Bailey makes impressive showing in Westmoreland County

Within 24 hours of officially being placed on the democrat ballot for attorney general, and with no organization or campaign financing in place, Don Bailey finished strong in an endorsement contest among Westmoreland County democrats on Saturday.  Kathleen Kane also made a strong showing, and it was obvious that she had targeted Westmoreland County, with a substantial staff on hand to distribute campaign literature, and having made several visits to Westmoreland over the numerous months since she announced her candidacy.  Bucks county lawyer Patrick Murphy finished last, despite the fact that he also has been campaigning for months, boasted of over a million dollars in donations (Kane boasts of 2 million in cash-on-hand), and was even on the staff of Westmoreland County state representative Thomas Tangretti.

Bailey was the first of the attorney general candidates to speak, and wasted no time focusing right in on his major campaign theme – public corruption.  Bailey stirred the crowd with his mantra that “Tom Corbett cannot hide” from his political use of the office of attorney general, for both protection of his chronies and attacks on his adversaries, leading to travesties like the Penn State scandal, and Bailey promised to be a constant reminder to his democrat rivals of what the real agenda in Pennsylvania needs to be – political reform in Pennsylvania from the top down, and including the courts.  Bailey addressed the control that corrupt courts have gained over political agendas, and how the courts control over lawyers has diminished all of our freedoms, and created the climate in which corruption is allowed to flourish.

The crowd was very receptive to, and vocally supportive of, Bailey’s comments, as he seems to have hit on a theme that can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters whatever their pet issues, and whatever their politics, and Bailey sure can deliver a powerful message – clearly the most polished public speaker of the three.  Evidence of Bailey’s candidacy and the impact he will have on this race came right away from Kane, who followed Bailey’s speech.  In highlighting her issues, qualifications, and agenda, Kane could not help but include “public corruption” among her list of priority issues, clearly reading the positive reaction of the crowd to Bailey’s comments – this is not an issue of any significance in any of her other campaign materials – we only hope it was more than campaign rhetoric from her, as these issues, as discussed in this site, are matters of paramount public importance, and until we have a fairness administration system that works properly there are no other issues that can be addressed with complete integrity.

There is much optimism in the Bailey camp as a result of the Westmoreland County appearance.  Bailey showed that he was by far the superior candidate on his words alone, and this was done with little or no organization or financing in place.  Bailey did not have the luxury that the other candidates have had of long-term planning, organization, and financing efforts, as, while the other candidates were making appearances, and organizing campaigns, Bailey was under assault by the very system he seeks to reform and was fighting for his professional life, and the lives and futures of his many clients, who clearly all have become a part of the bigger agenda of silencing all of them.

Bailey has done nothing wrong – nothing deserving of any professional licensing charges, and nothing deserving of the abuse that he and his clients have endured.  Bailey is under assault by corrupt judges, with Judge Yvette Kane leading the current charge, for calling them corrupt, and for no other reason.  The focus that these judges have on stopping him are the same reasons Pennsylvanians should be voting to elect him – it is the common citizen – the spouse, parent, teacher, serviceman, laborer, police officer – the 99%, if you will – that Don Bailey has always held as the object of his efforts, and this is why we should continue to mobilize, and elect Don Bailey as Pennsylvania’s next attorney general.

Thank you.

PCRLN endorses Don Bailey for Attorney General

After a short delay in being officially placed on the ballot, Don Bailey has met all conditions for filing, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has accepted his nomination petition as candidate for the Office of Attorney General.   PCRLN is proud to be the first to offer its endorsement of Don’s candidacy.  He will be on the ballot as one of three democrat candidates vying for the position as Pennsylvania’s highest law enforcement officer in the April 24, 2012 primary.

Our endorsement of Don comes from the fact that he alone appears to have the courage, and the institutional understanding, to attack the problems in Pennsylvania politically at their real source, as we have discussed them here.  The real problem is the courts and their utilization as instruments of political control and favoritism to establish and maintain cultural and political climates that lay beneath the general feeling of unfairness that more and more Pennsylvanians are coming to experience in the courts, and the insidious effects these things are having on our society, vis. the Penn State scandal, etc..

