In a two-hour “hearing” this morning, Steven Conklin once again had his requests to be heard denied, and had U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mary France lift the automatic stay of the eviction proceedings in light of the filing by Conklin that stayed the eviction that was scheduled for January 23, 2012. Judge France also lifted any stay that was effected by the filing of Andy Ostrowski, and the lease he has with Conklin for Satori Farm, but recognized that the lease gave Ostrowski a possessory interest in the property for which separate state court proceedings would need to be initiated.
The theme of the “hearing” was again, “where is the due process?” Indeed, it was not a “hearing” at all, as that term is understood in a court of law, i.e., the orderly presentation of witness testimony and documentary evidence in accordance with the Rules of Evidence.
Ostrowski strenuously asserted that this is all he was requesting, and was prepared to proceed at all times, and he resisted Judge France’s and the attorney for Grenen Brisic’s efforts to extract information without being sworn in as a witness, and allowed to present evidence and cross examine witnesses on his own. This is requesting nothing at all, and Ostrowski only further requested two additional weeks in which to properly prepare. Judge France had no choice but to acknowledged that is the proper procedure, but granted no additional time.
Conklin outlined the history of abuse to which he has been subjected through the courts, and even pointed out to Judge France that until he mentioned the name of Don Bailey in a proceeding in 2004, he was on a track set by her, after recognizing the “bizarre” and “collusive” actions to which he had been subjected, for a due process hearing on the simple issues he has continued to raise. Within weeks, Judge France brought Conklin in, said she had “made a mistake”, and dismissed Conklin from bankruptcy court in 2004, and gave the green light for all of the proceeding through the present.
The matter today was complicated by the fact that the associate attorney for Grenen and Birsic, Beth L. Slaby, who had signed the subject motions, was participating by telephone because, as she alleged, she could not be there today, and could not properly introduce evidence over the telephone. Oddly, however, Slaby, who is in Pittsburgh, represented that she could have a certified copy of a deed delivered to the Court in 15 minutes from the York County Courthouse. Judge France obviated any additional effort by the bank’s attorneys by accepting a facsimile copy of a deed that was never introduced into evidence and subjected to cross examination.
Conklin pointed out that the document, a “Sheriff’s Deed”, showing that the York County Sheriff sold the property to the bank, EMC Mortgage, said right on it that it’s contents needed to be separately verified. Of course, this is the sheriff’s sale that occurred, and was the legal taking of Conklin’s property without due process of law, with the physical ejectment of Conklin and his family from the farm, to surely be forthcoming soon, and likely in the works already. Conklin still has never been given a hearing, and is again out of court.
Conklin even pointed out that the York County Sheriff, and supposedly many other officials in York County, have not just never filed their oaths of office, but have specifically refused to do so, despite the fact that is their clear duty under the law, and it is the contract that binds them to their constitutional duties. Judge France was quickly dismissive of the issue, and, after resisting the efforts and avoiding the requests of Conklin and Ostrowski, ultimately just gave Slaby annd EMC what they were asking for, leaving again the Ostowski lease as a matter for state court.
We will bring you the transcripts of the proceedings, and reserve any detailed characterization of them until then. The transcripts will show that the failure, again, is one of the courts’.
Thanks again go out to the 20 or so members of the occupy movement and PCRLN who once again showed their support for Steve Conklin and his family, and attended the proceedings. Again there are issues of fairness and justice that underlay all of these efforts, and are the real reason that relative strangers to each other stand in support of each other in opposition to the violation of their rights. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
For quite some time, we have wrestled with the use of apparent hyperbole, trying to exercise restraint, in trying to describe to you the essence of the problem we are dealing with in this site, but there simply is no more question that we are dealing with corrupt courts, as that term is defined by Webster’s. Our crony capitalism/courthouse corruption article discussed one perception of the real nature of the dis-ease and discomfort underlying the occupy movement, that being “fairness”, and how it made complete sense to look at the cronyism practices in the courts, as the system for the administration of fairness, in that evaluation, even if it means upsetting common beliefs held by all of us concerning the faith we want to have in our courts.
We have sufficiently defined the problem, and given repeated examples of what the courts are doing, and we no longer apologize for using the term corruption to define courts in central Pennsylvania, particularly the federal court in Harrisburg, except, again, to the extent that we have to state this tragic truth.
As we alerted you in our last update on the Conklin case, bankruptcies filed by Conklin and Andy Ostrowski put off the lawless eviction once again, and the matter is being dealt with promptly by the bankruptcy court, in the federal building here in Harrisburg. Predictably, the bank and their attorneys from the Pittsburgh law firm of Grenen & Birsic have made an emergency filing with the court, and are seeking to have the bankruptcy stay lifted, and Conklin and Ostrowski both sanctioned for the filing. Yes, the firm that relies upon “robo-signers” to create fraudulent documents and lawyers who openly lie in court, are asking that Conklin and Ostrowski be punished for their bad faith conduct. We will bring you the update from the hearing, which is scheduled for January 31, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. in the bankruptcy court, Third Floor, Federal Building at Third and Walnut Streets in Harrisburg.
Steve Conklin has sent out a plea for help, a copy of which has been sent to us. Steve has truly been abused by the courts, both in his own right, and due to his association with attorney Don Bailey, and we are bringing to you his own words that underlay his plea for help. We have made a call out to Senators Casey and Toomey for assistance, but, to this point, there is no evidence that it has been heard, and we will be stepping-up our political efforts to make court reform a priority, but for now we bring you Steve Conklin’s plea for help in his own words, and ask that you help in any way you can:
From: Satori Farm Info [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:58 AM
Subject: Please Help!
My name is Stephen Conklin; I am the owner of SatoriFarm, located at 100 Spangler Road, Lewisberry, Pa. 17339. We have been and continue to be subject to an unlawful eviction, by force (last monday the Sheriff’s Department had at least seven cars with 2-3 deputies each, plus others ready to swoop down on us).
I was only able to stop this at the last moment by filing Bankruptcy. There is “expedited hearing” seeking to immediately vacate the automatic stay, plus prospective bar to keep me from filing anymore, plus request for sanctions, set for Tuesday, January 31, 2012 @ 9:30am, in Judge Mary France’s Courtroom, 3rd floor, of the Federal Courthouse in Harrisburg.
Occupy Harrisburg, York, Lancaster and Carlisle as well as other have come out to support us. They were here last Monday, as well as a previous attempt on December 8th, 2011. The Monday event was streamed live world-wide. We have been featured in the Patriot News, the York Dispatch, Fox43 News, as well as 2 4 hour segments of local york Comcast Tv Joe live, and on radio shows such as Dr. Robin Falkov, and Paleo-Radio.
Throughout the courts, I have never received a full, fair and impartial hearing in front of a fair and impartial tribunal. (Even a cursory review of the record would literally shock the conscience)
I have never been allowed discovery even by motion to compel (the bank’s attorney’s even put in writing they would never submit to it)
i have been denied subpoena’s )the other side didn’t even have to appear to have it quashed – it was already decided prior to.
