Ostrowski and Bailey Discipline Expose a Critical Problem with the System of Justice – the Suppression of Lawyers’ Free Speech Rights

My self-imposed task on this site, from its very inception, was to make the esoteric intricacies of the way the courts operate, and the way practice of law is conducted, understandable to those who have never even stepped foot in a courtroom.

I’ve written upwards of 100,000 words on this site, and linked documents to that many, and many more, words providing the contextual background for all the conclusions that I have made; yet still have had an abiding feeling that not enough has been said to make it clear and simple to understand, though I am sure that if anyone was able to take the time away from our busy lives to study what has been said here, the dynamics are pretty well laid out.

Hubert Gilroy, the disciplinary counsel appointed by United States District Judge Yvette Kane to oppose my reinstatement in the federal court, as outlined in my recent updates, did more to assist my effort here than I had done in all the prior things I had written – he opposed my reinstatement on what I have discussed on, and linked to, this site.  See PCRLN/Ostrowski videos and this site generally.

I have engaged in political speech, i.e., words critical of the third branch of our government, and, as the briefs below clearly reveal, Mr, Gilroy will only be able to oppose my reinstatement on the mere fact alone that I have written and spoken these words.  Every word I have written and uttered has been done so in good faith, and believing them all to be true.  Further, I submit that every statement of fact I have made is demonstrably true, and that every inference is eminently reasonable.

My First Amendment rights are being trampled because I am (or was or will be) a lawyer who is being critical of the courts.  The implications of that are grave for every person seeking access to a court expecting it to be fair and honest.

Ostrowski Hearing Brief (author – Ostrowski)     Ostrowski Hearing Brief (author – Bailey)

Don Bailey has been suspended by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for 5 years, a total travesty that was only made possible through catastrophic deprivations of his due process rights, and the coverage of his disciplinary proceedings through this site should be studied and understood by anyone seriously interested in real judicial reform.  See the Bailey due process violations/PCRLN coverage article.  Don has been victimized because he did as a lawyer what I have done as a non-lawyer.  Don is a hero, and his commitment and accomplishments should be celebrated, and will be someday, and we will continue to cover the progress of his case, as there surely is much more to be heard from Don.

In the brief that Don wrote on my behalf, and with my immense gratitude, he cited the words of our own United States Supreme Court in a landmark case called New York Times v. Sullivan, words that are very clear and simple for any American to understand:

The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.  The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system.  *  *  *   Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. 

Don succinctly summarized the grave problems that these disciplinary proceedings have revealed as follows:

There is no greater threat to the security, stability, and political health of the United States of America and of our courts than the oppressive effect of judicial control of attorney licensure and discipline which is focused on suppressing, punishing, and deterring criticism from lawyers.   …….  If Ostrowski had criticized the mob, he would never be challenged on those grounds. If he rudely and discourteously attacked the government of China he would be okay . If he engaged in criticisms of the legislature and of the President, not a word would be said to him. But while he is not even practicing law, if he expresses a critical opinion about public officials who happen to be judges, then he is denied the right to practice in our courts. The courts of the United States of America do not belong to our judges, they belong to the people. Judges have no more individual rights than other American citizens and should not be privileged such that an attorney is at risk for his right and opportunity to earn a living because according to the opinion of a jurist he has cast critical light upon the judiciary. The ultimate irony is that the very institution charged with the protection of individual rights in our country is clearly the most destructive of those ends. An oppressed attorney class does not serve the “public interest”. This court should assume the role of constructively confronting these deficiencies and free Mr. Ostrowski from the restraints he is suffering.

From my standpoint, in the brief that I wrote, I summarized my position on the application of this principle in my case as follows:

