Don Bailey Disciplinary Hearing Transcripts
We post these transcripts with some reticence because there are certain contextual premises that need to be understood in terms of what a proper due process hearing is intended to encompass in our system of justice. We also hope to bring them to you in more manageable form. The premise that will be developed, from the standpoint of this site, is that, although shrinking from nothing factually, these transcripts can be relied upon for nothing as a basis upon which to deprive Mr. Bailey of his liberty and property rights in his chosen occupation. These are “due process” issues, and have been addressed in the Bailey Docket, and which should have been addressed and resolved prior to ever convening a proper hearing. There was no reason not to, and these transcripts will be further broken down and studied in that regard, an effort which we had hoped to do by now.
These hearing transcripts reflect the mockery that can be made when our courts are used as instruments of political oppression instead of affording open access to justice. We apologize again for the strong opinion, and wish to maintain objectivity, but trust that further study will bear out that conclusion. The due process issues that were unresolved left Mr. Bailey with very limited opportunity to confront his accusers, and the hearing did not proceed in any orderly fashion, with what appeared to be a coordinated effort between disciplinary counsel and hearing examiner to distract Bailey, avoid issues, and obstruct witnesses. This was a hearing held by lawyers for lawyers, and should be held to an impeccable standard of due process, respect, and civility, and instead it degenerated into one witness being threatened with arrest for doing nothing but trying to testify completely, other witnesses repeatedly interrupted with discussions that turned the rules of evidence on their head, and a process that is fatally corrupt. We are sensitive to the reverence with which we hold our esteemed judicial institutions, and it is because of that respect that efforts to denigrate them should be addressed in the strongest of terms. We believe these proceedings, and everything that underlies them, have denigrated them.
Day one was primarily the testimony in the disciplinary counsel’s case of Judges Conner and Jones, which includes, among many other things, Judge Jones admitting that he has decided issues without waiting for Mr. Bailey to respond because, in essence, he already knew what he was going to say.
Day two involved a string of Don Bailey’s clients, some of whom have been mentioned in this site, and his colleagues Sam Stretton and Andy Ostrowski about their knowledge of discussions concerning efforts to get Don Bailey, among other things.
After a delay of over 2 months, the Supreme Court has finally issued rules to show cause in connection with the subpoena issues. More will be provided.
Federal Judge Arthur Schwab has thrown out the Bailey/John Doe case in its entirety, without even allowing the John Does to be named. More on this as well.