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.

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

A CALL TO ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: PLEASE CONSIDER INTERVENING IN FEDERAL LITIGATION TO PROTECT THE CATSKILLS AND NEW YORK CITY'S DRINKING WATER

A proposed industrial battery storage facility on a forested mountain ridge in Delaware County, New York, raises serious questions about fire safety, groundwater contamination, wetlands protection, and the integrity of New York City's drinking water supply.


On November 2, 2026, I filed a federal lawsuit in the Northern District of New York challenging the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County.


Neroni v. EDF Renewables Development, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York

Case No. 3:26-cv-02257


The proposed facility would be situated within the New York City watershed, in a forested mountainous area with wetlands, potentially combustible peat deposits, difficult access roads, and limited emergency firefighting resources.


WHY SHOULD ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS BE CONCERNED?


1. A massive lithium-ion battery installation


The developer's December 2025 Emergency Response Plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, with a combined capacity of approximately 767.5 MWh, substantially exceeding the publicly represented project capacities of 500–540 MWh.


2. The possibility of catastrophic forest and underground peat fires


A lithium-ion battery fire could spread into surrounding forests and potentially ignite combustible peat deposits. Underground peat fires can persist for weeks or months, requiring extensive excavation, specialized firefighting equipment, and enormous quantities of water.


3. Threats to clean water supplies


Firefighting operations could generate contaminated runoff containing combustion residues, metals, sediment, and other pollutants, potentially affecting wetlands, groundwater, streams, and the watershed supplying drinking water to millions of New Yorkers.


4. Serious questions about emergency preparedness


The proposed facility would be unmanned, located in difficult mountainous terrain, and dependent upon emergency responders whose resources may be inadequate for a catastrophic industrial battery fire spreading into surrounding forests.


5. The inconsistency in environmental protection


New York State is currently defending its restrictions on hydraulic fracturing in Woodward v. Lefton, No. 3:26-cv-00736 (N.D.N.Y.), in substantial part to protect water resources and the environment.


Environmental organizations including Catskill Mountainkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Food & Water Watch have sought intervention in that litigation to defend those protections.


The same water resources deserve protection against the foreseeable consequences of a catastrophic industrial battery fire.


AN INVITATION TO INTERVENE


I brought this federal action as an out-of-state property owner holding property in Delaware County, asserting claims under New York common-law public and private nuisance principles and seeking preventive judicial relief.


I am now publicly inviting environmental organizations, watershed protection groups, conservation organizations, clean-water advocates, and public-interest environmental attorneys to examine the complaint and consider seeking intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.


Organizations representing watershed communities, environmental interests, and drinking-water consumers may have interests extending well beyond my individual property rights.


Their participation could bring essential scientific expertise, environmental evidence, and a broader public-interest perspective to the litigation.


We should not have to wait for a catastrophic fire, contaminated drinking water, destroyed wetlands, or the loss of homes and farms before asking whether this industrial installation can be operated safely at this location.


The purpose of this lawsuit is prevention.


CONTACT INFORMATION — ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ATTORNEYS WELCOME


I invite interested organizations, environmental attorneys, scientists, and watershed advocates to contact me to discuss the complaint, supporting documents, and possible intervention.


Tatiana Neroni

Plaintiff, Neroni v. EDF Renewables Development, Inc., et al.

Federal Case No. 3:26-cv-02257

Northern District of New York


Mailing address:

240 Harvest Moon Drive

Georgetown, SC 29440


Email: tatiana.neroni@gmail.com

Telephone (calls and texts): (843) 240-7745


Protect the Catskills. Protect the watershed. Protect clean drinking water before it is too late.


#ProtectOurWater #Catskills #DelawareCountyNY #NYCWatershed #CleanWater #EnvironmentalProtection #FraserBESS #BatteryStorage #Wetlands #PublicInterestLitigation #TownofHamdenNY #EnvironmentalJustice

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)