Petitioner understands that, perhaps, some of the hyperbole and/or rhetoric he used in his videos and other materials are not the most comfortable or convenient things for this Court to hear about the other judges of this Court, and his views of the system of justice, and the Middle District Courts, and no one is sorrier than Petitioner for having said, and felt the need to say, these things, but, again, they are all true and/or were made in good faith and with a reasonable belief of their truthfulness.  Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently pointed out that Judges are fair game and must be open to criticism.  The complement to criticism, of course, is to acknowledge and act on the criticisms in some open and honest form or fashion.  All of this began with honest criticisms of members of the judiciary, mostly in the Middle District, and none of it was ever addressed.  When Petitioner made these criticisms as a lawyer, they were not addressed, when he directed correspondence to the court as a non-lawyer, they were not addressed, and the failure and refusal to address honest and good faith criticism naturally only leaves one to assume that those criticisms are accurate and true.  This is why they continued to be made, and even had taken on a more aggressive, and less objectively respectful, character, but none of it changes the fact that the Petitioner reasonably believed and believes the truthfulness of every word he has ever uttered, and all were made in good faith.  For these reasons, there is no proper basis upon which to deny Petitioner reinstatement to the roll of attorneys in this Court. Petitioner concludes, however, by expressly and sincerely apologizing for any feelings of animosity and disrespect his comments engendered.  There is not one word that Petitioner has uttered about any judge or practitioner that will create any lasting problems respecting the authority of even those as to whom the comments have been directed, and there is now, and never has been, any agenda of the Petitioner to do anything other than to appear before the Courts of the United States of America and to represent persons who have been hurt and harmed, and are in need of representation by competent legal counsel, and to practice his profession, and make his living in doing so. This Court pointed out during the August 27, 2013 hearing, it was up to Petitioner to persuade the Court that he was fit to return to the active roll of attorneys in the Middle District.  Petitioner submits that has been done.

I hope people have the time and opportunity to read and understand the things that are discussed here and throughout this site – there are implications to all of it on your personal lives that may not be understood until it is too late for you to not be victimized by them.

Thank you.

5 thoughts on “”

  1. Freedom of Speech as a Civilian, What does that tell yeah, It says that Andy is fighting for his (PASSION), And should be reinstated to carry on with his future as an Attorney of law. The only reason he is not ,is because you all can not except constructive criticism. Also to (reopen again), you might here something you don’t like about the way he was treated . That’s why he’s an (ATTORNEY). To fight for clients rights. I don’t blame the gentleman for wanting to continue with his life goal. (Let Him Be Heard) He’s been punished over the time limit now that was suggested. And just because, as a civilian, he writes a few things, He can’t get this (PASSION) back, does not make sense to me. It’s obvious this gentelman has been treated wrongly from the court appointed whisleblower, DR. The case should be reopened to here his side, if not then he should be reinstated, no questions asked . If this is not intended, then Andy did not get a fair chance to prove what is the truth. And i blame this on the system, and higher up personal. Give him the opportunity to be heard, Let Andy Ostrowski be reinstated so his (PASSION) for what he is good at ,to help people out there that need a great Attorney , and have his cases heard, not dismissed on circumstantial and constructive criticism.

  2. Pennsylvanians need to realize that judges sit on the commode just like the rest of us do to do our business. Yet, they think that they are above the law, above the rules of conduct, and most of all, above reproach. I have had my fair share of experience with corrupt judges in this state, just as you have Andy. In fact, finding one that is not corrupt is very hard to do.
    As for the Judicial Conduct Board (JCB), it is a criminal bunch if there ever was one, so no one should EVER expect any disciplining to come out of that bunch of foxes guarding the corrupt houses. But in the 1968 Pennsylvania Constitution’s Article V, Section 18, as it was voted in by our fathers and mothers before us, actually protects judicial misconduct complained of by anyone and everyone by keeping those complaints out of public view. The very first sentence in Section 18(a)(8) reads: “Complaints filed with the board or initiated by the board shall not be public information. …? WHAT??? How stupid was that to be voted in? But think about it, it was corrupt judges that had it inserted into that Constitution, thinking only to protect themselves and their replacements from a public perception of the criminality they knew they were going to perform and continue to perform from the benches. Look at how much corruption has spawned from that section since its confirmation in 1968.
    Had the JCB been doing its job, that we all know it does not do, the Luzern County “KIDS FOR CASH” scandal would have ended 3 years earlier than it did and saved thousands of kids from having been scarred for life. It was only after the FBI came in to arrest the two scumbag judges Conahan and Ciaverella heading up the judicial criminality, that the situation became worthy of Pennsylvania news. Ciaverella actually had the arrogance to say “I didn’t see anything wrong with taking the money.” The JCB washed over ALL of the complaints flying in about the scam. What a disgrace. These two judges should get exactly what they deserve from their fellow inmates. I suspect that that will not be very pretty. Not to mention that the criminals on the JCB deserve what the public may well decided to give them one day as the corruption from that bunch continues to protect the corruption from the judges complained of.
    How about the criminal Pa. Supreme Court judge that tried to take a knife onto an airplane in a travel bag a few years back at Allentown International Airport? He was caught, then left the area only to come back with the knife in his shoe. Do you think he thought that he was above the law? Of course he did. Not to mention his stupidity — and this is a guy who ruled on issues concerning average citizens of Pennsylvania. He had peoples’ property and lives in his decisions and acted openly at the airport like the common, ignorant and stupid criminal that he was.
    Then there is the Febraury 2013 scandal concering the convicted Pa. Supreme Court justice Joan Orie Melvin, who forced her staff to work on her campaign and falsify records to obtain “street money” to get people to the polls. Justice Joan and her sister were charged and convicted of misuse of government funds. DUH! Do you think that these crooks thought they are above the law? YOU BETCHA THEY DID or they would not have been doing the criminal acts they do on a daily basis.
    Judicial corruption abounds, and Andy Ostrowski has been hit smack dab in the middle of the face with it because he has the guts to tell it like it is. GOOD FOR YOU ANDY!! But don’t hold your breach waiting for the crooks and criminals running the asylum to let you back into their good graces anytime soon. You are JUST NOT CORRUPT ENOUGH for them. But this by no means is any sign that I believe you should give up your fight. Don’t ever stop the fight. Always remember, what Albert Einstein said about the world we live in: “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
    Keep up the fight to ferret out the evil in our judiciary Andy. There is plenty of it to find, and I am sure that you will NEVER run out of subjects by which to exercise your rights to free speech concerning their criminal, or other less serious misconduct.
    KD