As we make this endorsement, Steve Conklin and his 84 year-old father are moving from room-to-room looking for relief from their mistreatment by the by the courts, with new federal judge Mariani unbelievably saying that a federal court does not have jurisdiction over a sheriff taking property without due process of law, and the Centralia eminent domain case has been dismissed by a Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court panel upon which one of the judges sits, Judge Bernard McGinley, who is the son of an Eckert Seamans attorney John R. McGinley, who is in a personal relationship with Judge Yvette Kane, and believed also to be involved in the disciplinary maneuverings we have discussed.

There is an urgent agenda picked up upon recently, and being forced through by Judge Kane to remove Don Bailey from the role of attorneys in the federal courts, where he has represented hundreds of individual Pennsylvanians in actions against state and local officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which is a constitutional law enforcement statute itself, and has had the courage to do so in the face of a specific agenda to hurt and harm him for doing so.  The plan clearly appears to be to whitewash the record of Don Bailey and all of his cases quickly.  The fact that something like this can even be conceived of being done is why we need an attorney general with the historical perspective to understand and address these things.  In the American system of justice, the people police the police, and the judges, and the politicians, and that is what Don Bailey has been doing for his entire career.

Fairness in the courts themselves, and the control they have over attorneys through the disciplinary process, and over fair and open access to justice, are the principles that have affected dozens of specific individuals as set out in this site, and the correction of these problems is our primary political agenda.  The courts are proving unable to discipline themselves.

We have already reached out to Senators Casey and Toomey, and understand that other efforts to do so are underway.  This is an institutional problem that exists in Pennsylvania, and the Attorney general is uniquely situated to address these matters of public corruption at their true sources.  Don Bailey is uniquely qualified to address the real, longstanding political problems that have allowed the current state of affairs to exist, and that is why we endorse him for attorney general.

We have reviewed the credentials, and the campaign messages of Don’s opponents – Assistant Lackawanna County District Attorney Kathleen Kane, and Bucks County lawyer, and former Congressman Patrick Murphy, and believe both are fine candidates.  Kane is a tough prosecutor who appears to know the criminal laws of Pennsylvania and has a command of the criminal process, and Murphy draws upon his experience as an army JAG attorney and Congressmen, and his apparent political ambition to lead.  Each appears to be a fine candidate; however, it does not appear that either of the other candidates have the unique insights, vision, and independence that Don does, and we believe that Don is by far the best suited to be Pennsylvania’s next attorney general.

Thank you.

Miles Thomas – devoted husband and model citizen dies with dignity – despite the indignities of the federal courts

We sadly announce the passing of Miles Thomas at the Holy Spirit Hospital on Wednesday, February 15, 2102, at the age of 75.  John Luciew of the Patriot followed the first federal case, and the reunion, and published an article in the Patriot News announcing Miles’ death, and giving a kind tribute to Miles, and his efforts to be reunited with his dog named Baron.  John did a great job covering what was a very real and uncomplicated public interest story, and Miles remained specifically grateful to John until the end.

Miles lived the most dignified of lives by all measures.  Miles had a successful career as a stockbroker and investment banker, and was a devoted husband.  He was a member of the Harrisburg School Board who was known for his commitment to the community, and served for years on the Dauphin County Republican committee.  Miles spent the last of his life’s saving’s, including his house and most of his personal possessions, in the care of his wife of many years, who had suffered with alzheimers until her death.

After his wife’s passing, Miles had experienced brief periods of homelessness, living, at times, out of his car, with his collie Baron, who he had gotten in or around 2002.  Miles also had suffered with diabetes, which made him appear confused and disheveled at times, and was known to some local authorities, and had somewhat frequent admissions to Holy Spirit Hospital, where he was always well-treated, and liked.

Miles passing leaves a huge injustice undone, and an indignity that Miles was subjected through the federal courts.  Miles showed great courage, doing nothing but asking for his dog back originally, and even agreeing to drop his federal lawsuit in its entirety, and any claims for damages and attorney’s fees, even after having to appear in federal court and be subject to public ridicule by the attorneys for the Humane Society, McNees Wallace.

