UPDATE:Rambo leads flurry of recusals, reassignments, and responses to Bailey clients’ motions to open judgment

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 the cases and facts cited by Smith and Dewees in the motions, but instead, in a threatening fashion, labeled the motions “frivolous”, and addressed them in an accusatory fashion as to how they were prepared, again without a word of denial on her part that the basis for the motions was factually incorrect.  Interestingly, Rambo herself recognized the commonality of the interests of Smith and Dewees by placing her Order in a combined caption of both cases.  While similar, these were motions of two unrelated litigants in two unrelated cases at two unrelated times on her docket.  The combination of these cases by the Court itself suggests that there is a very easily identifiable “class” of persons who have been and continue to be affected by all of these things.  Smith and Dewees have gone on record jointly in response to Judge Rambo’s threatening Order, and have demanded that their cases be removed from the Third Judicial Circuit in its entirety, and that the merits be addressed.  A copy of the Motion for Reconsideration, as well as Judge Rambo’s Order, follows:

Dewees.Smith Motion Reconsideration Rambo

Order Dewees.VSmith

Also, Don Bailey has gone on record in these matters on both the Smith and Dewees dockets, with a personal letter to Judge Rambo, responding to some vague suggestions that he was involved in filing the motions – it would not have been improper if he was – they were/are his clients after all.  The Bailey letter follows:

Rambo letter nov 16 2011

In other developments, an additional motion to open has been filed, and still more are expected to be filed, bringing the number to more than a dozen cases of clients and former clients of Don Bailey and Andy Ostrowski who have seen that their rights have been violated by the course of conduct that we have been reporting, and discussing in the broader context of needed reform.  We will provide you more information on all of these individual cases in an update to our original post on these unprecedented matters.  In six of those cases, other than Smith and Dewees, Judges Kane, Conner, and Jones have recused and/or reassigned the motions.  One of the motions has gone to Senior Judge Caldwell, two to Senior Judge Caputo, and three to newly appointed Judge Mariani.  Mariani has also recently received the Steve Conklin case from Rambo.  Little is known about Mariani, but much is to be learned.

Also, attorneys for defendants in the underlying cases have begun to appear on the record and file briefs in response to some of the motions.  None of these briefs at this point appear to address the merits of the motions, and the relevant case law that is clear in the motions, and none appear to have taken on the central question of whether there was a bias and prejudice that affected the Bailey clients’ access to justice.  As we discussed in the “struggle within a struggle” post, and will continue to develop, attorneys who practice before these judges, and judges who have easily discernible predilections toward some attorney or others, read these things, and are the direct beneficiaries of the judges’ tendencies to serve that bigger agenda.  These attorneys win cases that they shouldn’t win, or should be settling, and they are able to pad bills through increased and exaggerated docket activity, knowing that the more motions they filed, the more they get paid, and the more chance that the Judge would find reason to make an attack on Bailey, and dismiss a case, or award a sanction, or do something to make it look like these lawyers are lawyering, when all they are doing is taking what is being given them.  We will prove to you that there are attorneys who have made a practice of doing exactly this.  They, too, must realize that there is a class if litigant – Bailey clients – who they also are harming by participating in thsuch a course of conduct.  Rambo has, of course, brought those defense attorneys into these things together as well as a class.

The John and Jane Does have never been identified.

Thank you.

The role of partisan politics in PCRLN – the Bailey “shit storm”

Here we introduce the story behind an anonymous memo Bailey received sometime in the 2003-05 time frame in the aftermath of the jury verdict returned in a federal court in Wilkes-Barre late on a cold and snowy Friday evening in February, 2003.  Two state narcotics agents out of Philadelphia were awarded $1.5 million in actual and punitive damages against some of their superiors, including then-attorney general Mike Fisher.  There was no press coverage of it, except perhaps a local blurb, yet it was a historic verdict.  The verdict ultimately was taken away by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to which Fisher was appointed as the case wend its way through the courts for an inordinate number of years.  The wife of then-governor, Ed Rendell, Midge, is on that court as well.  Sometime after the verdict, Bailey received a memo anonymously that said “Bailey has caused a shit storm” in Pennsylvania, which was circulated through the state email, suggesting some kind of vague political agenda.  Efforts will be made to locate a copy of the missive.