A protection order was issued- and further denial to obtain any additional subpoena’s without court permission, first. (never gonna happen)
I have been attacked by a sheriff’s deputy who put his hand firmly on my collarbone and his other on his holster, and told to sit down and shut up, for merely saying “Your Honor” , meanwhile having a host of things decided against me. (january 27, 2009) This was done again (February 18, 2009) prior to the “hearing” even starting, where the sheriff’s deputy does the exact same thing only this time saying, “you are going to remain quiet, aren’t you Mr. Conklin?”. The County admits doing this, but says I was “disruptive”, however, at least five affidavits from witnesses, including 2 attorneys, clearly states, at no time was I anything but polite and courteous.
I have been labeled in a false light, by Federal Judge Kane, who sua sponte who struck pertinent portions of my federal complaint (1:10-cv-2501) stating it all was “immaterial, impertinent and scandalous” where, inter alia, I was asking for a federal investigation; and, she struck a motion for recusal in its entirety – she goes on to recuse herself so I can’t claim retaliation, but then labels me with having a “longstanding and outrageous pattern of hostility towards the court and its judicial officers” this is simply not true and I asked for a hearing on it to present evidence. No response.
Since then, both myself and my brother have been followed by federal marshals each time we would go to the courthouse to file routine papers, even into the bathroom, culminating on Sept 28, 2011, where the marshal who followed me was on his radio asking if he had to stay with me and then proceeded to say I was on a “list” downstairs. I could not find out what this “list” was, but I have to assume I am perceived, albeit erroneously, as some kind of threat, I have been attacked, by a tipstaff of commonwealth court, threatened with arrest, whilst I was giving testimony on the stand on behalf of someone else – again.. witness affidavits and even the transcripts show I was doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I have had default judgments entered (at least twice) that were facially-defective – I wasn’t even given the amount of time under the rules to respond.
I have had refused, a default judgment after it was stamped in, that was not defective, and was later told they would not enter it, but they couldn’t tell me why. when pressed about it, they said it was because it would have ended the case in my favor.
I have had a judge (Maria Musti Cook, of York, admit that in response to my preliminary objections, that the bank failed to answer the merits of my claims, but go on to say, I can present them at time of trial.. I never got the trial (by the same judge) or even a hearing.
I have had several instances of judges out of York, who were defendants in my federal complaint, continue to rule against me, even reach into other cases and rule, despite the clear impropriety of it and the fact I asked for their recusal.
I was even refused a timely filing of appeal (October 12, 2011) that forced me to write a writ of mandamus, as well as a petition for allowance of appeal, nunc pro tunc, afore they were forced by Superior Court to take it.
I have had numerous instances of filings never served on me, prior to be ruled upon quickly, including one where an attorney who had never appeared, or filed anything previously, had a judge (Renn) of York court, sign an order (12/11/08) BEFORE it was ever filed with the prothonotary, and, despite my having checked the dockets 3 times (12/12/08, 12/18/08, 12/22/08) suddenly on 12/23/08 I receive the order already granting something I never had a chance to respond to (they salted the files, and this too has happened a few times – I had long been forced to get certified copies of the dockets whenever I could because of this)
I have had judges have hearings that I had no notice of.
I have had judges have hearings where i got wind of, and found that the atty.s hadn’t even filed anything in the record to have the hearing on.
I have had time stamped filings of my own, vanish.
I have had an attorney for the other side and the solicitor for the prothonotary openly conspire in front of myself and my brother, (in the elevator) how they could fix it – subsequently they got a hearing I had no notice of and a pleading I had filed before this disappeared from the record.
(all this and more, as i am only brushing what has happened- the list goes on and on)
On December 7, 2010, I filed a federal complaint under Section 1983 (1:10-cv-2501) This went through 3 judges, (Kane, Rambo, Mariani) the last one being appointed by “verbal order”. Judge Mariaini initially granted 2 TRO’s , each of 2 week duration (December 7, 2011, and January 4, 2012, respectively) but i never got a hearing on the request for preliminary injunctive relief (not getting a hearing has been a re-occurring theme throughout) Judge Mariani was only appointed to the bench on November 10, 2011 and has never been a judge prior to this (labor lawyer) – he is a long time supporter of Senator Bob Casey and in return, got to be a judge. I believe I am being singled out.
On or about January 17, 2012 Judge Mariani denied additional relief and dismissed the judicial, bank and law firm that represents them defendants – citing- lack of jurisdiction (Anti-injunction act) and Rooker-Feldman. He did this despite the fact that Section 1983 is an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act (Mitchum v. Foster) and the fact when i filed, there was state action pending) Additionally, he fails to take into account Hovey v. Elliott, and its progeny, as well as a host of other Supreme court cases, cited, which provides for my substantive right and the fact I have never received a real hearing.
He relied on a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Blewitt, who cited a bevy of cases, some saying they were directly on point, as to why relief should not be granted. I researched many of these cases, and none of them (none) were anywhere near my case. I pointed this out, to no avail. What all of those cases did have in common however, was the fact that they all…. got a hearing; no matter what I do, I cannot. (Looking at Fed Rule 52, and 65, and case law to go with it, everyone else seems to get a hearing – and certainly the cases cited against me, they all got one too)
As to the foreclosure complaint – I have indubitable evidence by way of 2 expert affidavits, from nationally-recognized fraud Expert, Lynn Szymoniak, Esquire, attesting to, amongst other things, the blatant fraud of the “manufactured assignments”, done by “robo-signers” and other highly improper irregularities. (Ms. Szymoniak has trained even the FBI and others on fraud detection and was featured on April 3, 2011 segment of Sixty Minutes)
For example: Chase Bank of Texas claims on November 11, 2005 they assigned the Mortgage note to Deustche Bank of Americas (something something or other) effective June 18, 2002. This is notarized by Natalie Flowers on November 8, 2005 – three days prior to the alleged execution. Natalie Flowers (by expert affidavit) has acted as a Vice-President for several banks. This is a back-dated assignment, and whilst I cannot find case law on this for Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York and California all find that it is the date of execution and not the antecedent date that controls. Moreover, Deutsche Bank then claims it assigned the mortgage to EMC Mortgage (the folks coming after me) on October 20, 2004. But, On October 18, 2004, Chase Bank of Texas caused our home to be sold at sheriff’s sale (without a judgment- they used a docket number for a different property and attached it to a writ of execution, that should have never been issued by the prothonotary) I told them at time of that sale, it was unlawful (the then-sheriff, the county solicitor and the bank’s attorney) and why it couldn’t be sold, but they did it anyway. I got it back when I told the purchaser who came to give me notice to get out what happened, and he went back and demanded his money back. It shoiuld also be noted that the person who assigned it from Deutsche Bank, Sherry Doza, as Vice -President, by expert affidavit, has acted as V.P for literally dozens of other banks, and even her “signature” is done by numerous others, and at no time has she worked for any of them. Also, the form of Deutsche Bank being used does not exist. (in a two day period, 10/18/04-10/20/04 -4 banks claim ownership- most overlapping to the same day)
Additionally, the foreclosure complaint is verified by Rick Wilken as working for EMC. Per expert affidavit, Rick Wilken has acted as a V.P for other banks too, and at no time did he work for EMC but was and/or is employed by Lender Processing Services (formally a subsidiary of Fidelity) and every other single verification (there are several) the the bank’s attorney’s have done, (Grenen & Birsic) is clearly and unequivocally, facially-defective.
