The Bailey Docket – pleadings and filings in the Bailey disciplinary hearing

There is no better way for each of us to participate in seeking a public solution to the problems we have described in other posts, as revealed through the analysis of the Don Bailey disciplinary process, than to understand the jurisdiction of the courts, and exactly how they do business in cases such as these.  The Don Bailey situation is quite unique, as it involves a clear clash between two wholly separate “jurisdictions”, state and federal, implicating some very important principles at the heart of our system of government.  We hope eventually to provide you with all the detail you will need on these concepts of what is known as “federalism”, but for now we commend you to The Federalist Papers, a series of essays published in 1787 under the name Publius (written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), explaining the advantages of the U.S. Constitution.

Briefly, as it relates to this case, there has been a clear trend in civil rights cases to invoke the Eleventh Amendment to maintain rigid separation between the jurisdiction of the federal courts and actions involving the affairs of state government, and some of the judges involved in the Bailey matter have used the Eleventh Amendment, properly to be sure in cases, to leave litigants without a remedy in federal court.  More recent activist conservative courts, such as the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, have gravely blurred those lines, and the Don Bailey situation reveals the evils to be avoided.  In this case, the state courts and the federal courts have deliberately crossed all jurisdictional lines, and have combined their efforts to cutoff civil rights cases that involve public corruption.

The Bailey Docket:

The first document is what is known as a petition to invoke the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s extraordinary or “King’s Bench” jurisdiction.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is among the most powerful courts in the country, and King’s Bench jurisdiction derives, as its name implies, from the extensive powers of the courts at English common law, and essentially allows the Court to take jurisdiction of any matter pending in any of the courts of the state.  In this case it was requested because of the imminent public importance of issues of judicial corruption in light of the “kids for cash” scandal that led to former Luzerne County Judge Ciavarella being sentenced to 28 years in prison for corruption on the second day of the Bailey hearings.  The petition specifically raises issues of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, and wholesale violations of the rights of Mr. Bailey and his clients.  It was denied less than 24 hours from its filing.  Please feel free to read it and decide if you think it should have been denied so quickly.

Kings Bench

The next document is the Complaint for Discipline that was actually filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Killion and Fulton) initiating this public proceeding.  Please note that among the accusations being made against Mr. Bailey is that he wrote and submitted a document to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client Thom Lewis (since when is that a crime?) that Mr. Bailey did not even write, yet they refuse to withdraw this claim knowing it to be false.  The rest of the allegations speak for themselves, and the proof offered at the hearing will fill in the details.

Bailey Discipline Complaint

The discipline answer is Mr. Bailey’s response to the complaint, corresponding to each numbered paragraph.  It speaks for itself.

Bailey Discipline Answer


Bailey has filed a Complaint in federal court, which was filed in an effort to have the federal court stop the imminent denial of the rights of Bailey and his clients by going into the pending hearing without having any right to present the evidence that needed to be presented.  The Complaint names Bailey and 25 “John/Jane Doe” plaintiffs, his clients, and there will likely be updates to these pleadings sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Federal Complaint

The following document is the motion for injunctive relief filed by Bailey to stop the hearings.  It was denied by a Judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania, Nora Barry Fisher, who just last year was specially assigned to the Middle District (where Conner, Kane, Jones, and Carlson are located) to deal with a case against other Middle District Judges.  It was dismissed.

Motion for TRO

Again, we expect to have transcripts of the proceedings in the near future.

13 thoughts on “The Bailey Docket – pleadings and filings in the Bailey disciplinary hearing”

  1. -The Bailey Docket:

    The first document is what is known as a petition to invoke the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s extraordinary or “King’s Bench” jurisdiction. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is among the most powerful courts in the country, and King’s Bench jurisdiction derives, as its name implies, from the extensive powers of the courts at English common law, and essentially allows the Court to take jurisdiction of any matter pending in any of the courts of the state.-

    Dear Don,

    I hate to give advice, but I think it is time. We really appreciate your zeal and all you have being doing to draw support for such a worthy cause: our rights. But, let me be frank. I think you are full of yourself! What do you think you are? A gambling casino? Huh?

    Where did you get the notion that you are entitled to go around sticking your chest out requesting to be heard by a Judge in a United States Court of Law? Hmm? Especially when we’re talking the Holy of Holies, The One, The True, The Unblemished and Pristine, Perfection Incarnate, He Who Dwells In The Sanctuary of The Most High, THE SUPREME ONE- The Leader of the Third Branch

    That’s what I want to know, dag! Wise up big guy! If you are really serious about a ticket to that Lofty and Divine Temple, pay $700,000,000 for some slots, table games, liquor licenses and half-dressed babes! Nothin to it, bro!