The short answer to the question of what role partisan politics has in this site is none.  It appears that the fact that Tom Corbett is an attorney and is now our governor has led some to view our effort as a partisan attack on Tom Corbett in our Penn State post.  Tom Corbett was attorney general for most of the past decade, and the attorney general is, obviously, a central figure in setting the state civil rights landscape – it is his former office that defends lawsuits against the state and its officials and employees, and his conduct is unquestionably at issue in some of what we have been discussing, but our focus is Pennsylvania, and central Pennsylvania, in particular, and the condition of the courts upon which we wish to shine light.  We expect the record to speak for itself as our efforts proceed.

Central Pennsylvania, as we use that term, covers the geographic region from Fulton to York County in the south and due north to New York, with some accommodation to the east to include Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties.  This is also the region covered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which we have discussed at length in this site.  Republican party politics have traditionally dominated the culture of the southern region of central Pennsylvania, through State College, and Democratic party politics have dominated the north and east.  Democrats and Republicans, however, all seek and need access to the same courts, and neither party typically ever has policy objectives directed at court reform.  The exclusive objective of this site, the only slogan used, is “working to provide equal justice under the law”.

“Political reform” has been discussed as an objective, and will continue to be.  It may be necessary already, but the mantra we have been repeating is that the courts must first be given the chance to prove capable of disciplining themselves, and the motions to open judgment and other matters that are pending throughout the state and federal courts concerning the Don Bailey saga would still appear to provide ample opportunity for the courts to do so.  The only specific politicians who have been connected to these discussions have been Pat Toomey, a Republican, and Bob Casey, a Democrat.  Our objective is court reform, even political reform.  It is non-partisan.

Don Bailey is, of course, a well-known lifelong Democrat, but is not believed to have run for any office since 1998, and doubtful that he plans to do so.  He has said this case is about settling old political scores, but they are not his.  His clients include lifelong Republicans, such as Roger Snyder, a Lancaster County Republican, and Tom Kimmett, a lifelong Republican in the attorney general’s office.  Parts their stories have been shared here.   Don has sued Democrat politicians and officials as well.  Party affiliation is only relevant because the courts in central Pennsylvania have become instrumentalities of the political process, instead of checks on it, and that dynamic is at the heart of our study.

Nothing more clearly shows the insidious interconnectedness of party politics – both parties – to the condition of the courts than the story behind the Fisher verdict.  The trial judge in the case, A. Richard Caputo, is from Luzerne County, and believed to be a democrat.  He was appointed under Clinton. Fisher, Republican Attorney General, was a defendant, and United States Attorney Michael Stiles of Philadelphia, also appointed by Clinton, was earlier dismissed as a defendant, but was a witness.  Bailey’s clients were two state narcotics agents who were retaliated against after getting too close to, and reporting, investigations of narcotics trafficking activities involving possible misconduct of public officials at high levels.  There is an abundant public record of all of this, and, at some point, we hope to put all the evidence before you.  It is there, and was presented to a jury.  That jury awarded a verdict totaling $1.5 million in actual and punitive damages.  Mike Fisher, now a federal judge, was held personally responsible for violating the two narcotics agents’ civil rights.  It was shortly after this that the “shit storm” memo was received by Bailey.  Bailey had it hanging on a wall in his office.

The trial was originally delayed, without any real cause, until after the gubernatorial election of 2002.  Rendell beat Fisher to succeed Ridge.  The case then sat before Judge Caputo on post trial motions for two years or so, an excessive time.  On May 1, 2003, less than 3 months after the verdict, Fisher was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, one step below the United States Supreme Court.  He was confirmed and began serving on the Third Circuit in 2004.  He served for a period with then Third Circuit Judge, and now Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito.   Justice Alito has participated in three decisions that have significantly limited the First Amendment rights of whistleblowers, decisions which have impacted the cases of many Bailey clients, which we will discuss further in future posts.  The Fisher case was a First Amendment/whistleblower case.