There is also, prior to sale, and still on the York county recorder of deeds docket, where a lienholder was notified of a sale of the property. He subsequently paid them . The attorneys for the bank perjured themselves by sworn affidavit that they had no knowledge of any of this, and later had to admit they are the ones that contacted him in the first place. Then they claimed the payment was no good, yet I have evidence, via cusip number which tracks negotiable instruments, that they have deposited this into a fidelity account in Boston. The judge, Stephen Linebaugh, who is/was a defendant in my federal suit, never addresses whether the payment was good or not, instead, he says that the lienholder could not obtain power of attorney to enter a satisfaction. (the payment itself though, never invalided)
I have had several judges out of the York court, who are defendants continue to rule on things.. all of it meant to harm me.
NO ONE will even mention the word fraud, or the expert affidavits, regardless of what cases in support I cite. (and there are many)
There are additional issues of race as well, which has to do with my taken the indigent in as well as bringing inner city children out to the farm during the summer to see, where eggs come from. Transcripts altered, Tape altered, 7 witness affidavits, all deposed, none refuted, that attest to what was said. A federal judge, Conner, saying I was not entitled to a verbatim transcript and in a footnote, stating (paraphrased) “Plaintiff does not claim to be a minority, so what is plaintiff’s problem with ‘little children of color’ being discriminated against on plaintiff’s property”. Tried to address this (reconsider) through my attorney (I have largely represented myself on everything else) was then attacked and me as well as he issued a show cause as to why Mr. Bailey should not be sanctioned for “grammatical errors”, even though clearly the judge made numerous errors, including case citations. this judge refused to recuse and never addressed the issue for reconsideration put in front of him. I know for a fact, race issues, a developers desire to get hold of this property as well as my association with Don Bailey, and the fact I dared speak of any of it, are exactly the reasons we are being denied wholesale, all means and manner of due process other rights.
WE desperately need help here.. some light shone.. on all that is and continues to go on…. again, I haven’t begun to get into the depth of all of it, we just need as much attention drawn to it as possible.. I have, documents to support everything I am saying here.
Please… if you could offer anything here.. even some guidance or other thoughts, it would be most appreciated.. Thank you for the time and consideration you have afforded in the foregoing; I apologize for the length and likely ramble in it.. I just did not know of another way to present it..
If so inclined, you may reach me @ (717) 458-2815, or by cell @ (717) 460-5450 (if I miss your call, please leave a message and I will return it promptly)
sincerely /s/ Stephen G. Conklin – Satorifarm
Satori Farm Expert Witness Lynn Szymoniak, esq. on 60 Minutes
Watch Lynn Szymoniak on 60 Minutes discussing Foreclosure Fraud:
View the Proof of the Fraud being commited against Satori Farm by Lynn Szymoniak:
Lynn Szymoniak’s expert witness affidavits proving fraudulent foreclosure documents are being used against Satori Farm
Satori Farm – EMC Mortgage Fraud Foreclosure Victims, with Don Bailey on Joe Live 1/14/2012:
VIDEO: Civil Rights Attorney Don Bailey (former Pennsylvania Auditor General and U.S. Congressman) with Satori Farm (EMC Foreclosure Fraud Victims) discussing Fraud, Judicial Misconduct, Racism by a Federal Judge, and Corruption in Pennsylvania Courts – Back on JoeLive (2nd episode)
Please help in any way you feel you can. We will continue to offer suggestions as to how you may.
Perhaps even on a parallel with the courts, the media as an institution has the unique ability to affect cultural attitudes and climates. One need only listen to the “liberal media” and “conservative talk” outlets accuse each other of abusing this access to discern that there is some truth to the proposition. This article discusses that principle in relation to the political and cultural climates as they exist in central Pennsylvania, and the local media’s role in setting these climates.
We previously introduced you to the case of Miles Thomas before the disciplinary proceedings against Bailey really commenced in earnest. Miles filed two cases, and two motions to open judgment. In the first case, Miles claimed, and proved, that a Harrisburg Humane Society Officer, William Sandstrom, unlawfully took, and then would not return, Miles dog, his personal property, beloved to him.
The case was actively covered by some local press, the Patriot News included, and John Luciew of the Patriot News did a fine job keeping attention on this matter, which the federal court, Judge John E. Jones, proved impotent to deal with. For some unexplained reason Judge Jones would not simply order the Humane Society folks to return the dog, and scheduled, rescheduled, and delayed proceedings until finally the dog was returned, although under some bizarre “fostering” type of relationship. As is typical, Judge Jones used the very straightforward litigation as an attack on Miles, and his attorney, Andy Ostrowski.
Notably absent from the local news coverage of the incident was any coverage by the local abc affiliate, abc27 news of Harrisburg. It was later learned that abc27 anchor Alicia Richards is a significant benefactor and public spokesperson for the Humane Society, and that there was pressure at abc27 to cover the story, but that Richards alone stopped the coverage, even threatening to quit if the station covered the story.
While the saga dragged out before Judge Jones, who would simply not tell the Humane Society to return the man’s property, abc27 hosted a fundraiser for the Humane Society, which, as it turns out, was hosted by Richards and by her co-host, Valerie Pritchett. Because Miles had still not had his dog returned at the time – months after it was taken –he decided to attend the event and ask for his dog back again, and was escorted from the premises by the police.
This led to the filing of a second lawsuit by Miles, which he filed in Dauphin County that time, but which the defendants, Richards, Pritchett, the Humane Society, and the Crown Plaza included, were able to get back into federal court before Judge Jones, who dismissed this case, as well as Miles’ first case, after Ostrowski’s suspension took effect.
The theme that has been discussed throughout this site, such as in the Bailey judicial lynching and Penn State predictions articles, and elsewhere, is that the media, at least in central Pennsylvania, has some special access to the courts, such that they are able to combine to control popular opinion and cultural climates.
In the Miles Thomas case, the Humane Society’s protection by abc27, and even Judge Jones (the connection of these matters to the Thom Lewis Collie rescue case will be explored in much more detail), allowed them to persist in an indefensible course of conduct, and escape exposure. It reinforced cronyism as a legitimate use of the courts. It is not wrong for local personalities to support local causes, but it does compromise journalistic integrity to not disclose that these things motivate news agendas.
The Patriot News has some kind of special and coordinated access with what goes on in the federal courts. The Bailey “shit storm” verdict of $1.5 million dollars against a sitting attorney general gets no coverage, nor do the wiretap verdicts against state police officials, nor most of the other significant cases he brings, but the Patriot published the Carlson smear, and announces disciplinary proceedings, and covers just about every story that casts Don Bailey in a negative light. And, as if their devices were not obvious enough, they had taken to using an old file photo of Bailey wearing an eye patch, which was used every time they ran an article about Bailey, until someone was kind enough to demand that this unfair portrayal stop.
Even last week, David Wenner of the Patriot News covered the scheduled eviction of Steve Conklin from his farm, and his writings were filled with value-judged portrayals of Conklin as a fringe element deadbeat hippie who was trying to pull a fast-one to get out of his obligations under his mortgage. When Wenner was asked about his portrayals, he gives the stock response that they won’t “try his case in the paper”. That is fine, of course, and completely appropriate, but why try theirs?
This special access is also believed to be behind the Penn State/Sandusky, with deliberate leaks used to create a climate where plea agreements are the only reasonable alternative, and where, for further example, it does not appear to be any coincidence that Attorney Karl Romminger, who does a popular law-related local radio show on whp-580 became a public face of the Sandusky prosecution, only appearing to give voice to the “body-soaping instruction” defense to the molestation charges, and then not being heard from again. The pubic seed was planted, like the other examples brought to you, and this is how popular opinions and climates are set.