    Don’t forget my friend, our upper class Saints are toiling hard in Floridian paradise, cooling off in crystal clear pools, tugging on the latest, high-fashioned, extra super-wide swim trunks and slurping martinis, to create jobs, baby! Jobs! Your rights as an American Citizen? Those intangibles you fought for 10,000 miles from home in steamy jungles in Southeast Asia, please!

    Seven. Give me a seven

  2. Pennsylvania Supreme Court has “exclusive appellate jurisdiction to consider appeals of any final order, determination or decision of the (state Gaming) Board involving the approval, issuance, denial or conditioning of a slot machine license or the award, denial or conditioning of a table game operation certificate.”

    “The high court also has sole say in gambling operations regarding local zoning, size, layout, construction or occupancy of gambling facilities, over and above local governmental entities.” Jim Panyard, PA Independent

    Former Supreme Court Justice William H. Lamb served a one year (2003) term to fill a vacancy on the high court.
    He was a Chester County District Attorney and Special Prosecutor.
    He has been appointed to several posts by the state Supreme Court.
    He is an investor in the SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia.

    Former Chief Justice Stephen Zappala, Sr. is chairman of the Pennsylvania Casino Association (PCA) based in Pittsburgh.
    Michelle Zappala Peck, his daughter, is an employee.
    Chief Justice Zappala made $275,000 annually from the PCA.
    Philadelphia attorney Richard A. Sprague founded the association that represents three state gambling enterprises.
    He is President Emeritus of the Pennsylvania Court of Judicial Discipline, a former member of the Judicial Conduct Board and an owner of the SugarHouse casino in Philadelphia.

  3. Castille wants to try out his new wide-cut swim trunks in Floridian paradise all expenses paid by the Bar- because they don’t want to influence him.

    We don’t get our money’s worth out of these boobs as experts on the law, but as comedians, they’re priceless

  4. Corbett was too busy investigating the Luzerne Tragedy to do much about Sandusky. You must give him credit for the great job he did protecting those kids from being raped. Huh? True? Just think how many thousands of kids would have been sold for a condo in Florida without his quick and comprehensive legal team’s intervention.

    BTW, where was big Ron Castille when those children were handcuffed and led away without the benefit of counsel? Wait, I almost forgot. On a sojurn to the Keys?

  5. WHAT HAVE THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT BOARDS DONE IN THE FOLLOWING?

    “Chester County Judge Sanchez joins the federal bench in Pa. While a mentor spoke of his optimism, the judge thanked his parents.”
    July 10, 2004| By Kathleen Brady Shea INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

    James E. McErlane, a veteran West Chester lawyer and Sanchez mentor, made note of Sanchez’s optimism.
    “When Juan Sanchez wakes up in the morning, he knows it is going to be a good day,” said McErlane, “because he will make it a good day.”

    To Senators Specter, Hatch and the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    Sanchez said, “it is with tremendous honor that I introduce some of my FRIENDS and some are the best lawyers in Chester County: former Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, WILLIAM H LAMB…MY MENTOR and GOOD FRIEND, Mr. JAMES MCERLANE, a senior partner with the law firm of Lamb and McErlane, who is in the back.”

    Sanchez presides over a case where his GOOD FRIEND and MENTOR is a defendant.
    SHOEMAKER et al v. GERAGHTY et al
    2:2010cv00204
    15:77 Securities Fraud
    Presiding Judge: HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ
    Defendants: JAMES MCERLANE

    Sanchez awarded William H. Lamb over $500 p/hr in lawyer’s fees in another case. In addition, he granted Lamb’s motion for sanctions totalling over $33,000.

  6. Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety

  7. “Why the blatant disregard of the federal IRS filing stipulations? Why the cloak of secrecy?” Orie asked. “It shocks the conscience that the Pennsylvania Casino Association would not list former Pennsylvania Chief Justice Zappala [on tax returns]. Quite frankly, it’s unconscionable.”

    Bruce Ledewitz, a law professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and an expert on the state Supreme Court, said the court’s actions in the DeNaples case were ”incomprehensible.” ”It wasn’t consistent with any kind of case law,” Ledewitz said.
    The Orie sisters are in deep trouble with law.
    Saint Castille threatened Ledewitz with legal action.

