On December 7, 2011, Don Bailey filed a motion to dismiss the disciplinary case against him. The Motion was filed directly with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and alleges that the process itself has been so bereft of constitutional protections, that it is an effective nullity, that there is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, along the lines of what has already been set forth in previous posts, and, most importantly, that he did not violate any rules of professional conduct in any respect. As it turns out, Bailey’s appropriate and respectful (as those things go) complaints of judicial misconduct, have turned out to be true, as the record of the hearing transcripts (void for any purpose involving Bailey’s license) already has shown. Please read the motion filed by Bailey:
Significantly, that motion contains cites evidence suggesting that Middle District Judge Christopher C. Conner has testified falsely under oath at the hearing. The issue is set forth by Bailey as follows:
16. Judge Conner is believed to have testified falsely on the issue of whether he was a complainant to the ODC, testifying in the hearing that he was not. Bailey received a “Complaint of the Honorable Christopher C. Conner” sent by ODC to Bailey dated November 29, 2006 outlining 5 separate cases on his docket upon which he was requesting action by the ODC, i.e., ODC identified him as the complainant, and the information about the specific cases had come from somewhere. A copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Respondent has alleged that Paul Killion told him that Conner was “pestering” Killion to “do something” about respondent, and as of November 29, 2006, that contention is substantiated. The conversation between Killion and Bailey was in December 2008, meaning that there must have been more contact until 2008. At the August 11, 2011 proceeding, Conner testified as follows:
Q: Okay. Now have you ever written a complaint about me that you sent to the Disciplinary Board?
A: The only [occasion] in which I forwarded a concern to the Disciplinary Board was in connection with the Conklin matter and that was contained in an order in which I directed the Clerk of Court to forward my opinion to the Disciplinary Board to determine whether or not there needed to be an action taken.
Q: Okay. That’s
A: Beyond that, no.
N.T. August 11, 2011, pp. 119.
Judge Conner’s testimony appears to be false, and this Court has an obligation to do something about it, in addition to dismissing all charges against respondent. Incidentally, all of the allegations in the Conner complaint are bogus, as will be more fully addressed by further submission, if permitted as requested. Regardless, Respondent’s contention that he was told by Killion that he was being prosecuted because Judge Conner, and perhaps others, were “pestering” Killion to “do something” is substantiated.”
This testimony in itself substantiates the claim of Bailey that this has been a “fix” from the start. No judge or no prosecutor would allow themselves to be so woefully under-prepared for a hearing to take the property and livelihood of an attorney (they certainly didn’t know Don Bailey) as to testify in such a sloppy manner, and certainly no honest judge would ever testify falsely, but a less scrupulous one might if the the hearing was intended to be a perfunctory pro forma political exercise. Conner talked himself right out of any wiggle room in this testimony, revealing his state of mind that he had something to hide, and in an effort to remove all doubt, tried to cut off all further inquiry into the matter. When he said “The only [occasion] on which I forwarded a concern to the Disciplinary Counsel was in the Conklin matter” and “Beyond that, none,” the falsity in his testimony is revealed in light of the November 29, 2006 correspondence – according to disciplinary counsel, he had been a serial complainant. Had he simply said “NO” to the first question, he may have been able to lawyer his way out of the accusation of falsity.
He must believe all those slanderous things that he wrote and used his judicial office to publish about Bailey, calling Bailey incompetent and a liar, when it appears it is the federal judge himself who is, and has been revealed as such. While Conner may at some level have been a victim of the lawyer acculturation otherwise discussed, and taken his cues when he was young, before and after being a judge, from the formerly esteemed federal judge Rambo, justifying some hope of conciliation, he has now put his fitness to be a judge directly at issue. We cannot support judges who appear to show no respect for the oaths they take, and he took two – that for his office, and that for his testimony – he has violated both. Again, apologies are required here, but only apologies for having to disclose that a federal judge has apparently testified falsely under oath. These judges have had no problem for years tearing down the reputation of attorneys and subjecting clients to the further abuses that they came to the courts seeking refuge from – they have done so callously and they have done so falsely. We apologize for telling you these things only because they are demonstrably true.
Judge Jones further testified that in the case that led to the sanctions and disciplinary vendetta against him that he didn’t let Bailey respond to a sanctions-related motion that was not even filed until 5 months after the case was closed because, in effect, he “knew what you would say.” Can you imagine the number of clients, Bailey class members, who have been damaged and injured by this kind of judicial mentality, i.e., their access to justice is cut off because of who their attorney is – this is what Bailey has said as well, and has been proven right on as well – from the sworn testimony of his own accusers.
The Bailey discipline case must be dismissed. Please read it and decide for yourself. Everything you need to make that decision is before you here, and more that will be brought to you.