The question to which we intend to devote further study is, why? What is the dynamic at play behind these obvious abuses of special access to the courts as a result of the role of the media? The position being taken here is that these matters are, in large part, a result of the dynamic of the courts unique control over lawyers, coupled to unscrupulous court officers inclined to abuse the access.
The media generally in the Unites States is fairly free and unrestrained when it comes to criticism of the executive (President/Governor) and legislative (Congress/General Assembly), and accusations of improper, corrupt, or crooked agendas are never shied-away from; yet courthouse corruption, and crooked judges are scarcely discussed and exposed unless or until the problem reaches epic proportions, and explodes into a full blown scandal, like the kids-for-cash scandal that rocked the courts, only within the last year; yet it is no longer discussed.
Media outlets get sued in courts, and they are staffed with attorneys whose licenses are controlled by the courts, and to whom the lawyers are obeisant and deferent, as a product of their acculturation, to the courts and the personalities who control them. While executives and legislatures have some control over media, their efforts to control must by their nature be fairly transparent, as are their agendas. In the climate in the federal courts, where hearings are rarely granted, and most work is done behind closed doors, there is a better chance that decisions will be made, but the motivations for those decisions easier to conceal, and justify, and media outlets, and their lawyers, must build all these dynamics into their reporting on matters before the courts. As a result, there is distinct under-reporting.
This site has widely reported on the goings-on in the courts of central Pennsylvania, and if the things said in this site are true, the evidence is here, there is a huge problem in our courts, and one that does not get reported in the popular media; yet that media does appear to have access, and is part of serving other agendas. This all is part of the larger problem that has created the climate that was discussed in our Welcome to this site, and will continue to be a focus of our efforts.
A large part of the legacy of the Penn State/Sandusky scandal has been lost this week with the passing of legendary coach and Penn State benefactor Joe Paterno. The what he knows and when he knew its and what he should have dones are now forever academic. We posited that Paterno was, to a degree, a victim of the Penn State/Good old boys network of attorneys, politicians, and judges who have been acculturated to control and conceal institutionally damaging information. This has been discussed in the Margo Royer matter as well. All that will be further said at this point is that Pennsylvania has lost a larger-than-life man whose legacy may have been unfairly tarnished by those to whom responsible charge of the information was entrusted.
Bill Keisling of Yardbird Books has published a well-researched analysis of the Sandusky scandal in the larger context of the political use of the Office of Attorney General by Governor Tom Corbett, with detailed discussion of the primacy of the bonusgate scandal. Keisling explores in detail how Corbett dedicated untold resources to the political prosecution of legislators in comparison to the deliberately impotent effort to investigate the Sandusky allegations, and the real costs involved in both.
To the extent that Pennsylvanians feel a sense of lost dignity to accompany the loss of an institution in Pennsylvania for half a century, Keisling’s article suggests that our own Governor may bear the brunt of the blame. The entire article follows:
Attorneys take cues from the courts and seek sanctions from Bailey client
As we brought to you in our update on the Bailey class clients who have filed their own motions to open judgment, Judge A. Richard Caputo denied the motion filed by Deborah Phillis, and the opinion was immediately released into the public domain through a private research service. Caputo’s Orders in the Miles Thomas and Jeffrey Dock cases were released to the same service. Another Caputo Order conspicuously came through the same service sanctioning Bailey in the Dave and Pam Morris case, who have filed a motion to open of their own. Caputo piles on.
In accord with the serious developing theme, i.e. the Conklin case and Bailey disciplinary proceedings, none of these Bailey clients are getting due process hearings, or any procedure whatsoever.
The first attorneys to take the bait, so-to-speak, come from the Harrisburg law firm of Shumaker Williams, through attorney Michael Rowan, who has filed a Motion for Sanctions sanctions against Deb Phillis, citing a lack of any reasonable basis to her claims that she has suffered prejudice because of who her attorney is that affected her case before Judge Yvette Kane, who has recused herself from all Don Bailey cases, and initiated disciplinary proceedings of her own, which have not been discussed in any detail. Deborah has filed a reply brief, citing significantly that they have operated under an entirely false factual construct, and objecting to her mistreatment for being clearly reasonable.
The Motion for Sanctions essentially cites Phillis’ statement that she intends to do anything and everything she can to get her justice, which is not asking for anything at all. The motion for sanctions is, on its face, more punishment for daring to raise issues of bias against Don Bailey, and the civil rights causes of his clients, and simply smack of an attempt to oppress and silence an innocent American citizen for daring to raise an issue that is reasonable on its face. There are 70 votes of general support. Their reason cannot withstand that.
Mr. Rowan was kind enough to speak with us about the filing, and assured it was directed by his clients, but was equivocal in his support for such a drastic measure, citing only Ms. Phillis’ “pattern in this case” to support the motion. Pattern? In this case? Rowan also suggested that there was a proposal to resolve the matter by withdrawing the motion for sanctions in exchange for withdrawing the case. That’s the removal of the proverbial boot from the throat, but Phillis may have no choice.
Rowan did say that he was familiar with this site, but that he had not read it in any depth. He based a motion for sanctions an a filing by Deborah Phillis that specifically cited this site as support. There do appear to be questions of good faith involved, a lack of diligence at least. We discussed the fact that this is exactly what opportunist attorneys do when they read clear judicial attitudes in our struggle behind the civil rights struggle essay.
The entire tone again is set by the lengths to which some personalities, judges unfortunately, have gone to create a public “smearjob”, as Bailey has been heard to say. Judge Rambo has already threatened Jim Dewees and Vicki Smith with sanctions, and barred the door to the courthouse against them, and the dissemination of the attacks on Bailey speak for themselves. See Politics of personal destruction.
What is wrong with these American citizens asking for fair access to their courts? Why are they being subjected to mistreatment and sanction freely for suggesting they have been subjected to mistreatment and sanction? There would appear to be many opportunities for the courts to still discipline themselves and remedy what is on record here as being serious wrongs. We will continue to bring you these updates.
Bailey discipline case update
The Supreme Court has entered an Order scheduling the submission of post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law, tentatively believed to be due in mid-February. The process requires each side to submit “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law” in support of their respective positions. Presumably, because the Office of Disciplinary Counsel carries the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, they will be required to make a submission making their case against Bailey. This will be based upon the hearing transcripts and exhibits submitted into the record on August 11 and 12, 2011.
Bailey, of course, has raised, once again, substantial due process issues, which have led to an infirm record to support anything, but the Supreme Court has denied his substantial and repeated pretrial motions, largely in one-line orders, despite Bailey’s pleas for due process. Every reader of this right now is in the absolute dark of the this judicial decision-making, and that simply is not fair to the large numbers of people who have significant interests at stake.
It is assumed that “they” again are attempting to back Bailey into a corner so they can see what he says about the record before the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, most of which has been made public here, and then fashion whatever it is that they are going to do, which will likely involve more of the same. Through the disciplinary process, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court still has the opportunity to fully address the substantial issues raised by Bailey throughout these proceedings, and to do complete justice in this case, and to all of us. There are many issues to address, well before any issues concerning the “complaint” against Bailey are reached, and we are all entitled to the transparency that is inherent in the notion of due process.
