Attorneys take cues from the courts and seek sanctions from Bailey client
As we brought to you in our update on the Bailey class clients who have filed their own motions to open judgment, Judge A. Richard Caputo denied the motion filed by Deborah Phillis, and the opinion was immediately released into the public domain through a private research service. Caputo’s Orders in the Miles Thomas and Jeffrey Dock cases were released to the same service. Another Caputo Order conspicuously came through the same service sanctioning Bailey in the Dave and Pam Morris case, who have filed a motion to open of their own. Caputo piles on.
In accord with the serious developing theme, i.e. the Conklin case and Bailey disciplinary proceedings, none of these Bailey clients are getting due process hearings, or any procedure whatsoever.
The first attorneys to take the bait, so-to-speak, come from the Harrisburg law firm of Shumaker Williams, through attorney Michael Rowan, who has filed a Motion for Sanctions sanctions against Deb Phillis, citing a lack of any reasonable basis to her claims that she has suffered prejudice because of who her attorney is that affected her case before Judge Yvette Kane, who has recused herself from all Don Bailey cases, and initiated disciplinary proceedings of her own, which have not been discussed in any detail. Deborah has filed a reply brief, citing significantly that they have operated under an entirely false factual construct, and objecting to her mistreatment for being clearly reasonable.
The Motion for Sanctions essentially cites Phillis’ statement that she intends to do anything and everything she can to get her justice, which is not asking for anything at all. The motion for sanctions is, on its face, more punishment for daring to raise issues of bias against Don Bailey, and the civil rights causes of his clients, and simply smack of an attempt to oppress and silence an innocent American citizen for daring to raise an issue that is reasonable on its face. There are 70 votes of general support. Their reason cannot withstand that.
Mr. Rowan was kind enough to speak with us about the filing, and assured it was directed by his clients, but was equivocal in his support for such a drastic measure, citing only Ms. Phillis’ “pattern in this case” to support the motion. Pattern? In this case? Rowan also suggested that there was a proposal to resolve the matter by withdrawing the motion for sanctions in exchange for withdrawing the case. That’s the removal of the proverbial boot from the throat, but Phillis may have no choice.
Rowan did say that he was familiar with this site, but that he had not read it in any depth. He based a motion for sanctions an a filing by Deborah Phillis that specifically cited this site as support. There do appear to be questions of good faith involved, a lack of diligence at least. We discussed the fact that this is exactly what opportunist attorneys do when they read clear judicial attitudes in our struggle behind the civil rights struggle essay.
The entire tone again is set by the lengths to which some personalities, judges unfortunately, have gone to create a public “smearjob”, as Bailey has been heard to say. Judge Rambo has already threatened Jim Dewees and Vicki Smith with sanctions, and barred the door to the courthouse against them, and the dissemination of the attacks on Bailey speak for themselves. See Politics of personal destruction.
What is wrong with these American citizens asking for fair access to their courts? Why are they being subjected to mistreatment and sanction freely for suggesting they have been subjected to mistreatment and sanction? There would appear to be many opportunities for the courts to still discipline themselves and remedy what is on record here as being serious wrongs. We will continue to bring you these updates.
Bailey discipline case update
The Supreme Court has entered an Order scheduling the submission of post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law, tentatively believed to be due in mid-February. The process requires each side to submit “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law” in support of their respective positions. Presumably, because the Office of Disciplinary Counsel carries the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, they will be required to make a submission making their case against Bailey. This will be based upon the hearing transcripts and exhibits submitted into the record on August 11 and 12, 2011.
Bailey, of course, has raised, once again, substantial due process issues, which have led to an infirm record to support anything, but the Supreme Court has denied his substantial and repeated pretrial motions, largely in one-line orders, despite Bailey’s pleas for due process. Every reader of this right now is in the absolute dark of the this judicial decision-making, and that simply is not fair to the large numbers of people who have significant interests at stake.