This article is being written in the first person, because there is no other way to tell the real story, as it revealed an agenda that was only later understood when Don Bailey was charged with misconduct in the Thom Lewis case.  There are huge injustices that have been left undone, and I was there with Miles on dialysis in the hospital, after he had lost Baron late last year – he was hoping to find another collie –  when he said he would never stop seeking justice for what had been done to him.  As a tribute to him and his courage, his whole story should be told, as it revealed a power that he had of which he, or even I, were unaware, because of the agendas of others, as have been discussed on this site, to hurt and harm Don Bailey and the civil rights clients he represents.

The first federal court action

I was with Miles the day he had his dog taken in August, 2009, Thom Lewis introduced us in my office, and we simply requested the dog be returned to its rightful owner, an apparent mistake having been made.  I was there and Don may have been busy – it was a simple enough issue. Thom Lewis was a client of Don Bailey’s, who I later also came to represent in connection with the sanctions proceedings against Don and Thom, imposed only against Don, which led to the disciplinary complaint.  See Thom Lewis Collie rescue case.

I knew very little of Thom’s case that Don was handling, and Don knew very little of the Miles case, except to the extent it became something of a spectacle.   Judge Jones, on the other hand, and the attorneys for Eckert Seamans in the Lewis case, and McNees Wallace in the Miles Thomas case clearly read some connection into the cases that only later became apparent.  Miles’ case was so simple – its complexity became bizarre.

Miles was a man who loved his dog.  He had fallen on hard times and was seeking assistance getting what is, in the law, his property back, that was clearly wrongfully, even if only mistakenly, taken from him.  I knew of no other agenda.  The very firm and repeated refusals to return the dog were perplexing.  There were no charges filed and no reason to keep the dog, and Thom Lewis had a preexisting agreement to care for Baron in times when Miles may need healthcare or other such things.

The threat of federal litigation did not change the Humane Society’s unreasonable stance, nor did the actual filing of a lawsuit and request for a Temporary Restraining Order for the return of the dog.  Instead, federal judge John E. Jones, who, prior to being the Chairman of the Liquor Control Board, was a republican fundraiser, and domestic relations attorney, granted something of a “temporary custody” to the Humane Society, then scheduled hearings in federal court on the issue of the return of the dog.

John Luciew began honestly covering what was a legitimate local human interest story, in a responsible use of the press to shed light on an ongoing dispute.  As the proceedings magnified, so did the coverage, and it became something of a spectacle.  It was nothing at all to be proud of in terms of reasonable people being able to resolve disputes reasonably, and was not easy to explain to those unfamiliar with the way business is done in these courts, as we have discussed throughout.  It was, at least, the abuse of the judicial system and misuse of judicial power.  At least Miles was afforded a hearing, although it was a completely unnecessary exercise.

Court proceedings were scheduled, and were attended by dozens of people.  Our efforts continued behind the scenes repeatedly to simply get this matter resolved, but communications were treated dismissively with hostility.  Miles again even agreed to withdraw his entire case, and all claims for damages and attorney’s fees, and end what had become a spectacle, if they just returned his dog to him.  Refused.  We even tried to get the matter resolved informally with the court.  Refused again.  Miles appeared and was ready to proceed with the hearing to get his dog back, and we remained unwary of any deeper connections to the Thom Lewis case.

Judge Jones took the bench and instead of proceeding with the hearing we tried to avoid, and which inconvenienced many attendees, he brought counsel back to try to resolve the matter.  Thom Lewis immediately became the issue insofar as Miles’ dog would not be returned to him as long as Thom Lewis had any connection to the case.  It simply made no sense whatsoever.  The “negotiations” broke down over the issue, and four attorneys and a federal judge discussed Miles rights to visit his dog at the Humane Society.   None ever answered the persistent questions as to what the issue with Thom Lewis was.  In retrospect they probably assumed that we knew what the issue was, but the only issue ever before Judge Jones was the return of Miles’ dog to him in the case on his docket, and that is the only thing that Miles and his counsel ever considered.  The fact is that it remained a mystery why Thom Lewis was such a factor.