Judge Caputo eventually ruled on the post trial motions, and they were appealed to, of all places, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the court on which Fisher became a Judge right after the verdict.  Several years later, that very court reversed the verdict of the jury, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice.  In other words, the Court upon which the former highest law enforcement officer of the state of Pennsylvania sat, overturned a verdict of a jury of Pennsylvania citizens against him in a case where two narcotics agents’ civil rights were violated by that judge when he was their trusted attorney general.  Rendell’s wife Midge, is also on the Third Circuit, as is Donald Trump’s sister, Marian Trump Barry.  Barry just authored an opinion taking away another Bailey verdict, this one about half a million, in favor of a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper who was the victim of an unlawful wiretap by his superiors using PSP facilities to do it.  All of this can be very easily confirmed in the public record, and will also be brought to you in future posts.

The shit storm created by Bailey is the frenzy caused by these core groups of Pennsylvania politicos, Democrat and Republican, knowing that the citizens of Pennsylvania, i.e., jurors, do not confine their judgments to political lines – there was even a Republican committeeman on the Fisher jury – and that the “good old boys” way of doing things will have consequences if exposed.  The good old boys network has become so institutionally entrenched in Pennsylvania that is has become institutionally protected as a matter of perceived necessity.  The federal judicial appointment process in Pennsylvania has depended upon and grown out of this network, and a connectedness to state politics.  Judge Jones, for example, was co-campaign fundraising chairman with Tom Corbett for Tom Ridge, and PLCB Chairman.  We, of course, appreciate the value of vibrant political activity, but where, in this resume, is the qualification to be a judge of what the founders of our country have set out as guides to protect our individual liberty?  The point is that the administration of justice in Pennsylvania has been about protecting institutions and power structures, as set out in our Penn State post, and not about providing for the equal rights of the individual.  Only such a system would put a proven civil rights violator, as adjudged by a jury of his peers, one step below the Supreme Court.

Bailey has shown that he will stand for the rights of the individual in the face of these institutions, and that juries of these individuals will too.  As set out in our earlier posts, 25 years ago, Bailey made it clear that he will not and cannot be bought to turn a blind eye to corruption in the public sector.  Twenty-five years later, he is still showing it in the courts.  In a deposition of Tom Corbett conducted by Bailey in the Kimmett case, a case in which Corbett is a defendant in a corruption scandal while he was Attorney General, Bailey casually asked Corbett the introductory question “do you know who I am”, to which Corbett directly responded, “everybody knows who you are Mr. Bailey”.  This is the shit storm.  Much like Penn State, the institutions of the courts have much to hide, and Bailey has shown it, and threatens to show even more.  That is what the disciplinary case is all about – stopping the shit storm.

* Note – We suspect that a partisan political tone may have been read into our pointed rhetorical questions asked of Corbett in connection with the Penn State scandal, and possible relationship to the 2010 gubernatorial campaign.  We believe the questions were fairly suggested by the facts presented, but note that we have done some additional research, and limited further inquiry has revealed the following:

http://deadspin.com/5860034/past-and-present-board-members-of-sanduskys-charity-and-their-businesses-or-families-gave-64148121-to-gov-tom-corbett

http://crownsports.blogspot.com/2011/11/sandusky-cover-up-scandal.html?spref=fb

Our focus will remain on the condition of the courts.  We will let others answer these broader questions.

Thank you.

Penn State lawyers and federal courts (“the good old boys network”) have role in Sandusky scandal

The immediate story being covered by this site is the attack on the law license of Don Bailey, and the damages and injuries being suffered by his clients, as reflected in the unprecedented filings that have recently been made, and as discussed in our November 5, 2011 post.  The primary purpose of this site, however, as set forth in our Welcome page, is to address the condition of the legal system, lawyers and courts, in Pennsylvania, and central Pennsylvania, in particular.  No better context can be set to study the condition of that system than that presented, not only by the Sandusky scandal, but by the role of Penn State and its attorneys in the courts.  The conditions of secrecy and control that led to the Sandusky travesty are ultimately permitted or rebuked by the courts, particularly the federal courts, whose power is immense in regulating cultural and political climates.  Penn State and its lawyers have had remarkable success in the federal courts, notwithstanding evidence of record, examples of which we will bring you, that show similar patterns of secrecy, sometimes to ruthless degrees, that demonstrate that control.  For now, we comment on the Sandusky case.