It is assumed that “they” again are attempting to back Bailey into a corner so they can see what he says about the record before the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, most of which has been made public here, and then fashion whatever it is that they are going to do, which will likely involve more of the same. Through the disciplinary process, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court still has the opportunity to fully address the substantial issues raised by Bailey throughout these proceedings, and to do complete justice in this case, and to all of us. There are many issues to address, well before any issues concerning the “complaint” against Bailey are reached, and we are all entitled to the transparency that is inherent in the notion of due process.
We will keep you updated on these efforts.
Thank you.
Loading ...
I would seriously love to know where some of these judges got their law license. How sad that they think they can get away with rewriting the law as they go. Lawless thugs is what they are.
With such corruption in the courts, sooner or later, ALL the attorneys will lose…because most people will realize there’s no reason left to fight!
Judicial-selection process a private affair
March 25, 2001| By L. Stuart Ditzen INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
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
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.
THE SEATTLE TIMES
“US judge clears Pa. lobbyist of insider trading”
Frederick W. Anton III, president and chief executive officer of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, was cleared of a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint that he helped a former colleague and his son avoid $381,000 in losses.
U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez, who presided over a judge-only trial last fall, said the SEC failed to prove that Anton benefited from any disclosures.
sanchez ruled favorably for specter/kline in the “TAP” case. They were co-chairs of the regional Commission that recommended sanchez to arlen specter for a seat on the bench. he awarded william lamb over 500 bucks an hour in lawyer’s fees a year after thanking him for his support before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Wiretapping may become the investigative tool of choice for the FBI to break-up the collusion that appears to dominate some of our courts in Pennsylvania and throughout the rest of our country. What seems to be taking place is unique in our history because it looks like corruption has spread like a virulent plague, like wildfire fanned by F5 tornadoes. The approach embraced by this once sacred institution to silence its critics suggests they are on the run, that they are overcome by fear of exposure. Instead of standing tall, with self-assurance, to prove with poise it has nothing to hide, this one time shining light of American values behaves like a neighborhood bully.
Once upon a time, young men put their lives on the line in the jungles of Viet Nam to protect our precious freedoms and indivual, constitutional rights, (or so Johnson and Nixon promised them). It must be devastating to those who survived to watch the moral decay eat away the fabric of those very ideals and to question why their friends had died.
Alito was paid $15,000 for teaching at Duquesne University School of Law on August 5, 2011 and $11,995 for teaching at Duke Law School on August 25, 2011. He traveled to Rome, Vienna and Hawaii among other places and taught for about 34 days, altogether.
CENTER FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUTABILTY
April 28, 2008
“Last month, our nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens’ organization, Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), delivered its own 73-page Critique of the Breyer Committee Report to Congress, expressly in support of congressional hearings and disciplinary and criminal investigations. The Critique demonstrates that the Report is ‘a knowing and deliberate fraud on the public’, ‘methodologically-flawed and dishonest’, and that it rests on ‘hiding the evidence – first and foremost to the thousands of judicial misconduct complaints filed under the Act, which the federal judiciary, not Congress, shrouded in confidentiality and made inaccessible to both Congress and the public, so as to conceal what it is doing.’”
What is fascinating about all this is that grown-ups, intelligent, educated adults are blinded to the reality that many judges are thoroughly corrupt; many have been caught in lies, accepting bribes, fixing the outcomes of cases, engaged in conflicts-of-interest ad infinitum, etc.
To sanction Mr. Bailey for his courage to address what is already widely known and accepted by many citizens, reminds me of foolish, out-of-touch dictators trying to suppress the spirit of good, decent, loyal patriots who demand democratic reform.
“Apparently not satisfied with Sprague’s response, Orie demanded more answers during a speech on the Senate floor Jan. 6.
‘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.’
Tax records show the PCA was formed by Sprague, then-Mount Airy casino owner Louis DeNaples, and Charles Hardy, an attorney with Sprague’s firm, on May 8, 2007, five days after a Dauphin County grand jury subpoenaed the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. The grand jury was investigating whether DeNaples, a wealthy Scranton-area businessman, lied to the gaming board about alleged mob ties. Sprague represented DeNaples in the probe.”