Judge Jones reconvened the parties and those in attendance in the courtroom to announce that no agreement had been reached and that further proceedings would be scheduled.  Judge Jones concluded his remarks with the statement that he would see to it that “we will do what is in the best interest of Baron”.  What about the best interest of Miles?  Miles took this statement as a grave indignity, and it was, on many levels.

Miles had been subjected to stress, aggravation, and humiliation just because he had fallen on hard times and had his dog wrongfully taken, and was the litigant in court before Judge Jones, and it was his interest that was at stake.  He is a man.  Baron is a dog.  The Constiitution protects men.  Judge Jones’ statement squarely addresses the heart of the problem of the insensitivity of the judges of our federal courts to the protection of the most basic constitutional rights.  Judge Jones’ statement was legally akin to saying he’s doing what’s in the best interest of a car in a forfeiture proceeding – it was an insult and indignity to Miles Thomas, who was made to leave court again without his property, his beloved dog.

The Thom Lewis connection

Neither Miles nor I were aware at that time that the lawsuit filed by Thom Lewis in 2007 had been forwarded to the office of disciplinary counsel shortly after it was filed, indeed before it was even served.  Patti Bednarik from the office of disciplinary counsel received the case, and went to Sam Stretton, again before the case was even served, with threats that Don Bailey would be disciplined over it – in 2007 – we are in 2012, and these are the disciplinary efforts.

Bednarik, as it turns out, was involved in the illegal transportation of dogs, and used her Pennsylvania Supreme Court Office of Disciplinary Counsel  email to run some of the operations, which appears to be big private business in Pennsylvania with personalities connected to the federal courts.  Bednarik was reportedly later relocated out of the office of counsel over the matter.  Disciplinary matters were proceeding against me as well during the handling of Miles’ case, though all proceedings had been concluded, and were believed to have been resolved.  I was later suspended.

The Lewis cases had preceded Miles’ case, and it was only through Miles’ case that Thom Lewis learned that Judge Jones was the former PLCB Chairman.  Among the defendants Thom had sued was a Daniel Flaherty, who was a PLCB administrative judge under Jones, when Jones was chairman.  Lewis was aware that Flaherty had used his office to run various activities out of in some cults that Flaherty, and Sterner, and others connected to the case, were involved with.  The knowledge of the connection passed by Don Bailey and Thom Lewis, each knowing some facts, as they had no reason to suspect that there was any connection between Jones and Flaherty, nor should they have.  If there was, it should have been disclosed and been known.  At least three other federal judges in the middle district had revealed connections to people involved in the Thom Lewis case.

In addition, Flaherty and his other cult member co-defendants, who were allegedly of little means themselves, wound up with attorneys from the Eckert Seamans law firm, a powerful-statewide law firm, with whom Jones may have some old political friends.  Judge Kane is also in a personal relationship with one of the partners of Eckert Seamans, who is believed to have connections to the disciplinary board.  The relationship and the gifts exchanged between Kane and the Eckert partner are the subject of writings of author Bill Keisling, who also had a case before Judge Jones over the abuses of the York Courts, along the lines of issues raised by Steve Conklin.  Bill’s case was dismissed without any fair treatment.  The Eckert Seamans attorneys are the ones who pursued the sanctions proceedings in the Third Circuit that led to the current disciplinary proceedings against Don Bailey.

Further Thomas court proceedings

A second hearing was scheduled before Judge Jones in Miles federal case, and this time we proceeded with our case.  This was November 2009. Miles took the stand and testified confidently, clearly, and with complete dignity, despite the McNees Walllace lawyer’s and Humane Society’s chances attempts to portray him as basically a “bum”, as commonly portrayed.  Amy Kaunas took the stand and testified falsely under oath, which was pointed out to Judge Jones, either then or later, but never addressed the issue.  Judge suspended the proceedings in the middle of the hearing, after we had rested, i.e., after we had established in a court of law Miles’ right to have his dog returned to him immediately, though three months after it was taken and called the parties back for settlement discussions.

