- A clear detailed description of the Project, including particular outputs or products, any arguments and ideas the Project will put forth, and the need for the Project;
Bailey Challenges Supreme Court over Due Process Violations in Response to Recommended Suspension
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.
Continue Reading ››… Read More
Ostrowski and Bailey Discipline Expose a Critical Problem with the System of Justice – the Suppression of Lawyers' Free Speech Rights
My self-imposed task on this site, from its very inception, was to make the esoteric intricacies of the way the courts operate, and the way practice of law is conducted, understandable to those who have never even stepped foot in a courtroom.
I’ve written upwards of 100,000 words on this site, and linked documents to that many, and many more, words providing the contextual background for all the conclusions that I have made; yet still have had an abiding feeling that not enough has been said to make it clear and simple to understand, though I am sure that if anyone was able to take the time away from our busy lives to study what has been said here, the dynamics are pretty well laid out.
Hubert Gilroy, the disciplinary counsel appointed by United States District Judge Yvette Kane to oppose my reinstatement in the federal court, as outlined in my recent updates, did more to assist my effort here than I had done in all the prior … Continue Reading ››… Read More
Ostrowski Discipline Update/PCRLN Activities at Issue in Right to Practice Law
I had a hearing yesterday in United States District Court in Williamsport, PA concerning my application to be readmitted to the roll of attorneys in the federal court, Middle District of Pennsylvania before Judge Matthew Brann. There are applications still pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the other federal district courts in Pennsylvania.
The motion was based primarily upon the abuse and mistreatment I suffered at the hands of Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, which led directly to the personal circumstances that were behind the issues that led to my 2010 suspension from practice. I called my current treating physician, and Dr. Kruszewski did appear in response to my subpoena. I have no doubt that my testimony in the hearing before federal Judge Brann presented a compelling testament to my competency and fitness to practice law.
Here is a copy of the transcript.
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 … Continue Reading ››… Read More