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, October 14, 2026

Familial contracts of the free press - THE TWO BROTHER RABBITS OF DELAWARE COUNTY A Very Serious Investigation into Public Service, Family Business, and the Remarkable Longevity of Municipal Carrots: An investigative fairy tale supported by sworn testimony, federal court records, and the rabbits' own newspaper.


I. The Extraordinary Career of Brother Wayne

Once upon a time, in the prosperous carrot fields of Delaware County, New York, there lived two brothers: Wayne Leonard Shepard and Randy Shepard.

Brother Wayne was a public servant.  Well - he is trying to become one again, now heading the Town of Hamden, NY - voters beware.

Brother Randy was and is a newspaper publisher.

Both brothers enjoyed remarkably enduring relationships with Delaware County government.

According to a January 22, 2013 biographical article, Wayne Shepard spent more than two decades working for the Delaware County Department of Public Health before becoming Director of the Delaware County Office for the Aging in 2011.

That places the beginning of his County employment before 1991.

Wayne retired in August 2019.

His retirement, however, proved temporary.

In April 2022, Delaware County personnel official Linda Pinner approached Wayne and asked him to return.  Wayne accepted.  He was subsequently reappointed Director of the Office for the Aging in June 2022.

According to The Reporter's June 28, 2022 publication, the position carried an annual salary of $76,539.

Wayne retired again on June 18, 2025.

Thus concluded more than three decades of County employment, interrupted by a brief retirement and followed by a second retirement.

A truly impressive record of public service.

But the rabbits had another story.

This story



II. Brother Randy and the Public Carrot Supply

Brother Randy and his wife Kim owned Decker Advertising Inc., publisher of The Reporter.

According to Randy Shepard's sworn declaration in Decker Advertising Inc. v. Delaware County, No. 3:23-cv-01531, Document 246-3, paragraph 2, Randy had served as publisher of The Reporter since January 2010.

For decades, The Reporter had been designated an official Delaware County newspaper, receiving County payments for publishing legal notices.

Randy's sworn declaration identifies $14,544.74 in legal-notice revenue during 2020 and 2021 combined.

But the family business had another source of County revenue.

For approximately twenty years, Decker Advertising also handled the layout, printing, and distribution of The Dispatch, a publication issued by the Delaware County Office for the Aging six times annually.

The reported value of this arrangement was approximately $30,000 per year.

And who directed the Office for the Aging?

Brother Wayne.

The same Wayne who had worked for the County for decades, retired, and been recruited back into public service.

One brother directed the government office. The other brother's company supplied its printing services.

The arrangement survived the first retirement.

It survived the second appointment.

It continued into 2025.

The durability of public-private cooperation in Delaware County deserves scholarly attention.

III. The Two Overlaps

The documentary chronology establishes two periods during which Wayne Shepard's County employment coincided with the County's business relationship with Decker Advertising.

First overlap: Before 1991 through August 2019.

Wayne Shepard worked for Delaware County throughout this period. Decker Advertising's approximately twenty-year Dispatch arrangement began during his first period of County employment.

Randy Shepard's documented tenure as publisher of The Reporter began in January 2010.  From then until Wayne's first retirement in August 2019, Wayne's County employment coincided with both The Reporter legal-notice relationship and The Dispatch printing arrangement.

Second overlap: April 2022 through June 18, 2025.

The County recruited Wayne back after his first retirement.

Although The Reporter's official-newspaper designation had been revoked on March 23, 2022, the separate Dispatch printing arrangement continued.

According to Randy Shepard's declaration, Decker Advertising first faced competitive bidding for The Dispatch work in late 2024, after approximately two decades of providing those services.

The two periods therefore raise questions about procurement, conflict disclosure, recusal, competitive bidding, and the role of County legal counsel.

The investigation has identified two County revenue relationships. It has not yet inventoried other possible County purchases from Decker Advertising.

There may be additional carrots.

IV. The County Recruits Its Own Conflict

Wayne Shepard's sworn testimony provides an unusually interesting account of his return to County employment.

At his May 14, 2025 deposition, page 15, he testified:

Q. And what led you to return?

A. I was approached to return. Asked to come back.

Q. By who?

A. Personnel.

Q. Can you give me a name?

A. It was Linda Pinner.

The County affirmatively recruited Wayne Shepard back into employment while his brother's business continued providing printing services to the Office for the Aging.

This was an institutional decision.

The relevant questions are straightforward.

Who reviewed the potential conflict before Wayne was recruited?

Who examined the existing Dispatch arrangement?

Was a written disclosure prepared?

Was an ethics opinion requested?

Were procurement and payment decisions insulated from the family relationship?

What advice did County Attorney Amy Merklen provide?

And what role, if any, did outside counsel Frank W. Miller play in reviewing the arrangement?

These are ordinary questions of municipal accountability.

The rabbits should have no difficulty answering them.

V. The Conflict Finally Appears in Sworn Testimony

At his May 14, 2025 deposition, page 75, Wayne Shepard acknowledged the familial relationship as a conflict affecting his participation in the Dispatch procurement process.

Q. Was this conflict of interest that you mentioned, was the conflict that you are the brother of Randy Shepard?

A. Yes.

Q. And because of that, you are not the one making decisions on this RFP; is that correct?

A. Correct.

This testimony establishes that the family relationship was recognized as a conflict in the later procurement process.

It also establishes an important investigative question concerning the preceding years.

How had the same relationship been handled during the approximately twenty years of Dispatch work?

Were disclosures and recusals documented?