  8. THE HEADLINE shouts
    “Chester County Judge Sanchez joins the federal bench in Pa. While a mentor spoke of his optimism, the judge thanked his parents.”
    July 10, 2004| By Kathleen Brady Shea INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

    James E. McErlane, a veteran West Chester lawyer and Sanchez mentor, made note of Sanchez’s optimism.
    “When Juan Sanchez wakes up in the morning, he knows it is going to be a good day,” said McErlane, “because he will make it a good day.”

    To Senators Specter, Hatch and the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    Sanchez said, “it is with tremendous honor that I introduce some of my FRIENDS and some are the best lawyers in Chester County: former Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, William H. Lamb…MY MENTOR and GOOD FRIEND, Mr. JAMES MCERLANE, a senior partner with the law firm of Lamb and McErlane, who is in the back.”

    SHOEMAKER et al v. GERAGHTY et al
    2:2010cv00204
    15:77 Securities Fraud
    Presiding Judge: HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ
    Defendants: JAMES MCERLANE

    Sanchez presides over a securities fraud case where his old pal and mentor is a defendant. Sanchez and McErlane are licensed lawyers in PA. They must follow the Rules of Professional Conduct, correct? Just like Don? Where is the Disciplinary Board? Who disciplines the disciplinarians? The citizens?

    Ultimately, it is the taxpayer who allows this runaway freak show to keep rolling alone. In fact, we pay them to perpetrate this garbage day in and day out. It is like a separate, untouchable, omnipotent, tax payer funded crowd of thugs has taken over our land and we sit back and watch believing our hands our tied.

  9. Canon 2A. “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety”

    Writers of the canons, how can an appearnce of impropriety occur when knowledge of all the relevant circumstances is known? If all is known, it will be obvious whether or not impropriety exists. An appearance of impropriety must be avoided, which necessarily means that the public doesn’t have all the facts.

    The standard is tough, rightfully so. Judges serve the public in a special, sacred role. As we have lost confidence in their integrity (and who argues that point?) the consequences are played out on the streets, in our financials institutions, our media, classrooms, you name it.

  10. Canon 2, “An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry…”

    Judges don’t often reveal information of all the relevant circumstances when requested by litigants. That’s one of the problems in achieving a recusal or in having a Complaint succeed. What Appears to be impropriety is often all that an outsider has and that is why the standard of behavior for judges is so high.

    When the public sees Zappala investigate the Ories, the Appearance of retaliation seems obvious but it may be off base. However, depending on the players, justification for pursuing them may never surface. Indeed, the evidence admitted into the record may be terribly one sided.

    Orie was justifiably concerned that Chief Justice Zappala’s name and the money he earned as the executive director of the Pennsylvania Casino Association for two years were not included on its tax filings or incorporation papers.

  11. UPDATE-
    “Kline, a lawyer with Philadelphia personal injury law firm Kline & Specter, co-chairs the 16-member panel with colleague Shanin Specter, the son of Sen. Arlen Specter” 2009

    Indeed, Shanin talked to Arlen about candidates.

    By L. Stuart Ditzen INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
    Posted: March 25, 2001

    It has an official-sounding name – the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission.

    But it has no official address, no staff, and no listed phone number.

    Its sole purpose is to recommend candidates for federal judgeships to two men – Pennsylvania’s U.S. senators, Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum – who, in turn, make recommendations to the President.

    Three weeks ago, a statewide grand jury report denounced as “horrible” the intensely political process by which Common Pleas Court judges sometimes shell out cash to buy the support of Democratic ward leaders to get elected in Philadelphia.

    There has been little examination, however, of the screening and selection process for federal judges. The advisory panel with the official-sounding name that advances lists of names to Specter and Santorum has operated for years almost completely out of public view.

    The Federal Judicial Nominating Commission is a panel that was created by, and exists exclusively for, the two senators. Headed by Fred Anton, chairman of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, the commission holds its sessions in private law offices around the state.

