiled.

"...except these post-death filings."

The smile slowly disappeared.

"I don't believe," the scholar said after a long pause, "that such a dragon exists."

The Dragon Keeper laughed.

"It certainly exists. You are looking directly at it."

"But not under the Dragon Act."

"That," she answered pleasantly, "is because you continue reading the Dragon Act."

At precisely that moment the Royal Judge entered the hall. He was widely admired for many qualities, but above all for his extraordinary confidence in deciding dragon cases without opening dragon books. A diligent clerk immediately approached him carrying the Dragon Act bound in beautiful blue leather.

"Your Honor," whispered the clerk, "perhaps the statute should be consulted."

The Judge accepted the book graciously.

Then, with great ceremony, he placed it face down upon the bench.

"There," he said.

"It can no longer distract the Court."

The scholar gathered his courage.

"Your Honor, the Dragon Act recognizes only the Pearl Dragon."

The Judge nodded thoughtfully.

"An interesting historical observation."

"It is not historical, Your Honor. It is today's law."

The Dragon Keeper gently stroked the patched creature.

"We have our own dragon."

The scholar pointed toward the far corner of the courtroom, where behind a heavy iron gate sat the Pearl Dragon, quietly shimmering in the darkness, all three heads watching the proceedings with patient dignity.

"But the Pearl Dragon is still here."

"No," replied the Dragon Keeper.

"Our dragon is here."

"But that is not the Dragon Act dragon."

"We also," she explained kindly, "have our own truth" - here:  the client may be dead and alive at the same time! - because if the client is dead and counsel's authority ceases, and counsel kept going and stating to the court he is alive - it means unthinkable - counsel can be sanctioned!  No, not THIS counsel!"


The scholar opened the Dragon Act anyway.

"It says that when Fact A occurs, the Pearl Dragon is born."

"Our truth is different."

"It says attorney's authority ends."

"Our dragon has improved that feature."

"It says post-death filings become nullities."

"Our dragon is more practical."

"It says jurisdiction abates."

"Our dragon is more flexible."

The scholar closed the statute.

"I begin to understand."

"No," corrected the Dragon Keeper.

"You continue to misunderstand."

"How so?"

"You keep believing that the Dragon Act governs dragons."

The scholar looked genuinely puzzled.

"What governs them then?"

The Dragon Keeper smiled.

"Our dragon."

"And our truth."

The courtroom fell silent.

The scholar slowly raised one finger toward the locked cage.

"I am not asking the Court to create a different dragon."

"I am merely asking the Court to acknowledge the dragon that the Dragon Act itself created."

The Dragon Keeper gasped in horror.

The Judge frowned gravely.

After a moment of deep reflection he announced his decision.

"The scholar shall be sanctioned."



The clerk hesitated.

"For inventing a dragon?"

"No."

"For insisting upon the Dragon Act when the Court already has its own dragon."