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 federal lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed construction of the Fraser BESS Storage project in Hamden, NY

 On November 3, 2026, a federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York concerning the proposed Fraser Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in the Town of Hamden, Delaware County.

Case: Neroni v. EDF Renewables Development, Inc., Fraser Storage, LLC, and Brett M. Miller
Case No.: 3:26-cv-02257-BKS-PJE
Presiding Judge: U.S. Chief District Judge Brenda K. Sannes

The lawsuit was brought by me, Tatiana Neroni, an owner of residential property in the Town of Hamden.  It asserts two claims under New York common law: prospective private nuisance and prospective public nuisance.

The purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain judicial review of the risks associated with the proposed facility before construction begins, rather than after an incident occurs.

The complaint raises several principal concerns:

  1. Battery capacity: The developer's December 2025 Emergency Response Plan identifies 196 Tesla Megapack 2 XL units, each rated at 3,916 kWh. Their combined nominal capacity is approximately 767.5 MWh, compared with the 540 MWh and subsequently 500 MWh figures publicly reported for the project. The complaint questions the absence of a disclosed explanation for this difference.

  2. Fire safety and setbacks: The developer seeks to reduce the Town's prescribed 1,000-foot setback to 100 feet. The lawsuit questions whether the proposed configuration would comply with the applicable provisions of the 2025 Fire Code of New York State.

  3. Site conditions: The proposed location is a forested mountain ridge near wetlands. The complaint raises questions about geological stability, possible peat deposits, and the potential spread of fire through surrounding vegetation.

  4. Emergency preparedness: The lawsuit examines the adequacy of emergency access, available firefighting resources, water supplies, and evacuation planning for surrounding communities, including farms and residents with limited mobility.

  5. Water resources: The proposed facility is within the New York City drinking-water watershed. The complaint addresses potential contamination from battery fires, firefighting runoff, and the consequences of a fire spreading beyond the installation.

The complaint draws upon the developer's publicly disclosed project documents, government reports, scientific publications, and documented battery-storage and wildfire incidents.

What the lawsuit seeks

The plaintiff requests declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent construction and operation of the proposed facility under the conditions alleged in the complaint, together with damages available under New York law.

The lawsuit does not assert that a fire will necessarily occur. Rather, it asks whether the combination of the proposed facility's characteristics, its location, and the disclosed emergency arrangements creates a sufficiently serious and foreseeable risk to warrant preventive judicial intervention.

Current status

The complaint has been filed and docketed, and summonses have been issued to the three defendants. The case is at its initial stage. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of the allegations, and the defendants have not yet had an opportunity to respond.

The complaint is a public court document and may be accessed through PACER using Case No. 3:26-cv-02257-BKS-PJE, Northern District of New York. 

The complaint is also available here.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)