Ostrowski Discipline Update/PCRLN Activities at Issue in Right to Practice Law

I had a hearing yesterday in United States District Court in Williamsport, PA concerning my application to be readmitted to the roll of attorneys in the federal court, Middle District of Pennsylvania before Judge Matthew Brann.  There are applications still pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the other federal district courts in Pennsylvania.

The motion was based primarily upon the abuse and mistreatment I suffered at the hands of Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, which led directly to the personal circumstances that were behind the issues that led to my 2010 suspension from practice.  I called my current treating physician, and Dr. Kruszewski did appear in response to my subpoena.  I have no doubt that my testimony in the hearing before federal Judge Brann presented a compelling testament to my competency and fitness to practice law.

Here is a copy of the transcript.

My readmission was opposed by the assigned disciplinary counsel, Hubert Gilroy, who was appointed by Chief Middle District Judge Yvette Kane, on the grounds that things that I have said in the videos that I have posted here, and correspondence I sent, and things I have posted on the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network site, disqualify me from practice because they demonstrate a lack of regard for the authority of the courts.  This, of course, is a false proposition, because I have the utmost regard for the role of the courts in regulating the affairs of men, and every word I have written and spoken has been communicated with the intention of improving the quality of, and access to, justice for every American.   What I have said is true, and, at the very least, has been said with a reasonable belief in its truthfulness, and the evidence to support all of it is right here on this site.

The only evidence presented by Mr. Gilroy was my words – he presented no witnesses to contradict anything I have ever said.  The issue that the Judge is going to need to decide is whether the mere fact alone that I said these words, all said on this site, and in correspondence sent to Judges, Senators, and even the President, some of which were delivered by me personally to the offices of Senators Casey and Toomey on Capitol Hill, is reason in and of itself to refuse to return me to the roll of attorneys in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Judge Brann will have to decide these legal issues, which will be part of the post-hearing briefing, and, should I not be readmitted, a clear issue will be presented for review by higher courts, including the Unites States Supreme Court, if necessary, as to whether attorneys have the same First Amendment rights as other Americans, and, if not, what that means to the practice of law, and access to justice in America.

Mr. Gilroy was also appointed by Judge Kane to be a special investigator in the federal aspect of the disciplinary proceeding against Don Bailey, and a letter I sent to him on January 24, 2011, and copied to all of the other Judges in the Middle District, and to others, including Senators Casey and Toomey, while I was suspended, was presented as evidence.  All of the remaining evidence opposing my reinstatement were statements and writings by me subsequent to that letter.

Judge Brann is a new federal judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and took his seat on the bench just this year.  Many of the comments that I have made were made about his colleagues in the Middle District in Harrisburg – Judges Kane, Conner, and Jones – in relation to the Don Bailey disciplinary proceedings.  I understand the realities of my situation as well as anyone, but, again, know that nothing that I have said will keep me from appearing before any of these judges, and treating them with the decorum, respect, and dignity that they, and the system of justice derived from the authority of men, deserve, and as I have always conducted myself.  All of this was made clear to Judge Brann, and the matter is turned over to his discretion.

Regardless of the outcome, the efforts of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network will continue, and I will provide updates soon on ventures that we are continuing to work on.  Equal access to justice under the law is our organizing principle, and, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on August 28, 1963, “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Thank you.

11 thoughts on “”

  1. Mr Ostrowski, it saddens me to see your submission to the temple.
    Authority rests with the people, not the courts.
    The people used to run the courts , giving them their authority.
    The BAR associations pinwheeling out from the temple (of Ba’al) is attempting to overthrow the authority of the people and/or undermine the power of the people for the Roman Catholic church.
    You find yourself in an inquisitorial style hearing. Would you not prefer to be addressing a jury? A judge appointed by the people in your town?

    Perhaps the almighty sent you your trials for a purpose. Stick to your guns and the people will back you. Trade them in for the favour of the luciferians who have power over the courts, and you have sold your soul.

  2. It saddens me that Diane says the real reason for a brilliant legal mind to be suspended is that he has the gumption to stay true to his beliefs and actually says how he feels about things. The legal system taking a proverbial club in its caveman ways and trying to beat conformity into anyone is pathetic.

  3. I have written to the disciplinary board (several years ago), even though I thought I was not in trouble (I am or were a lawyer) for 25 years, and reasoned that their rules against disparaging profession, judges, etc. are unconstitutional, one sided, and against public policy. I wish I could find e-mail. I really believe this.