As Steve Conklin, his 84 year-old father, family, and around 50 friends from PCRLN and the occupy movement waited and worked in the cold rain and snow, saving whatever remnants of Satori Farm that could be loaded on trucks and put into storage that they could, word was received, about 2:10 p.m., that bankruptcy filings made this morning had automatically stayed the eviction. No court has granted relief at this point – it is a stay as a matter of law, and is expected to be addressed promptly. We expect that Conklin will be faced with eviction again soon.
Regardless of the thrust of this article – the fact that the eviction was put off – it was a truly inspiring to participate in the effort where those in attendance were united only by their humanity and sense of fairness that lay beneath all the things we experience as Americans, indeed as world citizens. Food was brought in, labor supplied, and the entire event was webcast live around the world, with viewers as far away as Sweden, France, and Denmark, and the support streamed in, and never let up among those in attendance. After the stay was announced, one of the viewers in San Francisco ordered in a celebratory pizza, and another streamed a message around the world from viewers and listeners everywhere to call the York County Sheriff – 717-771-9601 – and demand that he stop these unlawful efforts to evict Conklin and his family from their farm.
The mantra during the event was fairly simple – how can they take a man’s property without giving him a hearing? That is the basis of the entire effort – the sheriff, i.e., “the state”, is trying to take Conklin’s property without due process of law. We have discussed that basic concept very liberally here. The Supreme Court case is Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409 (1897), and it states, in clear language, the following:
The fundamental conception of a court of justice is condemnation only after hearing. To say that courts have inherent power to deny all right to defend an action and to render decrees without any hearing whatever is, in the very nature of things, to convert the court exercising such an authority into an instrument of wrong and oppression, and hence to strip it of that attribute of justice upon which the exercise of judicial power necessarily depends.
The principle stated in this terse language lies at the foundation of all well-ordered systems of jurisprudence. Wherever one is assailed in his person or his property, there he may defend, for the liability and the right are inseparable. This is a principle of natural justice, recognized as such by the common intelligence and conscience of all nations. A sentence of a court pronounced against a party without hearing him, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.
Conklin has never had a hearing, and that is not in dispute. Judge Mariani did not even mention Hovey in dismissing Conklin’s case, despite the fact that Conklin quoted it to him too, repeatedly. The language is clear. By all right under the law, Conklin is the fee owner of that 112 acres known as Satori Farm. Our Supreme Court says so.
That is the principle that underlay the bankruptcy filings that effected the stay of the action. Conklin filed a bankruptcy of his own this morning in the bankruptcy court the federal building in Harrisburg. At some point, Conklin had also granted a lease of his property to Andy Ostrowski, who had represented Conklin in the past in the York County Courts in connection with these matters, and Ostrowski also filed a personal bankruptcy this morning, and delivered notice to the Sheriff of the filing.
It is not clear which filing stopped the action, and is presumed that both should have, but the right result has been achieved, and further actions will be forthcoming. Grenen and Birsic, in their haste to shut down Satori Farm, did not attempt to identify if there were any other interests in the land that they sought to take, and Steve Conklin by all right remains the owner in fee.
In the end, what happened at 2:15 p.m. today is only what must happen by operation of law, and is no sign that there is any real standing down in the efforts to get Satori Farm – we will provide you with the updates in these regards. For the time-being, the matter appears to be one for the bankruptcy court, which will likely entertain motions for relief from the stay.
Even if “they” were successful in carrying out their lawless plan, the message from today would still be a positive one. The course of conduct of these official, banks, and attorneys never suggested anything but its continuation, but the outpouring of support for Steve and his family has a life of its own, because of what unites it. Conklin was heard to say that taking him away by whatever means they intended to would only strengthen his voice, and it was shown today that Steve’s voice, and his principles, are what unite people around the world, regardless of political governance.
The rights stated in our Constitution – freedom to speak and to oppose, due process of law, equal protection, etc. – are not our rights because they were given to us, they are our rights because they are “inherent and inalienable”, i.e., they lie at the heart of our humanity. Unfortunately, the understanding of this concept only truly comes when it is “your” rights that are those being taken, and the support that Steve received shows that this is something that is capable of being understood without being experienced. The support alone is a victory.
As the old adage goes, you can take the Steve out of Satori Farm, but you can’t take the Satori Farm out of Steve. Steve’s personal mantra is that he will be heard, and today he was heard around the world, and has introduced the world to Satori Farm. The experience shows that there are things that unite and inspire in the face of lawlessness and oppression, and those things live for themselves.
The courts are supposed to protect all of it, and they aren’t. Why?
In our Constitutional Law 101 article, we referenced the very simple analysis by which United States District Judge Robert D. Mariani could only reach one conclusion, a conclusion that most of us were first introduced to by the third grade – that in America, property cannot be taken without due process of law, which means a fair and impartial hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal. Steve Conklin had neither, not even an unfair hearing in a partial tribunal – he had none whatsoever, and his property is scheduled to be taken away, by force, Monday, January 23, 2012. The Supreme Court of the United States in a case called Hovey v. Elliot, 167 U.S. 409 (1897) instructs that this will be a lawless act. The new federal judge, and 30 year union attorney, is condoning and fomenting lawlessness by rogue state officials. This is the only conclusion that can rationally be reached under the law.
We talked in prior posts of the skepticism with which we viewed Mariani’s eleventh hour grant of the second TRO on January 4, 2012, and the expressed skepticism was the most favorable spin we could put on the move, as there were clear signs that Mariani, a federal judge for all of 2 months, was already involved, whether he knew it or not, as outlined in Conklin’s motion to recuse, in activities that we applied another “F” word to, but this one wasn’t Fail. Judge Mariani did indeed fail his first real test as a judge, but has passed with flying colors in serving the other agenda that we have set forth.
This brand new federal judge (61 years old) has now created a situation where a swarm of sheriff’s deputies from York County with their State Police backup will descend upon Satori Farm and remove this peace-loving family by force. Welcome to the bench Judge Mariani, you made the banks proud. Did you take an oath to uphold the constitution or make a pact to serve another master? You just made America even less free, and proved that the judiciary is not only not capable of disciplining itself, but is at the heart of the problem.
We will be continuing efforts to assemble and peaceably protest and oppose the actions of what is, by definition, a lawless event scheduled to occur in York County on January 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.. We will keep you posted of our efforts.
To follow up on the theme of race discrimination, we reintroduce you to the summary of the Julian Adams v. Harrisburg City Police case, originally posted on July 16, 2011. While our studies will make some suggestions for how the race debate may need to change or be adjusted to reflect cultural development in the time since the passage of the civil rights legislation of the 60s, by no means, as is suggested by some commentators, has the existence of discrimination on the basis of race been eliminated, and we will continue to bring you case examples as evidence that much still needs to be done.
The Julian Adams case involved a Harrisburg City Police officer who was effectively terminated based upon a completely manufactured charge that Adams lied under oath. He was later actually terminated when he filed a federal lawsuit. The Chief of Police of Harrisburg, Charles Kellar, was very close to then-Mayor Steven Reed and is widely-known to be racially insensitive at least – there was evidence that he used the “N” word frequently, for example. The facts of the case are more specifically set forth in the Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment filed by his attorney, Don Bailey.
