Has Pennsylvania's highest court been compromised by greed and political corruption? A year ago, when I first got involved with working to keep casinos out of Philadelphia neighborhoods, I might have been shocked by the very idea. Now the question seems appropriate.

On Monday, the League of Women Voters (“LWV”) filed a federal law suit that makes a stunning allegation: it alleges that former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy secretly met with legislative leaders and struck a deal to uphold the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's slots casino bill in return for a pay hike in the form of . . . wait for it . . . the now infamous pay raise of 2006. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that these types of alleged shenanigans date back a decade to the mid-nineties. Check out the LWV case by clicking here.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that both the gaming act and the pay raise were passed by the General Assembly through a process called "gut-and-replace" whereby a law is stripped of its original language and intent, and rushed to a vote without the mandated three days of public review in both the House and the Senate. This is a clear violation of Article 3 of the Constitution and last year a lower court struck down a perfectly nice 2002 hate-crimes bill, finding the "gut-and-replace" tactic to be unconstitutional.

Though some observers have questioned whether the LWV's case will succeed, few familiar with the history of the court's decisions regarding casinos are shocked or surprised by the accusations that the Court might have lost its independence.

Is it true? If not, why would a respected nonpartisan group such as the League of Women Voters put its reputation on the line? And their case isn't the only place where you can hear these questions raised about justices and injustice.

Take this month's Philadelphia Magazine story about the feud between former friends and political allies Senator Vince Fumo and SugarHouse investor Richard Sprague as exhibit B. In his article, Robert Huber explains that:

These days, Dick Sprague helps watch over the State Supreme Court from his perch on its disciplinary committee, which is chaired by Bill Lamb, an ex-justice who is one of Sprague's closest friends. So close that Fumo sometimes referred to them in phone conversation as the "tennis player" – Sprague–and his partner–Lamb.

Check out the entire article here.

Well guess what? You can cue up the spooky music because Bill Lamb is also an investor in SugarHouse. Huber goes on to slyly note that the gambling bill written by Fumo in 2004 has "a provision that legal challenges get fast-tracked past the lower courts and go right to the Supremes. At press-time, in the 11 separate matters involving SugarHouse that have been decided by the court, the casino has gotten favorable rulings 11 times."

Get ready for ruling number 12.

At the end of his last term, Mayor John Street granted SugarHouse Casino a license to build on 11 acres of riparian land along the Delaware River despite the fact that under current law only the state legislature, not the city, has the legal authority to lease these riparian lands. (For a more detailed account of the case, check out this Plan Philly article.) Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia City Council, and members of Philadelphia's legislative delegation, including Representatives Mike O'Brien and Bill Keller and Senator Fumo now are asserting in court that Street overstepped his legal authority. If SugarHouse wins its 12th legal case, it will be in blatant defiance of existing law, our city officials, state officials and basic common sense.

If the allegations in the League of Women Voters' case are true, then does that put all the casino cases under a cloud of suspicion? Is the Delaware riverfront being held hostage to a political conspiracy?

So what to do? To save democracy and declare our independence just like our fore-fathers did in 1773, Casino-Free Philadelphia is throwing a Tea Party.

The first step is to shine a light. The SugarHouse case could be decided as soon as today, so we're sending the Supremes a message to let them know we are watching. We expect the Court to operate within the very same laws that they are sworn to uphold.

Here is how our Tea Party will work: If you donate to Casino-Free Philadelphia, we will put your name and personalized message on a card, enclose an actual tea bag, and mail it to the Supreme Court. The minimum donation is $1 to cover the costs of postage, materials and tea! Click here to take part. Additional funds donated will be used by Casino-Free Philadelphia to help fund all their efforts to keep casinos out of Philadelphia's neighborhoods.

Click here to participate.

We will also deliver the names and messages of those who participate to City Council, our legislators, and Mayor Nutter to thank them for standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Philadelphia and to let them know that we will continue to resist.

If the Supreme Court is dealing away our democracy and refusing to uphold the law, then maybe our city has no choice but to revolt, peaceably of course.