Miles was involved in these discussions, and things like his housing arrangements and other such things that were nobodies’ business were asked of him.  Miles himself raised the issue of what the problem with Thom Lewis was, and it was simply not something that anyone would ever discuss.  We did inform them, as an additional accommodation that Steve Conklin had invited Miles to take up residence at his farm.  It is noteworthy that within 24 hours of the hearing, for the first time ever, Steve received a visit from a local dog warden with some sort of warning notice about a dog on his property, which simply did not exist.

The Humane Society, in clearly a face-saving gesture, then imposed an additional condition on Miles that he would have to agree to an adoption of his dog on a temporary basis, with conditions allowing visitation by the Humane Society, and other such intrusions.  Miles was willing to sign anything to get his dog back, and the fact is there was nothing he could sign that was not a further violation of his rights, but the Humane Society then wanted the consent of Steve Conklin to come on his property to conduct random visits.  The objection is apparent.  Nonetheless, it appeared that something could be arranged, and Miles left believing his reunion with Baron was imminent – it would be 3 more months.  Judge Jones assigned the case to Marty Carlson to finalize.

After the hearing, Miles and I both tried to make positive public statements about Judge Jones efforts to reunite Miles and Baron, as we did think it would be within a day or two, but the fact is that Judge Jones did what he did to protect the Humane Society, and, more importantly, to cut off Miles’ rights.  Miles had just appeared in his court and established that his property was wrongfully taken from him, and Judge Jones had no choice but to order that the dog be returned.  He was repeatedly reminded of this fact, and in a private discussion with Judge Jones, I told him I had no choice to go along in the face-saving, because Miles paramount concern was to be immediately reunited with his dog.  The Humane Society had just spent untold tens of thousands of dollars on one of Harrisburg’s premier law firms, and had even hired a public relations firm.

To order the dog returned would not only have been a huge public embarrassment, but would have opened Miles’ case to discovery, and questions about what the real issue was with Thom Lewis in the case, and what the real circumstances were behind the seizure of the dog, and all those other things that would have been allowed during discovery.  Judge Jones’ ordering the return of the dog would have meant that Miles already prevailed on one of his claims against the Humane Society, and would have been entitled to damages and attorney’s fees for that claim.  Judge Jones refused to simply go out and make that order, and Miles had to agree to whatever he could to get his dog back.  It was hard to be appreciative under the circumstances.

Miles second case against abc27 and Crowne Plaza

Miles thought his reunion was imminent, but the paperwork issue again became a fiasco.  Miles had learned that the Humane Society was holding its annual “fur ball” at the Crowne Plaza in Harisburg, and it was being hosted by abc27’s Valerie Pritchett.  The connection between abc27’s Alicia Richards and the Humane Society, and the refusal to cover Miles case while continuing to promote the humane Society had already become known.

Miles continued to remain proactive in the efforts to get his dog back, and was dumbfounded as to why Judge Jones did not just order it, though it was explained to him.  There was a network of people interested in Miles’ case, and someone agreed to buy him a ticket to the fur ball at the Crowne Plaza, and to rent him a room for the evening.  Miles decided to attend and ask that his dog be returned to him, and requested an advance ticket, and then attended the ball in November 2009.  The Humane Society, and abc27 personalities were aware Miles was planning to attend.

Miles entered the hotel and was accompanied by someone to pay for his room – he had money for the ticket.  Harrisburg Police officers were already on the scene when Miles got there, and he was escorted from the premises, and his room reservation was revoked.  He remained to request that his dog be returned to him, but was rebuked time and again.  These matters became the subject of the second suit Miles filed several months later against the Crown Plaza, abc27, Humane Society, and their associated personalities, which were also later dismissed by Judge Jones after I was suspended from practice during the pendency of Miles cases, and others.  The case was not filed right away, and Miles again just sought assistance in getting his dog back.  Crown Plaza/abc27 Complaint.