The story of the case relates in part to the judicial abuse to which Julian was subjected to as outlined in the Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions filed by his then-attorney Andy Ostrowski. The Mayor was involved at the time Adams was a police officer, before his specific issues even arose, with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission in an ongoing inquiry into alleged racial problems in the police department under Kellar, all of which was revealed during discovery in the case – numerous police officers and others reporting the overtly racist practices of Kellar.
Judge Jones would not, however, perhaps in the spirit of cronyism, permit even the deposition of Reed, and the Motion to Compel that was filed by Adams alleged an extensive and ongoing pattern of obstructionist and uncooperative behavior on the part of their attorney, Robyn McGrath, of Sweeney and Sheehan, who, as is typical in Bailey cases, likely took her leads from Jones’ clear bias and prejudice against Bailey, Ostrowski, and all of their clients, as generally discussed in our struggle behind the civil rights struggle article. Adams’ case was permitted to proceed to trial, but the developing circumstances as reflected throughout this site caused him to settle his case for minimal value without going to trial.
Essentially, despite the Motion filed by Ostrowski, the issues were turned around by Judge Jones, and used to effectively deny Adams full and fair access to courts. Julian is one of the Bailey class of clients who has filed a motion to open judgment, raising the judicial misconduct issues discussed here as a basis for allowing his case to be reopened and sent back for trial. The Declaration of Julian Adams in support of his Motion to Open outlines his basis for requesting that relief.
As is clear, racism is not dead, and is unfortunately all-too-alive in central Pennsylvania. There are many facets of the “race debate” that will be studied here, and, again, ways to look at these things in more enlightened and progressive ways will be explored, but, whatever your view, Julian was a life-long resident of the City of Harrisburg who served the City with honor and integrity, and now he and his family have suffered for years from a throwback chief straight out of the Bull Connor tradition. Justice has not been done in Julian’s case, and we will continue to follow his efforts to get it.
In light of the Martin Luther King, Jr, holiday, the issue of race discrimination, which has not been discussed to this point in any detail, is being addressed here. In the Welcome page, the primary mission of this site was outlined – access to fair courts. While our early efforts, as specifically stated in the Welcome, have been structured around the case against Don Bailey, and contextual articles related to that effort, we also pointed out that the issue of race discrimination remains a pressing issue in the 21st Century. Nothing has specifically been addressed to the race issue to this point, however, because 1) the issue of race (except as to the clients Don Bailey has represented and continues to represent) has not been directly implicated in the proceedings, and 2) the issue of race reflects much broader social and cultural issues that will take significant effort to present in the proper context. With Martin Luther King day upon us, however, we feel it is appropriate to direct some introductory comments to this most important topic, and one that will remain a focus of our efforts. Incidentally, Don Bailey was in the U.S. Congress, and voted for Martin Luther King day being a national holiday.
Most people when they first read or heard of this site saw the term “civil rights law”, and, based on the impressions had before being exposed to this site, likely viewed “civil rights” as “race discrimination” or other such issues of racial, gender, and ethnic “equality” – that is really the only popular exposure to and portrayal of civil rights issues in America. “Civil rights law”, however, is much broader than that. Civil rights law does, indeed, include “race discrimination”, and there are many laws – voting, employment, contracting, housing, etc., – that provide various protections against such discrimination, which also generally includes gender, ethnicity, and national origin as well. More broadly, however, “civil rights law” includes all of those “fundamental rights” that our founding fathers, and those philosophers upon whom their plans were based, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, etc., have identified as intrinsic to the human condition. Whistleblower litigation, for example, is a civil rights issue, because its basis is the First Amendment. Steve Conlkin’s right to a hearing, Andrew Kundratic’s right to fair access to the courts, and Don Bailey’s vindictive prosecution, are all also civil rights issues. These are all species of “civil rights litigation.”
The race discrimination laws, and all of the other civil rights laws, have their basis in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically its’ Equal Protection Clause. The pertinent sections of the Fourteenth Amendment are set forth as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The Fourteenth Amendment, as most probably know, was a post-civil war era amendment, enacted June 13, 1866, and, frankly, was part of the inevitable compromise that was made necessary by the formation of our Republic around the institution of slavery. To be sure, the “states-rightsers” ceded considerable influence and power to the federal government through the “reconstruction-era amendments” (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth), but, again, it was the cost of a “more perfect [and peaceful] union”. There will be much more on these matters in future articles, but for now, we address the issue in relation to the courts we have been discussing.
As Section 5 clearly states, civil rights laws in the area of “equal protection” are the exclusive province of Congress; yet, while there is never a shortage of discourse in the media and other public fora, and those debates often center around the continuing wisdom of some of these laws as they were written, or have been applied over time, there rarely, if ever, appears to be a Congressional legislative agenda directed at such appropriate reform. It is the view of some participants in the Network that some reforms, even fundamental reforms, may be desirable to adjust the civil rights laws given the passage of time and cultural maturity, and suggestions and proposals will be made at an appropriate time.
Much of the public debate, depending on the medium in which it is had, suggests that there is some proclivity or propensity of the courts to treat these cases favorably, i.e., and that playing the “race card” so-to-speak results in windfalls to people getting over on the system. A January 11, 2012 Wall Street column by Holman Jenkins reinforced this perception strongly. It is the opinion of the civil rights practitioners and others connected with this site, however, that such generalizations are misplaced. Our mission being initially related to the experience of Pennsylvanians, and particularly, the federal courts in central Pennsylvania, and our experience simply does not accord with that of Mr. Jenkins, though Jenkins was addressing “disparate impact” discrimination (race-neutral practices with broad inequitable race-based impact), and much of the litigation that will be discussed in this site is “disparate treatment” discrimination (treating similarly-situated persons unequally with race being the criteria for the treatment). Disparate impact litigation is often handled on the government level, while disparate treatment cases are handled through private litigation.
The experience in the federal courts in central Pennsylvania, however, suggests that the judges are deciding these types of cases on the basis of their political and cultural views, and those of the power systems that support them, rather than the merits of each individual case that comes before them, and, unfortunately, the “Don Bailey factor” has played too big a role as well. We suggest that this is a function of the crony capitalism/courthouse corruption dynamic discussed in our December 31, 2011 article, and that it has generated an extremely activist bench on the federal courts.
For example, regardless of your views on the wisdom of affirmative action, Pennsylvania did have an affirmative action/contract compliance program for minority businesses participating in the state-contracting process. Pennsylvania had that program until 1996. Pennsylvania no longer has that program in any form, and there was never a hint of public debate about the issue.
Andy Ostrowski had in the past represented a number of minority businesses, and state employees in the Minority and Women’s Business Enterprise Office of the Department of General Services, and had varying levels of success. In one of those cases, Ostrowski uncovered the almost literal shell-game which led to the elimination of all affirmative action/contract compliance issues by Governor Tom Ridge through an orchestrated effort of adopting and repealing various Executive Orders and Pennsylvania Management Directives (state practice and procedure manuals essentially) whereby the entire affirmative action program was abolished, with the creative and surreptitious strokes of the gubernatorial pen, and was replaced by what is nothing more than an index to the rest of the issuances – the progression was set forth by Ostrowski as follows:
* On December 20, 1996, Governor Ridge signed Executive Order 1996-8 which rescinded Executive Order 1987-18 (Minority and Women Business Enterprise).