  3. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Senator Feingold.
    A Federal jury found that Attorney General Fisher retaliated against two former narcotics agents for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. Moreover, the jury found that Attorney General Fisher had acted maliciously or wantonly toward the plaintiffs. They awarded $1 million in punitive damages against him and other defendants. In short, Mr. Fisher has been found liable by a jury for serious misconduct in office. We should all be concerned by this.

    Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am troubled today that the Senate is proceeding
    to a vote on the nomination of D. Michael Fisher to a lifetime appointment
    to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, when there is an open verdict against him in a Federal civil rights case.

    The hearing on the nomination of Michael Fisher to the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit was also unprecedented. In February 2003, a Federal
    jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania found
    that Mr. Fisher and other high level officials of the Pennsylvania Office of the
    Attorney General violated the civil rights of two plaintiffs, former narcotics
    agents with the Bureau of Narcotics Investigation, BNI, in Philadelphia.
    Never before in the history of Federal judicial nominees of which I am aware, has a nominee ever come before this committee with an outstanding judgment against him for so serious a claim.
    The jury verdict is so recent that the trial transcript was only delivered to the parties within the last several weeks, and so complex that even Mr. Fisher and his lawyers asked for extensions of time in order to complete their post-trial motions. Just 6 weeks ago, Mr. Fisher and the other defendants filed their brief in support of their motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. Soon, the Federal district
    court trial judge will review the verdict against Mr. Fisher and make a decision
    on Mr. Fisher’s motion. If the jury verdict is sustained by the district court judge, an appeal would lie to the very court to which Mr. Fisher has been nominated. Mr. Fisher has indicated hat he intends to pursue all appellate options if the verdict is not reversed.

    These, too, appear to be unique
    circumstances.

    Accordingly, this is a most unusual

    don was counsel for the agents

    what was the hurry for specter to rush fisher through the process?

  4. As a class of people, attorneys are, jusly or unjustly, distrusted. And like police in this way, nobody likes them until they are needed, and then..just a little. No offense intended.

    Elected officials are generally considered, or eventually prove to be over time, scum.
    And you can say antyhing you like about them. Anywhere and anytime.

    Judges span the two most mistrusted classes: in that they are both: Attorneys AND Elected ‘officials’. They should inherit nothing but the priveleges that come from being an elected class. [That being servitude to the People and whatever Scorn they merit]

    Inasmuch as their job is to enforce clearly-expressed Laws, they should be considered more as clerks than as what they are: Kings.

    Rock on, Andy

  5. “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.” Albert Einstein
    Keep up the God fight, fellow Patriots! The good guys win the war! I am so happy to be on the winning team- YOURS and Don Bailey and all others who are so well known and loved by many more even imaginable. We can do this! ‘Let’s Go Great People’!

Leave a Reply

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