PCRLN meets with Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board concerning unconstitutional treatment and dismissals of meritorious complaints of judicial misconduct

PCRLN meets with Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Concerning Unconstitutional Treatment and Dismissals of Meritorious Complaints of Judicial Misconduct

Through the efforts of Diane Gochin of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network (PCRLN), the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board (JCB)  agreed to meet with her and Andy Ostrowski on June 7, 2013,  concerning petitions sent  to the JCB on behalf of a dozen  Pennsylvania citizens from across the Commonwealth,  concerning inaction and dismissal of meritorious complaints of judicial misconduct.  Diane had requested a joint meeting with the other Pennsylvanians who petitioned the JCB for action, but the Board agreed to meet only with her at this time.

Diane’s complaints of judicial misconduct are against two Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judges (one was a  petitioner in the recently-rejected challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory retirement provision of Pennsylvania Constitution Article 5), over her divorce proceeding, which has been allowed to linger  for over 6 years without even getting to the issue of equitable distribution, despite Diane’s repeated efforts and requests.  The gravamen of her complaints is that these judges are favoring members of the  county bar association, and taking actions that are specifically intended to augment the amount of fees they are generating from her case,  to the detriment of Diane and her children.

During the meeting, which was with four members of the JCB, Diane very passionately, but very appropriately, described to the Board the ravaging effects that the judicial misconduct was having on the futures of her children, one of whom is disabled.   She was very adamant that the apparent abnegation of the functions of the Board, and their dismissal of complaints without any apparent consideration or deliberation whatsoever, was uniformly being experienced by the others with whom she has networked concerning these issues.  A repeated theme  conveyed throughout  her address to JCB,is  that this creating a crisis of confidence of all Pennsylvania citizens in the Courts of this Commonwealth.  In an open letter to the numerous others with whom she has united concerning pursuit of an open meeting with the JCB , Diane described her experience as follows:

Update the Petitions to the Judicial Conduct Board:  Although we had petitioned for an open forum with the Judicial Conduct Board (JCB), they would not provide that option at this time.  However, on June 7th, 2013 I was given the unusual, but very much appreciated opportunity to address [four] members of the JCB at their office in Harrisburg. The [four] members were the Chief Counsel Robert Graci, Superior Court Judge Ann Lazarus, [Elizabeth Flaherty,] and a non-attorney member- Mr. McLaughlin.  I was accompanied by Andy Ostrowski of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network , a civil rights lawyer and advocate, with whom the Chief Counsel was familiar, but who was not allowed to address the Board members.  I was given a generous amount of time to present my cases, up to an hour and fifteen minutes, but wrapped it up in only 45 minutes.  While I did most of the talking, and the Board members declined to say much of anything, I did come away feeling I had enlightened them to the public discontent with the entire judicial system in Pennsylvania.  One comment by a Board member that I want to address was a very much expected one, and was made by Superior Court Judge Ann Lazarus. – She expressed her concern that I did not understand the authority and powers of the JCB.  The problem for the JCB is that we do understand, and I was very vocal in letting them know that the real problem is that they are not utilizing these power to protect the public.  Instead I stated that they are not doing their jobs, and that they have let the public down. The authority and powers invested in the JCB are being concealed  through intentional distortion of interpretations and misrepresentations of  laws,  by the collective conscious of the indoctrinating and  oppressive influence of the state and county bar associations. I want to assure all of you that I was adamant that they contact each of you who signed a petition and which were sitting on the table in front of them during my meeting.  I focused my diatribe not just on my own cases, but on the severe problems with the judicial process e.g. racketeering by protracting of cases to bleed assets, guardian ad litem and CPS scams, etc.  I  held back nothing and spoke to them candidly letting them know that they are directly responsible for the destruction of many families and lives- both economically and emotionally, because of their inaction and negligence.  I asked them if their children got to go to college- because that was stolen from my children by the courts; I asked them if they were enjoying their fancy houses and cars- things that were stolen from me, and from many people whom I have met over these last few years, trying to bring attention to the fact that this branch of government has been infiltrated by organized crime. One very positive result is that they invited me to resubmit my complaints against two judges- from 2009 and 2010.  I am working on revising them,  and hope to resubmit them early this week.  I will keep you updated on the outcome.  I am attaching two documents for you to read.  One is the 2011 recommendations of Pennsylvania for Modern Courts with which the Board has not complied; and the other is their internal operating procedures. It would be useful to you to familiarize yourself with these and with the Canons of Judicial Conduct, if you have not already, as the goal here is to have all of you receive a review of complaints that you previously had dismissed by the JCB, and for them to agree to an open public forum, with member of the state legislature.