Did the County Attorney examine the matter before the 2024 bidding process?

And how much did the County pay Decker Advertising over the full duration of the arrangement?

The public has an interest in the answers.

Especially the public that paid the bills.

VI. The Tragedy of the Disappearing Newspaper Carrots

On March 23, 2022, Delaware County revoked The Reporter's designation as an official County newspaper.

The County's stated justification concerned increased advertising costs and administrative workload.

The publishers considered the decision retaliatory.

In June 2023, The New York Times published Emily Flitter's article, How Local Officials Seek Revenge on Their Hometown Newspapers, featuring the controversy involving The Reporter.

The story concerned freedom of the press, public advertising expenditures, and retaliation against a local newspaper.

The article did not explore the publisher's familial relationship with a longtime Delaware County department head or the separate Dispatch printing arrangement.

Thus, a national audience learned the sorry story about the newspaper's loss of government advertising revenue without receiving the full picture of the family's longstanding carrot speedway with County government, from one brother rabbit to another.

The story was sufficiently significant to attract national attention - and legal GIANTS stepped in to defend FREEDOM OF SPEECH and the FIRST AMENDMENT - possibly, without having a clue that they were, very simply, DUPED by both brothers.

The contract brother-to-brother were fighting over did not have a right to exist in the first place, so - I am VERY VERY VERY SORRY TO SAY THAT AND AM SAYING THIS THROUGH SOBBING - Amy Merklen was RIGHTRIGHTRIGHTRIGHT in revoking designation of THA REPORTER - only for a different reason than she stated.

Because had she stated the true reason - the Rabbit Conflict - then too many questions would have arisen.

So it was easier for Merklen and litigation counsel Miller to simply plunge (poor) County taxpayers into years of litigation and, possibly, hundreds thousands of dollars of expense much needed elsewhere - only not to expose the "business as usual" over the carrot lane in Delaware County, brother to brother.

The family-business chronology deserves attention of its own.

VII. The First Amendment Comes to the Carrot Patch

On December 4, 2023, Decker Advertising commenced federal litigation against Delaware County and numerous County officials.

The complaint asserted First Amendment retaliation and restrictions on the newspaper's access to government information.

The plaintiff was represented by attorneys associated with Greenberg Traurig and Cornell Law School's First Amendment Clinic.

Three institutions had now entered the story:

The New York Times.

Greenberg Traurig.

Cornell Law School's First Amendment Clinic.

Each institution became involved in a controversy presented principally as a dispute over press freedom.

Meanwhile, the County's longstanding business relationship with the publisher's family remained a separate subject deserving scrutiny.

The question is whether any of these institutions investigated that relationship, what they learned, and how they evaluated its relevance.

The federal litigation concerned constitutional rights.

The family-business inquiry concerns municipal ethics and expenditure of public funds.

Both subjects deserve examination.

VIII. Twice the Service, Twice the Legacy - X-times the Carrots

On June 19, 2025, following Wayne Shepard's second retirement, The Reporter published a tribute entitled:

“Twice the Service, Twice the Legacy.”

A touching celebration of a long career in County government.

And who published the tribute?

THA Reporter.

Owned by Decker Advertising Inc.

Owned by Randy Shepard and his wife Kim.

Randy being Wayne's brother.

Wayne being the former Director of the County office that had purchased printing services from Decker Advertising for approximately twenty years.

One must admire the symmetry.

Brother Wayne served the County.

Brother Randy published the tribute.

And the taxpayers financed the government operations within which the family-business relationship had flourished.


IX. The Next Carrot Pasture

After his second retirement, Wayne Shepard appeared as a candidate for Town Supervisor of Hamden in the November 3, 2026 election.

The prospective transition from County administration to Town government opens another chapter in this very serious fairy tale.

Town government has its own budget.

Its own purchasing decisions.

Its own public notices.

Its own printing requirements.

And its own conflict-of-interest obligations.

The record of Wayne Shepard's candidacy does not establish any future contractual arrangement involving Decker Advertising. It does, however, make the history of the brothers' County business relationships a legitimate subject of public examination.

A new pasture.

A familiar rabbit.

An opportunity for public scrutiny.

X. The Taxpayer's Final Question

The central issue is not the existence of two brothers, one employed by government and the other engaged in business.

The central issue is that they used County taxpayers as their private pocketbook while running all along the ardent stories of independent journalism and, on both sides, service to the public.

Right.

The documentary record establishes a longstanding printing arrangement, an acknowledged familial conflict in the later procurement process, and a County decision to recruit Wayne Shepard back into employment while the arrangement continued.

The public is entitled to know the contractual history, the total payments, the procurement procedures, the disclosures, and the advice provided by taxpayer-funded legal counsel.

The author of this investigation is herself a Delaware County taxpayer.

The question is therefore personal as well as public:

HOW MANY CARROTS DID THE RABBITS RECEIVE, WHO AUTHORIZED THEM, AND WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO GUARD THE CARROT PATCH?

AND - how did they escape all those NYS audits?

AND THE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE KICKER QUESTION IS:  


DO YOU THE PUBLIC WANT THE W BROTHER RABBIT TO NOW BE ELECTED TO HEAD THE TOWN OF HAMDEN AND EXPAND THE PASTURE TO THE R BROTHER RABBIT?


They will make you grow a lot of carrots for their thorough enjoyment - as they did with Delaware County taxpayers FOR DECADES.


🐰🥕🐰

THE END — OF CHAPTER ONE.

THE RABID TAIL CONTINUES.


No comments:

Post a Comment