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:
Additionally, the one-sentence Order by Chief Justice Castille denying the King’s Bench petition, within 6 business hours of its filing 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.