The indictment of Jerry Sandusky notes that in 1998, allegations of misconduct were reported to Wendell Courtney.  This did not surface until 2011.  Courtney is a partner in McQuaide, Blasko, a State College law firm, with a tradition at Penn State more enduring than Joe Paterno.  Courtney has also been counsel for Sandusky’s Second Mile organization.  McQuaide, Blasko handles most, if not all, of the civil rights and related litigation in the state and federal courts against Penn State.  A McQuaide partner, and prolific litigator, James Horne, is the current president of the Middle District Federal Bar Association, a position that requires close work with President Judge Kane, and Conner and Jones as well.  He was nominated and installed as president between 2009 and 2011.  The investigation under Tom Corbett is believed to have begun in 2009, then there was a hiatus until after Corbett was elected governor, and the investigative grand jury resumed in 2011.

In 1999, Sandusky retired, and the renowned coach and heir-apparent to Paterno, then only 55 years old, disappeared from the scene.  Paterno recalls a meeting with Sandusky in 1998 where he informed Sandusky that he would not become the head football coach at Penn State.  Sandusky was a hot nationwide commodity, with talk even of coaching in the NFL, and could seemingly have written his own ticket, but he never coached again.  There is no mention of what Wendell Courtney did with the information he was provided in 1998, and what, if any, relationship it bore to the end of Sandusky’s illustrious coaching career, at its zenith.

Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment

In 2002, Joe Paterno reported information he received from a graduate assistant about the misbehavior of Sandusky to the athletic director.  Although not expressly stated, it is reasonable to assume that the information was also communicated to counsel for both Penn State and Second Mile – the incident was believed to involve one of the Second Mile youths.  Corbett later became Attorney General.  No action was taken until 2011 despite the fact that the graduate assistant had witnessed a graphic violation of a child by a legendary coach on the staff of THE legendary coach, at Pennsylvania’s most prominent public institution in 2002. Additional violations allegedly occurred, again per the grand jury report, in 2005-06 and 2008.  It is abundantly clear that there was information of reprehensible criminal activity concealed in 1998 by Wendell Courtney, and that there was additional clear and unequivocal evidence of similarly graphic criminal activity concealed in 2002, and no real inquiry into how this concealment was allowed to happen.  Untold numbers of children were allegedly violated by a known predator, and a lawyer could have stopped it – a lawyer closely-connected to the courts.

It was not again until 2008 that matters were reported publicly about Sandusky, but, conspicuously, these reports did not come from anyone in the Penn State circle.  These reports came from a rural Pennsylvania high school football coach who had received information concerning some very disturbing behavior – the kind of behavior known to Courtney in 1998, and to him and many Penn State administrators in 2002.  It is believed that, through the advice of attorneys, an institutional decision was made to keep the Sandusky secret a secret forever, and that but-for the report from the high school outside of Penn State’s control, the facts would have continued to be engineered to conceal the truth, letting Sandusky continue to molest children, if that is what happened, as long as it was “not on our campus”.   The implications of a secret of this nature are unspeakable here.  The matter resurfaced in 2008, and again, even under the watchful eye of our then-Attorney General Tom Corbett, was allowed to go into a hiatus until after he became governor.  Corbett, also an attorney, has some more pointed questions to answer too.  Did Spanier and others contribute to his campaign?  Why the hiatus in the investigation of a child predator?  Were there any victims during that hiatus?  Etcetera.

The relevant point to this post relates to the principle of “acculturation” in the legal system.  In the kids-for-cash scandal, the element of acculturation was specifically cited as an obstacle to investigating the breakdown in the courts.  This was mentioned in Bailey’s King’s Bench Petition (see Bailey docket post).   It relates to the point raised by Bailey throughout that skewed loyalties motivated by politics, status, and even personal relationships, have gravely compromised equal access to justice.  This climate of acculturation, where loyalties are to the power structures which sustain the attorneys, slowly allows attorneys to turn a blind eye here and a blind eye there to actions that would otherwise dictate more direct intervention, in service to the “institution”, and the power structures that maintain it.  These are not easy things to negotiate legally, and professionally, and demonstrate why the role of the attorney, and service of that role with integrity, is so vital. When attorneys grow up professionally through these systems, they fight to maintain their personal positions, among service to other loyalties, and are acculturated to protect much, much more than the specific interest of their client in every cause at issue.  The Sandusky tragedy unfortunately illustrates the harm that can result.  We will continue provide you with examples of this principle, as we already have.  This is the essence of the problem in Pennsylvania.

