Bailey Challenges Supreme Court over Due Process Violations in Response to Recommended Suspension
The initial coverage on this site centered on the disciplinary proceedings filed against civil rights lawyer Don Bailey in early 2011. From the start, we have contended that the Bailey disciplinary proceedings would show the need for court reform through the difficulties that American citizens were having in bringing their claims for the violations of their individual constitutional rights in the courts. This is what has been shown, and the need for reform remains clear.
On May 1, 2013, the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, as we predicted, recommended that Don Bailey be suspended from the practice of law for 5 years for doing nothing other than criticizing judges for not being fair, and, on June 7, 2013, Don Bailey filed a response demonstrating clearly both 1) that he was right in so-criticizing, and 2) that, as we have covered at length here, the proceedings against him, because they had a bogus origin and were designed to serve an illicit agenda, were bereft of the most basic due process protections.
Continue Reading ›› … Read More
The first official reply to the motions to open judgment as referenced in our November 5, 2011 post came from her Honor Sylvia Rambo, Senior District Judge in Harrisburg, and alleged by Bailey to be one of the original participants in the plan to “get Bailey”. Judge Rambo was the presiding Judge in the Vickie Smith/Central Dauphin and James Dewees (Deputy Dauphin County Prison Warden)/Dominick Derose (DCP Warden) cases. The allegations in the motions were, of course, similar, because they are based on the information that has come to light through the Bailey disciplinary proceedings, which have shown what Bailey has been saying for years. As Dewees put it “I always took what Don told me throughout my case about the agenda to get him with a grain of salt, and thought that justice just failed me in my case, but now I realize that what Don said all along has been right.” That is the agenda that has been reported, and uncontested, here or in the courts. Please, if you have not, review the transcripts of the disciplinary proceedings.
Judge Rambo did not wait for any response to the motions, a denial of procedural rights, and made no references to … Continue Reading ››
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 Publius
(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 ››