* On December 20, 1996, Governor Ridge signed Executive Order 1996-9 which rescinded Executive Order 1988-1 (Affirmative Action and Contract Compliance).
* As of December 20, 1996 the Bureau of Affirmative Action/Contract Compliance in the Office of Administration was responsible for the overall administration of the Commonwealth Contract Compliance Program in accordance with Governor’s Office procedural issuance M215.2 dated December 28, 1994 and signed by the Secretary of Administration.
* On April 8, 1997 M215.2 (Commonwealth Contract Compliance Program Guidelines) was rescinded by procedural issuance M210.3 (Index of Issuances – Directives Management System).
* There is currently no bureau, office, division, or other organizational unit within the Governor’s Office of Administration designated, titled, and/or referred to as the “Bureau of Affirmative Action/Contract Compliance”.
* There has never been a bureau, office, division, or other organizational unit within the Department of General Services designated, titled, and/or referred to as the “Bureau of Affirmative Action/Contract Compliance” or the “Contract Compliance Division”.
* The plan for the abolition of the MWBEO, the creation of the BCABD, and the transfer of contract compliance functions from the Office of Administration to the Department of General Services was never submitted to the General Assembly in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1955, 71 P.S. s 750-1 et. seq..
In a later case where Ostrowski was representing a minority contractor in a statewide computer contract, which the minority contractor should have won and would have won on merit-alone – he was offering a superior service at a more affordable cost, he sued, among others, then-governor Tom Ridge, and his Chief Counsel Jim Sheehan (former Rambo law clerk), who was believed to have orchestrated the effort. Rather than answering the Complaint and addressing the issue on the merits, however, the Attorney General’s office who was representing the interests of the Commonwealth (Mike fisher was attorney general then and is a Third Circuit Judge now as set forth in our Bailey “shit storm” article) concocted a plan to effectuate the removal of Ostrowski from the case, based upon some alleged conflict that Ostrowski had because he had represented another contractor victimized in connection with a different aspect of the same contract. Judge Kane, who had just recently ascended to the federal bench out of her position as Secretary of the Commonwealth under Ridge, granted the motion and dismissed Ostrowski from the case, and the issue died, state-wide, right then and there. This is extreme judicial activism fostered by pure cronyism, and the entire citizenry of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not just the minority business community, was left in the dark, and continues to be so a decade later. Research does not disclose a single public comment, or media report on the abolition of affirmative action in Pennsylvania, yet it no longer exists.
Again, leave aside any and all preconceptions of the wisdom or desirability of affirmative action programs, and, indeed, for purposes of this article, you can even assume that they re no longer desirable. This type of ends-justifying-the-means-cronyism is nothing short of corrupt and dishonest governance which works to the detriment of the entire society, and, over time, as has happened as reported throughout this site, to broad views of unfairness that has led to the underlying difficult to define unease that spurred such things as the occupy movement, again as set forth in our crony capitalism/courthouse corruption article. It is the courts who are at the heart of it, and they are not proving capable of disciplining themselves, and, until they do, this will just be business as usual.
Martin Luther King, Jr., is honored for his commitment to the cause of equality in the face of all odds, and his belief that there are unifying principles of our humanity that supersede things like the color of our skin and other such physical characteristics, and he recognized the power of the people through peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience to effect change, and he did effect change. In many ways, the civil rights movement died when MLK was killed, and Johnson did not seek re-election, and the Vietnam war came to occupy the public consciousness until the gas lines and oil embargos of the 70s supplanted that, and things progressed to where we are today, with nary a Congressional hearing or substantive public debate on the reform of our civil rights laws – whether more protections or less protections or new protections or no protections is the objective. The point is that these are not policies that should be directed by our courts – nobody elects federal judges to make policy, that is what our executives and legislators are for, and this debate needs to be had by the latter, and not forced upon us unknowingly and unwittingly by the former.
The dynamics of the struggle may have changed, but the civil rights struggles continue – a struggle between the liberty of the individual and the power of the government. Consider this website as a peaceful protest, consider Don’s clients filing their own motions to open as peaceful protest, and the efforts to save Steve Conklin and Satori Farm are peaceful protest that will may well include civil disobedience. Whatever the cause at stake and whatever the form the protest takes, the Martin Luther King., Jr. national holiday celebrates all of it as an integral part of our national tradition – the power of the people in the political process. It is unacceptable that Don’s clients are getting abused, even when they file their own motions, and it is unacceptable that our courts, the last stand of justice for all, are the ones actually behind the efforts to get Don Bailey. We will be on the courthouse steps of the York County Courthouse (a symbol of the abuse of civil rights across all spectra) tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock a.m. to stand up for these principles. We hope you can join us.
On August 9, 2011, Don Bailey filed a 20 page King’s Bench Petition with several hundred pages of attachments, raising issues regarding the very integrity of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in light of the kids for cash scandal, and, among other things, the fact that the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board is not duly constituted as a matter of law, the law over which the Supreme Court has exclusive province. There is only one non-lawyer member of the Board, and there are required to be two, and the one is the brother of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Max Baer. The Board bringing and prosecuting the charges against Bailey is not able to do so as a matter of law, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (the role of that of the United States to follow), will not even address that among a myriad of other major and supportable issues raised by Bailey. This is affecting dozens of Bailey clients, and it is unlawful on its face.
The August 9, 2011 King’s Bench was dismissed less than 6 business hours after it was filed, and the case was allowed to proceed to the hearings we have discussed generally here as a mockery of due process and proper comportment in all respects, except for the efforts of Bailey and his witnesses. The complete disregard for the seriousness and severity of the issues we have been addressing from the start is reflected in the one-sentence Order signed by Chief Justice Castille, denying the King’s Bench with such urgency as if there was an agenda behind moving forward with the hearings. The complete lack of due process, pointed out by Bailey very directly from the start, created a record of a federal judge (Conner) testifying falsely under oath, a record of another federal judge (Jones) testifying that he allowed sanctions motions to proceed 3 months after a closed case without allowing Bailey to respond because he “knew what [Bailey] would say”, and a record of a witness, Steve Conklin, being threatened with arrest for disorderly conduct by a Commonwealth Court tipstaff.
Because of the clear due process violations that have been allowed to stand, and under which the hearings proceeded, the record is insufficient as a matter of law to support the deprivation of Bailey’s interest in his property – in effect, the Supreme Court is knowingly moving forward with an effort to deprive him of his property. A law license is a protected property and liberty interest – the right to engage in the occupation of one’s choosing – the essence of the pursuit of happiness, along with family, procreation, etc. – rights that cannot be taken without “due process of law”, i.e., a fair and impartial hearing before a fair and impartial tribunal. We have covered these principles in our Constitutional Law 101 article, and throughout the Steve Conklin case, and they have equal applicability here.
The record exonerated Bailey of any and all “misconduct”, and, to the contrary, established that his claims of “judicial misconduct” have been based in fact, and made in good faith and in an appropriate manner. Bailey repeatedly attempted to address these matters, and they were avoided and ignored, until now, and Bailey has vindicated his sullied name, at least under the prevailing view. The efforts will likely continue, and they have begun here.