    UPDATE–Fred Anton, a long time and dear friend of Arlen’s, and the chairman of the full Federal Judicial Nominating Commission for Pennsylvania, was in court recently defending himself against charges brought by the SEC that he leaked information netting David L. Johnson several hundred thousand dollars. Not to worry. Federal “judge” Little Juan Sanchez to the rescue. Juan wound up on the bench even as Shanin and Tom made sure Arlen sat his butt down there, (just in time for them to receive his favorable ruling in their massive class action lawsuit!) Juan couldn’t tell who was lying, so Anton skated. Shocker–

    When it meets in Philadelphia, the judicial nominating commission operates from the Center City law office of Specter’s son, Shanin, and his partner, Thomas R. Kline, both of whom are highly successful personal-injury lawyers. Kline is regional chairman and runs the panel.

    Shanin Specter said in an interview that he was not a member and that he does not advise his father on judicial candidates. Sen. Specter, in a separate interview, also said his son does not make suggestions for judicial nominees. “even in 2001 that is silly.”

    On March 14, the judicial nominating commission met at the Kline & Specter office at 1525 Locust St. and interviewed what Kline estimated were between 50 and 60 candidates for three vacancies on the U.S. District Court here.

    Some of those who appeared before the panel that day were Common Pleas judges seeking elevation to the federal bench.

    And some had presided over Kline & Specter cases.

    Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein presided over a Shanin Specter medical-malpractice case that was settled in the midst of trial in January for $25 million. Kline & Specter, according to the court record, received $8.3 million in fees from the settlement.

    Bernstein was on vacation last week and could not be reached for comment.

    Shanin Specter said he saw no conflict of interest nor the appearance of one in having judges before whom he and Kline practice come to their law office to apply for federal judgeships. The fact that the commission meets at his office, the younger Specter said, bears no relationship to his and Kline’s law practice. Kline noted that when the commission meets in other parts of the state, it holds its sessions in the private law offices of its members.

    Sen. Specter said the judicial nominating commission was designed solely to advance qualified candidates for the federal bench.

    “We handle it in a formal way,” he said.

    Specter and Santorum each chose half the members of the commission. There are three 16-member panels, each of which makes judicial recommendations for the U.S. District Court based in its region – the eastern, middle or western district of the state. Each panel has a regional chairman. Anton is the overall chairman and serves on each panel.

    On Feb. 28, the judicial nominating commission advertised in the Legal Intelligencer, a newspaper that circulates to lawyers and judges in Philadelphia, that it would interview candidates for federal judgeships in the Eastern District on March 14. Applicants were directed to obtain a questionnaire from Kline’s office, complete it, and return it to him by March 7.

    On the morning of March 14, more than a half-dozen Common Pleas Court judges were observed by an Inquirer reporter in the course of an hour entering and leaving the Locust Street building where Kline & Specter has offices.

    Sen. Specter said that, after the commission had interviewed all the candidates that day, Kline sent him and Santorum a list of 32 whom he recommended. The names were not made public.

    Kline said in an interview that those who were recommended were not ranked and that their names were submitted in alphabetical order. Sen. Specter said he and Santorum forwarded the list to the White House. Eventually, the senator said, he and Santorum will hold discussions with officials in the Bush administration and make their final recommendations.

    Sen. Specter said geography plays a part in his final recommendations. Delaware County resident R. Barclay Surrick was recently named to the U.S. District Court. Specter said a Bucks County resident is now in line. The candidates, he said, are drawn from all counties in Eastern Pennsylvania, including Berks, Lancaster and Lehigh.

    “Lancaster County wants a pro-life judge,” the senator said. “I say, ‘All right. Send me a qualified candidate.’ ”

    Historically, the President follows the recommendations given him by the two senators. The nominees then must be confirmed by the Senate.

    Sen. Specter said that he had played a role in putting about 25 judges on the federal bench in two decades in the Senate and that only two, Marvin Katz and Jan E. “Bud” DuBois, had been exclusively his choices. Both, he said, were friends of his.

  12. The Court’s cleanup of the Conahan/Ciavarella mess is not limited to juvenile cases. In another case, Joseph v. Scranton Times L.P., the Court set aside a $3.5 million defamation verdict against the newspaper company based on judicial impropriety. In a per curiam order entered November 4, 2009, the Court found that then-President Judge Michael Conahan, despite assurances that the case would be assigned at random, steered the case to Ciavarella, who rendered a bench trial verdict against the newspaper for $3.5 million. The Court also cited evidence that Conahan had a “long-term relationship” with a convicted felon, whose alleged organized crime connections were reported by a newspaper owned by the company. While the Court did not reach any conclusions on the merits of the case, it found that the misconduct of Conahan and Ciavarella had so tainted the verdict that a new trial was ordered

    cc: CBS’ 60 MINUTES

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *