Bailey Supreme Court Motion to Dismiss Discipline Case
On December 7, 2011, Don Bailey filed a motion to dismiss the disciplinary case against him. The Motion was filed directly with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and alleges that the process itself has been so bereft of constitutional protections, that it is an effective nullity, that there is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, along the lines of what has already been set forth in previous posts, and, most importantly, that he did not violate any rules of professional conduct in any respect. As it turns out, Bailey’s appropriate and respectful (as those things go) complaints of judicial misconduct, have turned out to be true, as the record of the hearing transcripts (void for any purpose involving Bailey’s license) already has shown. Please read the motion filed by Bailey:
Significantly, that motion contains cites evidence suggesting that Middle District Judge Christopher C. Conner has testified falsely under oath at the hearing. The issue is set forth by Bailey as follows:
16. Judge Conner is believed to have testified falsely on the issue of whether he was a complainant to the ODC, testifying in the hearing that he was not. Bailey received a “Complaint … Continue Reading ››
… Read More
There is no better way for each of us to participate in seeking a public solution to the problems we have described in other posts, as revealed through the analysis of the Don Bailey disciplinary process, than to understand the jurisdiction of the courts, and exactly how they do business in cases such as these. The Don Bailey situation is quite unique, as it involves a clear clash between two wholly separate "jurisdictions", state and federal, implicating some very important principles at the heart of our system of government. We hope eventually to provide you with all the detail you will need on these concepts of what is known as "federalism", but for now we commend you to The Federalist Papers, a series of essays published in 1787 under the name
The paramount issue our legal system is presented with currently is the ongoing campaign, if you will, by a small clique of federal judges, and their state and federal political friends, to go after the law license of decorated war veteran, former congressman, former Pennsylvania Auditor General, and now prominent civil rights attorney Don Bailey.
Don got into the practice of civil rights over the fallout from his own victimization when, as Auditor General, he revealed substantial pubic corruption in the State of Pennsylvania at its highest levels. He was visited by state and federal officials, including the United States Attorney himself, and was, in essence, asked what it would take - what graft, gift, or favor - in order for him to back down and look the other way. Don refused, and stridently, with the truth behind him, assured these scoundrels that he would never be bought, and ever since that day, Don has been in a battle to reveal public corruption, and to fight for its victims.
(written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay), explaining the advantages of the U.S. Constitution.
Briefly, as it relates to this case, there has been a clear trend in civil rights cases to invoke the Eleventh Amendment to maintain rigid separation between the jurisdiction of the federal courts and actions involving the affairs of state government, and some of the judges involved in the Bailey matter have used … Continue Reading ››