Significantly, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has entered a one page, two-short-paragraph Order both denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by Bailey on December 8, 2011, and the Petition for Review of the subpoena enforcement matters on August 2, 2011, before there were any hearings. Bailey’s Supreme Court Motion to Dismiss incorporated the entire Kings Bench Petition , as well as the transcripts of the August 11 and 12 proceedings, and the Petition for Review involved dozens of witness and document request issues, and upwards of 100 pages as well. Bailey also filed 2500 pages of exhibits. Despite this huge record, a record brought to you here, the Supreme Court, with all of these core constitutional issues raising issues at the core of its constitutional power, in a hearing by lawyers for lawyers, entered a one-page Order denying both the motion and the petition – that’s all the justice Bailey and his clients are getting after the effort they have put in. The Order follows:
Recall, Bailey has complained about a one-sentence order by Cali refusing to recuse himself, and the one sentence order by Cali denying the subpoenas. The only response by ODC was a response to the Petition for Review, which, as argued in the motion to dismiss, reflected a misapprehension and misrepresentation of the Supreme Court’s own rules and procedures. Briefly, there is a fatal defect in these proceedings because Bailey was entitled to a hearing before the subpoena issues were ruled upon, and allowing the hearing to go forward without any hearing on these issues whatsoever created a constitutionally worthless hearing, though the facts sworn to under oath, true and false, remain a matter of record. There is a rule either not know to or avoided by the Supreme Court lawyers that the Supreme Court itself, which has sovereign authority over attorney disciplinary matters – no other laws or rules apply – none – is looking right past without anything more than a two sentence order coupling the Petition for review to the Motion to Dismiss and dismissing both.
The evidence of Bailey’s prolific and compelling efforts exist throughout this site, and the foregoing Orders, with one other procedural response to the Petition for Review issued almost 90 days after the Petition for Review was filed, as all we have from the Supreme Court. Why? Is this all the justice that Don Bailey and his dozens of clients and others are entitled to? Of course, it is anticipated that if pressed, the Supreme Court would say that it will get the matter after the hearings are concluded, presuming the next step is for Cali to finish the hearings. Why didn’t they even say that?
We note that Bailey had not yet testified at the August 11 and 12, 2011 hearings, the record of which has been left open for more evidence and further proceedings. Of course, he couldn’t testify without a lawyer in the due process morass created by the Court on August 11 and 12, 2011, without having the opportunity to call all the many witnesses and use all the many documents that were the subject of the petition for review upon which he was entitled to a hearing before the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court now appears to have foreclosed that opportunity, and has completely cut off his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and, of course, his due process right to a fair hearing. How can the Supreme Court allow these major malfunctions to go unaddressed?
We note that the Supreme Court Order denying the motion to dismiss and petition for review came the same day we removed the Bailey Poll post – that is believed to be sheer coincidence. Significantly, however, January 6, 2012 was a Friday, and the Order was faxed to Bailey at 5:11 p.m.., after usual business hours. It was mailed that date as well by the Supreme Court, but not received by Bailey until Monday, January 9, 2012. Monday, January 9, 2012, was also the time within which the United States Supreme Court, through Justice and former Third Circuit Judge Samuel Alito, gave Bailey to file a writ of certiorari or motion for extraordinary relief in that Court.
We introduced Justice Alito to you in prior posts, and there was questioning concerning his nomination hearings during the Bailey Hearings, and he was also a Third Circuit Judge in the Margo Royer matter. Bailey filed a motion asking for the extension of time, and on January 9, 2012, filed a letter with the United States Supreme Court withdrawing his request at this point, with the January 6, 2012 Order providing a new period within which he could file for the relief, and a better opportunity for the full Supreme Court. 2012 is, after-all, Year of the Whistleblower, Don Bailey represents numerous whistleblowers, and his case is quintessentially a whistleblower case. Bailey provided a copy of his January 9, 2012 Bailey letter to the U.S. Supreme Court to PCRLN. In it, he requested that Justice Alito not be assigned to further proceedings. The reasons appear to be obvious.
WARNING: for those of you who are new to this sight, we have suggested some aggressive ideas that involve “judicial misconduct”, which, for many understandable reasons relating to the power of the judicial pen, are met with resistance, and for you and those of you who have been reading this sight and are still reluctant to accept the possibility that it exists, we caution you that we are going to use the “F” word. Yes, we introduced you to the word suggested that a “fix” was in before the disciplinary hearings against Don Bailey even convened, in our August 9, 2011 article, and Don and others have been saying it to deaf ears. We believe that a “fix” is indeed in, and that the record of the proceedings amply supports that suggestion.
We follow the discussion of this matter appearing on the United States Supreme Court’s docket, and note that other Bailey clients have matters on the Supreme Court docket, and still others have matters that will likely appear there. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on other petitions of Don Bailey, even petitions he filed on his own behalf raising the efforts to hurt and harm him and his clients, but those matters have not been reviewed and reported on as of yet by this site. They will be. The United States Supreme Court is the only court of original jurisdiction under our constitution, and has broad powers to bring discipline on the system, which is the Bailey refrain. That Court has not passed on these issues in any manner, and is a Court that is and will be accorded nothing but the utmost of respect, expecting that these matters in some form or fashion will end up on its docket, perhaps repeatedly, and will be considered fairly in accordance with the judicial history of our Republic. Justice Alito was a Third Circuit Judge who is now on that Court. These are just facts that are relevant to the entire story.
The “fix” that was discussed is one on the state and local federal level, and it is believed that the evidence has borne it out. “Fix” as that term is used here means an engineered process with the design of reaching a pre-determined conclusion. We discussed the dynamics of the plan to “get” Bailey in our August 9, 2011 article.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court took an international black-eye over the kids-for-cash scandal, less than one-year ago, and this case involves the same dysfunctions and malfunctions in the system that were at the core of that problem. In that sense, the Supreme Court is appearing incapable of disciplining itself. There is abundant direct evidence that Disciplinary Counsel and others admitted they had to do something to “get” Bailey. There is a transcript with evidence of a federal judge testifying falsely about that clear agenda, and other testimony related to the agenda, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court silently and secretly takes the hundreds of pages of motions and other filings by Bailey and quietly dismissed them in one-page and two short paragraphs, with nothing of substance addressed. There was an urgency to move the matter forward, then months of silence, only to time the dismissal of the motion and petition with a U.S. Supreme Court filing.
As we already brought to you, the evidence suggests that Marty Carlson and Paul Killion are among the main operatives – the politics of personal destruction is part of the plan. Much of the rest of the plan is believed to be known as well, and largely already covered here. See our struggle behind the civil rights struggle and Bailey “shit storm” articles. The evidence is compelling, and will be overwhelming. Is it possible, for example, that someone at a high level got caught rigging the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Board in anticipation of the agenda we have clearly articulated from the start? We will bring you the record of Board changes and voting record, and allow you to make that conclusion.
In phase one we stated the problem, as reflected on our Welcome post, and other early efforts, pointing out the lesson that reform is needed. Phase two was to understand the problem, and involved the motions to open judgment, and to determine if there was merit to the contention that the courts must prove capable of disciplining itself. As phase one suggested phase two, phase two would appear to suggest phase three – confront the problem. We have already begun efforts to reach out to our elected politicians to consider our positions, and others, like Steve Conklin, and Andrew Kundratic, and all those others who have filed motions to open judgment, and Don Bailey himself, keep pursuing their causes boldly. We will continue to keep you apprised of these efforts, and expect more to come soon.
Working to provide equal justice under the law in Pennsylvania