The return of Baron

Miles’ first case was scheduled for a mediation with Magistrate Judge Carlson, a mediation over nothing but the return of the dog.  The fact is that the right had been established, and that was the only condition on the table for Miles that the Humane Society offered, and they even attached complicated paperwork requirements to those conditions.  Miles attended because he wanted his dog back, and he had counsel with him as well, but was advised that there was nothing lawful about anything that was going on in the proceeding, and that he could sign anything he wants and should do whatever he has to do to get his property back, which had now become a hostage in a dishonest effort to have him dismiss his case, which he had already proven.  This is exactly what Carlson and the defendants were told by Miles counsel many times over, and Miles again did sign a paper, which was nothing more than that legally under all of the circumstances.

Again there were several weeks of paperwork hang-ups created by the Humane Society, who may have somehow or other legitimized their behavior to some board members of benefactors, and ultimately Miles was reunited with Baron in February.  There was great reward in the reunion despite the nonsensical course of conduct that had to lead to it.  Tens of thousands of dollars, days of court time, hundreds of attorney hours, media coverage, face-saving, and political agendas, all to not admit that a mistake was obviously made.  The reunion with Baron, again covered by John Luciew, was its own reward.

My suspension came right in the midst of this, and after that, Miles did not have counsel immediately because the courts took no measures to protect my former clients, and he had his first case wrongfully dismissed over his objection, his second case, against Crown Plaza, abc27, et al, was also dismissed though complete dismissal was not even requested by all parties.  This was filed by Miles pro se, and it was not until later that Don Bailey took over the cases to save what could be saved on appeal.  It was over one of the issues in Miles’ cases that Judge Jones called the disciplinary board to urge that they do something quick to get me so I can’t help Don Bailey.  Miles motions to open these judgments.  Miles was hospitalized at times in those months, and there is even evidence that mail was purposefully withheld from him, even not having a lawyer.

All of his cases were dismissed, and the appeals filed by Don Bailey were denied.  It was then during the sanctions proceedings in the Third Circuit in June 2010, against Bailey that all the connections became clear.  They believed that Miles Thomas was a shill, or that his case was being used for ulterior purposes. and that his case needed to be out of the way.  It was neither – no Thom Lewis agenda was known to counsel at any time until June 2010 – and there is no dispute that his property was wrongfully taken from him, and that he, like others, have suffered a second abuse at the hands of our courts.

Miles’ civil rights legacy 

Miles remained committed to seeing justice done throughout his cases.  He began in doing anything and everything he could to be reunited with the last thing he loved in his life, knowing that he was being mistreated in the process.  He was proactive in the effort, and knew his rights were being violated in the process itself.  He nonetheless also demanded his complete justice, after he got his dog back, and demanded his right to have these matters presented through the courts, and ultimately to juries.  He was seeking damages for what he had been through, under the federal civil rights laws.

Miles devoted his life to helping his community, and loving his wife, and was not deserving of having the agendas of others thrust upon him.   Miles was a dignified man and a courageous man, and it was an honor to know him and represent him.  The courts and the defendants in his cases owe him an apology at least for taking that dignity away as a reward for his life of service and support, and for participating in his mistreatment.  Whether it is forthcoming or not, Miles would surely accept it graciously.  He was a gracious and grateful man, and he will be missed.

Miles is not the first dog owner who has stirred the halls of justice.  Despite all the indignity that was created by the courts, and has been created and allowed to remain over the matters being covered here, the case was about a man and his dog.  In the case of a dog named “old drum” in 1870 where former Missouri Senator George Graham Vest (1830-1904) gave the following closing statement:

Gentlemen of the jury: The best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter that he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has, he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it the most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolutely unselfish friend that a man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him and the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous is his dog.

Gentleman of the jury: A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounters with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies, and when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.

Rest in peace.

“I thought my case just fell between the cracks” – Bailey client motions to open updates, etc.

“I thought justice didn’t work for me in my case.”

“I figured that the judge just didn’t see it the same way.”

“The system just failed me in my case.”