Diane will be resubmitting her complaints, and we expect to be taking further actions in the near future to continue the efforts to petition the JCB to address the concerns of the many others who have been victims of “the system,” with specific proposals as to how to address and correct it.  We will, of course, keep you updated on all these efforts, and with information as to how you can participate.

Thank you.

Bailey challenges Supreme Court with serious due process deprivations in response to recommended suspension of law license/PCRLN history of coverage

The initial coverage on this site centered on the disciplinary proceedings filed against civil rights lawyer Don Bailey in early 2011.  From the start, we have contended that the Bailey disciplinary proceedings would show the need for court reform through the difficulties that American citizens were having in bringing their claims for the violations of their individual constitutional rights in the courts.  This is what has been shown, and the need for reform remains clear.

On May 1, 2013, the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board, as we predicted, recommended that Don Bailey be suspended from the practice of law for 5 years for doing nothing other than criticizing judges for not being fair, and, on June 7, 2013, Don Bailey filed a response demonstrating clearly both 1) that he was right in so-criticizing, and 2) that, as we have covered at length here, the proceedings against him, because they had a bogus origin and were designed to serve an illicit agenda, were bereft of the most basic due process protections.

We asked, from the beginning on this site, that readers take the time to digest and understand the issues that we have been discussing, and the very important themes that they reveal in the larger context of the access to the courts and justice that individuals in this country have when seeking vindication for the violation of their individual constitutional rights.  Please take the time to read and study both the Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board, and the Bailey Response to Board Recommendation.  The matter now will be finally decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who still have a chance to see that true justice, i.e., constitutional due process, can be done in this case.

As to the general themes set forth in this site, there have been tens of thousands of words written in the articles on this site that address many of the general themes, in the context of the Bailey disciplinary proceedings, and the varying topics addressed throughout.  We had nearly 11,000 views in the month of May, and are on track to eclipse that number for June, and appreciate the reception our honest and coverage of these matters is receiving.  At this time, we refer our readers back through the history of some of the postings specific to the Don Bailey disciplinary proceedings, and the themes they reveal, and ask our newer viewers to familiarize yourself with all of these matters, and the many other topics reported on on this site.

In Civil rights lawyer Don Bailey under attack and he and clients sue federal judges for misbehavior, the Bailey disciplinary proceedings were introduced, upon the commencement of the “hearings” in August, 2011.  We pointed out how these proceedings had their origins over two decades ago in the political career of Don Bailey and how the forces he opposed as an  honest public servant have followed him into his service as an honest civil rights lawyer.  We further pointed out, nearly two years ago, the due process shortcomings that have stated with these proceeding, as clearly aticulated in the June 6, 2013 Bailey response.

In Don Bailey’s opening statement in defense of lawyers and your civil rights, we posted the words of Don in his opening statement that clearly articulated the themes that we have continued to cover.

In The lesson of the Bailey disciplinary hearings (phase one) – reform is needed, we commented on the first two days of the Bailey disciplinary hearings, and how the matters that had been revealed, as discussed, showed the genuine need for reform for the lawyer disciplinary system.

In The Bailey Docket – pleadings and filings in the Bailey disciplinary hearing, we linked in all of the filings from the proceedings so the reader could study these filings on their own, and reach their own judgments about the issues being addressed in the articles on this site.  The erosion of Constitutional rights on a mass scale is done incrementally in individual cases, and, while we appreciate the effort it take to understand these things, and the distraction it is from the daily responsibilities we all have, there is just no way, other than studying thee things for yourselves, that they can be understood.  No single tweet or link can capture all that needs to be said abut these critically important issues.