    So many Judges and Lawyers degrade our profession daily, and nothing happens to them. But dare to criticise them, and you can run afoul of the disciplinary rules.
    David M. Ginsberg

  4. “… because they demonstrate a lack of regard for the authority of the courts.”

    ‘Judge” and ‘Officer of the Court’ (ie. attorney) is not the same thing as ‘Court’. Fighting corrupt judges and law firms is not the same as having lack of regard for the authority of the courts. Attack their argument from that point.

  5. Hi, I am an attorney in CA challenging unconstitutional acts of judges, social workers, therapists, etc in the hellish family and dependency courts. In 2011 I was suspended by the State Bar of CA for 60 days because an acknowledged batterer complained I was picking on him — He beat up his kids, and their mother and I sued in federal court for damages against him (and social workers and judges) with the hope that the win would enable us to get the children away from the sociopathic battering father. I did not succeed. And the Federal court held that many of my causes of action were frivolous. However, I was able to reverse at least three awards of attorney fees for alleging “frivolous” causes of action in a published decision which helps other civil rights victims and their attorneys. Elwood v. Drescher (9th Cir.) It is on the internet.

    However, DUH? It is an adversary system. In any event, the Bar championed this sociopathic violent man who was an opposing party I had sued even as he was beating up the daughter we tried to wrest away from him. I agreed to 60 days suspension because I did not know about the daughter who by the time the Bar got around to prosecuting me was already a teenager. The cases originated in federal court about six years before the Bar came after me. The federal courts refused to discipline me after I notified the two courts the Bar had disciplined me for litigation I engaged in, in their courts. Nor did the federal courts even so much as mention referrals to their respective disciplinary committees, let alone discipline me during the time I litigated the cases. In addition, the district court judge withdrew her OSC re sanctions against me saying I was trying to extend civil rights but be careful in the future. Go figure.

    Here is how bad the State Bar of CA is. A retired CA superior court (San Bernardino) judge Craig Kamansky settled a case in the late 90’s in which a young man alleged that Kamansky sitting as a judge had gotten him as a “ward” when he was a minor and raped and sodomized him. Kamansky settled the case for $300,000.00. So, the jury never ruled that Kamansky had in fact raped and sodomized the boy. Kamansky was never prosecuted for what he did to the boy. On information and belief, three sisters were prepared to testify that Kamansky did the same thing to them when they were minors. The boy ended up a suicide. Since the San Bernardino D.A. and sheriff dept did not prosecute Kamansky, I do not know why the U. S. Attorney did not step in or the State Attorney General.

    The state Bar of CA validates Kamansky by allowing him to serve as an official MCLE provider at this time teaching lawyers ethics and elimination of bias despite his notorious and scandalous alleged criminal sexual misconduct against children.

    Finally, when the Bar initially came after me, I was accused of moral turpitude for suing the batterers, judges, and social workers (ultimately reduced to a rule violation). Recently, the Bar had to decide whether an attorney (Grant is his name) convicted of possession of child porn had committed a crime of moral turpitude. In a published decision, the State Bar Review Court ruled that CONVICTION FOR POSSESSION OF CHILD PORN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE IN GRANT’S CIRCUMSTANCDES. YOU CAN GET THE DECISION OFF THE INTERNET.
    In effect, when a lawyer alleges that her client, the protective parent, was deprived of custody and the children given to parents who beat and otherwise abused them, that is moral turpitude, if a court decides that the claim is frivolous, of course not based on the facts but on the law (sort of an oxymoron). When a lawyer is convicted of possession of child porn (indirectly causing grave harm to children), that is NOT moral turpitude.
    So, with Kamansky teaching “ethics” and “elimination of bias” to attorneys, and Grant escaping a finding of moral turpitude for conviction for possession of child porn, I wonder whether there is a place for me in the State Bar of CA because I litigate on behalf of protective parents and I am decidedly against those who would harm children.

    1. Hi Patricia,

      Who was Chief Trial Counsel at the State Bar when you were disciplined?
      I had a run in with James Towery and when I raised hell over there he left the office prematurely, after only 6 months being in that position.

  6. Berks county pa is loaded with the kind of bad behaving attorneys of which the bar frequently ignores . Keep up the good works.

  7. You and Don Bailey are my heroes. Time and time again neither one of you has backed down regardless of the consequences. If I were an Attorney, I too would be a target of this totally corrupt system that has been taken over by those of no virtue. It still amazes me how the entire national media says nothing while Rome burns. I hope they make a movie about all of this someday and somehow you are both acknowledged for the patriots that you are.

Leave a Reply

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