These are some of the refrains heard from the numerous frustrated and disenfranchised clients and former clients of Don Bailey who have filed motions to open judgment, and others such clients who haven’t.  None have said “my attorney failed me”, “my attorney just didn’t care about my case”, “my attorney just wanted the money”, or other such things that are more commonly attributed to those who have received unfair and unjust results through the legal process.

What has become clear, as has been pointed out in other articles, is that many individuals have come to Don Bailey feeling those things that only can be felt by those whose civil rights – inherent and inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – have been violated in the course of their daily pursuits, and then are subjected to another, less easy to define, less easy to understand, deprivation of their rights by the courts, and the judges who are the stewards of our access to justice.  By engaging in the course of conduct that has been revealed and discussed at length in this site, these stewards, including Judges Christopher C. Conner, John E. Jones, Yvette Kane, Sylvia Rambo, A. Richard Caputo, and others, are denying American citizens access to the courts, and are civil rights violators themselves, both civil, as reflected in the motions to open, and possibly criminal, and nothing more than that.  How the legal remedy for their gross misconduct will be pursued, and how justice will be administered remains to be seen.  Our call out to Senators Casey and Toomey was one such effort, and there will be others.

It is in that vein that we again update you on the motions to open judgment filed by the 15 or so Bailey clients who took matters into their own hands, and asked these same judges, and those above them, and above them again, to reopen their wrongfully dismissed cases on the basis of the denial of their access to the courts due, in large part, to their misconduct directed against Don Bailey, and their hostility to the civil rights causes he represents.  The results so far of these motions to open are:  Dave and Pam Morris – denied; Deborah Phillis – denied; Vickie Smith – denied; Jim Dewees – denied; Steve Conklin – denied; Steve Wicks – denied; Jeff Dock – denied; Andrew Kundratic – denied; Dorcas Holmes – denied.

These results are not surprising as they are really nothing more than the judges who have engaged in misconduct, and their colleagues for life, denying that they engaged in misconduct.  Several of the Bailey class clients specifically requested that their motions be sent to other courts – denied also.  Not a single one of the orders says “Mr. Bailey was treated no differently than any other litigant” or “the plaintiff’s case clearly lacked merit and its dismissal was justified”, or even “this judge treats every litigant fairly and evenly” – not a word on any of it.

Instead, these motions, which at least 15 individual clients signed and filed on their own, believing in the merits of their contents, were dismissed because they were filed late (which they weren’t) or should have been filed sooner (which they couldn’t have been) or were not in compliance with the rules of court (which are relaxed when it comes to pro se litigants), or that they were not properly supported (this site was incorporated into the motions), and for other such intellectually dishonest reasons.  None of them were given due process, and Deb Phillis was even met with a menacing threat of sanctions if she did not withdraw hers.

The reality is that as long as these motions were considered under the current state of affairs, i.e., by these corrupt courts in this corrupt system, there was no chance that they would be granted, but they were still filed as an expression of these individuals in the inherent faith in their system, and the belief that right is right, but it was politically impractical for any of them to be granted – even honest judges don’t like to admit that they were wrong, and people in our system have been put to death because a judge or a prosecutor could not admit a failing in the process or mistake in judgment.  None of this is any reason that they should not have been filed in the first place – that would have been an acquiescence to the failed system.

These 15 clients of Don Bailey who have filed the motions to open judgment (some have not been decided yet) are among dozens of others who have had their civil rights violated by the courts themselves, and we will continue to provide a voice for their victimization, and to bring you their efforts to get their complete justice.

Thank you.

One American family’s experience with race, and how the federal courts became the lasting problem

Among the Bailey clients who have filed a motion to open judgment are Angela and Johnny Robinson, a mixed race couple, and their child, who live in Harrisburg.  Until they became involved in the Central Pennsylvania Youth Soccer League, the Robinson’s considered themselves a normal American family – both Johnny and Angela come from families with war veterans, going back to World War 2, and were proud of their family, and the values they were trying to instill in their child.