In UPDATE: Federal Judge recuses herself from civil rights case of Don Bailey and clients/State disciplinary authorities resist release of hearing tapes/Efforts underway to initiate investigations, we referenced the status of the federal court’s response to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the continuing due process administrative violations to which Don Bailey was being subjected, and the nature of the further efforts that were needed to correct these deficincies.

In The struggle behind the civil rights struggle, we pointed out the burdens and difficulties involved in representing injured individual American citizens in general in the courts of the United States, and how those burden are magnified in a climate of hostility toward civil rights cases in general, and how the ongoing disciplinary proceedings were a further impediment to the innocent individual citizens who were being represented by Don Bailey.

In Bailey clients demand cases be reopened/Hearing transcripts now available, we covered the efforts that Don Bailey’s clients were undertaking to seek to remedy the additional harms to them that were being caused by the agenda to “get” him, and how the disciplinary proceedings revealed to them that they were being further victimized and having their access to the courts cut off because of who their attorney is.

In The role of partisan politics in PCRLN – the Bailey “shit storm”, we introduced how the $1.5 million jury verdict in favor of two Attorney General narcotics agents represented by Don Bailey, against then Attorney General Mike Fisher and others was taken away, and the suspicious court and political connections that were behind it, and the relation of that case to the disciplinary proceedings.

In Bailey motion demands that Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismiss disciplinary action against him, we discussed an additional filing that Bailey made, in December, 2011, seking to have the Supreme Court take action to dismiss the disciplinary proceedings baed upon the clear due process violations that had already been revealed as of that point.

In PCRLN call goes out to Senators Casey and Toomey, we introduced our political efforts, which are continuing, to take the matters directly to our United States Senators to seek formal political reform for the issues being revealed through the disciplinary proceedings.

In The politics of personal destruction – anatomy of the judicial lynching of Don Bailey – Caputo piles on, we discussed the true power of the judicial pen and the black robe in creating impressions and dictating the course of public opinion, and how their misuse was behind every negative pubic impression created about Don Bailey.

In Supreme Courts act in Silent Synchrony – Bailey disciplinary motions Secretly denied – once again no due process!, we pointed out how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was failing to take action during the course of the proceedings on the clear record of due process violations to intervene and end them.  Of course, the Supreme Court still has the final say in these proceedings, and the record has been even further developed, and the chance for the Supreme Court to make a statement in favor of due process and real justice remains.

In “I thought my case just fell between the cracks” – Bailey client motions to open updates, etc., we discussed the notion of how difficult it is for people to understand the shortcomings in the judicial process unless and until they experience it for themselves, and how devoted study and understanding by many numbers of people was critical if these issues were ever gong to be properly addressed, and needed reforms instituted, so that having your rights violated is not the only way to understand these things.

In Bailey responds (loudly and clearly) to state and federal disciplinary actions – proves state and federal complicity – and lack of basis to any charge of misconduct, we linked in a 75 page response that Don Bailey filed over a year ago, before any findings were ever made by the Disciplinary Board.  Review of this clear and substantial document and comparison to the May 1, 2013 recommendation by the Disciplinary Board reveals that either it was not even read, or that it was completely disregarded.  Don Bailey, and all of his many past, current, and future clients are entitled to more due process than having the efforts he is making to defend himself and protect his license, and their access to courts completely disregarded.  There is a supreme arrogance of power among and by lawyers to assume that they can act in such an arbitrary and capricious fashion, and to have any chance of maintaining some semblance of public integrity.

In NEWS RELEASE: Andy Ostrowski and PCRLN file federal action based upon violations by courts and authorities in Bailey disciplinary proceedings, we highlighted the experience of this process through the experience of Andy Ostrowski, and how he was specifically mistreated by the disciplinary authorities in connection with the Bailey disciplinary proceedings.  This lawsuit also called into question the constitutionality of Article 5, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and how that provision lends itself to the due process abuses that have pervaded the Bailey disciplinary proceedings, as covered on this site.

There are many more articles in a variety of contexts addressing these and other themes that are inimical to the equal access to justice for all, as was the stated principle and purpose of this site from its inception in February, 2011, as set forth on our Welcome page.  We will continue to bring you coverage of these and more civil rights issues as we continue to expand our reach and coverage in our state and country.

Thank you.