In recent posts, we alerted you to expect the posting of the transcripts of the August 11 and 12, 2011 hearings in the proceedings to “get” the law license of attorney Don Bailey. To update the status of that proceeding, the hearing was left open pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the Petition for Review filed by Bailey (see Bailey document post), and to provide Bailey the opportunity to submit additional documentary evidence into the record. Despite the fact that the Petition for Review, which raises the issue of Bailey virtually being denied all witnesses essential to his defense, has remained pending since August 2, 2011, and despite the fact that the rules require this Supreme Court to issue further directives to the parties to handle the disposition of these types of matters, no action has been taken. In other words, the Supreme court has self-imposed a stay of sorts in the advancement of these proceedings, and is just sitting on this for reasons as yet unknown. It is specifically unknown what effect any of the following are having on this Supreme Court: 1) the pending federal civil complaint with its John and Jane Doe plaintiffs and defendants (and whether the Supreme court Justices will be named therein); 2) the connections between Cali and the Supreme Court’s embroilment in the kids for cash scandal; and 3) the August 31, 2011 perjury charges against State Senator Jane Orie, and the fact that the campaign of her sister, Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, is alleged to be involved. We will continue to update you on these connections, and will, as promised, have all the hearing transcripts posted in the near future (see below).
Federal Judge Nora Barry Fisher recuses herself from case filed by Bailey and clients
The federal judge assigned to the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by Don Bailey and, currently, 25 of his clients, named as “John/Jane Doe” plaintiffs, has recused herself based upon Bailey’s discovery that this Judge had been specially assigned by Third Circuit Judge Anthony Scirica (named specifically in the lawsuit) to deal with prior complaints of judicial misconduct against middle district judges. Bailey pointed this out to Judge Fisher in a motion for reconsideration of her order denying the request for preliminary injunction filed by Bailey before the hearing. Judge Fisher’s recusal was obviously the right result, and the following motion to reconsider the order denying the injunction remains pending.
State disciplinary authorities resist release of hearing tapes
Again, we have been delayed providing you with the transcripts from the hearings because the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s contracted court reporter, Commonwealth reporting, has refused to provide the tapes of the proceedings unless the private company receives $1200 advance payment, which appears to be improper under the law, and which is denying all of us access to justice. We are an unfunded venture at this point at PCRLN, and would order the tapes for public consumption, and are exploring our options in bringing them to you, but from Bailey’s standpoint, the attached motion outlines the obstruction that some private interest in producing the transcripts has over the huge due process implications in this case, and all of our access to public information. Bailey does not want the transcripts because it appears, based on the following motion, that those transcripts are not entirely reliable. He wants copies of the tapes, to which he is entitled, and which involve no labor or materials other than the small cost of making copies, and it would appear that $1200 is not an appropriate fee, and is interfering with access to justice. The following motion describes the issue.
Further investigation being sought
As we explained in one of our recent posts, and in keeping with the spirit of our mission, the lesson of these proceedings is that reform is desperately needed. We want to bring you the transcripts of the proceedings so that we can let you see for yourself what happens to a civil rights lawyer who dares criticize the Judges that hold the power over his law license. We have received communications from other lawyers and disciplined lawyers from all over the country that tell stories with the same theme – that the courts of our country are not capable of disciplining themselves. We want to ask our state and federal legislators, and even our state and federal criminal law enforcement authorities, to conduct investigations into some of the things that we have been talking about here. We hope to bring you formal petitions that you can sign electronically, or through some appropriate means, to ask these public officials to police these courts because they are incapable of doing it. We want to bring you all the evidence we can, and not just position statements, and arguments based upon suppositions that fly in the face of everything we as Americans have been raised to believe. We believe that reform is needed, we will bring you the basis for that belief, and we will ask you to make your own informed decision as to whether or not this is a cause worthy enough for you to subscribe yourself to. We believe it is.