Again, it is likely that Paterno at some point did convey the information he received to an attorney in 2002.  The attorney/client privilege, a vital individual protection in a system with integrity, may limit any ability to know much more than this.  To illustrate the point of this post, however, we will assume that such communication occurred.  If Paterno communicated to counsel what he testified to the grand jury, it is reasonable that Paterno was informed that he has satisfied his legal obligations.  This is what the grand jury concluded.  This is where the acculturation comes into play.  In 2002, there would already have been something to protect – the 1998 secret – which was kept to protect the institution and power structures.  The 2002 information threatened the 1998 secret, which institutionally demanded be kept secret for the same reasons.  Counsel with an institutional secret to protect would naturally instruct the purveyor of the information that since his legal duty had been satisfied, he need not and should not discuss it again with anyone, and that the attorney would take all action deemed appropriate.  Reasonable persons would heed that advice, trusting that they had placed the information in the right hands – their attorney.  Through this dynamic, if it is accurate, numerous crimes of the most heinous nature imaginable had now been covered up, and numerous more were allowed to happen.  Paterno, McQueary, and others surely did not forget what they had seen and heard, and these things were left to fester, and whether, over time, they had a duty to follow up is a moot point because the climate had been set by the institutional secret.  The longer such secrets are kept by the individual, the more daunting the prospect of being the one person to bring down the institution.  This is surely not the only such secret maintained by Penn State and its lawyers, and this is how cultural tones are set.

The hallmark of the climate of acculturation is secrecy, and secrecy is the theme of whistle blower litigation, and other civil rights litigation.  Penn State dominates the culture of central Pennsylvania, and the federal court judges in Harrisburg have sprung forth from this same climate of acculturation, through state political circles.  These courts have demonstrably protected, at least tolerated, efforts to conceal misconduct by state actors and their attorneys.  This is the “good old boys” network, and Penn State and its lawyers are big players in that network.  The good old boys network is what has given rise to the civil rights law network, and we believe both networks are working toward competing principles – equal access to justice for all in the latter case, perversion of justice for a select few in the former.  In the Sandusky case, the good old boys network has caused grievous harm to untold numbers of innocent children, and the civil rights law network will continue to shine the light on the conditions that allowed it to happen.  We will bring you specific material relating to Penn State, and other matters that touch upon our overall theme, as this mission continues to be fulfilled.

Please read on about the unprecedented action taken by Don Bailey’s clients, and allow this post provide you with some context as to why Don Bailey, and the clients he represents, are not treated with favor, as we have suggested, and has Don has suggested for years.

Thank you.

Bailey clients demand cases be reopened/Hearing transcripts now available

Bailey clients demand cases be reopened

In what is surely an unprecedented legal maneuver in the courts of the United States, nine present and former clients of Don Bailey, and his colleague, Andy Ostrowski, have signed their own motions to have eleven (updated 11/16) of their cases reopened based upon the matters revealed through the disciplinary proceedings against Don Bailey.  The cases go back to 2003.  It is believed that still other other such motions will follow.

The admitted basis for the motions first revealed itself through the March, 2011 recusals of United States District Court Judges Yvette Kane, Christopher Conner, and John E. Jones from all of Don Bailey’s cases, in excess of 20 at the time – unprecedented in itself.  There are statutory bases for recusal, involving bias, prejudice, and things of the like, and these Judges have now admitted that they have met that standard.  Mr. Bailey has been saying so for years, and is currently being disciplined for saying it.  His clients are now saying it too, and demanding that their cases be reopened because of the effect that these biases, and when they arose, clearly has had, or may have had on their cases.  There is a process in our courts to address motions of this nature, very clearly based in the federal rules and precedents of our Supreme Court, and through this process, all sides of the issue have the right to be presented.

Sample MotionsThomas Motion to Open (Jones.abc27)Phillis Motion to Open (Kane)

Bailey has taken the position throughout these proceedings that either the courts must prove capable of disciplining themselves, or political solutions aimed at reform will be needed, and we have discussed these things in here as well, and where responsibility ultimately lies, and will be shortly bringing you the ability to participate in these solutions.  For now, however, it is a matter still squarely within the ability and power of our courts to correct, although it means that dozens of lawyers and their other clients will be forced to participate in the process.  But if it is what should be done, then it should be done.