That all changed when their daughter was placed on a team coached by a racist City of Harrisburg employee, Eric Hicks.   Before at least one game, Hicks told his team “let’s go kick those white girls’ butts”, and at other times told the team to not shake the other teams’ hands because their race, and to not tell their parents things that he had said or done.  The Robinson’s reported Hicks’ racist and otherwise inappropriate conduct to the City and to the league, and that is when the saga really began, ultimately ending with the Robinson’s suspension from the league – for daring to speak out about racist misconduct.

The facts of the case are set forth in the Third Circuit Brief (to be attached).  There was clear evidence that Hicks made the offending race-based statements, and abundant documentary evidence that showed email communications, and planning as to how to retaliate against the Robinsons; yet the case was thrown out on “summary judgment” by Judge Christopher C. Conner, who has a demonstrated history of racial bias or insensitivity, as well as being part of the clique of Judges out to get Bailey, as demonstrated by the fact that he testified falsely under oath at the disciplinary hearings.

The story of the case in relation to this site is the real meaning of the “standard of review” and “scope of review”.  These are concepts that define and limit the ability of the courts to address and resolve issues short of taking evidence and having matters submitted to juries.  It is their excess that allows courts to have a heavy hand in creating cultural climates and concealing government corruption by chronies of the jurists and other agendas.  It is a theme time and time and time again in Bailey cases, and will continue to be addressed significantly, as it is a matter that is at the heart of issues of judicial misconduct, which cannot occur if a judge is constrained by these standards.  Indeed, even judges are, of course, only human, and have natural biases and prejudices that they carry with them in their lives, but, in keeping with the standards and scopes of review, they should still be able to be fair and honest judges even with these human foibles.

The Robinsons’ case shows the real harm that is caused by the “abuses” of these standards of review.  There is clear evidence that there was racial and retaliatory animus at play in the suspension of the Robinsons from the soccer league, and no one can rationally deny that.  That is where the court’s analysis is supposed to stop under its standard of review.  It is not for the court to pass judgment on the evidence, particularly judges like Conner, with demonstrated racial insensitivities and institutional biases, but it is for the courts to allow these things be decided by juries, and that is all that was asked for, and all that should have been provided.

The jury is drawn from the local community, and is a built-in check on cultural, political, and popular climates.  Indeed, the same set of facts could reasonably lead to differing results in two different areas, because cultural differences are built right into the civil rights landscape.  The point is that juries serve an important function in teaching lessons and providing civil vindication on many levels, when they are conducted in fair and open trials, and the federal courts have largely taken this factor out of the equation, which is acting as a cancer on the system of justice, and is allowing it to slip farther and farther down the path of blatant corruption and case-fixing, examples of all of which we brought you.

As we showed you in the Bailey shit storm and struggle within the civil rights struggle articles, juries are sympathetic to these civil rights causes, and have sent strong rebukes and awards in favor of Bailey clients, which cases were later fixed by the courts and taken away on specious grounds.  The agenda to get Don Bailey has led these judges to become even more activist, and to make sure that the cases never get to juries, and are thrown out by these otherwise “esteemed” federal judges on cold hard written records, without hearings, and without even any openness whatsoever.  This is not “justice” in America, but is the system of justice in central Pennsylvania.

In the Robinson’s case, Judge Conner blatantly abused the standard of review, and, because of the agenda to get Don Bailey, they have no hope of justice in this current climate, though they are sure to persist.  The real point is that Judge Conner did real and lasting harm to an honest American family, and race became the issue, and racial divisions were ratified by the Judge, and the course of conduct approved.

If the Robinsons got their day in court and lost, at least they would have the satisfaction of having known that their grievances were heard, but not having gotten that day at all has left the wounds open to fester.  The Robinsons came to the federal courts to deal with the reality of racism in the lives of a mixed-race family in modern America, and the federal courts did nothing but create another reason for the Robinson’s to feel less like an American family, and more like a mixed-race family.  That is a skewed result.

Once again, justice has not been done, and another Bailey client has suffered a second victimization – the first being the prejudices that we all know exist in our worlds, and the second being the secret biases and prejudices of our forum for addressing the first.  The Robinsons’ efforts continue, however, and we will keep you updated.

Thank you.