Among the Bailey clients who have filed a motion to open judgment are Angela and Johnny Robinson, a mixed race couple, and their child, who live in Harrisburg. Until they became involved in the Central Pennsylvania Youth Soccer League, the Robinson’s considered themselves a normal American family – both Johnny and Angela come from families with war veterans, going back to World War 2, and were proud of their family, and the values they were trying to instill in their child.
That all changed when their daughter was placed on a team coached by a racist City of Harrisburg employee, Eric Hicks. Before at least one game, Hicks told his team “let’s go kick those white girls’ butts”, and at other times told the team to not shake the other teams’ hands because their race, and to not tell their parents things that he had said or done. The Robinson’s reported Hicks’ racist and otherwise inappropriate conduct to the City and to the league, and that is when the saga really began, ultimately ending with the Robinson’s suspension from the league – for daring to speak out about racist misconduct.
The facts of the case are set forth in the Third Circuit Brief (to be attached). There was clear evidence that Hicks made the offending race-based statements, and abundant documentary evidence that showed email communications, and planning as to how to retaliate against the Robinsons; yet the case was thrown out on “summary judgment” by Judge Christopher C. Conner, who has a demonstrated history of racial bias or insensitivity, as well as being part of the clique of Judges out to get Bailey, as demonstrated by the fact that he testified falsely under oath at the disciplinary hearings.
The story of the case in relation to this site is the real meaning of the “standard of review” and “scope of review”. These are concepts that define and limit the ability of the courts to address and resolve issues short of taking evidence and having matters submitted to juries. It is their excess that allows courts to have a heavy hand in creating cultural climates and concealing government corruption by chronies of the jurists and other agendas. It is a theme time and time and time again in Bailey cases, and will continue to be addressed significantly, as it is a matter that is at the heart of issues of judicial misconduct, which cannot occur if a judge is constrained by these standards. Indeed, even judges are, of course, only human, and have natural biases and prejudices that they carry with them in their lives, but, in keeping with the standards and scopes of review, they should still be able to be fair and honest judges even with these human foibles.
The Robinsons’ case shows the real harm that is caused by the “abuses” of these standards of review. There is clear evidence that there was racial and retaliatory animus at play in the suspension of the Robinsons from the soccer league, and no one can rationally deny that. That is where the court’s analysis is supposed to stop under its standard of review. It is not for the court to pass judgment on the evidence, particularly judges like Conner, with demonstrated racial insensitivities and institutional biases, but it is for the courts to allow these things be decided by juries, and that is all that was asked for, and all that should have been provided.
The jury is drawn from the local community, and is a built-in check on cultural, political, and popular climates. Indeed, the same set of facts could reasonably lead to differing results in two different areas, because cultural differences are built right into the civil rights landscape. The point is that juries serve an important function in teaching lessons and providing civil vindication on many levels, when they are conducted in fair and open trials, and the federal courts have largely taken this factor out of the equation, which is acting as a cancer on the system of justice, and is allowing it to slip farther and farther down the path of blatant corruption and case-fixing, examples of all of which we brought you.
As we showed you in the Bailey shit storm and struggle within the civil rights struggle articles, juries are sympathetic to these civil rights causes, and have sent strong rebukes and awards in favor of Bailey clients, which cases were later fixed by the courts and taken away on specious grounds. The agenda to get Don Bailey has led these judges to become even more activist, and to make sure that the cases never get to juries, and are thrown out by these otherwise “esteemed” federal judges on cold hard written records, without hearings, and without even any openness whatsoever. This is not “justice” in America, but is the system of justice in central Pennsylvania.
In the Robinson’s case, Judge Conner blatantly abused the standard of review, and, because of the agenda to get Don Bailey, they have no hope of justice in this current climate, though they are sure to persist. The real point is that Judge Conner did real and lasting harm to an honest American family, and race became the issue, and racial divisions were ratified by the Judge, and the course of conduct approved.
If the Robinsons got their day in court and lost, at least they would have the satisfaction of having known that their grievances were heard, but not having gotten that day at all has left the wounds open to fester. The Robinsons came to the federal courts to deal with the reality of racism in the lives of a mixed-race family in modern America, and the federal courts did nothing but create another reason for the Robinson’s to feel less like an American family, and more like a mixed-race family. That is a skewed result.
Once again, justice has not been done, and another Bailey client has suffered a second victimization – the first being the prejudices that we all know exist in our worlds, and the second being the secret biases and prejudices of our forum for addressing the first. The Robinsons’ efforts continue, however, and we will keep you updated.