One of the core problems that Bailey has discussed is the control that the courts have over attorneys, and their livelihoods, and how loyalties, and ultimately justice, become compromised by that control.  Perhaps over time the legal profession has become acculturated to look past the faces of the persons who seek the attorney in the first place – Bailey solicits on reputation alone – and to make it about the attorney.  No clearer case can be made than this one.  With these unprecedented filings, the courts must now look into the faces of those to whom access to justice has been entrusted, and to determine whether they can bring discipline on themselves.

Each of the clients filing such motions will ultimately have the right to seek relief all the way through the United States Supreme Court, and there are proceedings still underway in both the federal courts and, of course, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which can wend their way through to the Supreme Court as well, sooner and later, and that is the process through which the Bailey question – whether the courts are capable of disciplining themselves – will be answered.  These are individual American citizens, who are school teachers, police officers, public administrators, and contributors in every way to society, and they ask for nothing – except “their day in court.”

In Lessons of the Bailey hearings, we discussed “phase one” and urged that reform is needed, and reform at some level is most definitely needed.  We suggest that the days of reform through silencing the protest, squashing the attorney, and whitewashing the stain are over.  That is what we believe that the recusal and coordinated disciplinary proceedings are intended to be in this case – old political thinking playing out old political agendas (and perhaps some newer agendas) through the politics of personal destruction, and abusing our courts to do so.  We apologize for stating that conclusion, but it has proven to be true.  There is, of course, room for some philosophical dispute in the area of civil rights, and we hope to have those discussions here, but both the means being used and the ends being sought in this case are improper by any legal standard.  Efforts will be made to have all these matters properly investigated as well.

A bias surely comes through on this site, but it is believed to be a bias compelled by the facts, and in favor of the innate sense of justice through which these rights are determined.  Opposing views, criticisms, debates, and discussions are most welcomed.  We are all potential jurors, and the jury decides what is and is not acceptable in the are of civil rights, according to their own cultural values in accordance with the law.  Review these materials, keep informed, and reach your conclusion.

The following are a listing of the cases in which motions to open judgment have been filed:

Miles Thomas/ABC27 News/Humane Society – Thomas has two cases open, the first involving the wrongful seizure of his dog by a Humane Society officer, then a second case which involved allegations of local television personality Alicia Richards’ of abc27 agenda to protect the Humane Society politically as one of their primary local public supporters.

Deborah Phillis/Harrisburg School District – This is a case of age discrimination and retaliation by a dedicated Harrisburg City School teacher against certain of her administrators and the District, in which the right to trial was unfairly cut off.  The case is currently before the United States Supreme Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Julian Adams/Harrisburg Police – Please click the link to this discrimination case of a Harrisburg City Police Officer.

James Martsolf/Pennsylvania State Police – Martsolf’s was a highly acclaimed member of the distinguished SERT team until his then-wife became the victim of an ugly course of sexual harassment, and Martsolf became a target after he complained too.  There are many state police cases we hope to bring you in the future.

Vickie Smith/Central Dauphin School District – Vickie’s case grew out of her reports of a mold problem at the Central Dauphin School District.  This case demonstrates the principles of secrecy and acculturation, and involve Senior Judge Sylvia Rambo.

James Dewees/Dauphin County Prison – Dewees was a deputy warden at the Dauphin County Prison who reported his boss, Warden Dominick DeRose, and others, as being involved in administering the prison in corrupt ways and abusing taxpayer dollars.

Steve Conklin/Warrington Township – Please see link for Conklin’s York county saga.

Angela and Johnny Robinson/City of Harrisburg – the Robinson’s sued the City of Harrisburg and persons involved in the youth soccer leagues for spreading racially charged messages, and interfering with their rights as to how to raise their minor daughter.

Jeffrey Dock/Snyder County Prison – See the link to the story of Jeremy Dock, prison informant allegedly murdered in prison, with suggestions of a coverup of prison officials’ illegal conduct.

Bailey 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.

Transcripts

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 1 Disciplinary Board Hearing DBailey

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.

HearingDay 2

Further proceedings

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.  The following is the motion for reconsideration that Bailey filed concerning this action by Judge Schwab.

Brief Reconsideration Dismissal

We will continue to provide you with updates as all these matters proceed.

Thank you.