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

Hamdenites - contact the nonprofits actively involved in protecting Delaware County water supply! Appeal for their intervention against the BESS project in Hamden threatening catastrophic environmental consequences!

 On June 24, 2026, three major environmental organizations — Catskill Mountainkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Food & Water Watch — filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York seeking to intervene in Woodward v. Lefton, Case No. 3:26-cv-00736.

The lawsuit challenges New York State's prohibition on hydraulic fracturing (fracking). The environmental organizations seek to defend that prohibition because of the potentially devastating consequences of industrial activities for the Catskill region, its residents, forests, wetlands, and drinking-water resources.

Why is this important to the residents of Hamden?

Because these organizations have placed before a federal court sworn declarations and extensive scientific documentation explaining why industrial development that threatens the Catskill environment and New York City's drinking-water supply must be subjected to serious scrutiny.

In his sworn declaration, Ramsay Adams, Executive Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper, states that the Catskill region provides approximately 90% of New York City's drinking water and emphasizes the importance of protecting the region's forests, rivers, and natural environment.

The organizations' memorandum also discusses the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's 2015 findings concerning potential threats to wetlands, surface water, groundwater, and New York City's unfiltered water supply.

The filings are supported by declarations from:

  • Ramsay Adams, Executive Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper.

  • Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper.

  • Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

  • Emily Wurth, Managing Director of Organizing at Food & Water Watch.

The organizations are represented by attorneys from Earthjustice, the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and Food & Water Watch.

What does this have to do with the Fraser Battery Energy Storage System?

The proposed Fraser BESS project would introduce a large industrial lithium-ion battery storage installation onto a forested mountain ridge in the Town of Hamden, within the New York City watershed.

The concerns include the potential consequences of battery thermal runaway, fire spreading into surrounding forests and peat deposits, contaminated firefighting runoff, and the limited emergency-response resources available in this mountainous rural area.

Fracking and lithium-ion battery storage are different technologies, with different hazards. Nevertheless, the underlying environmental protection question is strikingly similar: Should an industrial project proceed where a catastrophic incident could threaten water resources, forests, private property, and surrounding communities?

The organizations' filings in Woodward do not address the Fraser BESS project, and their participation in that lawsuit should not be mistaken for a position on Fraser.

But their sworn declarations and legal arguments demonstrate the importance they attach to protecting the Catskills, including its water resources, natural environment, local economy, and residents.

The residents of Hamden are entitled to ask why the environmental risks that warrant such vigorous protection against one form of industrial development should receive any less scrutiny when another industrial development is proposed in the same environmentally sensitive region.

The documents are publicly filed in the Northern District of New York:

Woodward v. Lefton, Case No. 3:26-cv-00736, ECF Nos. 28 and 28-1 through 28-7, filed June 24, 2026.

These filings deserve the attention of Hamden residents, local officials, watershed advocates, and everyone concerned about the future of the Catskills.

Links to read the actual documents filed with federal court on the motion to intervene are available here.


1) The motion to intervene;

2) Memorandum of law in support;

3) Proposed order;

4) Declaration of Ramsay Adams, Executive Director of Catskill Mountainkeeper;

5) Declaration of Maya van Rossum, leader of Delaware Riverkeeper Network;

6) Declaration of Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director of Delaware Riverkeeper Network;

7) Declaration of Emily Wurth, Managing Director of Organizing at Food & Water Watch (FWW);

8) Proposed intervenor memorandum of law in support of New York State's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' challenge to its hydrofracking ban


Hamdenites!

The above listed people - documents 4) through 7) - are leaders of nonprofit organizations obviously active to protect clean water supply in Delaware County.

Contact them with the BESS project in Hamden, NY!

Do not let Young Sommer representing all stakeholders, including the developers, Town of Hamden, County of Delaware and the Coalition of Watershed Towns - overpower you and deprive you of livelihood and of clean environment.

The time to act is - NOW!




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)